On Monday, as I pondered the commemoration of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther Kings’ 93rd birthday, I was conflicted. I am thankful that this nation recognizes this great man. It took 32 years for the United States to even to a place where we set aside the third Monday of each January to do so. But now that we have set aside this day to recognize Dr. King, really, what exactly are we doing?
Social media is filled with Dr. King quotes. The news is filled with local examples of community service on this day. Children recite portions of Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream Speech.” Dr. King’s adherence to Mahatma Gandhi’s principles of nonviolent protest is touted — rightfully so — as the way protests in this country should be conducted. Even people whose actions and attitudes are the complete anthesis of everything Dr. King stood for will recite and post certain Dr. King quotes. The truth is that Dr. King was vilified during his lifetime, at least here in the United States and even, to be completely honest, by some African Americans of that era. It is interesting that in the 22 years since his birthday was finally recognized as a holiday in all 50 states, he has gone villain to romanticized hero.
This holiday has a different meaning for me than other American holidays because I was alive for much of what we’re celebrating as the life and legacy of Dr. King. I wasn’t here in 1621 when the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag supposedly shared an autumn feast. I wasn’t around on July 4, 1776, when the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence. I have no personal knowledge, neither do I know anyone who does, of Abraham Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. However, I am old enough to remember a lot of what happened during the civil rights era. I wasn’t directly a part of it; I was just a Black kid growing up in California in those days. But my parents were from the South, and there was information and discussion coming from relatives and friends in the South about the difficulties of the struggle for civil rights that I overheard and very clearly understood. What was being reported on the 6 o’clock news in those days wasn’t pretty. What was actually happening was much worse.
The problems with romanticizing Dr. King’s work is in doing so, we negate the sacrifices he and others made to win us whatever freedoms we’ve gained thus far. When we forget those sacrifices, we take the progress made thus far for granted. When we take progress for granted, we stop progressing. Not only do we stop progressing but, as is the case in America today, we actually start a backwards slide.
Dr. King’s youngest daughter, the Rev. Bernice King, posted a quote from her father on his birthday from a news conference 57 years ago. Dr. King said at that time “I think the tragedy is that we have a Congress with a Senate that has a minority of misguided senators who will use the filibuster to keep the majority of people from even voting.” It is eerie, and incredibly sad, that the words Dr. King spoke that many years ago are still so pertinent today. Why are we still fighting for voter rights? Dr. King not only fought for the civil rights of all Americans, but he was adamantly against the Vietnam War. Although that war ended seven years after his death, we have continued fighting unnecessary wars, with one of them ending just last year. Dr. King fought against poverty. He was dismissed as a socialist. Does that sound familiar? We still have a segment of citizens and politicians who fight against even the smallest effort to fight poverty here in the richest nation that has ever existed in the history of mankind.
Have we made progress in the almost 54 years since Dr. King was assassinated? Some, but not nearly enough. How many more generations of Americans will live and die before we finally understand what Dr. King was saying when he said we have to live together as brothers or perish together as fools? If we’re serious about honoring Dr. King, and if we are serious about our country living out its creed, that all men (and women) are created equal, let’s get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.
The Rev. Lorrie Owens is the president of the NAACP, San Mateo branch.
The Reverend seems to forget that the current voting procedures in most states allowed a black man to become president. She is just throwing the voting right issue out there without any substantiation that the various proposals by certain states may impair voting access. Unless one believes that signature verification, a reasonable effort to prove citizenship and ensuring the security of ballots is somehow restrictive. The Democrats are proposing a system, using COVID 19 as a pretext, to forever effectively exclude opposition parties from the democratic process. The much lambasted voting process in Georgia is less restrictive than the one practiced in the State of Delaware. Isn't that where the "voting rights" champion is from? Who exactly is the Jim Crow descendent? And, most of the Democrat senators, including Biden in his former role, who are screaming to abolish the filibuster were very much in favor in keeping the rule in place when it was in their favor. Cannot get more hypocritic. Do your homework, Reverend.
Mr. van Ulden - it is interesting that you started your comments about voting procedures "allowing" a black man to become president -- he wasn't "allowed" to be the president; he was duly and fairly elected to that office, twice. Indeed, this whole "rigged election" issue didn't reach the feverish pitch of what is now the Big Lie and a real threat to democracy until a certain segment of the US population rose up against the specter of a black man in the White House. I am curious about your statement about the restrictive voting laws in Delaware; could you back up that statement? I was unaware, for example, that it is illegal there to give water to voters waiting in long lines to vote, as it is now in Georgia. I don't know why you always fall into the predictable and tired titrate against Democrats, President Biden, etc. when responding to pieces I write. I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican, nor have I ever mentioned President Biden in anything I've written. How does any of what you said relate, even remotely, to what I wrote? Lastly, at least for now, thank you for your parental admonishment to me to do my homework. However, I had two wonderful parents who completed all of the parenting I will ever need many decades ago. One thing they always taught me to do, as a black woman in America, is to always do my homework (literally and figuratively) and double-check everything I do. Because of my race and, to some degree my gender, I do not have the same grace nor opportunity to make mistakes that you do. Perhaps, rather than trying to parent a retirement-aged woman, you should reflect on your hostility and hatred and ask yourself if espousing that mindset is truly the path to a better America. Have you ever even tried to listen to people who do not look and think like you?
Mr. Van Ulden forgets that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was allowed to expire in 2017. Many states have proposed and enacted measures that restrict access to voting since then.
Ms. Baird forgets that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was again extended in 2006 for another 25 years. I’m unsure as to what Act Ms. Baird is referencing, but it’s not the Voting Rights Act. We should all give thanks to states that are now passing more and more election security laws. Now, who doesn’t want election security?
Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was extended, portions of the law were struck down by the Supreme Court, allowing states to enact restrictions specifically designed to suppress the African American vote. We all want secure voting laws. But how is voting more secure by outlawing providing water to people waiting in long lines to vote? Or by outlawing voting on Sundays? Giving water to people waiting to vote or allowing voting on Sundays was never an issue until the 2020 election didn't go the way some people wanted.
With respect to "restrictions specifically designed to suppress the African American vote," giving water to folks standing in line at polling places and extra voting days... I would refer you to comments made by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)... https://youtu.be/34DAFZgwg20
Rev. Owens, since your allegation of outlawing providing water to people waiting in long lines has long been debunked, I won’t bother with your researching your potentially false allegation of outlawing voting on Sundays. You say you want secure voting laws? Ok, then there shouldn’t be an issue with Voter ID. Conflating Voter ID with voter suppression will never be a winning argument.
Mr. Y - regarding your latest comments about the new law regarding voting in Georgia - you don’t need to “research” anything I say. Simply read the law for yourself. And it’s just amazing to me how you attack me for things I never said. I have no problem with voters identifying themselves. Anyone truly qualified to vote should be able to produce evidence of such.
Rev. Owens, since you called me on it, I did take a look at (only performed a search for “Sunday” on) the law. If you look at the SB202 version that passed (https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498), there is no outlawing of voting on Sundays so I’m unsure which source you used for information, and you probably shouldn’t keep pushing that false narrative. I’m glad you say you have no problems with voter identification but indirectly, you do, since you align yourself with the NAACP. Perhaps you can convince the Dems to stop conflating Voter ID with voter suppression and we can get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.
Mr. Y - I didn’t say the the provision banning Sunday early voting was passed. That element was removed following heavy criticism by many black Georgians. Black church congregants often vote after worship service, particularly in the South. It’s called Souls to the Polls. But it is not a false narrative that the Republican Party in Geortia tried to pass a version of the bill that outlawed Sunday early voting. This was very clearly aimed to suppress the black vote. Republicans in Texas tried the same thing with SB 7 for the same reasons. Black Texans had the same reaction and, again, that element of the bill was removed in the final version. These are facts.
So basically, Rev. Owens, you're being dishonest. Because I called you on it, all of a sudden, you add the words, “tried to pass” in this comment. I wonder why you didn’t include that uber-critical information in your previous comment. Maybe because it would ruin the false narrative you were trying to push. Since we now know you’re okay being dishonest, we can question your denial of being aligned with a particular party (evidence indicates you are aligned). Perhaps you could spend some time self-reflecting on whether you truly want to, “…get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.” Evidence indicates you do not since you spend more time providing thin excuses rather than answering thick questions.
