Looking Back

New Housing in Denver in 2009

I’ve mentioned that there were very few African Americans living in Boulder when I was growing up. I know why. When I was young—maybe 10 years old we went over to my aunt and uncle’s house. They lived in the neighborhood Keewaydin Meadows. I remember hearing my dad and my uncle talking about how an African American couple had just moved into the neighborhood. I remember we drove past the house—it was on a small cul-de-sac. My uncle pointed out which house was now owned by African Americans. They talked about how upset the people living around them were. I can imagine how much heat that family had to take. I can imagine how difficult it was for this family and I wonder how long they were able to live in that house.

When I was an adult I worked at a company that provided medical care to seniors. This company happened to be in Denver, Colorado. I worked at this company when Mr. Barak Obama was elected president. The excitement was palpable, especially from our African American patients. During the celebrations we all began talking about the history of racism—and our conversation turned to segregation. I asked what they remembered most about segregation. There were two answers that surprised me most. The first surprise came from a woman who said that the lack of public restrooms was especially difficult. She talked of travelling in a car and the inability to relieve oneself made traveling not only difficult but frightening. She said that driving within the city was just as bad as driving across the country. No bathrooms make for a very short journey.

The second surprise came from a man who had lived in Denver in the 30’s and 40’s. He talked about the Red Lines. These were the streets which demarcated where African Americans could live. I remember that the man told us what the boundaries were but I had to look them up for this article. I found the information in a pdf from the Department of the Interior, and the National Park Service entitled “Historic Residential Subdivisions ofMetropolitan Denver.” On page 87 and 88 the document states that in Denver, African Americans were confined to the Five Points neighborhood, with York Street being the eastern boundary until 1954. After 1954 the boundary extended a few blocks to the East of York Street. (Denver Suburbs, p. 87 and 88.) At that time, the South Platte River was the western boundary for African American communities while 17^th Avenue was the southern boundary and the rail yards were the northern boundary. I have not yet found when these red line restrictions were lifted but the conversation between my uncle and my dad happened in the early 70's so I think red lining existed much longer than white people realize.

Other racial groups were reportedly not exempt from housing restrictions. The Historic Residential Subdivision document states that “Hispanics” were offered inferior public housing options at 12^th Ave and Federal Boulevard. Japanese Americans also had difficulties after being released from the internment camps of WWII. The Japanese Americans were forced to live in the same small neighborhood (Five Points) that the African Americans were crowded into.

Most damning of all (in my opinion) is the following paragraph (p.85):

Discrimination in access to well-built, affordable private housing was common in the metropolitan area during the years before the war. Denver-area black leaders, like those at the national level, possessed few options with which to counter unfair practices. In 1940, the Colorado Statesman, Denver’s African American newspaper, discussed the impact of red-lining, noting that housing choices for the community were limited to dated properties in need of extensive repair and improvement that sold for $2,500 to $3,000, and charged that: “Conversely, the real thing can be seen upon the fringes of our City, in the hundreds of new and attractive homes, containing all of the modern features, and priced at 4000 dollars.” Money for new houses could not be obtained to build houses “within this racial zone” due to deterioration of the existing properties and low wages of residents. The Statesman concluded, “Some months ago, the FHA offered citizens within this zone of racial encirclement an opportunity to rent and live in ‘new homes,’ the same as other people do, but a group comprising realtors, and others having selfish interest, blocked this movement.”470 A year later the Statesman noted the housing situation remained a “grave problem” due to racial restrictions.

Every African American that ventured outside those boundaries must have experienced something similar to what that Boulder family experienced. White people exercising their “right” to bully and intimidate those who they did not feel should live in their communities.

The neighborhood that I now live in has a little local newspaper that is published about once a month. A couple of years ago I remember reading a short article—just one paragraph in length. The article was asking people not to call the police when they saw an African American man walking down the street. The article reminded people that “African Americans live here too.”

This part of America and American culture needs to be healed. People should be free to live where they want to—and they should be free to live without others’ intimidation and threats of violence. Until we are able to heal this, I will feel deeply ashamed of this part of being an American. 

The United States Constitution

The constitution of the United States of America does several things.

1.) It defines human rights for citizens of the United States.
2.) It sets up the organization for the US government.
3.) It provides for a way to pay for the federal government.
4.) It provides for a way to protect the US from being invaded.

