Good stuff. I remember that day well. I recall experiencing vibes similar to Glenn's.
But unlike Glenn, I wasn't very moderate back then. I was at the height of my rightwingedness in the early to mid-90s. I was reflexively anti-left (especially the Black left).
Days before the Million Man March, I was expressly not a fan of the idea. I constantly ridiculed it and thought it was an abominable waste of time. But on the day of, I found myself in varying states of ambivalence.
The MMM was very reflective of the Nation of Islam for better and worse. That is to say, the rhetoric was often dripping with bizarre conspiracy theories, inescapable ethnocentrism, and everything in between. Farrakhan spoke for at least two hours (maybe three, maybe more than that).
At the same time, the discipline was on point *consistently*. None of the favorite (negative) stereotypes about Black men were on display that day: No fights. No disrespect. No violence. No litter.
Conservative talk radio would have LOVED a violent episode. But it didn't happen and wasn't going to. Those of us who knew the NOI knew better.
The lowest estimates for attendees to the MMM is somewhere around 250k--I think that's right--which is astonishing if you think about it. Most people forget that the Million Man March happened on a workday/weekday, not a weekend or a holiday. The organizers were very deliberate about that. I think they wanted America--Black *and* White--to feel and see the impact of a million (or 250k) Black males, young and old, taking off work to convene at the National Mall for this one purpose.
That impact was felt by a lot of businesses throughout the country.
Foolishly, Rush Limbaugh (and the usual suspects) poked fun at the fact that a march dubbed "Million" didn't reach its numerical goal. But truthfully, the MMM could have easily garnered a million attendees on a Saturday or a holiday. But again, they wanted to send a different type of message.
All kinds of Black men were there. It was not in any way exclusive to NOI-friendly radicals or leftists. Armstrong Williams was there (if I am not mistaken). Ben Carson was there (if I am not mistaken). I remember my mother leaving me a voicemail: "Don't work today. Respect what's going on."
I remember Black women in general applauding the event from afar. Proud.
Looking back, I cannot honestly say that the Million Man March had any lasting residual effects, good or bad. Possibly because its supporters weren't the Black males we needed to reach the most.
As I understand, most of the attendees at the Million Man March were there for a day of affirmation of Black men. A young boy gave a speech about Black manhood that garnered more Black community attention than Farrakhan’s speech about alien spaceships. If you watch the telecast of the march, the men paid attention to the speech of the young man, but could be seen simply milling about and talking to each other when Farrakhan spoke. It was a great day. There was an increase in Black adoptions following the MMM.
The March on Washington was inspiring, but did not prevent the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church several weeks later. A march is meant to invigorate. Continued effort is required to effect change.
The colorblind argument falls flat for me. Take medical care, for example, when income level, education level, and insurance levels are taken into account, there remains a lower intensity of care given to Black patients overall. The way we find the discrepancy is by looking at race. I am not going to have my healthcare put at risk pursuing colorblind nonsense. This is just one example of the problem.
Robert, sometimes I don't know what in my posts you are responding to.
"I am not going to have my healthcare put at risk pursuing colorblind nonsense."
Nobody should put their health or healthcare at risk for any reason. But encouraging people to treat individuals with respect with the *ultimate* societal goal of racelessness will not put your healthcare at risk, and it is not nonsensical for a person to have that as a goal. Colorblindness is an ideal; something to aspire to. It does not mean that a person is too stupid to realize we live in a world that doesn't see it that way.
"As I understand, most of the attendees at the Million Man March were there for a day of affirmation of Black men."
So you are too young to remember this event at all? Is that correct?
Fwiw, it was an all-day affair. We got a little bit of everything. A whole lotta folks spoke, in both pragmatic and crazy terms--including Farrakhan. He didn't always talk crazy; he and the Nation often made (and still make) sense to a lot of people, sometimes, myself included.
That's partly how he got a more expansive following at the time.
Also, old footage rarely captures everything (especially in an event that size and that long in duration). The cameras could have caught guys milling around at any point if they wanted to.
Farrakhan spoke about a lot more than space aliens or conspiracy theories. He had practical stuff to say as well (which he normally did in most of his speeches).
I have no reason to believe that physicians will reach your ideal. I want studies using racial information to continue. Books like “Medical Apartheid” and Dayna Bowen Matthew’s “Just Medicine: A Cure for Racial Inequality in American Health Care” point out the biases that lead to adverse health outcomes. How do we approach the problem in a colorblind system?
I well remember Ayinde Jean Baptiste’s speech. It told Black men to stand up and not be victims. Honor your families.