Mr. Y - again, you put words in my mouth that I never said. That is the true dishonesty here. Please provide one direct quote from me - just one - where I said a ban on Sunday voting in Georgia was the law.
Nice try, Rev. Owens. I’ve already exposed your dishonesty regarding Georgia law. More important is the dishonesty you’ve shown, over and over via defensive and excuse-laden responses (and not just to me), displaying your failure to “get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.” Your words.
Mr. Baird, although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was ultimately extended, portions of the act have been struck down by the Supreme Court. You are absolutely correct that some states have enacted measure specifically written to restrict access to voting.
I'm glad the DJ published your op-ed piece after Martin Luther King Day. We need reminders about his achievements and struggles throughout the year. While Dirk's rebuttal concerning the political aspects of your guest perspective is sufficient, you deserve a genuine "thanks" for speaking to how Dr. King was vilified for his progressive (at the time) views. He was an early opponent of the Vietnam War before American sentiment shifted against that conflict. His progressive views on economics were out of the mainstream, but many might be surprised to know that other Black activists rejected his non-violent approach to protesting. He was not militant enough.
I posted the following last Friday after reading Jon Mays’ column. In Birmingham, Dr. King “asked volunteers to sign a pledge card that listed ten commandments for his volunteers to follow. No. 8 said, ‘refrain from the violence of fist, tongue or heart.’ Imagine if protesters today would follow that commandment. The summer of 2020 might have been marked by progress achieved through nonviolence, and protesters in DC last January could have made a much more impactful statement through nonviolence. Dr. King passed in 1968 at the age of 39 years... his philosophy of nonviolent protests should not pass with him. Embracing that philosophy would be a fitting way for everyone to honor him."
You also deserve a "thanks" for reminding everyone that Dr. King’s work is not done.
The Reverend and I don't always agree on issues, but the significance and relevance of Dr. King to today's conversation on race is something we both think is very important. Yes, Dr. King opposed the Vietnam War and history has vindicated those who did. Yes, he was called a socialist when that label drew the scorn of most Americans, but it's unlikely he would support socialist regimes today that have created and perpetuated humanitarian crises.
The Reverend as a "Black kid growing up in California" undoubtedly learned at home why Dr. King matters. I also grew up in California the 60s and I learned about Dr. King in school, but it wasn't until I studied his use of "soul force" as an approach to bringing real and positive change did I fully appreciate the things I learned about Dr. King as a kid.
Regarding your comment about Senator Tim Scott - he, as well as North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson are often trotted out to recite conservative positions. Sometimes, they are absolutely correct, whether the position is considered conservative or not. But many times their statements are misleading our outright wrong. It is very effective because having a black person promoting some conservative positions because it makes some people more comfortable with advancing or retaining policies that are detrimental to people of color as a whole. The statements he made in the YouTube about his grandfather and his own experience were touching and made to validate his authority to speak as an African American. I did the same thing, and millions of black people have similar stories as well. However, just because Senator Scott said it does not make what he said entirely true. Georgia SB202, passed last year supposedly because of lack of confidence in the Georgia election systems (not true as it pertained to the majority of Georgians and the 2020 national elections) actually did increase early voting access. But it also did the following, some of which disproportionately adversely affects Georgia voters of color:
The absentee ballot request period is shorter
Runoff elections are shortened to four weeks instead of nine.
Bans the use of mobile voting buses for early voting except in emergencies.
Limits the availability of drop boxes, including a cap on how many can be set up.
Passing out food and drink to voters is criminalized – this is the actual verbiage from the bill: “nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector.”
The elected Secretary of State would no longer chair the State Election Board, and would instead be appointed by legislators. The Republican Party currently controls both chambers of the state legislature, effectively giving control of the 2022 mid-term elections to that party.
As a pastor, I always tell my congregation that in addition to what they hear from the pulpit, always go to the source – the Bible – and read the referenced scriptures for themselves. I would say the same as it relates to Georgia SB202. Rather than taking Senator Scott’s word about it, or mine, or anyone else’s, go to the source. You may end up with the same interpretation as he, or not. I know I read it for myself, and I certainly didn't.
A thoughtful response... thank you, and I can appreciate your disagreement with Tim Scott's position re: voting. But I'm left wondering... why do so many on the left side of the aisle chastise African-Americans when those African-Americans articulate support for a conservative position? When it comes to Georgia's voting laws, why are we listening to Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer instead of Tim Scott, Winsome Sears and Ben Carson? It seems to me that Senator Scott, Lieutenant Governor Sears, and Secretary Carson speak with authority on this matter that the President, the Speaker, and the Senate Majority Leader do not possess... and they never will.
The progressive left wants us to believe it is 1962 all over. It's not...
Good evening again Mr. Fowler - I had to smile a bit when I read your last response because with some of this audience, I’m seen as the left-wing radical. With some in audiences in other spaces, I’m criticized as “white sympathizer”. There was a black “journalist” last year who did an entire piece addressed to me, ripping me for publicly supporting retired San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer’s interim stint in Oakland. So I can’t really answer your question as it relates to “the left”. I don’t consider myself “left” or “right”. My issue with Tim Scott, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas and some other conservatives is they tell only part of the story. Although they made it out and into mainstream American, and thus prove it can be done, the opportunities they worked for are still not available for millions of other hard-working, deserving black Americans and other Americans of people of color. Some black people aren’t making it because of their own issues; their ethnicity doesn’t matter. But millions are still suffering because of the systemic racism that is still very much prevalent in this country. Some of the conservative black folks benefit politically and even financially in some cases by making some whites feel that everything is ok; the playing field is level; racism has been eradicated and any black folk, or poor folk or anyone else not making it is because of their own shortcomings. That is absolutely not true. You say it isn’t 1962 and it isn’t for you, but still it is for a whole lot of folks. Just because you personally don’t see or experience it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Well, I wouldn't categorize you as a left-wing radical and certainly not a white sympathizer. However, with your deep commitment and noteworthy accomplishments as a local leader in the NAACP, it would be a stretch to say you lean conservative but not so much of a stretch to say you follow a liberal political bent.
The success stories of African-Americans like Carol Swain still occur far too infrequently, but I'm sure you would agree Blacks are making positive strides economically. Interestingly, where do we find the greatest disparity in income between Blacks and Whites? In states with larger Black populations... and those folks are primarily residing in economically depressed inner-cities. Cities that have been controlled by the Democratic Party for decades. That's where you will find gang and gun violence, lots of drugs, bad schools, and higher unemployment. Is it any wonder more and more Blacks are turning away from the Democratic Party as a result?
How can we do a better job than the Democratic Party in lifting everyone at or near the poverty line to more successful and fulfilling lives? The Brookings Institute came up with a formula. Here it is: graduate from high school, don;t get married until turning 21 years of age and don't have children until married, and finally, get a full time job. You know what's coming next... that formula works for everyone regardless of race or ethnicity. It's harder to follow that formula in communities under Democratic Party control.
Sorry, I reject President Biden's mantra of systemic racism, and efforts to convince Americans that we are back in 1962 are divisive and destructive. Things were bad... very bad back then... inter-racial marriages prohibited, true voter suppression, and de jure segregation still in effect. How can you compare what was happening 50 years ago to race relations today? We both agree that Dr. King's work is not done and we must continue to work to ensure there is equal opportunity for all, but I disagree that the disenfranchised are still living in the deplorable conditions that existed in 1962. You say maybe because I don't see those 1962 conditions that I'm convinced they don't exist... but maybe I don't see those 1962 conditions because they really don't exist.
Thank you Mr. Fowler. Although you and I disagree on some things, sometimes vehemently, I will say your perspectives are thoughtful. Thoughtful dialog, even when the parties end up still disagreeing, promotes dialog and understanding. I appreciate reading your responses.
