MichaelFauntroy.com

Murtha's Heroics

Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha moved the debate over Iraq into a new direction by calling for the immediate “redeployment” of American military personnel.  This is the most substantial public statement yet by a member of Congress on the war.  You’d expect this kind of statement from a Democrat, but not necessarily Murtha, a long-time “war hawk” who has been among the Pentagon’s biggest supporters for all of his 30 years in the House.  Only Murtha could have changed the terms of the debate and for that he should be commended.  In so doing, Murtha returned to the heroics that characterized his Vietnam service.

Murtha’s public call for the removal of American military personnel from Iraq has been the talk of DC from the moment he made his announcement.  The response has been predictable and complicated.  Predictably, Republicans have charged that Murtha is wrong and some have gone so far as to play the “Michael Moore” card in charging that he is aligned with the far left wing of the Democratic party.  But Murtha is no tree hugging liberal.  A decorated Vietnam veteran, Murtha has built a reputation as being too protective of the Pentagon.  So, when Murtha speaks, he does so with the credibility built on 30 years of staunch support of America’s military.  That’s why Murtha’s “coming out” on Iraq is a problem for Bush.  Murtha now gives cover to Democrats and Republicans who see Iraq as folly, but have yet to bring themselves to publicly call for change.  Murtha, however, complicated things for fence-sitting Democrats who have yet to step up an voice publicly what they believe privately.

Now that Murtha has emerged as a chief critic of the Iraq War, we have a circumstance in which  time and attention will continue to be focused on why we went to war rather than actually winning the war.  Murtha’s too credible to be brushed off with a few pointed comments designed to make him seem like a weak-kneed dove.  Every day that the past is discussed is a bad day for the Bushies because it gives the American public more reasons to wonder if the decision to go to war was right.  Further, it puts Bush administration incompetence into full view and demonstrates how it picked intelligence that confirmed its desire to go to war while ignoring contrary evidence.  Lastly, with the 2006 elections coming into view, the Republicans have to turn this around quickly.  They can no longer afford to have this issue–one which they have mishandled–be the one that is freshest in the minds of the voters.  If it is, then gear up for Democratic control of at least one house of Congress.

Murtha’s biggest contribution to the Iraq war will prove to be his call for it’s end.  In so doing, Murtha has changed the tone of the debate.  We no longer talk about if U.S. service men and women will leave Iraq, but when.  Murtha now makes it likely that the U.S. will pull out sooner rather than later and that’s a blessing to those who want the U.S. occupation to end now.  Murtha did what no one else could have done–he changed the tone and pushed the Bush Administration to do something it wasn’t ready to do: acknowledge that troops will be coming home sooner rather than later.

Callie House and Rosa Parks

The recent deaths of Rosa Parks, Vivian Malone, and C. Delores Tucker should lead us to pause and reflect on the pivotal roles women played, often without much fanfare, in the civil rights movement.  The pomp and circumstance surrounding Parks upon the announcement of her death confirm the iconic status she achieved.  It also gives us an opportunity to herald the contributions of many African American women who have not received their due.  For every Rosa Parks, who is nearly universally known, there are dozens of African American women whose stories have been forgotten.  Callie House is one such woman.  But if Mary Frances Berry has her way, House’s story will be much more widely known.  Berry, the civil rights activist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has written an enlightening and uplifting book on House, My Face Is Black Is True: Callie House and the Struggle for Ex-Slave Reparations, which details House’s struggle to get reparations for ex-slaves.

House, born into slavery, was a crusader who led a movement to get the federal government to provide pensions for ex-slaves.  She thought it an abomination that ex-slaves, whose work was the backbone of the southern economy and made many businessmen wealthy, were destitute and left to fend for themselves when their bodies gave out and they could no longer work.  For those who could still work, it wasn’t unusual to see domestic workers who were in their 80s and 90s.  Berry noted the plight of one women, 101 years old, who was still a working domestic.

