banner2e top

Minority Births Outpacing Whites by Zenitha Prince

Minority Births Outpacing Whites

By Zenitha Prince

censusbabies

Courtesy Photo

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspapers

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The writing was on the wall but new census figures show the reality: more than half of all U.S. births last year comprised minorities, setting a new demographic milestone.

According to U.S. Census Bureau figures released May 17, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians and other minorities accounted for 50.4 percent of births as of July 1, 2011. Minorities also accounted for slightly more than half of the 4 million kids under age 1 and 49.7 of all children under age 5.

Experts said the news highlights the growing diversity of American society. According to the 2010 census, the minority population increased 1.9 percent to 114.1 million, or 36.6 percent of the total U.S. population. The demographic shift likely will profoundly impact education, economics and politics.

“This is an important landmark,” Roderick Harrison, a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau and now a sociologist at Howard University, told the Associated Press. “This generation is growing up much more accustomed to diversity than its elders.”

Kenneth Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute, told USA Today that increase in minority births reflects the fact that there are more minorities of child-bearing age.

While minority births outpaced those of Whites, minorities still had fewer babies than in 2010, a trend that may have been driven by the slow-moving economy. Overall, Blacks, Hispanics and other non-Whites had had 5.9 percent fewer babies—but births among non-Hispanic Whites fell even more, down 10 percent.

Obama's Gay Marriage Support Shatters Some African Views

May 20, 2012

Obama's Gay Marriage Support Shatters Some African Views

 Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from GIN

(GIN) - President Obama’s recent remarks giving “his personal view” on gay marriage caused a carousel of emotions around the world, with many Africans, including clerics from Kenya, where he has family ties, unable to reconcile with what they say, “God Himself objects.”

Currently, every country except South Africa has some form of legislation criminalizing homosexuality. Many countries – including South Africa – are considering introducing new laws further stigmatizing same-sex relationships.

Gay rights activists fear that Obama’s message of tolerance will only prompt African leaders to turn up the volume on their anti-homosexual stance.

"Obama's comments will provide another opportunity for religious fundamentalists to raise their homophobic rhetoric," said Damian Ugwu, regional Africa program coordinator for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. "In Nigeria, and Africa as a whole, these remarks are going to get a lot of bashing."

Nigeria's senate has passed a bill which criminalizes gay rights advocacy with up to 10 years' imprisonment, although critics say it is unlikely to become law.

Still, added Ugwu, “for us as gay rights activists in Africa, it's a welcome development to know we have an ally like Obama. The fact that the most powerful person in the world is recognising the need to respect people and promote the rights of sexual minorities, can only help us."

In Kenya, where homosexual offenses carry penalties of between five and 14 years imprisonment, activists say Obama's comments will have resonated  more with ordinary people because of his Kenyan roots.

"The fact that these comments come from Obama make it much harder for people in Kenya to sit back and say that gay rights are just a western idea," said Monica Mbaru, a gay rights activist in Kenya.

She continued, "If it had been say President Clinton, people would have said homosexuality is just a White disease, but with Obama there is an ownership for the people here. Just like we have heard statements from others like Desmond Tutu, these are African elders who resonate with the local people, and their statements are taken very seriously – they are opinion shapers in this region."

Obama’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage Divides Black Leaders by Hazel Trice Edney

May 13, 2012

Obama’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage Divides Black Leaders

Most Say President’s Position Won’t Hurt Him With Black Voters

By Hazel Trice Edney

presidentandrobinroberts

President Obama in interview with ABC's Robin Roberts. PHOTO: White House.gov

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – President Barack Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage for gay and lesbian couples has sparked heated debate among Black leaders. Though some predict his position will not erode Black support for him at the polls, others say they're not so sure.

“We’d make a mistake to be a one-issue people. That would be a tremendous mistake,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., who agrees with President Obama on the issue. “Equality is indivisible. We live under the law whether it’s equality of races or gender or religion, we live under the law.”

In an interview, Jackson ticked off a list of issues that he believes overrides same-sex marriage in terms of importance and interest to African-American voters, including the job that Obama had done on the economy.

“We were losing 800,000 jobs a month; now it’s running up; the auto industry was gone, now it’s born again; the Ledbetter act - equal pay for women - was signed into law; he raised Pell grants for students and fought to lower tuition,” Jackson said. Jackson added the President’s sensitivity toward racial injustices, including his “positive statement to Trayvon Martin’s family.”

