Traveling to Africa as a volunteer in orphanages and schools is a highlight of my life experiences so far. Witnessing people who possess so little compared to American standards, yet who are so happy and full of hope, is a life changing experience which calls into question all of our values and priorities. Many children in America often walk away from their opportunity for an education, while African children strive to be able to afford an education. Young women have additional struggles that may contribute to a lack of school, whether forced marriages and other family responsibilities, dating back in time so far that we cannot conceive of the cultural history driving them. Seeing stagnate water being used as the water source for families and communities and to see that in the 21st century, entire families dwell in primitive housing is something I will not soon forget.
We have much to learn from other cultures, just as we have much to share. While we can share a more modern understanding of women’s rights and women’s role in an educated society, and as we promote social justice and equality for all people, we can also learn from the generosity and spirit of hope evident in the smiles of these children. The one act of generosity that will stay with me forever is from a young Maasai girl named Liemon. My oldest daughter met this child on the trip last January (2016) and sent a letter with me to give to the child. I finally found her, or rather she found me. She came up to me from a crowd of children and took my hand. I asked her name and she told me she was Liemon. I was so excited to meet her and deliver the letter from my daughter. In return for the letter and pictures, this sweet child took off the necklace that you see her wearing in this picture, put it around my neck, and fastened it. She gave it to me as a gift. I have so much and she has so little, but this gesture of generosity will forever remind me of the gentleness of humanity that exists in all of us that connects us to each other no matter how different our cultures or our lives. This simple gift from a pure spirit, imprinted on my heart forever.
Liemon and Stacy’s daughter. Source: Stacy Moak.
Kenya is home to numerous tribal populations, including the Maasai people. The tribe has a long preserved culture in the way that they live and dress which makes them a sign of Kenyan culture. Easily identified by their traditional style of dress, the Maasai usually red or green plaid clothing tied across their bodies. Maasai live in both Kenya and Tanzania. Maasai lands include the great game reserves that overlaps with the Serengeti plains, an area famous for the great wildebeest migration that takes place every year. Although Maasai game reserves bring considerable amounts of money to the Kenyan government, Maasai people still live on as little as $1 per day. Entrepreneurs from the Maasai people are working to change that into a more equitable arrangement and volunteers can help support those efforts. One such project is that foreign owned hotels located on Maasai land now buy their soap products from Maasai women who make the soap. This provides sustainable income to the women and allows the community to benefit from tourism.
Swahili is the native language of Kenya but the national language is English. Most Kenyan students study English in schools, whereas Maasai children speak the Maa language–a Nilotic ethnic language from their origin. Language barriers can prevent Maasai people from full participation in events outside of their tribal community; therefore, Maasai children need to understand three languages to participate in the greater Kenyan society. Maasai children now have access to education. Education remains expensive for those who continue to live a traditional lifestyle. Kenya requires that children wear a uniform before they can attend school. The combination of school fees and uniform costs make education difficult for many Kenyan families, including Maasai families.
Women are truly the fabric of the community in the tribal culture of the Maasai. They build the traditional circular houses using mud, grass, wood, and cow-dung. Women also cook for the family, create jewelry to sell to provide for their families, and handle all child-rearing responsibilities. Despite their role in the community, girls as young as eight are at risk of their families trading them for livestock, and forcing them into marriages with much older men. When this happens, girls no longer attend school, are subject to and endure female genital mutilation, and forced into a life of a wife and mother. Many times, they are the second wives who have less standing in the community, less rights, and experiences of extreme levels of abuses.
The government of Kenya has passed laws against these types of human rights violation, but the practices go largely unregulated in tribal cultures. The Maasai people are leading the way to stop these practices by producing dramas for elementary and secondary schools. Further, they are building libraries, schools, and rescue centers to encourage young women to assert their legal rights and stay in school. Times are changing, and I remain thrilled to be a part of the change. Volunteering to provide education, clean water, green houses, and other sustainable solutions has truly been an amazing experience. Collaborating with Kenyans, specifically the Maasai people, and making a difference in their communities provides a life changing opportunity.
With My Own Two Hands, a nonprofit organization located in Laguna Beach, California, organized my trip to Kenya. Owner and Director, Lindsey Plumier raises funds to support local efforts of sustainable solutions that work to provide education, shelter, food, and fresh water to children in Kenya. With My Own Two Hands organizes volunteer trips to Kenya at least once a year, usually in January. More about the organization, ongoing projects, and opportunities to serve can be found at http://www.withmyown2hands.org. My goal is to take students from UAB to Kenya over spring break of 2018 for them to participate in some of these projects. Their educational experience will be enhanced and their worldview forever changed by these experiences.
**Dr. Stacy Moak will host an information session regarding this opportunity on Tuesday 7 March, 1230-130pm in the Institute for Human Rights
Women’s March. Source: Alan Sandercock, Creative Commons.
The promotion and focus on public health is in some sense evolutionary. As our world continues to globalize, a byproduct is the development and discovery of new technology and information that aid in the improvement of a nation’s health care system. Public health development relies on the accessibility of an efficient and feasible health care system that provides a range from prevention services, like vaccinations and screenings, and treatment services. Therefore, a lack of access to healthcare services and facilities could result in increased illness, disability, and death. Many people do not have access to reliable healthcare, for a variety of reasons, including poverty and high cost of insurance, raising the question of whether or not healthcare can remain simply public health concern, or if it is both a public health and human rights issue. The answer ultimately depends upon the implementation and exercise of a nation’s law.
The international community, through various declarations, recognizes the right to healthcare as a fundamental and universal right for every human being. Article 25 of the United Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “everyone has the right to medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, and old age.” The social, cultural, and economic rights enshrined in the 1952 UDHR coalesced into legally binding responsibilities with the adoption of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966. Article 12 of the ICESCR directly addresses health care stating, “the States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The full realization of this right shall include: The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases; and the creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.” Both of documents thoroughly defend our rights to healthcare. In this blog, I will argue that all individuals have a right to healthcare without discrimination based on desired services.
According to the UDHR and ICESCR, every individual has a right to health care. Unfortunately, the access to healthcare, for women, is often discriminatory and limited. Males and females are biologically different and require dissimilar healthcare services, particularly different preventative screenings and reproductive health necessities, throughout different stages of life. That being said, one statement that really caught my eye during 2017’s presidency election is the possible defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood (PP) is a non-government organization that provides crucial reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young individuals globally. 2.5 million women and men in the United States annually visit Planned Parenthood, and an estimated one in five women in the U.S. has visited a Planned Parenthood health center at least once in her life. Annually, this organization provides 270,000 Pap tests, more than 360,000 breast exams, more than 4.2 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, and lastly provides educational programs to 1.5 million young adults annually. Consequently, the reason why PP gets funded by the government is because PP provides free services such as pap tests, breast cancer screenings without any co-pay, thus the government is basically reimbursing the organization. From a public health perspective, PP is essential in maintaining and promoting population health due to preventative screening measures, controlling sexually transmitted infections (STI), and educating the community on positive and healthy behavior change.
I Stand With Planned Parenthood. Source: Women’s News, Creative Commons.
The most controversial service offered by PP is pregnancy contraceptives and abortions. Overall, 80% of PP patients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy, yet only 3% of PP healthcare services are abortion services. Abortions are controversial, yet regardless of what your personal views on abortion, PP helps millions of people and the general public stay healthy. In fact, in 2015 PP detected breast cancer in 71, 717 women and treated 171, 882 for STI’s, and without these prevention services, rates of cancer, and the spread of STI’s will increase.
Given that women make up more than half of the US population, is it truly just of the government to defund Planned Parenthood just because it provides abortions? The answer is technically no. The laws governing Medicaid prevent states from excluding certain providers solely because of other medical services they provide, like abortions. Specifically, the Freedom of Choice Act which states it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman. The act also prohibits the interference of “discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” Defunding Planned Parenthood because the organization provide abortion services is technically illegal and defies the act. Another document that supports women rights to family planning health care services in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). According to Article 12 in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, State Parties will ensure women have equal access to health care services, including those related to family planning. In modern times, family planning includes services such as contraceptives like birth control and abortions, and according to CEDAW, access to these services are women rights.
