The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. - The New Yorker

O que mais surpreende nestas matérias não é tanto a luta indômita de Martin Luther King, Jr. pelos direitos civis, ou seja, a igualdade completa de todos os cidadãos, independentemente de sua origem social ou cor da pele, é a extensão, a profundidade, a solidez do racismo, da segregação, do Apartheid americano, realidades que eram consideradas normais pouco mais de meio século atrás, e que ainda alcançam um bom número de cidadãos brancos, e não só os supremacistas, estimulados por Trump.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. This week, Americans will be celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. In 1965, Renata Adler published a report in The New Yorker on King’s march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, writing about the participants’ experiences along the way and describing King’s calm and steady presence. At one point, King approached an old man with a cane and asked if he would join them. “I’ll walk one step anyway,” the old man said. “Because I know for every one step I’ll take you’ll take two.” This weekend, we’re bringing you a selection of pieces about King’s legacy and the significance of the upcoming holiday. In “The Hours Before ‘I Have a Dream,’ ” from 1963, Calvin Trillin joins the March on Washington and writes about the events leading up to King’s famous speech. In “When I Met Martin Luther King, Jr.,” Charlayne Hunter-Gault, who became one of the first black students to integrate the University of Georgia, in 1961, recounts how her meeting with the civil-rights leader that year inspired her. In “The Mission,” David Levering Lewis examines the complicated political alliance between King and President Lyndon Johnson. Finally, in “Martin Luther King Day with Trump,” Jelani Cobb explores how the holiday has taken on a new meaning in our current political climate. We hope that you find these pieces as fascinating—and inspiring—as we do. —David Remnick

From The New Yorker’s Archive The Talk of the Town The Hours Before “I Have a Dream” A survey of the March on Washington, in the lead-up to Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s most famous words. By Calvin Trillin | September 7, 1963 Letter from Selma The Selma March On the trail to Montgomery. By Renata Adler | April 10, 1965 News Desk When I Met Martin Luther King, Jr. I will always remember that moment and what it taught me about Dr. King and one of his core values: humility. By Charlayne Hunter-Gault | April 4, 2018 Books The Mission Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s final chapter. By David Levering Lewis | January 23 & 30, 2006 Comment Martin Luther King Day with Trump The holiday will be presided over by a President who scarcely seems to comprehend King’s principles. By Jelani Cobb | January 16, 2017

Segregacao escolar nos EUA: 60 anos de uma decisao da Suprema Corte

Ao adotar esse ruling, em 1954, a Suprema Corte corrigia seu erro monumental de mais ou menos 60 anos antes.
Leiam toda a matéria, para vocês terem consciência do horror que foi a segregação oficial nos EUA, nos estados e mesmo na União.
Depois desse ruling, dois estados do Sul declararam que preferiam acabar com as escolas públicas a terminar com a segregação, tal o ódio das populações brancas contra os negros.
Não surpreende, assim, que os negros tenham desenvolvido uma cultura particular, separada e à parte da cultura geral da sociedade americana, majoritariamente branca e protestante.
Esse tipo de Apartheid mental nunca existiu no Brasil.
Mas os militantes negros estão se esforçando para criá-lo no Brasil. Com a ajuda do governo federal.
Ambos racistas, a favor do Apartheid racial.
Uma vergonha...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

On This Day: May 17

The New York Times, May 17, 2014

• See larger version »
• Buy a reproduction »

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka ruling, which declared that racially segregated public schools were inherently unequal.
Go to article »

High Court Bans School Segregation; 9-to-0 Decision Grants Time to Comply

---

---

1896 Ruling Upset

---

'Separate but Equal' Doctrine Held Out of Place in Education

---

By LUTHER A. HUSTON

Special to The New York Times

RELATED HEADLINESRuling to Figure in '54 Campaign: Decision Tied to Eisenhower -- Russell Leads Southerners in Criticism of Court Reaction of South:"Breathing Spell" for Adjustment Tempers Region's Feelings 'Voice' Speaks in 34 Languages to Flash Court Ruling to WorldOTHER HEADLINESMcCarthy Hearing Off a Week as Eisenhower Bars Report: Senator is Irate: President Orders Aides Not to Disclose Details of Top-Level Meeting Communist Arms Unloaded in Guatemala by Vessel From Polish Port, U.S. Learns: Embassy Says Nation of Central America May Buy Munitions Anywhere Soviet Bids Vienna Cease 'Intrigues':Envoy Warns Austrian Chief on Inciting East Zone -- Raab Denies Charges City Colleges' Board Can't Pick Chairman 2 Tax Projects Die in Estimate Board: Beer Levy and More Parking Collections Killed -- Payroll Impost Still Weighted Indo-China Parley Weighs Two Plans:French and Rebel Peace Bids Will Be Studied Jointly as a Basis for Settlement Morettis' Lawyer Must Bare Talks: Jersey Court Orders Counsel to Racketeers in Bergen to Divulge Data to Grand Jury Costello Is Sentenced to 5 Years, Fined $30,000 in U.S. Tax Case Churchill Asks Negotiated Peace With Guarantees for Indo-China 'Voice' Speaks in 34 Languages to Flash Court Ruling to World

Washington, May 17 -- The Supreme Court unanimously outlawed today racial segregation in public schools.

