So, I read this article from the Los Angeles Times called “Why won’t Black folks trust us’ on COVID-19?” and I thought it was fascinating, yet obvious, in terms to the answer to that question. To quote, “The second option is to target Black people and roll it out in the neighborhoods that have logged the most cases. “But then,” Cofer said, “people are going to say, ‘Oh, no! You’re not gonna experiment on us like you did with Tuskegee.’”
In this episode, I go into deeper detail on The Tuskeegee Experiment and other reasons why, I think, most African-Americans will not take the Covid-19 Vaccine when it debuts.
I grew up listening to this song and no doubt you did as well. When I heard it, great joy would swell up within me and I would come running to its siren call. If you were a kid in the 1970’s – 19990’s (and even now, in some places) this music had you begging your parents for money to buy Ice Cream from the Ice Cream man. Check out the video below to hear the tune I am speaking of.
Now “Turkey in the Straw” sounds innocent enough especially when you consider the first verse of the song which goes like this…
Turkey in the straw — Ha ha ha Turkey in the hay — Hey hey hey The Reubens are dancing to Turkey in the Straw Hey highdy heydy, and a haw haw haw
So why is this racist? Well, someone took the tune of that song and added new lyrics to it and the song became a big hit for him and Columbia Records who published it in 1916. Can you guess the name of the song?
Please support our sponsors!
Black History Quiz: A Word Find Puzzle Book of Black History Facts and Quotes – Throughout the book, readers are presented with clues to the identity of influential people and historic events. The answers to the quizzes are words and phrases which are hidden inside a word find puzzle. Over 250 facts are shared in this volume of word find puzzles that are sure to educate and inspire people of all ages and all over the world. After all, black history is world history.
The remix of “Turkey In the Straw” was called “Nig*er love a Watermelon, Ha! Ha! Ha!” Listen to this discussion about it on the Hot97 Morning Show below. (Video below.)
So, what’s the story behind this? Well, according to Wikipedia. Harry C. Browne (August 18, 1878 – November 15, 1954) was an American banjo player and Racist actor. He appeared on stage and in silent films and recorded for Columbia Records in the 1910s and 1920s.
Browne was born in 1878 in North Adams, Massachusetts. Before his acting career, he served in the Second Massachusetts U.S. Volunteers during the Spanish–American War and had a brief career campaigning for the Democratic Party. In fact, William Jennings Bryan, then the Secretary of State, offered Browne a diplomatic position in February 1914 but the latter declined. Browne later worked for a stock company as an actor, casting him in plays such as Arizona and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm in the early 1900s.
A skilled banjo player, Browne performed in vaudeville for seven years before recording a series of songs for Columbia Records, starting in 1916. His first record, perhaps his most well-known, is a re-interpretation of the American folk song “Turkey in the Straw”. Released in March 1916, Browne appropriated the standard as a coon song re-titled “Nig*er Love a Watermelon Ha! Ha! Ha!”. It is commonly referred to as one of the most racist songs in American music: the song relied heavily on the watermelon stereotype, a belief popularized in the 19th century that African-Americans had an unusual appetite for watermelons. For the B-side, Browne chose to record the minstrel show favorite “Old Dan Tucker”, marking the tune’s first commercial appearance on a major label.
So, does this mean that Ice Cream Truck drivers are all racists? No. Actually, there is a compelling argument from The New Republic against this music used by Ice Cream trucks is racist at all. In a nutshell, a few quotes from their argument:
“… it sound like the “Turkey in the Straw” version vanished in the wake of the racist ones, but it always existed alongside and has outlived them. All evidence points to “Turkey in the Straw” being what the ice cream companies intended. In pop culture of the early twentieth century, that tune is eternally associated with either its inoffensive, nonsensical lyrics or, when performed instrumentally, with farm animals and rural settings. For example, the man who scored Looney Tunes, Carl Stalling, used “Turkey in the Straw” constantly in scenes on farms and especially with chickens and the like.“
“Johnson’s unearthing of the “Nigger Love a Watermelon” song is invaluable as history, but the likelihood that this is what the trucks were playing is negligible. The tune has been set to innumerable verses of various kinds, and this “Watermelon” rendition was, in the grand scheme of things, one of the vast majority of pop songs that comes and goes in a flash. That’s why it’s a rare archival find and historical footnote today.”
“Was it really a custom for ice cream parlors to have someone sitting at the piano singing in black dialect about “darkies” eating watermelon and having razor fights? Let’s allow it could have been the custom at one of them somewhere—or just perhaps it was a rather obsessive quirk in some small town. But across this vast nation as a whole, was it ordinary to receive your banana split while being regaled with an endless succession of songs about coons and the ol’ plantation? And why in ice cream parlors, but not shoe stores or barbershops?”
