{sitename} : Publications

New era of Black-Latino unity possible in Arizona

2010-05-17T04:27:00-07:00

Matthew C. Whitaker, ASU history professor, discusses Senate Bill, African-Americans and Latinos…
1. Why is Senate Bill 1070, the new immigration law, significant for African-Americans?

African-Americans’ experiences with racial profiling and human-rights violations help us empathize with Latinos, who are often maligned and under siege.

2. Do you see a connection with the arrest of Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson, after a confrontation with a police officer?

Without a doubt. SB 1070 and Michael Johnson’s status are inextricably linked. Both issues reflect the negative and opportunistic ways in which government power and authority in Arizona relate to communities of color. This relationship is dysfunctional and fraught with emotion, fear and distrust.

3. How can Latinos and African-Americans work together on this issue?

Each group must maximize existing institutions while forging new, explicitly multiracial organizations, to combat discrimination and seek justice as one voice.

4. What are the biggest obstacles?

The fact is many in Arizona just don’t care or simply don’t get that the state has reclaimed its status as national laughingstock on issues of race, civil rights and human rights. The level of denial and lack of racial consciousness and empathy in Arizona is staggering.

5. Are there lessons from the civil-rights movement to draw on?

Yes. Arizona’s civil-rights movement was more multiracial in nature than elsewhere in America. This forced the power structure to deal with multiple constituencies simultaneously. This led to a number of victories. The movement also understood the power of money. SB 1070 may be the law, and Johnson’s fate may be uncertain, but African-Americans and Latinos have enormous economic power. They should wield it.

6. What is your greatest hope now?

That Black people and Latinos (and their allies) will unite and fight this injudicious and divisive legislation successfully. If we are victorious, I hope it will lead to a new era of unity between Black and Brown in Arizona. The fate of race relations in the state depends largely upon our ability to come together now.

Arizona Republic, May 10, 2010

Dr. Matthew C. Whitaker is an Associate Professor in the Department of History, and an Affiliate Faculty member of African and African American Studies and the Justice and Social Inquiry Program at Arizona State University in Tempe. He is also the CEO of The Whitaker Group, L.L.C., a consulting firm that specializes in diversity and human relations.

MIchael Johnson A True Leader

2010-03-27T22:55:00-07:00

The dreadful treatment of Phoenix City Councilman Michael Johnson on Friday, March 19, is yet another disturbing chapter in the history of police brutality in America. Johnson attempted to assist a neighbor in crisis and was dehumanized for his efforts. Johnson was given permission, by fire fighters, to speak to the occupants of the burning residence adjacent to his home. Despite being given permission, a police officer stopped, verbally dismissed, threw to the ground, and handcuffed Johnson, for not following the officer’s orders to leave the scene.

Many will defend the officer’s behavior by citing the job related stress that officers endure, the “necessary” militaristic mindset officers often adopt, and the “need” to exert their authority. I am grateful for the valor and service of officers like Johnson, who respectfully served his community as a Phoenix police officer for 20 years. Johnson would be the first to tell you that no one forces anyone to become a cop. They do so willingly. Police officers wield unparalleled power on our streets, and with this power comes great responsibility, including rising to the occasion and handling stress associated with the job. If one cannot handle the pressure they should search for a new career, or be handed their hat.

Officers who cannot handle the stress and remain in service often become militaristic and embrace a war-like “me vs. them” mentality. When citizens dare to approach them as equals or respectfully question their decisions, some officers become angry, belligerent, and violent. Officers are servants, not lords. They enforce the law, they are not the law. The officer that allegedly roughed Johnson up is not an overseer, and the councilman is not chattel on a municipal plantation; the officer is not a soldier (anymore) and Johnson is not an enemy combatant in Kabul. Johnson is a law abiding citizen, a pillar of the community, and a human being.

Johnson’s status is irrelevant, however. No one should be treated as he was. Still, what kind of Phoenix police officer cannot identify Johnson and other members of Phoenix City Council? Shouldn’t officers be able to identify prominent leaders in their own community and leading figures among the cultural communities they serve? Is the Phoenix PD arming culturally uninformed “hot-heads” and sending them into our midst? What happened to “community policing?”

The best leaders are those who assist rather than dominate. Among the arresting officer and Councilman Johnson, Johnson seemed to be the leader. He was the “good Samaritan.” He was good because he subordinated his ego, stress, and fear to take a risk for humanity; he was willing to put the welfare of someone else before his own, and he sought and received the appropriate clearance. This is the behavior that made him a distinguished police officer, an effective leader, and the kind of neighbor I desire.

