Melvin B. Tolson (The Radical)

Melvin B. Tolson (February 6, 1898–August 29, 1966) was an American Modernist poet, educator, columnist, Trade Unionist, politician and (some say) a rationalist. Tolson was recently portrayed by Denzel Washington in the 2007 film, The Great Debaters, which tells the story of Tolson’s personal life, his private causes and his work in developing an award-winning debate team at Texas’ Wiley College.

His public work displays both his perceptive intellect and his sharp, comical edge. Perhaps this speaks more of his legend, but it has been said that Tolson was so proficient at argumentation and debate that he would often anticipate the arguments and counterarguments of his opponents and memorize his responses to each potential counterargument in order to lessen the chances that his opponents would ever catch him by surprise. Impressive.

But I was even more impressed by the fact that, while Tolson was known a public intellectual, he still maintained a sense of connection with the people in his community. His contemporary, Langston Hughes, once said that Tolson was “no highbrow. Students revere him and love him. Kids from the cotton fields like him. Cow punchers understand him ... He’s a great talker.”

Here a few excerpts from Tolson’s column Caviar and Cabbage, a regular column that appeared in The Washington Tribune newspaper from 1937- 1944.

On being prepared for debates:
"It seems that I am always in the objective case. But the records show that Aristotle, Columbus, Pasteur, Socrates, and Jesus were in the same classification. So I’m in good company. I am not a yes-man nor an amen-brother. In fact, the only reason I can endure this worst of all possible worlds is this: I have a supply or brickbats and there are plenty of glass houses to throw at. The Big Boys have tried to buy me off and some of them have tried to cut off my meal ticket in this Christian Country, but I go on my way hurling my rocks at superstitions and prejudices and cruelties. If I think a thing is right, I'm ready to debate any man, anywhere, and at any time…I myself meet all comers in the arena of argumentation. A.B.s, A.M.s, and Ph.D.s are not barred. I admit I do have some fear of D.D.s, for they may call upon me the wrath of an angry God."

A Warning to Black People
"Black folk are too easily deluded by superficial facts. Call a man an infidel or a radical and you can hoodwink us to death. Why should a black man fear a radical? The abolitionists were radicals in their day. At one time it was radical in America to say 'I believe the black man has a soul; I believe a black man can be educated.' If it had not been for the radicals, every black man would be in a cotton patch with a white man standing over him with a forty-four and a horsewhip three yards long. And whenever you hear anybody denounce radicals, remember this: persecuted races get their rights only through the agitation of radicals. The man who denies the truth of this is as dumb as Balaam’s jackass. Amen!"


- Excerpts taken from Melvin B. Tolson's article, "The Death of An Infidel" featured in the April 2, 1938 issue of The Washington Tribune. Click here to read more of his work.

Former right-wing evangelical imagines Obama will become one of the best and most loved American Presidents

A co-worker of mine recently forwarded me a powerful essay predicting the state of America and the world both during and after the presidency of Barack Obama. This (hopefully) prophetic piece was written over a month before the 2008 election by author Frank Schaeffer, a “white, former life-long Republican,” “proud father of a Marine” and son of the late evangelist and Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer.

The following is an excerpt of Schaeffer’s October 8 essay “Obama Will Be One of the Best (And Most Loved) American Presidents”:

"Great presidents are made great by horrible circumstances combined with character, temperament and intelligence. Like firemen, cops, doctors or soldiers, presidents need a crisis to shine.

Obama is one of the most intelligent presidential aspirants to ever step forward in American history. The likes of his intellectual capabilities have not been surpassed in public life since the Founding Fathers put pen to paper. His personal character is also
solid gold. Take heart, America: we have the leader for our times.

I say this as a white, former life-long Republican. I say this as the proud father of a Marine. I say this as just another American watching his pension evaporate along with the stock market! I speak as someone who knows it's time to forget party loyalty, ideology and pride and put the country first. I say this as someone happy to be called a fool for going out on a limb and declaring that, 1) Obama will win, and 2) he is going to be amongst the greatest of American presidents..."

Read the full essay here. Click here for the Huffington Post's archive of Frank Schaeffer’s insightful columns.

Barack Obama: Elected President of the United States

It was a few minutes shy of 11 p.m. on Election Night when CNN announced that Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama had been projected to win the state of Virginia. Moments later, my wife and I watched our television screen in speechless amazement as the election results from California poured in leading CNN host Wolf Blitzer to announce that Barack Obama had received well over the 270 electoral votes needed for him to become the 1st African-American president elect of the United States of America.