But, some Black leaders find themselves doing damage control this week.

“I was absolutely in shock because I couldn’t understand the timing of it and why it was necessary. It wasn’t a national issue or agenda he needed to respond to. I don’t know why he used his energy in this direction,” said the Rev. Dr. Jamal Bryant, pastor of the Baltimore-based Empowerment Temple with a membership of more than 5,000. Bryant says he adamantly disagree with the President’s position and will hold a national phone conference this week to discuss the matter with leading Black clergy from several denominations.

“I’m a member of the AME church. We have in our book of discipline that same sex union same sex marriages are not welcomed in our denomination. And any pastor that performs a same sex wedding [could be considered] for suspension and the book of discipline also says that you can’t even hold a ceremony in your church,” he said.

About 10 years ago, the Council of Bishops of the predominately Black AME (African Methodist Episcopal) church, which boasts 2.3 million members and 7,000 congregations, reaffirmed that the official position of the AME Church is “not in favor of the ordination of openly gay persons to the ranks of the clergy of our church,” stated Bishop Richard Franklin Norris in a letter that he ordered read in every AME church.

Despite his disagreement with the President’s position, Bryant, who is leading an “Empowerment Movement” to register millions of Black voters, says he hopes the new controversy does not hurt him politically and agrees with Jackson that there is so much else to consider.

“I hope that the African-American community is larger than just one issue. I will say that it will have an impact and preachers are very much split heading into Sunday and how they will address it because we’ve covered and prayed for him the last four years, but this is something that is counter-culture to the general Black church traditions,” he said.

Meanwhile, an Open Letter from civil rights leaders and clergy was circulated to the media by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has long been in support of the President’s position.

The letter, circulated by e-mailed encouraged “a civil debate on this issue and to encourage all individuals to keep all issues of import to our communities in mind in the days ahead.”

It continues,  “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ As leaders in today's Civil Rights Movement, we stand behind the President Obama's belief that same sex couples should be allowed to join in civil marriages. We also affirm that individuals may hold different views on this issue but still work together towards our common goals: fair housing and equitable education, affordable health care and eradicating poverty, all issues of deep and abiding concern for our communities. President Obama stated his view that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. This is a view that we concur with, because as civil rights leaders we cannot fight to gain rights for some and not for all.”

The letter was signed by Sharpton; Melanie Campbell, president/CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil rights icon and president-emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Julian Bond, chairman-emeritus of the NAACP.

The controversy came front and center last week after Vice President Joseph Biden publically stated that he was in support of same sex marriage and that the president’s position was ‘evolving’ - a move that turned the media spotlight and pressure on President Obama to make his position clear. He had previously supported civil unions for gay couples.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the President made it clear:

“At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said. He added that he had not said anything because he did not want to nationalize the issue and the decision should be made by states.

“And what you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue-- in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.”

The Sharpton letter underscored that the President’s position was personal and not meant to influence neither federal laws nor churches which are constitutionally protected by separation of church and state.

“The President made clear that his support is for civil marriage for same-sex couples, and he is fully committed to protecting the ability of religious institutions to make their own decisions about their own sacraments,” the letter states.

The political damage to the Obama re-election bid remains to be seen.

Howard University Political Scientist Wilmer Leon III says he believes there will be little backlash among Black voters.

“The repercussions will be negligible,” he said in an interview. “Basically, I don’t think he’s going to lose any significant support within the community even though there are certain ministers who are homophobic; anti-gay marriage, who will speak out heavily against this. But, at the end of the day, those who are going to support the president will continue to support the president.”

The key to the Obama position, he said, is that it does not affect the church.

“I was raised Catholic. I am a Catholic and I was taught to believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Personally, I disagree with same sex marriage. But, I am not arrogant enough to believe that my perspective should control other people’s lives. And that to me is the problem with those who are so adamantly opposed to and get so exercised about same sex marriage,” Leon said.

Despite the clear separation of church and state, some clergy believe the President’s statement will be hurtful to the cause of the Gospel because of the power of his position.

Rev. Anthony Evans, president/CEO of the National Black Church Initiative, felt so strongly that he got out in front of the President, issuing a press release shortly after Biden’s statement.

“The National Black Church Initiative calls on President Obama to Declare his Support for Jobs for Black People Not for Gay Marriage,” said the headline on the May 8 news release. The President made his statement on May 9.