Hello again Mr. Fowler - again, thank you for your response. Although I certainly understand why you perceive me as “leaning left” based on the things I write about in this forum, trust me, that is not the perception of some in other spaces I write and speak in. For example, I have taken a lot of heat for my abject rejection of the call to defund the police, and my overall support of law enforcement, although I am highly critical of the killing of unarmed citizens of color by a small percentage of rogue officers. I reject the use of entitlement programs except as a short-term safety. I don’t support reparations, at least not in the traditional sense. I denounce black-on-black crime, although I renounce that as the excuse many use to not address the inequalities in the larger society. Believe me, these stances are very unpopular with some on the “left”. But what I have found interesting is that, although I have been verbally attacked by my more liberal critics, I have never been threatened by them as I have by a couple of my more conservative critics. Anyway, I continue to disagree with you regarding conditions for black Americans and other people of color in the year 2022. I agree there are many more black people doing much better economically today than in 1962. But there are many doing worse. The gap is worse today than in 1962 and, for many, the climb out is much more difficult. The reasons for that are more complex than can be described here. But systematic racism (and to some degree, sexism) is still very real. In some cases, the actual racist practices no longer exist but the effects of those practices are very much still in play and will be for generations to come. If you get a chance, read the book “The Color of Law” by Richard Rothstein. I think it would help you understand what I mean about how systematic racism still exists.
Why would anyone expect the party of the KKK and Jim Crow laws to help them move forward? I’m assuming Rev. Bernice King is referencing Democrats as “misguided senators.” If not, perhaps she should be reminded that Uncle Joe bragged about his friendship with George Wallace. Let’s not forget his friendship with Robert Byrd, the KKK clansman, or Biden’s speech calling black people “predators.” Perhaps folks like Rev. Bernice King are counting on the wrong side to “get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.” Instead of receiving more lip service from the left, I’d say they need to turn to the right side if they want to see advancement of Dr. King’s work.
Rev. Owens, a little homework on recent American history will provide background on my facts regarding the KKK and Jim Crow laws. A review of history will provide background on my facts in regards to Biden. I hope that will clear up some confusion.
Mr. Y, my confusion about your response was partly because it was somewhat incoherent and partly because the part that was coherent had no relevance to what I wrote. As I responded earlier to Mr. van Ulden, I don't understand the predictable yet tired titrate against Democrats, President Biden, etc. when responding to pieces I write. I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican. I didn't mention President Biden. In fact, what you said about him is true, but what did that have to do with what I wrote? At least BLM didn't come up this time. Also, as I stated to Mr. van Ulden, I appreciate your feeling the need to parentally admonish me to do my homework but my parents, may they rest in peace, taught me a long time ago that as a black woman in America, I'd better have my facts straight before opening my mouth. And even when I do, I will still be dismissed by certain people. But even more so, unless you have had parents or other relatives or friends who gave you first-hand accounts of living under Jim Crow laws and/or who had fatal encounters with the KKK, I don't think you are in a position to lecture me about doing homework in this area. My parents, and other relatives and friends of my family lived it and gave me very detailed accounts of what that was like. Perhaps, rather than being concerned about whether or not I'm doing my homework, you could spend some time self-reflecting on why you get so angry, hateful, and disrespectful when someone who doesn't look or think like you states an opinion that is different than yours. Do you really think this type of one-dimensional lashing out is the best way forward towards a better America?
Actually, Rev. Owens, what I write is completely relevant to what you wrote. If your parents and other relatives and friends lived under Jim Crow laws, why are you aligning yourself with the Jim Crow party? Are you sure the party of the KKK and Jim Crow laws is interested in working with you to create a better community or a better nation for all Americans? If you feel I’m being angry, hateful, or disrespectful then perhaps you could answer a few of my questions. Do you think avoiding hard questions is the best way forward towards a better America?
Good evening Mr. Y. Again, none of your comments addressed what I wrote about; they never do. In this piece, I wrote about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. You spent time criticizing his daughter, but you talked more about President Biden than Rev. Dr. King. You talk about my aligning myself with the Democratic Party but I have never once stated I was a Democrat because I’m not. Neither am I a Republican. And if you ever asked your questions in a spirit of genuine desire to try to understand another point of view, I’d be more than happy to answer your questions, hard or easy. But to engage a person who is disrespectful and clearly has already fully formed positions about whatever he is asking about is not a good use of anyone’s time. Again, the real question here is why you are so angry and hateful when interacting with people who have different ideas than yours?
Rev. Owens, regarding your complaint my comments don’t address what you wrote about… Near the end of your editorial you state we should “… get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together…” I’m asking how, when the group that wants to get serious is working with a group that doesn’t want to. As for how you align with Dems, perhaps you should look at how your op-ed pieces are signed off. “…president of the NAACP…” Now, didn’t the NAACP recently create a civil rights scorecard for senators and basically give A (pass) grades to most Dems, I (incomplete) grades to a few Dems and a majority of, if not all, F (fail) grades to Republicans? Doesn’t the NAACP (I’m assuming they still do) rate politicians on a scale of 0 to 100%? Now, what would we notice if we delve into those ratings? I’m betting virtually all Dems are over 75% and virtually all Republicans are under 75% (or even 50% - of course, we’ll probably see a number of RINOs with high marks). You say you’re not a Democrat, fine, but you are aligning with the Democrat Party.
BTW, if you don’t want to answer my questions, just say so. There’s no need to hide behind your perception that I have “fully formed” positions. Perhaps I have “fully formed” positions because nobody has been able to change those positions. Do you think making excuses by accusing someone of being disrespectful, angry, and hateful and then not answering their questions will change any positions, fully formed or not? So much for getting beyond the superficial and getting serious about working together…
Good morning Mr. Y - responding to your latest comment (unfortunately, these respinsds do not appear in chronological order), I again state that I do not align with either the Democratic nor Republican parties. It is unfortunate that you are unable to relate to any content (from me or anyone else) without first putting it in a Democratic or Republican box. There are many like you and I fear that partisan mindset will be the demise of democracy as we know it. And lastly, I will state again that if/when you ask questions from a place of seriously wanting to hear my answer, I will be more than happy to answer any questions yoi have that I am qualified to answer. But I will never pander to anger, hate and vitriol, which is where you operate from. You can’t hear what I’m trying to say. That doesn’t mean you will agree with it after hearing it. But you can’t even hear it. So there is no point in even trying. Be blessed.
Rev. Owens, so basically another response that avoids answering questions... Am I surprised? Not anymore. You keep saying you don’t align with a party, but regardless of what you say, you do align with a party, as I’ve illustrated. If you don’t plan on having a productive dialog, then you can probably save time by not responding to comments. Maybe it makes you feel better, but your non-responsiveness doesn’t get beyond the superficial or gets serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.
Good evening Mr. Y - I again say that whenever you are ready to have a conversation based on a genuine desire to understand a different point of view, and not an argument about Republicans versus Democrats, or left versus right - a dialog based on respect and honest inquiry and not on anger and vitriol - I am more than happy to answer any questions you have.
Rev. Owens - yet another non-responsive response. So much for getting beyond the superficial or getting serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.
Mr. or Ms. Aball - I wasn’t complimenting myself; I simply stated a fact to lay the groundwork for my response about Mr. Fowler’s Biblical citation. If I were trying to be self-righteous, I would have listed all of my degrees, certifications, awards, etc. Why does my stating that I have Biblical education/training bother you so? And how is my talking about my Biblical training (I didn’t even list my specific degree in that area) more self-righteous than your commenting on your Ph.D. brother?
Four days ago, I encouraged you to look at a brief passage of scripture. I would genuinely like to hear your reaction to my suggestion. That posting reads in part...
"In Luke 10:25-37, an expert in the law asked Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?' Jesus answered him with a parable... Read the passage... it will only take about 2 minutes. Then tell me if you agree about Rev. Owens being your neighbor."
Mr. or Ms. Aball - based on the definition of humility in the dictionary or even the interpretation of humility from the Bible, that is incorrect. However, if your definition of humility is that I should consider myself as less of a person than you based on my race, gender or religious beliefs, you are absolutely correct. Be blessed.
