"THE HATE THAT HATE PRODUCED"

The final segment of the landmark expose "The Hate That Hate Produced" just posted on the Blakfacts network on Ning. The following excerpt from Peniel Joseph's "Wait 'Til the Midnight Hour" is an excellent review of this 10 part series.

"Tipped off to a potential news story by the veteran black reporter and colleague Louis Lomax, Mike Wallace became the first white journalist to feature an expose of the Black Muslims. The five-part documentary aired on Wallace's News Beat the week of July 13, 1959. News Beat reporter Louis Lomax, accompanied by two white cameramen, received unprecedented access to the Nation of Islam's inner workings. Rare footage of the NOI and James Lawson's United African Nationalist Movement cast black nationalists as obscure counterparts to the racist southern White Citizens Council. From the studio, Wallace set the tone for the evening, chiding 'soberminded Negroes' for failing to oppose the group. Wallace asked Manhattan borough president Hulan Jack and NAACP chairman Roy Wilkins why they hadn't done more to forestall the growing Muslim menace. Booed off the stage by Muslims at an earlier NAACP rally, Jack knew better than to attack one of Harlem's most powerful groups. Wilkins claimed to have no knowledge of Elijah Muhammad or his syndicated newspaper column. He expertly deflected questions regarding the group, noting that while he never attended their street rallies, he supported the right to free speech. Photographs of Wilkins shaking hands with Malcolm X were offered by News Beat as evidence that the head of the NAACP was consorting with a black hate group, behavior that contradicted his outstanding personal and professional commitment to civil rights.

The program boiled down the Nation of Islam's mix of religious evangelism and racial militancy to hate mongering. Descending into the homes of white Americans via a new medium, television, whose power was largely untested, the Nation of Islam received a dramatic if not entirely unflattering debut. More than simply putting the NOI and other black militants on the radar of ordinary Americans, the documentary ushered in the first intraracial political controversy of the civil rights era, pitting black separatists against integrationists. News Beat's coverage also served as a coronation of sorts--marking Malcolm X as a new breed of black militant. The documentary's first glimpse of the Nation came via footage of the climax of the popular play The Trial, which featured a Muslim prosecutor [Louis Farrakhan] seeking a collective indictment against the white race for black oppression. Images of thousands of Muslims voicing their approval at the mock court proceedings were followed by footage of an enormous Muslim rally in Washington D.C.'s cavernous Uline Arena; these images were accompanied by Wallace's clipped voice-over narration, which repeated the group's exaggerated estimates of a quarter of a million acolytes and provided details about Elijah Muhammad's personal history. Malcolm's subsequent appearance overshadowed Lomax's exclusive interview with Muhammad. Whereas Muhammad answered questions stiffly, Malcolm's eloquence focused on the Nation of Islam's collective indictment of white America. After Malcolm's defense of the Nation of Islam's philosophy and criticism of the NAACP, footage of Malcolm addressing an African Freedom Day rally in Harlem strengthened News Beat's claims that the Muslim movement had penetrated black America's foremost citadel.

Elijah Muhammad arrived at St. Nicholas Arena for a major speech on the heels of the show's airing. Inside, six thousand turned out to hear him reject charges of hate mongering. Outside, almost one thousand Harlemites, many still dressed in their Sunday best, lined up against police barriers and listened to Muhammad through speakers set up to accommodate the overflow. Groups of white reporters and cameramen bantered with Muslim security officers who announced that no whites would be allowed inside. Refused entrance into the arena twice, Mike Wallace threatened to press his case to a higher authority; bewildered black journalists marveled at the clamoring white media desperate to attend the same closed-door religious meetings the black media had covered for years. Malcolm X and the Messenger's son, Wallace shared the speakers' platform with Elijah Muhammad. Wallace Muhammad sketched a brief history of the Muslim movement while Malcolm (recently back from the Middle East) spoke of Elijah's growing international reputation. Uncertain of the documentary's impact on his movement, Muhammad delivered a forceful speech, exhibiting the energy and stamina that, in later years, would elude him. He described himself as a divine messenger entrusted to redeem the lost souls of a proud but wayward people. His was a mission of cosmic origins, legitimated by Black Muslim orthodoxy, dutifully believed by growing numbers of converts. Muhammad challenged his critics to offer proof of the NOI's racial demagoguery and singled out Jackie Robinson as an Uncle Tom tricked into attacking him. Muhammad also hinted that he might be forced to retire over the recent furor. The white press, which had excitedly reported the group's activities, now sought information attainable only with the help of black reporters. The publicity made Black Muslims part of the debate over America's civil rights struggle. But the NOI's iconoclastic religious and political practices would, from their first airing in the national media, remain on the fringes of respectable civil rights discourse. Martin Luther King Jr., Roy Wilkins, and Thurgood Marshall publicly chastised the Muslims as a 'hate group' that had failed the litmus test for responsible leadership; blatantly one-sided, News Beat's airing the 'The Hate That Hate Produced' left the Nation of Islam open to ridicule and worse.

