President Lincoln: Contradictions on Race

By Andrew Miller

President Lincoln: Contradictions on Race

 

 

By: Andrew Miller

                                                           

                                                                                                                                   

       As part of the commemoration of the Lincoln Bicentennial, Dr.  Henry Louis  Gates Jr., an African-American scholar from Harvard, specializing in Black History, and author of The Signifying Monkey, discussed Lincoln's views on race with Rick Kogan, a Chicago Tribune reporter, at the Pritzker Auditorium at the Harold Washington Library Center in Chicago.  According to Dr. Gates, Lincoln had a surprisingly complex, even a contradictory, view on Black people--a view that might have culminated in his being "shocked by the first American black President, Barack Obama."   

          Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. introduced the evening’s program to a very diverse audience, filled with young and old as well as white and African-American.  Dr. Gates began on a personal note by reminiscing about his dead grandfather's funeral where his father cried. He showed pictures of his ancestors, some of whom were partially white due to their mothers' sexual bonds with their white slave masters. He referred to an obituary of one of his black ancestors, which described her as "an estimable, colored woman."

        Dr. Gates debunked several common myths, including "my grandmother was a native."  He emphatically stated that an estimated 30% of black men have a white background, adding, almost wistfully, that black people have fantasized too much regarding supposed Native-American backgrounds: "Fewer than 5% of black people have Native -American backgrounds. “

       In regards to the Emancipation Proclamation, Dr. Gates was equally strong, lamenting and lambasting its minuscule effect in helping black slaves. Specifically, the Federal government only freed 500,000 black slaves out of a staggering 3.9 million black slaves with this policy.

          Turning his attention to black involvement in American wars, Dr. Gates extolled the heroism of black soldiers. According to Gates, 5,000 black men fought bravely in the American Revolution, including some of his own ancestors. He mused--and seemed amused--about his own participation in a patriotic organization, the Sons of the American Revolution, calling it the "whitest group."

           In regards to his family history, Dr. Gates's mother had given him a pithy answer to his childhood question: "You are from people." He noted that one of his ancestors was the first black lawyer in West Virginia.  To Gates, respect for one's own heritage is crucial and "satisfying" as one seeks answers.   

           Talking about the current state of black America, Dr. Gates emphasized that, in his opinion, education has sadly and pejoratively become "white." He believes that affirmative action has been beneficial for many black people, including him.   Dr.  Gates lamented the lack of black people at Yale, where he received his B.A. in history. He praised the rise of the black middle class since 1968, but noted that 37% ofchildren in 1968 were at poverty level, and that percentage has not improved significantly.

         Later, while taking questions from the audience, a Rick Kogan reminisced about one African-American girl in an inner-city Chicago school who simply drew a tree when she and her classmates were asked to write what they dreamed of for their futures. At first the audience was perplexed, but then they realized the touching simplicity of the story when the man spoke about leaving the school and not seeing a single tree outside.

         Regarding President Lincoln, Dr. Gates painted a complex, nuanced, even contradictory relationship between the President who "freed" the slaves and the black slaves themselves--the same kind of relationship that has often characterized race in America. Dr. Gates said that the president's supposed support for equality for black people was actually false, or, at best, misleading. Yes, he opposed slavery, but, ironically, he also wanted to colonize the newly freed slaves and send them back to Africa.

         Although Lincoln slowly began to respect the intellectual level of a select few black people, including Frederick Douglas, he dismissed most of them. And while he was impressed with black soldiers' involvement in the American Revolution, he ironically opposed black people from fighting for the Union; however, he reluctantly gave his approval only after the Union was desperate for more manpower. Much to his surprise, the 200,000 black soldiers, or "black warriors" as he called them, did not just do a satisfactory job; according to Dr. Gates, they helped turn the tide in favor of the Union.

          Towards the end of President Lincoln's life, as Dr. Gates pointed out, Lincoln actually seemed to shift his beliefs, making a speech in which he endorsed the idea of his "200,000 black warriors and very intelligent Negroes [being able] to vote." Interestingly, one man, horrified when he heard his speech, would later play another crucial role in history: John Wilkes Booth.   