My opinion is this…
Harry Browne’s remix of “Turkey in the Straw” is racist, pure and simple. It makes me think of how Big Al Yankovich would remake hit songs and people would sing them as much, if not more, than the original ones. Who remembers when he remade Michael Jackson’s “Beat It” song into “Eat it” and more recently, “White and Nerdy?” It did not replace the original songs he lampooned, it co-existed with them. I think Harry Browne’s racist version of the song is in the same vein.
I also find it unlikely that ice cream truck companies play this song with racist intent as the culture of ice cream parlors does not align with songs of the racist south. I also think that if such was the case, it would have been cancelled back in 2014 when this controversy was originally addressed.
So, is “Nig*er love a Watermelon, Ha! Ha! Ha!” the most racist song in America. Yes, it gets my vote. Are Ice Cream Trucks blasting it in our neighborhoods to promote racism? No. That being said, it may be best for Ice Cream trucks to switch song selection in these days of Cancel Culture and easily triggered crowds. Just my two cents of advice.
I read an article in USA Today entitled, “What is systemic racism? Here’s what it means and how you can help dismantle it.” When I read it, a healthy skepticism triggered within me. There was a big emphasis on how systemic racism made it difficult for African Americans to succeed. Yet, I could name many successful African American celebrities, athletes, business people and politicians. And that lead me to consider other questions.
If systemic racism is such a problem today, why are so many minority groups doing better than whites economically?
In the past, systemic racism was much more pronounced than it is today. That being the case, it would be impossible for African Americans to become millionaires after the Civil War and yet, there were several. Why?
And if systemic racism is not the blame or at least, not the biggest impediment to African American progress, what is?
I mull over all these things in this episode of my podcast which is a condensed version of an article I posted on my blog earlier this year – “Its Color Not Culture That Holds Us Back.” And last but not least, all tips are appreciated. Feel free to Cash App me anytime. ($jimstroud1)
If you have not already, please consider subscribing to my blog and podcast now! Please and thank you.
Critical race theory supports the logic that all whites are born racists and oppressors by nature. They are to be viewed as a collective threat to non-white people and beyond redemption. This sentiment is already infecting the American workplace via racial sensitivity and diversity trainings. Despite the obvious controversy, such trainings are being accepted as just and fair; and at an alarming pace across Corporate America.
This piece is written with a three-fold purpose.
To explain the basics of Critical Race Theory
To demonstrate how Critical Race Theory is negatively affecting the American workplace
To inspire a resistance to Critical Race Theory being taught in the workplace
In light of the increased sensitivity to recent events like the George Floyd protests, the emergence of cancel culture and the pressures on corporations to adhere to political correctness, the information herein is a counter-balance that should be carefully considered prior to new investments in diversity trainings.
A Few Points of Consideration First
When discussing matters related to politics and society there is the potential of triggered animosity where ideas are rejected, silenced or canceled out right. This is to be expected with this treatise. I do not expect to persuade every reader to my way of thinking. Academic research proves contrary arguments cause the opposing parties to double down on their viewpoints. Case in point, consider the study – “Exposure to Opposing Views Can Increase Political Polarization: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment on Social Media.” It was conducted by several professors of Sociology, Political Science and Statistical Science from Duke University, Princeton University and New York University. The findings were published on March 19, 2018. This is the summary of what they discovered.
There is mounting concern that social media sites contribute to political polarization by creating “echo chambers” that insulate people from opposing views about current events. We surveyed a large sample of Democrats and Republicans who visit Twitter at least three times each week about a range of social policy issues.
One week later, we randomly assigned respondents to a treatment condition in which they were offered financial incentives to follow a Twitter bot for one month that exposed them to messages produced by elected officials, organizations, and other opinion leaders with opposing political ideologies. Respondents were re-surveyed at the end of the month to measure the effect of this treatment, and at regular intervals throughout the study period to monitor treatment compliance.
We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative post-treatment, and Democrats who followed a conservative Twitter bot became slightly more liberal post-treatment. These findings have important implications for the interdisciplinary literature on political polarization as well as the emerging field of computational social science.
One aspect that separates Christianity from other religions and belief systems is the evidentiary basis for it. Scripture provides historical and logical evidence to back up its claims that Christ is the son of God and only through his sacrifice can human beings be redeemed.
While secular leftists scoff at the above evidence, they hypocritically make absolutely no effort to provide any to support their new religious orthodoxy of critical theory.
