Most of the time I'll blog on politics and religion...maybe some academic stuff from time to time
The fallout of the grand announcement by Black Entertainment Television (BET) that it was bringing the on-line website “Hot Ghetto Mess” to television is warranted. I wrote about this website a couple years ago in a commentary about how Blacks were being re-stigmatized in American society. BET’s decision to bring this to a greater media venue is atrocious. Obviously, the change in management of Debra Lee and Reginald Hudlin hasn’t changed BET’s Bob Johnson mentality of denigrating Blacks at any expense - as long as it makes them (BET) money. The term “being ghetto” has become synonymous with “being Black.” If someone says “someone or something is ghetto,” something or someone associated with African Americans (or their community) immediately comes to mind. Now, if they say trailer trash…somebody else might come to mind, but ghetto has become exclusively ours. So, why would anyone in our community want to promote the lowest, most denigrating images of the African American community? BET, trying to calm the firestorm, decided to change the name of the show from “Hot Ghetto Mess” to “We Got To Do Better,” but the concept and the content will remain the same. How can we do better, if negative images of black people are constantly being exploited by our own? Then, there is BET, who never misses an opportunity to profit from our misery. My problem with BET is that it has never understood the social responsibility that comes with being a media giant, and the cultural responsibility to black people - to reflect them in their best light, not their worst light. Bob Johnson, who is still BET Chairman, rebutted the outcry over Hot Ghetto Mess as the public holding BET to a different standard. Johnson stated that if Jerry Springer and Maury Povich can do it, why can’t BET? How ignorant art thou? Let me count the ways; first, Jerry Springer and Maury aren’t black and while they reflect all people of uncouth and degenerate ways, it’s the only way either of them can draw an audience. That’s not true with BET. BET doesn’t have to do this. Secondly, this type of Sambo, Amos N’ Andy programming takes black people back 100 years, as others who already see Blacks as “less than” or “less deserving than,” use these images as rationalizations of how we should be exploited or excluded. Promoting and exploiting the lack of sophistication and lack of social graces among the black population, only stigmatizes the whole population.The “ghetto-rization” of Black America is the bad apple that can rot the whole bunch, as whites and other don’t differentiate. Third, BET should be held to a different standard. BET has been given a pass for twenty-five years. Twenty-five years of booty-shakin’, thug thumpin’ videos that have two generations of black youth thinking it is okay to “drop it like it’s hot” or to “kill a n**a,” because it was all they saw from sun up to sun down and all through the night.
24/7 of degradation of black people made Bob Johnson a billionaire. Maybe he did it in the beginning because he had to in order to stay on the air (as distasteful as it is to admit), BET doesn’t have to continue to degrade black people as the staple of its programming. TV One has proven, with its Roots series, and other syndicated programming, that you can educate, entertain and enforce the positive, and stay on the air. Everybody I know was watching Roots, proud that it was back on television. The interest was as high as it was 30 years ago. That’s something, for black people’s desire to see something constructive and positive - even with the hurtful history; it showed how we came up as a people. The day of Sambo programming is over. Just because it’s funny, doesn’t mean it’s healthy for Black’s social dignity. Most of it is downright “not funny” and is outright shameful. Damn, BET. Haven’t you done enough damage? Stepin’ Fetchin’ was funny to white people, and he got rich - and black people laughed along, but the imagery took at least five decades to overcome. White people still think all black people are shiftless and lazy. Amos N Andy was funny to some people, but the imagery wasn’t one of which black people were particularly proud because we recognized for the first time, as a race, that white people were laughing at us - not with us. Kenan Wayans, with his unflattering portrayals of black celebrities in his series In Living Color; Dave Chappell, in his ghetto-rized portrayals of black people in the Dave Chappell Show, even Eddie Murphy’s unflattering portrayals of full-sized black women in his last movie, Norbit (that many think cost him the Oscar in Dreamgirls), are just the most recent examples that everything that makes money ain’t funny. People may be laughing, but every chuckle may not have anything to do with humor. People are sitting on couches, chairs, or in movie theaters saying, “See, that’s how black people are. That’s why you can’t trust them to _______,” and you can fill in that blank with any number of false rationalizations. When will we (African Americans) come to a time when we want our social image to say something other than criminal, fool, buffoon, prostitute or thug. Just because we were once social outcasts, do we have to remain social outcasts? This is one thing we can’t blame totally on “the white man.” This is “us” doing this to “us.” We can do better. We must do better. "We got to do better," BET!!!