“The National Black Church Initiative, a faith-based coalition of 34,000 churches comprised of 15 denominations and 15.7 million African Americans, is sad to see that the Obama administration is sending the gay marriage political trail balloon up again,” Evans said in the statement. “We love our gay brother and sisters, but the black church will never support gay marriage. It is and it always will be against the ethics and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Evans continues, "The current move by the Obama administration on same-sex marriage will cost him support from the Black church. The administration knows all too well that even though we love the President, the black church will never support same sex marriage.”

Evans predicts the President could “lose 15 to 25 percent of the Black Christian vote. The Black Church will never support anyone or any issues that go against our personal faith and belief in God, Christ Jesus and the Bible.”

The controversy is red meat for right wing Christian conservatives who are already opposed to the Obama presidency. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, stated in a weekend commencement speech at conservative Liberty University that he believes marriage is between "one woman and one man."

President Obama, the nation’s first African-American president, received about 95 percent of Black voter support in his 2008 election. Rev. Jackson said he thinks reasonable Black voters will not be swayed from their support.

“You got to look at the box score,” Jackson said. “You look at the end totals and you look at the alternatives.”

Racial Attitudes Playing Large Role in 2012 Presidential Vote

May 14, 2012

Racial Attitudes Playing Large Role in 2012 Presidential Vote

The study, led by psychologists at the University of Washington, shows that between January and April 2012 eligible voters who favored Whites over Blacks – either consciously or unconsciously – also favored Republican candidates relative to Barack Obama.

"People were saying that with Obama's election race became a dead issue, but that's not at all the case," said lead investigator Anthony Greenwald, a UW psychology professor.

The study's findings mean that many white and non-white voters, even those who don't believe they tend to favor Whites over Blacks, might vote against Obama because of his race. These voters could cite the economy or other reasons, but a contributing cause could nevertheless be their conscious or unconscious racial attitudes.

"Our findings may indicate that many of those who expressed egalitarian attitudes by voting for Obama in 2008 and credited themselves with having 'done the right thing' then are now letting other considerations prevail," said collaborator Mahzarin Banaji, a psychology professor at Harvard University.

In the study, a majority of White eligible voters showed a pattern labeled "automatic white preference" on a widely used measure of unconscious race bias. Previous studies indicate that close to 75 percent of White Americans show this implicit bias.

In a study done just prior to the 2008 presidential election, Greenwald and colleagues found that race attitudes played a role in predicting votes for the Republican candidate John McCain.

The 2012 data, collected from nearly 15,000 voters, show that race was again a significant factor in candidate preferences.

In an online survey, Greenwald asked survey-takers about their political beliefs, how "warmly" they felt toward Black and White people, and which presidential contender they preferred. Because the survey was conducted in the first four months of 2012, it included the five main Republican hopefuls – Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum – as well as Obama.

Greenwald also measured unconscious race attitude using the Implicit Association Test, a tool he developed more than a decade ago to gauge thoughts that people don't realize they have. Different variations of the test measure implicit attitudes about race, gender, sexuality, ethnicities and other topics.

Greenwald found that favoritism for Republican candidates was predicted by respondents' racial attitudes, both their self-reported views and their implicit biases measured by the IAT. Greenwald emphasized that the study's finding that some candidates are more attractive to voters with pro-White racial attitudes does not mean that those candidates are racist.

"The study's findings raise an interesting question: After nearly four years of having an African-American president in the White House, why do race attitudes continue to have a role in electoral politics?" Greenwald said.

He suspects that Obama's power as president in 2012, compared with his lesser status as candidate in 2008, may have "brought out race-based antagonism that had less reason to be activated in 2008."

Another possibility is that Republican candidates' assertions that their most important goal is to remove Obama from the presidency "may have strong appeal to those who have latent racial motivation," Greenwald said.

Greenwald and his research team will continue to collect people's attitudes about the 2012 presidential candidates as part of their Decision 2012 IAT study. Now that Mitt Romney has emerged as the presumptive Republican nominee, the researchers are modifying their survey to focus on voters' comparisons of Romney with Obama.

 

Stand Your Ground Law Bites Blacks in the Butt by Zenitha Prince

Stand Your Ground Law Bites Blacks in the Butt

By Zenitha Prince

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspapers
standyourground
Courtesy Photo

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - For Blacks, either side of the controversial “stand your ground” laws has proven disproportionately punitive, as recently proven in the cases of Florida’s Trayvon Martin and Marissa Alexander, civil rights activists and legal and other observers say.