This gives critical theorists the room to make broad, radical statements about society without having to provide one bit of evidence…To put it another way, critical theorists nitpick aspects of society that they deem to be unfair, whether that opinion is based on facts or not.
All that being said, it is important to have a foundational view of what Critical Race Theory is and why, in my view, it is so pernicious. Critical race theory (CRT) uses racism to combat largely imaginary racism. Its doctrine promotes systematic racism, white privilege and white fragility. These Marxist-inspired ideologies are designed to create hate and division. I now quote the Pulpit and Pen article “4 Main Things Christians Need to Know About Critical Race Theory.”
Invented by Derrick Bell and other attorneys as a spin-off of Critical Legal Theory in American law schools in the 1980s, these theorists were disenchanted with the results of the Civil Rights Movement. Bell, Richard Delgado, and other CRT thinkers viewed classical liberal ideas such as meritocracy (people being rewarded based on their individual merits), equal opportunity, and colorblind justice (like that promoted by Dr. King) to all be factors that cause systemic, invisible, intangible racism.
What many people don’t understand is that CRT rejects most of the things that the 1960s Civil Rights Movement fought for, like treating people equally in institutions and under the law. Instead, CRT teaches that if power is to be properly redistributed from the “haves” to “have-nots” (which in their eyes include minority identity groups), the law may actually need to biased in favor of minority identity groups.
It is likely that the 1960s Civil Rights leaders like Dr. King, Bayard Rustin, Hosea Williams, and Gloria Richardson all would have opposed CRT vehemently, as it denies that people should be judged “by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.” CRT, conversely, teaches that skin color (or identity group) is the lens through which all things – especially justice – should be viewed.
…believes racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction and therefore has its advocates look for it everywhere
…relies upon “interest convergence” (white people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their own interests) and therefore doesn’t trust any attempt to make racism better
…is against free societies and wants to dismantle them and replace them with something its advocates control (which is a very Marxist way of thinking)
…only treats race issues as “socially constructed groups,” so there are no individuals in Critical Race Theory (for example, depending on the racial group you’re in, you are oppressed despite how financially successful you may be as an individual).
…believes science, reason, and evidence are a “white” way of knowing and that storytelling and lived experience is a “black” alternative, which hurts everyone, especially black people [My note added here: so, in other words, things like statistics and logic don’t matter. What matters is how you feel.]
…rejects all potential alternatives, like colorblindness, as forms of racism, making itself the only allowable game in town [My note added here: In other words, judging people based on their character and not their color, is racist.]
…acts like anyone who disagrees with it must do so for racist and white supremacist reasons, even if those people are black [My note added here: which is why black conservatives like Candace Owens can be called a white supremacist with a straight face. Anyone who disagrees with CRT is by CRT standards, a racist.]
…cannot be satisfied, so it becomes a kind of activist black hole that threatens to destroy everything it is introduced into.
Now, let’s apply these rules to the workplace and you see the horrific potential.
The white CEO of your company is racist and has proven their bias by their outright denial of their own inherent racism.
The Black CEO or female CEO of your company is racist should they dismiss the “reality” that racism is everywhere and as such, prevalent in the company they lead.
Any diversity and inclusion initiative results from “interest convergence” and done solely to somehow benefit the white people inside the company.
Since the company itself is racist, it’s systems must be dismantled and replaced (in part or in whole), so as to insure fairness for all oppressed people who work there.
Requiring proof of systemic racism within the company is racist as feelings and lived experiences are enough for any accusation to be accepted as fact. This is especially true if oppressed groups are not promoted within the company regardless of their individual merit.
CRT fully realized in your organization leads to an internal activism where demands will be made and trouble threatened if they do not get their way. If you give into them, you will not satisfy them, however, because Critical Race Theory cannot be satisfied. It is guaranteed, before you do anything at all, that you will do it wrong because of your racism. You did it in a way that just created new problems that amount to racism. You didn’t do it sooner, faster, or better because of your racism. No matter what you do, the resulting situation must contain racism, and the Critical Race Theory activist’s job is to find it and hold you to account. Case in point, consider the situation of Gary Garrels.
Until last week, Gary Garrels was senior curator of painting and sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA). He resigned his position after museum employees circulated a petition that accused him of racism and demanded his immediate ouster.
This accusation—that Garrels’ choices as an art curator are guided by white supremacist beliefs—is a very serious one. Unsurprisingly, it does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
The petitioners cite few examples of anything even approaching bad behavior from Garrels. Their sole complaint is that he allegedly concluded a presentation on how to diversify the museum’s holdings by saying, “don’t worry, we will definitely still continue to collect white artists.”
