Commentary
Monday, January 23, 1995 Page 5
Anger, love fight for freedom
Show me an African American
who isn’t mad at the white race and
I’ll show you a schizophrenic. Not
to worry, though. It’s a curable
ailment. All we have to do is stop
hating. Being mad is OK. Hating is
not.
Show me an African American
who loves the white race and I’ll
show you a another schizophrenic.
Not to worry, though. There are
cures for this ailment, too.
All Clarence Thomas has to do,
for example, is stop loving. Liking
white people is OK. Loving them is
not.
Just kidding!!! Clarence Thomas
probably doesn’t love white people
that much. And he’s no schizo
phrenic. David Duke loves white
people. He may be paranoid, but
he’s no schizophrenic.
Some would accuse me of loving
white people too much and of being
schizophrenic. Who am I kidding?
But if I am one of the African
American schizophrenics, I could
only kid one of me at a time. While
one of me is laughing, the other
must be crying.
That’s what it’s like for the two
of me. One of me says “Burn, baby,
bum!” The other of me says, “We
shall overcome ... someday.” My
angry side doesn’t buy that crap.
My softer side says, “Be patient!”
My friends say, “Who are you
talking to?”
Some African Americans are
more schizophrenic than others. I
have one friend who I doubt has
ever really been mad at the white
race the way I have. I don’t think
he’s very schizophrenic.
Anger about past injustices
doesn’t just cloud the thinking.
Sometimes it’s entirely justified. In ..
America during the 18th century,
patriots must have been angry as
hell at England. Thinking about
E. Hughes Shanks
that, my softer side thinks that
African Americans should mellow
out since discrimination is no
longer legal — a major defeat of
oppression.
My angry side is more logical.
Once the British were defeated,
anger about past oppression of the
colonies subsided.
However, African Americans
have never really defeated their
oppressors. Our anger may have
subsided to a point, but we have no
choice but to continue to tolerate
varying degrees of oppression. The
difference is that England is no
longer oppressing America, but
many people (of all races) feel
oppression of African Americans is
still going on.
wnue one ot me is comtortea oy
the strains of The Black National
Anthem, my other self shouts
“Black Power” with raised fist.
Sometimes there isn’t any real
middle ground, just a lot of switch
ing back and forth between one
attitude and the other. In a way, I
feel sorry for well-meaning white
people. They never know what side
of ys they’re going to get. They
never know what mood we’re in.
One side of me says the civil
rights movement stopped short. Th<
same side says that peaceful __
demonstration doesn’t make people
free and that Martin Luther King
Jr.’s “I have a Dream” metaphor is
flawed. In order to dream, a person
has to sleep. I think people ought to
stay wide awake. Especially African
Americans and Native Americans.
My angry side is mad at white
liberals who often seem to be
saying, “We understand. It’s
terrible what happened to your
people. It’s OK to be mad. But
don’t be mad at us. We’re on your
side.” I could scream!
I he other side ot me says that
the civil-rights movement stands as
an unparalleled nonviolent triumph
over evil. The same side agrees that
the freedom African Americans
enjoy today would not be possible
otherwise. My angry side says that
there are no acceptable degrees of
freedom. It says that everything that
African Americans suffer from is
because we are direct descendants
of a population of enslaved people.
That side says that only those who
died in slavery are free. The rest of
us are expatriated opportunists.
As I watch the Russian Army
invade Grozny, my angry side
comes out. My angry side says the
Chechen fighters are right to fight
to the death. It’s true that if African
Americans had fought to the death
for freedom, I wouldn’t be here. But
that side of me still regrets that they
did not. What greater honor is there
than to die for freedom?
My other side says, “Whoa, wait
a cotton-picking minute. Of course
civil rights are important enough to
die for, but don’t die unless you
have to.” That side of me says that
freedom is not a “now” kind of
thing. Freedom isn’t automatic.
People aren’t free just because of
some law. These filings take time.