Dan Lewis asked me to reflect on the sign of the times around the 1969 Riot and the Faculty at Asheville High...I was a returning student turned teacher just home form California education and Madrid, Spain . I wasn't of the southern thinking from I suppose you might say the long time faculty members. Speaking Castillian Spanish, just hired by Mr. Pennell to teach Spanish...I only remember one faculty meeting where we were told to use the word black as being politically correct in talking about the kids we were teaching, I roam nowadays in Calif. and still don't know the politically correct term for Hispanics, Latin American folks. I may have missed the correct term, African American maybe? Please correct me if I am wrong. At this faculty meeting, I raised my hand among a mix of both ethnics and said my Southern Georgia family had taught me to say colored people. I had no idea what I was saying then. One of the older black gentlemen teachers teased me about what I said. I can't remember his name but he was so kind to me. I think I was hired being fresh home from an M.A. in Madrid, Spain speaking fluent Castillian and educated in Calif. having liberal views about all cultures. Being a new young teacher I may not have had the past to influence my thinking. From there I have previously written about the fear from the riot in the cafeteria with bricks flying and windows breaking. I also wrote about the 50-50% white to black color cheerleader choices with the second year to be 60-40%.Also about the confrontation with a spectator in Avery about calling the girls the b word.. At the Riot, both the car in front of mine and behind were turned over. I think my kids liked me as I liked them and they left my car alone...if it was the kids as I have read others were involved. Other that that I don't remember any other meetings for us...This was in September when school just started so the year was just new. Having read Mr. Harrell my stomach just turned in disgust that things like hiring and firing went on in those days and now. Sometimes it is very lonely to be right..What he and his family went through and suffered is stomach churning. I felt resentment as a kid from having an alcoholic Mother. So I know how that feels. I think our hormones at that age allow all kinds of feelings for the first time...A whole family persecuted like that is unexcusable and unacceptable. Alas the good old boy network lives on forever changing our lives in one way or another. I am so glad I got to read about all this...Great job Administrators and we thank you...
2 Comments
Lynn Woods
During that time we had a real zeal to know our-self by studying our past, and getting a better grip on our present, and future. It had been made known that the system did it's best to hide the accomplishments of the minorities. To this day you still h… See more
Having survived a desegregation riot I get a bit annoyed at those who preach the accolades of MLK birthday and praise honoring and following patting themselves on the back because they are so non prejudiced . I lived it I know it I was raised in it preach to someone else about how we are all to celebrate this and that. I l know how I lived it southern desegration riots were common then gov, declares a state of emergency and calls in the National Guard with curfews. LIve through that then preach how we are to react and act . Rioters caught with guns from town to town my kids get up at 9 A.M. and walk out scared to not do what the rioters said to do. Then form opinions take trips first live it then you will be informed to preach. and proselytize these events.
I read all your comments have any of you ventured lived in the south when desegregation was ? Have you ventured on the trip high schoolers go on to the motel where King was shot? do you in any way know the south? Have you felt desegragation? do you know wht it is? visit Atlanta, North Carolina envision walking into an all black achool with no intention to desegregate and get a feel for the days of walking into a school with 6 white and black cheerleaders? all faces are black in front of you. live it then preach it California is full of people who think they know everbody's way to think and feel. I remember my San Carlos friends making racist comments about the south then Ravenswood was sent to San Carlos High what a horrified group they were then. Preach to them! and the reaction they all had..
the comments emanating from the preacher seem a bit cocky implying a know it all attitude i would never have a religious leader in my names of spirituality a bit cocky and know it all does not congeal with religion. an attitude adjustment is needed here.
my PHD brother georgia tech was so smart his professors said he was the smartest student they ever had What was missing in his education was getting along with others You can be educated and not be able to get along with anybody He taught tennesee state kids math and told them he was going to treat them like the idiots they were. Always OUT OF STEP BUt EDUCATED MAYBE WE CAN ALL LeAERN TO GET ALONG WITH OTHERS with or without education that was the main thing I tought my boys growing up get along with others we can all use that in our everyday travels. sometimes the preachers need a bit of unholy entitled attitudes too. just get along/
Mr. or Ms. Aball, I don’t get the sense that you like preachers very much, at least those who step out of the “feel good” role and say things that make some people uncomfortable. If you get a chance and you have access to a Bible, please read Matthew 10:34-42. I want us to all get along, but not at the expense of staying silent in the face of injustice and inequities in our society.
Mr. or Ms. Aball - your opinions about a cocky (i.e. uppity) black female preacher gets in the way of the message. Humility means that a person does not think himself better than anyone else. I certainly have never said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as putting myself above anyone else. But I refuse to think of myself as lower than anyone else either, which I think is your real problem with me. I won’t stay in my place. Jesus was considered cocky by the Pharisees, and Martin Luther King was called cocky and arrogant. Thus, I am humbly honored to be in such company. What I don’t understand is - how did a message about MLK Day become so focused on the cocky black female preacher in your mind?
Slow down... Rev. Owens has strong opinions but she is not cocky.
In Luke 10:25-37, an expert in the law asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus answered him with a parable. Rev. Owens is your neighbor... she needs no attitude adjustment. Read the passage... it will only take about 2 minutes. Then tell me if you agree about Rev. Owens being your neighbor.
Mr. Fowler, thank you for your response. You clearly understand the teachings of Jesus and the parable he recounted in Luke 10:25-37. Most of the detractors here are like the priest and the Levite in the parable. I say that not because they disagree with me; you many times disagree with me, but it’s based on content. But these people cannot even hear the message because they can’t separate what I am saying from their hatred and/or fear of what I represent to them. That’s why their comments never center on what I said, but on me or other superfluous things totally disconnected from what was written. Actually, the cocky comment could be considered accurate, depending on your interpretation. I’ve been called cocky many times in my life, even as a child. A synonym for cocky is uppity, which used to be a commonly-used code word to describe people who didn’t know how to stay in their place. It was used primarily in reference to blacks, and sometimes women. Although in this case the cocky/uppity reference was used regarding my role as clergy, I think there were elements in all three in the choice of that descriptor. And, given that interpretation, the description is correct. I don’t stay in my “place”, as defined by some, as a preacher/pastor, a woman, nor a black person. I don’t stay in the boxes others create for me. It is just sad that a piece written about us honoring Dr. King’s legacy by trying to carry out the true focus of his work devolved into a commentary about my cockiness. But thank you, once again, for your thoughtful reaponse.
Reverend Owens would not be Reverend Owens if she stayed in the "place" some expect her to stay. Yes, the word cocky fits the way you have applied it to yourself, but so do the words confident and resolute. Enjoy the rest of your week... and the next one.
I’m not sure what a names of spirituality is. I’m personally not about religion; I’m about Jesus Christ. If promoting justice and truth is cocky, that is one attitude that will never be adjusted in me. People who don’t want to hear the message commonly attack the messenger. So be it.
You ask, "Who knows if he even understands the true meaning of the passage he cited?"
I do.
While most people are familiar with the lesson that they should help others especially those in distress, the lesson Jesus teaches re: who helped the distressed traveler is often lost. The parable teaches that even someone who seems least qualified or least likely to lend a hand is your neighbor. The history between Israel and Samaria was a bitter one. When Jesus chooses a Samaritan to come to the rescue of the traveler that choice may have shocked some of His listeners. There are other spiritual meanings in the story.
Here is modern version of the parable that really drives home the lesson that everyone is your neighbor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIlbbmeVH1M
I really hope you watch the video. I'm guessing it will be one of the highlights of your day, and I would like to hear your reaction to it...
Hmmm... I hate to disappoint you but a lot of what I cite is not the result of "googling." When I read something that I find interesting in online articles or printed form, I will often save them on my laptop. (Yes... even at the expense of physcially typing something instead of cutting and pasting.) That way, I don't have scour the internet for the "right" quote. Like a lot of other readers who contribute to the comments section, I will at times fact check myself before posting a number or other pertinent info, and I try to reference those sources as much as possible.
Back to the Good Samaritan parable... I know the story well and try to learn from its lessons. I have referenced that bit of scripture in these pages on other occasions. I didn't have to "google" to find it. In the interest of full disclosure, even though I have watched the linked video many times and have used it in teaching, I did have to search Youtube to make sure I posted the correct link.
One more thing... I'm sure Rev. Owens appreciates hearing "amen" from you and others. However, her 6:58 am comment appears to be a rebuttal to aball52. So, I'm not sure why your 7:16 ad hominem response was aimed at me... after all... we're neighbors.
Mr. Tee - I’m not sure what the amen is referencing. My response was not to anything Mr. Fowler said. And, as a highly-trained Biblical scholar, preacher and pastor, I think I am qualified to say that Mr. Fowler clearly understands the passage he cite, much more so than anything he could have googled.
