A book report...

"Blood Done Sign My Name... A True Story"

By Dr. Timothy B. Tyson

This book is truly a must read for anyone wanting to understand modern race relations in the south. Dr. Tyson’s book is an autobiographical account of an incident in his home town that took place while he was a boy. Although it takes place in the early 1970’s in Oxford, North Carolina many of the issues raised are still with us today through out the United States. The plot is pretty simple. A black man, Henry Marrow is murdered by a white man named Robert Teel and his two sons. The whites are found innocent by an all white jury. The second part of the story is what happens in the community afterward. The black community exploded in riots but did not attack white directly. Instead, they attacked economically, destroying property and warehouses full of inventory. The events all takes place after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. In the book we hear the story told through many characters, Dr. Tyson, his father Reverend Tyson, community activist Ben Chavis, Mr. Marrow’s friends and family and Mr. Teel also tells his side. The book vividly illustrates racial tensions in the south at the time. We like to think we have progressed and in some ways we have. This is an extremely important book because many of the issues it brings up are still with us today. Let’s consider a few examples. One, there is still a caste system here in the south based on race. The structural violence that lead to the physical violence in Oxford all those years ago is still with us. Last, it can be argued the use of violence by the black community did help bring about positive change.

Oxford, North Carolina in 1970 is no different from many other towns and cities across the United States at the time. Almost all the power lied with the wealthy whites, some to the poorer whites and very little left over for blacks and other minorities. Mr. Teel owned a small convenient store in the “black” neighborhood. This is where the murder took place. Mr. Teel and his sons claimed Mr. Marrow said something disrespectful to one of the son’s wives. They beat and shot Henry Marrow and claimed self defense. Their lawyers managed to convince the white jury that Mr. Marrow posed a threat to Mr. Teel and his family. It was okay to do business with blacks in their own neighborhood but there was no way at the time there would be a black owned business in a white neighborhood. Everything about the existing power structure favored the Teels. The police were white and the legal system was controlled by whites. Many wealthy whites quietly donated money to help the Teels hire extremely good defense attorneys. There was very little mixing of the races. Whites for their part if they thought of blacks at all considered them to be “good niggers” meaning they knew their place with in the community. Blacks who wanted to stand up for themselves were thought of as trouble makers and radicals or worse. It is very interesting to see how this caste system played out in the churches.

Dr. Tyson’s father, Reverend Tyson, believed in equality but he has to be careful how he addresses his own church. Not everyone is ready for a message of equality. He has to walk a tight rope between his principals and some of those he is called upon to lead. Reverend Tyson followed his own beliefs despite the fact of losing some members. He openly supported equality for blacks and even invited black ministers to speak at his church. Some members left for more segregationist churches but many stayed. Reverend Tyson did not surrender his own values to try and please everyone. Black churches helped organize and support peaceful protests in the tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King. Both groups tried to bridge differences by setting up meetings directly between blacks and whites. Black and white churches are still a fact in American life today.

This notion of being separate on Sunday morning is still with us. Barack Obama belonged to a black church in the Chicago area. Recordings of Jeremiah Wright, a former Pastor, showed him making some inflammatory remarks about race in America. It was a black conjuration he was speaking to. When he said we should be damned, he spoke for many people who have suffered under the second class status blacks have had to live with for generations. What is more interesting, is for all of the talk of progress and equality in America today there are still black and white churches. Instead of condemning Mr. Wright for his remarks we should take a look in the mirror as a nation and address the reasons behind his statements. Outrage comes from somewhere. It would seem sharing a common religion, Christianity, would bring different people together. It has been used as such a vehicle for change in some cases but until root causes of structural violence are addressed little can really change.

Structural Violence in Blood Done Sign My Name leaps off almost every page. Dr. Tyson’s father has power and influence in the white community but not near enough to overturn or reduce Structural Violence. Rather, he is a victim of as well. He faces threats for inviting a black preacher to come speak at his church and speaking at black churches. One of the few ways out of a life of poverty for blacks is military service. Many had been drafted and fought in Vietnam only to wonder why they had to fight for a country that treated them in such a second class manner. They made use of their over seas experience as we will soon see. The housing conditions, education and economic opportunities for blacks were far less than their white neighbors. This extended to the justice system as well. Henry Marrow’s killers were acquitted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Mayor Currin was white along with all of the political and business elite. Anything left was for blacks; low paying mill jobs, domestic service work and laborers. Some of the black Vietnam Veterans thought the protests and breaking a few shop windows was not enough.

Violence is complicated. Many whites living in and around Oxford saw the black response to the murder of Henry Marrow as a unified response by the entire black community. It was anything but that. People like the Civil Rights activist Ben Chavis wanted non violent solutions. Some of the much younger generation expressed their outrage through rioting and setting fires with no set goal in mind. They saw no solution. Still others thought the only way to bring about any real change was via economic violence. This last category consisted of a group of black Vietnam Veterans who planned and carried out a series of attacks on warehouses and other businesses. Their view was simple. The only way to get any significant change was by attacking the dominant white power structure economically. They called it ringing the cash register. The whites negotiated wit Ben Chavis thinking he had some control or influence over those carrying out the violent acts. When in truth, he did not. According to Dr. Tyson the whites never even considered making changes until the rioting and buildings started going up in flames. Mayor Currin and other political elite's started to listen to blacks for the first time. The things they wanted were pretty straight forward. Obviously, equal protection under the law and the justice system were high on the list. More black employees in city government in positions of authority, not just patrol officers and laborers. At the time there was not one black police officer with higher rank than patrolman and not a single black fire fighter. Things slowly started to change. The city made an effort to be more inclusive. White owned businesses started to hire more black employees and the schools were integrated. It is hard to say all of this came about by acts of economic violence but the writer feels this was the biggest factor. Over time the violence lessoned and the community was able to move forward.

Reference

Blood Done Sign My Name By Timothy B. Tyson.

Three Rivers Press 2004

pyro

Who Are Terrorists?

To narrow the scope, we will look at terrorists here in the USA and in the Middle East in the last twenty years or so. To answer this seemingly basic question, it is important to look at myths about terrorists in popular culture. Generally, people think of terrorists being from poor backgrounds with little education and nothing to live for. Some may say things like they hate us for our freedom or success. Terrorists want to impose their own ideologies on the rest of us. They are all extremists in one way or another both religious and political. If you want to get an idea of the popular notions of a terrorist today all you have to do is listen to a speech by President Bush. One can also look at the portrayal of terrorists in the movies or TV shows. They are heartless bad guys with no concern for life and no room for ambiguity about their actions. Instead of understanding the threats we face, we simplify them in easy sound bite sized good versus evil phrases. Someone who becomes a terrorist is much more complicated than oversimplified notions about terrorism.

Terrorism is according to the dictionary “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” Contrary to popular belief, there are a wide range of factors that can drive someone to use terrorist tactics. The person has a strong belief in something and sees no other way of getting attention to it other than using terrorism. A very important fact to consider when looking those who use terror as a tactic is none consider themselves to be extremists. One does not have to belong to a group to be a terrorist. Two of the most well known American terrorists acted alone.

The case of Eric Rudolph is a compelling example of domestic terror. He was fund guilty of the 1996 Olympic Games and several abortion clinic bombings. Several people were killed and scores more injured. Mr. Rudolph has a high school diploma and even some college, so he is not uneducated. It is also interesting to note he had some military training making it into the 101st Airborne before being discharged for drug use. Going by his reasons given for his bombings, he knows a great deal about the issues that drive him. After reading some of his writings it is very clear he feels very strongly abortion is murder with no room for argument. What is less clear is where he got these feelings from. An ultra-right Conservative Christian upbringing may be a good starting point to determine where his views came from. Mr. Rudolph sees the US government as sanctioning murder if the form of legal abortion clinics. In his view there is no room for debate and he sees his actions as an effort to save lives. He also says those in government have forfeited their right to govern based on this practice. In his statement after his sentencing, he compares himself to the founding fathers of the United States of America breaking away from England fighting tyranny. Mr. Rudolph does not come across as many might imagine someone using terrorist tactics. In his own way he sees himself as someone trying to save lives and he says he designed his bombs in the clinic bombings to keep loss of life to a minimum. However, he sees those who died as one might see casualties in a war, nothing personal but something that had to be done. Not to in any way defend his actions but when reading his material he comes across rationally. The story of Timothy McVeigh is similar.

Timothy McVeigh was convicted of blowing up the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th, 1995. Like Eric Rudolph he also had a high school diploma and pretty extensive military training in the US Army. According to his own writing the bombing was carried out in response to the incident in Waco, Texas involving the Branch Davidians in which 74 people died. Mr. McVeigh became a drifter doing odd jobs and following the gun show circuit after an Honorable Discharge from the Army. He was present at Waco during the standoff and saw the events there as a government out of control. He says he gave non violence a chance to right the wrongs but when nothing happened to those in government he felt were responsible, he decided to take matters into his own hands. The attack on the Federal Building he saw in the same context as the US Military attacking infrastructure targets on other countries. He had no sense of remorse for the lives lost. In his view, he saw himself as preventing another Waco by attacking the place such an operation would be controlled from. He claims to have taken lessons right from US foreign policy right down to calling innocent victims collateral damage. Far from considering himself a terrorist or mass murderer, he thought of himself as fighting an oppressive government. Both Mr. Rudolph and Mr. McVeigh share some common characteristics with the most famous terrorist in the world, Osama bin Laden but come nowhere near his level of destruction.

Bin Laden is far more educated than Mr. Rudolph or Mr. McVeigh and comes from an extremely wealthy and privileged family. Bin Laden attended university but there is some question he obtained a degree in urban engineering . His real area of study is more religious than anything else. Getting western military forces and influence out of the Moslem world are his goals. Bin Laden has large financial resources and operates on a world wide stage. He is a leader who unlike the two Americans has not personally carried out act of terror but has helped in the funding, planning and execution of terrorist acts the world over. Still, he shares some important characteristics with Mr. Rudolph and Mr. McVeigh. First, one could argue the two Americans are fighting for religious reasons (less so in the case of McVeigh) and it is certainly the case for bin Laden. Second, none of the three have any remorse for lost lives caused by their acts. They view them like casualties in a war. Bin Laden has nothing but distain for non-Muslim lives lost and thinks Muslims who lose their lives as victims of terror will be rewarded in heaven. Third, in the views of these men there is no room for debate or compromise. It has to be their way and their way only. They are all three far beyond any hope of working out a peaceful solution or addressing their concerns in a non-violent way. Lastly, they have a common enemy, the US Government. All three blame the US Government for oppression, murder, and suppressing freedom of others.

Terrorists are not the simple black and while figures TV and popular culture make them out to be. Often, their concerns may have merit and when they view these concerns as not being addressed or getting worse, they see violence against others as a reasonable alternative. With the attention acts of terror bring, it is understandable why. No terrorist has ever said they hate us for our freedom or success. When our leaders say things like this it does nothing to address the very real problem of modern day terrorism. Terrorists seek publicity for their actions. Eric Rudolph and Timothy McViegh are now house hold names here in the US but the concerns they were trying to address are lost in cries of murders, extremists and terrorists. The same is true with Osama bin Laden. All do far more harm to their causes than good. Those against abortion who are sincere in their beliefs and want to work constructively to end or minimize the practice in a peaceful way may now find themselves lumped together with the likes of Eric Rudolph. After the Oklahoma City bombing nothing has been done to right the wrongs and mistakes committed by the US Government at Ruby Ridge and Waco. By his actions bin Laden has guaranteed a western military presence in the middle east that if anything will only grow. For it’s part the US Government has only made the problem worse by elevating terrorism to new heights on the world stage. The 19 men who flew planes into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and A Pennsylvania field perpetrated an act of mass murder not an act of war. By calling it an act of war we have now given a hand full of individuals the status of another country. We can never fully eliminate terrorism but we can reduce it by fighting conditions that lead to hopelessness, and total suppression of unpopular ideas and by reducing the attention given to terrorists.