“Let our choices be for life, for protecting our women, our children, keeping our brothers free of drugs, free of crime,” Schmoke told the crowd, which assembled on the Mall. It was reported that in response to the march some 1.7 million African American men registered to vote.
To clarify, when I hear the colorblind goal, I hear the best way to deal with racism is to avoid talking about race. A colorblind system indicates not looking for evidence of implicit bias.
"when I hear the colorblind goal, I hear the best way to deal with racism is to avoid talking about race"
I'll respond to this point. It is important.
In my case, you are hearing me dead wrong.
The bottom line for me: When race is relevant, we should talk about it. When it's not, we shouldn't. At the end of the day, I want a world that deems race--and particularly racial categories--as a crude primitive fundamentally bs concept created centuries ago for a litany of social, political and economic purposes.
Humankind needs to flush race down the toilet. That is my basic unvarnished view.
But this is not easy to do. We haven't even taken the dump yet. We are still constipated. (Frankly, some of us seem to prefer constipation.) While the ultimate goal remains the same, first things first. (Sorry about the analogy. It works.)
Recognizing differences among people doesn't bother me. But doing it via the prism of race--as the world defines it today--is dumb and deleterious for society. I think of colorblindness as a catch-all synonym for this general point of view. Like many terms, colorblindness is subject to interpretation.
*I* think it exists on a spectrum. Case in point: I like Black excellence. I hate Black ignorance and stupidity. But at the end of the day, terms like "Black" and "White" are bullsh** to me. So why do I use them?
Well, it's not because they mean s*** to me personally. It's because they mean a lot to the society I live in, and pragmatically, I cannot operate outside of society.
But I draw the lines according to my principles.
A racial issue that used to (and still does) concern me in a big way is beauty standards: Colorism. Light skin versus dark skin. "White"/"Asian" hair versus "Black" hair. Eurocentrism, etc.
When the natural hair movement took root among African-American women, I was quite pleased, simply because something had to counter the perpetual disgusting message to Black females and other darker-skinned females throughout the globe.
It was not an issue we could address by not talking about race. I would have to be a fool to think otherwise, and I am anything but that.
But at the end of the day, race is still bullsh** and colorblind is the proper direction. I remain clear about that and will not veer from that.
MY desire for a colorblind society starts on the ground. On the individual level. It is a process. It is not about flipping a switch. You will never hear me say, "Just stop talking about race!" with zero qualifiers. But I WILL say stop talking about race when it's not the issue.
Example: You will never see me date a woman because she belongs to a certain racial category, and you will never see me give a damn about anyone who thinks that I do. You will never see me pick friends or associates based on race, and you will never see me give a damn about anyone who thinks that I do.
You will never see me mistrust a person because they do or don't fit a certain racial category; etc.
I am somewhat different from, say, Kmele, who is a self-described race abolitionist. Kmele refuses to use racial terms to describe anybody.
I get his thought process. I honestly respect it. But it's not practical enough for my life. But Kmele and I still share the same goal.
But even Kmele is not oblivious to the world around him, nor does he pretend to be. He openly and unapologetically criticizes both the so-called "race realist" elements on the right as well as the race essentialist elements on the left. He knows the society he lives in isn't about race abolitionism. But as far as HIS life, he is committed to a colorblind point of view. And I see no contradictions in either of us.
Or in Glenn Loury, who is definitely not a race abolitionist. To the contrary, Glenn is very aware of his "race", and takes a certain amount of pride in it. But at the end of the day, Glenn agrees with people like me and Kmele about the ultimate goal.
That is my last word on that. But I had to touch on this:
"I well remember Ayinde Jean Baptiste’s speech. It told Black men to stand up and not be victims. Honor your families."
A lot of speakers conveyed that message that day. That was the central theme of the event. I never suggested it wasn't. That said, a lot of the rhetoric contained a lot of nonsense as well.
"Did you pay any attention to the events?"
LOL
Do I sound like somebody who didn't?
This is what I mean when I say I don't always get what you are responding to. You appear to read things into what I write instead of just reading what I write. I tend to mean what I say, RR.
But to answer your question, yes. I saw the whole thing from start to finish live on C-SPAN. Not to mention a few pregame activities the night before.
The Fearless Fund provided grants to Black female entrepreneurs. The program was halted after a Conservative group complained that the program was not colorblind. I don’t see the upside of colorblind.
Good stuff. I remember that day well. I recall experiencing vibes similar to Glenn's.
But unlike Glenn, I wasn't very moderate back then. I was at the height of my rightwingedness in the early to mid-90s. I was reflexively anti-left (especially the Black left).