I don't consider a person who describes herself highly trained Biblical scholar preacher and pastor as humble in any way. Every comment you make you include black and color in your reponses. I remember my uncle telling me if you deserve a compliment someone will give it to you. You don't need to do this yourself you tend to compliment your self every comment as if someone was relating every comment to your ego and race.
Mr. or Ms. Aball - mentioning one of my credentials (and I didn’t even go into the details) as it pertained to the conversation at that moment was not my complimenting myself. It was simply stating a fact. Your brother’s degree wasn’t even relevant to the original article; I’m still not sure what that particular comment was all about. You seem to have some sort of what is now looking like a very unhealthy obsession about me and your perception that I don’t possess an appropriate amount of humility. So be it. By your definition of humility, I don’t. And I never will. So we agree on that. Since my lack of humility gets in the way of your hearing any message I might deliver, you may want to skip future ones. It really isn’t worth your time nor your serenity to be upset in this manner. Praying God’s peace for you.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(68) comments
The Reverend seems to forget that the current voting procedures in most states allowed a black man to become president. She is just throwing the voting right issue out there without any substantiation that the various proposals by certain states may impair voting access. Unless one believes that signature verification, a reasonable effort to prove citizenship and ensuring the security of ballots is somehow restrictive. The Democrats are proposing a system, using COVID 19 as a pretext, to forever effectively exclude opposition parties from the democratic process. The much lambasted voting process in Georgia is less restrictive than the one practiced in the State of Delaware. Isn't that where the "voting rights" champion is from? Who exactly is the Jim Crow descendent? And, most of the Democrat senators, including Biden in his former role, who are screaming to abolish the filibuster were very much in favor in keeping the rule in place when it was in their favor. Cannot get more hypocritic. Do your homework, Reverend.
Mr. van Ulden - it is interesting that you started your comments about voting procedures "allowing" a black man to become president -- he wasn't "allowed" to be the president; he was duly and fairly elected to that office, twice. Indeed, this whole "rigged election" issue didn't reach the feverish pitch of what is now the Big Lie and a real threat to democracy until a certain segment of the US population rose up against the specter of a black man in the White House. I am curious about your statement about the restrictive voting laws in Delaware; could you back up that statement? I was unaware, for example, that it is illegal there to give water to voters waiting in long lines to vote, as it is now in Georgia. I don't know why you always fall into the predictable and tired titrate against Democrats, President Biden, etc. when responding to pieces I write. I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican, nor have I ever mentioned President Biden in anything I've written. How does any of what you said relate, even remotely, to what I wrote? Lastly, at least for now, thank you for your parental admonishment to me to do my homework. However, I had two wonderful parents who completed all of the parenting I will ever need many decades ago. One thing they always taught me to do, as a black woman in America, is to always do my homework (literally and figuratively) and double-check everything I do. Because of my race and, to some degree my gender, I do not have the same grace nor opportunity to make mistakes that you do. Perhaps, rather than trying to parent a retirement-aged woman, you should reflect on your hostility and hatred and ask yourself if espousing that mindset is truly the path to a better America. Have you ever even tried to listen to people who do not look and think like you?
Rev. Lorrie: Dirk's "allowing" comment is, indeed, very telling but not surprising.
Yes, very telling, and very sad.
Mr. Van Ulden forgets that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was allowed to expire in 2017. Many states have proposed and enacted measures that restrict access to voting since then.
Cathy
Do you believe voter ID requirements restrict access to voting?
Mr. Van Ulden forgets lots of things that don't fit into his narrative.
Tires screeching around the corner...
Tommy - such as what, in this context? One liners don't help.
Ms. Baird forgets that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was again extended in 2006 for another 25 years. I’m unsure as to what Act Ms. Baird is referencing, but it’s not the Voting Rights Act. We should all give thanks to states that are now passing more and more election security laws. Now, who doesn’t want election security?
Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was extended, portions of the law were struck down by the Supreme Court, allowing states to enact restrictions specifically designed to suppress the African American vote. We all want secure voting laws. But how is voting more secure by outlawing providing water to people waiting in long lines to vote? Or by outlawing voting on Sundays? Giving water to people waiting to vote or allowing voting on Sundays was never an issue until the 2020 election didn't go the way some people wanted.
Hello, Reverend Owens
With respect to "restrictions specifically designed to suppress the African American vote," giving water to folks standing in line at polling places and extra voting days... I would refer you to comments made by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)... https://youtu.be/34DAFZgwg20
Rev. Owens, since your allegation of outlawing providing water to people waiting in long lines has long been debunked, I won’t bother with your researching your potentially false allegation of outlawing voting on Sundays. You say you want secure voting laws? Ok, then there shouldn’t be an issue with Voter ID. Conflating Voter ID with voter suppression will never be a winning argument.
Mr. Y - regarding your latest comments about the new law regarding voting in Georgia - you don’t need to “research” anything I say. Simply read the law for yourself. And it’s just amazing to me how you attack me for things I never said. I have no problem with voters identifying themselves. Anyone truly qualified to vote should be able to produce evidence of such.
Rev. Owens, since you called me on it, I did take a look at (only performed a search for “Sunday” on) the law. If you look at the SB202 version that passed (https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498), there is no outlawing of voting on Sundays so I’m unsure which source you used for information, and you probably shouldn’t keep pushing that false narrative. I’m glad you say you have no problems with voter identification but indirectly, you do, since you align yourself with the NAACP. Perhaps you can convince the Dems to stop conflating Voter ID with voter suppression and we can get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.
Mr. Y - I didn’t say the the provision banning Sunday early voting was passed. That element was removed following heavy criticism by many black Georgians. Black church congregants often vote after worship service, particularly in the South. It’s called Souls to the Polls. But it is not a false narrative that the Republican Party in Geortia tried to pass a version of the bill that outlawed Sunday early voting. This was very clearly aimed to suppress the black vote. Republicans in Texas tried the same thing with SB 7 for the same reasons. Black Texans had the same reaction and, again, that element of the bill was removed in the final version. These are facts.
So basically, Rev. Owens, you're being dishonest. Because I called you on it, all of a sudden, you add the words, “tried to pass” in this comment. I wonder why you didn’t include that uber-critical information in your previous comment. Maybe because it would ruin the false narrative you were trying to push. Since we now know you’re okay being dishonest, we can question your denial of being aligned with a particular party (evidence indicates you are aligned). Perhaps you could spend some time self-reflecting on whether you truly want to, “…get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.” Evidence indicates you do not since you spend more time providing thin excuses rather than answering thick questions.
Mr. Y - again, you put words in my mouth that I never said. That is the true dishonesty here. Please provide one direct quote from me - just one - where I said a ban on Sunday voting in Georgia was the law.
Nice try, Rev. Owens. I’ve already exposed your dishonesty regarding Georgia law. More important is the dishonesty you’ve shown, over and over via defensive and excuse-laden responses (and not just to me), displaying your failure to “get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.” Your words.
Mr. Baird, although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was ultimately extended, portions of the act have been struck down by the Supreme Court. You are absolutely correct that some states have enacted measure specifically written to restrict access to voting.
Rev. Owens
I'm glad the DJ published your op-ed piece after Martin Luther King Day. We need reminders about his achievements and struggles throughout the year. While Dirk's rebuttal concerning the political aspects of your guest perspective is sufficient, you deserve a genuine "thanks" for speaking to how Dr. King was vilified for his progressive (at the time) views. He was an early opponent of the Vietnam War before American sentiment shifted against that conflict. His progressive views on economics were out of the mainstream, but many might be surprised to know that other Black activists rejected his non-violent approach to protesting. He was not militant enough.
I posted the following last Friday after reading Jon Mays’ column. In Birmingham, Dr. King “asked volunteers to sign a pledge card that listed ten commandments for his volunteers to follow. No. 8 said, ‘refrain from the violence of fist, tongue or heart.’ Imagine if protesters today would follow that commandment. The summer of 2020 might have been marked by progress achieved through nonviolence, and protesters in DC last January could have made a much more impactful statement through nonviolence. Dr. King passed in 1968 at the age of 39 years... his philosophy of nonviolent protests should not pass with him. Embracing that philosophy would be a fitting way for everyone to honor him."
You also deserve a "thanks" for reminding everyone that Dr. King’s work is not done.
Good morning Ray,
Once again you offer your wisdom and clear thinking to the forum. It is good to read a comment that actually has thought and common sense in it.