As of right now, there is no alternative health care system or health care facilities in place to provide care for people covered by Planned Parenthood. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if Planned Parenthood were to be defunded, there would be increased direct spending for Medicaid by $20 million in 2016, by $130 million in 2017, and by $650 million over the 2016-2025 period. Also, as little as 5% or as much as 25% of the projected 2.5 million patients aided by Planned Parenthood would face reduced access to care. Ultimately, the Constitution of the United States establishes the government’s responsibility to promote general welfare. The potential lack of access to health care due to defunding Planned Parenthood means a failure to provide basic human rights for women, but also a failure to promote general welfare.
Americans need a health care system that works for all patients and providers. This is a turning point for the women in our nation. Many women are worried we are going back in time. The Women’s March on Washington showed the passion, respect, and trust American women have for their rights, their need for government support, and the gravity of the issue around the world. The Women’s March started in Washington, but inspired women all over the world to march for women rights in their own country, and demand their governments recognize women rights are human rights. Just like the thousands of men and women who marched in Washington and all over the world, don’t forget that the US government works for the people, and we need to start learning how to engage in our democracy to ensure our voices our heard. The Unites States of America is the only developed country who doesn’t offer health care to all citizens, and it is time for a change.
Frederick Douglass. Source: Library of Congress, Public Domain. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004671911/.
Today is the last day of Black History Month… and what a month it has been. This blog is a nod to Frederick Douglass, who received a mention during a meeting earlier this month.
Frederick Douglass was born a slave in 1818. In 1848, ten years after his escape to freedom, he penned a letter to his white owner, Thomas Auld, who historians believe to be his father, regarding the reality that the determination to run away arose in him at six years old. In the letter, he vividly describes the moment in which he “attempted to solve the mystery, Why am I a slave?”
“… I was puzzled with this question, till one night, while sitting in the kitchen, I heard some old slaves talking of their parents having been stolen from Africa by white men, and were sold here as slave. The whole mystery was solved at one… From that time, I resolved that I would some day run away. The morality of the act, I dispose as follows: I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend on me, or mine to depend upon yours… In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living…”
Historian Eric Foner writes that although Douglass was a slave, Lucretia Auld–wife of Thomas–taught him to read and write until he forbade her, in accordance with Maryland law at the time. Douglass secretly continued his education with the help of some white children. In the South, the peculiar institution of slavery received elaborate justification from Christians willing to employ and misrepresent the scriptures in order to continue the dehumanizing treatment of African and American blacks, created by God, under the guise of inferiority and barbarianism. De Bow’s Review, published in 1850, states “…a very large part in the United States believe that holding slaves is morally wrong; this party founds its belief upon precepts taught in the Bible, and takes that book as the standard of morality and religion. We, also, look to the same book as out guide in the same matters; yet, we think it right to hold slaves—do hold them and have held and used them from childhood. We find, then, that both the Old and New Testament speak of slavery—that they do not condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it… It cannot, then, be wrong.”
Wolfgang Mieder points out that when his education was taken from him as a child, Douglass “very consciously chose” to study and memorize material that would become useful as an adult. As a statesman, his mastery of the English language and his knowledge of the scriptures became a method of rebuke, persuasion, and a declaration of reversal of fortune. For Douglass, the biblical references provided an added authority and wisdom as morality and religion were one in the same. Mieder summarizes Douglass’ speeches and writings as an identifiable narrative, fought against slavery and injustice through the raising of a powerful voice that argued for the “strength of morality, equality, and democracy.”
Frederick Douglass observed a disconnection between the words of the Declaration of Independence: “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” and the treatment of blacks as a byproduct of slavery. He believed that from a political and personal standpoint, under natural law, every person possesses the same rights as another, and owed the honoring of those rights by another under God. Nicholas Buccola concludes that Douglass’ personal experience as a slave in the South then a free man in the North, shaped his worldview and belief that the promise of liberty has to belong to all or it belongs to none. He states that individualism negates the feeling of and the need for empathy, making it difficult to persuade another about the plight of someone who is not and never considered a neighbor. In other words, the sense of brotherhood is made obsolete because of individualism.
According to Leslie Friedman Goldsmith, Douglass “put his hopes in the press and pulpit for the moral education of America” while believing social reform would take place in politics as those in government became more concerned with the establishment of justice and the advancement of common good, rather than “the greedy quest for the material fruits of public office.” Douglass’ advocacy, as a member of a minority group, grew from a place of mutual understanding that the lack of moral responsibility finds correction in the adaption of moral obligation. Therefore, he focused on the role of the individual as a perpetuator of injustice or protector of human rights. By appealing to the empathic core—the soul–of an individual, Douglass hoped for a synergistic catalyst towards the eradication of slavery, and the humanization of blacks, whether free of enslaved, in America. As a result, under President Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and the abolishment of slavery and involuntary servitude of the 13th amendment brought about a possible future for blacks in America.
Frederick Douglass appealing to President Lincoln and his cabinet to enlist Negroes,” mural by William Edouard Scott, at the Recorder of Deeds building, built in 1943. 515 D St., NW, Washington, D.C. Source: Library of Congress, Public Domain. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2010641714/
Civil equality was a fundamental platform for Frederick Douglass as he championed for the women’s rights, abolition of slavery, and the right to vote. Despite the victories of 1863, the true freedom of blacks remained his primary mission. Douglass demanded the extinction of racial prejudice and the false belief that the African lineage of black Americans disqualified them from the same rights as white Americans. Daniel Kilbride states that Douglass’ stance on Africa during his lifetime is similar to Countee Cullen’s questioning poem, Heritage during the Harlem Renaissance. He concludes that Frederick Douglass “treasured the values and institutions of the USA and insisted that the free enjoyment of them was a birthright of Americans of African descent.” It is imperative to understand that Douglass did not deny his ancestry; he accepted the discourse as irrelevant given the fact he was born in America.
During the late 1840s, the women’s movement was on the rise due to persistence of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Lucretia Mott, among others. When Stanton formulated and organized the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, Frederick Douglass was on the platform as a main speaker. More specifically, he was the only male and person of color in support of women rights to equality, including the right to vote. Douglass summarized the convention in an 1848 North Star editorial article: “Many who have at least made the discovery that the Negroes have some rights as well as other members of the human family, have yet to be convinced that women are entitled to any. While it is impossible for us to go into this subject… Our doctrine is that ‘right is of no sex’”. Benjamin Quarles narrates the delicate interplay of Douglass’ personal friendship and political partnership with the women’s movement. Quarles notes the Reconstruction Era as the turning point in Douglass’ partnership with the women’s movement, as the question of what group deserved the right to vote first: blacks or women. “To women the vote is desirable; to the black, it is vital”, he pronounced. For Douglass, blacks as a people before women as a gender. He lamented in 1883, “for no where, outside of the United states, is a man denied civil rights on account of his color.” The recognition of blacks though the casting of votes was an “urgent necessity” post-Emancipation Proclamation.
Relevance for 2017
Frederick Douglass died in1895, yet his life, words, and legacy are still relevant for today. Earlier this month, Donald Trump mentioned Frederick Douglass as “an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.” Interestingly enough: if Douglass were alive, the recognition could come in both positive and negative forms as he questioned and challenged slavery, prison reform, women’s rights, and all lives matter. The employment of the Scriptures as a justification for the present value and identity crisis taking place in America, given the values forfeiture of liberty and justice for all, in exchange for individualism, isolation, and rhetoric would undergird his critique.
First, human trafficking, in the form of sex and labor, is a new form of an old method. Kevin Bales suggests slavery failed to disappear in the 1860s because trade of people, through means of exploitation, has increased with modernization and globalization. He elucidates the subject of disposable people by informing that human trafficking is not a long-term cost investment due to high supply and high demands. The benefits of “ownership” have waned while the profits from slave trade dramatically increases because whether it is sex in Thailand or Brazil, tomatoes in Florida or chocolate from Ivory Coast, or the FIFA World Cup stadium in Qatar, slave laborers will be exploited in order to ensure the needs of consumer are met. Second, America has the highest incarceration population in the world. According to Bryan Stevenson, there is something missing from the judicial system, specifically in our treatment of the condemned, incarcerated, and those judged unfairly. The American prison system, as means to dehumanize human beings, particularly black Americans in 13th by Ava DuVernay and The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, systemically removes human rights and destroys families. Former President Barack Obama implemented some justice reform, resulting in the commutation of thousands of non-violent offenders. Third, Frederick Douglass would be an advocate for HeForShe. As a feminist, Douglass would question why men have consumed the decision making power about women, from pay to maternity leave and healthcare rights, without consulting them, or at the very least, having them present when signing laws about their personhood. Finally, America’s treatment of her citizens—the marginalized because of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, and ability—the blatant denial of human rights while championing all lives matter and pro-life. The plight of marginalized Americans remains trapped under the thumb of the majority, whereas the words of Douglass’ The Claims of Our Common Causeapply:
“…A heavy and cruel hand has been laid upon us. As a people, we feel ourselves to be not only deeply injured, but grossly misunderstood. Our white country-men do not know us. They are strangers to our character, ignorant of our capacity, oblivious to our history and progress, and are misinformed as to the principles and ideas that control and guide us as a people. The great mass of American citizens estimates us as being a characterless and purposeless people; and hence we hold up our heads, if at all, against the withering influence of a nation’s scorn and contempt. It will not be surprising that we are so misunderstood and misused when the motives for misrepresenting us and for degrading us are duly considered.”