'The Hate That Hate Produced' was broadcast just as Malcolm was visiting Africa. His 1959 tour amplified his interest in the larger world. As Muhammad's advance man in the Middle East, Malcolm had served as a liaison with Muslim officials in preparation for the Messenger's visit to Mecca. As the FBI monitored his foray into Africa, Malcolm published his letters from Saudi Arabia and the Sudan in black newspapers. From Khartoum's Grand Hotel, he announced that 'racial disturbances in faraway New York City' received front page coverage in the Sudan. African concern for black suffering in America, he observed, was growing. Penetrating what Malcolm described as a 'veil of global diplomatic art' were 'hordes of intelligent Africans' unmoved by American propaganda extolling domestic racial progress. Meanwhile, the national media ignored Malcolm's tour. Malcolm claimed that Elijah Muhammad's achievements were respected overseas; however, the Black Muslim movement had an ambiguous relationship with the larger Islamic world (which followed orthodox interpretations of the faith and did not recognize Elijah Muhammad as divine); in fact, rumors swirled that contemptuous Saudi officials barred him from Mecca.

But Muhammad did make it to Mecca. With his sons Herbert and Akbar, Muhammad arrived in Turkey on November 23, 1959, three months after Malcolm, and toured the Islamic Middle East over the next six weeks. In Cairo, Muhammad received an audience with Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser; in the process, the NOI leader solidified his claims of international religious and political legitimacy. From Jeddah, Muhammad traveled to Mecca to complete the hajj. Led by a guide and draped in the garb of hajj pilgrims, two white sheets called the ihram, Muhammad recited Arabic prayers amid thousands of Muslims, successfully completing the holy pilgrimage. Muhammad's visit made the front page of the Amsterdam News, providing public vindication for Black Muslims in Harlem sensitive to criticism of their unorthodox religious practices. Muhammad returned to the State confident that he had brokered international alliances. For Malcolm, Muhammad's hajj was bittersweet. The previous summer, within miles of the holy city, he was forced to return without making the pilgrimage, offering several excuses, including illness, scheduling conflicts, and fear of upstaging Muhammad. The Nation of Islam's rapid ascent was already taking its toll."

Excerpted from:
Waiting 'Til the Midnight Hour
By Peniel E. Joseph
Published: July 10, 2007
pp. 21-25

TO BE OR NOT TO BE A TERRORIST

Are born and bred American citizens being held after having all of their rights unceremoniously stripped by the Obama administration? As we debate the weighty questions of the day, we should be thinking what if me or a member of my family were to be, not indicted, but merely suspected of planning a terrorist attack. Do we want to waive all of our rights as citizens, in order to prevent the possibility of someone committing an act of terrorism? This is really what we should be debating.

This scenario is too real to ignore. In fact four men were arraigned in New York city yesterday on charges of plotting to blow up some Jewish synagogues and shoot a plane out of the sky over the Riverdale neighborhood where they reside. Well, according to Obama's new policy they could be charged with hatching a terrorist plot and locked up in an undisclosed location for the next 3, 5 or maybe 10 years on the word of the president and his minions that they "were going to do what they have been charged with and may implement their "dastardly" plot if and when they are released.

This policy would effectively gut a number of laws in one fail swoop. The Miranda law would be a real joke! the constitution itself has embedded within it the very essence of many of the laws used to deal with these kinds of situations in the past, so it too would become a worthless piece of paper, worth less than the piece of paper itself.

As an African living in America I recall all too well what these types of laws were called when I was growing up, they were called lynch laws. The only difference between now and then is that it's no longer called lynching, it's called justifiable homicide. In the course of committing these acts of justifiable homicide by emptying one or more full clips in the bodies of our young men and women the police have become the judge, jury and executioner, in one fail swoop.

I don't know any better way to describe what in essence is a lynch mob, every bit as real as the one described in the story that follows about the "trial" of Mack Charles Parker.

NEXT: IT'S A LOT EASIER TO FIGHT AN UNARMED ENEMY

. . . THEY WILL BE BACK FOR ME IN THE MORNING

In the words of James Baldwin, in an open letter to Angela Davis, "If they come for you tonight, they will be back for me in the morning." Here we have African American writer James Baldwin expressing his belief that if any one of us is at risk of being singled out, followed and "informed" on, we're all at risk. How right he was! J. Edgar Hoover and his minions kept tabs on every influential person in the country, generating millions of files on "suspected communists," "communist sympathizers" and persons engaged in un-American activities.