Why, Tafhdyd... you're making me blush.
The Reverend and I don't always agree on issues, but the significance and relevance of Dr. King to today's conversation on race is something we both think is very important. Yes, Dr. King opposed the Vietnam War and history has vindicated those who did. Yes, he was called a socialist when that label drew the scorn of most Americans, but it's unlikely he would support socialist regimes today that have created and perpetuated humanitarian crises.
The Reverend as a "Black kid growing up in California" undoubtedly learned at home why Dr. King matters. I also grew up in California the 60s and I learned about Dr. King in school, but it wasn't until I studied his use of "soul force" as an approach to bringing real and positive change did I fully appreciate the things I learned about Dr. King as a kid.
Good afternoon Mr. Fowler,
Regarding your comment about Senator Tim Scott - he, as well as North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson are often trotted out to recite conservative positions. Sometimes, they are absolutely correct, whether the position is considered conservative or not. But many times their statements are misleading our outright wrong. It is very effective because having a black person promoting some conservative positions because it makes some people more comfortable with advancing or retaining policies that are detrimental to people of color as a whole. The statements he made in the YouTube about his grandfather and his own experience were touching and made to validate his authority to speak as an African American. I did the same thing, and millions of black people have similar stories as well. However, just because Senator Scott said it does not make what he said entirely true. Georgia SB202, passed last year supposedly because of lack of confidence in the Georgia election systems (not true as it pertained to the majority of Georgians and the 2020 national elections) actually did increase early voting access. But it also did the following, some of which disproportionately adversely affects Georgia voters of color:
The absentee ballot request period is shorter
Runoff elections are shortened to four weeks instead of nine.
Bans the use of mobile voting buses for early voting except in emergencies.
Limits the availability of drop boxes, including a cap on how many can be set up.
Passing out food and drink to voters is criminalized – this is the actual verbiage from the bill: “nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector.”
The elected Secretary of State would no longer chair the State Election Board, and would instead be appointed by legislators. The Republican Party currently controls both chambers of the state legislature, effectively giving control of the 2022 mid-term elections to that party.
As a pastor, I always tell my congregation that in addition to what they hear from the pulpit, always go to the source – the Bible – and read the referenced scriptures for themselves. I would say the same as it relates to Georgia SB202. Rather than taking Senator Scott’s word about it, or mine, or anyone else’s, go to the source. You may end up with the same interpretation as he, or not. I know I read it for myself, and I certainly didn't.
Reverend Owens...
A thoughtful response... thank you, and I can appreciate your disagreement with Tim Scott's position re: voting. But I'm left wondering... why do so many on the left side of the aisle chastise African-Americans when those African-Americans articulate support for a conservative position? When it comes to Georgia's voting laws, why are we listening to Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer instead of Tim Scott, Winsome Sears and Ben Carson? It seems to me that Senator Scott, Lieutenant Governor Sears, and Secretary Carson speak with authority on this matter that the President, the Speaker, and the Senate Majority Leader do not possess... and they never will.
The progressive left wants us to believe it is 1962 all over. It's not...
Good evening again Mr. Fowler - I had to smile a bit when I read your last response because with some of this audience, I’m seen as the left-wing radical. With some in audiences in other spaces, I’m criticized as “white sympathizer”. There was a black “journalist” last year who did an entire piece addressed to me, ripping me for publicly supporting retired San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer’s interim stint in Oakland. So I can’t really answer your question as it relates to “the left”. I don’t consider myself “left” or “right”. My issue with Tim Scott, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas and some other conservatives is they tell only part of the story. Although they made it out and into mainstream American, and thus prove it can be done, the opportunities they worked for are still not available for millions of other hard-working, deserving black Americans and other Americans of people of color. Some black people aren’t making it because of their own issues; their ethnicity doesn’t matter. But millions are still suffering because of the systemic racism that is still very much prevalent in this country. Some of the conservative black folks benefit politically and even financially in some cases by making some whites feel that everything is ok; the playing field is level; racism has been eradicated and any black folk, or poor folk or anyone else not making it is because of their own shortcomings. That is absolutely not true. You say it isn’t 1962 and it isn’t for you, but still it is for a whole lot of folks. Just because you personally don’t see or experience it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Rev. Owens... hope you enjoyed a great Sunday.
Well, I wouldn't categorize you as a left-wing radical and certainly not a white sympathizer. However, with your deep commitment and noteworthy accomplishments as a local leader in the NAACP, it would be a stretch to say you lean conservative but not so much of a stretch to say you follow a liberal political bent.
The success stories of African-Americans like Carol Swain still occur far too infrequently, but I'm sure you would agree Blacks are making positive strides economically. Interestingly, where do we find the greatest disparity in income between Blacks and Whites? In states with larger Black populations... and those folks are primarily residing in economically depressed inner-cities. Cities that have been controlled by the Democratic Party for decades. That's where you will find gang and gun violence, lots of drugs, bad schools, and higher unemployment. Is it any wonder more and more Blacks are turning away from the Democratic Party as a result?
How can we do a better job than the Democratic Party in lifting everyone at or near the poverty line to more successful and fulfilling lives? The Brookings Institute came up with a formula. Here it is: graduate from high school, don;t get married until turning 21 years of age and don't have children until married, and finally, get a full time job. You know what's coming next... that formula works for everyone regardless of race or ethnicity. It's harder to follow that formula in communities under Democratic Party control.
Sorry, I reject President Biden's mantra of systemic racism, and efforts to convince Americans that we are back in 1962 are divisive and destructive. Things were bad... very bad back then... inter-racial marriages prohibited, true voter suppression, and de jure segregation still in effect. How can you compare what was happening 50 years ago to race relations today? We both agree that Dr. King's work is not done and we must continue to work to ensure there is equal opportunity for all, but I disagree that the disenfranchised are still living in the deplorable conditions that existed in 1962. You say maybe because I don't see those 1962 conditions that I'm convinced they don't exist... but maybe I don't see those 1962 conditions because they really don't exist.
Thank you Mr. Fowler. Although you and I disagree on some things, sometimes vehemently, I will say your perspectives are thoughtful. Thoughtful dialog, even when the parties end up still disagreeing, promotes dialog and understanding. I appreciate reading your responses.
Hello again Mr. Fowler - again, thank you for your response. Although I certainly understand why you perceive me as “leaning left” based on the things I write about in this forum, trust me, that is not the perception of some in other spaces I write and speak in. For example, I have taken a lot of heat for my abject rejection of the call to defund the police, and my overall support of law enforcement, although I am highly critical of the killing of unarmed citizens of color by a small percentage of rogue officers. I reject the use of entitlement programs except as a short-term safety. I don’t support reparations, at least not in the traditional sense. I denounce black-on-black crime, although I renounce that as the excuse many use to not address the inequalities in the larger society. Believe me, these stances are very unpopular with some on the “left”. But what I have found interesting is that, although I have been verbally attacked by my more liberal critics, I have never been threatened by them as I have by a couple of my more conservative critics. Anyway, I continue to disagree with you regarding conditions for black Americans and other people of color in the year 2022. I agree there are many more black people doing much better economically today than in 1962. But there are many doing worse. The gap is worse today than in 1962 and, for many, the climb out is much more difficult. The reasons for that are more complex than can be described here. But systematic racism (and to some degree, sexism) is still very real. In some cases, the actual racist practices no longer exist but the effects of those practices are very much still in play and will be for generations to come. If you get a chance, read the book “The Color of Law” by Richard Rothstein. I think it would help you understand what I mean about how systematic racism still exists.
Why would anyone expect the party of the KKK and Jim Crow laws to help them move forward? I’m assuming Rev. Bernice King is referencing Democrats as “misguided senators.” If not, perhaps she should be reminded that Uncle Joe bragged about his friendship with George Wallace. Let’s not forget his friendship with Robert Byrd, the KKK clansman, or Biden’s speech calling black people “predators.” Perhaps folks like Rev. Bernice King are counting on the wrong side to “get serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.” Instead of receiving more lip service from the left, I’d say they need to turn to the right side if they want to see advancement of Dr. King’s work.
????????????????????????
Rev. Owens, a little homework on recent American history will provide background on my facts regarding the KKK and Jim Crow laws. A review of history will provide background on my facts in regards to Biden. I hope that will clear up some confusion.
