If Black People Embrace The Underwood Doctrine, Cops Will Be Killed

**WARNING:  SPOIL ALERT FOR THE END OF SEASON FOUR OF "HOUSE OF CARDS."**

"We don't submit to terror.  We make the terror." Frank Underwood, "House of Cards"

I'm a huge fan of Netflix's original series, including the original original series, "House of Cards."  I think the writing is unsurpassed and Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright insufficiently acknowledged for their extraordinary work.

In the last episode of Season Four of "House of Cards," the context of which I won't discuss, both Frank and Claire Underwood look into the camera, breaking the fourth wall, while Frank declares, "We don't submit to terror.  We make the terror."

I would call this the "Underwood Doctrine."  At least two blacks, one in Dallas and one in Baton Rouge, have embraced it.

From slavery to now, there has always been a contingent of my race that has believed that violence is an all-too-appropriate response to violence against us.  If you think of African Americans -- or any Americans, for that matter -- on what I would call a violence acceptance spectrum, I would say that, at one end of the spectrum, there are the violence acceptors, followed by the violence sympathizers, the violence understanders, and the violence rejectors.

The violence acceptors, especially the two black men who shot police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, embraced the Underwood Doctrine.  One could call into question their mental stability, but I would venture to argue that not all violence acceptors are unstable.  Violence acceptors have no problem with retaliating against those who are part of the group who terrorize, even if such individuals have done no wrong themselves.

The violence sympathizers won't personally engage in retaliatory violence, but they support those who do.  They might even post bail for them, mount a legal defense for them, seek mercy for them.  They believe the retaliatory violence is justified.  The violence sympathizers might use violence in self-defense, but they won't use it in retaliation against those who have not directly harmed them.

The violence understanders don't agree with violence in retaliation for violence, but they understand those who do.  They seek to explain to those who don't understand retaliatory violence how the violence acceptors got to the point where they feel retaliatory violence is justified.

Finally, the violence rejectors reject violence of all kinds against anyone.  Dr. King was a violence rejector.

The problem is that with each unjustified killing of an unarmed black person by police officers or vigilantes like George Zimmerman, the more the rejectors become understanders, the understanders become sympathizers, and the sympathizers become acceptors. The more black people become acceptors, the more likely we will not submit to police terror, but make the terror instead.

Or as my 91 year-old dad so aptly put it in the haze of his dementia, "We ain't gonna lay down this time."

As I see the Black Lives Matter movement being demonized as a hate group even though no one involved with Black Lives Matter has picked up a gun and killed police,  I ask that we talk about the hate that got us where we are today, where black lives can be extinguished by fearful, racist police officers and vigilantes -- of all races, mind you -- without justification, explanation, condemnation, or consolation from the people doing the killing.

America, you got some 'splainin to do, as they say in the South. But stop blaming Black Lives Matter.  Your hate and fear made Black Lives Matter not just possible, but necessary.

America, what you need to fear more than you fear us is to fear us armed.  Fear us making runs on gun stores like you do every time gun control legislation is introduced.  Fear us becoming Nat Turner radicalized, especially in open carry states.  Fear us at the gun ranges, preparing to retaliate.

Fear us putting real context to the faux "All Lives Matter" movement, with police officers' lives being extinguished without justification, explanation, condemnation, or consolation from black people.

Fear us embracing the Underwood Doctrine.

I do.

Summoning The Courage To Write About Dr. Maya Angelou (The Greatesst Lesson I Learned From Her)

A friend of one of my Facebook friends posted that he saw no sizable difference in the number of comments from African-Americans and whites about the passing of Dr. Maya Angelou and concluded that, based on the number of comments, she meant no more to African-Americans than she did to whites.

What the person failed to take into account was that maybe we African-Americans were just stunned into silence.  Perhaps we could not find the words to express how we felt.

I know I couldn't.

What can any writer write about one of the most gifted writers of our generation?  What could any one writer say that hasn't already been said by the obituary writers, friends, family, and luminaries? 

