In Celebration and Remembrance: Selma, Alabama, March 7, 1965

Edmund Pettus Today, Tomorrow, Forever

By: Terry Donnelly

March 14, 2015

Sometimes being a writer is just too easy. Every now and then we get to grab some low hanging fruit that makes plying our trade seem like child’s play.

The recent March 7^th 50-year remembrance/celebration on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama provided just such eye-level apples.

By now we all know that the Edmund Pettus Bridge was the scene of Bloody Sunday, the day Selma Sheriff Jim Clark got his fifteen minutes of fame by having his sworn-in thugs (a.k.a. police officers) beat the daylights out of marchers who were trying to march to Montgomery in peaceful protest over the extreme voting discrimination practiced in the Old Confederacy. Jim Clark, like his governor, George Wallace, was an unabashed segregationist. Governor Wallace famously spoke the words “segregation today, segregation tomorrow (it sounded more like ‘tomarra’), segregation forever” from the steps of the administration building on the University of Alabama campus, and Clark was fond of sporting a jazzy pin on his uniform that read “Never”. The pin succinctly held the same message as the governor’s words.

The low fruit for writers–the far too easy irony that lingers in history is the bridge that represents the turning point in the successful quest for eliminating savage laws that effectively kept black voters out of polling places–an icon now revered as sacred ground to those repressed, is named after a Confederate General and Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

To be sure there were a ton of Klan members on that bridge that day. They were not decked out in their spiffy white robes and hoods, but they were there, many toting both badges and clubs. None of them were marchers. The Klan members and Sheriff Clark may have celebrated that day, but their elation turned to defeat on August 6 that same summer when President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. Coupled with the previous year’s Civil Rights Act, all legal barriers were torn down. Citizens were henceforth-banned form exercising public segregation in any form.

The drama of the day is well recorded. What is missing is the back-story.

During his time in office, President Johnson had many conversations with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Some were cordial, some edgy, but there was always respect on both sides and a mutual desire to undo Jim Crow laws.

In the months prior to the Selma to Montgomery march, Johnson told King that he really wanted to get the Voting Rights Bill passed and signed that summer. But, he needed some help by getting the public to back the bill and flood his office with requests to do so. LBJ charged MLK with coming up with that public outpouring of support.

King had long ago learned the power of media. Ever since Emmett Till’s mother put her son’s badly beaten body on display after he was killed by Klan members in 1955 for whistling at a white woman, any media display of horrific actions by segregationists (think 1961 Freedom Rides complete with bus burnings) was met with public outrage.

It is highly suspected that MLK planned the march, knowing full well that his group would meet resistance from Sheriff Clark and possibly get the media attention LBJ wanted to spur the public into vocal support; in turn getting Congress to act. I will not go so far as to suggest that MLK knew just how strongly Clark would react, but in its infancy the march that spurred Bloody Sunday was as much a political calculation as a nonviolent protest.

After his conversation with Johnson, King and his team got busy planning. On March 7th MLK led his organized protestors onto the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Clark overreacted much like was expected, and mega media coverage ensued. LBJ got his public outcry, Congress acted, and Johnson got out his pens on August 6th.

After that date everyone could vote and a genius provision, Article 4 of the act, gave the federal government jurisdiction over the states’ voting laws to quickly act on any digression or backsliding on the intent of the law. The drafters knew any loophole would allow some states to restrict access to the polls.

The 1965 Voting Right Act worked exactly as planned for almost 50 years.

Those laws stood in tact and were proudly and publically renewed in their original form by presidents of both parties protecting civil rights until June 25, 2013 when the Supreme Court of the United States made a critical error in judgment. Five of those nine judges naively stated that “things have changed dramatically” in the South over the last 50 years and foolishly deemed Section 4, the check and balance guts of the act, to be no longer needed to monitor the voting laws in former bad behaving states and counties. Not surprisingly, it took only two months in 2013 for several states that for 50 years had to pre-clear any voting regulation changes with the federal government to start proposing new, un-reviewed, and obviously discriminatory laws to once again restrict segments of the population from voting.

There is some defensive noise about the new laws being designed to keep the polling places free of fraud (there is none in the U.S.), and that one needs a photo I.D. to rent a car or get on an airplane, so what’s the big deal about having one to vote? Those arguments are lame when compared with the magnitude of the importance of citizens having free access to the franchise. Besides, the words of the perpetrators themselves belie any such argument. Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai was checking off Republican political successes in a 2012 speech and included “voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done (accomplished).”

