WHY!? Because most of America is redneck, that's why! (EXPLICIT LANGUAGE)

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (a former slave).

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Without question, our country was founded by some very intelligent and brave men* who were willing to risk everything, including their own lives, in order to try an unfounded experiment in self-government. No violent struggle for the "throne," no need for a "mandate from Heaven," no crazy marriages between a few "royal" families to cement the relationships across national lines, etc.**

Please consider the following questions, slowly and deliberately, before attempting to answer: 

Why was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 necessary when the 15th Amendment had already given black/sub-Saharan African-Americans voting rights?

Stumped?  The 15th Amendment was passed, granting African-American men the right to vote, in early February 1870. HOWEVER, with discrimination still largely unchecked, violence against blacks at voting polls was rampant. Violence against blacks by whites was unchecked as well as local constabularies conspired with local (white) community leaders to ensure that the unwashed masses were reminded, on a daily basis, who belonged where and with whom. 

I know the saying from Shakespeare mentions something about hell having no fury like a woman scorned; but, in our country, the reality was--for HUNDREDS of years including the decade in which I was born--nothing had a fury like a white man thinking his white woman was wanted by a black man.  My mom's second husband was raised in Maryland, a former slave state and one of the border states during the Civil War. He told me a story about the time his elementary school was let out in order for the local sheriff to put on a demonstration for the good kids of Wherever, MD. The sheriff's police car had a black man chained to the rear bumper in such a manner that his hands and feet were bound together and the chain was drawn taut in that the only part of this poor man's body touching the pavement was his neck and back of his head.

Before the action part of the lesson began, the sheriff explained to his captive audience that he was going to "teach this nigger a lesson. Around here, we don't allow them lookin' at our [white] women." At that point, he kicked the terrified man, taunting him with more slurs before motioning for the deputy to start the car. Yes, that's right, while the "Greatest Generation" was fighting fascism and despotism around the globe,* a local yokel sheriff in our "civilized" country was condemning a person to die, in a most gruesome manner possible, in front of an elementary school full of kids, for the egregious act of allegedly leering at a woman. 

According to my step-dad, no one stepped forward or spoke up for the victim. Think about it: if the sheriff is using this training "opportunity" to drive home his savage point, who could one go to for help? The school principal? The FBI?  J. Edgar Hoover was a virulent racist, and the rest of the power structures in the country largely supported (and in some cases, still support), or at least accepted, the knowledge a priori that whites were superior to blacks and that black men in particular were dangerous. 

I think things are largely better, yet the rise of reactionary, poorly educated, and well-funded right-wing organizations has resulted, anecdotally at least, a rise in the popularity of being racist, especially against Arabs and Muslims in general, and Mexicans in particular whether citizens, legal residents, or illegals, actual legal status notwithstanding. Just as Sasha Baron Cohen has proved in his brilliant albeit controversial comedic characters, it doesn't take much pressure for the veneer of civility to wipe away and expose the fearful, hateful bastards who we really are. 

The police car began driving very slowly around the flagpole. The idea is that the vicitm would desperately try and keep their head from resting on the ground, but "Gosh Dang! ain't nobody who can hold it up forever! Yee-haw!" This particular form of execution, called "skull dragging," involves dragging the person until the back half of his skull is rubbed off by the friction off the asphalt. My step-dad said there was a circular, dark red stain around the flagpole for months. He understood the message loud and clear. And people wonder how black/sub-Saharan African-Americans would have any reason to be angry at the power structures in this country. In fact, this is a perfect demonstration of the difference between racial discrimination and racism. The black man, about to be murdered in cold blood without judge or jury, hates the motherfucking crackers who are gonna kill him and all white people in general for letting shit like this happen. That's "racial discrimination." On the other hand, the sheriff arresting him for "looking at our women" and then killing him with impunity? That, my friends, is racism. The full force of the dominant culture clearly behind his actions is what makes the difference in this case. Would a black sheriff have attempted the grisly summary execution of a white man for ogling a black woman?  

NB- During WWII, when German and Italian prisoners of war (POWs) were shipped into interior U.S. bases, black U.S. soldiers were not allowed access into enlisted men and NCO clubs; however, the foreign POWs were allowed in and given extra privileges than black servicemen. Now, you tell me, how fucking infuriating is that?

Although actual statistics are probably impossible to acquire, it would not surprise me if 10,000 black men were killed--"LYNCHED"--in the early 20th century-by groups of white men who were often aided by local law enforcement if the "law" men weren't directly involved themselves. I can hear you now--you know who you are--sighing and rolling your eyes at J.R. the Liberal going off the deep end, again. But one of the great tragedies of the American downfall is also one of its causes is the passivity of the  American. Passive thinker, passive shopper, passive follower, passive whatever. Active thinking requires effort. Active thinking requires the divesture of one's ego in order for new information to land where it may once its been "run through the wringer" a few times. Passive thinking allows one to "fit in" and "not stand out."

I know many of you have college degrees or are intelligent enough to understand the following. Haven't you ever have one of those "A-Ha!" moments every so often when the preconceptions and prejudices and--let's call it what it is, shall we?--accumulated ignorance of your passivity collided with NEW IDEAS or angles never before considered? In my very humble opinion, if you've lived your entire life knowing everything or filtering information to ensure it didn't tip your apple cart of willful stupidity, then you live in a very elaborate and angry cocoon; however, a beautiful butterfly does not emerge from this chrysalis (Latin chrysallis, from Greek χρυσαλλίς = chrysallís). Instead, what emerges is something very ugly, malformed, an abomination: Karl Rove! NO! Just kidding. A little. It's actually Sarah Palin Limbaugh-Coulter.