“We shall overcome ... some
day,” as the song goes. Maybe.
Shanks is a graduate student and Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
Hand-me-downs fit purpose
After all these years, I have
discovered a hidden benefit in
doing this job.
It came in a letter from a nice
lady who lives in Arizona.
She had read an old column
about my wife’s disgust with my
winter overcoat, which is 17 years
old and has threads hanging from
the sleeves and collar, mud and soot
stains, missing buttons and holes
from cigarette bums.
Other than that, though, the coat
is structurally sound and fends off
the wind as well as it did the day I
bought it.
And it doesn’t smell bad, except
in the summer, when I don’t wear it
anyway. Like most of my clothes,
the overcoat is old and raggedy
because I like old, raggedy clothes.
Also, I don’t believe in wasting
money on something new when
something old does the job just as
well.
in me case oi ciotnmg, me
purpose is to prevent me from
walking around naked. Old clothes
do that just as well as something
designed by a skinny Italian guy
with one name.
And when I wear my old
overcoat, panhandlers never
approach me. If anything, they say:
“Hey, I got here first; go hustle the
next street.”
When she read about my
overcoat, the nice lady in Arizona
sent this letter:
“I have been a widow since
1990. All this time I have been
trying to find a good home for my
husband’s beautiful and seldom
worn overcoat.
“Would you please accept it in
memory of my husband, who was a
very kind, gentle and peaceful
human being.
“Please do not divulge my name,
as I live alone and it could jeopar
dize my safety.”
The letter arrived in a box. With
Mike Royko
it, neatly packed in a plastic
garment bag, was a splendid, blue
black overcoat that appeared to be
made of the finest soft wool.
As the lady said, it had seldom
been worn and looked new. It was
finer than any coat I have ever
owned.
I slipped it on and it fit perfectly.
Her husband and I must have been
the exact same height and weight.
Just then, two female co-workers
dropped in. They immediately ooed
and aaahed, as womenfolk do when
looking at spiffy garments, and
said: “What a gorgeous coat...
where did you buy it... how dressy
... looks like cashmere.”
I showed them the letter. They
sat silent for a while, then one said:
“You aren’t going to wear it.”
Ut course 1 m going to wear it.
Perfect fit. The deceased must have
been a fine figure of a man. Why
wouldn’t I wear it?
Looking queasy, she said: “Well,
he’s, you know, it belonged to
someone who, you know ...”
“He’s dead,” the other one said.
“Don’t you think there is something
kind of morbid about wearing
clothes that belonged to someone
who died?”
I thought about that for a
moment or two. Then I pointed out
that in this country’s wealthiest
communities are great mansions
and estates that have been handed
down from generation to genera
tion.
Wouldn’t it sound odd if an heir
said: “I cannot live in this 24-room
mansion with stables, dining hall,
billiard room, tennis courts, and 10
full johns because it belonged to my
father and his father before him and
my great-grandfather, who build it
with money he stole fair and
square.”
Or if an heiress said: “I will not
accept this pearl necklace, the
diamond earrings, the sapphire
brooch, the platinum bracelet or
any of the other baubles because my
mum wore them and I would feel a
bit morbid.”
No, tne rich are practical in such
matters. That’s why they stay rich
and get richer. Waste not, want not.
And that, incidentally, is why the
Arabs are in such a sad pickle
today.
“What do the Arabs have to do
with it?” they asked.
The answer is obvious. Back in
the old days, they used to bury guys
like King Tut with their valuables.
They’d put the poor mummy and "
his jewels and money and credit
cards in a tomb inside a pyramid.
How dumb could they be? They
could have held an estate sale and
cleaned up. And look at all they lost
in compound interest over a few
thousand years.
“But that coat belonged to
someone you didn’t even know. It
might be different if it belonged to
someone in your family.”
True, but is it my fault that he
didn’t have any relatives with the
same sleeve length?
