A treatise on how to gain real Em-P-O-W-E-R-ment for Black people

The African-American community is at a crossroads. High unemployment, gang activity, drug abuse, failing schools, and soaring rates of incarceration among Black males wreak havoc among us. The simple answer would be to blame it all on “racism” but this is not a strategy for liberation.  In order to simplify things and get to the heart of the matter I will quote the words of Jesus: “You will know the truth and it will set you free.” The first thing to acknowledge is that we have been lied to and continue to receive this ‘cultural brainwashing.’ We have been told that we live in a Democracy but our form of government is Republican, according to the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 4). We are taught the path to success is getting a college degree but that is not necessarily true in every case. And even so, all it makes you is a well-paid, educated slave.  Curtiss Mayfield of the 1970’s Soul group ‘The Impressions,’ once said in one of his songs: “Educated fools from uneducated schools.”  This does not mean that he feels the value of higher learning is useless, but rather that accumulating a lot of information and facts isn’t the same thing as knowing ‘truth’ and how the real world works.

During the Civil Rights period we had two choices-Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm-X.  The former won out over the latter because this is what White America wanted- a harmless-as-a-dove slave that believed all the lies. MLK’s stance on non-violence was correct, at least strategically, in view of our circumstances and experiences in this country, but he was naïve and overestimated the capacity of the racists in having a moral conscience. Malcolm-X, on the other hand understood this perfectly and explains much of his harsh language and fiery rhetoric in denouncing the White man, at least in the beginning, as “Blue-eyed devils.” MLK might have used the Bible and faith in God as his guiding principle but he did not know TRUTH.  Malcolm-X, on the other hand, understood “reality,” that is, how things operate in this world system, especially American imperialism and hegemony; he therefore knew TRUTH. MLK was driven by pie-in-the -sky theological yearnings and suffering for rewards in the afterlife, and while such is a viable part of the Christian path, it does not mean one must be blind to the things that are happening right before our very eyes.

It is important to understand the nature of “power” and no better practical explanation of it can be found than the one offered by actor Jim Davies of the popular TV show of the 1980’s, “Dallas.” In one episode, Bobby Ewing (played by actor Patrick Duffy) was complaining to his father Jock Ewing (played by Davies) about the underhanded way his brother J.R. (played by actor Larry Hagman) took over control of Ewing Oil company after Jock appointed him to run it, at first. Jock, angry at the whining of his younger son, said, “Nobody gives you power, Bobby, you take it.” This is the ‘answer’ in a nutshell because as long as you are dependent on someone giving you something then you don’t have power; at least in the true sense of the word. Take for instance the stories about immigrants who came to America and created businesses and major industries. They weren’t given anything but created with imagination, perseverance, and a little luck, an industrial renaissance that gradually changed the country into a manufacturing juggernaut.

 

Marxism says that a significant minority [status quo] controls the factors of production as well as the distribution of goods and so it seems obvious what we need, as a starting point, is to recreate our own ‘power’ by making things, selling goods and services that can be exchanged and sold as currency in the marketplace, whether domestically or internationally. We have to own our own businesses using our own money and learn to create generational wealth. The lessons learned from the 2008 Wall Street meltdown is the tremendous power and influence of the banking and insurance companies [AIG], and that is where the ‘institutionalized power’ is because some of them were deemed, “too big to fail.” Blacks need to understand about  financing, investment banking, the stock market, international business and emerging markets, and we must take a huge stake in or control some of the major industries in America like transportation, chemicals, insurance, technology, commodities, telecommunications, banking, aerospace, finance, pharmaceuticals, utilities, oil and gas etc.