Garrels has apparently articulated this sentiment on more than one occasion. According to artnet.com, he said that it would be impossible to completely shun white artists, because this would constitute “reverse discrimination.” That’s the sum total of his alleged crimes. He made a perfectly benign, wholly inoffensive, obviously true statement that at least some of the museum’s featured artists would continue to be white. The petition lists no other specific grievances.
According to Critical Race Theory, Gary Garrel’s implied crimes were:
He did not overly favor the oppressed minority class of artists by not removing the white artists.
He did not recognize the inherent racism of saying that he would still collect art from white artists.
The ignorance of his own white supremacist beliefs was enough to justify his exit.
Can you imagine this type of incident being multiplied across workplaces in America? You don’t have to imagine, it already is. According to Newsmax, “Nearly every major U.S. company now has a diversity and inclusion department offering lessons in unconscious bias, workshops on “white privilege,” and “struggle sessions” on systemic racism to their employees. According to McKinsey & Company, they collectively spend $8 billion for these services annually, with consultants raking in a combined $400 million-$600 million in fees.” With this type of return, the grievance industry is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Yet, with everything shared so far, what can a company expect when they hire someone to give a workshop that is rooted in CRT? I have two examples to share. The first quote is from Independent Women’s Forum.
As I document in detailed reports for City Journal and the New York Post, critical race theory training sessions in public agencies have pushed a deeply ideological agenda that includes reducing people to a racial essence, segregating them, and judging them by their group identity rather than individual character, behavior and merit.
The examples are instructive. At a series of events at the Treasury Department and federal financial agencies, diversity trainer Howard Ross taught employees that America was “built on the backs of people who were enslaved” and that all white Americansare complicit in a system of white supremacy “by automatic response to the ways we’re taught.”
In accompanying documents, Mr. Ross argues that whites share an inborn oppressive streak. “Whiteness,” employees are told, “includes white privilege and white supremacy.” Consequently, whites “struggle to own their racism.” He instructs managers to conduct “listening sessions” in which black employees can speak about their experience and be “seen in their pain,” while white employees are instructed to “sit in the discomfort” and not “fill the silence with your own thoughts and feelings.” Members of “the group you’re allying with,” Mr. Ross says, are not “obligated to like you, thank you, feel sorry for you, or forgive you.” For training like this, Mr. Ross and his firm have been paid $5 million over 15 years, according to federal disclosures.
Further in the article, there is mention of Sandia National Laboratories.
At the Sandia National Laboratories, which develops technology for America’s nuclear arsenal, executives held a racially segregated training session for white male employees. The three-day event, which was led by a company called White Men as Full Diversity Partners, set the goal of examining “white male culture” and making the employees take responsibility for their “white privilege,” “male privilege” and “heterosexual privilege.”
In one of the opening exercises, the instructors wrote on a whiteboard that “white male culture” can be associated with “white supremacists,” “KKK,” “Aryan Nation,” “MAGA hat” and “mass killings.” On the final day, the trainers asked employees to write letters to women and people of color. One participant apologized for his privilege and another pledged to “be a better ally.”
And now this, what follows is an infamous example of a “trainer” giving a presentation called “All White People are Racists” and from what I can discern, much of the tone is mired in critical race theory. I label it “infamous” becauseitwent viralearlierthisyear.
As one might imagine from the above video and the examples cited prior, this type of training can have the opposite effect of what was intended. Ironically, this is not a new revelation. There have been many studies that prove that possibility. Here are some quotes from a 2016 Harvard Business Review article – “Why Diversity Programs Fail.”
Do people who undergo training usually shed their biases? Researchers have been examining that question since before World War II, in nearly a thousand studies. It turns out that while people are easily taught to respond correctly to a questionnaire about bias, they soon forget the right answers. The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash. Nonetheless, nearly half of midsize companies use it, as do nearly all the Fortune 500.
Research from the University of Toronto reinforces our findings: In one study white subjects read a brochure critiquing prejudice toward blacks. When people felt pressure to agree with it, the reading strengthened their bias against blacks. When they felt the choice was theirs, the reading reduced bias.
“…participants were divided into two groups—an autonomy group and a control group—and asked to read a brief anti-prejudice essay. The autonomy group read an essay that emphasized individual choice, explaining why open-mindedness is a more joyful way to live… Before and after reading the essays, participants took a multiple-choice exam designed to test their biases. Participants who read the autonomy essay displayed less prejudice, as expected. But participants who read the control essay tended to test as more prejudiced than they had before. Reading the demands set off what the researchers called a “counter-response to threatened autonomy”: a backlash. In other words, employees need to feel that they’re freely choosing to be nonprejudiced, not that they’re having it forced upon them.”