           Dr. Gates was critical of black people's compliance in the Lincoln myth, saying that, besides Jesus Christ, Lincoln is the only white man on black people's walls.  Even Booker T. Washington had called President Lincoln a "pure white man." In 1876, Frederick Douglas, the first black person to meet with President Lincoln, controversially said that Lincoln was "the white man's president," for he wanted to save the Union first, not the slaves.  

           Overall, Dr. Gates' position is that perpetuating the Lincoln myth does more harm than good and that the truth is more valuable than long-held fiction, no matter how dear to the hearts of the American people.    

 

Publish and Possibly Perish

By Timothy J. McNulty

The question of publishing everything as soon as soon as it happens can be very tricky, especially when it comes to life and freedom.

For the last several weeks, many have criticized those in the news media who knew of the kidnapping of New York Times reporter David Rohde in Afghanistan and kept that knowledge secret for seven months until after he and an Afghan translator managed to escape.

Rohde’s editors and family believed that keeping news of his kidnapping away from the public increased his chances of not being harmed and of eventually being released. They feared that publicity would make him more valuable to his Taliban captors and, if it came about, would impede any negotiations for his freedom.

Critics accused the Times and anyone else in the news media aware of the kidnapping of hypocrisy, of having a double-standard, claiming that freedom of the press and speech is paramount to their work yet,when one of their own was in jeopardy, the journalists willingly engaged in self-censorship.

Many of Rohde’s colleagues and most reporters and editors were not aware of the abduction, though I knew of Rohde's kidnapping as did a good number of reporters and editors around the country and the globe, and (almost) everyone kept it secret at the request of the paper and the family.

Even with that tacit agreement in place among colleagues (and including government officials and the military), a week ago, the Times ran a story about how news is increasingly hard to contain, even if the news media itself is willing to keep it quiet.

Independent posters on Wikipedia repeatedly tried to include information on web pages as early as three days after Rohde was abducted. But because the Times requested and Wikipedia accepted, top Wikipedia editors erased word of the kidnapping more than a dozen times.

The Times story also noted that because it is common for even the most remote abductors to be connected to the Internet, editors also deleted the name of Rohde’s former employer, the Christian Science Monitor, because it included the word “Christian.”

The increasing danger to journalists and the issue of what should be public knowledge and when, is a troubling topic that has become more common in the past few years.

In the past, journalists covering one side or another in a conflict always faced the possibility of being seen as a combatant by the opposing force. But much of the time, enemies recognized that journalists could be used as a weapon, creating public sympathy as well as chronicling events.

In many conflicts, the neutral nature of journalists made it possible for reporters and photographers to cover both sides, crossing lines whenever it was physically safe. Still, the danger of being seen as a bargaining chip remained real. The ordeal of Associated Press correspondent Terry Anderson, who was held for seven years in Lebanon in the 1980s is among several chilling cases. Even more is the murder of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl who was beheaded by his captors in Pakistan.

Two years ago, a Chicago Tribune correspondent, Paul Salopek, was captured by the Sudan Liberation Army, former rebels who switched sides to the government, in Darfur and handed him over to the Sudanese military. Once senior editors at the paper and the magazine became aware of the abduction (the correspondent was on leave from the paper and on a freelance assignment for National Geographic), they (I was one of them) chose to try to win the correspondent’s release without publicity.

A New York Times correspondent in the region and a few other correspondents, editors and friends knew of Salopek’s capture and also honored the decision.
Internally at the newspaper, we agreed that as soon as there was any public acknowledgment of Salopek’s capture by the Sudanese government, we would report it and continue reporting it as a news story.

Weeks later, when the government officially charged Salopek in an open court in Darfur, the newspaper had a story prepared and ran it immediately. In Salopek’s case, it took another three weeks of round-the-clock negotiations between Chicago, Khartoum, Washington and eventually, with the aid of former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, the president of Sudan allowed the correspondent to leave the country.
As the Times noted in Rohde's case, the danger of publicity is that the kidnapped become more valuable and less likely to be released. That was and still is true of reporters who have been held in Iraq.