Phone calls and text messages from friends and family members started flooding our phones shortly thereafter as we all shared our unbelief that we were actually witnessing this event. History had been made. And it would be made many times over as states that had traditionally gone to Republican candidates processed results showing that they were now going to a Democratic majority. One of such states was our home state of Indiana.

Our jaws dropped as we watched live footage of the respectful concession speech of Senator John McCain and the awe-inspiring acceptance speech of President-elect Barack Obama. Our three-year-old daughter played on the floor in front of us as we pushed the record button on our DVR so that we could share this moment with her when she grows older.

We then called our parents and our grandparents who were born during the Depression and who had experienced racism all throughout their lives. We knew that these moments were especially significant for them. My grandmother told me how my grandfather laughed and then later cried at the thought of a Black man finally being elected President in the United States.

My paternal grandfather always believed that such a day would come and had hoped that I would have such opportunities available to me as a young, educated Black man. It was my grandfather who forced me to watch the inauguration of President Bill Clinton in 1993 when I was fourteen years old. When I said I didn’t want to watch it, he responded by saying “You should watch this. Who knows? One day you might be the President.” No sooner did I reply, “I don’t want to be President,” when he sternly countered, “Don’t ever say that. You don’t know what all you can become! You can be whatever you want to be!” Powerful words spoken by one who shined shoes as a boy growing up in a racist society during the Great Depression; Impactful words spoken to a privileged and talented teenager struggling with insecurity and his own ability to realize his dreams.

I realize that Barack Obama is a fallible human being; he is no savior and he is no saint. But his presidential victory was meaningful for me mainly because of its symbolism. It was proof that an overwhelming majority of the American people were willing to look past negative campaign tactics, personal prejudices and to vote for a candidate of an ethnic minority. It was also encouraging to see someone of an ethnic minority step into such a prominent leadership role. It was moving to see tearful, on-screen images of Reverend Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey and countless others.

I watched the coverage of this election night and imagined the clouds of inferiority evaporating from the minds of both minority and underprivileged children all across the globe. I envisioned seeds of hope being planted by the on-screen images of those of different cultures and classes coming together with tears and joy.

Last night expanded the boundaries of what was possible. A long time coming. Truly a sight to behold.

Election Eve

Here we are, on the eve of a general election that will be the culminating moment of nearly two years worth of campaigns that have already made United States’ history. Luckily, I voted early in my home state and will be able to avoid the long lines, relax and watch as the election results pour in. But while I will take joy in the fact that Election Day will bring a much-needed end to all the campaign and attack ads (which often seem to either deify or dehumanize the candidates), I do not believe that our voting excuses us from all of the other work that needs to be done for our society to progress.

To be clear, I do not believe that any particular candidate or political party has a panacea to resolve all of our economic inequalities, social complexities or moral dilemmas. However, I am convinced that, regardless of which representatives are elected into public office, we, as responsible citizens who participate in the democratic process, must bring our best to bear in holding our leaders accountable and making them aware of those issues we consider worthwhile. The principles of democracy and our common humanity both demand that citizens get involved in their societies and make informed decisions about matters that affect both themselves and their fellow inhabitants of this ecosystem we call Earth.

It may mean that we send thoughtful and timely letters to both our legislators and the editors of our favorite publications expressing our concern about an issue. It may mean that we represent our causes by volunteering to sit in on the committee meetings and voting sessions that take place at our local statehouse. It may mean that we organize and/or attend the rallies, protests and vigils that take place in our communities. It may also require that we volunteer at a nearby shelter and/or make connections with others who feel strongly about the issues that matter to us. Nevertheless, we as citizens should, in some significant capacity, involve ourselves in the issues affecting our lives and our world. While it remains every individual’s decision as to their level of involvement, we cannot abdicate our responsibilities and leave them solely in the hands of our elected officials. To do so would inevitably bring ruin to both them and ourselves.

My personal studies and the variety of discussions I have shared with co-workers, family and friends during this exciting election year have served to reinforce my conviction that human society progresses, develops and evolves through the constant tension of contradictory impulses and opposing forces that agitate each other until improvements are made. This is a long process that requires a commitment to valuing tradition and learning from past mistakes and a willingness to experiment with new ideas. But I am reminded that our country was founded on such a process.

Because lasting change is often a long-term process, I have no expectation that all wrongs can be righted in the solitary term of any particular administration. Change may occur in one executive decision or one legislative session, but it may also take generations for the words and actions of committed and courageous individuals to eventually bear fruit.