J. Edgar Hoover was not alone in his penchant for singling out "persons of interest," the U.S. Congress was involved, as well. The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUCA 1938-1975) provides one of the best examples of what could be called the American Inquisition. In the tradition of some of the most well known Inquisitions, carried out by the Catholic church in Spain, Portugal and Rome, this American Inquisition continues to this day. The HUCA no longer exists, however, Americans need not fear, the House Judiciary Committee is here and it has been given the task of keeping America safe from any and all un-American thoughts.

America has touted itself as being the "land of the free and the home of the brave." However, this freedom has been of a limited nature from the outset. In the beginning one's freedom was based on gender, ethnicity and social standing. Universal suffrage did not come into existence until the late 20th century.

Interestingly, the FBI under Hoover did not restrict it's investigations to communist radicals. Among those on it's list of suspected subversives were included the likes of Liberace; Congressman John Lewis; Joe Louis, the boxer; Lady Diana, Princess of Wales; actors Peter Lawford, Burt Lancaster and Canada Lee and novelist Sinclair Lewis. What is it that all of these people have in common, that would bring them to the attention of the FBI? It's quite simple really, the potential to influence people. Anyone who could influence a significant number of people was on their list and in fact may of us continue to be on their list today.

The good news is, the FBI has compiled millions of documents, which are now available to the curiosity seeker and historian alike, documenting the lives and activities of millions of American citizens, organizations, religious denominations, etc. These documents now form an important resource, particularly for the historian, much of which is now available online. These documents allow us to compare the lives and aspirations of our predecessors with our contemporaries. Take for instance, the following statement:

"Our safety does not lie in fighting . . . wars. It lies in our own internal strength, in the character of the American people and of American institutions. As long as we maintain an Army, a Navy, and an air force worthy of the name, as long as America does not decay within, we need fear no invasion of this country.

Again, I address those among you who agree with this stand. Our future and our children's future depends upon the action we take. It is essential to think clearly and to act quickly in the days which are to come. We will be deluged with propaganda, both foreign and domestic--some obvious, some insidious. Much of our news is already colored. Every incident and every accident will be seized upon to influence us. And in a modern war there are bound to be plenty of both. We must learn to look behind every article we read and every speech we hear. We must not only inquire about the writer and the speaker--about his personal interests and his nationality--but we must ask who owns and who influences the newspaper, the news picture, and the radio station. If our people know the truth, if they are fully and accurately informed, if they are not misled by propaganda, this country is not likely to enter the war now going on in Europe."

This statement could be directly applied to the situation we find ourselves in currently with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did it come from one of President Obama's eloquent speeches? Was it from one of our contemporary congressional representatives? Maybe it was part of a comment made by Keith Olbermann. Wrong on all counts. In fact it was made by aviation pioneer Charles A. Lindbergh on September 16, 1939. It describes perfectly the battle now raging over the airwaves between MSNBC and FOX news, both of which are becoming more theatrical in nature, as time passes. It points out the use of newspapers, magazines, TV, radio and the internet as propaganda tools for the privileged class of our society. It lets us know how similar our times are to those of our predecessors. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Even more surprising is the source of the quote. It came from a newspaper article sent to the FBI by one of many American citizens concerned about the "loyalty" of flying ace Charles A. Lindbergh. Apparently, no one is above suspicion, when it comes to subversive activities. All it takes to generate an FBI file is the willingness to express one's opinion in a public forum.

Of course Lindbergh had, to his discredit, joined the America First Committee, a so-called subversive organization, which Republican presidential candidate John McCain turned into a campaign slogan in 2008). The committee was considered subversive, because they opposed the policies of the interventionists, which included President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). In fact, FDR felt Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer and allowed FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to act as an unofficial U.S. inquisitor, thoroughly "investigating" the political activities of Lindbergh and others. This was the beginning of what I call "The American Inquisition."

The atmosphere that developed in the days and months prior to the engagement of U.S. troops in WWII became charged with innuendo and misrepresentation. Lindbergh became a victim of that which he had decried, the press, which published pictures of members of the America First Committee saluting the U.S. flag with the "Bellamy salute", as part of their smear campaign. This salute was common in schools across the country. It was discontinued in 1942, because it was the same salute used by the Nazis. But, the depictions in newspapers all over the country of America First Committee members showed no flag, so it appeared that they were a group of Nazi sympathizers.

As we contemplate the "news" of the day we should take into account the words of Lindbergh and carefully consider the source. This is much harder today than in the past, because of the nature of international finance. In the past it was a much simpler matter to determine the ownership of our media sources. Nowadays, it may take some doing to discover the 400 lb. gorilla in the room.

The use of terms associated with the Catholic church and some of their practices may seem odd, but from the outset we've seen the use of religious terminology in the prosecution of the so-called War On Terrorism. One week after 9/11 President Bush (Bush 43) said, "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." Muslims around the world took immediate offense to this terminology. But, this is what was the perspective of the Bush administration throughout his 8 year administration. They had to immediately change their official terminology, however we now have proof positive, with the recent release of official White House memos to the president, that a crusade mentality remained for the duration.