It really is a simple system. As it is designed, it is a good system.

Beware when people talk about the federal government as if it is an evil entity. It is not. It is a governmental system "of the people, by the people and for the people."

A government which is concerned with human rights is a very limited government.

There really isn't much power or prestige for a government which is solely concentrated on human rights.

Beware the people who are trying to limit the power of the federal government. These people are trying to limit the federal government's ability to serve the people.

It really is true. States' Rights People are always campaigning to pull human rights out of the federal government and put them into the state government. The problem with this, is that state governments are not concerned with human rights. State rights people are conerned with giving more power to the individual--they just use fancy language to state their point and most people don't realize what they are trying to do.

Look at the following issues. They are all things that deal with human rights:

Birth control
Abortion
Defining marriage
Prayer in school
School vouchers

I would also put access to voting in this category because states have tried to control access to voting and every four years we see what a fiasco they have made of the system.

Gun control. Yes. This is a human right.

Now I Can See It

Poison Ivy--picture taken in Traverse City, Michigan by author

I grew up in Boulder. When I was in elementary school there were no African Americans in my classes--not a one. When I was in junior high (back then there were no middle schools in Colorado) I remember a couple of African Americans. Then in high school, there were a few more--maybe four people in the whole school. I remember thinking to myself, "I can't see any racism--it must not exist any more." Looking back, I can easily see the racism, but back then I couldn't.

In high school the afternoon bus would come to pick us up really late. School got out around 2:30 in the afternoon and the bus wouldn't pick us up until 4. To pass the time we would go to the rec center and play basketball. It was there that I met some African American boys. One of the boys, James, liked a friend of mine--Amy.

James had no interest in me whatsoever. But he really liked Amy--and so I got to know James a little. It just so happened that I worked at McDonald's and they had one of those loyalty things going on where the customer got a scratch ticket with every purchase. James really liked those scratch tickets and he really liked me to give him a few extra tickets each time he came in.

As time went on, the number of tickets that James wanted increased until I was handing him a stack of tickets every time he came in. This made me feel very uncomfortable and so I searched for a way to tell him I didn't want to give him tickets any more.

I remember I handed James the tickets and then said, "Now listen boy..."

James' face changed. He became extremely angry and he threw the tickets back at me. James said, "Don't you ever call me boy!" and he stormed out of McDonald's never to return while I was working.

I was baffled. What had happened?

I told someone who worked there what had happened and he said, "Boy is a term that whites used to use with slaves." I was stunned, embarrassed, and very remorseful all at once. I didn't understand how it was possible that I could have used a term like that without realizing what I saying.

I began to look for examples of people using the word "boy." I was astonished at how many instances I could find. On television I saw white men calling black men "boys" more times than I could count. I read books where white men were calling black men "boys." It was everywhere. Slowly, I began to realize that I had known exactly how to use to word "boy" when I was speaking with James. Even though I hadn't consciously picked up on what it meant, some part of knew exactly what I was saying. Racism was in me whether I wanted it to be or not.

Beginning to Write Again

My last blog entry was posted in January, 2013. I stopped writing this blog because in April, 2013 my brother killed himself. He was a police officer. He was a multiple veteran, having fought in the Gulf War and also in Iraq multiple times. It is difficult to know exactly why my brother killed himself, but he had been denied a return to Iraq due to a difficulty he had been having with cholesterol medicine. The last time I spoke with my brother he said he had been devastated about not being able to return to Iraq with his unit. I heard the word "devastated" but I didn't realize how much he was devastated until I got the phone call about his suicide.

I haven't felt a need to return to writing since his death--until now. 

At this moment, I want to change the focus of this blog. I will now write about my own experiences with racism. In essence, I will be giving witness to racism in our society.

I am doing this because I have been feeling for some time now that I want to take an active role as an ally. I want to be an ally for experiencing racism. I know that living in a world where everyone does not have freedom of access is a world that I feel uncomfortable living in. 

 I spoke with two women at the grocery store this morning about my need to be an ally and they said I "should just speak up wherever" I am. So I am going to do that. I am going to be a witness to all of the racism that I have seen in this society.

Civil Unions Are A First Amendment Issue

I have written about gay marriage before. Today I will write about Civil Unions because yesterday the Colorado Senate passed a bill allowing Civil Unions.