Mr. Y, my confusion about your response was partly because it was somewhat incoherent and partly because the part that was coherent had no relevance to what I wrote. As I responded earlier to Mr. van Ulden, I don't understand the predictable yet tired titrate against Democrats, President Biden, etc. when responding to pieces I write. I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican. I didn't mention President Biden. In fact, what you said about him is true, but what did that have to do with what I wrote? At least BLM didn't come up this time. Also, as I stated to Mr. van Ulden, I appreciate your feeling the need to parentally admonish me to do my homework but my parents, may they rest in peace, taught me a long time ago that as a black woman in America, I'd better have my facts straight before opening my mouth. And even when I do, I will still be dismissed by certain people. But even more so, unless you have had parents or other relatives or friends who gave you first-hand accounts of living under Jim Crow laws and/or who had fatal encounters with the KKK, I don't think you are in a position to lecture me about doing homework in this area. My parents, and other relatives and friends of my family lived it and gave me very detailed accounts of what that was like. Perhaps, rather than being concerned about whether or not I'm doing my homework, you could spend some time self-reflecting on why you get so angry, hateful, and disrespectful when someone who doesn't look or think like you states an opinion that is different than yours. Do you really think this type of one-dimensional lashing out is the best way forward towards a better America?
Actually, Rev. Owens, what I write is completely relevant to what you wrote. If your parents and other relatives and friends lived under Jim Crow laws, why are you aligning yourself with the Jim Crow party? Are you sure the party of the KKK and Jim Crow laws is interested in working with you to create a better community or a better nation for all Americans? If you feel I’m being angry, hateful, or disrespectful then perhaps you could answer a few of my questions. Do you think avoiding hard questions is the best way forward towards a better America?
Good evening Mr. Y. Again, none of your comments addressed what I wrote about; they never do. In this piece, I wrote about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. You spent time criticizing his daughter, but you talked more about President Biden than Rev. Dr. King. You talk about my aligning myself with the Democratic Party but I have never once stated I was a Democrat because I’m not. Neither am I a Republican. And if you ever asked your questions in a spirit of genuine desire to try to understand another point of view, I’d be more than happy to answer your questions, hard or easy. But to engage a person who is disrespectful and clearly has already fully formed positions about whatever he is asking about is not a good use of anyone’s time. Again, the real question here is why you are so angry and hateful when interacting with people who have different ideas than yours?
Rev. Owens, regarding your complaint my comments don’t address what you wrote about… Near the end of your editorial you state we should “… get beyond the superficial and get serious about working together…” I’m asking how, when the group that wants to get serious is working with a group that doesn’t want to. As for how you align with Dems, perhaps you should look at how your op-ed pieces are signed off. “…president of the NAACP…” Now, didn’t the NAACP recently create a civil rights scorecard for senators and basically give A (pass) grades to most Dems, I (incomplete) grades to a few Dems and a majority of, if not all, F (fail) grades to Republicans? Doesn’t the NAACP (I’m assuming they still do) rate politicians on a scale of 0 to 100%? Now, what would we notice if we delve into those ratings? I’m betting virtually all Dems are over 75% and virtually all Republicans are under 75% (or even 50% - of course, we’ll probably see a number of RINOs with high marks). You say you’re not a Democrat, fine, but you are aligning with the Democrat Party.
BTW, if you don’t want to answer my questions, just say so. There’s no need to hide behind your perception that I have “fully formed” positions. Perhaps I have “fully formed” positions because nobody has been able to change those positions. Do you think making excuses by accusing someone of being disrespectful, angry, and hateful and then not answering their questions will change any positions, fully formed or not? So much for getting beyond the superficial and getting serious about working together…
Good morning Mr. Y - responding to your latest comment (unfortunately, these respinsds do not appear in chronological order), I again state that I do not align with either the Democratic nor Republican parties. It is unfortunate that you are unable to relate to any content (from me or anyone else) without first putting it in a Democratic or Republican box. There are many like you and I fear that partisan mindset will be the demise of democracy as we know it. And lastly, I will state again that if/when you ask questions from a place of seriously wanting to hear my answer, I will be more than happy to answer any questions yoi have that I am qualified to answer. But I will never pander to anger, hate and vitriol, which is where you operate from. You can’t hear what I’m trying to say. That doesn’t mean you will agree with it after hearing it. But you can’t even hear it. So there is no point in even trying. Be blessed.
Rev. Owens, so basically another response that avoids answering questions... Am I surprised? Not anymore. You keep saying you don’t align with a party, but regardless of what you say, you do align with a party, as I’ve illustrated. If you don’t plan on having a productive dialog, then you can probably save time by not responding to comments. Maybe it makes you feel better, but your non-responsiveness doesn’t get beyond the superficial or gets serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.
Good evening Mr. Y - I again say that whenever you are ready to have a conversation based on a genuine desire to understand a different point of view, and not an argument about Republicans versus Democrats, or left versus right - a dialog based on respect and honest inquiry and not on anger and vitriol - I am more than happy to answer any questions you have.
Rev. Owens - ho hum, another day, another non-responsive response with thin excuses.
And yet another disrespectful reply - serving no purpose except to convey your distain. That’s fine. Be blessed.
Rev. Owens - yet another non-responsive response. So much for getting beyond the superficial or getting serious about working together to create a better community and a better nation for all Americans.
highly trained biblical scholar preacher and scholar does anybody complimenht you or do you compliment yourself ? seems a bit self righteous to me..
Mr. or Ms. Aball - I wasn’t complimenting myself; I simply stated a fact to lay the groundwork for my response about Mr. Fowler’s Biblical citation. If I were trying to be self-righteous, I would have listed all of my degrees, certifications, awards, etc. Why does my stating that I have Biblical education/training bother you so? And how is my talking about my Biblical training (I didn’t even list my specific degree in that area) more self-righteous than your commenting on your Ph.D. brother?
no humility at all in this person..
aball52
Four days ago, I encouraged you to look at a brief passage of scripture. I would genuinely like to hear your reaction to my suggestion. That posting reads in part...
"In Luke 10:25-37, an expert in the law asked Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?' Jesus answered him with a parable... Read the passage... it will only take about 2 minutes. Then tell me if you agree about Rev. Owens being your neighbor."
Mr. or Ms. Aball - based on the definition of humility in the dictionary or even the interpretation of humility from the Bible, that is incorrect. However, if your definition of humility is that I should consider myself as less of a person than you based on my race, gender or religious beliefs, you are absolutely correct. Be blessed.
Dan Lewis asked me to reflect on the sign of the times around the 1969 Riot and the Faculty at Asheville High...I was a returning student turned teacher just home form California education and Madrid, Spain . I wasn't of the southern thinking from I suppose you might say the long time faculty members. Speaking Castillian Spanish, just hired by Mr. Pennell to teach Spanish...I only remember one faculty meeting where we were told to use the word black as being politically correct in talking about the kids we were teaching, I roam nowadays in Calif. and still don't know the politically correct term for Hispanics, Latin American folks. I may have missed the correct term, African American maybe? Please correct me if I am wrong. At this faculty meeting, I raised my hand among a mix of both ethnics and said my Southern Georgia family had taught me to say colored people. I had no idea what I was saying then. One of the older black gentlemen teachers teased me about what I said. I can't remember his name but he was so kind to me. I think I was hired being fresh home from an M.A. in Madrid, Spain speaking fluent Castillian and educated in Calif. having liberal views about all cultures. Being a new young teacher I may not have had the past to influence my thinking. From there I have previously written about the fear from the riot in the cafeteria with bricks flying and windows breaking. I also wrote about the 50-50% white to black color cheerleader choices with the second year to be 60-40%.Also about the confrontation with a spectator in Avery about calling the girls the b word.. At the Riot, both the car in front of mine and behind were turned over. I think my kids liked me as I liked them and they left my car alone...if it was the kids as I have read others were involved. Other that that I don't remember any other meetings for us...This was in September when school just started so the year was just new. Having read Mr. Harrell my stomach just turned in disgust that things like hiring and firing went on in those days and now. Sometimes it is very lonely to be right..What he and his family went through and suffered is stomach churning. I felt resentment as a kid from having an alcoholic Mother. So I know how that feels. I think our hormones at that age allow all kinds of feelings for the first time...A whole family persecuted like that is unexcusable and unacceptable. Alas the good old boy network lives on forever changing our lives in one way or another. I am so glad I got to read about all this...Great job Administrators and we thank you...