With that in mind, I wrote nothing.  That is, until I summoned the courage to write this entry and share the greatest lesson Dr. Maya Angelou taught me and perhaps others.

Dr. Angelou's quote about courage being the most important virtue because, without it, you cannot practice the other virtues consistently, has been repeated a lot lately, as well as some of her other memorable lessons:  "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time," and "People may forget what you said or what you did, but they will never forget how you made them feel."

However, the most important lesson I think Dr. Angelou imparted upon all of us is one that she didn't speak, but instead lived:  You don't have to be just one thing in this life.  You can be many things.

How often do we limit ourselves, or allow ourselves to be limited, thinking trite aphorisms like, "Jack of all trades, master of none," or walking away from something we love because we don't have the requisite 10,000 hours supposedly needed to master it?

What if Dr. Angelou had settled on being only a cable car conductor?  Think of all the other gifts she possessed and bestowed upon the world -- writing, dancing, singing, acting, directing, writing music, teaching, and being a civil rights activist and friend to the likes of Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, James Baldwin AND Oprah Winfrey!  And she could cook, too!  Oh my, what a life!  She lived many lifetimes within one lifetime.  Why?  Because she didn't limit herself to being just one thing.

I've always had a penchant for doing many things and, combined with being a Gemini, that has caused me to be branded as uncommitted, flighty, indecisive, and a "master of none."  But Dr. Angelou was writing music and working very late in her life.  She did not let her age limit her creativity and curiosity.  Even at an age when, statistically speaking, she probably didn't have 10,000 hours to master one more thing, she never stopped doing the many things about which she was passionate.  Her refusal to recognize limits on what she could be is the greatest lesson to me and, in my view, to the world.

So summon up the courage to do all the things that interest you, that fuel passion within you.  Don't care what people think.  So what if you don't master any -- you're not being graded!  Dr. Angelou believed that courage is the greatest virtue because you could not practice the other virtues consistently without it.  I believe that courage is the greatest virtue because you cannot be your most complete and realized self without it.

Thank you and Godspeed, Dr. Angelou.  And thank you, Stanford University, my alma mater, for providing me the opportunity to meet Dr. Angelou.

If Mandela was a Communist and a Terrorist, What Were the Afrikaners?

I had been reading all the online tributes to Nelson Mandela, learning things about him that I didn't know (his favorite dish was tripe, which the author incorrectly identified as animal intestines -- tripe is stomach), when I made the mistake of reading the comments below one article.  One commenter objected to the tributes for Mandela, calling Mandela a communist and a terrorist.

Really?  And what were the Afrikaners?

I usually don't respond to stupidity because the response elevates the stupidity.  But in this case, I won't let the ignorant corrupt history, anonymously online, no less. Never mind the fact that such comments violate the maxim that you should not speak ill of the dead.

We've seen this all before.  When a great political figure, usually a person of color, is known for having stood up to make humankind accountable to the principles of freedom and equality, they are politically slurred in death without any reference to the context in which they acted.  Think Dr. King.

True, Nelson Mandela had once been a communist.  He also refused to renounce violence.  But he didn't come to the world that way.  If Mandela was a communist and a so-called "terrorist" (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and sometimes both -- ask the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan), he was made that way by the Afrikaners who came to his homeland and corrupted the idea of democracy.  I guess Mandela, like many oppressed people, had the nerve to think that democracy and freedom and equality should go hand in hand.  How dare he.

And therein lies the problem.  Anytime a government or any majority corrupts a system of beliefs -- whether it's democracy or religion -- people who suffer under such corruption turn away from it.  Why would you continue to support a system of beliefs that people hide behind in order to oppress you? If Nelson Mandela, Bayard Rustin and Paul Robeson were communists, it was because democracy had clearly failed and oppressed them and their people.  They were not wrong.  The terrorists wearing the mantle of democracy were.  Think Bull Connor.