I consider it an act of faith to believe that change can come. I also consider it an act of faith to work to bring about such change, especially when faced with obstacles. Though I am often tempted to dismiss opinions that run contrary to my own, I try to remind myself that the tension of healthy and respectful conversations between concerned individuals who may differ in opinion on the issues that matter to them can often yield new insights into complex problems that affect us all.

I choose to place my faith in that process instead of any lone individual, administration or political party.

Restraining the monsters we feed

Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin have been catching some serious criticism from all sides for neither challenging nor calming the angry crowds at the campaign rallies held for them earlier this week.

But just last night, I saw recent clips of John McCain working to calm down the angry crowds at his rallies and to counter their inflammatory remarks about Barack Obama with clarifying assurances that he knows Obama to be a "decent, family man" who just happens to disagree with him on "fundamental issues." McCain also made clear that, contrary to popular belief, Obama is not "an Arab" (a term that some are using in a derogatory tone as if there is something inherently wrong in being of Arabic descent).

Will the McCain/Palin campaign be able to restrain this xenophobic and racist monstrosity they have been feeding?

When leaders thrive on the fear and ignorance of their supporters

Fear-mongering

In December 2007, Newsweek featured a cover story about the roots of fear which shed light on just how effectively fear can be used to get people’s attention. According to the article, "the evolutionary primacy of the brain's fear circuitry makes it more powerful than reasoning circuits." In light of such knowledge, Is it any wonder why fear-mongering remains an effective and persuasive tactic to rally public support?

Fear-mongering has worked for centuries as countless leaders have campaigned for positions of power and the public support it takes to preserve such positions. Leaders throughout history have propagated messages and imaged themselves as saviors who will usher in the prosperity, security and peace that their people crave; all the while imaging their political opponents as dangerous alternatives that would undoubtedly ruin the people's way of life.

I personally detest this kind of campaigning and lament that we, the people, still play into this tempting trap largely because we are uninformed, unaware or unwilling to break the cycle.

Recently, I’ve been pretty disgusted lately by the McCain/Palin campaign’s persistent efforts to link Senator Barack Obama with domestic terrorism all the while refusing to challenge the underlying racist and outwardly ethnocentric impulses of some of their own supporters. Such tactics seem to capitalize on human ignorance and, what’s even sadder, is that such tactics seem to work.

The McCain/Palin campaign’s recent push to excite the groundless fears of their supporters reminds me of the popular NBC TV show Heroes' recent introduction of a new villain who has the ability to grow stronger by feeding off of the fear of others; which is precisely what it seems like the presidential candidates of all parties have been doing throughout this election season. But the trend seems to have reached fever pitch with the latest push by the McCain/Palin campaign to brand Obama as a mysterious, shifty figure who has been “palling around with terrorists.”

Living in the “post-9/11” United States of America, there are certain words that reasonable people use sparingly and wisely due to their powerful connotation and emotional weight. The word “terrorist” falls into such a category.

Earlier this week, at a recent rally of Republican supporters, Governor Sarah Palin referred to Barack Obama as “someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” Palin went on to proclaim, “One of [Obama’s] earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers, and according to the New York Times, [Ayers] was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol’.” Palin's words were echoed by a chorus of boos and threatening invectives directed at both Obama and Ayers.

Hold it right there, Sarah. You mean to tell me that this whole time Barack Obama has been an unpatriotic trickster who maintains relationships with terrorists? That is a very serious claim, Mrs. Palin. Surely, one would not cast such a sharp stone unless they had the most credible evidence to substantiate this bold claim. Right?

Checking the facts

Let’s examine the validity of this accusation. According to the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization FactCheck.org, “William Ayers [is] a Chicago professor of education, who in the 1960s was part of a radical antiwar group that set off pipe bombs in lavatories in the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon.” William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were leaders of the Weather Underground, an ill fated antiwar group. According to the New York Times, “most of the bombings attributed to the Weathermen were meant to damage only property, but a 1970 pipe bombing in San Francisco attributed to the group killed a police officer and severely hurt another.”

A bombing of any kind is nothing to take lightly and I understand the curiosity of those, like myself, who seek to find out the truth about any possible connection between Mr. Obama and the activities of Mr. Ayers. But let's continue our investigation.