2 Comments
Lynn Woods
During that time we had a real zeal to know our-self by studying our past, and getting a better grip on our present, and future. It had been made known that the system did it's best to hide the accomplishments of the minorities. To this day you still h… See more
Having survived a desegregation riot I get a bit annoyed at those who preach the accolades of MLK birthday and praise honoring and following patting themselves on the back because they are so non prejudiced . I lived it I know it I was raised in it preach to someone else about how we are all to celebrate this and that. I l know how I lived it southern desegration riots were common then gov, declares a state of emergency and calls in the National Guard with curfews. LIve through that then preach how we are to react and act . Rioters caught with guns from town to town my kids get up at 9 A.M. and walk out scared to not do what the rioters said to do. Then form opinions take trips first live it then you will be informed to preach. and proselytize these events.
I read all your comments have any of you ventured lived in the south when desegregation was ? Have you ventured on the trip high schoolers go on to the motel where King was shot? do you in any way know the south? Have you felt desegragation? do you know wht it is? visit Atlanta, North Carolina envision walking into an all black achool with no intention to desegregate and get a feel for the days of walking into a school with 6 white and black cheerleaders? all faces are black in front of you. live it then preach it California is full of people who think they know everbody's way to think and feel. I remember my San Carlos friends making racist comments about the south then Ravenswood was sent to San Carlos High what a horrified group they were then. Preach to them! and the reaction they all had..
the comments emanating from the preacher seem a bit cocky implying a know it all attitude i would never have a religious leader in my names of spirituality a bit cocky and know it all does not congeal with religion. an attitude adjustment is needed here.
my PHD brother georgia tech was so smart his professors said he was the smartest student they ever had What was missing in his education was getting along with others You can be educated and not be able to get along with anybody He taught tennesee state kids math and told them he was going to treat them like the idiots they were. Always OUT OF STEP BUt EDUCATED MAYBE WE CAN ALL LeAERN TO GET ALONG WITH OTHERS with or without education that was the main thing I tought my boys growing up get along with others we can all use that in our everyday travels. sometimes the preachers need a bit of unholy entitled attitudes too. just get along/
Mr. or Ms. Aball, I don’t get the sense that you like preachers very much, at least those who step out of the “feel good” role and say things that make some people uncomfortable. If you get a chance and you have access to a Bible, please read Matthew 10:34-42. I want us to all get along, but not at the expense of staying silent in the face of injustice and inequities in our society.
your ego gets in the way of the message.
Maybe you need to pick up a Bible and read humility .
Mr. or Ms. Aball - your opinions about a cocky (i.e. uppity) black female preacher gets in the way of the message. Humility means that a person does not think himself better than anyone else. I certainly have never said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as putting myself above anyone else. But I refuse to think of myself as lower than anyone else either, which I think is your real problem with me. I won’t stay in my place. Jesus was considered cocky by the Pharisees, and Martin Luther King was called cocky and arrogant. Thus, I am humbly honored to be in such company. What I don’t understand is - how did a message about MLK Day become so focused on the cocky black female preacher in your mind?
Slow down... Rev. Owens has strong opinions but she is not cocky.
In Luke 10:25-37, an expert in the law asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus answered him with a parable. Rev. Owens is your neighbor... she needs no attitude adjustment. Read the passage... it will only take about 2 minutes. Then tell me if you agree about Rev. Owens being your neighbor.
Mr. Fowler, thank you for your response. You clearly understand the teachings of Jesus and the parable he recounted in Luke 10:25-37. Most of the detractors here are like the priest and the Levite in the parable. I say that not because they disagree with me; you many times disagree with me, but it’s based on content. But these people cannot even hear the message because they can’t separate what I am saying from their hatred and/or fear of what I represent to them. That’s why their comments never center on what I said, but on me or other superfluous things totally disconnected from what was written. Actually, the cocky comment could be considered accurate, depending on your interpretation. I’ve been called cocky many times in my life, even as a child. A synonym for cocky is uppity, which used to be a commonly-used code word to describe people who didn’t know how to stay in their place. It was used primarily in reference to blacks, and sometimes women. Although in this case the cocky/uppity reference was used regarding my role as clergy, I think there were elements in all three in the choice of that descriptor. And, given that interpretation, the description is correct. I don’t stay in my “place”, as defined by some, as a preacher/pastor, a woman, nor a black person. I don’t stay in the boxes others create for me. It is just sad that a piece written about us honoring Dr. King’s legacy by trying to carry out the true focus of his work devolved into a commentary about my cockiness. But thank you, once again, for your thoughtful reaponse.
Thank you... for your kind words.
Reverend Owens would not be Reverend Owens if she stayed in the "place" some expect her to stay. Yes, the word cocky fits the way you have applied it to yourself, but so do the words confident and resolute. Enjoy the rest of your week... and the next one.
I’m not sure what a names of spirituality is. I’m personally not about religion; I’m about Jesus Christ. If promoting justice and truth is cocky, that is one attitude that will never be adjusted in me. People who don’t want to hear the message commonly attack the messenger. So be it.
Amen, Rev.
Ray is a famous Google Master of quotes and sayings. Who knows if he even understands the true meaning of the passage he cited.
You ask, "Who knows if he even understands the true meaning of the passage he cited?"
I do.
While most people are familiar with the lesson that they should help others especially those in distress, the lesson Jesus teaches re: who helped the distressed traveler is often lost. The parable teaches that even someone who seems least qualified or least likely to lend a hand is your neighbor. The history between Israel and Samaria was a bitter one. When Jesus chooses a Samaritan to come to the rescue of the traveler that choice may have shocked some of His listeners. There are other spiritual meanings in the story.
Here is modern version of the parable that really drives home the lesson that everyone is your neighbor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIlbbmeVH1M
Tommy
I really hope you watch the video. I'm guessing it will be one of the highlights of your day, and I would like to hear your reaction to it...
Hmmm... I hate to disappoint you but a lot of what I cite is not the result of "googling." When I read something that I find interesting in online articles or printed form, I will often save them on my laptop. (Yes... even at the expense of physcially typing something instead of cutting and pasting.) That way, I don't have scour the internet for the "right" quote. Like a lot of other readers who contribute to the comments section, I will at times fact check myself before posting a number or other pertinent info, and I try to reference those sources as much as possible.
Back to the Good Samaritan parable... I know the story well and try to learn from its lessons. I have referenced that bit of scripture in these pages on other occasions. I didn't have to "google" to find it. In the interest of full disclosure, even though I have watched the linked video many times and have used it in teaching, I did have to search Youtube to make sure I posted the correct link.
One more thing... I'm sure Rev. Owens appreciates hearing "amen" from you and others. However, her 6:58 am comment appears to be a rebuttal to aball52. So, I'm not sure why your 7:16 ad hominem response was aimed at me... after all... we're neighbors.
Mr. Tee - I’m not sure what the amen is referencing. My response was not to anything Mr. Fowler said. And, as a highly-trained Biblical scholar, preacher and pastor, I think I am qualified to say that Mr. Fowler clearly understands the passage he cite, much more so than anything he could have googled.
Dear Reverend--My "amen" was in response to your comment, "People who don’t want to hear the message commonly attack the messenger."
I share your amen on that one!
I don't consider a person who describes herself highly trained Biblical scholar preacher and pastor as humble in any way. Every comment you make you include black and color in your reponses. I remember my uncle telling me if you deserve a compliment someone will give it to you. You don't need to do this yourself you tend to compliment your self every comment as if someone was relating every comment to your ego and race.
Mr. or Ms. Aball - mentioning one of my credentials (and I didn’t even go into the details) as it pertained to the conversation at that moment was not my complimenting myself. It was simply stating a fact. Your brother’s degree wasn’t even relevant to the original article; I’m still not sure what that particular comment was all about. You seem to have some sort of what is now looking like a very unhealthy obsession about me and your perception that I don’t possess an appropriate amount of humility. So be it. By your definition of humility, I don’t. And I never will. So we agree on that. Since my lack of humility gets in the way of your hearing any message I might deliver, you may want to skip future ones. It really isn’t worth your time nor your serenity to be upset in this manner. Praying God’s peace for you.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.