They looked unconvinced, but
one of them said: “I hope that you
write her a nice thank-you note.”
Of course I will. There’s
something I wanted to ask her
about anyway.
“What?”
I wonder if he had any ties.
(C) 1995 Trlbaae Media Services, lac.
Congress should cut
PBS life support
The Public Broadcasting
System is battling to remain on
taxpayer life support. It has
flooded its own airwaves with
self-promoting montages of its
best programming that conclude
with the rhetorical question, “If
PBS doesn’t do it, who will?”
None of the spots shows
excerpts from any of PBS’ most
controversial programs, includ
ing some that have promoted
left-wing and one-sided views on
domestic and foreign policy
issues. PBS wants us to think
that pulling the tax-revenue plug
will cause the immediate death of
Barney and Big Bird — and
that’s the tragic image they are
trying to sell.
When PBS’ parent, the
Corporation for Public Broad
casting, was established in 1967,
television was a ‘Vast wasteland”
with little programming that
could be said to benefit culture or
intellect. One could argue that it
has gotten worse in the ensuing
28 years. But the point about
PBS and its federal funding is
not its content (one-sidedly
liberal and offensive as it
sometimes is). The point is
whether one television network
should receive federal subsidies,
especially with the proliferation
of commercial cable networks
that offer cultural and children’s
programming at least as good or
better than PBS’.
Cable channels now outspend
PBS on programming that PBS
says is essential to its mission.
The Disney Channel spends $120
million a year on children’s
programming, compared to $36
million at PBS. CNN spends
$164 million on news and public
affairs. PBS spends $63 million.
Other private cable channels —
such as the Discovery Channel,
The Learning Channel, Nickel
odeon, Bravo, American Movie
Classics and Arts & Entertain
ment — offer children’s pro
gramming, documentaries,
classical music, even opera.
There would be no cultural
wasteland if PBS went off the air
tomorrow.
PBS programs make a bundle
of money for those selling
licensed merchandise, only a
small percentage of which flows
back to PBS. Shouldn’t the
people cleaning up on the sale of
Big Bird and Barney toys, T
shirts and sheets be required to
share more of that money with
PBS before the taxpayer has to
pony up? A new PBS policy
requires that the network receive
a “share” of profits made from
selling merchandise related to a
program, though this does not
apply to the Children’s Televi
Cal Thomas
sion Workshop, which produces
“Sesame Street,” because CTW
predates PBS. CTW has gross
revenues of more than $100
million per year.
PBS also generates millions of
dollars of income through
privately sponsored programs
and commercial sales.
The Heritage Foundation’s
Laurence Jarvik, who has studied
PBS funding and programming,
says, “PBS is a money machine
that doesn’t need federal dollars
to survive.”
More than 70 major public
television stations now sell
national commercial spot
advertising, which earns the
stations more than $2 million
annually. The president of Public
Broadcast Marketing, Inc., which
sells the advertising, told the
show business trade newspaper
Variety that PBS stations could
sell $50 to $60 million of
advertising annually within five
years. While PBS has always
denied it allows advertising on
the network, there is little
difference between a 1 ^-second
“underwriting credit” and a 15
second commercial.
Jarvik recommends replacing
the federal subsidy for PBS
(which is estimated to grow to $1
billion by next year if Congress
fails to act) with a publicly held
stock corporation that would
allow commercial advertising.
That way, if programmers
wanted to produce material
trashing traditional values and
promoting the supposed joys of a
socialist society, they would be
subject to the same market forces
required of all other commercial
programming.
It government funds cannot
promote religion, why should
they be used to promote a mostly
one-dimensional point of view on
PBS?
Whether those ideas are good
or bad is not the point. PBS can
easily survive, even prosper,
following a cutoff of federal
funding. The network has served
its purpose — and Congress
should acknowledge that, give it
an award and close the purse
strings.
(c) 1995, Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Ed Gamble