You Are NOT Your Ancestors!

by with 5 Comments CultureFeatured

Popular opinion always sides with the right side of history. Hindsight being 20/20, that’s an easy decision to make. It’s real easy to armchair quarterback the Civil Rights Era, boldly proclaiming from 2020 that you would’ve marched arm in arm in 1965. But the reality is, 2020 is not 1965 and we have no idea the danger our elders faced as the walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

The painful truth is that many sat paralyzed in 1965, overwhelmed by the reality that participation then could literally mean death. Truthfully, their paralysis was justified in 1965. Being vocal and/or visible was a death sentence for many, including the greatest icons of that era. In 1965, one had to weigh the fight for justice against the sanctity of their family and home. Four little girls in the 16th Street Baptist Church speak to that tragic reality in a way that many in today’s world could never comprehend.

To say those that did sit out the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s were justified in their terror is an understatement. It was pragmatism at work. It was simply life, where an alleged whistle in the wrong direction could get a child beaten, dismembered, and dragged to the bottom of a river. There’s a painful contradiction in many shunning those that did sit out, when they didn’t live in those times.

The more painful reality is that many today still sit out, while facing far less severe consequences. Many that have boldly proclaimed they would rather die than be enslaved or that they would never take the disrespect that our ancestors braved. That same crowd that boldly wears the, “I’m not my ancestors, you can catch these hands” T-shirts, while marching in safe spaces, 50 plus years late. They are right about one thing, THEY ARE NOT THEIR ANCESTORS. They don’t have the heart to balance life and death by seeking basic dignities in every facet of survival, such as a water fountain or bathroom.

We are currently living in a time where the Chief Executive blatantly espouses prejudice, racism, bigotry and division in a manner that makes Nixon or Reagan seem tame. Yet, the “I’m not my ancestors” crowd isn’t certain of what to do. We are seemingly more concerned with the open marriages of celebrities, foolish people arguing over their “Constitutional right” to not wear masks, or the never-ending quest to prove who is the most conscious in the room.

One must pose the question, what does any of that matter to progress?

To that same crowd of social media warriors, fighting for the newest and boldest cause that is trending on Twitter, the time for hypotheticals has long passed. In reality, it was an illusion and the time for hypotheticals never arrived. Oppression never ended. Freedom was never fully achieved. So what is the wait about? When is the time right? Should we postpone true liberation longer for a more opportune time? Maybe it will be more convenient in 2030. It’s only another decade away…

But you’re right, YOU ARE NOT YOUR ANCESTORS! They fought. They didn’t wait. They survived atrocities that would seem unbearable to many now who complain of not having fully functional A/C or bad WiFi signal. Our ancestors didn’t get comfortable waiting around for a more opportune time. Our ancestors fought, knowing some would likely die. Our ancestors, and many white allies, had far more heart than many of the social justice warriors of today preaching from digital pulpits in their comfortable homes. Our ancestors died for our comfort, while we sit this one out because “we are too busy” or “we should be social distancing,” as if police violence isn’t as big of a threat as COVID-19.

July 17, 2020, marked the death of two Civil Rights Era GIANTS. As we view their collective legacies, both individually and jointly, we must take pause to determine what is next.

We have let our ancestors down in our comfort. Ironically, that comfort was built on the backs of our ancestors’ sacrifice, not our own. Are we willing to sacrifice our comfort and individual “successes” to push the future of our people forward? John Lewis and C.T. Vivian both did. That was their life work. Collectively, many of us have not. Again, we are NOT our ancestors.

While we complain from our WiFi soapboxes and boldly proclaim what we would’ve done on social media, our community is still engulfed in a deliberate and subversive form of genocide. While we bicker over what #BlackLivesMatter should mean, our children are dying at the hands of police, systemic racism, and at the hands of other children. Yet, we sit those out to stay comfortable. That same comfort we have not truly earned, but instead inherited. So yes, we are NOT our ancestors. They were better men and women.

To those who hypothesize on what they “would’ve done” during slavery or Jim Crow, you no longer have to hypothesize. The time is now. A bigot occupies the Oval Office. This Administration openly works to roll back the social progress of the last 50 years in an attempt to make America what it was in the “good ole days.” You don’t have to hypothesize on what you would’ve done when facing police dogs, fire hoses, clubs, prison, lifelong persecution, or death. You won’t get your hands dirty engaging in GOOD TROUBLE during a time when the consequences of said action pale in comparison. You would’ve sat out the movement of the 50s and 60s because you’re sitting out now. It’s the same mentality of subjugation by appeasement. To you I say, you’re damn right, YOU ARE NOT YOUR ANCESTORS!