All this being said, am I implying that all diversity and/or racial sensitivity training does more harm that good? No, I am not. Neither am I saying that racism does not exist. Racism exists and will always exist because 1) it is a heart condition that cannot be dismantled by mandate, legislation or triggered responses and frankly, 2) there is too much money made from its exploitation. I also want to be clear that there are instances when diversity measures are fair and warranted. For example, the HBR article I cited earlier mentioned a field study conducted by Emilio Castilla of MIT’s Sloan School of Management: “A firm found it consistently gave African-Americans smaller raises than whites, even when they had identical job titles and performance ratings. So Castilla suggested transparency to activate social accountability. The firm posted each unit’s average performance rating and pay raise by race and gender. Once managers realized that employees, peers, and superiors would know which parts of the company favored whites, the gap in raises all but disappeared.” My sincerest hope with all of this is that I spark hesitation when considering diversity related training that includes critical race theory. To put it simply…
Critical Race Theory ruins team cohesion across diverse groups.
Critical Race Theory will encourage racism witch hunts inside your company.
Critical Race Theory encourages rewards based on race and not merit.
Critical Race Theory forced upon your employees will likely cause a backlash effect.
For the sake of the company and all those employed within, run (don’t walk) away from critical race theory.
The Underground Railroad was a network of people, African American as well as white, offering shelter and aid to escaped slaves from the South. It developed as a convergence of several different clandestine efforts. The exact dates of its existence are not known, but it operated from the late 18th century to the Civil War, at which point its efforts continued to undermine the Confederacy in a less-secretive fashion. 
So, who created it? Well, it depends on who you ask. Some historians credit white Christian abolitionists – “the Quakers.”Quakers are a historically Christian denomination whose formal name is the “Religious Society of Friends” or “Friends Church.” Members of the various Quaker movements are all generally united by their belief in the ability of each human being to experientially access the light within, or “that of God in every one”.  The “Friends” were informally known as Quakers because they were said to “tremble in the way of the Lord.” 
Quaker leader George Fox, after a trip to Barbados, where he saw conditions slaves endured, pleaded with members of his sect to release their slaves even though they had treated them well. Not only did many Quakers release their slaves, but they saw to it that they could take care of themselves, teaching them to read and write and, in many cases, seeing that they were escorted to states or territories where they could live in freedom. 
Although George Washington freed all his slaves in his will,  he once complained that Quakers had attempted to “liberate” one of his slaves in 1786. 
Two prominent Quakers – Levi Coffin and John Fairfield
Levi Coffin: Sometimes called “the President of the Underground Railroad,” for nearly 20 years, North Carolina — born Coffin and his wife Catharine used their strategic location in southern Indiana, the modern-day Fountain City, to help more than 2,000 former slaves escape to freedom. A successful merchant, Coffin personally helped finance many Underground Railroad efforts. So many fugitive slaves came through his home that people renamed it “Grand Central Station.” Coffin’s reputation as a model citizen inspired other white people to become involved with the Underground Railroad. His 1847 relocation to Cincinnati, Ohio, where he died many years later, didn’t end his Underground Railroad activities.
John Fairfield: Hailing from a slaveholding family in Virginia, Fairfield, who abhorred slavery, became involved in the Underground Railroad when he helped a slave friend escape to Canada. Subsequently other black people, presumably in the Ohio area where he spent a lot of time, sought him out and paid him to help their relatives and friends escape. Posing as a slaveholder, a slave trader, and sometimes a peddler, Fairfield was able to gain the confidence of whites, which made it easier for him to lead runaway slaves to freedom. One of his most impressive feats was freeing 28 slaves by staging a funeral procession. While he led many of his charges to Canada, others he delivered to Levi Coffin, who handled the remainder of their escape. 
Recently, a certain Quaker was featured prominently in the national news and the center of controversy related to race relations in the USA. Do you know the name of the abolitionist Quaker I am speaking of?
The Quaker featured in the news recently was Betsy Ross. Historians think the story of Betsy Ross is more of a legend than fact, akin to George Washington chopping down a cherry tree or Davy Crockett killing a bear at three years old. There is no definitive proof that she did or did not sew the first American flag for George Washington, nevertheless she receives credit for it. As such, accusing a Quaker of creating a “racist” flag is laughable in the context of history. This is possibly why, some may not want her to receive credit. (The origin of Betsy Ross being credited for the flag begins with a testimony of her grandson to a Historical society, 50 years after Betsy Ross’ passing.) 
Black History Quiz is a weekly celebration of the contributions and achievements of Africans and the descendants of the diaspora in the United States and around the world. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE to this newsletter and help spread the word about a proud people and their cultures. New issues post on Sundays.