As usual, there seem to be a large number of Christians (fundamentalists) who say they are against this. In fact, these "Christianists" as I am going to call them from now on, are boo-hooing that their First Amendment rights are being trampled on. These Christianists argue that the state is making a law which is against their religion and that because of this, the law is illegal.

But this is a perverted twisting of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment disallows any federal law which is made IN FAVOR of a religion because otherwise that religion would become favored in the eyes of the law.

The Christianists make it seem as if anyone who is in favor of Gay Marriage or Civil Unions is doing so based on their own interpretation of religious law--that in effect the federal government is favoring the "Gay Religious Movement" over the Christian Religious movement.

This is not what is happening.

Allowing Civil Unions and Gay Marriage is not an attempt to impress one religious view over another. Rather, by allowing Civil Unions and Gay Marriage we are breaking the bonds that religion holds over our society.

This is a wonderful thing.

Breaking the bonds that religion holds over our society means that religion will now be about GOD and not about CONTROL.

What a wonderful thing to do--both for our society and for religion.

And those people who still want their religion to be about control?

They can still be religious in that way. Go ahead. You're free to do it. You just can't use your religion to control other people.

Way to go Civil Unions!

Constitutional Rights Are For All Americans

Once again I am returning from a trip to the rec center and I find I must write a blog post. I was listening to Fox News while I was riding a bicycle. I wanted to sit where I could watch a different channel but there were no machines available, so I was stuck.

Fox News was talking about President Obama and Guns Rights. They had some people on who were very upset because they believed "this president" was trying to redistribute wealth--taking wealth from the "middle class, upper middle class and upper class" and letting the poor people have it.

At the same time they were talking about how wrong it was for President Obama to redistribute wealth, they were talking about constitutional rights. Specifically they were very concerned because they saw President Obama as restricting their "constitutional rights" regarding the 2nd Amendment.

Let's get this straight. The Constitution of the United States is for all Americans. It is not just for "middle class, upper middle class and upper class" citizens. Where citizens of other, lesser economic classes do not have complete access to public institutions we must expand access to everyone.

People who are economically disadvantaged do not have the same access to public institutions that other citizens do. I am talking access to jobs. I am talking access to public health care. I am talking access to adequate housing. There is one other big area I am talking about, and for that I will need the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is a group of people within the United States who are being denied access to domestic Tranquility and general Welfare.

Who are these people? They are the people who live in the inner city--specifically they are communities made of up of largely African Americans and Hispanics.

This is where the conversation turns to guns--specifically to gun violence.

The Far Right and the Republican party want to argue that guns are about defense. These groups are saying that they have a right to defend themselves. But the Constitution does not give anyone right to defend themselves from other Americans. Rather, the Constitution provides for defense against other countries and it provides for defense against the government. There is no RIGHT to defend yourself against other Americans.

If you need to defend yourself against "the bad people" this is a matter of Justice, not defense.

So when white people are talking about gun rights, they are really saying they want to defend themselves. They are saying they want to defend themselves against the large numbers of bad Black people and bad Hispanic people.

Guns are a big problem in the inner city, it is true. But guns are a big problem in the inner city not because the inner city is filled with lots of bad people. Guns are a problem in the inner city because we have lax gun laws and because access to public institutions has largely been cut off.

This is what happened last night in my neighborhood (9NEWS). Well, not exactly my neighborhood. It happened across the park, across the expanse of prairie dogs. It happened in the horrible and awful place that is Aurora, Colorado. Here is a picture of the crime scene--from my neighborhood.

You can see that the "illustrious"neighborhood of Stapleton is separated from the "horrible" neighborhood of Aurora by only a few rodents. The shooting that was reported on 9NEWS last night took place near the red building on the right side of the photograph.

I woke up last night around 2:00 in the morning. I heard a steady drum beat of loud shots--boom, boom, boom. I didn't count the shots but there had to be at least 20 shots. It was enough that I incorporated the shots into my dream and then I woke up and realized that I wasn't dreaming. The shots were real and they were VERY CLOSE.

Here's the thing:
There was no way to protect anyone from these shots. They occurred in the middle of the night. I could hear the shots, but I couldn't really tell what direction they were coming from.