House’s story is also a cautionary tale.  Her work was undermined by the usual suspects in the federal government as Congress and the Department of Justice created the environment that ultimately led to her incarceration and the destruction of her movement.  She was also undercut by Black newspapers and leaders who thought she and her supporters embodied something less than the “talented tenth” they were trying to promote to White America.  They sold out House in an effort to remain the “favored Negroes” in the eyes of the White power structure.

Berry wrote the book “because everybody started talking about reparations” and all those interested in the reparations debate, regardless of their position on the issue, should read it.  Supporters will likely learn more than they previously knew about the historical nature of the uphill battles facing.  Opponents will see that the reparations movement is not some scheme cooked up by the nationalist wing of the African American community to shake down the government for money. 

Berry believes that there are “other Callie House’s out there” and, while the contributions of women like House have been lost in history, their work is still relevant to dealing with contemporary issues.  Let’s hope that the leaders of the current reparations movement learn the lessons of the past so as not to repeat those mistakes.  That way, the legitimate arguments surrounding reparations are given a legitimate hearing in the court of public opinion.  Then House can take her place in the annals of African American history with all the others who gave their lives to the cause.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, November 5, 2005

Globalization and "Little Ethiopia"

Globalization is a firmly entrenched reality that presents new challenges and opportunities.  It allows us to travel, do business, and communicate more easily with people thousands of miles away.  It flattens the world, as Tom Friedman argues, so that someone in a remote Chinese village can compete in the world of ideas and commerce with someone else in the most developed and sophisticated locale.  That the world has become smaller is due entirely to the forces of globalization and this is a good thing.  The downside of globalization, however, is that it can accelerate a culture clash  through the immigration it facilitates.  The culture clash is evident in many places around the world including here in Washington, D.C. where Ethiopian immigrants are pushing the City Council to rename part of a city neighborhood “Little Ethiopia.”  This is a bad idea because the neighborhood in question is so steeped in African American history that it was dubbed “Black Broadway.”  Given the history of the neighborhood and the infinitesimal Ethiopian presence therein, the effort to rename it Little Ethiopia is historically unjustified and is a slap in the face to the memory of all the important African American individuals, organizations, and institutions that have made that neighborhood great. 

The volume of Ethiopian restaurants, churches, hair salons, and a community services center cited by plan supporters, pale in comparison to the multi-generational record of long-standing African American businesses, churches, hair salons, community organizations, and other entities that have served this neighborhood.  For example, African American churches in the neighborhood, such as New Bethel Baptist and Metropolitan Baptist, played key organizing roles in the civil rights movement of the 1960s and continue to assist the residents of the neighborhood.  Businesses such as Ben’s Chili Bowl and Lee’s Flower Shop, and organizations such as the Mason’s helped sustain the neighborhood during the difficult times following the 1968 riots and the seemingly interminable period when Metro construction delays made it nearly impossible to do business on U Street.  And Industrial Bank is one of the largest African American-owned banks in the world anchors a corner in the heart of the area.  Each of these businesses has a long and storied history in the community.  Civic organizations such as the Model Inner City Community Development Organization created urban redevelopment plans for housing low-income and senior residents were supported and funded by President Lyndon Johnson.  Given this history, it is not a stretch to suggest that this neighborhood would not be what it is today without the significant and long-lasting contributions of African Americans.  These and other contributions would be significantly overshadowed by designating the area as Little Ethiopia.

As a fourth-generation Washingtonian who lives in the same house in which my grandparents raised my father and his brothers and sisters, I am intimately aware of what this neighborhood has meant to this city generally, and African Americans in particular.  I am also sufficiently versed in the history of this community to know that the “Little Ethiopia” proposal is an attempt to attach a label to this community that is not supported by the historical record.

Hopefully this will be one of the smaller globalization fights and not the start of a long and painful intraracial and intercultural struggle between newcomers to America and those who’ve been here for generations and still struggle to secure their place in America.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, October 28, 2005