The true motivation for changing voting laws can’t be any clearer than that. If the states are truly protecting the integrity of the polling place, why didn’t they submit the changes for review years ago?

I don’t advocate changing the name of the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The situational irony is too appealing to suggest altering how we discuss history. But, restoring Article 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is a much needed cause to champion. 

Tiger Woods Part I

I was asked by the publisher of "Let's Talk Nevada" to do an article about Tiger and his influence on golf. I got carried away and ended up submitting a two part column. I didn't know I had that much to say.

Part 1: What Tiger Woods has meant to golfers

By: Terry Donnelly

Eldrick “Tiger” Woods.

Seeing that name in print or hearing it over the airwaves brings on an intense reaction from nearly every person who has been conscious the last 20 years. There are a handful of celebrities who are recognizable by one name and who rest upon the absolute pinnacle of society. Woods is more than a sportsman; he is a transformational modern culture icon.

Okay, that said, those intense reactions run the gambit from loving to loathing, from superstar to subhuman. Tiger Woods made himself into a massive brand that transcends any one individual. However, when the individual showed himself as a mere mortal, he has both failed, bringing upon himself immense scorn; and reached great heights with his foundation for kids and humanitarian acts. When working within his field, the 18 holes of a golf course, he has few, if any, peers.

It is because of this celebrity that those involved in news and discussion outlets (including myself) choose to focus time and words on this charisma laden media magnet.

Love him or hate him there are a few facts that cannot be denied. If you hate him for his apparent misogynistic leanings, or are tired of seeing only his shots on Sunday afternoon television while the rest of the field plays behind the scenes, or you want him to succeed because he represents a level of expertise possibly never before achieved, or you want the field to rise to the challenge; all of those opinions must stem from a series of facts.

The overriding fact here is that Tiger Woods changed the game of golf for golfers. There are basically two men who can claim that mantle since Mary Queen of Scots got hooked on the game in the 1500s. Woods is, of course one, and the other is Arnold Palmer.

Palmer came along in the early 1950s. At that time professional golfers were second-class citizens who changed their shoes in the parking lot and were considered entertainment for the golfing gentry. Sam Snead, one of those always mentioned when the word “greatest” is uttered within a golf conversation, played for over 40 years and won a record 82 professional tournaments from 1931 to 1973. During that time he won exactly $712,972–second place in last year’s Masters Tournament won more than that.

Then along came Arnold and his army of fans in 1952. Actually Arnie’s Army came later as fans flocked to watch him play whether it was in person or on the new outlet for golf–television. An equal measure of Arnie and TV moved the needle on how professional golfers were treated and the kind of living they could make at the game. The winner of the 1952 Masters Tournament won $4,000. When Arnie won his first in 1958, he won $11,250. By 1980, 22 years later when Arnie was all but done with competitive golf and had worked his magic, the winner took home almost five times that amount–$55,000.

The mix of television and Arnold Palmer brought about a new era for professional golf. The television contracts and the throngs of people who flocked to tournaments around the country put money in the coffers and the share for each participant began to rise. Golfers quickly went from traveling by carpool from tournament to tournament and having to live by their wits as well as their clubs, to being household names who flew on chartered (or in Arnie’s case his own) jets. The pros knew it too. To a man they realized that Arnold Palmer had singlehandedly gotten them all a raise in pay and a boost in status. To this day they all call him “The King” behind his back and “Mister Palmer” to his face.

Fast forward to 1996. The game had grown even more thanks to the continued efforts of Palmer and others like Jack Nicklaus and Deane Beman who were smart and handled the affairs of golf’s celebrity well. When a young man named Tiger Woods won his first Masters Tournament in 1997 his first place prize was $450,000, about eight and a half times what Seve Ballesteros won in 1980.

What happened next is almost unexplainable. When Tiger won again in 2001, his paycheck for the weekend at Augusta was $1.1 million. After only four years of Tiger being in the field, the purse had more than doubled and last year’s 2014 winner, Bubba Watson, pocketed $1,440,000. The purse of the Masters has tripled since 1996 when Tiger Woods burst onto the golf scene.