In terms of trying to correct our social imagery, it’s BET that always seems to let us down - chasing the dollar and making us holler over what we see in their programming. Black Entertainment Television is the real hot ghetto mess. Somebody needs to fix that. BlackCommentator.com Columnist Dr. Anthony Asadullah Samad is a national columnist, managing director of the Urban Issues Forum and author of the upcoming book, Saving The Race: Empowerment Through Wisdom. His Website is AnthonySamad.com. Click here to contact Dr. Samad. |
By Joy Jones
Sunday, March 26, 2006; B01
I grew up in a time when two-parent families were still the norm, in both black and white America. Then, as an adult, I saw divorce become more commonplace, then almost a rite of passage. Today it would appear that many -- particularly in the black community -- have dispensed with marriage altogether.
But as a black woman, I have witnessed the outrage of girlfriends when the ex failed to show up for his weekend with the kids, and I've seen the disappointment of children who missed having a dad around. Having enjoyed a close relationship with my own father, I made a conscious decision that I wanted a husband, not a live-in boyfriend and not a "baby's daddy," when it came my time to mate and marry.
My time never came.
For years, I wondered why not. And then some 12-year-olds enlightened me.
"Marriage is for white people."
That's what one of my students told me some years back when I taught a career exploration class for sixth-graders at an elementary school in Southeast Washington. I was pleasantly surprised when the boys in the class stated that being a good father was a very important goal to them, more meaningful than making money or having a fancy title.
"That's wonderful!" I told my class. "I think I'll invite some couples in to talk about being married and rearing children."
"Oh, no," objected one student. "We're not interested in the part about marriage. Only about how to be good fathers."
And that's when the other boy chimed in, speaking as if the words left a nasty taste in his mouth: "Marriage is for white people."
He's right. At least statistically. The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States. In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43.3 percent of black men and 41.9 percent of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27.4 percent and 20.7 percent respectively for whites. African American women are the least likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17 percent; but for blacks, it fell by 34 percent. Such statistics have caused Howard University relationship therapist Audrey Chapman to point out that African Americans are the most uncoupled people in the country.
How have we gotten here? What has shifted in African American customs, in our community, in our consciousness, that has made marriage seem unnecessary or unattainable?
Although slavery was an atrocious social system, men and women back then nonetheless often succeeded in establishing working families. In his account of slave life and culture, "Roll, Jordan, Roll," historian Eugene D. Genovese wrote: "A slave in Georgia prevailed on his master to sell him to Jamaica so that he could find his wife, despite warnings that his chances of finding her on so large an island were remote. . . . Another slave in Virginia chopped his left hand off with a hatchet to prevent being sold away from his son." I was stunned to learn that a black child was more likely to grow up living with both parents during slavery days than he or she is today, according to sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin.
Traditional notions of family, especially the extended family network, endure. But working mothers, unmarried couples living together, out-of-wedlock births, birth control, divorce and remarriage have transformed the social landscape. And no one seems to feel this more than African American women. One told me that with today's changing mores, it's hard to know "what normal looks like" when it comes to courtship, marriage and parenthood. Sex, love and childbearing have become a la carte choices rather than a package deal that comes with marriage. Moreover, in an era of brothers on the "down low," the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the decline of the stable blue-collar jobs that black men used to hold, linking one's fate to a man makes marriage a risky business for a black woman.
"A woman who takes that step is bold and brave," one young single mother told me. "Women don't want to marry because they don't want to lose their freedom."
Among African Americans, the desire for marriage seems to have a different trajectory for women and men. My observation is that black women in their twenties and early thirties want to marry and commit at a time when black men their age are more likely to enjoy playing the field. As the woman realizes that a good marriage may not be as possible or sustainable as she would like, her focus turns to having a baby, or possibly improving her job status, perhaps by returning to school or investing more energy in her career.
As men mature, and begin to recognize the benefits of having a roost and roots (and to feel the consequences of their risky bachelor behavior), they are more willing to marry and settle down. By this time, however, many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage to a man who doesn't bring much to the table. Indeed, he may bring too much to the table: children and their mothers from previous relationships, limited earning power, and the fallout from years of drug use, poor health care, sexual promiscuity. In other words, for the circumspect black woman, marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment.
In the past, marriage was primarily just such a business deal. Among wealthy families, it solidified political alliances or expanded land holdings. For poorer people, it was a means of managing the farm or operating a household. Today, people have become economically self-sufficient as individuals, no longer requiring a spouse for survival. African American women have always had a high rate of labor-force participation. "Why should well-salaried women marry?" asked black feminist and author Alice Dunbar-Nelson as early as 1895. But now instead of access only to low-paying jobs, we can earn a breadwinner's wage, which has changed what we want in a husband. "Women's expectations have changed dramatically while men's have not changed much at all," said one well-paid working wife and mother. "Women now say, 'Providing is not enough. I need more partnership.' "
The turning point in my own thinking about marriage came when a longtime friend proposed about five years ago. He and I had attended college together, dated briefly, then kept in touch through the years. We built a solid friendship, which I believe is a good foundation for a successful marriage.
But -- if we had married, I would have had to relocate to the Midwest. Been there, done that, didn't like it. I would have had to become a stepmother and, although I felt an easy camaraderie with his son, stepmotherhood is usually a bumpy ride. I wanted a house and couldn't afford one alone. But I knew that if I was willing to make some changes, I eventually could.
As I reviewed the situation, I realized that all the things I expected marriage to confer -- male companionship, close family ties, a house -- I already had, or were within reach, and with exponentially less drama. I can do bad by myself, I used to say as I exited a relationship. But the truth is, I can do pretty good by myself, too.
Most single black women over the age of 30 whom I know would not mind getting married, but acknowledge that the kind of man and the quality of marriage they would like to have may not be likely, and they are not desperate enough to simply accept any situation just to have a man. A number of my married friends complain that taking care of their husbands feels like having an additional child to raise. Then there's the fact that marriage apparently can be hazardous to the health of black women. A recent study by the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank in New York City, indicates that married African American women are less healthy than their single sisters.
By design or by default, black women cultivate those skills that allow them to maintain themselves (or sometimes even to prosper) without a mate.
"If Jesus Christ bought me an engagement ring, I wouldn't take it," a separated thirty-something friend told me. "I'd tell Jesus we could date, but we couldn't marry."
And here's the new twist. African American women aren't the only ones deciding that they can make do alone. Often what happens in black America is a sign of what the rest of America can eventually expect. In his 2003 book, "Mismatch: The Growing Gulf between Women and Men," Andrew Hacker noted that the structure of white families is evolving in the direction of that of black families of the 1960s. In 1960, 67 percent of black families were headed by a husband and wife, compared to 90.9 percent for whites. By 2000, the figure for white families had dropped to 79.8 percent. Births to unwed white mothers were 22.5 percent in 2001, compared to 2.3 percent in 1960. So my student who thought marriage is for white people may have to rethink that in the future.
Still, does this mean that marriage is going the way of the phonograph and the typewriter ribbon?
"I hope it isn't," said one friend who's been married for seven years. "The divorce rate is 50 percent, but people remarry. People want to be married. I don't think it's going out of style."
A black male acquaintance had a different prediction. "I don't believe marriage is going to be extinct, but I think you'll see fewer people married," he said. "It's a bad thing. I believe it takes the traditional family -- a man and a woman -- to raise kids." He has worked with troubled adolescents, and has observed that "the girls who are in the most trouble and who are abused the most -- the father is absent. And the same is true for the boys, too." He believes that his presence and example in the home is why both his sons decided to marry when their girlfriends became pregnant.
But human nature being what it is, if marriage is to flourish -- in black or white America -- it will have to offer an individual woman something more than a business alliance, a panacea for what ails the community, or an incubator for rearing children. As one woman said, "If it weren't for the intangibles, the allure of the lovey-dovey stuff, I wouldn't have gotten married. The benefits of marriage are his character and his caring. If not for that, why bother?"
Joy Jones, a Washington writer, is the author of "Between Black Women: Listening With the Third Ear" (African American Images).
Morehouse College alum and theologian Dr. Robert Michael Franklin Jr. has become the 10th president of Morehouse.
He replaces Dr. Walter E. Massey, Morehouse class of 1958, who will retire June 30.
Franklin currently serves as presidential distinguished professor of social ethics at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. He also is a senior fellow in the Center for Interdisciplinary Study of Religion in the School of Law.
"At a time of social crisis in African-American communities and throughout the nation, the educational mission of Morehouse is more urgent than ever before," Franklin said. "I am both humbled and energized by the boards' invitation to serve the college that has produced extraordinary change agents and thought leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Maynard Jackson, Julian Bond and Spike Lee."
A 1975 Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Morehouse with a degree in political science and religion, Franklin earned a Masters of Divinity in Christian Social Ethics, Pastoral Care from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Ethics and Society, Religion and the Social Sciences from the University of Chicago Divinity School.
Going beyond Camron: Snitching is Big Business
Also we didn't hear about the No Snitching ethos that seems to be practiced by our very secretive Vice President Dick Cheney and Presidential aid Karl Rove. We can talk about the lack of snitching around important issues like the War in Iraq, the firing of Federal Judges. Hell let's look at 9-11. Also we shouldn't forget how Cheney went into Stop Snitching mode after he shot his homeboy in the face. The Cheney bunch are the epitome of 'Stop Snitching' . They hold that position much harder then Cam'ron or any other rapper. And yeah try getting too deep into some of these guy's illegal business and you might wind up missing like anyone else. 
Listen to the interview on Hard Knock Radio on this stream here..We will have the Breakdown FM podcast download later on today..
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=19554
(Interview starts 7:25 minutes into stream)
Be Warned Snitching Is Big Business
by Davey D
This past Sunday night Harlem based rap star Cam'ron appeared on the news investigative show 60 Minutes to talk about the 'Stop Snitching' ethos that exists throughout inner city communities. He definitely came off looking bad as he allowed reporter Anderson Cooper to ask him a number of set up questions including; whether or not Killa Cam was a millionaire and whether or not he drove a Lamborghini.
A smirking Cam admitted 'yes' to both questions. He then went on to admitting how he would not turn in a serial killer even if he lived next door. Cam said he would move but not turn the killer in. Armed with this information and a few excerpts about Busta Rhymes' refusal to cooperate with police in the aftermath of allegedly witnessing his good friend and bodyguard Isreal Ramirez being killed earlier this year, Hip Hop came off looking pretty bad. Absent from this interview with Cam was a historical or political analysis behind the 'Stop Snitching' ethos.
We didn't get a run down about how informants/ snitches in the form of 'house niggas' were the ones who doomed numerous slave revolts including the one lead by Nat Turner. We didn't hear about government programs like Cointel-pro where Civil Rights and Black liberation fighters and organizations ranging from Martin Luther King to Malcolm X and from the Black Panthers on down to SNCC (Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee) were brought down and undermined thanks to snitches (government informants).
Cooper and the 60 Minutes crew interviewed NY Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and somehow forgot to ask him about the 'No Snitching' ethos that exists within the police department. We didn't hear about the infamous Blue Wall of silence. Nor did we hear about the unsavory practices used by police to get confessions and flip informants. Torture, Blackmail and other manipulations are commonplace. We didn't hear how oftentimes its the police themselves who will snitch on snitches. As we learned in the Atlanta conference that far too often its the police who will dime you out when you try to do the right thing and be a witness to a dangerous criminal. The other irony is that often times its those dangerous criminals who will dime out their crew after the police apply illegal tactics.
During the 60 Minutes interview we heard conversation about how big corporations profit off of rappers like Cam rapping about people to 'Stop Snitching'. They mention his Cam's record label Asylum but they never named the executives. They never mentioned the label being founded by David Geffen who is Presidential candidate Barack Obama's biggest supporter. Nor did they mention it currently being headed by former Def Jam CEO and now Warner Music Group head Lyor Cohen.
The relevance here is that anyone who works in the music industry knows there's a serious 'No Snitching' policy especially when it comes to talking about how records get on the air. Yes we all know about payola but few of us know who the key players are and how they interact with the music industry. Just as some of those details were about to come out, we saw these big corporations settle. Hence when we have rappers talking about Stop Snitching it's important to know the entire backdrop. When Killa Cam gets on TV and talks about he's a millionaire who drives a couple of Lamborghinis, its important to know he's in the company and may have even gotten encouragement from some very powerful men who are 'Stop Snitching' practitioners that write him million dollar checks and probably drive Lamorghinis themselves.