In 1853, our common cause stood as a pronouncement, emphasizing the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the marginalized, specifically blacks. Today, our common cause stands as a banner to those in power and opposed to change because of prejudice. The banner signifies the past while embracing the fullness offered in those presently dismissed–doctors, farmers, merchants, teachers, ministers, lawyers, editors, etc.–American citizens who, through unity and belief in the foundational values of this country, fought and fight against every perpetuation of injustice “with pride and hope”.
Good nutrition plays a vital role in a person’s health, ranging from growth and development to mental health. The consumption of healthier foods significantly reduces the risk of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease. Additionally, the immune system improves and delays the aging process. In the United States, good nutrition is expensive nutrition; a luxury many low-income families abandon. Essential expenses– rent, utilities, clothing, and health are priority for many families with limited disposable, therefore, forgoing the nutritious food option.
Income disparities contribute to poor nutrition. Higher income families can select healthier foods because their higher income provides access to places that provide healthy options, whereas, lower income families due to city planning and a lack of urban development, receive pre-packaged, canned, and fast food. Healthy foods can be pricey and the additional sales tax is regressive towards lower income families. The local and state government has a duty to their inhabitants to provide access to nutritious food and proper education regarding the importance of a healthy lifestyle while economically conscious about the impacts of high sales tax on foods.
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) describes the right to an adequate standard of living. A key tenet, accounted for, is the right to food. This is accomplished when every person “has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or the means for its procurement” according to the Icelandic Human Rights Center. The right to food is an essential birthright; a denial means a violation of other rights.
Dr. Mariana Chilton and Dr. Donald Rose assert the right to food–adequate, nutritional food–adheres to three intrinsic policies: the need to respect, protect, and the fulfillment of human rights. To respect human rights, food must be accessible. In some regions in the United States for example, nutritional food is out of reach yet available are fast food restaurants providing cheap, less sustainable food. The protection human rights means others cannot impede the accessibility of food. According to the UNHR Office of the High Commissioner, there is enough food produced in the world to feed its entire population. Unfortunately, the problem lies in the access to food, whether it be poverty or famine, discrimination, or lack of transportation. In order to ensure human rights as related to adequate standard of living, the creation of an enabling environment that provides for and allows for the procurement adequate food becomes the mandate of government officials.
Visual Representation of Taxes in Each State. Source: Tax Foundation
Adequate food refers to healthy, nutritious food that our body needs to survive. Consuming nutritious food leads to numerous health benefits including, but not limited to, maintaining a healthy weight, allowing organ systems to function optimally, and promoting sleep. For the most part, the good quality foods are on the high-priced side, which leads people to avoid it. A documentary, Food, Inc., highlights the America’s corporate controlled food industry. A segment in the documentary shows a family of four, low-income, and their struggle in deciding between a burger from a fast food restaurant or broccoli from the supermarket. “Sometimes you look at a vegetable and say, ‘okay, we can get two hamburgers over here for the same amount of price’”. This ultimatum is difficult for families. They do not have a substantial amount of money to spend; however, the purchase the unhealthy foods means the purchase unsaturated fats and cholesterol that can increase the risk of diseases. The growing children are not receiving proper nourishment needed to supply their brain and body with energy or their bones with calcium, which is violation of a basic human right. The United States government can help low-income families receive nutritious food by adjusting the tax policies. Some states, Pennsylvania for example, have high sales tax of 6% and it caps the localities ability to impose local sales tax up to 2%. This, however, offsets the high sales tax by exempting uncooked nutritious groceries, clothes, and prescription drugs. A state like Alabama is at the opposite end as it has a low sales tax of 4% and allows localities to tax up to 7% more thus driving up to sales tax to one of the highest in the United States. In addition, Alabama does not exempt clothes, groceries, and prescription which leads the lower income family to spend a majority of their income of purchasing food.
The United States, internationally, opposed the notion of food as a human right. In 1996, the World Food Summit, sponsored by the United Nations, affirmed the “right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food.” While other sovereign nations signed agreeing with that statement, the United States refused to, insisting that hunger could lead to “international obligation or domestic legal entitlement”. In 2002, during another World Food Summit, the United States, again, opposed that food is a human right. According to Pol and Schuftan, the United States understands the right to access to food to connote the prospect to secure food, not a “guaranteed entitlement” and the “adequate standard of living is a goal or aspiration to be realized progressively”. Furthermore, the United States, Canada, and other European countries “have consistently and openly not been sympathetic” to the right to food as a provision of the state.
The Colour before the storm… Nyhavn, Copenhagen. Source: Joe Hunt, Creative Commons.
In contrast, Denmark agreed that there is a right to food. The Danish government recognized that if an individual or a community had deficient access to nutritious food and health that they are “kept in poverty and exclusion”. The country also understands that the usage of technology and scientific knowledge can increase the knowledge of nutrition and how it can benefit it citizens. Meik Wiking reports that although Denmark taxes heavily, almost 45% of the average citizen’s income, citizens believe there is an overall investment in their quality of life. The taxes collected from Danes provide several welfare programs. For example, student’s tuition and health care are free, a reduction of stress of lower income families in Denmark significantly. In the United States, a low-income family fret over school, health care, and housing so much so that they neglect to take care of the nutritional food aspect. Not surprising in some states in America, food is not tax exempt. Denmark’s citizens contentedly pay for taxes because they are safe financially.
Overall, lower income families often struggle because of limited financial means. With the added burden of the sales tax on groceries, eating right becomes difficult. The lack of nutrition leads to poorer performance in daily activities which puts a hindrance on growth and development. States like Alabama and Mississippi have allowed for higher income families to be comfortable regarding property taxes but allowed for the lower income families to be susceptible to paying more for nutritional food than they can afford. The state has a duty to their people, all people, for a sustainable, healthy, living standard.
The 16th Street Baptist Church across from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. Source: Beth Bryan, Creative Commons.
Barack Obama, in one of his last acts as president, signed a proclamation that designated the Birmingham Civil Rights District as a national monument. For those unaware, the Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument includes the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, Kelly Ingram Park, the A.G. Gaston Motel, Bethel Baptist Church, the Colored Masonic Temple, St. Paul United Methodist Church, portions of the 4th Avenue Business District, and the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. These locations are “hallowed grounds” for Birmingham because they serve as the epicenter American Civil Rights Movement. We speak of the history regarding these locations. Sixteenth Street Baptist Church stands as the site of a horrific bombing that claimed the lives of four black girls: Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley, and Denise McNair. However, the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was also—and still continues to serve as–a social center and lecture hall for education and social awareness; a headquarters for activism; and a platform for heralded visitors as it did in the past, for leaders like W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, Ralph Bunche, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and most recently, Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch who spoke her final message as a public servant. The Colored Masonic Temple, which beyond its beautiful architecture, sat as the centerpiece for lively Black owned businesses and a booming downtown social life. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and some of the movement’s top leaders strategized in room 30 of the A.G. Gaston Motel, which also became known as the “war room”. Additionally, in this room, Dr. King made the decision to submit himself to being jailed—resulting in a “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. To this day, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” serves as the most important written document of the civil rights era because of its tangible reproduced accounts in the fight for freedom and King’s response to the broad criticisms he has received from around the country. As you can imagine, I can write at considerable length about the historical facts and pieces of information I have picked up from the Birmingham Civil Rights District. However, the focus of this post is to address why this national monument is important.
