Dec. 20, 2015

Dec. 20, 2015

Blackonomics

Looking for What We Already Have Has Pushed Us Down the Economic Ladder
By James Clingman   

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Our seemingly endless conversations about what Black people “need to have” and “need to do” are nothing short of astounding—and confounding as well.  Some of our people call radio talk shows and decry, lament, and complain about the lack of resources among Black folks.  Others ask “how to” and “when” questions about issues, initiatives, and strategies “we need” to implement and champion; even when the host or the guest gives the answer some callers ignore it and go on another tirade about another issue, another deficiency, or another “Black people problem” and what “we need” in order to change our situation.

Seeking internal instead of external relief, and relying on our own resources, is the practical way to solve most of our problems.  The following quote illustrates my point.

“Myopia is a deficiency of the eye, the inability to see clearly at a distance, or in this case, the lack of foresight. During the Harlem Renaissance many of the leading Black writers protested vigorously and complained without end that white publishing concerns would not, solely based on racial discrimination (today's profiling) publish or even review their works. This of course was true and in many cases remains so. But what these august champions of race pride seemed to have overlooked, or could not see through their obsequious begging, was the UNIA's publishing house, run by the African Communities League, located squarely in the heart of 135th Street, Harlem. At the time, books, pamphlets, newspapers and other materials were typeset, printed, bound and shipped to distant places on the globe through the UNIA's book department. With over six million card-carrying members of the UNIA, the literary lights surely would have found a ready market for their products, without having to depend on white largesse.”  Amos Wilson, Afrikan Centered Consciousness vs the New World Order.

Looking for rather than using what we already have has pushed us further down the economic ladder.  Many of our “leaders” have come to depend on others to fund their organizations and their causes, thus causing them to be nothing more than little children who can be patted on the head and made to sit down, stand down, and shut up any time it fits the patriarch’s agenda.

Black people have a tremendous amount of resources at our disposal, but so many of us continue that sad refrain of “we need” this and that, without utilizing what we already have.  That’s a prescription for failure, brothers and sisters.  Aren’t you tired of failing?  Don’t you want to chalk up a few wins?

This country and this world respect power; that’s why you hear the terms “Buying Power” and “Voting Power.”  These terms, however, are just euphemisms when applied to Black people.   If that was not true Black folks would be well beyond the economic and political position we are in today.  Power is not power unless it is utilized.   Otherwise, how would any group ever know it had power?  “Power is the ability to define reality and to have others respond to it as their [own] reality.”  Dr. Wade Nobles

As we refuse to use what we already have we deny ourselves the power to be self-reliant, self-determined, and self-directed.  Just look back at examples of the economic resources we used to empower ourselves.  Unfortunately we let it all slip away when we fell for the political game.  We dropped everything and ran at warp speed toward getting Black people elected to public office, abandoning our economic base and abdicating our economic responsibility to future generations.

Today, we hear the cry for more Black owned hotels, when we had a vehicle, Visions 2000, founded by Ernestine Henning and the Richard Allen Foundation, through which we could have built and owned more hotels, collectively.

We say we need more Black banks, but fail to support the ones we already have.  We should be growing our banks with our own deposits, thereby creating more opportunities for more of our people.  How much of the millions held by Black organizations is in Black banks?   Members of those organizations should insist on nothing less.  For example, how much NAACP money is on account at Harbor Bank in Baltimore, Maryland, where the NAACP is domiciled?  Same with other Black organizations.

What about municipal funds and employee pension money?   How much of that money resides in Black banks and Black owned financial management firms.  We complain about Black churches and ignore what we already have in the Collective Empowerment Group.  And last but certainly not our least resource is the One Million Conscious Black Voters and Contributors, which addresses most of the problems Black people face today.  What “we need” is available now; so stop looking for what we already have.

Dec. 20, 2015

To Be Equal 
Corporate Mergers: Good or Bad for Diversity?

By Marc H. Morial

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “Our workforce and our entire economy are strongest when we embrace diversity to its fullest, and that means opening doors of opportunity to everyone and recognizing that the American Dream excludes no one.” – U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez

The issue of diversity with respect to corporate mergers usually is discussed as a potential drawback – the clash between cultures is sometimes cited as a reason such mergers fail.

Often, however, such mergers present an opportunity to expand ethnic and cultural diversity in the workplace and create economic opportunity.  The recently-approved merger of AT&T and DirecTV requires the merged company to make available an affordable, low-priced standalone broadband service to low-income consumers in its broadband service aria.  Furthermore, due to the strong advocacy of the National Urban League and other civil rights organizations, the merger extended AT&T’s diversity strategic plan to DirecTV’s hiring, procurement, programming and philanthropy. 

Similarly, we worked with NBC Universal and Comcast on a groundbreaking memorandum of understanding to insure that the 2011 merger would provide for a variety of diversity initiatives, including establishing a $20 million venture capital fund boosting opportunities for minority entrepreneurs in digital media, eight new independently owned and operated networks offering substantial participation by minorities, the creation of Diversity Advisory Councils, and the increase of minority participation in news, public affairs programming and jobs.

There is, of course, the danger that a merger could work in the opposite direction.  If the merger between pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Allergan is completed, the merged company will be headquarter in – and pay its taxes to – Ireland.   The deal allows Pfizer to take advantage of Ireland’s tax rates while skirting U.S. rules aimed at curtailing tax inversions.

Will the loss of corporate tax revenue exacerbate income inequality in the United States or will it, as Pfizer’s CEO insists, allow the company to create more jobs in the United States?