If Mandela was a so-called "terrorist," it was because non-violence in pursuit of freedom and equality in what was ostensibly a democratic society had failed. Non-violence by black South Africans in pursuit of freedom and equality was met with bullets, not conciliation. Nelson Mandela becoming willing to use violence in defense of his people was no different than the Black Panther Party doing the same, and for the same reasons.  George Washington fights for freedom, and he's a patriot; Nelson Mandela fights for freedom, and he's a terrorist?

So to call Mandela, or any person with the courage to be willing to die for freedom, equality and democracy, a communist or a terrorist without reference to the political forces acting against them at that time is sheer ignorance.

The difference between Mandela and most people is that he wouldn't have even engaged in this debate out of the spirit of reconciliation.

Help Jasmine Guy "Cook Up Service" for Underserved Kids -- Donate by January 10

I'm a big Jasmine Guy fan. She's a rare thing in today's entertainment world -- a sextuple threat (dancer, actor, singer, director, writer, producer) who continues to serve up our culture to us whether we're supporting it or not -- and you know we should. She will not be deterred, and she definitely walks the talk when it comes to our people.

So when my best friend said that Ms. Guy is trying to raise funds for underserved kids to participate in a one-day service camp at the Young Chef's Academy in Sandy Springs, Georgia, I figured I'd do my small part to help promote it.

"Cooking Up Service" is a one-day camp during which underserved kids will take lessons from Ms. Guy in acting, dancing, building self-esteem, and avoiding peer pressure. The kids will then cook treats to be shared with the Hammond Glen Senior Center. The menu these kids will be cooking up includes "I Have A Dream Drop Biscuits," "Peace (Peach) Cobbler," "Service Day Soup," and Rainbow Cupcake decorating.

Donations would be greatly appreciated before January 10th, and no donation is too small.

Please help if you can. I'm including Ms. Guy's email below.

BWB

Hi everyone - Please help me out. I am hosting a service oriented camp for kids on MLK day (Jan 17, 2011) at Young Chef's academy in Sandy Springs, Ga (www.cookingupservice.com). I'm inviting 10 kids from underserved communities and I need your help to underwrite the cost of their attendance. No amount is too small! Really, any amount will help. Please help me give these kids the gift of service.

Donate here. We need all donations by Jan 10, 2011.

Thank you,

Jasmine Guy
cookingupservice.com

Arizona State U., or rather, "I'm Embarrassed for U."

Here we go again.

To borrow from my late mother’s lexicon, it looks like Arizona “done gone and showed its behind.” Again.

Arizona is nationally and internationally known as the slow child in race relations because of its grudging and late acceptance of a Dr. King holiday. This time, it’s Arizona State University which is the race relations slow child by having President Obama give the university’s commencement speech but refusing to award him an honorary degree.

Say what?

Yes, Arizona State University, which, I would guess, probably doesn’t have as many Nobel laureates, Rhodes Scholars, Marshall Scholars – pick any academic honor – as do the universities from which Mr. Obama holds REAL degrees, Columbia and Harvard – has decided that Mr. Obama’s “body of work” is yet to be seen and, as such, he doesn’t merit an honorary degree from that hallowed institution. Instead, they’ve opted to offer a scholarship in President Obama’s name.

What’s embarrassing is that they’ve had this discussion in the media, putting the president’s worthiness for their honorary degree up as a matter of public debate.

They should change their name to “I’m Embarrassed for U.” Do they know how stupid they look?

Outside of NCAA basketball, no one really knows much about or cares much about Arizona State. I hate to play the Ivy League card or credential poker, but, as a double Ivy Leaguer like Mr. Obama (Harvard and Princeton, to be exact), I must say that there is nothing that Arizona State can do to raise the profile of Mr. Obama given what he has already accomplished, academically and otherwise. In this case, those benefits flow one way and only one way – in the direction of Arizona State. If I were Mr. Obama, I wouldn’t even hang an honorary degree from Arizona State next to his diplomas from Columbia and Harvard Law and his two Harvard Law Review certificates. It would be like hanging a black velvet Elvis painting next to works by Picasso, Matisse, and Renoir. It just wouldn’t look right, if you get my drift.