Literacy tests, poll taxes and other voter qualification laws became common. It took nearly a century and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for the amendment's intention to be achieved throughout the US. Black women in America attained the right to vote along with the rest of America's adult female population in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment. But, they, too, had to wait till 1965 to actually exercise that right.

Next Question to think about very carefully before you answer: If it took 100 years or so to ensure that ALL blacks had the right to vote as citizens, how long do you think it will take--if ever--for the United States to ensure the equal protection guaranteed under the Constitution for all adult citizens to marry whomever they wish? 

Marriage has both a legal and religious component; however, the piece of paper that couples receive from the state is a LEGAL document, not a religious one. I, for one, do not begrudge couples their desire to have their union conducted by the religious rite and ceremony of their choosing; nevertheless, it is a LEGAL action in the eyes of the state. Otherwise, why would divorce be handled by the judicial system and not the priest/father/rabbi, et al, who conducted the ceremony and signed the marriage certificate? Marriage is an institution that ensures a relatively orderly exchange of property and responsibilities if
when one or both of the partners passes away. 

I bring all this up because their are some similarities between the struggle for blacks and homosexuals to be recognized in the legal systems as well as the minds of the dominant, ethnocentric culture. While there are unmistakably huge differences between these issues, they ultimately lead to most human of decisions: is EVERYONE endowed with the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  The scope of those "inalienable" rights has, if anything, broadened through time as the republic has wizened through war and civil unrest, perhaps particularly by the reluctance of the populace to pay for the upkeep of the roads, bridges, and pipes necessary for modernity to continue. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but roads, schools, health care, et al, are requisites for a First World country. IMHO, so too are equal and full CIVIL rights as conferred on us by the elegant mind and pen of Thomas Jefferson. As pointed out by a very intelligent man and former Army colleague, Jefferson recognized the need for the Constitution to be a living document despite the howls of "activist judges" and their apparent detriment to the viability of the government to continue its rule.***

The president has proposed an end to the preposterous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the military service. Naturally, this has caused a firestorm of protest from the usual sources who use the aegis of love and understanding and inclusion to propagate hate and fear and revulsion. One of my great puzzlements regarding this issue is this: Does everyone sit around and wonder what the hell their neighbors are doing in bed? Am I the only weirdo who doesn't? Is this all we have to do? 

If we are to accept the responsibility to educate ourselves into enlightened citizenry (ACTIVE THINKING), we cannot conclude otherwise that the denial of full and equal "inalienability" renders the entire exercise of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" meaningless. If you disagree with this line of thinking, would agree that women should be denied the right to vote? Should we allow vigilante justice and return to the days of racially motivated lynch mobs? No? Then why do the "opponents" of the full expression of inalienable rights always deride the need for "special laws" just for homosexuals and their "agenda?" I mean, you can't have it both ways: why was the 1965 Voting Rights Law necessary if the 15th Amendment already guaranteed every (male) citizen the right to vote? Why was the 19th Amendment necessary to guaranty a woman's right to vote? Your arguments against the "special rights" are nearly IDENTICAL to the ones used by your intellectual forebears to deny women and blacks their full rights as citizens. I-D-E-N-T-I-C-A-L. Being homosexual is no more a choice than one's "race." Science is providing more evidence that sexual orientation occurs in the womb. Besides, why would someone "choose" to expose him or herself to open derision, unemployment, housing discrimination, and potential violence from rednecks and other like-minded idiots?

Last Question: Will we need an amendment to guaranty the right for each and every citizen to pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"  Recently, my sister asked me if we were ready to move forward (socially) and begin accepting people with less prejudice than our mostly racist parents and grandparents did. My answer to her was this: the most progressive, advanced, and cultured in the arts and humanities country in Europe prior to 1932 was Germany. There was open homosexuality, jazz bars, women smoking in public, relatively open sexual mores and practices, etc. We all know what happened in Germany between 1933 - 1945. By 1935, concentration camps were constructed to house "enemies to the state" like leftists, Communists, priests, gypsies, and....homosexuals. I fear my sister's optimism is not warranted though I'd like to believe we're past such barbarity. We ain't. We're no less vicious than the Greeks portrayed in those ancient stories. Or the lynch mobs who roamed rural America contemporaneous to Nazi Germany. 

As always, I welcome your comments, insights, and questions so long as you're respectful and thoughtful. 

XOXO
Ernst W.           

* Nota bene #2 - Before anyone jumps on me about the fact that these "enlightened" souls were slave-owning misogynists, one must recognize that history must account for the times whence its figures emerge. This is not to say that all of their sins are absolved; however, we should not apply our Ethos to those of different eras and cultures. History rarely moves in leaps and bounds. For instance, we trace the development of democracy from the early 6th century BC/BCE  in Athens ( δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people") , to the Senate of the Romans, to the Enlightenment, to the Magna Carta, to the philosophies of Locke, Montesquiou, and to the Declaration of Independence, roughly speaking. That took more than 2,300 years!  

** Of course, it could be argued that not much has changed since the 2000 election was decided by the "independent" Supreme Court voting along strict ideological lines; no atheist or agnostic has ever come close to winning a Presidential election; and, a number of Presidents are related by blood and marriage and all in recent memory are multimillionaires. Two of them, a pragmatic father and an idiotic son, didn't have to earn a dime since their family had long since secured the power and prestige that accompanies and under-girds generational wealth. But, as usual, I digress. Food for thought, so to speak.  

*** "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

From the inscription on Panel 4 of the Jefferson Memorial