Television was already a big part of golf, so Woods didn’t have the novelty factor of the tube to help him change the face of golf once again.

In 20 years, the last three of which Woods had hardly played at all due to injuries and other self inflicted personal woes, he redefined what it meant to be a top golfer. In those years he has amassed 79 victories (three short of Snead who took over 40 years to win his 82), 14 major tournaments with 18 being the standard set by Nicklaus, and an eye popping $110 million in prize money. That laps the field in any comparison. Phil Mickelson is second on the all time money list at $75 million–$35 mil short. Fifth place is $48 million and 10^th is $37 million–pocket change to Woods. Arnold Palmer is 388^th on this list with a miniscule $1.8 million. Any modern player who is around for even a couple of years has won much more than Palmer did in a star-studded career.

I’m done writing about the super stars. What about the average Joe on the pro tour these days–the guy that goes to work on the links every weekend and shoots a round of par each time. If there were such a golfer he would have earned $2,111,425 last year. That number is a bit skewed because of the US Open, which is made rigorous to the point of ridiculous every year and a score of par, can win. Take away that one million dollar paycheck and our par shooting pro pockets over one million dollars and never shot a score in the 60s all year.

Suffice it to say that all pro golfers’ boats have risen with the flood of interest that Tiger Woods brought to the game. He is a transformational super star of the highest magnitude whether you like the way he runs his personal life or his approach to the game.

Will he best Snead’s 82 career victories? Likely. Will he surpass Nicklaus’ 18 majors? Doubtful. Will he retire from the game after his recent crash-and-burn disaster of a comeback? Not going to happen. Will he ever regain the respect he held after the year 2000 when he produced maybe the best golfing year ever? No.

So, Woods’ golfing future seems to be a mixed bag. But, like Palmer, the other pros know Woods has vastly improved their bank accounts, and set a higher bar for their golf skills as well.

Golfers and the game of golf are better for having Tiger prowl among us.

Tiger Woods Part II

Part 2: What if Tiger becomes extinct?

By: Terry Donnelly

What would a sports/media world with a Tiger Woods void look like?

We already have a fairly good idea.  Answer #1: boring.  Answer #2: costly.

It has been since August 4, 2013, over 18 months, since Woods has won a tournament and nearly seven years since he won the 2008 US Open, his last major tournament.

He isn’t only not winning–he isn’t even playing.

Media speculation is high about Tiger Woods and his achy back and/or damaged psyche. He remains a physical specimen equal to Adonis, albeit with an Achilles back. And, was once given credit for reducing other players to Jell-O with his mind. That isn’t the case any more. Tiger’s “No Fear” has turned into other golfers’ “No More Fear.”

When in his prime … it seems odd to be speaking of Woods’ prime in the past tense, and that may be premature–which was the eight years following the turn of the millennium, Woods dominated both the sports page, the lifestyle page, and occasionally, even the front page. His every move on and off the course was micro-scanned and commented upon.

His was a Midas touch seldom seen in any genre.

First, he brought throngs kids stampeding to the game. Golf is not a game to which youngsters will ever flock on their own accord. Many come to the game through family and learn to love it through that avenue. But, Tiger made golf cool. His charisma had kids sending their parents to the sporting goods stores for junior sets of Nike (Tiger’s long time sponsor) clubs, golf balls, gloves, red shirts for Sunday play, and, of course a TW or swoosh laden hat. Those kids then followed Tiger onto the golf course. The influx of fresh faces made the game’s future seem as strong as Tiger’s short game.

The First Tee is a foundation that operates in all 50 states and several foreign countries. It provides leadership and support for kids playing golf. It was established in 1997, just as Woods was coming onto the scene. With Tiger as a spokesperson, First Tee programs were flooded with over nine million kids participating. The program is still vital today, but First Tee fairways are not as crowded these days. Other young, golfing stars like Ricky Fowler, who has all the traits (game, looks, style) to get kids to go gaga over him, are leading the advertising. But, kids don’t go gaga like they did for Woods. In the early 2000s every golf-related television program was supported by a First Tee ad. That is not so today. Much is the pity. The First Tee got inner city kids into real golf for free. It still does, but the numbers today pale. Kids are vital to the future of the game and without Tiger, the game’s Pied Piper, in the headlines, the rosy future is now a bunch of shades of gray.