According to the Oct. 5 edition of CNN Fact Check, the claim that Obama is “palling around with terrorists” is false. CNN reports “False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now ‘palling around,’ or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.” This clarification is in line with what FactCheck.org discovered back on April 17, 2008, soon after Sen. Hillary Clinton mentioned a possible connection between Obama and Ayers during a Democratic debate. Clinton said "people died" in some of the 1960s and 1970s bombings by a radical group of which an Obama acquaintance was a member. According to FactCheck.org, “the deaths were of three members of the Weather Underground itself, who died when their own bombs accidentally exploded.”

Factcheck.org goes on to note that nobody died as a result of bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground “at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, in a men's lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and in a women's restroom in the Pentagon in 1972.” The site reports, “The deaths to which Clinton referred were of three Weather Underground members who died when their own ‘bomb factory’ exploded in a Greenwich Village townhouse on March 6, 1970. Ayers was not present. Also, two police officers were murdered in connection with the robbery of a Brinks armored car by Weather Underground members in 1981. That was about a year after Ayers had turned himself in and after all charges against him had been dropped.”Obama responded to Hillary Clinton's accusations last spring by noting that President Bill Clinton “had pardoned or commuted the sentences of two Weather Underground members, who had, unlike Ayers, been convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Bill Clinton indeed pardoned one and commuted the sentence of another.”

Obama visited Ayer's home in 1995 at the invitation of an Illinois state senator, according to a February 22 story in Politico.com. But Politico concluded, "There’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation."

William Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lives in the same neighborhood as the Obama family. Ayers is an associate of Obama’s who has worked with him on a schools project and on at least two community boards such as The Woods Fund of Chicago, an antipoverty charity. Ayers graciously hosted a “meet-the-candidate” house party for Obama when he first ran for state Senate in 1995 and contributed $200 to Obama's campaign for the Illinois state Senate on March 2, 2001.

I think it’s reasonable for citizens to be informed about and to explore any genuine connection that may exist between Barack Obama and domestic terrorism, but you’d better be sure that there is a definite connection, otherwise, you quickly find yourself advancing false and harmful propaganda that could incite fear and hatred of an individual.

In light of the information I’ve seen, it seems a far cry to imply that Barack Obama would approve or endorse any of Weather Underground’s activities or that Ayers himself has even been remotely involved with any such activities over the last 30 years. Neither Obama nor Ayers appear to be a pair of domestic terrorists conspiring ways to usurp the country because there is far more evidence to the contrary.

But, regardless of the facts, McCain and his campaign have aggressively sought to raise skepticism about Obama’s personal character. In the last week, McCain campaign has released a 90-second web advertisement that attempts to link Obama with Ayers that says, “Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They’ve worked together for years.” According to an October 9 article in the Detroit Free Press, “the ad also claimed that one of the nonprofits on which Obama and Ayers worked was a radical education foundation.” The same article points out that “[t]hat educational foundation was the Annenberg Challenge…funded by the Annenberg Foundation, a charity set up by longtime Republican backer and newspaper publisher Walter Annenberg. Annenberg has since died, but his wife has endorsed McCain this year.” The article also includes the interesting fact that “The city of Chicago gave Ayers its Citizen of the Year award in 1997 for work on the educational project.”

Just when you thought such moves were played out, some McCain supporters have continued to use Obama’s middle name (Hussein) during introductions of McCain and Palin this week in the attempt to invoke negative connotations associating Obama with memories of the defeated Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In my opinion, only the ignorant would consider someone's birth name (of which that person had no control over) as a strike against that individual's character. But again, it is one more example of how our instinct fear can overpower our powers to reason.

The cost of fear-mongering

Human history has shown that fear and hatred are cancerous conditions that can blind minds and warp souls. That’s why I find it chilling to watch footage of political rallies where fiercely partisan crowds boo and hurl invectives at the competing party’s candidates and characters. Sadly, it seems that candidates are banking on the notion that their base supporters are too ignorant to research these matters themselves and to discover that many of their candidate's claims are either groundless accusations and carefully packaged lies.

I also wonder why some leaders who profess integrity would dare provoke their crowds with tribalistic “us-and-them” rhetoric instead of counseling the masses to think soberly and rationally during these difficult times. As we all know, these are troubling times for voters and there is a lot of anxiety and worry out there concerning how our lives will be affected by the dynamics of the global economy, our costly involvement in a perpetual war and the next occupants of the White House. But advancing the idea that Barack Obama is a militant, anti-American traitor with a hidden terrorist agenda is a reckless, dangerous and desperate move.

Exploring a legitimate connection between a Presidential candidate and the activities of a domestic terrorist group is one thing, but to demonize an individual by over-exaggerating the facts and provoking fanatical crowds with false information is morally reprehensible. History has shown us that demonization eventually breeds dehumanization; and once you dehumanize someone, there is no limit to the damage that you will inflict and justify in the name of self-righteousness.