Similar Read: MLK 50: BANKRUPT JUSTICE

Reframing the Mueller Investigation

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGen ZPolitics

The Mueller report has been finalized, Barr has released a four-page summary to the American people, and now the fight has been moved to Congress to determine what happens from this point on.  Barr’s summary, though it is notably not a substitute for the entire report, states that “no evidence of collusion” was found on the President himself, and the obstruction of justice case produced results that neither “indict nor exonerate” Trump.  For Democrats, perhaps, and especially those that have been counting on Mueller to save them, the outcome, at least so far, was underwhelming. Now, the focus shifts to Congressional Democrats to decide whether they should fight to have the Mueller report released and move forward with a possible impeachment or simply move on.  But it is important to see the end of the Mueller investigation for what it is: not an unsatisfying end but part of the larger process to remove Trump from office. 

Before we go there, though, it is worth looking back at what reasonable observers should have expected at this point. The Mueller investigation took 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 interviewed witnesses, and almost two years.  Over its course, it charged 34 individuals, including nine connected to the Trump campaign, though it did not ultimately bring about criminal charges for Trump.  In a lot of ways, the Mueller investigation turned up way more information than we should have expected: what was once a question about a few Russian internet trolls and Facebook algorithms now sheds so much light on the wrongdoing inside and around the Trump campaign.  As compared to past scandals, spanning from Iran-Contra to Whitewater and beyond, Russiagate was a very successful investigation: many people very close to Trump are likely to receive justice and Mueller also recommended other findings about unrelated crimes to their respective departments.  For those who want to see Trump out of office and unable to act on his regressive agenda, the Mueller investigation was hardly a failure, even if it was overhyped by some.

Still, something about it feels disappointing, which is likely to do with our own naivety than anything else.  In other words, we should have expected this to be the institutional result of all this Russia-talk. In America, it has long been said that we have two justice systems—one for the poor and powerless and one for the rich and powerful—and that alone should explain the non-result which has come of Mueller’s investigation.  Beyond that, the history we like to remember tells us a much different story than the one which is true. In school, we all learn about Nixon’s impeachment, from break-in to coverup to resignation. We learn that a popular president was eventually forced to resign by an exhaustive investigation and about how the wheels of justice turn against all who are guilty.  But just maybe we forget or are unaware of the important context that goes along with it. A lot has been said recently of the allies Nixon courted precisely because of—and not in spite of—the Watergate investigation, of people like M. Stanton Evans who said, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.” Eventually, the public turned against Nixon, despite their unwillingness to do so earlier, and the Republican Party was prompted to abandon him too.  In this way, impeachments are not like trials with Congress members as jurors, but trials in which the American people force their representatives’ hands.

Due to this reality, the lesson that transcends Nixon is that removing Trump from office through electing a Democrat in 2020 and through a successful impeachment are not necessarily two divergent strategies forward.  They are, at best, one strategy, with two divergent ends. In other words, the way to impeach Trump is not to find enough evidence to change the GOP’s view on him to obtain the votes, but to change the people’s minds enough to force the GOP to abandon him to protect themselves.  To do this, the Democrat’s private strategy must be seemingly at odds with their public choices. In effect, the bar for impeachment is much higher than the bar for voting him out in 2020: while no one who supports impeachment supports his eventual re-election, there are many Americans currently who support neither his impeachment nor his re-election.  The path forward, then, is to use the cloud of the Russiagate scandal along with the failings of the Trump presidency to fell the president, killing two birds with one stone towards getting him out of office.

On the former, the Democrats have a lot to work with: the uncertainty of the verdict of the Mueller report, it doesn’t exonerate the president, nor leave him untouched with the indictments of his former staff; its incomplete nature, as the people have not read the report and the investigation did not touch on many of issues raised since by Cohen’s testimony; and the apparent secrecy of the findings, Barr issued a summary letter when an innocence-proving-document would warrant a public release.  All of this makes up the public strategy forward for Democrats, but—though I am rarely one to warn Democrats about going too far—I would say their private agenda should be one of caution. Clearly, the evidence in the case is not overwhelming, or Barr would have had to cede such findings. Therefore, impeaching Trump on the grounds of Mueller’s investigation alone with a Republican majority in the Senate is patently impossible.  With that said, Democrats need to publicly raise the Russia questions while never quite bringing the issue to a breaking point, which would likely go against them. To the plain eye, Trump is a conman, but the burden of proof for people as powerful as he is high, and that must be understood.

The point in all this is that the left would benefit from a reframing of Mueller’s investigation from a verdict of success or failure towards a realization that this is but one step in the ultimate process.  While they should not count on the Russia scandal, the left also must never forget it: when they win, they hold all the cards to enact their agenda and keep their place. It is then up to the opposition—those who support democracy and the rule of law—to take it from them.  While legal justice requires a standard beyond reasonable doubt, electoral justice only requires 270. 

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust?