Anita Hill, Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee

American Rhetoric published a list of the Top 100 Speeches of the 20th Century. Anita Hill delivered Top Speech #71 in Washington DC on October 11, 1991. Her statement was given during the Senate hearings to confirm Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice. Below is audio clip and text of the opening statement that Ms. Hill gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [SOURCE]

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/speeches/anitahillopeningstmtclarencethomashearings.mp3

---

Ms. Hill: Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of the committee: My name is Anita F. Hill, and I am a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma. I was born on a farm in Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, in 1956. I am the youngest of 13 children. I had my early education in Okmulgee County. My father, Albert Hill, is a farmer in that area. My mother's name is Irma Hill. She is also a farmer and a housewife.

My childhood was one of a lot of hard work and not much money, but it was one of solid family affection, as represented by my parents. I was reared in a religious atmosphere in the Baptist faith, and I have been a member of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, since 1983. It is a very warm part of my life at the present time.

For my undergraduate work, I went to Oklahoma State University and graduated from there in 1977. I am attaching to this statement a copy of my resume for further details of my education.

Senator Biden: It will be included in the record as if read.

Ms. Hill: Thank you. I graduated from the university with academic honors and proceeded to the Yale Law School, where I received my JD degree in 1980. Upon graduation from law school, I became a practicing lawyer with the Washington, DC, firm of Ward, Hardraker, and Ross.

In 1981, I was introduced to now Judge Thomas by a mutual friend. Judge Thomas told me that he was anticipating a political appointment, and he asked if I would be interested in working with him. He was, in fact, appointed as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights. After he was -- After he had taken that post, he asked if I would become his assistant, and I accepted that position.

In my early period there, I had two major projects. The first was an article I wrote for Judge Thomas's signature on the education of minority students. The second was the organization of a seminar on high-risk students which was abandoned because Judge Thomas transferred to the EEOC where he became the chairman of that office.

During this period at the Department of Education, my working relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I had a good deal of responsibility and independence. I thought he respected my work and that he trusted my judgment. After approximately three months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him.

What happened next and telling the world about it are the two most difficult things -- experiences of my life. It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and sleepless number -- a great number of sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends.

I declined the invitation to go out socially with him and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize at what -- at -- at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside of the office. I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill-advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so.

I thought that by saying no and explaining my reasons my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks, he continued to ask me out on several occasions. He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying no to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations which not -- would not have been overheard by anyone else.

My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions, he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects, or he might suggest that, because of the time pressures of his schedule, we go to lunch to a government cafeteria. After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters.

His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess.

Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about these subjects. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to nonsexual personal matters such as his background or his beliefs. My efforts to change the -- the subject were rarely successful.

Throughout the period of these conversations, he also, from time to time, asked me for social engagements. My reaction to these conversations was to avoid them by eliminating opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations. This was difficult because at the time I was his only assistant at the Office of Education -- or Office for Civil Rights.

During the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures and any conversation of his offensive behavior ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial, and professional one.

When Judge Thomas was made chair of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with him. I was asked to do so, and I did. The work itself was interesting, and at that time it appeared that the sexual overtures which had so troubled me had ended. I also faced the realistic fact that I had no alternative job.

While I might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm or at another, I was dedicated to civil rights work, and my first choice was to be in that field. Moreover, the Department of Education itself was a dubious venture. President Reagan was seeking to abolish the entire department.

For my first months at the EEOC, where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember his saying that some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn't go out with him.

He began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanor and his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC.

One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has pubic hair on my Coke?" On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex.

At this point, late 1982, I began to feel severe stress on the job. I began to be concerned that Clarence Thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me.

In January of 1983, I began looking for another job. I was handicapped because I feared that, if he found out, he might make it difficult for me to find other employment and I might be dismissed from the job I had. Another factor that made my search more difficult was that there was a period -- this was during a period of a hiring freeze in the government. In February 1983, I was hospitalized for five days on an emergency basis for an acute -- for acute stomach pain, which I attributed to stress on the job.

Once out of the hospital, I became more committed to find other employment and sought further to minimize my contact with Thomas. This became easier when Allison Duncan became office director, because most of my work was then funneled through her and I had contact with Clarence Thomas mostly in staff meetings.

In the spring of 1983, an opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts University opened up. I participated in a seminar -- taught an afternoon session and seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the -- of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether I would be interested in furthering -- pursuing a career in teaching, beginning at Oral Roberts University. I agreed to take the job in large part because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at the EEOC, due to Judge Thomas.

When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now I would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him. I told him that I still preferred not to do so. At some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of the term. When I declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation, but only if it was at the very end of a working day.

On, as I recall, the last day of my employment at the EEOC in the summer of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas. We went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. We talked about the work I had done, both at Education and at the EEOC. He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that I had done for him while we were at the Office for Civil Rights. Finally, he made a comment that I will vividly remember. He said that if I ever told anyone of his behavior that it would ruin his career. This was not an apology, nor was it an explanation. That was his last remark about the possibility of our going out or reference to his behavior.

In July of 1983, I left Washington, D.C. area and I've had minimal contacts with Judge Clarence Thomas since. I am of course aware from the Press that some questions have been raised about conversations I had with Judge Clarence Thomas after I left the EEOC. From 1983 until today, I have seen Judge Thomas only twice. On one occasion, I needed to get a reference from him, and on another he made a public appearance in Tulsa.

On one occasion he called me at home and we had an inconsequential conversation. On one occasion he called me without reaching me, and I returned the call without reaching him, and nothing came of it. I have, on at least three occasions, been asked to [act] as a conduit to him for others.

I knew his secretary, Diane Holt. We had worked together at both EEOC and Education. There were occasions on which I spoke to her, and on some of these occasions undoubtedly I passed on some casual comment to then Chairman Thomas. There were a series of calls in the first three months of 1985, occasioned by a group in Tulsa, which wished to have a civil rights conference. They wanted Judge Thomas to be the speaker and enlisted my assistance for this purpose.

I did call in January and February to no effect, and finally suggested to the person directly involved, Susan Cahall, that she put the -- that she put the matter into her own hands and call directly. She did so in March of 1985. In connection with that March invitation, Ms. Cahall wanted conference materials for the seminar and some research was needed. I was asked to try to get the information and did attempt to do so.

There was another call about another possible conference in the July of 1985. In August of 1987, I was in Washington, D.C. and I did call Diane Holt. In the course of this conversation, she asked me how long I was going to be in town and I told her. It is recorded in the message as August 15. It was, in fact, August 20th. She told me about Judge Thomas's marriage and I did say, "Congratulate him."

It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone except my closest friends. As I've said before these last few days have been very trying and very hard for me, and it hasn't just been the last few days this week. It has actually been over a month now that I have been under the strain of this issue.

Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life, but it is very close to having to live through the experience that occasion this meeting. I may have used poor judgment early on in my relationship with this issue. I was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely affect my future career. And I did not want early on to burn all the bridges to the EEOC.

As I said, I may have used poor judgment. Perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I was in the agency, or after I left it. But I must confess to the world that the course that I took seemed the better as well as the easier approach.

I declined any comment to newspapers, but later when Senate staff asked me about these matters I felt I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.

It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. It took no initiative to inform anyone -- I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I was asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent.

---

Clarence Thomas responded to Anita Hill's statement by saying that he was the victim of a 'high tech lynching for uppity Blacks'. Anita Hill's statement moved the issue of 'sexual harassment' to the forefront of all of us in the workplace. Do you remember this high drama from 1991? What are your thoughts today about her testimony?

OURstory: Lynching in America

Some of the most graphic photographs that I've ever seen in my life contained the images of Black men people being lynched. Collector James Allen uncovered an extraordinary visual legacy: photographs and postcards taken as souvenirs at lynchings throughout America. He published these photographs in his book Without Sanctuary. You can experience the images as a flash movie with narrative comments by James Allen, or as a gallery of photos. Please be aware before entering the site that much of the material is very graphic and very disturbing.

African Americans suffered grievously under lynch law. With the close of Reconstruction in the late 1870s, southern whites were determined to end northern and Black participation in the region's affairs, and northerners exhibited a growing indifference toward the civil rights of Black Americans. Taking its cue from this inter-sectional white harmony, the federal government abandoned its oversight of constitutional protections. Southern and border states responded with the Jim Crow laws of the 1890s, and white mobs flourished.

With Blacks barred from voting, public office, and jury service, officials felt no obligation to respect minority interests or safeguard minority lives. In addition to lynchings of individuals, dozens of race riots--with Blacks as victims--scarred the national landscape from Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1898 to Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921.

Between 1882 (when reliable statistics were first collected) and 1968 (when the classic forms of lynching had disappeared), 4,743 persons died of lynching, 3,446 of them Black men and women. Mississippi (539 Black victims, 42 white) led this grim parade of death, followed by Georgia (492, 39), Texas (352, 141), Louisiana (335, 56), and Alabama (299, 48). From 1882 to 1901, the annual number nationally usually exceeded 100; 1892 had a record 230 deaths (161 Black, 69 white).

Although lynchings declined somewhat in the twentieth century, there were still 97 in 1908 (89 Black, 8 white), 83 in the racially troubled postwar year of 1919 (76, 7, plus some 25 race riots), 30 in 1926 (23, 7), and 28 in 1933 (24, 4). Sadly, we still see signs that racial demons can reared their head in 2007.

Statistics do not tell the entire story. These were recorded lynchings; others were never reported beyond the community involved. Furthermore, mobs used especially sadistic tactics when Blacks were the prime targets. By the 1890s lynchers increasingly employed burning, torture, and dismemberment to prolong suffering and excite a "festive atmosphere" among the killers and onlookers. White families brought small children to watch, newspapers sometimes carried advance notices, railroad agents sold excursion tickets to announced lynching sites, and mobs cut off Black victims' fingers, toes, ears, or genitalia as souvenirs.

Nor was it necessarily the handiwork of a local rabble; not infrequently, the mob was encouraged or led by people prominent in the area's political and business circles. Lynching had become a ritual of interracial social control and recreation rather than simply a punishment for crime.

Recently lynching has come to have a contemporary informal use as a label for social vilification, particularly in the media, and particularly of African Americans. However, I recall that even the Don Imus situation resulted in headlines using the word 'lynching'.

I hope that we never use the terminology as loosely here in the Afrosphere.

NOTE:  This was originally posted on this blog in May 2007.

Related articles

• OURstory: Underground Railroad (1780-1862)
• Florida State House Candidate Wants Obama Lynched

Barbara Jordan, 'Statement on the Articles of Impeachment'

I think that Barbara Jordan (1936-1976) was one of the most remarkable women in our history. She was the first African American since Reconstruction to serve in the Texas Senate and then the first African American woman from the South to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.

You don't hear much about her life and accomplishments. As such, I was pleased to see that American Rhetoric included Rep. Jordan more than once on their list of the Top 100 Speeches of the 20th Century. The speech, delivered by Rep. Jordan on July 25, 1974 at a House Judiciary Committee meeting is ranked #13. Many considered it to be the most powerful speech of the hearings.





Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague Mr. Rangel in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: "We, the people." It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in "We, the people."

Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.

"Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men."¹ And that's what we're talking about. In other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."² The framers confided in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive.

The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term "maladministration." "It is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: "We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other."

"No one need be afraid" -- the North Carolina ratification convention -- "No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity." "Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. "We divide into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused."³ I do not mean political parties in that sense.

The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term "high crime[s] and misdemeanors." Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that "Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We're told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972.

The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June the 17th. What the President did know on the 23rd of June was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.

We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving. The words are: "If the President is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."

Justice Story: "Impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." We know about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute complete direction on September 3rd when the President indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in Dr. Fielding's office, after having met with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Young. "Protect their rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation."

The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."4 Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.

Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Happy Birthday, Malcolm X

One of the points of transformation in my life occurred when I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X. I imagine that most Blackmen from my era recall reading this very thick book. Every Blackman could empathize with a brother that evolved from Malcolm Little to Detroit Red to Malcolm X to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. Each of us hoped that we would be transformed as well in our lives.

My three children (ages 21, 17, 14) don't know very much about Malcolm X. There will come a time when I share this book with them as well. The messages that Malcolm taught us back in the day still need to be shared today in the 21st century.

As such, the Electronic Village is honored to recognize this heroic figure on the weekend of what would have been his 89th birthday. The legacy of Malcolm X has moved through generations as the subject of numerous documentaries, books and movies. I imagine that there was a surge of interest in 1992 when director Spike Lee released the acclaimed Malcolm X movie. The film received Oscar nominations for Best Actor (Denzel Washington) and Best Costume Design. Most people recall the hospital scene in that movie.