Next is the fact that Tiger’s influence went far beyond kids. Adults all sported the hat and the Swoosh too. Other manufacturers got in on the payday by offering bright colors and stylish clothing to catch the golfers’ eyes. New and improved equipment was coming out of the golfing R&D departments at a frenzied pace. All in the name of “hitting it like Tiger.” Business boomed. Now that Tiger isn’t playing, any old driver will do.

There are still Tiger Woods columns that pop up nearly daily, but they are mostly wishful or mournful. They deal with his injuries, whether or not he will remarry, speculating about his future, and Ouija Board analysis about whether he will ever return as Sampson. Every media writer wants Woods back. He makes good copy whether he is behaving badly in Vegas or on the course knocking down flag sticks seeking yet another record.

The biggest money loser seems to be television. When Woods was winning he played in about 18 to 20 tournaments out of 45 offered each year. Advertisers courted those lucky 20 and millions of viewers spent weekend afternoons in front of the tube looking at green grass after their morning round was over and bets settled. When Woods was not in the field, the numbers were way, way down. Now that he is not playing at all, golf television’s yearly bottom line is in serious trouble. The Masters, one of the most prestigious tournaments, played on one of the most beautiful courses in the world–the tournament that eschewed most sponsors just because they could–was far off its own over-the-top, Woods-in-the-field viewing rates. Even if Tiger wasn’t winning, as long as he was playing people watched in droves. TV viewers may not have even known who was leading. It didn’t matter; the cameras were steadfast on The Man.

When Tiger Woods is playing well, he enriches himself. But, far beyond that, he enriches his sponsors, the media, the PGA, the other players, the PGA charities (of which there are many), and most importantly, the golf industry in general because when Tiger plays the days are sunny and everybody loves golf.

There have always been good, even great, players competing. Their names are historical and their skills envied. However, as mentioned in Part 1 of this column, there are few transformational figures. Arnold Palmer was the first god-like figure in golf’s over 500-year history. As skilled and as fine an example Jack Nicklaus was and remains today, he never made that kind of impact.

Then came Tiger. He dominated news–not just sports news–all news for nearly 20 years. He wasn’t just on the cover of golf magazines like Sports Illustrated and Golf Digest; he was on the cover of GQ, Vanity Fair, Vogue, People, Time, and Newsweek–most of them multiple times–over 100 in all.

If he doesn’t return to at least a near equal to his former stature, golf is likely in for some really tough times. Someone else will eventually come along who can end the drought and inspire the dreams of golfers, but that golfer, as talented and as sexy as many of them are, just doesn’t seem to be on the scene today.

In over 500 years there have been two saviors, Arnie and Tiger. And, if it takes as long as it did to get an Arnold Palmer in the game, hundreds of years, the game will be gone. If Mr. or Ms Golf Hero can come along in the next generation or two, as long as the game keeps its pulse, there is hope.

I’m rooting for Tiger to be the phoenix.

Why aren't young people playing more golf?

Golf: Anyone Can Play, But Fewer Aspire To

By: Terry Donnelly

Let's Talk Nevada Blog

January, 20015

“If most people held a knife and fork the way they hold a golf club, they’d starve.” That was Sam Snead, one of the best golfers during the 1940s and 50s commenting about amateur golfers,

Golf is a hard game and one that takes constant monitoring and tinkering to keep in top form. It is not overly physically demanding and therein lays both the draw and the pushback of the game.

When one is older, out of the business world, not particularly interested in spending leisure hours at the gym, and looking to spend time with friends; golf is appealing.

When one is a modern day youngster the allure of golf is contrary to almost every fiber in your body. If someone does not introduce kids to the game, they likely will not take it up on their own. The other avenue in which kids historically got started in golf was through the now mostly defunct caddy program. Powered golf carts have replaced kids hauling bags around the courses. Through the 1970s kids would go out to the local golf course and wait at the caddy shack for a bag to tote to earn money. The job gave them an up-close look at the game and caddy day, often Mondays, got them out on the links for free. Today caddies have all but disappeared from all but the professional game and the exclusive country clubs. And, those caddies are mostly grown men doing the job as a profession. The once prevalent Eisenhower-Evans college scholarship fund for caddies is still available, but much less used than previous years.

The bottom line is that unless a kid has a strong family tie to the game or just happens to wander onto a golf course, it is unlikely he or she will stick with the game.

Randy Tichner, director of golf at the Oasis Golf Cub in Mesquite, Nevada, states, “We get 60 or 70 kids every summer for our youth golf program, but they don’t come back. We only see about 10 return the next summer.”

Adam Schwartz, golf professional at the Oasis, says that the majority of his beginner lessons stem from recently retired people with newly gained freedom from the weekly work grind. The popularity of golf with the younger set seems to be at a pretty deep nadir these days.

Golf just seems too pastoral to appeal to the fast paced world of today’s youth. I’ve taken my grandkids out to play and learn. They love our time together going out to Denver, Colorado’s fine First Tee facility and revel in their few great shots, but they are not driven to pursue the game when I’m not there. Their bustling lives do not play into learning an intricate, subtle game that takes quiet, extended hours, additional time to travel to and from a facility, and little technology to master.

There has been extended talk of ways to jazz up golf, make it faster paced, more aerobic, and exciting. Some want to trim the rules (lifelong players often do not know all the rules of the game) and make golf more freewheeling like an individually staged game of polo, sans horses. Suggestions for making the game easier by playing shorter distances and with a bigger target (hole) are on the table. Even the possibility of redesigning currently troubled courses and eschewing clubs so that the game can be played by maneuvering a soccer-like ball around the course and into a sewer-like hole have been kicked around. With a tradition-laden game like golf, the fundamentalists just cringe.  The game has been basically the same since Mary, Queen of Scots, played in the early 1500s. Sweeping changes are not likely.

The problem isn’t just one of popularity. Like most other enterprises, economics is a huge factor. First, demand has abated and the number of courses built to try to meet a seemingly endless demand that was flourishing as little as 15 years ago, are struggling. Courses were built like crazy over the last 40 years–some 2,000 in the United States. The economic reality is the same as any other business; when availability overtakes demand the industry suffers. We are at that point. An industry seen as failing does not exhibit the vitality needed to draw greater crowds.

Another reason for fewer rounds each year is an extension of that same economic supply and demand theory–the pool of possible participants has shrunk. Golf has traditionally been a Country Club game, thought to be best fitted to the wealthy population. In good times, the middle class can get on board and afford the time and money to play. Today, there is still a sizeable cache of rich people and they still play golf. The professional golf tour is on solid ground with advertising and production aimed at those upper crust customers.

The problem is that they tend to be the older population who has always played. Today, no new golfers are coming out of the middle class, mainly because there isn’t much of a middle class left. I am a product of that golfing reality. I am a thoroughly middle class citizen who learned to play at age eight with the assistance of my middle class father during the 1950s, the economic heyday of said American middle class. A twenty-first century fact is that middle economic families have been all but eliminated by the huge income and wealth gap we are experiencing in our society. We all know about the upper one percent and the amount of wealth they own and that the upper 10% own 80% of financial wealth compared with the working poor and their struggle for basic needs. The lower end of the wealth scale is larger than ever and those folks have neither the time nor the resources to play golf–they never have.

With a much smaller, poorer middle class and the stagnant number of rich, newcomers to golf, especially the young, have become a rare breed. If there is no resurgence of youth into the game, the industry will surely continue to falter and ultimately become out of touch with mainstream leisure activities. This is not good news to communities, like Mesquite, that have hitched a large chunk of their prosperity wagon to the royal and ancient game.

Brown v. Board of Education Turns 60–So What?

Brown v. Board of Education Set the Stage

By: Terry Donnelly

May 26, 2014

On May 17 the landmark Supreme Court decision, Oliver Brown v. Topeka, Kansas Board of Education, celebrated its 60^th birthday. The case overturned a portion of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that allowed the creation of the segregated cast system practiced in the old Confederacy of ‘separate but equal’. The Plessy decision stated that blacks could be segregated from whites if the provided services were of equal value. From this, most of the Jim Crow segregation laws were validated. In fact, there was nothing close to separate but equal facilities from drinking fountains to hospital waiting rooms across the South.

Brown v. Board of Education overturned the section of Plessy v. Ferguson dealing with public education. In 1954 under the hand of Thurgood Marshall arguing for Oliver Brown and his daughter, the court decided that separate but equal did not apply to public schools. Brown’s daughter was to be admitted to her local school and not have to travel a distance from her home to attend an all black school.