Despite the charge of a double-standard, holding back information or news of a kidnapping is not restricted to just journalists protecting journalists. Throughout the years of the American occupation in Iraq there have been kidnappings of soldiers, contractors and aid workers that were not immediately reported for the same reasons the Times cited.

It was and is routine for U.S. and Iraqi officials to request a delay of publication or broadcast of a suspected kidnapping until there is enough information to confirm it or, if officials believed there is a chance of negotiation or a release, to delay the news for days or even weeks.

The issue of life and freedom is too important to jeopardize because of deadlines or timeliness. A delay of such news is not critical in comparison to the threat. Still, withholding news for a few days, and especially for months, can be difficult for journalists who believe that putting light on issues and events is (almost) always preferable than concealing information.

On Sunday, the Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, wrote about the decision to suppress the news of the kidnapping in a column titled,"Journalistic Ideal, Human Values."

Hoyt noted that in his previous job with the Knight Ridder publishing company in 2005, he asked other news organizations not to report the abduction of a correspondent and photographer in Gaza. They all agreed.

"Dilemmas like the Rohde kidnapping put editors in excruciating positions," wrote Hoyt. The desire to publish versus the safety of the kidnapped, however, is not a hard choice if the options are clear.

Hoyt also recognized that while most news organizations will honor a request to hold off publishing or broadcasting information for a period of time, many individuals and groups are not aware that news media are willing to do that, but only if asked.

A Cook in Congress

By Shawn Healy

The field for Cook County Board President is growing by the day. Yesterday, seven term Congressman Danny Davis (D-Chicago) said that in "all liklihood" he would enter the Democratic primary set for next February. 4th Ward Chicago Alderwoman Toni Preckwinkle has already declared, and Cook County Circuit Clerk Dorothy Brown is mulling a bid. Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, County Commissioner Larry Suffredin, and County Assessor James Houlihan are also contemplating a run.

In the background is current President Todd Stroger, who entered office through the back door when he was slated to replace his father who suffered a stroke days before the primary, yet concealed his condition and prevailed despite a strong challenge from challenger Forest Claypool. He would go on to beat Republican challenger and current Commissioner Tony Peraica decisively in the November 2006 general election.

Stroger has since presided over a sales tax increase that elevated Cook County's share to the largest in the nation and beat back successive attempts to repeal it, all along feeding a bloated budget. Nepotism remains the rule of the day as the Stroger kin fills more than 20 county offices, drawing combined salaries in excess of $2 million annually. Stroger intends to seek reelection, but it's difficult to see him weather an ultracompetitive primary with such shaky credentials.

Just a month ago, the field appeared set with Claypool expected to take on Stroger, while former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas strategized a return to his former haunts, this time as a Republican candidate for Cook County Board President. Within weeks of one another, Vallas said he would remain in New Orleans to continue his work rebuilding the post-Katrina public school system, and Claypool announced that he would leave elected office altogether.

The door left ajar, the field expanded rapidly.

Preckwinkle, an independent alderwoman representing Chicago's South Side since 1991, has repeatedly taken on Mayor Daley over issues ranging from affordable housing, diversity, corruption, and the city's 2016 Olympic bid.

Brown has served as County Clerk since 2000, winning reelection in 2008 despite charges that she fundraised through her staff and used them for campaign functions. She worked previously as Auditor for the Chicago Transit Authority from 1991 to 2000.

Davis was a West Side alderman for eleven years, then a member of the Cook County Board of Commissioners for six before running successfully for the Seventh Congressional District seat in 1996. He has solid roots in city politics, serving on former Mayor Harold Washington's campaign committee and transition team in 1983, and running against Mayor Daley in the 1991 primary.

Chicago is of course not immune from racial politics, and with three formidable African-American contenders set to take on the current black incumbent, the door may be open for a caucasian candidate who could capture the outstanding white ethnic and lakeshore liberal vote. Should Suffredin, Dart, and Houlihan all decide to take the plunge, then all bets are off. Moreover, the cache of a sitting congressman with deep roots in city and county politics along with a solid base on the West Side cannot be underestimated.

Before long, we'll have a better idea of the scope of the field. Petitions will be circulated starting next month. Add the statewide and national races to the mix, and 2010 promises to be a topsy turvy year for local politicos.