Internet Sources

http://www.armyofgod.com/EricRudolphHomepage.html

http://independence.net/okc/mcveighletterfox.htm

Opting out of Christmas

I was able to opt out of Christmas and ohhh what a feeling! Due to on going concerns in the family, we had no time for the usual gift giving nonsense. It felt funny but it was also a huge relief. I just got to enjoy a little time off with the wife and seeing a few friends. A Christmas minus the presents reminded me of all I do have and that I need little. Christmas is what we make it. If you want all the high pressure shopping and drama, that's what you will get. I chose to step back and use a little time off work to breathe a little. I would be happy if I thought how ever many Christmases I have left could be this peaceful. There is another way.

We are bombarded with advertising this time of year. If I see another Wal-Mart commercial telling me to save money and live better, I may have myself committed. "Living better" and shopping at Wal-Mart do not belong in the same breath. I see it as a microcosm of everything that is wrong with US today. Outsourced jobs, poorly educated citizens, (or are we just consumers now), selling out to China and loss of of community are just a few things that come to mind. Also, cars with bows are loosening my grip on sanity! If I bought my wife a new car for Christmas, I'd be in the morgue. Surely, there is something better to spend money on than a new status symbol car! People are going with out heat, lights and enough food but you would never know it watching TV. The myth that all is well is all that matters.

I'm tired of Christmas being a leading economic indicator. Do more people shopping really mean we are back on the road to prosperity? We get mixed messages. Go buy stuff! Be charitable. What a disconnect. We are told of food drives, ways to give to the homeless and not so fortunate and children going cold but who asks why they are needed here in this country in the first place. I think I'm a good person and I think you are so why do we have a real need to help homelessness and other effects of poverty? Why do we let this go on? Most importantly, what can we do about it?

Next year, take a pass on the shopping frenzy and consider what and who are really important to you. I promise it will be a Christmas you will always remember!

Media attention...

Why is the far right getting so much media attention? How can anyone take seriously Glen Beck and friends going to Washington to try and co-op the Civil Rights Movement with a big crowd of angry and afraid white people? This is not to say they do not have some legitimate issues. The concerns of our government being out of control and unresponsive to citizens I think we can all agree are real problems. But why so much attention to "birthers", government take over of health care, FEMA camp fear mongers and they are coming to take my guns away nonsense?

It seems somebody or somebodies want us to slide even further to the right than Bush Chaney and company. Obama, fairly or not, is being portrayed as weak and ineffectual despite having got some things done. We are also developing an unhealthy reverence for all things military. This is not adding up to a bright and sunny future. It looks like we have been dummied down so far that the lunacy of the far right appears okay. Few dare to question it. Meanwhile, the people who really run the country get richer and grow more powerful. I'm thinking finance, energy and so called defense. All three may have a lot to gain from a dumb and docile public. Finance can continue to sell us on the importance of a "good credit score." Energy can continue to pollute unabated and poison the food supply via fertilizers and other chemicals. Defense can get plenty of new recruits from the ever expanding lower class, not to mention new and expensive toys. And all three feed off of each other.

Look at the bottom of many yahoo articles and note all of the left right bickering. Given a lot of people posting are high school age, many are not. I think the sad thing to note is the both believe there is substantial differences in the two parties. Not only that, they view each other as the enemy. The civil concept of loyal opposition is out the window. I think this may be one reason the far right gets so much attention, they set themselves apart. The far left on the other hand gets little attention because the changes they are calling for less suit the suit if you will. Taking better care poor people, having real health care reform and taking threats to the environment seriously lets' face it are not so hot items on corporate America's agenda. The far left is also marginalized as being naive and weak.

It is so difficult to get other narratives out there for people to consider. Why do we allow huge donors to run our politics while we are fed the tired old left vs. right story line? Why is it we cannot consider doing politics in a more constructive and collaborative manner? What will it take to break this destructive cycle?