Well done–except for the fact that the law languished for almost 20 years with only a smattering of instances in which the case was invoked. In 1957 after waiting three years for, what the state called ‘gradual’ school integration; nine well-qualified black students were registered into the all white Little Rock, Arkansas Central High School. Governor Orval Faubus tried to keep them from attending. He managed to pit local law enforcement, trying to keep the nine students out, against National Guardsmen sent by President Dwight Eisenhower to get them in. The students were finally admitted.  

In 1962, James Meredith was the first black student to enroll in the University of Mississippi. Meredith was well qualified, as he had successfully been studying at Jackson State University for two years after a stint in the United States Air Force. Not surprisingly, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett tried to keep him from matriculating. Again, it took federal intervention from President John Kennedy for Meredith to be allowed to exercise his constitutional rights.

Governor George Wallace of Alabama stood in the schoolhouse door in 1963 and delivered his “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” speech trying to keep two black students out of the University of Alabama. Wallace failed.

These three instances got national attention, but the 1954 ruling was still waiting for general enforcement. School districts just didn’t know how to apply the law on a wide spectrum. If individual blacks wanted to go to a local school, mostly, they were allowed. But, there was nothing like equal education for the masses of black students attending separate public schools. The reason was that there was little integration of local housing. White kids lived in white neighborhoods and went to the local school. Blacks did the same. The problem was black schools did not get the resources necessary to be quality schools. Pre-Brown v. Board of Education separate and unequal customs still existed.

In the early 1970s states started putting pressure on their school districts to start enforcing Brown. Districts began experimenting with forced bussing of kids away from their local schools into sometimes far away schools so that the numbers of black and white students in classes better matched the ratio in the particular school district. There were all sorts of programs proposed to integrate schools, but none of them were satisfying anyone–black or white. The kids wanted to stay close to home, go to school in the neighborhood, play on the sports teams, and be a part of the social atmosphere of a school. This was not possible if students were bussed away from their local school and often had to get right on a bus after school and ride for perhaps an hour back home. One plan even had teachers teaching first and last periods on the bus as the black students commuted to a formerly all white school for the middle part of the school day–six classes a day, two on the bus, four in the school building. Not a chance of ever working.

The rule of thumb for forced bussing was that black kids rode busses and white kids ‘welcomed’ them into their schools.

No educator wanted to see kids leave their local school. Having a local school is part of what makes public education work. The problem was, and is, housing patterns. Until neighborhoods are totally integrated, the problem of segregated schools will persist.

The other solution is to equally fund and staff every local public school. Schools get equal state funding, but more affluent communities build bigger and better buildings and supplement funding to make their school the best possible. Good for them, but the problem still exists–poor black neighborhoods still do not get an equal education to more affluent areas of school districts. Today, the division is not just black and white. As is the plight of most big cities, the inner city–black, brown, white–lags behind affluent areas.

We cannot allow a large portion of our children to be undereducated. The problems of poverty, education, housing, to name a few, can only be solved with a quality education of every student. Brown v. Board of Education called attention to the problems and provided a legal resource for providing an equal education to all American students. But, a legal ruling isn’t enough.

Bussing was not the answer. It wasn’t even a noble experiment. It was a failed political answer to a problem that needs a more universal solution. We all have to believe that education is the silver bullet out of poverty and every student deserves the very best chance to achieve his or her potential if America is to achieve its potential. The highly successful schools can point to themselves as models, but until we all believe every kid deserves an academy-like education, and look beyond our own parochial needs and decide to support every kid in every school, education will remain a reason for the great American social and economic divides.

Note: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 voided the rest of the ‘separate but equal’ provisions of Plessy v. Ferguson.

Cliven Bundy reveals his racist beliefs–Niger Innis, where are you?

A Strong Foundation for Racism.

By: Terry Donnelly

April 25, 2014

Writing an opinion column can be hard work. Fortunately, every now and then, someone or some activity makes the job a lot easier. Thursday was one of those days.

Liberals have been beating our collective heads against a wall trying to expose Cliven Bundy, the Bunkerville rancher, for what he is; a common criminal who has stolen from the people of the United States for over 20 years. His worldviews are extreme, but not unprecedented. He claims no foundation for the United States federal government and eschews any laws or authority the feds may try to enforce. He does, however, prance around on a horse carrying an American flag–go figure.