The discussion of Mr. Obama’s merits, if any, should have been held in closed quarters, and he should not have been invited to give the commencement address if the university wasn’t going to award him an honorary degree. Most universities with any sense know that that’s the price of getting a highly accomplished, high profile speaker to give a commencement address. I’ve heard tell that Bill Cosby won’t give a commencement address without receiving an honorary degree. It goes to show that the folks in charge at ASU are either really stupid or really intent on slighting the President.

I’ve been in one faculty discussion regarding awarding an honorary degree, in this case to a slain civil rights hero. Mind you, this hero’s legacy had already been established and his reputation would not have been enhanced by receiving a posthumous honorary degree from this institution. But you would have thought the faculty members were discussing the conditions for peace in the Middle East in discussing what this person needed to have accomplished in order to receive an honorary degree from an ostensibly Podunk university. Again, it was a case of one-way benefits – the only party benefiting from this was the university, not the person or his family.

Why is it that the discussion of standards and merit only seems to arise when black people are at issue?

I know that Mr. Obama will have the class to give the speech and acknowledge the scholarship established in his honor. He’s far too sophisticated to say what I’m about to:

Arizona State, even if President Obama visited your university for the sole purpose of using a urinal, he would have done more for your school’s profile than you could have ever done for his. And if you were lucky, the Secret Service might, just might, allow one of your trustees to be present and wait for the presidential “shake.” It’s about all you deserve.

Remember the Time?

I watched a lot of footage of events marking the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I remember as a four year-old seeing a photo of Dr. King on the cover of either Ebony or Jet, with him laid out in his coffin. I remember thinking at that time, “Why do they have a picture of this man sleeping in his bed on this cover? What a pretty bed it is.” It took me a while to figure out that, one, he wasn’t sleeping, and two, although pretty, it wasn’t a bed. I would never really understand the enormity of the loss and the sacrifice he made for me until I was older.

On Friday I also watched HBO’s “The Boycott,” featuring Jeffrey Wright as Dr. King and Terrence Howard as Rev. Ralph Abernathy during the time of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Clearly they weren’t cast because they looked like the people they were playing, but Wright, who is most certainly assured of an Academy Award somewhere down the line, captured Dr. King’s cadence and what I imagined to be his mannerisms. Howard was no slouch either, and Erik Todd Dellums, who captured Bayard Rustin’s homosexuality for those who knew what to expect, was a tour de force. But what struck me about the movie was the portrayal of the wisdom, nobility and determination of those involved in the boycott. Their identification with those in the Bible who had suffered, too, and their determination to meet every challenge to them with non-violence, pride, and dignity made me long for a time when we as black people not only aspired to those traits, we embodied them. It made me wonder:

Would we have the likes of many of our hip-hop stars if there were someone with the moral capital of a Dr. King to tell them that they should aspire to more than glamorizing sex, money and excess?

Would our kids be dropping out of school at alarming rates if Dr. King were alive to tell them that he put his life and the lives of others on the line for them?

Would the so-called “black church” (I say “so-called” because there is no such thing as one “black church”) wield more social and political power were Dr. King and his cohorts still acting in concert and keeping it on task?

Would we have Bill Cosby penning books such as “Come On, People” if Dr. King had been alive to see the things that made Cosby so angry and spoke out accordingly?

As much as we black people may not want to admit it, when Dr. King died, a big part of us died with him. The part that embodied dignity, nobility, non-violence, and humanity within the race, across class lines.

Remember the time?

To that end, I also note with sadness the passing of Charlton Heston, who provided financial support to the Civil Rights Movement. Sure, he was all wrong on gun control, but he was right on civil rights and right on time about it