The news only talked about the shooting at 11:00 that night--we couldn't find anything about the shots at 2:00 in the morning. This is also another problem. We rarely hear about what is really going on. But that's another issue. For this blog post--I want to say that there is NO WAY to protect yourself from this type of gun violence. No Way.

We do not need guns. We do not need guns. We do not need guns. We do not need guns.

Guns are destroying us. And listening to White people talk about how they want to protect themselves from the awful Black and Hispanic people is really, really horrible.

We are all Americans. Our society needs to be for all people. Where someone is restricted in their access to our society we need to take steps to allow their participation. This is the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Anything less is simply blah, blah, blah.

Religious Right is Wrong When it Comes to Guns

I have written before about the large numbers of Bible-believing Christians who are advocating against any governmental control (link here) of guns. Anyone standing outside the walls of the fundamentalist community might find it strange that people who strongly profess to have a loving God (Jesus) would also strongly profess their governmental right to kill people with very powerful weapons.

I have watched this debate with some interest—scanning the talking heads out there for any evidence that SOMEONE in the Bible-believing community finds the whole gun rights argument to be outside the purview of religion. I have not yet found anyone, although I am sure that they exist. However, I did hear of a Christian pastor who gave a reason why the fundamentalist community is so strongly in favor of killing people with very strong weapons.

This pastor said, “The biblical basis for this is the Golden Rule.” He then continued; “Do unto other what you would have done unto you.”

I was momentarily taken aback. I do not want someone to murder me, how could I then go out and murder someone? Surely this was not what that pastor meant.

That pastor was talking about protecting other people. The fundamentalist Christian community uses The Golden Rule as their reason for being “The Great Protector.” They want the right to carry powerful weapons because they feel that no one else is going to protect them.

This may be a philosophy, but it’s not a good religious philosophy. In fact, using the Golden Rule as the basis for killing people with very powerful weapons is the ANTITHESIS of good religious philosophy. Let me state this more clearly.

One of the passages in the Hebrew Bible which gives Christians the foundation for their Golden Rule is Leviticus 19:18—“…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Do unto others is related to loving other people as yourself. This makes sense. But there is nothing in Leviticus 19:18 about using powerful weapons to kill people. Nothing.

Leviticus 19:18 has a sentence before "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. This sentence is even more strongly against using powerful weapons to protect oneself. The first part of the verse in Leviticus 19:18 is as follows: “Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people.” The verse also has a stunning ending: “I am the L-RD.” Thus, Leviticus 19:18 isn’t just any verse for a Bible-believing Christian. Leviticus 19:18 is a verse in which we listen to the word of G-d. This makes Leviticus 19:18 a very important verse for the Bible-believing Christian community.

Here it is in its entirety:

Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the L-rd.

***

This brings us to a very big difference between The Golden Rule and Leviticus 19:18. One uses the word "other" while the latter uses the word "neighbor."

Is there a meaning of the word “other” which would lend credence to the Christian perspective of using powerful weapons to kill an “other?”

The word in Hebrew which is commonly translated as neighbor is "rei-acha." Not surprisingly, the meaning of the word "rei-acha" is not the word you would use to refer to your neighbors in Modern Hebrew. It is a word which you might use to refer to "the children of your people." 

In a society like ours, who are the children of our people? Who are the people about whom we should concern ourselves?

Do we consider all Americans to be “our people?”

or

Do we only consider people of similar religious backgrounds to be “our people?”

This is important because we must ask the Christian fundamentalist community exactly who they are protecting themselves from?

I have heard more than one gun enthusiast say they are protecting themselves against “the bad people.”

This to me seems to be the “NEW” meaning for the Golden Rule. In other words, the fundamentalist Christian community is protecting themselves from “OTHERS.”

Let’s read the Golden Rule one more time:

Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

And here's the Golden Rule as it is interpreted by the Fundamentalist Christian community:

Kill others as you would have wanted to be protected.

This doesn’t sound like good religious philosophy to me. It sounds like a bunch of really scared people who are taking the law into their own hands. It seems they are terrified that our violent culture will come for them next—that we will reap as we have sown.

But saying that G-d is on your side does not make it so.

And making our culture more violent doesn’t solve anything.

So we must work together to get rid of the guns and to search out the sources of violence in our society. We are all in this together.