The National Monument is a Mile Marker for Racial and Social Progress
What a society and its citizens choose to remember and create moments for, communicates a great deal about where their beliefs lie. At the same time, there is essential learning in understanding what a society chooses to forget. That said, I think that it is critical for each generation to understand the struggles and sacrifices many have endured to achieve equal rights because that cultural memory plays a role in the shaping of our collective identity. To this degree, we must accept the ugly truth that racism is embedded within our society and remnants of its power still resides within today’s social structure. In order for us to move forward in the solving of social problems, we must embrace this part of our history and understand how the intersections of race, class, privilege, gender, and so forth influences current issues. If not, then the politics of denial will continue to define teachings of American Civil Rights Movement into a one month a year curriculum composed of mainstream heroes that is not taught widely enough or comprehensively addressed at various school levels. Through the national monument, we as global citizens are pushed to think critically about our past. We are challenged to ask ourselves how can we move forward in the fight for equality and equity locally and globally. As important, we are reminded that the fight is not over.
This National Monument Preserves a “Balanced Realness” of African-American Culture
There is more to African-American culture than the mainstream depictions which tend to populate and reinforce negative stereotypes through mainstream media. The story of black people in Birmingham is one which highlights how individuals are able to rise from second class citizenship to obtain an education, contribute to society, maintain families, and overcome multiple challenges serves as a critical element of our American lineage. Through the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, we are afforded the opportunity to hear those stories; learn of all the heroes and their sacrifices; and to speak with some of those “living griots” who volunteer to share their own knowledge and experiences with the public. And, it is just not in the very people. As previously stated, this national monument is hallowed grounds because the location itself is a symbolic repository of African-American culture that has often been paved over, gone through urban renewal, gentrified, and left to stand as unidentified culture markers in major cities.
The National Monument Reinforces the Hope of Our Collective Community
The Birmingham Civil Rights District is not just Black history; it is American history. In a society that continues to diversify and splinter, it is crucial for us to be reminded that we are still one community. Together, we share a common heritage and history of hope and resilience through tough times. To me, the beauty of the civil rights movement is that when you reflect, there are continuous instances where multiple ethnic and cultural groups have decided to unite in the face of oppression. Today, we are facing with some unique challenges. There are segments of our population who are not only oppressed, but seeking refuge and allies to stand with them. As we look for answers, our national monument stands as a constant reminder that we are the change that we wish to see, and all we have to do is come together. In the words of Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.”
In closing, the national monument is more than just a series of historical buildings and educational centers containing a collection of objects and documents. It is a powerful reminder of Birmingham’s culture and its impact on the larger American story. I am confident that as the fight for equality, equity and inclusion continues, we will find a way to find opportunity in the midst of life’s challenges because that is what we do. In the words of John Henrik Clarke, “What we have done before, we can do again.”
Freedom of the Press has always been a hallmark of our American democracy. In fact, our Founders thought it to be so important they made it the first amendment to our Constitution, guaranteeing all citizens the right to free speech. Our Founders recognized the right to free speech is required for a healthy and free society. No society can claim to be free without the right of its citizens to speak their minds without fear of impunity. The public also has a right to the facts concerning transparency in their government and other public institutions, like the media. However, not everyone enjoys this liberty. The relationship between the press and the society it serves varies from one society to another. The purpose of this blog is to explore the impact media has on a society and its relationship to the public as an increasingly private institution in the United States.
When our Founders were framing the Constitution of the United States of America, and preparing for independence, the British authorities attempted to quell the uprising by regulating the media. This allowed only information that the British authority approved to circulate among the public. For example, in the early 1700s an English loyalist governor in New York, William Cosby sued John Peter Zenger for sedition when Zenger published editorials about Cosby’s oppressive and tyrannical style of governance in the New York Weekly Journal. These editorials made the public aware of Cosby’s attempt to rig elections, use public funds for his own private interests and the appropriation of Indian lands. Cosby had Zenger arrested and tried to close the Journal for business. Andrew Hamilton, a popular lawyer, took the case and defended Zenger by arguing that Zenger could only be libel if what he printed was falsely seditious. Zenger acquittal and Hamilton’s argument still stands today: a publisher is libel only when falsehoods are committed. This case set the precedent for freedom of speech and the press, later adopted by our Founders as the First Amendment of the Constitution (Kammen, 1975).
In this modern era, we face new challenges concerning mass media and freedom of the press in the United States. Increasingly, we have gotten away from the objective journalism of the 1950s and 1960s where both sides of an issue were represented with facts and allowed the informed citizen to come to their own conclusion. Today, news organizations have become more varied and focused on one perspective or another, be it liberal, conservative or some other view beyond the mainstream. We have witnessed the shift from objective journalism to indoctrination in most of our mass media over the past few decades. This is mainly due to competition over network viewership and ratings. It seems as though we have been lulled into a trap, like a child in a candy store that immediately fills their pockets with their favorite candy and ignores the rest. As free citizens, we have a responsibility to seek out the facts and think for ourselves. We have a responsibility to explore perspectives different than our own and attempt to see the world from another’s vantage point. The alternative is state news with certain views and opinions silenced, if not conforming to an authoritarian agenda. With freedom comes responsibility; a responsibility left to us by those who have sacrificed and died for every freedom we enjoy today. We cannot allow their sacrifice to be forgotten, nor the lessons of the past unlearned. For surely if we fail in our duties as free citizens, our children and grandchildren will be the ones to pay the price for that negligence and the struggles of our forefathers will define their lives and new heroes and sacrifices will have to be made in order to regain these freedoms.
Newspapers. Source: Dave Crosby, Creative Commons.
Freedom of the Press has historically been a public service, providing real contributions to our society. When television started dominating American culture in the 1950’s and 1960s, Walter Cronkite, a journalist with CBS, known as the “most trusted man in America”. News organizations were unequivocally trusted by the American public. Increasingly, private news organizations have come to the forefront since the implementation of cable television. C-SPAN, arrived first in the late 1970s, followed by CNN in the early 1980s, followed by Fox News Channel and MSNBC during the mid-1990s. These media heavyweights enjoy mass popularity and most Americans receive their TV news from one of these sources. The issue that has recently arisen with these news organizations is the conflict of interest between providing accurate, objective journalism for the public and creating their presentation flashy and provocative in order to attract viewers. Additionally, they have tailored their news to attract a specific audience by making it less objective and more like doctrine. For example, many conservatives are likely to watch Fox News while many liberals are likely to watch MSNBC. The reason for this is these news outlets have designed their programming to attract viewers based on their political philosophy. This presents a corruptibility within our news media because it is impossible for objective journalism, a public service, and propaganda designed for a specific audience, to raise private corporate profits, to coexist. These are mutually exclusive concepts because any “slant” on the facts automatically removes objectivity from the equation. Journalism causes one to think and concluded based on facts. Propaganda disengages the brain because it offers a solitary perspective and plays on an individual’s beliefs, generally to perpetuate a specific worldview.
Sweden ranks among the top of the world for its version of Freedom of the Press, while the United States is currently ranked 28th out of 197. It might come as a surprise to many Americans that Sweden, in 1766, was the first country in the world to guarantee freedom of speech and the press. At the same time, Sweden ended all censorship within the country. In addition, all Swedish government documents are accessible to the public, unlike in the United States where some government information is classified and illegal for the public to access. A key factor in this ranking are constraints placed on our press freedom due to national security.
Mass media can play other roles in society aside from just serving as a watchdog for public institutions. In her book, Kill the Messenger: The Media’s Role in the Fate of the World, Maria Armoudian explains the power of the media to influence for bad as well as good. She points to Senegal as an example of the power of community to ensure the media reported the true nature of the happenings in the villages. In Senegal, female genital cutting or mutilation (FGC/FGM) had been a long-standing rite of passage for most of the young teenage girls over the past five thousand years. This is not akin to male circumcision in our own culture, though there are a few parallels. For the Senegalese females, this procedure removes the clitoris and labia, often without modern medical aids such as anesthesia. In many cases, the girls are held down while the procedure is done with unsterilized crude tools, told the process will make them a “real woman”, and taught that the suffering is a “moral duty”. This practice originated as a village celebration for girls entering marriage and motherhood. Many of the young girls that have experienced FGC have health problems later in their life, mainly with infections, hemorrhaging, ulceration, cysts, scarring or problems arising during childbirth. In 1997, a movement began in rural villages to discontinue this harmful practice. By 2008, thousands of communities had joined the movement away from FGC tradition. This attributed to education facilitated by Tostan, a nonprofit organization originally founded to teach children to read, and mass media that introduced new ideas to many villagers and depicted the Senegalese women as brave and intelligent in their struggle for health and human rights (Armoudian, 2011). Mass media can be a useful tool in combatting cultural stagnation, by bringing issues to light. The combined efforts of Tostan and the mass media garnered national attention and sparked dialogue, which brought about cultural change, through education, for the women of Senegal.