Days before the Million Man March, I was expressly not a fan of the idea. I constantly ridiculed it and thought it was an abominable waste of time. But on the day of, I found myself in varying states of ambivalence.
The MMM was very reflective of the Nation of Islam for better and worse. That is to say, the rhetoric was often dripping with bizarre conspiracy theories, inescapable ethnocentrism, and everything in between. Farrakhan spoke for at least two hours (maybe three, maybe more than that).
At the same time, the discipline was on point *consistently*. None of the favorite (negative) stereotypes about Black men were on display that day: No fights. No disrespect. No violence. No litter.
Conservative talk radio would have LOVED a violent episode. But it didn't happen and wasn't going to. Those of us who knew the NOI knew better.
The lowest estimates for attendees to the MMM is somewhere around 250k--I think that's right--which is astonishing if you think about it. Most people forget that the Million Man March happened on a workday/weekday, not a weekend or a holiday. The organizers were very deliberate about that. I think they wanted America--Black *and* White--to feel and see the impact of a million (or 250k) Black males, young and old, taking off work to convene at the National Mall for this one purpose.
That impact was felt by a lot of businesses throughout the country.
Foolishly, Rush Limbaugh (and the usual suspects) poked fun at the fact that a march dubbed "Million" didn't reach its numerical goal. But truthfully, the MMM could have easily garnered a million attendees on a Saturday or a holiday. But again, they wanted to send a different type of message.
All kinds of Black men were there. It was not in any way exclusive to NOI-friendly radicals or leftists. Armstrong Williams was there (if I am not mistaken). Ben Carson was there (if I am not mistaken). I remember my mother leaving me a voicemail: "Don't work today. Respect what's going on."
I remember Black women in general applauding the event from afar. Proud.
Looking back, I cannot honestly say that the Million Man March had any lasting residual effects, good or bad. Possibly because its supporters weren't the Black males we needed to reach the most.
I'll leave it there for now.
As I understand, most of the attendees at the Million Man March were there for a day of affirmation of Black men. A young boy gave a speech about Black manhood that garnered more Black community attention than Farrakhan’s speech about alien spaceships. If you watch the telecast of the march, the men paid attention to the speech of the young man, but could be seen simply milling about and talking to each other when Farrakhan spoke. It was a great day. There was an increase in Black adoptions following the MMM.
The March on Washington was inspiring, but did not prevent the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church several weeks later. A march is meant to invigorate. Continued effort is required to effect change.
The colorblind argument falls flat for me. Take medical care, for example, when income level, education level, and insurance levels are taken into account, there remains a lower intensity of care given to Black patients overall. The way we find the discrepancy is by looking at race. I am not going to have my healthcare put at risk pursuing colorblind nonsense. This is just one example of the problem.
Robert, sometimes I don't know what in my posts you are responding to.
"I am not going to have my healthcare put at risk pursuing colorblind nonsense."
Nobody should put their health or healthcare at risk for any reason. But encouraging people to treat individuals with respect with the *ultimate* societal goal of racelessness will not put your healthcare at risk, and it is not nonsensical for a person to have that as a goal. Colorblindness is an ideal; something to aspire to. It does not mean that a person is too stupid to realize we live in a world that doesn't see it that way.
"As I understand, most of the attendees at the Million Man March were there for a day of affirmation of Black men."
So you are too young to remember this event at all? Is that correct?
Fwiw, it was an all-day affair. We got a little bit of everything. A whole lotta folks spoke, in both pragmatic and crazy terms--including Farrakhan. He didn't always talk crazy; he and the Nation often made (and still make) sense to a lot of people, sometimes, myself included.
That's partly how he got a more expansive following at the time.
Also, old footage rarely captures everything (especially in an event that size and that long in duration). The cameras could have caught guys milling around at any point if they wanted to.
Farrakhan spoke about a lot more than space aliens or conspiracy theories. He had practical stuff to say as well (which he normally did in most of his speeches).
I have no reason to believe that physicians will reach your ideal. I want studies using racial information to continue. Books like “Medical Apartheid” and Dayna Bowen Matthew’s “Just Medicine: A Cure for Racial Inequality in American Health Care” point out the biases that lead to adverse health outcomes. How do we approach the problem in a colorblind system?
I well remember Ayinde Jean Baptiste’s speech. It told Black men to stand up and not be victims. Honor your families.
http://www.orondeamiller.com/archives/4736
Did you pay any attention to the events?