The Far Right: Unpatriotic and Racist

2009-08-06T16:35:00-07:00

The recent onslaught of angry, fanatical attacks against President Barack Obama are most often perpetrated by right-wing racists that are throwing stones to hide their bigoted and unpatriotic hands. Right-wing hatred for the first black president is guttural, threatening, and violent, and it is articulated in dishonest, crude, racist, hypocritical idioms and actions. Many of these stone-throwers labeled anyone who criticized George W. Bush and his disastrous policies (which devastated our economy and international standing) unpatriotic, yet they defile the president by depicting Obama as a monkey, a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, an Islamic terrorist, an Aunt Jamima pancake peddler, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and even the Anti-Christ. Some of these closet racists are willing to embrace the apocalypse before respecting our commander-in-chief.

A true patriot loves, upholds and defends their nation, and treats fellow citizens, especially the president, with utmost respect, irrespective of their political affiliation. As legal scholar, Jeremy I. Levitt, has posited, “the U.S. president is the head of state and government, as well as the highest official in the country and commander in chief of the armed forces. He is not only the most-influential and -recognized political figure in the world, but also the living embodiment of our democracy.”

While I support spirited dialogue, passionate debate, and intellectual exchange, the far right has embarrassed America with its duplicitous, mean-spirited, racist attacks on President Obama. As a historian, I cannot recall a time when an American president has been so blatantly disrespected by so many people who lack the courage to reveal their true motivations.
The far right-wing anti-Obama rhetoric invoking abortion, health care, education, and gun control is nothing more than subterfuge that masks their disdain for the president and racist disposition. Raging marchers, gun-toting anarchists, chauvinistic radio personalities, bigoted congressmen who shout at the president with red faces and hate filled eyes, and “educators” who encourage our children to “stay home,” rather than receive a motivational speech from the leader of the free world, all need to do what black people are told to do everyday. Get over it. Obama won the election.

There are many Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, who are interested in civil debate. The far right, however, has shown that they are inspired by bitterness, envy, and veiled racial hostility. And no matter how many hand-picked, self-hating leaders of color they parade in front of the media, the majority of people of color know precisely what kind of racist vitriol lies behind this anti-Obama hysteria.

I encourage those who voted for Obama, especially whites like former President Jimmie Carter, and all who wish to maintain the esteem and power of the presidency, to repudiate this malignant right-wing behavior. Racists rarely acknowledge their hatred, and many are so insulated in their bubble of bigotry that they never consider their thoughts and anger to be byproducts of racism. Most Americans acknowledge that racism exists, but few will ever identify “a racist bone” in their bodies. Still, the rage we have seen directed at the president is unprecedented, and as Carter argues, these kinds of outbursts “are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.” Indeed it is, and while smoking guns of racism are hard to find, we can certainly hear the shots.

Arizona Informant
Wednesday, September 24, 2009

Jackson's Death Leaves a Void

2009-06-30T18:37:00-07:00

Like so many others, I am still in shock over Michael’s Jackson’s death. Throughout the cosmos, the brightest stars often have the shortest life spans, so I have always suspected that we would only have Jackson for a relatively short period of time. Still, I, and so many others, feel a tremendous void now. His music was the soundtrack of our lives, and I identified with the loneliness of his crowded and over-booked existence, as well as the optimism he embodied in a world rife with pessimism and bitterness. His music comforted me. His success buoyed me, and his altruism, activism, and philanthropy uplifted me. No matter how confusing and dismal things got, his artistry, energy, work ethnic, artistic genius, and unsurpassed accomplishments were always there.

Even in the midst of scandal and his often eccentric and inexplicable behavior, much of the music he produced and the performances he rendered bordered on perfection. He was one of a kind, an original that will never grace the earth again, and even though I never met him, I miss him. He gave us 45 years of his brilliance. His impact on the music industry is mind boggling, and he single handedly changed the music video game. It was he who made MTV a household name. He was no doubt tired, however, after entertaining and uplifting millions for so long. I know that he is resting in a more forgiving place now, and I know that he is not alone. I salute you, Michael Jackson, and I thank you for the many gifts that you gave us. You were one of, if not the, greatest entertainer of all time, and your brilliance will echo through the ages.

Arizona Republic
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Arizona Informant
Sunday, July 5, 2009

Public's outrage at ASU was premature

2009-04-27T17:41:00-07:00

Arizona State University recently announced that it would not award an honorary degree to President Barack Obama after he delivers this spring’s commencement address. The insensitive and imprudent manner in which this news was communicated (by an employee who became styled as a “spokesperson”, as well as the news itself, subjected ASU to heavy criticism.