In conclusion, Freedom of the Press is undoubtedly important for any society to claim freedom and democracy as its core ideals. The public institution of mass media is a powerful force in our modern social world for change, evident in the example of FGC in Senegal. However, this powerful force is not automatic nor invincible, and any freedom gained by a society may be lost, if not given the proper attention and respect. As a society, we cannot allow the dismantling of our public institutions by private interests, seeking a profit with no concern for public welfare and security. This is how freedoms are lost. Democracies possess an engaged public sector that relishes diversity of thinking, including political ideology. We, as free citizens, must learn to actively explore views different from our own, and not become dogmatic and intolerant through specialized media. This is how societies progress and prosper. This is how we learn and grow as human beings. If we fail in this endeavor, it might not be long before one perspective is all one knows and has access to and it could be the end of the free society we all treasure for ourselves and the generations to come.
References:
Kammen, Michael. Colonial New York: A History, New York: Oxford University Press, 1975
Armoudian, Maria. Kill the Messenger: The Media’s Role in the Fate of the World, Prometheus Books, 2011.
The Capital. Source: colincalvert, Creative Commons.
At the time of this writing, 2 February 2017, the United States of America is a liberal democracy. Equal representation in government due to frequent, fair and free elections, and governmental accountability are arguably some of the guiding maxims shaping and molding the relationship between American citizens and their government. Democracy, as publicly educated schoolchildren are taught, is a representative government operating under the highest ideals of freedom and security. In addition to liberal democracies, what other forms of government exist? How do they operate? How do states of different regimes interact? And, most importantly, how are universal human rights promoted or impeded by different governmental regimes?
The function and structure of government has been fiercely debated for thousands of years and, indeed, there are many differing opinions on the “perfect” form of governmental regime. Regimes should, according to most theorists, provide a combination of freedom, security, and equality for its citizens (McCormick, 2007). Governments are systems by which a state rations and applies power, whereas regime describes the overall type of government that is in place. The term state–an interchangeable term for nation or country, generally utilized by political scientists and internationalists–will be used throughout this blog in the same manner.
On the international level, states must possess authority and sovereignty. Authority is the ability to exert power and control over its citizens while sovereignty is the ability to act free of outside influence from other states. Due to the nature of international order, including the existence of the UN, many scholars believe the era absolute authority and sovereignty of states has come to a close. Political theorists now refer to states as having relative authority and sovereignty, as the UN and other global institutions now have more and more influence on the conduct of states around the world (McCormick, 2007). What is becoming increasingly clear is that the impact of different governmental regimes is no longer confined to just the administration and its citizens. Globalization, the description of increasing interdependence and influence of international state and non-state actors on one another, has supported the premise that regimes can and do affect other regimes both regionally and globally (O’Neil, 2007).
A regime operationalized is the way in which a state attempts to promote freedom, and/or equality, and/or security domestically for its citizens and internationally through relations with other states (O’Neil, 2007). Regimes types are labeled based on which of the primary government functions–freedom, equality, security–the regime promotes the most. A regime promoting freedom, for example, is more likely to be a liberal democracy rather than a regime promoting equality at the expense of freedom (i.e. communism; O’Neil & Rogowski, 2006). Regime types vary according to their respective levels of freedom, equality, and security; the respective levels of these three factors trickle down to influence the lives of the citizens in any given state. Interdisciplinary research in psychology, anthropology, political science, and international relations shows a society’s cultural values may be an extension of its governmental structure; therefore, regime and “national personality” (a form of assessing culture) are linked in this way. What has not been definitively proven, however, is the directionality of this relationship: does culture affect regime or does regime affect culture? Government regimes all lie on a continuum: we may think of totalitarianism to be the most oppressive, and liberal democracy to be the most faily representative and accountable. Other forms of government, such as authoritarianism, communism, socialism, and tribalism, all lie on this continuum as well. For the purposes of this blog, the concept of human rights in society will be compared to three regime types: totalitarian regimes, authoritarian regimes, and liberal democracies. By investigating the promotion or degradation of human rights in each of these three regimes, scholars and laypeople alike can better understand the relationship between human rights and government. While most of the blog posts on the Institute for Human Rights features a ‘bottom-up’ modality of human rights advocacy, this paper will examine the opposite approach: ‘top-down’.
What form of regime would arise if an ideological extremist exerted absolute control over a state? This is totalitarianism (O’Neil, 2007). Pure totalitarian regimes have been rare throughout human history, with some recent examples including Hitler and his Nazi ideology, Stalin and his Communist ideology, and Kim Jong Il and his cult of personality. Totalitarian states have a small group of leaders, led by one individual with an absolute mandate, dictating every way of life for its citizens. Totalitarian regimes rule with fear, violence, mechanisms of repression, and oftentimes isolate the state and its citizens from the influence of outside communication and interference (O’Neil, 2007). These regimes are guided, as previously stated, by an ideology that governs all ways of life for the state’s citizens; this ideology is part of the triad of totalitarianism, also including the state party having hegemonic control over the military-police force and industry / production in the state (O’Neil, 2007). Ideology, the marriage of party and law enforcement, and the dictation of culture all comprise the triad, which aids in the efficacy of the totalitarian regime to exert control. This triad is the main arm by which totalitarian regimes repress its subjects. The goal of totalitarian regimes is the spread of its ideology throughout the world, dominion over one state is typically not sufficient. Totalitarianism is seen as the ‘lowest on the scale’ in terms of personal freedom. Totalitarian regimes, such as North Korea, overemphasize security and grossly divert the national budget towards the military and defense.
A hallmark of the totalitarian regime is its quest for pure ideological control from the top down. To again refer to the North Korean case, upon the death of Kim Jong-il, the North Korean people were required to enter a period of intense mourning until his successor could ascend to the throne. During the time of mourning, North Korea was considered a ‘necropolis’, a term used when the leader of a nation-state is actually a deceased individual. Kim Jong-un assumed the supreme leader position and North Korea resumed its totalitarian tendencies. The totalitarian government dictates the culture of the state often using manufactured fear, secret police, and a controlled public media/propaganda machine.
Authoritarian Regimes
Authoritarian regimes are often secretive and therefore difficult to study. In contrast to totalitarian regimes, where the leader or party in control touts the political clout of leadership, authoritarian leaders understand the power of secrecy in maintaining control. Authoritarian governments can take many forms- on paper, that is. Maintaining a visage of functioning democratic ideals (this concept will be visited later) is important to many authoritarian leaders, as the international community tends to forgo prosecuting and punishing democratic states. Authoritarian regimes are operationally defined by a small loci of power (either by one leader, a military junta, or party leaders) controlling many aspects of live for the citizens of the state. Like totalitarianism, authoritarianism is utterly non-democratic in practice (regardless if they hold ‘elections’; O’Neil, 2007). Indeed, part of the insidiousness of dictators controlling an authoritarian regime is their use of fake elections to make the appearances of a democratic transfer or retention of power for leadership. Authoritarian regimes share many similarities with totalitarian regimes; however, authoritarianism typically does not include an ideology or philosophy, or the need for leaders to spread ideology throughout the world (O’Neil & Rogowski, 2006). Violence, repression, lack of free speech, and the need for an ‘enemy’–whether foreign or abroad–is characteristic of authoritarian regimes.
The mechanisms by which an authoritarian leader retains control may be divided into discrete categories: by force, by culture, and by capital. Authoritarian dictators can and will use their police force and military capabilities at will to depose dissidents and quash rebellion (O’Neill, 2007). In the case of violent repression, the international community may elect to step in, and this threat is not lost on the savvy dictator. Therefore, other means of repression have been commonplace in authoritarian regimes. The subtle use of cultural and societal mores as an extension of the government has been well documented, and the term ‘authoritarian’ has entered the common lexicon to refer to any personality or culture embodying the pursuit of power and control at the expense of others (McCormick, 2007; O’Neil, 2007; O’Neil & Rogowski, 2007). Again, the security of a state and its leaders is championed by the elimination of citizens’ freedom. Human rights, similarly to authoritarianism, is typically in dire straits under the influence of an authoritarian leader.