In the case of Martin, the 17-year-old, hoodie-wearing Black teen was gunned down by community patrolman George Zimmerman, who invoked the state’s “stand your ground” policy in his defense.

“In our racially convoluted society quite regularly the perceived threat factor increases if the perpetrator is African American,” said the NAACP’S Hilary Shelton, vice president of government affairs and Washington bureau chief. And that’s one of the reasons police initially let Zimmerman go, Shelton added. “There was this perception that somehow or the other there were reasons to fear. So when the police saw this 6-foot-3 kid on the ground, they believed everything Zimmerman told them was true.”

The case of 31-year-old Marissa Alexander presents a different, but equally disturbing side of the coin, however. A Florida judge recently denied her a retrial on the basis of the “Stand Your Ground” principle. The mother of three faces a 20-year mandatory sentence on an aggravated assault charge, after she fired a gun during a tussle with her abusive husband.

The conviction was based on an Aug. 1, 2010 incident, when Alexander said her husband, Rico Gray, went into a jealous rage after finding text messages to her ex-husband on her phone. "That's when he strangled me. He put his hands around my neck," Alexander told CNN in an April interview from Duval County Jail in Jacksonville, Fla.

Though she escaped his grip, Alexander said she ran to the garage, thinking to flee with her vehicle. But she forgot her key and the garage door was locked, so she grabbed her gun and went back into the house. Gray then threatened to kill her, Alexander added, so she fired her gun into the air thinking to scare him off. "I believe when he threatened to kill me, that's what he was absolutely going to do.

That's what he intended to do. Had I not discharged my weapon at that point, I would not be here."

Alexander rejected a plea deal that would have cost her three years in prison, saying that she acted in clear self-defense and should be fully acquitted. But Circuit Judge James Daniel denied her request for a new trial, saying that despite new evidence, it would be improper to reverse Circuit Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt's previous findings in the immunity hearing. "Maybe I would be agreeing to a new Stand Your Ground motion, which highlights some of the difficulties we are struggling with procedurally implementing this new law," Daniel said. "But ultimately the motion is denied."

In making her decision Senterfitt questioned why Alexander went back into the house if she was “in genuine fear for her life,” saying such action belied her claim of self-defense.

But activists and other observers see the judges’ rulings as evidence of racial disparity in the application of the self-defense laws.

"There's a double standard with ‘Stand Your Ground,’" said Isaiah Rumlin, president of the Jacksonville chapter of the NAACP, in a CNN article. "The law is applied differently between African-Americans and whites who are involved in these types of cases."

The blog Wonkette expressed its skepticism this way, comparing Alexander’s case to Zimmerman’s: “In Florida, as it turns out, being in ‘genuine fear of your life’ means that you’re white and your attacker is black, so clearly that was her (Alexander’s) first mistake. Also, if you really want to Stand Your Ground you have to call the police only to ignore their instructions anyway, so there’s that. And crucially, it doesn’t say anywhere if her husband was wearing a hoodie when he was threatening to beat her up, which we hear is a relevant aspect of whether or not black men are actually scary.”

The NAACP’s Shelton said the organization is still examining patterns in the application of “Stand Your Ground”—otherwise known as "Line In The Sand," "No Duty To Retreat" or the “Castle” doctrine—across the country. But, he added, even without a racial breakdown, statistics show that in the 24 states that have such laws there has been a 300 percent increase in so-called self-defense-related homicides. Such loss of life is enough to challenge this principle, he said.

“We’re convinced that ‘Stand Your Ground’ is a vigilante, get-out-of-jail free card,” he said and later added, “[The case of Marissa Alexander] clearly demonstrates at the very least the confusion of ‘Stand Your Ground’ with the adjudication of these cases being handled so differently. You have quite a lot of disparity.”

The NAACP’s campaign to annul “Stand Your Ground” is among mounting challenges to such laws, which gives immunity or allows a self-defense defense to someone who kills someone to protect their property or person.

For example, in Georgia the Rev. Markel Hutchins filed a civil rights lawsuit, charging that the law does not apply equally to African Americans. He says the law makes racism—presented as “reasonable fear”-- a legal defense.

“Fear is oftentimes based on one’s own bias,” he said in a GPB.com article, “so when you have public policy that, literally lends itself to people being able to commit crimes or shootings under the color of law, because they’re reasonably afraid, it makes a bad public policy and puts the constitutional rights of so many people around the country in jeopardy.”

X