The difference between them and Cam is that they refused to show up on 60 Minutes and offer comment. They probably consider it snitching to go on national TV and even admit to the practice. Maybe they should've given Cam the memo.
The other glaring manipulation was when Cooper and 60 Minutes talked about Lil Kim having a reality Show after she was convicted of perjury. She got praised for 'not snitching'. The Lil Kim show nettted BET one of its highest ratings in history.
Like Cam talk of Lil Kim's show was done in such a way as to make Hip Hop look not only bad but also as the sole culprit of this practice. Cooper and 60 Minutes castigated BET (Black Entertainment Television) for putting on the show but somehow stop short of mentioning Viacom as being the parent company or Sumner Redstone being its head. They made it sound like BET was all by itself, when in fact it was part of bigger machine that not only profited handsomely from the Lil Kim Reality show, but from what I was told had people outside of BET helping make this show popular.
Lastly Cooper and 60 Minutes didn't talk about how snitching via government informants is a multi-billion dollar a year UNREGULATED industry for law enforcement. Lots of money and resources are spent keeping 'snitches' on payroll. We also didn't hear about the fact that within the African American community an estimated 1 out 12 people are used as police informants (snitches). Hence this argument about the police not having people willing to come forward is a bit misleading.
In this interview, we sat down with KC Carter who heads up Hip Hop Against Police Violence out in East Texas. We met up at a 'Stop Snitching' Conference in Atlanta last month that was put on by the ACLU. We had in attendance more than 100 people which included Hip Hop artists, professors, lawyers and police officers. We had victims of aggressive police and FBI stings which were set up by questionable informants. In this interview we spoke about was the high percentage of people who are routinely railroaded through the courts via snitches and the types of illegal tactics used to get confessions.
We also talked about how informants are used to indict large numbers of people in small out of the way towns with law enforcement using these arrests as a way to obtain funding by showing high conviction and arrest rates.
We also talked about how certain groups and individuals who are willing to speak out against the police or powerful people may find themselves victim to snitching tactics. KC Carter gives a run down of how the Geto Boys and Rap-A-Lot Records found themselves under the gun, especially after it was discovered that the Geto Boys were spending hundreds of thousand of dollars to pay for legal resources to try and few people who they feel were railroaded into Texas jails. KC talked about how informants were flooded into the 5th Ward in an attempt to bring down J Prince of Rap-A-Lot records and that law enforcement went so far as to try and get Scarface to become a snitch.
Yes indeed Snitching is big business in more ways than you can possible know. Its just a shame that 60 Minutes got Cam'ron to talk about such a serious issue, cause from what they showed, he definitely didn't break it down the way he should've. Well don't fret 'cause we break the whole thing down in this eye opening interview on Hard Knock Radio
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=19554
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2007/03/talking-snitches-in-atlanta.html
by Alan Bean
As promised, here's a guest post from Rev. Alan Bean of Tulia Friends of Justice describing an invitation only gathering of activists in Atlanta, GA sponsored by the ACLU discussing snitching abuses by law enforcement. Pictured at right is forum participant Alexandra Natapoff, a law professor at Loyola (CA) who is perhaps my favorite legal thinker on the subject.
The ACLU's Drug Law Reform Project called their Atlanta roundtable event, "Undercover, Unreliable and Unaddressed: Reconsidering the Use of Informants in Drug Law Enforcement." The invitation-only gathering was a kind of testing-the-waters experiment bringing together a representative sample of academics, media people, grassroots organizers, Hip Hop artists, and people who have been personally violated by dishonest informants.
"Law is just one piece of the puzzle," Loyola law professor Alexandra Natapoff told us, "what needs to be changed is social tolerance for unfair practices."
This statement was reinforced by Anjuli Verma's insightful report on a series of focus groups conducted in Texas earlier this year by a high-profile research organization. If the broad cross section of people questioned in this small study is anything to go by (and I suspect it is) Mainstream America isn't too worried about the criminal justice system in general or the abuse of informant "snitch" testimony in particular. It is generally assumed that appropriate checks and balances are in play and that most "snitches" are small fish used to catch big fish.