Liberal Democratic Regimes
Finally, the last regime type explored in this blog is the liberal democracy–whereby a state’s representatives are elected through free, fair, and frequent elections by eligible citizens (O’Neil, 2007). Liberal democracies take several forms: the presidential system (found in the United States), the parliamentary system (in the UK), and a semi-presidential system (France; McCormick, 2007). Unlike the previous two types of regimes, democracies attempt to provide citizens with freedom, equality, and security alike (O’Neil, 2007). An important caveat here: in democracy, freedom is typically more championed than equality; the reverse would be true in a communist or socialist regime. Liberal democracies typically enact policies allowing for citizens to allow more personal choice in their lives (freedom) rather than policies that ‘level the playing field’ (equality). All liberal democracies feature policies promoting both freedom and equality to a certain extent (O’Neil, 2007). Liberal democracies have recently been touted as the ‘ideal’ government due to its representative nature; however, problems exist in democracies just like in any form for government. As political parties have risen in ascendancy, as a form of power consolidation within democracies, beleaguered by petty power grabs and comparatively low-level corruption, many voters in liberal democracies have expressed discontent with their representing parties (How strong are the institutions of liberal societies, 2016). The Economist recently published a critique of modern liberal democracy, importing its readers the dangers of populism, political party influence, and degradation of the fair and public media as assaults on the fundamental institutions of democracy.
Liberal democracy is built upon ideal of citizens wielding power over the state, as opposed to the unbridled conglomeration of power in totalitarian regimes. Ideals such as protection of the public sphere (whereby knowledge and information is shared freely and publicly among all persons), a reciprocally deterministic relationship between citizens and government (i.e., representatives being held accountable to their constituents), and the enshrinement of human rights all clearly and concisely comprise the blueprint of democracy. Liberal democracies represent not only a regime type, but also the synthesis between political institutions and moral thinking itself. Universal ethical imperatives, such as those outlined in the UN and its many treaties, policies and protocols, are the foundation for human rights. Liberal democracies have embraced human rights as staple of their political culture. The word ‘citizen’ is used with intention here because democracies have citizens. Repressive governments are said to have subjects.
Comparative Politics and Human Rights
This blog post is the first of several elucidating the connections between comparative politics and the protection of human rights. The comparative analysis of regimes often attempts to provide easy-to-understand, distinct, and discrete forms of government, such as totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and democracy. In reality, governments and regimes exist in a world of gray, a space between these clear definitions. Democracies use torture. Totalitarian regimes care for the elderly. Authoritarian leaders sometime start their reign genuinely advocating for the rights of repressed persons. A lesson to be learned from this analysis is not to classify regimes and governments as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, for exercising more judgement in that regard could alienate populations and incite leaders to violence. Given this suspension of judgement, the study of human rights’ relationship to regime will help scholars and laypersons alike understand what, if any, threats to their rights exist in the world around them.
Concluding this paper is a word of caution to global citizens, but especially those living under the regime of liberal democracy. A term mentioned above, the public sphere, refers to the ability for any and all members in a state to come together and freely share information (especially knowledge from science, art, and religion) for the goal of political change and debate. An analogy would be the Forum used in Ancient Greece. The public sphere today includes popular social media and the press (whether print or online). The role of the free press in particular has been greatly threatened and trivialized in many states around the world, including liberal democracies such as the United States. It is through the press and other non-governmental actors the tangible effects of the regime are made public. To threaten and attack institutions such as free press is to directly threaten the mechanism by which democracy is held accountable. Without a platform for public discourse, the public sphere is limited in its access of information: imagine a library with no books or internet. To publicly call and shame a government for human rights violations is one of the most important mechanisms by which governments are held accountable. In a post-facts world, the truth about your government does matter.
References
How strong are the institutions of liberal societies? (2016). The Economist (Online), Retrieved from http://fetch.mhsl.uab.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1837417012?accountid=8240
McCormick, J. (2007). Comparative Politics in Transition (5th. Ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
O’Neil, P. H. (2007). Essentials of Comparative Politics (2nd Ed.). W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY.
O’Neil, P. H. & Rogowski, R. (2006). Essential Readings in Comparative Politics (2nd Ed.). W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY.
DC Women’s March. Source: Liz Lemon, Creative Commons.
On January 21, 2017, over five million people marched–on all seven continents–in solidarity for women’s issues. In Washington D.C, one million marchers made their voices heard, nearly three times the size of the crowd at the inauguration, according to crowd scientists. The Birmingham, Alabama march numbered nearly five thousand, to the surprise of organizers who expected closer to several hundred. The official Women’s March website states the platform and approach is committed to equality, diversity, and inclusion. While initially, the Trump administration may have been the fuel for this rise, the movement presently signifies an international protest against the growing threat of a dishonest narrative about women’s rights and unjust treatment of them.
The sheer numbers of attendees at the march inspired and infused hope into the hearts of many deeply opposed to the injustices within the context of women’s rights. Critics of the march seem to misinterpret the intentions of marchers by claiming that the cause was American-centric, thus ignoring the subjugation of women globally. There is some validity to this, in that, the focus of many marchers remained centered in American political issues, and often excluded some key actors from the discussion like transgender people. However, many critics used these potentially valid grounds to deny the existence of oppression in America. Blogger Stephanie Dolce, after listing a series of wrongs against women in other countries, writes, “So when women get together in America and whine they don’t have equal rights and march in their clean clothes, after eating a hearty breakfast, it’s like a vacation away that they have paid for to get there.” This critical narrative reveals the false impression that many Americans have about women’s rights, the nature of protests, and the human right to participate in protest.
Women’s March in Birmingham, AL January 2017. Source: Ajanet Rountree.
Dolce mentioned the issues of rape, limited education access, gender violence, and denial of bodily autonomy through legislation, infanticide, and female genital mutilation (FGM). She then suggests that American women do not experience these acts of violence and oppression. To believe that these issues are absent in America is to remain blinded by privilege. Dolce’s argument, supported and shared many times across social media, is rooted in privilege—a privilege that often undermines the nature of exploitation and oppression of another because distance rather than proximity and a lack of knowledge discredit the acknowledgement of an experience.
Marchers in cities around the world reflected the microcosm of the global civic society. It is highly unlikely that Dolce, who is vocally critical of the march, attended a protest based on her blog writing. Conversely, I have been an advocate for human rights for years and decided to experience the Birmingham march firsthand. I found myself deeply moved by the variety of issues and identities represented; therefore, I can bear witness to a crowd of people marching for a diverse set of causes, each inherently political but not as a political reaction. Protest signs held high regarding immigration, environmental issues, racism, disability rights, and more, dotted the landscape of Kelly Ingram Park. The diversity of the city was visible in the composition of marchers and their causes. The harsh, judgmental “anti-Trump” rhetoric is an insult to social justice, as this march and subsequent protests, are not about him or any one person.
The highly divisive stage in American politics provides a vehicle of change through shock and outrage; fortunately, the movement is not limited to the American arena. This activism is not a backlash to the election or simply a march about women’s issues. This is not, as some may see it, a petty protest against the shift in ideology represented in our new president. This is the beginning of a global movement to protect rights presently impacted by global structural violence targeted towards women specifically, and humanity generally.
Women’s March London. Source: Garry Knight, Creative Commons
The Women’s March website has listed steps to transform the vigorous energy seen on January 21 into a long-term international movement. Given the millions of marchers who came out, it is hard to imagine that the momentum and awareness for women’s rights will simply fade away. The evolution of the movement is already underway. They currently have two “global action steps” listed and a third still developing. First, communicate concerns for women’s rights by contacting representatives, using postcards or letters with a picture of the march. Second, organize local “next up huddles” which are intended to foster support and community. The goal is that each area brainstorm a “set of actions and strategies our group will pursue in the coming weeks and months”, mobilizing the community through grassroots activism and people power. The grassroots approach, fueled by people power, is essential because it empowers leadership and change from the bottom-up rather than top-down. People power initiates the quicker and more effective change across nations.