As CNN political analyst Mark Preston has argued, this brouhaha “cast an unnecessary dark cloud over the school,” and compelled ASU officials to accelerate their nascent plans to honor the president in substantive ways.

I, too, was taken aback when I read reports that Obama was not considered for an honorary degree, reportedly because his contributions and accomplishments do not constitute “achievements of eminence,” and “his body of work is yet to come.”

I solicited answers from top ASU officials, including President Michael Crow. These conversations convinced me that much of the mess can be attributed to the challenges associated with scheduling a presidential visit with relatively short notice; ignorance about policies concerning the awarding of honorary degrees; a bumbling explanation by a “spokesperson”; and the public’s understandable sensitivity to any slight, real or perceived, toward any person of color, let alone the leader of the free world, by any white person or predominantly white institution in Arizona. After all, the state’s history of underappreciating, disrespecting and mistreating its black and brown residents is the stuff of legend.

Crow indicated that ASU was just beginning to discuss substantive, alternative ways of honoring Obama when a student journalist broke the story that an honorary degree would not be given. Only later did additional details emerge that cast the news in a different light. Initial reports failed to mention that in 2003, Crow had decided against awarding honorary doctorates to sitting politicians because he was inundated with requests by supporters of powerful politicians seeking honorary degrees for their favorites. Rather than defile the process by reducing the degree to a political tool, he eliminated the practice altogether.

Instead, Crow named ASU’s most prestigious scholarship program after Obama. ASU’s solution is consistent with Obama’s vision and goals: It will make educational attainment and the American Dream a reality for many who would otherwise not be able to realize Obama’s promise of hope and opportunity. In the place of a symbolic tribute, ASU’s president has proposed a program that will honor Obama every year by providing deserving students with the financial opportunity to earn a college degree and pursue the American dream unencumbered. That will honor ASU, its students and the president of the United States.

ASU will be the first university in the country to honor Obama in a way that reflects his desires and vision. While an honorary degree is symbolic and soon forgotten, the Obama scholarship program will forge a lasting legacy. Perhaps future presidents of the United States will be able to thank ASU and the Obama Scholars program for putting them on the path to achievement and service.

Arizona Republic
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Matthew C. Whitaker is an associate professor in the Department of History at Arizona State University. He is also CEO of the Whitaker Group LLC, a consulting firm that specializes in diversity and human relations.

Is Black History Month Still Relevant?

2009-02-18T20:34:00-07:00

With the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, those who already viewed Black History Month as outdated and worthy of extinction have seized this period of racial optimism to call for the elimination of the 28-day commemoration. In 2005, actor Morgan Freeman denounced Black History Month during a “60 Minutes” interview as “ridiculous,” asking, “You’re going to relegate my history to a month?”

Since February 1 of this year, leading columnists from major newspapers have posed similar questions about this month, which is the legacy of historian Carter G. Woodson, who created Negro History Week in 1926. Cynthia Tucker, the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote that “the commemoration is a damaging form of apartheid” and “the nation of Tiger Woods, Oprah and Barack Obama no longer needs a Black History Month.” Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette argued, “Now that Barack Obama and his family have moved into the White House, it’s time to rethink the holiday Carter G. Woodson came up with nearly a century ago. Times have changed. Even the Republicans have a black guy running the party. Maybe February can go back to being for all of us.”

Nevertheless, Faye V. Harrison, a professor of anthropology at the University of Florida, said it’s shortsighted and “politically naïve” to say Black History Month is no longer relevant. “It [the election] says something about how far we have come, but it doesn’t say anything about how far we have to go,” she said. “I don’t think we can afford to forget about it.” Indeed, while I admire Freeman’s passion and agree with the spirit of his convictions, I disagree with his conclusions. Although “African American history is American history,” and as such should be integrated into the fabric of our education and daily consciousness, it also warrants particular attention.

America’s promise, past, present, and future will always be tied to, and measured by, the socioeconomic status of African Americans. No matter how much we grow, and no matter how unified we become, we will always be a post-slave and Jim Crow society. Black History Month, therefore, will never be obsolete. It will always be in our best interest to pause and explore the meaning of freedom through the lived experiences of a people who forced America to be true to its creed and reaffirmed the American dream. Those who would eliminate Black History Month, therefore, often miss the point. Should we educate ourselves about black history throughout the year? Of course we should. Should we also take time out to acknowledge the fact that, without African Americans, our understanding of “freedom and justice for all” would not exist? Yes.

If treated seriously and executed effectively, Black History Month could stimulate more concern for inclusive and probing educational curricula, inter-cultural communication, and democracy itself. Knowledge of African American history is essential to comprehending our nation’s character, and we should do everything that we can to ensure that all Americans know precisely who we are and how we came to be. Moreover, Black History Month not only reminds of how far we’ve come, given all of the challenges that remain, it also reminds us of how far we still must go.