However, it is often best to hear directly from Malcolm. Here are some YouTube clips of Malcolm that I thought you would enjoy:

• Who Are You? - A few simple questions that we are still asking today.
• An Early Interview with Malcolm X by Mike Wallace, where Malcolm explains the position of the Nation of Islam.
• You're Ready to do Something, Aren't You?" - "...many of you thought that we should go right on out then and make war on the white man. You wanted to do it yourself, didn't you? Cause you don't like the idea of white people shooting Black people down, do you? And you're ready to do something about it, aren't you?"
• The White Man Brings Drugs into Harlem - "Stealing runs rampant in Harlem. Gambling runs rampant in Harlem. All types of evils and vices that tear apart our community run rampant in Harlem. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad doesn't condemn the victim, he goes to work on the victim."
• The Problem is Still Here - is speech where Malcolm rejects the non-violent approach of Martin Luther King,
• Who Taught You to Hate Yourself? - "Who taught you to hate the color of your skin? Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet?"
• We are Africans, Not Americans - "Our forefathers weren't the Pilgrims. We didn't land on Plymouth Rock; the rock was landed on us."
• The Black Man's History - Malcolm X explains how the true history of Black people was erased during slavery and because Black people do not know their own past, thye have no confidence in themselves.
• House Negroes vs. Field Negroes - "Back during slavery, when Black people like me talked to the slaves, they didn't kill 'em, they sent some old house Negro along behind him to undo what he said."
• Our History was Destroyed by Slavery - Malcolm X appears on television in Chicago on March 17, 1963.
• You Will Never Get Protection from the Government - "You never will get protection from the federal government. That's like, King is asking Kennedy to go to Alabama to stand in the doorway, put his body in the doorway. That's like asking the fox to protect you from the wolf. "
• Roundtable Discussion - In a clip from a roundtable discussion, Malcolm X explains why the bourgeois, hand-picked Uncle Tom negro leaders will never solve the problem for the masses of black people.
• Malcolm X Explains Black Nationalism - "If you're interested in freedom, you need some judo, you need some karate--you need all the things that will help you fight for freedom...They can give us the back pay. Let's join in. If this is what the negro wants, let's join him. Let's show him how to struggle, let's show him how to fight. Let's show him how to bring about a real revolution. You don't need a debate. You don't need a filibuster. You need some action."
• Oxford University Debate - "I read once, passingly, about a man named Shakespeare. I only read about him passingly, but I remember one thing he wrote that kind of moved me. He put it in the mouth of Hamlet, I think, it was, who said, "To be or not to be." He was in doubt about something. Whether it was nobler in the mind of man to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, moderation, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. And I go for that. If you take up arms, you'll end it, but if you sit around and wait for the one who's in power to make up his mind that he should end it, you'll be waiting a long time. And in my opinion, the young generation of whites, blacks, browns, whatever else there is, you're living at a time of extremism, a time of revolution, a time when there's got to be a change. People in power have misused it and now there has to be a change and a better world has to be built and the only way it's going to be built is with extreme methods. And I, for one, will join in with anyone, I don't care what color you are, as long as you want to change this miserable condition that exists on this earth."
• Ballot or the Bullet was a speech by Malcolm X mostly about black nationalism delivered April 12, 1964 in Detroit, Michigan.
• By Any Means Necessary - "...our African brothers have gained their independence faster than you and I here in America have. They've also gained recognition and respect as human beings much faster than you and I."
• Return from Mecca (1 of 2) - "When I was on the pilgrimage, I had close contact with Muslims whose skin would in America be classified as white and with Muslims who would themselves be classified as white in America, but these particular Muslims didn't call themselves white. They looked upon themselves as human beings, as part of the human family and therefore they looked upon all other segments of the human family as part of that same family."
• Return from Mecca (2 of 2) - "African nations and Asian nations and Latin American nations look very hypocritical when they stand up in the United Nations, condemning the racist practices of South Africa and that which is practiced by Portugal and Angola, and saying nothing in the U.N. about the racist practices that are manifest every day against Negroes in this society."
• American Can't Solve Our Problem" - Malcolm X explains that it is necessary to take the problem of African-Americans to the world court in order to get them solved.
• 'I am probably a dead man already' - In an interview shortly before he was killed, Malcolm X declared, "I probably am a dead man already." He was aware of the fact that the NOI wanted him dead and understood that he was in serious danger.
• My Death Has Been Ordered - Malcolm X puts the blame for the firebombing of his home directly on the Nation of Islam and explains other ways in which his life is in danger.
• The assassination of Malcolm X - Silent clip of the Audobon Ballroom immediately after the assassination of Malcolm X on February 21, 1965.
• Mos Def Reads Malcolm X - Hip hop, rap and spoken word artist Mos Def reads Malcolm X's "Message to the Grass Roots" on November 9, 2006.

Happy Birthday Malcolm! Today El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz would be 89 years old. I thought many villagers would enjoy to share some of his speeches and thoughts over the course of his life.

Many in the current generation only know of the man through the phrase, 'By Any Means Necessary'. He was much more complex and interesting than that simple phrase.

Anyhow, I would love to hear village voices on Malcolm X. What did you think of the man? Did you read his autobiography? What say u?

Related articles

• Journey to Malcolm X
• Malcolm X: Our Own Black Shining Prince
• Malcolm X, Islam, and Identity

Happy Birthday: Harold Washington (1922-1987)

Harold Washington sparked the imagination of African Americans throughout the nation when he was elected mayor of Chicago. It was one thing to have mayors in small towns or someplace down in the South. It was another thing for an unabashedly proud Blackman to be elected mayor of the 2nd largest city in the nation.

We honor the anniversary of Mayor Washington's birthday here on this blog!


I think it is fair to say that we would not have Barack Obama has our president if we didn't have Harold Washington as Chicago's mayor. What are your thoughts or memories of Harold Washington?

Related articles

• Remembering Harold Washington, 25 Years After His Death
• Chicago pays tribute to Mayor Harold Washington
• Harold Washington Elected Mayor 30 Years Ago Today

Perp Walk: NY State Sen. Malcolm Smith

I visited my grandfather's office on Capitol Hill back in the day. I was dressed business casual. My grandfather asked if I was coming to his office from my workplace. I said, 'Yes'. My grandfather shared a word of wisdom with me -- "...you are a Black man. Never think for a moment that you can get away with the same things that your white colleagues get away with...".

Nobody shared that memo with New York State Senator Malcolm Smith. Evidently he thought he join others in plot to rig the upcoming mayoral election in New York City through fraud and bribes. He was arrested earlier today as part of an ongoing corruption case. There were others arrested ... but, it always saddens me when a powerful Black official takes the fall.

Smith is a long-time Democrat. He got together with some other Republican politicians to form an alliance based on cash payments and fraud. Smith was trying to buy off Republican leaders because he needed the party’s support in at least three boroughs in order to run as a GOP candidate without even changing his own party affiliation.

Smith met with his alleged co-conspirators as recently as February. Now, we're in the first week of April and Smith is making that perp walk. Sad.

Electronic Village Nominated for 2012 Black Weblog Award

The Electronic Village has been nominated for Best Political Or News Blog in the 2012 Black Weblog Awards. It is nice to be recognized for the work that this blog does to bring information that is uplifting and relevant for the Black cyberspace community. I hope that this nomination spurs our readers to continue reading, sharing and commenting on what they see on this blog.

Once the nomination period is over then we will need your support in the actual voting process. We'll share more info with you as the details on voting become available.

Obama's Weekly Address: Putting Country Ahead of Party

From a farm in the Midwest, President Obama talks about the determination and integrity of the American people and calls on Congress to put aside their differences to grow the economy.

I wish that President Obama would make a similiar tour through Black neighborhoods in America.

Tea Party Activist Christine O'Donnell Runs Away From CNN Interview with Piers Morgan

Christine O'Donnell is a good example of what we can expect from Tea Party politicians. I suspect that Gov. Rick Perry may have a similiar moment at some point in his fledgeling presidential campaign. Tea Party folks don't much care for it when they are asked about 'uncomfortable truths'.

Here is video of the O'Donnell retreat from her CNN interview. Evidently, she didn't want to talk about some of the more radical policy views of O'Donnell on issues like gay rights.





Christine O'Donnell wanted the focus on the interview to be on her book, 'Troublemaker'.