None of this is true, of course. In the drug war, most informants are relatively big fish ratting on their small fish associates, girl friends and family members. Ed Burns, an ex-cop and school teacher who now produces HBO's inner city drama The Wire, remarked that "there are very strict rules about using informants and they are broken 99% of the time." Dr. Natapoff cited a report by the California ACLU suggesting that most police departments in the Golden State have no policies to violate.
My impressions of the Atlanta gathering were primarily shaped by a one-hour break out session in which ten Type-A Alpha males told each other what it was all about. While our soft spoken moderator, Graham Boyd, tried to steer us back to the informant issue, we insisted on talking about what I call "the prison problem".
Jack Cole, Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, laid out the familiar but shocking facts. Most Western democracies have incarceration rates in the 100-200 per 100,000 people range. In America , by contrast, 717 of every 100,000 white males are currently behind bars-and that's just the white guys. At the depths of Apartheid hell in South Africa , 851 black males were incarcerated. In America , 4,919 black males per 100,000 are currently behind bars.
The question was why?
Black participants wanted to talk about "white supremacy" and "white hegemony". Marc Lamont Hill, professor of Urban Education and American Studies at Temple University with a machine-gun, rat-a-tat speaking style, put it bluntly: "I don't want to assume that the law could be anything but malevolent [toward black defendants] given the influence of white supremacy. All the spaces that were open at one time are being controlled. In the hood, there are police officers on every single corner."
Jack Cole, a retired police officer, blamed it on drug prohibition: "We spend so much money on the war on drugs, we don't have any money to help people."
The Wire producer Ed Burns acknowledged the relevance of racism and the drug war but was inclined to blame mass incarceration on the loss of manufacturing jobs. "When the jobs disappear, the drugs come," he said. "We are doing all of this because there are no jobs."
In other words, the Atlanta gathering brought together bold, well-informed people with strong opinions. That's what it was designed to do, and the differences in perspective were as invigorating as they were enlightening. However, as the DLRP's focus groups and Bill Cosby's well-publicized rants suggest, there is a wide slice of black America (the people who have benefited the most from the Civil Rights Movement) who currently have no particular problem with the drug war, mandatory minimum sentences or the abuse of informant testimony. These people are concerned about the mass incarceration of black males, but there is a tendency to shrug and say, "You do the crime, you do the time."
If reformers want to change the minds and hearts of Middle America we need black reformers to frame and deliver the message to a black, middle class audience. If we can't convince Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey we don't have a prayer with the white mainstream.
As I suggested in my PowerPoint presentation, we need to discover and publicize an avalanche of Tulia-style criminal justice horror stories. The recent exoneration of Ann Colomb and her three sons after they had been convicted on the basis of perjured inmate informant testimony is a story still waiting to be told. Financing a massive and coordinated story-telling coalition (supposing we can find the resolve to work together) will require millions of dollars in funding-and that will mean converting a long list of high profile people to our reform gospel.
There was a widespread consensus at the Atlanta gathering that we need to change the national narrative-a daunting task, to be sure. As Ed Burns put it, "When you're going up against mythology you're swatting smoke. Where does the responsibility for changing all of this begin?"
And we are going up against mythology; in particular, the well-entrenched myth that efforts to help poor people create nothing but dependency and a false sense of entitlement. It is widely believed that locking up the poor, the drug addicted, the mentally ill and the ignorant will somehow teach them a lesson. And even if there is no deterrent effect, mainstream America believes that mass incarceration makes the streets safer.
As professor Natapoff suggests, the America mainstream tolerates unfair practices so long as they are believed to enhance public safety. Until we can change that impression we will get nowhere.
The Atlanta gathering probably raised more questions than it answered-but that was what it was designed to do. A follow-up gathering is needed-and soon. This time I would like to hear Alexandra Natapoff, Ed Burns and at least one black representative from the Civil Rights and Hip Hop generations lay out their visions for the way ahead in hour-long presentations followed by vigorous small group discussions. As Dr. Natapoff told us in Atlanta , "This is just the beginning of the debate."
- Alan Bean