As a last point we have to remember that we are part of one vast Black community, no matter the city we live in- whether urban, rural, metropolitan, town, or village. We are part of the African “Diaspora” and while it is not of necessity to return to the mother Continent, but we do have to link up in an unbroken chain of cultural solidarity with people of color all over the planet-in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Central and South America, India, First Nations people, Pacific Islanders, Australian aborigines, etc. If people of color are in need of help why do we have a “White Savior” come to the rescue-such as an international Pop star like Bono, Sting or some American movie celebrity? If Black people can come together for a “Million Man” march why can’t the same type of organizing take place where, for instance,  every Black person or working family in America donate just one dollar that will go towards alleviating some specific need in the Black community? This would generate millions of dollars and we could gradually take care of many of our own problems without asking for one dime from others or the government. The money could provide computers and Internet services to a neighborhood with at-risk kids by bridging the “digital divide.” We could also keep community clinics operating just a little bit longer that provide basic healthcare services for those who have no insurance or can’t pay for treatments or examinations.  We could also use the money to pay daycare services for working single-parents who take public transportation to work or college, and other such things that are necessary. As Soul Brother # 1, James Brown said in one of his songs, “I don’t want nobody to give me nothing, open up the door I’ll get it myself.”  

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 20, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

WA State Supreme Court Justices concede bias in jury selection process

In a Tacoma News Tribune, August 2, 2013 article, WA State Supreme Court Justices mention about racial bias in process by which jurors are selected in criminal trials. The Justices acknowledge there is ‘persistent’ racial bias in jury selection but there is no agreement on what the remedy should be. This concern stems from the case of Kirk Saintcalle who was convicted in the murder of Anthony Manzo. Saintcalle complained that the Prosecution struck the only potential black from the jury pool using what is called a “preemptory challenge.” This procedure is used in the court by lawyers to disqualify or exclude someone from serving as a juror because it is believed they would not be impartial. Some of the Justices concede that “race is often a factor . . . when lawyers use their preemptory challenges to dismiss potential jurors from cases.” Justice Steven Gonzales wrote that throughout the state this strategy is based on racial stereotypes and that it is [frequently] invoked to exclude people from jury service strictly based on race. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and Gonzales have called for the elimination of preemptory challenges in jury trials, altogether.

WA Supreme Court Justice Charlie Wiggins cited Batson v Kentucky as legal precedent to show that institutional discrimination still exists in jury selection.  According to “Wikipedia” this was a case in 1986 where James Kirkland Batson, an African American man, was convicted of burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the voiere (questioning) of jurors the Prosecution dismissed 4 potential Black jurors and Batson was convicted by an all-White jury. The defendant appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction. That court cited Swain v. Alabama, and held that a defendant alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate “systematic exclusion” of a group of jurors from the panel of prospective jurors. That is, the defendant had to show that not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community were being constructed so as to not represent a cross section of that community. Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Writ of certiorari to decide whether petitioner was tried "in violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the defendant an impartial jury and a jury composed of persons representing a ‘fair’ cross section of the community.

In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, the Supreme Court ruled in Batson's favor. The court overruled Swain v. Alabama by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must meet to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. In Swain, the Court had recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause", but that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In Batson the court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case. The Court explained:

The defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire [jury pool] members of the defendant's race. The defendant may also rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate. Finally, the defendant must show that such facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the defendant makes a “prima facie” showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.

The Court also held that:

• A State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely excluded;
• A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. [NOTE: Wouldn’t this apply to White people, too?] However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors.

The Sixth Amendment states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. . .” It DOES NOT say that you have to be tried by a jury of your peers and the Courts have at times, interpreted this phrase in various ways. Just as important, if not more so is the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1b, which says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Whether the criminal defendant is guilty or not isn’t the issue but rather that the individual receives a fair trial and jurors are not systematically excluded if a racial minority, in a trial involving a person of color.

How would it be if a white criminal defendant faced an all-Black jury, would their attorneys not issue a ‘prima facie’ challenge about the exclusion of white jurors? Well, if it is seen as absurd to have Black jurors deliberate in trials of White people then by the same “equal protection” logic it is even more so for Black criminal defendants to have their fates decided by White people. Is it because Black people cannot understand all the discovery (evidence) and legal arguments between the Prosecution and Assigned Counsel (Defense), or are racial minorities more sympathetic toward criminal behavior? White people are not any more law-abiding, moral, or intelligent than anybody else, so their disproportionate numbers as jurors has to be balanced with inclusion of more non-Whites to bring integrity and respect to the Justice system, as well as the courts that it has never enjoyed in quite some time, or at all; especially from disenfranchised persons of color.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 3, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com