With an enormous base of supporters and power of grassroots change, it is clear that the spirit behind the Women’s March is thriving and quickly evolving into a transnational platform.
Inside of Sixteen Street Baptist Church. Source: Nicholas R. Sherwood.
On Sunday, January 15, 2017–the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr–Ajanet Rountree and I filed into the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, AL, a day before the nation officially recognized Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The historic location held a special church service commemorating King and his contemporaries, reinforcing the role Birmingham played in the Civil Rights Movement, and honoring the career service of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Arriving a full hour before the service was slated to begin I was met with hundreds of congregants on the church’s steps. There was an air of energized reverence, among the mostly black audience, gathering to hear one of their own speak of her successes. I overheard bellowing laughs, old friends recognizing and greeting each other in the open air of Birmingham, parents importing their children “BE QUIET DURING THE SERVICE”, and the slow but steady knocking of feet slowly climbing the front steps of the church. An unapologetic rainbow of cloth, sequins, and even feathers peacocked in front of me. Here, I recognized, is an old and dignified community in their church best. With red dresses, gold sashes, purple bowties, green bowler hats, pink lapels, Birmingham decided to greet Loretta Lynch et al. with the glorious visage only a Southern, black church can offer. A greeter handed me a church pamphlet as I entered. He seemed annoyed with security constraints but overall pleased with the turn out. Up a tight winding stairwell we climbed, halfway up I had a fleeting thought, “Is this the stairwell where the bomb was detonated?” With our seats aggressively claimed, we settled in for a two-hour event.
Loretta Lynch was born on May 21, 1959 when much of the Southern United States lacked equal rights and protections for persons of color. At that time, black female lawyers were simply nonexistent. In her first appointment, she served under President Clinton as US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, which led to her first leadership role under President Obama, as US Attorney for the Eastern District for New York. In between her presidential appointments, she was special counsel for the prosecutor for the UN International Criminal Tribunal. Her work as a prosecutor with specialties in witness tampering and public official corruption, garnered her successful influence on the national and international level. Working on the case of Rwandan genocide, with her assistance, this was the first case the UNICT successfully tried and delivered a verdict to individuals culpable in genocide.
As Attorney General, Lynch continued her impressive established human rights record. Before her appointment to Attorney General, one of Lynch’s most famous cases involved the prosecution of NYC police officers on behalf of Haitian immigrant Abner Louima. Louima was violently sodomized by the officers while in custody, and her involvement in this case began a focus of hers on the unfair imprisonment and maltreatment of men of color on behalf of police officers. Another case involved an undercover sting operation neutralizing a terrorist act by a Bangladeshi radical jihadist. The planned act would have detonated a 1000-pound bomb outside of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City. She combated racism during her career while defending American freedom and security. During King’s time, these two ideals would have seem incompatible.
The service was–in the spirit of many evangelical black churches–participatory. “Amen!”, “praise the Lord”, “that’s right!”, and sometimes the affirmative “mhmm” punctured the speaker at hand. The church choir belted. The congregation did our best to keep up. Everyone completely focused on what was happening ‘onstage’. Actors from UAB’s theatre department performed a piece on the struggle for civil rights– weaving testimony, narrative, song, and history–during the service. Ministers preached and politicians charmed as we patiently waited for Loretta to take the stage… our leading lady I’m sure, waited patiently too.
I hope she enjoyed the pomp and circumstance in honor of her, in honor of a black woman leading the Justice Department, and in honor of the resilient and honorable fight for equality for which Birmingham has long contributed. The red carpet was a visceral color in this holy sanctuary; red is the color passion, power, blood, and love. If the room and all its inhabitants on that warm January afternoon had an aura, it was surely red.
Her father was a Baptist minister and, it was apparent to me at least, she has maintained a sacrosanct comfort inside a church’s walls. Early in her remarks, she quoted Exodus: ‘Surely the Lord is in this place’, followed by “generations of men and women have found the Lord in 16th Street Baptist Church”. She continued by paying homage to King and his contemporaries. Both King and Lynch, certainly, were and are advocates for human rights.
Justice and human rights are intrinsically linked; one cannot protect rights without the legal mechanisms in place to defend them.
Both the power of the people (Dr. King’s specialty) and the power of the law (Lynch’s) must create a unity. Lynch’s speech reflected this unity. As Lynch’s remarks moved from King and Birmingham, and their involvement in the history of American Civil Rights, her discourse changed. This event was billed as a special service commemorating King while honoring Lynch. The past, and all its demons, was locked away in memory. Today, the congregation found out, the first black, female Attorney General was able to reconcile some of the atrocities that may have sat unchallenged in King’s time.
Loretta Lynch, Former US Attorney General. Source: Nicholas R. Sherwood
Lynch, in her final speech as Attorney General, swiveled her address from the past to the present. It was at this moment, the crowd hushed. “I know that we are in difficult days now. Many fear that King’s dream – and all that has flowed from it – is at risk like never before.” Her demeanor changed. Speaking of King, a human and civil rights luminary, provided a strength to her words. Indeed, this was prototypical King: a black, Baptist, southern church. How many of his addresses were delivered in such similar circumstances? Lynch seemed to sense the connection. As she spoke of the present, the congregation could sense how concerned she was for the present state of affairs in America. Attention was now assuredly and willfully fixed on Lynch and her words. Her voice, before this point reflecting a pastor’s cadence of lulls and jubilation, now quietened and hardened. She was no longer a guest minister who worked for the federal government. She was now a soon-to-be private citizen giving her critique and naming her personal fears.
As a prosecutor, what would she have feared? Injustice, I would argue. Her reputation as fierce suggests she had few fears in office and in practice. She understands justice and its many forms. She was unrelenting towards oppressors, terrorists, and corruption. However, Lynch was also just, often calling for lenience in cases of nonviolent crimes, especially drug related crimes, opting to provide second chances at a free life rather than jail indeterminately. She spoke for the victims too, with a special interest in police brutality and discrimination cases. The first black woman to serve as Attorney General, and one raised in the American South at that, Lynch understood racial animus. She knows too well how hard one must knock on a cracked glass ceiling before it comes crashing down.
Turning her speech from the past to the present, Lynch acknowledged the present political climate, which terrifies many minority groups in the United States. Her assumed replacement, Jeff Sessions, is from Alabama- another southerner taking over the Justice Department. Sessions has been criticized of blatant racism, as has his boss, now President Donald Trump. The juxtaposition weighed heavily in 16th Street Baptist Church. The first black female Attorney General will likely be succeeded by an accused-racist; the first black President replaced by an accused racist. However, Lynch litigated, the lesson to be gleaned from Dr. King is, and always should be, the persistent utility of hope.
Hope and hard work, she argued, will influence lawmakers and laymen alike.
Again, “amens!” and “yes ma’am!” rang LOUDLY in the congregation. There was fear, yes. However, Lynch bore witness to the fear and offered her testimony to rise from it. The congregation, taking their cue from her, found their voice once more and responded to her lines of power. Her best crafted line, in my opinion, acknowledged darkness and offered an existential purpose for it:
“And if it does come to pass that we do enter a period of darkness, let us remember – that is when dreams are best made.”
King’s Dream– she reminded us–arose like a phoenix from the ashes, galvanizing the struggle for civil rights in America. It is generational dream; a living one. “And when our time comes, we shall pass the dream on to those who are already raising their hand and those to come. So that the arc of the moral universe continues straight and true – continues towards justice.”
Her remarks ending, she thanked us. She returned to her seat and the entire church sang the anthem, “We Shall Overcome”. Like President Obama, her final speech was a plea for hard, hard work. She channeled both King and Obama at times; mixing King’s optimism with Obama’s realism. This balance of past and present, of hope and pragmatism, characterized her speech. Her illustrious public career, now ended, could be characterized in similar terms. She understands the power of mercy and granted hope to defendants who she deemed reparable. Lynch also recognized and publicly testified the threats to justice: discrimination, harassment, and corruption.
Now that her tenure has ended, I imagine Lynch feels comfort in being a public citizen who enjoys a church service, like the ones her father ministered while she was growing up. In 1963, at 16th Street Baptist Church, four girls–Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Denise McNair– were murdered by white supremacists. Fifty-four years later, the first black, female US Attorney General gave her farewell address in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the enduring legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. History was reconciled but never forgotten at 16th Street Baptist Church.