This Week in Blackness: 'George W. Bush Doesn't Care About Earthlings'

Somehow I've managed to miss the fact that Elon James White is still putting out his This Week in Blackness videos. In fact, when I saw the topic for this week's episode I thought perhaps I had messed up and gotten the dates wrong. After all, this week the big political news was the beat-down given to the Democratic Party in the mid-term elections ... what was Elon doing with his emphasis on the forgotten George W. Bush?

You be the judge!





Do you plan to read George W. Bush book when it comes out?

Russell Simmons Shares His Insights on November 2 Election with Black Bloggers

Def Jam co-founder Russell Simmons and DNC National Political Director Clyde Williams met last week with the African American online community ... including the Electronic Village. Simmons noted that he has been traveling around the country in support of President Obama and the Democratic Party. He was in Chicago yesterday ... Detroit today ... and he'll be joining with the President in Connecticut tomorrow.

Simmons' message to the Black bloggers, and through us to our readers, was simple -- The African American community needs to stay alert, stand firm in the faith, show courage, be strong (Cor. 16:13). The faith that we have placed in President Obama is useless without our works. Simmons says that our work in this case is simple:

1. Vote
2. Get those that are in our sphere of influence to vote

He acknowledged that there are a plethora of issues that face the African American community including implementation of the health care reform, prison reform, gay rights, poverty initiatives, unemployment and so on. Simmons understands that many in our community feel that the changes we wanted when President Obama took office in January 2009 have not happened fast enough.

The remedy is not to become apathetic. The remedy is not to let our nation go backwards to failed policies and leadership of the past. Rather we need to push forward and harder for the change that we want and need.

Simmons was quick to point out that the Tea Party movement can turn nation backwards in a heartbeat.

"Reaction to our president (by the Tea Party) is violent and scary and it could split our country. We need to stand up. We need to prioritize voting (on November 2) by our people."

DNC Political Director Clyde Williams noted that it is important for the DNC to stay connected with the African American online community as demonstrated by recent meetings with DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and President Barack Obama.

Williams pointed out that there is a clear choice to made on November 2nd when we enter the voting booth. We either want to make our President successful or we want him to fail. He noted the remarkable accomplishments of President Obama in the first 2 years of his administration. However, he also noted that the Republican Party is poised to turn our nation backwards in a number of ways.

Simmons did note that a number of hip-hop and R&B celebrities were also engaged in the work of turning out the vote. He noted that he has been encouraged by his recent visits around the country. Simmons has a sense that the so-called 'enthusiasm gap' is not as wide as it was earlier in the year.

---

Villagers, I was disappointed that the DNC didn't allow sufficient time for questions from the Black bloggers who were in attendance. I had two questions that I wanted to ask:

1. African Americans voters remain committed to President Obama and the DNC in a very tangible way. Why was an effort allowed by forces in the Democratic Party to get Florida senatorial candidate Kendrick Meek to step down?
2. The problem with the November 2 election isn't apathy of Black voters, it is the desertion of white middle class voters who stood with Obama in 2008 ... and now are fleeing to the GOP or Tea Party. What is the game plan to stop the bleeding of white middle class voters?

Those were two questions that I had on my mind. However, the forum didn't allow enough time for me or the other Black bloggers to ask questions.

What question(s) would you want to ask Russell Simmons or Clyde Williams if you had the opportunity?

Conversation with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine

Soulclap to Gina McCauley (What About Our Daughters) for extending an invitation to this blog to participate in an on-the-record conversation with Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairmman Tim Kaine and his senior staff. There were a number of African American bloggers engaged in the discussion.

I went into the conversation with some skepticism. The DNC was very engaged with the afrosphere during the 2008 election. They worked with a number of Black bloggers to gain access to the convention at which President Obama secured the Democratic nomination allowing him to run for President of the United States.

However, since that glorious moment it has been mostly the sound of *crickets* from the DNC as it relates to working with the afrosphere. Today, the Democrats are facing an electoral tsunami by the Republicans due in no small measure to the lack of enthusiasm and support from Black voters.

Black voters appear to have been disrespected by the Republican Party and taken for granted by the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the economic recession for America has been a DEPRESSION for Black America, especially the Black middle class. The predatory loans that brought down the national economy had a devastating impact on the Black middle class. Unemployment for the nation stands at a little under 10% ... but it is over 16% for African Americans ... and much worse for young Black males.

Nobody in Washington DC, including Tim Kaine and the DNC, ever speaks to the specific issue of Black unemployment and the other nightmares that impact on our community.

I was skeptical ... but willing to have an open mind as the conversation with Gov. Kaine began this morning. I found him to be very knowledgable and willing to answer questions. The discussions covered a variety of areas including:

• evolution of the Organizing For America (OFA) within the DNC?
• how can the DNC reach out in a stronger way via new media outlets such as Black bloggers?
• is there a turf battle between OFA and existing grassroots organizations at state or local level?
• Presidential successes and heavy lifting in terms of policy and legislation
• Republican Party strategy to take the nation "dramatically backwards"
• there were 15 million new voters who voted for Obama in 2008 (5 million of them were African American) ... were these voters supporters of Democrats (in general) or simply loyalists to President Obama?
• what are Democrats doing to combat growing levels of poverty in Black community?

• what is DNC strategy in support of micro-businesses (less than 5 employees, less than $250k in annual revenue)?
• what is DNC strategy related to older, more conservative, Black voters who may be concerned about Democratic positions on issues of choice or marriage?
• what is DNC strategy to develop a stronger pipeline of credible Black candidates for state or local elections?
• what is DNC strategy to work closer with Black bloggers (afrosphere)?why don't Democratic candidates tout the past successes (e.g., saving the auto industry)?
• what specific steps are being taken by Democrats to deal with 16% unemployment rate in the Black community?
• why don't Democrats have party discipline (e.g., Blue Dogs)?

I'm not a reporter so it is going to take me a minute to share some of these insights in blog posts -- but, I will try to do so. Which of the questions or issues listed above hit home for you?

Can a Muslim American Become President of the United States?

The first 43 presidents of our country have been white male. The first 4,000 members of the House of Representatives were non-Muslim. To my knowledge, we've only had one practicing Muslim in congress.

So Colin Powell's question caused me to do a double-take. Colin Powell asked, 'Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? ... Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president?' during his endorsement of Barack Obama.

If a 20-year old Muslim American soldier, Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, can die for our country ... it seems we should have no issue with the idea of a Muslim American being our nation's president. Khan died in Iraq and his mother is shown grieving over his headstone in Arlington Cemetery.

If there are aspiring Muslim Americans dreaming about being president ... they should note that it requires hard work. Barack Obama earned his opportunity for the presidency by doing well in school ... doing well in his marriage and as a father ... doing well in his chosen vocation.

Robert Kennedy thought it would take 40 years for a Black man to be president. I think it won't take a long for a woman to be president. Nor would I be surprised if Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) or some other Muslim American were to be a credible national candidate in my lifetime.

63 years in a row, from 1921 thru 1984, we had white women winning the crown as 'Miss America'. That changed in 1984 when we had two Black women holding that title -- Vanessa Williams and Suzette Charles.

The 'Vanessa Williams Effect' got busy at that point. We have had five more women of color crowned as Miss America -- Debbye Turner (1990), Marjorie Vincent (1991), Kimberly Aiken (1994), Angela Baraquio (2001) and Erika Harold (2003).

Perhaps the 'Vanessa Williams Effect' will trump the 'Bradley Effect' as other non-white males strive to become President of the United States.

If so, a small amount of the credit goes to Colin Powell and Kareem Khan.

Sam 'Joe the Plumber' Wurzelbacher Extends His 15 Minutes of Fame in Toledo OH

The ebb and flow of Republican politics. John McCain may be out of politics this year ... while the man he made famous, Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, is now an active member of Republican politics in Toledo OH. Wurzelbacher will be one of nearly 400 committee members who oversee the Republican Party in northwest Ohio's Lucas County. The group elects the county chairman and sets the party agenda.

Of course the man we call 'plumber' who isn't a plumber is now a weak 'politician'. The group he'll serve on meets only a few times a year to elect the county chairman and sets the party agenda. Wurzelbacher won the seat by a 38-24 vote.

He continues to milk his 15 minutes of fame. Villagers may not know ... but, Wurzelbacher wrote a book, speaks at conservative 'tea parties' and spent a few weeks as a war correspondent in the Gaza Strip.







Wurzelbacher is the kind of redneck white guy that conservatives and tea party loyalist love. This is the clown who once said,

"Illegal immigration? Put a fence up and start shooting."

I pity the fools in Toledo who elected this guy to be their leader!

Open Letter to Republican Tea Party Members

We had eight years of Bush and Cheney, but now you get mad?

• You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.