As the merger would create the world’s largest drug manufacture, assurances on diversity – not just in hiring and procurement, but in research and development – could not be more vital and essential.

While Pfizer has provided some transparency about its employment diversity, supplier diversity track record and C-suite diversity, less is known about Allergan and very little is known or understood about whilch companies practices will survive once Pfizer becomes an Irish company.

The pending merger of The Dow Chemical Company and DuPont USA poses similar questions. Both Dow and DuPont have established effective diversity and inclusion policies, but unless an retention or expansion of those policies is a specific condition of the merger, it could represent a step backward.

In the rush to satisfy activist sharholders, the diversity policies that made these companies strong in the first place must not be overlooked or diminished. The National Urban League believes that diversity is in the public interest and a compelling 21st Century necessity. Regulators who oversee these companies must evaluate diversity and ask the tough questions and the National Urban League and other civil rights leadership organizations will do the same.

December 19, 2015

Reality Check

Terrorism in the U.S. Ain’t Nothing New
By A. Peter Bailey

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Anyone following most new coverage in the press on the “war on terrorism” would probably believe journalists when they speak or write such statements as “Terrorism is coming to America.” The impression given is that this is something unprecedented on the American scene.

Their coverage led me to check out the definition of “terrorism” in Webster’s World College Dictionary. Terrorism is defined as “the act of terrorizing; use of force on others to demoralize, intimidate and subjugate.”

By that definition, the White supremacists/racists who lynched more than 3,000 Black folks in the early 20^th century were terrorists.

Those who killed numerous Black soldiers after their return from World War I were terrorists. As were those who bombed the 16^th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, killing 11-14-year-old Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins, and Denise McNair; and who killed 15-year old Virgil Ware on that same day were terrorists.

The White man who assassinated Medgar Evers was a terrorist. So were the White men who killed James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, Sammy Younge and Viola Gregg Liuzzo. Those Whites who brutalized warriors such as Fannie Lou Hamer and who set fire to many Black churches and homes throughout the former Confederate States of America were also terrorists. And the White man who shot and killed nine Black people in a Charleston church is a terrorist.

The people who supported those atrocities were supporters of terrorism. Federal and state officials did little, if anything, to punish the terrorists. Thus, they were enablers of terrorism.

It’s clear that terrorism is not coming to America for the first time. It has deep, deep roots in this country, something that is more often than not ignored by journalists and academicians who fail to call it by its rightful name. Many of those who harshly criticize President Obama for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorists” don’t now, nor did they ever use the term “radical white supremacist/racist terrorists.”

A. Peter Bailey, whose latest book is Witnessing Brother Malcolm X, the Master Teacher, can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Dec. 20, 2015

The Other One Percent
By Dr. E. Faye Williams 

(TriceEdneyWire.com) — I watched the final Republican debates of 20015 in shock and awe! It's recognized, especially when appealing to the party's base, that most of the positions of the candidates are more akin to throwing raw meat to wild animals than to substantive discussion of policies of the respective candidates.  I wasn't surprised that I saw these candidates as detached from the realities impacting the largest numbers of our population.

I'm intrigued by the cavalier attitude displayed by members of the Republican Political Elite when addressing the concerns of the masses.  Romney's 'classic' 47 percent comment and the obvious deference paid by Republicans to  the wealthiest 1 percent of our nation both give clear indication that wealth determines Republican interest.

This was clear when, in outlining his foreign policy position, Senator Marco Rubio commented that putting "U.S. boots on the ground" was the solution to Middle East conflict.  I've heard the phrase "boots on the ground" countless times lately, but, during this "Season of Peace," it was more offensive, even obscene.  It caused me to question the casual concern of this remark and reason for deeper consideration of the other 1 percent.

If you haven't given serious thought, the responsibility for the security of our nation is no longer a "shared" responsibility.  Those who remember the Selective Service conscription (military draft) remember the concern held by the general population for all our military servicemembers.  Every family who had a son between the ages of 18 and 29 was concerned about decisions committing our troops to combat.  Whether that son was a ne'er-do-well drafted off the block, a Mensa candidate drafted from the halls of Harvard, or anyone in between, each of those young men and their families - forced or otherwise - became stakeholders in the security of the U.S.

The all-volunteer military has seemingly changed that dynamic permanently.  Some argue that the Selective Service Registration requirement still exists and all have the potential to serve.  The truth is that registration has devolved into a symbolic gesture of civic responsibility.  For practical purpose, unless someone has a patriotic epiphany or an economic, financial or educational need, service to the defense of the nation is an option.

Which brings us back to the "Other 1 percent."  When we look objectively at who now serves our nation, we must admit that our military is primarily comprised of lower-income citizens whose economic circumstances oblige them to join.  They are the individuals who live in areas of the country that offer few opportunities for employment or career development.  They are the students who see the potential for future success, but without the resources to obtain the requisite education or training that will allow the success they imagine.  They are the reservists who join the military for the quid pro quo of extra income in exchange for one weekend a month and an additional two weeks each year.  It is a rare exception that you will find a member of the moneyed-class among the ranks.

Which brings us back to "boots on the ground."  There are no "boots on the ground."  There are young men and women who proudly serve our nation.  They are not the sons and daughters of those who make decisions that commit them to combat.  They are the sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and relatives who place the interests of our nation above their own.

To refer to them as "boots on the ground" dishonors them and the privilege they afford the rest of to live our lives in relative peace.  The mere "Thank you for your service," seems inadequate.  In this "Season of Peace," I can only add my prayers for the blessing of true peace and my hope for them and their families.

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is President of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc.  www.nationalcongressbw.org.  202/678-6788)