All of this background information is important as we look at the use of torture in the interrogation of so-called "enemy combatants." When we compare the treatment of these "enemy combatants" with the treatment of heretics, suspected witches, etc. from the 15th century on we're hearing the same rhetoric and seeing the same practices used today that were used then to justify this treatment. We're also getting the same results, false confessions, in order to escape further torture.

At first glance this would appear to be inappropriate, for the U.S. government to be involved in the extraction of false confessions from detainees. However, apparently it achieved the desired result. By obtaining false confessions from the detainees the invasion of Iraq, capture and execution of Sadaam Hussein, as a war criminal and the subjugation of the Iraqi people via military invasion and occupation was justified and continues to this day.

The issue of waterboarding being a means of torture has been furiously debated over the past few weeks. There should be no debate on this issue at all we have plenty of testimony from U.S. officials involved in the application of this torture that this is exactly what it is. From sworn Senate testimony by William Howard Taft, former governor of the Philippines during the Filipino insurrection to current sworn testimony by interrogation trainers with the U.S. military. So, we can put that to the side.

The Republicans would like to change the subject and speak of the effectiveness of the method and how it was necessary to save many lives. What they don't want to talk about is the fact that whether it was effective or not it was contrary to the Geneva Convention. This breach in international law means the perpetrators are now subject to trial and punishment by the World Court in the Hague, the same court that should have tried President Hussein, if in fact he had committed crimes against humanity. Instead he was put on trial, while still in U.S. custody, by an Iraqi Special Tribunal, found guilty and subsequently executed by hanging.

Now that we have information unavailable to us before the end of the Bush presidency we know that not only were detainees illegally imprisoned, they were also humiliated, tortured and their human rights were violated in numerous other ways, as well. We also now know that the reason for the war in the first place was fallacious, because there was no link between the Iraqi government of President Hussein and Al-Qaeda; the Iraqi government had no involvement in 9/11 and there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as widely reported by the U.S. news media. Therefore, the trial and execution of President Hussein must also be called into question, along with the wrongful deaths of thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and citizens. How much greater are the true crimes of the U.S. government compared with the supposed crimes of the government of President Hussein?


As red-blooded Americans it's time to stand up and be counted when we hear our new president proclaiming in a loud and dignified manner that the new administration will institute a policy of "preventive detention." We have an example of such a policy in the 2002 movie "The Minority Report." We're already seeing this policy instituted in real life. The detainees at Guantanamo are the first casualties in this new "Crusade on Terrorism." This presentation cannot go into the details on the history of the Crusades. I urge all of you to go to your local library and check out books on the crusades to get a quick overview of the history of the Crusades. Talk about scared straight, that ought to scare the bejeebuzz out of you. We certainly don't need any modern crusades.

To paraphrase President Lincoln, we need a government that has the needs of the people at heart and the ability to make sound decisions in the interest of all of the people, all of the time; instead of some of the people all of the time.

WHY OBAMA'S "PREVENTIVE DETENTION" PROGRAM PUTS ALL U.S. CITIZENS AT RISK

This week President Barack Obama stated, on a nationwide TV broadcast, that in the course of shutting down Guantanamo his administration would deal with each case on it's own merits, in accordance with "the rule of law."

But, after listening carefully to what he had to say, listening to the pundits and comparing his statements to the policies of past administrations all the way back to Lincoln this reporter was left with a bad case of indigestion.

Jose Padilla - domestic terrorist?

Immediately following his speech former Vice President, Dick Cheney took to the airwaves to espouse his views on terrorism and torture. He came to the conclusion that although the former administration of Bush 43 did, in fact, justify the use of torture on the prisoners housed at Guantanamo, that it was only used on a total of 3 prisoners and therefore it was no big deal. In fact it is still a big deal, because this is how our rights are frittered away, one step at a time, one indiscretion at a time, one incident at a time, one breach of the constitution at a time, etc.

Dick Cheney knows full well that a precedent was established for all other presidents to follow, of breaking the law when they feel like it, in order to make sure we can all continue to enjoy the rights and privileges of citizens of a democracy. This is more than an oxymoron, this is just moronic period. One person that's tortured is too many. One person held in jail without bail is too many. One person held without due process is too many. One person held indefinitely is too many.

This is what is worrisome about President Obama's new policy regarding terrorists. He's proposing some of the same lawless policies that were created by the Bush administration. Rachel Maddow was correct in lambasting him for even proposing a policy of "preventive detention." As these policies are created to deal with terrorists abroad, Muslims from abroad and enemy combatants from abroad; what's to stop them from being used against American citizens who are deemed terrorists, Muslims or enemy combatants?

NEXT: To Be or Not To Be A Terrorist?