The authority he does cite is that of the county sheriff. Where did he get that idea? He got it directly out of the origins of the segregated, racist Jim Crow South.

After the Civil War, during Reconstruction, Northern military troops occupied the Confederate states to be sure the freedoms granted to the slaves were put into action. For some ten years after the war, black citizens freely voted and many held public office. In 1876 the southern states petitioned to have the occupying troops removed and that they be given their autonomy back. Part of that request stated that the county sheriff was the ultimate authority, and the one officer who could enforce laws–sound familiar?

The North pulled out of southern occupation and within months state and local governments began enacting what would become 90 years of escalating Jim Crow laws that sent black freedoms and equality back to the times of slavery. The vote was taken away as was any hope of holding public office, along with any semblance of integration. 1876 was the start of blacks being banned from theaters, libraries, public parks, and schools. African-Americans were assigned separate drinking fountains, inferior public restrooms, and waiting rooms in hospitals, and even forced to ride at the back of busses to cement the illusion of black inferiority into the Jim Crow South.

The beginning of all this segregation began with the idea that the county sheriff was the ultimate authority of the land.

Cliven Bundy still believes that is true. He has made it clear that he also believes that black citizens would be better off still being slaves. He contends that his thoughts are strictly in the African-American community’s best interest. But, like any bigot, his interest is completely self-serving.

Mr. Bundy is not alone with his strong, loathsome bigotry. There are many, many more who share his views. It is difficult to get many to express their dark secrets so clearly because to do so makes one toxic in the scope of public opinion. Public officials, who once supported Mr. Bundy and his cause of stealing from American citizens, are now running away, no longer wanting to be associated with a person and a cause built on such a vile foundation.

Gov. Sandoval, Sen. Heller, and even some of the Fox News personalities who championed Mr. Bundy as little as a week ago, have made their plea to the American public to forgive them.

We probably shouldn’t. The likelihood of Mr. Bundy being racist was well telegraphed all along and should have been expected by our leading officials. They ignored the warning signs and leapt in head first to show support, hoping for political hay from their base of voters. Those who supported Mr. Bundy aren’t very good politicians to miss the red flags and the voters should reconsider any support at the ballot box for such political hacks.

Also a part of this debacle is Niger Innis. Mr. Innis is running for Nevada’s Fourth Congressional seat, now held by Steven Horsford. Unseating Rep. Horsford will be difficult, as he has done a pretty good job over the last two years. But, one of Mr. Innis’s slams on Rep. Horsford is that he took the easy way out and did not state categorically that Rep. Darrell Issa was not being racist when confronting Rep. Elijah Cummings in a committee meeting a month ago.

Niger Innis stated categorically that Rep. Issa was not being racist and that Rep. Horsford’s refusal to state the same was a disqualifying, and reprehensible act.

Mr. Innis is right. Rep. Issa’s act of cutting off Rep. Cummings and not allowing him to speak was rude and an indication that Mr. Issa is not ready for congressional leadership, but not overt evidence of being racist. Rep. Horsford should have said so. That doesn’t let Rep. Issa off the hook. He may still be a racist, we just don’t know, and only Mr. Issa can tell us whether he is or not.

Mr. Issa won’t do that, but Mr. Bundy did.

Missing from this messy flurry of activity is Niger Innis.  Mr. Innis supported Mr. Bundy in his recent efforts, but has been absent from the conversation since it turned blatantly racist. Like Mr. Innis challenging Mr. Horsford to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a simple question. I now pose the question to Mr. Innis.

Yes or no, Mr. Innis. Is Cliven Bundy racist? 

Celebrate Black History Month: Repost from Mesquite Citizen Journal, Feb. 17, 2014

Grieving Part of Black History Month Celebration

By: Terry Donnelly

The problem with writing about Black History is that it doesn’t make for pleasant reading. February is the month chosen to celebrate Black History, and there is a lot to fete, but the American portion of African-Americans in history remains pretty dismal.

The theme that holds the story together over nearly 400 years is murder.

During the early 17^th century the first black captives were brought to American ports and sold into slavery. For 250 years blacks were owned by white landowners and treated as chattel–chattel that could be legally destroyed on any whim.

After the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, freed slaves were citizens and their continued slaughter had to become more creative.