Earlier in the week as a nation, we celebrated your life and legacy. Your mantle—the principled ethic of human and civil rights, has bolstered a new cohort of activists and advocates across the age spectrum to pursue nonviolent resistance as a method of peace. We, your students, stand on the edge of a changing of the guard as the first days of a new presidency are upon us. We stand poised as workers for a harvest that began with you, John Lewis, Claudette Colvin, Diane Nash, Ruby Bridges, James Meredith and others, and will last beyond us all. We are woefully cognizant of the stance we must take. However, if I am honest, and speaking solely for myself, I must say that I had not expected to see these times—the swirling undercurrent of denied bias–for I considered them long past.
Sir, we exist within a compartmentalized nation. Not purely divided along racial lines, though there is a discourse and significant evidence of deeply rooted prejudice. We do not carry the burden of the manacles of segregation but partisanship that breeds itself insidiously in the nullification of the facts and the renunciation of commonality. We have misplaced our sense of solidarity. We fail to appreciate the inescapable network of mutuality that ties our destinies together. In many ways, the African American, the Muslim, the Hispanic, the female, the disabled, and many others are exiles in their own land.
The words of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence speak of liberty and justice for all. Today in 2017, there is a tangible shift that has made it clear that all who are different–whether identified by race, creed, ability, religion, or sexual orientation–are subjects of a ‘narrow, provincial ‘outside agitator’ idea. It is an isolating feeling…furtive eyes, callous whispers, and disdain-filled rhetoric question one’s Americanness. You wrote that anyone who lives inside of the United States can never be considered an outsider. Yet, the promise of inalienable civil and human rights seem like vapors in this country at the moment. I find myself interrogating my own Americanness, particularly when majority of the political leaders do not look like me as Langston Hughes’ America ring in my head:
Little dark baby//little Jew baby//little outcast//America seeking the stars, America is seeking tomorrow.//You are America.//I am America//America—the dream//America—the vision.//America—the star-seeking I.//Out of yesterday the chains of slavery; out of yesterday, the ghettos of Europe; out of yesterday, the poverty and pain of the old, old world, the building and struggle of this new one, we come//You and I, seeking the stars. You and I, you of blue eyes and the blond hair,//I of the dark eyes and the crinkly hair.//You and I offering hands being brothers, being one, being America. You and I.
There is a cliché that says, in essence–show me your friends, and I will show you your future. This sentiment, often given to high school students who choose a disputed set of friends, wanes in its application to the position of leadership or even the dinner table. Racial bias is cross-cultural. I am fully aware that naturally we seek those who are like us. Some Americans dismiss the reality of prejudice because they have a black coworker or homosexual boss. Yet, a closer examination of their inner circle, whether board members or in their cell phone directory, would reveal a bias. We often discount a full cultural experience when we dismiss those who live outside our natural boundaries, thus tainting perception, policy, and conversation.
Sir, I am anxious that the values, which make us uniquely American, will become our demise. Not a demise that is irreversible but a demise that will take years to repair. Some have become satisfied with buffoonery and disrespect, innuendo and distraction, rather than positioning ourselves as sons and daughters of Issachar who understand the times, speak with dignity, knowledge, artistry, and respect, and live as citizens of the world. President Barack Obama led this nation without scandal. His devotion to his wife and children will remain an example to millions who possibly thought a Black nuclear family, filled with laughs and love, only existed on television. Although his presidency was not perfect, I do believe, history will record and many will say that America’s first Black president was for ALL Americans.
You dreamed that your children’s character would speak more clearly than their skin color. Yet unlike his predecessors and his successor, President Obama has been subject of highest form of unfounded public ridicule and accusation. Michelle, his wife and our first lady, has been called derogatory terms on social media outlets without cause and without shame. Citizens shout on airplanes and in cafeterias, without provocation, racial mantras manufactured at political rallies. The projection of subjective opinion infects the habitual audience, lulling it into accepting theories without question or conviction. War veterans and civil rights heroes are targets of disrespect while vile and ruthless dictators receive praise. A minority–disproportionally in most cases African-American–experiences a denied opportunity, defined by a poor choice that garners a criminal record, and a lifetime of lack. Death comes at the hands of police or ‘concerned citizens’ who view us as monsters and shoot us like animals. Franz Fanon said that the colonizers consistently refer to the colonized in dehumanizing terms, reducing them to the state of an animal, and dwell in disordered violence.
Sir, I feel we no longer believe in values.
Institutional injustice has sealed the great vaults of opportunity. The unqualified are in positions of significant power, perpetuating the white power structure that may leave minorities, irrespective of skin tone, with few alternatives. Disingenuous politicians, who claim to have the best interest of their constituents at heart, employ similar tactics as seen in your day that seek to ensure disenfranchisement, including gerrymandering. The disturbance of ancient burial grounds reveal capital interest trumps an honored recognition of historical abuse. Many Americans seem unfazed by the ramifications because it does not affect them. Such is the stance regarding climate change. The fierce sense of urgency has fallen on ears deafened by naysayers, refusing to engage in good-faith negotiations as they weaken the implications and forsake the responsibility of America as she relates directly to her citizens and fellow inhabitants of earth.
Sir, I sense we as a country no longer know what we believe. For some, life begins at conception so protection must be priority for the unborn while others believe it begins at birth. Yet, the protection of life does not apply to children or adults (who were once children) fleeing war or violence, and made to dwell in makeshift camps or drown off the coast of countries of refuge. Others seek religious freedom, wholeheartedly believing the founding of our country was based upon on their present religious interest. They say that religion is primarily a personal relationship between a human and God; that God will not force you to believe in him. However, this personal belief has made its way into the public space, inciting hateful exclusion of those who seek to practice their own personal religious relationship. There is a focus on the radicalism of one religion over another, a belief shrouded in the notion that one religion generates more terror than the other–a terror that you witnessed first-hand. Some believe that a quality education should be accessible to all children while others profess that the spread of funding can be unequal. Thus returning the nation to the pernicious ideology of separate but equal. Private schools could receive more government funding, leaving public schools in lack and rejecting an equal opportunity for education. It appears as though there is disregard for the right of public school attendees–regardless of color–to have an education on par with those attending private and/or charter schools.
Many of us, like you and the participants in the civil rights movement, find our option is the presentation of our bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the city and nation. Therefore, we rise. By the thousands, sir, we rise under the banner of universal civil and human rights for all human beings.
As a company of women mindful of the impending difficulties, we will rise against the patriarchy and misogyny. We will rise for the protection of women’s right to life and health. We will rise as allies, demanding the fullness of the promises of democracy, understanding that the oppressor never willingly grants freedom. With the knowledge that the greatest measure of a man or woman, is not where they stands in times of comfort and convenience but in times of challenge and controversy, we bear witness to nonviolent resistance as a means of direct action. Nonviolence creates a tension that forces the confrontation of the issue, in hopes that parties will find a seat at the table of negotiation, and walk away brothers as opposed to enemies.
Dr. King, we rise against unjust laws that degrade the human personality by distorting the soul, giving a false sense of superiority and inferiority. We have arrived at this moment in history where humanity, particularly those labelled incorrect according to a perceived bestiality, will rise aware of their humanity, hone their skills, and claim the victory. We rise in pursuit of positive and active peace, not just negative peace in the absence of violence.
There is no better time than now. As we can no longer wait for a more convenient time as our patience has grown thin at the threat to justice that has permeated our society. You wrote, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls on inevitability. It comes through the tireless effort and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work, time itself become an all of the forces of social stagnation.” Returning is not an option, sir, for upon us is the need for freedom.
Reverend King, you challenged church leaders to recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church because the level of disappointment with the stance of the church for status quo on issues of social justice, has turned people away from the church. Therefore, you implore the church to become a vocal presence, a powerhouse postured in authenticity rather than irrelevance or personal concern for the secular and sacred… a pursuit of Jesus as the ultimate drum major. Our new president said, because of his presidency, we will never be ignored again. I believe that he is correct in this analysis because his drum major instinct will find redirection, as grassroots movements will allow him to see that the definition of greatness is service, rooted in love.
Martin, now that I have read your words and given voice to my own, I must admit that like you, have no despair about the future. We must meet every challenge and confront lies with facts. We must comprehend the certainty of our linked destinies. We must continue the struggle until the fullness of your dream for civil and human rights becomes reality at the heart of this nation where discourse lays. We shall overcome.
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.