Arizona Republic
Sunday, February 22, 2009

Dr. Matthew C. Whitaker is an Associate Professor in the Department of History, and an Affiliate Faculty member of African and African American Studies and the School of Justice and Social Inquiry at Arizona State University in Tempe. He is also the CEO of The Whitaker Group, L.L.C., a consulting firm that specializes in diversity and human relations.

“Who’s Uppity?”

2008-12-02T03:36:01-07:00

The recent Republican National Convention reflected the most blatant manifestation of de facto segregation seen in politics in decades. It was the whitest convention since Caesar Chavez, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy were among the living. Of the convention’s 2,380 delegates, only 36 were black (less than 1 per state), a 78% drop from the GOP’s 2004 convention and the lowest number in 40 years, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Is this the party of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln? Democrats are not perfect; on the eve of the 2008 West Virginia primary, Hillary Clinton appealed to working-class white voters by labeling Barack Obama an “elitist.” This was a duplicitous way of saying he is “uppity”: a black person who doesn’t know his “place.” On September 4, Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia agreed but disposed of subterfuge, stating that Michelle and Barack Obama were “uppity.” Perhaps Westmoreland felt empowered by his party. At the convention, Republicans went “old-school” and took exclusion and black-man-bashing back to basics. Nary was a black or brown face seen, and Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin mocked Obama’s pedigree with delight. The party of meritocracy and “bootstrap” theory seems offended by Obama’s ascendency.

Unlike the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has benchmarks for racial inclusion, and Black delegates comprised 24% of the total delegation, and Latinos 12%. These numbers are not an “Obama and Bill Richardson factor.” The Democratic superstructure is measurably committed to diversity. Notwithstanding the historical appointments of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Republicans have shifted into reverse on matters of racial diversity. Many Republicans claim colorblindness. After watching the convention, I believe them. There was little color to be seen in Xcel Energy Center.

What statement is the Republican Party making about its position on racial diversity? How can such an overwhelmingly white convention take place in 2008? I expected Aunt Bee and Opie to take the convention’s stage. Do Republicans care how this looks to people of color and those who question homogeneity? Does this Leave-it-to-Beaver convention foreshadow a possible McCain administration? Perhaps some Americans will vote for a candidate who has virtually no substantive relationships with communities of color and knows more about hockey and moose burgers than about the history and lives of some 100+ million Americans of color. Perhaps these voters don’t care about communities of color. Voters who are at all concerned about inclusion and racial equality will be hard-pressed to find sanctuary, voice, or power in the Republican camp. If the GOP does not publicly diversify, projected changes in racial demographics will soon compel it to take “affirmative action” to include more diverse groups of people, including “elite” and “uppity” black people.

Matthew C. Whitaker is an Associate Professor in the Department of History, and the School of Justice and Social Inquiry at Arizona State University in Tempe. He is also the CEO of The Whitaker Group, L.L.C., a consulting firm that specializes in diversity and human relations.

""Obama: Torbearer and Trailblazer"

2006-12-16T22:14:00-07:00

The implications for Obama’s inauguration are yet to be determined. What is certain, however, is that the United States is a different nation than it was in 1787, 1865, or 2000. Chattel slavery was abolished in 1865, de jure segregation was outlawed in 1954, black American’s citizenship and voting rights were affirmed in 1965, and white supremacy, though still alive and malignant, is usually denounced and looked upon as utterly reprehensible. The ability and eagerness of Americans of all backgrounds to embrace each other exists in the twenty-first century in ways that were unimaginable only one generation ago.

The installation of Obama as President, therefore, is a substantive measure of this seismic shift in American life, and his very person embodies America’s promise. His ascendency is not a cure-all, but it offers the water of renewal and unity for a nation thirsty for further advancement. Obama’s rise is not the final chapter in America’s quest to fulfill the dream, nor has it eradicated the problems that confront us. America endures, and the fight for freedom and justice for all continues. The torch still burns in the hands of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America.