Edit to add:
From then Baltimore MayorKurt Schmoke
“Let our choices be for life, for protecting our women, our children, keeping our brothers free of drugs, free of crime,” Schmoke told the crowd, which assembled on the Mall. It was reported that in response to the march some 1.7 million African American men registered to vote.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Million-Man-March
Edit to add:
To clarify, when I hear the colorblind goal, I hear the best way to deal with racism is to avoid talking about race. A colorblind system indicates not looking for evidence of implicit bias.
"when I hear the colorblind goal, I hear the best way to deal with racism is to avoid talking about race"
I'll respond to this point. It is important.
In my case, you are hearing me dead wrong.
The bottom line for me: When race is relevant, we should talk about it. When it's not, we shouldn't. At the end of the day, I want a world that deems race--and particularly racial categories--as a crude primitive fundamentally bs concept created centuries ago for a litany of social, political and economic purposes.
Humankind needs to flush race down the toilet. That is my basic unvarnished view.
But this is not easy to do. We haven't even taken the dump yet. We are still constipated. (Frankly, some of us seem to prefer constipation.) While the ultimate goal remains the same, first things first. (Sorry about the analogy. It works.)
Recognizing differences among people doesn't bother me. But doing it via the prism of race--as the world defines it today--is dumb and deleterious for society. I think of colorblindness as a catch-all synonym for this general point of view. Like many terms, colorblindness is subject to interpretation.
*I* think it exists on a spectrum. Case in point: I like Black excellence. I hate Black ignorance and stupidity. But at the end of the day, terms like "Black" and "White" are bullsh** to me. So why do I use them?
Well, it's not because they mean s*** to me personally. It's because they mean a lot to the society I live in, and pragmatically, I cannot operate outside of society.
But I draw the lines according to my principles.
A racial issue that used to (and still does) concern me in a big way is beauty standards: Colorism. Light skin versus dark skin. "White"/"Asian" hair versus "Black" hair. Eurocentrism, etc.
When the natural hair movement took root among African-American women, I was quite pleased, simply because something had to counter the perpetual disgusting message to Black females and other darker-skinned females throughout the globe.
It was not an issue we could address by not talking about race. I would have to be a fool to think otherwise, and I am anything but that.
But at the end of the day, race is still bullsh** and colorblind is the proper direction. I remain clear about that and will not veer from that.
MY desire for a colorblind society starts on the ground. On the individual level. It is a process. It is not about flipping a switch. You will never hear me say, "Just stop talking about race!" with zero qualifiers. But I WILL say stop talking about race when it's not the issue.
Example: You will never see me date a woman because she belongs to a certain racial category, and you will never see me give a damn about anyone who thinks that I do. You will never see me pick friends or associates based on race, and you will never see me give a damn about anyone who thinks that I do.
You will never see me mistrust a person because they do or don't fit a certain racial category; etc.
I am somewhat different from, say, Kmele, who is a self-described race abolitionist. Kmele refuses to use racial terms to describe anybody.
I get his thought process. I honestly respect it. But it's not practical enough for my life. But Kmele and I still share the same goal.
But even Kmele is not oblivious to the world around him, nor does he pretend to be. He openly and unapologetically criticizes both the so-called "race realist" elements on the right as well as the race essentialist elements on the left. He knows the society he lives in isn't about race abolitionism. But as far as HIS life, he is committed to a colorblind point of view. And I see no contradictions in either of us.
Or in Glenn Loury, who is definitely not a race abolitionist. To the contrary, Glenn is very aware of his "race", and takes a certain amount of pride in it. But at the end of the day, Glenn agrees with people like me and Kmele about the ultimate goal.
That is my last word on that. But I had to touch on this:
"I well remember Ayinde Jean Baptiste’s speech. It told Black men to stand up and not be victims. Honor your families."
A lot of speakers conveyed that message that day. That was the central theme of the event. I never suggested it wasn't. That said, a lot of the rhetoric contained a lot of nonsense as well.
"Did you pay any attention to the events?"
LOL
Do I sound like somebody who didn't?
This is what I mean when I say I don't always get what you are responding to. You appear to read things into what I write instead of just reading what I write. I tend to mean what I say, RR.
But to answer your question, yes. I saw the whole thing from start to finish live on C-SPAN. Not to mention a few pregame activities the night before.
The Fearless Fund provided grants to Black female entrepreneurs. The program was halted after a Conservative group complained that the program was not colorblind. I don’t see the upside of colorblind.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/30/injunction-fearless-fund-black-women/
Yeah, we discussed that story at length many months ago. I wrote about it before you brought it up to me.
I don't see the upside of forever clinging to a silly taxonomy like "race".