I find much to admire about Senator John McCain’s political record, but his approval of reckless tactics like this seems to reflect a frenzied panic that becomes yet another reason why I don’t consider him fit for the job as President of the United States. Maybe capitalizing on fear will make him popular enough to become President; but it is a weak leader who thrives on the ignorance and fear of their people.

Reflections on Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright's controversial remarks

The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright is an interesting character. I actually saw him speak earlier this year at a memorial service in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. where he brought attention to the fact that- out of all the King memorial services he had ever been invited to- he had never heard anyone bring attention to King's April 4, 1967 speech criticizing the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War. I spoke to him after his presentation and he gave me his business card (which I still have in my wallet).

Known for his stance of being “unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian,” Pastor Wright has grown in popularity recently due to his reputation for outspokenness against the U.S. government and his relationship with his most popular church member, presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Dr. Wright has recently been in the news regarding some quotes taken from a sermon he gave over 5 years ago from his pulpit at Trinity United Church of Christ located on the southside of Chicago, Illinois. When I first heard excerpts of Dr. Wright's sermon, I thought he had gone off of the deep end. I wasn't surprised to also hear that Senator Obama had publicly distanced himself from Wright and denounced his remarks as "divisive."

But after some reflection and investigation, I’ve come to believe that despite some abrasive phrasing, Dr. Wright was accurate in his sharp criticism of America’s oppressive policies and actions on both domestic and foreign soil. My only issue with Dr. Wright’s sermon has to do with his occasionally coarse and offensive phrasing of ideas (unlike Dr. Martin Luther King’s more diplomatic yet equally sharp critique of the U.S. in his anti-war sermon from April 4, 1967). But I don't think we should stop at the point of offense. We need to listen closely to hear the concern behind the commentary. In the sermon excerpts that the media has been quoting lately, Dr. Wright is “spot on” when he refers to the U.S. government’s treatment of young black males:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme…We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

In all fairness, behind what many have deemed as unpatriotic, divisive, inflammatory and insensitive rhetoric, Dr. Wright is telling the truth about America's history. Yes, the idea that we sing “God Bless America” as if God would bless America above all others is arrogant and narcissistic. Yes, the Bible mentions plenty of instances where The God of Israel orders the slaughter of innocent people and our government has also commissioned the killing of innocent people. Yes, throughout history the U.S. government acts as if it has been divinely ordained to conquer and control other cultures, peoples and the resources of the earth. Yes, it is highly likely that recent attacks on the U.S. are merely responses to our often violent and suppressive foreign policies and actions. I think Dr. Wright is right to critique those things and I wholeheartedly agree with him on these matters.

Now, I definitely think Dr. Wright could have presented his ideas in a less abrasive way- without all the “God damns” and “God damn Americas” when he might have been more accurate to specify what he meant by "America"and whether or not he was referring to our country's ideals, the people, or the American government and the decisions of its legislative and executive branches. I also don’t think it helped matters much for him to allude to Malcolm X’s infamous “chickens coming home to roost” quote- which was originally given in response to the news of John F. Kennedy’s assassination- itself a phrase that carries within it the heavy baggage of racial tension, a negative view of Islam, and smacks of unpatriotism during a time of intense anxiety and hostility in regards to race relations. But. in reality- and as Wright alludes to in his sermon- he was quoting Edward L. Peck, who had allegedly spoken out about America's foreign policies in an interview the night before Wright's sermon.

While I think Dr. Wright could have maintained effectiveness by rephrasing his ideas, and went too far with his "God damn America" line, I sometimes think we miss the point and get offended by the way someone presents their words and ideas without really hearing the hurt, rage or concern behind them. I think it would be an injustice to ignore the validity of Dr. Wright’s words due to our being offended by his presentation because I believe he has brought to light some serious truths that our country needs to confront. In a way, I am glad the media keeps replaying the quotes from his sermon because I hope that more people can hear the hurt and concern behind what many have deemed as being unpatriotic, divisive and inflammatory rhetoric and investigate the matter for themselves. Since Wright's remarks became public, many skeptical of media slants have scoured YouTube and internet search engines searching for audio clips and transcripts of Wright's sermon so that they can hear it in context for themselves.

Dr. Wright is retiring soon, but in the future, we may find ourselves remembering him as one of those prophets who never fully understood or appreciated during their lifetime. We'll see.