Arizona Republic
Sunday, January 18, 2009

Desegregating the Valley of the Sun: Phillips v. Phoenix Union High Schools

2006-07-19T21:01:00-07:00

POPULAR opinion has always held that Phoenix, Arizona, has offered newcomers opportunities to enjoy freedom from the racial tensions and antagonisms of more densely populated cities. Celebrated Western poetry, novels, and films bear witness to this fact. Generally, however, Phoenix’s race relations have mirrored those in most American cities: segregated and unequal by custom and by law. Historically, people who migrated to Phoenix, particularly white and black Americans, brought with them cultural attitudes about race that they attempted to adapt and negotiate after establishing themselves in the city. They modified their concepts of race and ethnicity only insofar as these concepts would continue to validate their preconceived notions. Like the majority of whites in American cities, Phoenix’s founders and ruling white elite supported systematic cam-paigns to create a flourishing community “run by Anglos, for Anglos.” Many of the city’s founders, in fact, were white, had Southern roots, and harbored the same anti-black, anti-Indian, anti-Latino, and anti-Jewish attitudes that dominated race relations in the Reconstruction and Jim Crow South. Phoenix was incorporated in 1870. Surrounded by a series of upper Sonoran Desert mountain ranges, such as South Mountain, Camelback Mountain, and the Estella, Supersti- tion, and San Tan Mountains, “The Valley,” as it has come to be called, soon became a Western outpost of white supremacy and racial inequality. The white male founders of Phoenix quickly imported mecha- nisms from states such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which formed the gestalt of a racial caste system, defining race relations and socioeconomic mobility in Phoenix through-out the twentieth century.

Let’s Recognize Arizona’s Trailblazing Women

2006-03-27T04:49:00-07:00

All citizens and residents of the United States should celebrate the myriad contributions of American women to this state, America and the world. On March 8, women across the globe celebrated International Women’s Day, a commenoration that has lasted for nearly 100 years. In the U.S., the entire month of March has been designated as Women’s History Month. During this time we are called upon to honor the history and life of women in America and throughout world, and to reflect upon the contemporary status of women and their fundamental civil, political and economic rights. Women’s History Month began as Women’s History Week in Sonoma County, California in 1978. In 1981, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) sponsored a congressional resolution that created national Women’s History Week, and in 1987, Congress expanded the week to an entire month.

Most celebrations and commemorations of Women’s History Month focus on the aspirations and accomplishmets of distingushed women who have made their mark at the national and internationa levels. Many who celebrate and participate in Women’s History Month activities will surely invoke names such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojouner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Friedan, Dolores Huerta, Gloria Steinem, Tonita Pena and other well known women. Yet, despite their immeasurable and unmistakable contribution to Arizona, America and the world, Arizona women usually do not receive the recognition they deserve, even in Arizona itself. I believe, therefore, that we must all pause to acknowledge the intellienge, courage, determination, creativity and compassion that Arizona women have demonstrated, often against overwhelming odds, throughout this state’s history.

Inspired by a passion for freedom, self-determination and equality, women in Arizona have helped shaped this state from its infancy. Beginning in 1897, Elizabeth Hudson Smith of Wickenburg emerged as one of the wealthiest (black) entrepreneurs in the southwest. In 1909, Sharlot Hall became the Territorial Historian and the first woman to hold territorial office. Due largely to the grass roots activism of Arizona suffragists, the state was among the first to extend the franchise to women in 1912. Two years later, Francis Willard Munds of Yavapai County became the second woman in America to be elected to a state senate. Arizona women formed model mutual aid and philanthropic societies during the Great Depression and World Wars I and II, to ameliorate the social and financial stresses of economic devastation and war. Of particular note are the women who served as pistons of the region’s Civil Rights Movement: Opal Ellis, Thomasena Grigsby, Fran Waldman, Madge Copland, Ruth Finn, Eleanor Ragsdale and many others. These tenacious women led the way in securing victories for racial justice in Phoenix, sometimes in advance of national milestones in civil rights.

Their activism, the wisdom of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, the fortitude of Arizona only black legislator, Leah Landrum Taylor, the confidence of our three female governors, Rose Mofford (1987-1991), Jane Dee Hull (1997-2003) and Janet Napolitano (2003-present), the heroism of Army Pfc. Lori Piestewa, the selflessness of nationally know activists, educators and philanthropists such as Betty and Jean Fairfax, and the literary accomplishments of celebrated writers such as Jewell Rhodes and Stella Pope Duarte, have all helped make Arizona one of the most dynamic states in the U.S., and the U.S. one the most promising nations in the world. Their legacy should inspire all of us to do whatever we can to demonstrate our appreciation by bearing the torch of freedom, progress and prosperity that they set ablaze.

Dr. Matthew C. Whitaker, a Phoenician native, is Assistant Professor of History at Arizona State University in Tempe. He is also an affiliate faculty in African and African American Studies and the School of Justice and Social Inquiry at ASU. He is also Co-Owner and CEO of The Whitaker Group, L.L.C., a consulting firm specializing in diversity and educational curriculum and instruction training.

Lets_Recognize_Arizonas_Traiblazing_Women.doc