A Black-On-Black Crime: Who May Defend Civil Rights
Jeff Knox
January 24, 2006
Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice is a ?true believer? in the importance of the Second Amendment ? with good reason. The daughter of a Black minister in Birmingham Alabama in the early 1960?s, Rice saw her father join with his neighbors to provide armed protection against racist nightriders. Secretary Rice related the story recently in an interview with Larry King, pointing out that gun registration or other gun control schemes would likely have made such a defense impossible. She reiterated the danger of ?picking and choosing? rights within the Constitution and stated that the Second Amendment right to arms was just as important as the First Amendment right to free speech and assembly. She went on to suggest that it was just such circumstances ? when the authorities were unable or unwilling to provide protection ? which the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.
The comments were widely reported and surprisingly well-received, even by the predominately anti-gun mainstream media. It is a compelling story that makes a clear argument for the value of freedom of arms to an oppressed minority.
The serious anti-gunners generally steered clear of Secretary Rice?s statements, apparently ignoring them in hopes that their power would dissipate. One commentator though, George E. Curry, took Secretary Rice head-on. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com and a regular panelist on a National Public Radio program where Secretary Rice?s comments were recently replayed. Rather than speak to the issues raised by Secretary Rice?s comments, Mr. Curry attacked the Secretary personally, as well as her father, and the framers of the Constitution.
Curry continued the attack in a syndicated column in his Chicago Defender newspaper. The column begins with the line, ?Few things are as repulsive as Black conservatives trying to advance the Republican agenda by mischaracterizing the Civil Rights Movement or distorting history.? He then goes on to mischaracterize the Civil Rights Movement and to distort history while conjuring up a strange mix of racism and intra-minority class-consciousness to advance his anti-gun agenda.
When you have no case,? goes the infamous lawyer?s knife-fighting rule, ?attack your opponent.?
Curry?s arguments against Secretary Rice?s compelling support of the Second Amendment come down to six points:
She is politically conservative. (Apparently a damning epithet to Mr. Curry.)
She intentionally ?misled? people about the meaning of the Second Amendment since the ?fondling fathers,? (his clever term) didn?t originally expect the amendment to apply to Blacks. (Just as the founders did not envision First Amendment rights applying to Blacks?)
Her father was not an active ?march-in-the-streets? preacher during the 1960?s. (Since Reverend Rice supported less confrontational methods, taking up arms to protect his family and neighbors is somehow invalidated?)
Her family was ?urban middle-class?. (Do I detect a hint of classism?)
Her Black ancestors were primarily ?house? slaves not ?field? slaves. (What has that got to do with anything?)
She has White slave owners in her ancestry. (As do many African-Americans. Again, how is this relevant?)
According to Mr. Curry, Condoleezza Rice, PhD, scholar, artist, athlete, and Secretary of State, fourth in succession to the Presidency of the only super-power in the world, has no understanding of the history of this nation or the application of the Constitution. Further, since Secretary Rice grew up in a middle-class household with a father who didn?t advocate throwing children at hate-mongers and an ancestry which purportedly includes ?house slaves? and White slave owners, that she has no moral authority to espouse the rights of oppressed peoples.
I hate to imagine the furor if I were to challenge Oprah Winfrey?s philosophy based on such grounds.
It seems ironic that support for gun rights would make a prominent Black leader a target for Black journalists since the roots of gun control can be directly traced to racism. From the early days of the Civil Rights Movement to the late 1960?s, gun rights were an integral part of the civil rights being fought for. Today, the civil rights elites, pursuing a ?nanny-state? utopia, advocate curtailing the civil rights of all citizens and any African-American who disagrees is fair game for this type of despicable attack.
The comments were widely reported and surprisingly well-received, even by the predominately anti-gun mainstream media. It is a compelling story that makes a clear argument for the value of freedom of arms to an oppressed minority.
The serious anti-gunners generally steered clear of Secretary Rice?s statements, apparently ignoring them in hopes that their power would dissipate. One commentator though, George E. Curry, took Secretary Rice head-on. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com and a regular panelist on a National Public Radio program where Secretary Rice?s comments were recently replayed. Rather than speak to the issues raised by Secretary Rice?s comments, Mr. Curry attacked the Secretary personally, as well as her father, and the framers of the Constitution.
Curry continued the attack in a syndicated column in his Chicago Defender newspaper. The column begins with the line, ?Few things are as repulsive as Black conservatives trying to advance the Republican agenda by mischaracterizing the Civil Rights Movement or distorting history.? He then goes on to mischaracterize the Civil Rights Movement and to distort history while conjuring up a strange mix of racism and intra-minority class-consciousness to advance his anti-gun agenda.
When you have no case,? goes the infamous lawyer?s knife-fighting rule, ?attack your opponent.?
Curry?s arguments against Secretary Rice?s compelling support of the Second Amendment come down to six points:
She is politically conservative. (Apparently a damning epithet to Mr. Curry.)
She intentionally ?misled? people about the meaning of the Second Amendment since the ?fondling fathers,? (his clever term) didn?t originally expect the amendment to apply to Blacks. (Just as the founders did not envision First Amendment rights applying to Blacks?)
Her father was not an active ?march-in-the-streets? preacher during the 1960?s. (Since Reverend Rice supported less confrontational methods, taking up arms to protect his family and neighbors is somehow invalidated?)
Her family was ?urban middle-class?. (Do I detect a hint of classism?)
Her Black ancestors were primarily ?house? slaves not ?field? slaves. (What has that got to do with anything?)
She has White slave owners in her ancestry. (As do many African-Americans. Again, how is this relevant?)
According to Mr. Curry, Condoleezza Rice, PhD, scholar, artist, athlete, and Secretary of State, fourth in succession to the Presidency of the only super-power in the world, has no understanding of the history of this nation or the application of the Constitution. Further, since Secretary Rice grew up in a middle-class household with a father who didn?t advocate throwing children at hate-mongers and an ancestry which purportedly includes ?house slaves? and White slave owners, that she has no moral authority to espouse the rights of oppressed peoples.
I hate to imagine the furor if I were to challenge Oprah Winfrey?s philosophy based on such grounds.
It seems ironic that support for gun rights would make a prominent Black leader a target for Black journalists since the roots of gun control can be directly traced to racism. From the early days of the Civil Rights Movement to the late 1960?s, gun rights were an integral part of the civil rights being fought for. Today, the civil rights elites, pursuing a ?nanny-state? utopia, advocate curtailing the civil rights of all citizens and any African-American who disagrees is fair game for this type of despicable attack.
Print
Email