In 1937 Abel Meeropol, a New York high school teacher, wrote a poem titled “Strange Fruit”. He added music and Billie Holiday famously began singing the mournful song in 1939. The strange fruit in the song was recognition of the hundreds of black men lynched and left hanging in trees along the roadsides in the Confederate South.

There was no abatement of black homicide in the former slave owning states, and to make matters worse, the grievous acts were not publicized, investigated, or punished.

Starting in 1955 the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement first addressed the publicity problem when Chicago teenager Emmett Till was murdered in Money, Mississippi for whistling at a white woman. His mother made the call to display his grotesquely beaten body for all to see. Photos that ran in the northern newspapers started to draw attention to what was still common activity in the South. The murdering brothers were well known, but never stood trial.

Dr. Martin Luther King and his contemporaries learned quickly that newspaper and even better, television coverage would bring awareness to their plight and plea for equal rights. In 1964 the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, one of several alphabet named groups organized to protest for voting rights and call for the repeal of Jim Crow laws, spawned a program in which northern college students could come to Mississippi for a Freedom Summer to help advocate for voter registration, equal treatment, and education. On the heels of the mainly white student volunteers came the press to report on the activity.

No sooner had the volunteers arrived than three of the members, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Mickey Schwerner were murdered on June 21. The boys had been investigating a church burning and were arrested for speeding on their way back to the base camp. They were released from jail late at night and were immediately kidnapped by Ku Klux Klan members. All three were shot dead. Andy Goodman had only been in Mississippi for 24 hours.

Without police assistance, volunteers began a search for the missing boys, hoping to find them alive. The search took six weeks. As the summer program was ending, President Johnson sent in some 250 FBI agents with cash in their pockets to bribe locals to assist in finding the boys' bodies. They did so on August 4^th. The three, two white New Yorkers, and a black local, were murdered because they were working for civil rights.

This story is bad enough, but the story that filled the six weeks the manhunt was conducted is even more astonishing. As many people began turning over rocks and looking in ponds for the missing boys they began to find other bodies. A decomposing carcass would be found and determined not to be one of the boys. There was general relief to think the three may still be alive. Not just one body, but body after body of black men were found. The count was mounting. Each negative ID was met with relief that it was not one of the boys until the searchers realized they were finding dozens of tortured and murdered citizens who had never been found, and there was no one being held responsible for any of them.

Seven men, including one sheriff’s deputy, were convicted in federal court on an obscure federal law in the case of the three Freedom Workers. The lesson was learned that if tried for murder in local courts the men would not have been convicted. Jail time is jail time.

Fast-forward to the 21^st century and we find that little has changed. In 2012 George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin because the armed Zimmerman claimed he felt threatened by the unarmed teenager. In fact, Martin was found in a non-black community. His presence was unwanted and punishable by death. A judge and jury agreed that Zimmerman had done nothing illegal when he fired his gun into the chest of the boy who had gone for a walk.

Ending this week is the first trial of Michael Dunn. Dunn, who is 47 and white, is claiming he too felt threatened in 2012 by a group of black teenagers in a car playing loud music. Dunn didn’t like the music, let his feelings be known, and an argument ensued. 17-year-old Jordan Davis challenged Dunn with nothing more than words. Dunn opened fire into the car killing Davis.

Davis’ only crime was having a big mouth. His punishment was execution.

Dunn claimed he saw a gun, but none was found. Saying he saw a gun and claiming he felt threatened even though no one got out of either car, is the ticket to freedom provided by Stand Your Ground laws in 23 states.  Thankfully, because Dunn fired several rounds into the SUV, he will serve time on three counts of attempted second-degree murder and one of firing into an occupied car. But, the murder charge resulted in a hung jury. Florida will try again, but there is little to suggest another jury hearing similar testimony will find making a decision about a white man killing a black man any easier than the first one. Dunn isn’t going to jail for murder, but, jail time is jail time.

Black history month offeers a lot to celebrate. My brethren of color have proudly overcome much and are rightfully putting more and more accomplishments and people to celebrate on the resume. This was a hard column to write, but we must understand the wicked in the world to better enjoy celebrations of the good.

Read more about the Civil Rights movement in Terry Donnelly’s historical novel, First You Hear Thunder.  Contact Terry through the MCJ or go to Amazon or Barnes and Nobel online for a copy.