• You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.


• You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.


• You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.


• You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.


• You didn't get mad when we spent $1 trillion on said illegal war.


• You didn't get mad when over $10 billion dollars (in hard cash) just “disappeared" in Iraq.


• You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.


• You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.


• You didn't get mad when they didn't catch Bin Laden.


• You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed hospital.


• You didn't get mad when they let a major US city drown.


• You didn't get mad when they gave a $1.6 trillion in tax breaks to the rich.


• You didn’t get mad when, using reconciliation; a trillion dollars of our tax dollars were redirected to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage -- which cost more than 20% more for the same services that Medicare provides.


• You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark, and our debt hit the thirteen trillion dollar mark.

No, but you did get mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans... oh hell no!

(Th)ink by Keith Knight: What a Difference a Year Makes

(Th)ink is an editorial cartoon written and drawnby cartoonist Keith Knight (the K Chronicles).

In What Bizzaro World Universe Does New Orleans Have a White Mayor?

Bizzaro World! That is what I thought when a white woman came so close to being elected mayor of Atlanta. It is still my thought as I learn that a white man is likely to be elected as the successor to Mayor Ray Nagin in New Orleans. [SOURCE]

It appears that Black politicians in New Orleans aren't able to raise campaign funds as much as they did before Hurricane Katrina. As a result, New Orleans may elect a white mayor for the first time in 30 years.

Louisiana Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu is popular among Black voters and leads in recent polls.

Blacks make up 62 percent of the voter rolls in New Orleans. However, white candidates have gained traction since Katrina hit in 2005. Whites gained a 4-3 majority on the City Council in 2007, and a white district attorney was elected in 2008.

In the mayoral election, political analysts say race may be less of a factor as voters consider who can accelerate the city’s recovery and fight its high crime rate.

“I think African Americans would prefer voting for an African-American, but one that they feel comfortable would do what has to be done” said City Constable Lambert Boissiere Jr., a former city councilman who was among Black leaders who rose to power in the 1970s.

Many of the residents that supported Black political power in New Orleans have scattered around the nation. The disrupted neighborhood political networks haven’t come back. The city’s overall population, about 450,000 before the storm, remains down by more than 100,000.

Racial tensions were evident after Katrina. Nagin, who won with heavy white support in 2002, noted those fears as he courted Black voters in the 2006 campaign. Nagin notoriously pledged that New Orleans would be a “chocolate city” again, offending many whites.





The field for the Feb. 6 Democratic primary includes Black businessman Troy Henry, who blasted reporters at a news conference this week for focusing on race. Other candidates include former state Judge Nadine Ramsey and fair housing advocate James Perry, both Black, and white businessman Rob Couhig, the only major Republican candidate in the race.

But the candidate widely considered the front-runner is the 49-year-old Mitch Landrieu, the son of the city’s last white mayor, Moon Landrieu, and brother of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La).

“Landrieu has universal name recognition and the political pedigree,” said Edward Chervenak, a University of New Orleans political science professor.

What do you think ... will New Orleans move into its future under the leadership of a white mayor for the first time in 30 years?

Do You Think That Erroll Southers is 'Dead Man Walking' in Washington DC?

Seven Senate Republicans sent a letter to the White House yesterday, saying that they had "serious reservations" about the nomination of Erroll Southers to lead the Transportation Security Administration. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) also "placed a hold on the nomination, pending the White House response to the senators' questions." Southers' nomination had previously been held up by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC).

Southers is under fire for making two mistakes. First, he abused his powers to spy on an ex-boyfriend of his wife:

Southers first described the episode in his October affidavit, telling the Senate panel that two decades ago he asked a San Diego Police Department employee to access confidential criminal records about the boyfriend. Southers said he had been censured by superiors at the FBI. He described the incident as isolated and expressed regrets about it.

Second, he lied about it:

The committee approved his nomination Nov. 19. One day later, Southers wrote to Lieberman and Collins saying his first account was incorrect. After reviewing documents, he wrote, he recalled that he had twice conducted the database searches himself, downloaded confidential law enforcement records about his wife's boyfriend and passed information on to the police department employee, the letter said.

Ain't it always the case that the cover-up is worse than the underlying crime? Anyhow, what do you think about Erroll Southers ... will he become head of TSA? Or will he become a casualty of the political warfare in Washington DC?