Chief Justice Earl Warren read two opinions that put the stamp of unconstitutionality on school systems in twenty-one states and the District of Columbia where segregation is permissive or mandatory.

The court, taking cognizance of the problems involved in the integration of the school systems concerned, put over until the next term, beginning October, the formulation of decrees to effectuate its 9-to-0 decision.

The opinions set aside the 'separate but equal' doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in 1896.

"In the field of public education," Chief Justice Warren said, "the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

He stated the question and supplied the answer as follows:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though physical facilities and other 'tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does."

States Stressed Rights

The court's opinion does not apply to private schools. It is directed entirely at public schools. It does not affect the "separate but equal doctrine" as applied on railroads and other public carriers entirely within states that have such restrictions.

The principal ruling of the court was in four cases involving state laws. The states' right to operate separated schools had been argued before the court on two occasions by representatives of South Carolina, Virginia, Kansas and Delaware.

In these cases, consolidated in one opinion, the high court held that school segregation deprived Negroes of "the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."

The other opinion involved the District of Columbia. Here schools have been segregated since Civil War days under laws passed by Congress.

"In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools," the Chief Justice said, "it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.

"We hold that racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteeing by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

The seventeen states having mandatory segregation are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona and Wyoming have permissive statutes, although Wyoming never has exercised it.

South Carolina and Georgia have announced plans to abolish public schools if segregation were banned.

Although the decision with regard to the constitutionality of school segregation was unequivocal, the court set the cases down for reargument in the fall on questions that previously were argued last December. These deal with the power of the court to permit an effective gradual readjustment to school systems not based on color distinctions.

Other questions include whether the court itself should formulate detailed decrees and what issues should be dealt with. Also whether the cases should be remanded to the lower courts to frame decrees, and what general directions the Supreme Court should give the lesser tribunals if this were done.

Cases Argued Twice

The cases first came to the high court in 1952 on appeal from rulings of lower Federal courts, handed down in 1951 and 1952. Arguments were heard on Dec. 9-10, 1952.

Unable to reach a decision, the Supreme Court ordered rearguments in the present term and heard the cases for the second time on Dec. 7-8 last year.

Since then, each decision day has seen the courtroom packed with spectators awaiting the ruling. That was true today, though none except the justices themselves knew it was coming down. Reporters were told before the court convened that it "looked like a quiet day."

Three minor opinions had been announced, and those in the press room had begun to believe the prophesy when Banning E. Whittington, the court's press information officer, started putting on his coat.

"Reading of the segregation decisions is about to begin in the court room," he said. "You will get the opinions up there."

The courtroom is one floor up, reached by a long flight of marble steps. Mr. Whittington led a fast moving exodus. In the court room, Chief Justice Warren had just begun reading.

Each of the Associate Justices listened intently. They obviously were aware that no court since the Dred Scott decision of March 6, 1857, had ruled on so vital an issue in the field of racial relations.

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom on the ground that he had lived in a territory where slavery was forbidden. The territory was the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase, from which slavery was excluded under the terms of the Missouri Compromise.

The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was not a citizen who had a right to sue in the Federal courts, and that Congress had no constitutional power to pass the Missouri Compromise.

Thurgood Marshall, the lawyer who led the fight for racial equality in the public schools, predicted that there would be no disorder and no organized resistance to the Supreme Court's dictum.

He said that the people of the South, the region most heavily affected, were law-abiding and would not "resist the Supreme Court."

Association Calls Meetings

Mr. Marshall said that the state presidents of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, would meet next week-end in Atlanta to discuss further procedures.

The Supreme Court adopted two of the major premises advanced by the Negroes in briefs and arguments presented in support of their cases.

Their main thesis was that segregation, of itself, was unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted July 28, 1868, was intended to wipe out the last vestige of inequality between the races, the Negro side argued.

Against this, lawyers representing the states argued that since there was no specific constitutional prohibition against segregation in the schools, it was a matter for the states, under their police powers, to decide.

The Supreme Court rejected the "states rights" doctrine, however, and found all laws ordering or permitting segregation in the schools to be in conflict with the Federal Constitution.

The Negroes also asserted that segregation had a psychological effect on pupils of the Negro race and was detrimental to the educational system as a whole. The court agreed.

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments," Chief Justice Warren wrote. "Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education in our democratic society. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.

"In these days it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, must be made available to all on equal terms."

As to the psychological factor, the high court adopted the language of a Kansas court in which the lower bench held:

"Segregation with the sanction of the law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system."

1896 Doctrine Demolished

The "separate but equal" doctrine, demolished by the Supreme Court today, involved transportation, not education. It was the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, decided in 1896. The court then held that segregation was not unconstitutional if equal facilities were provided for each race.

Since that ruling six cases have been before the Supreme Court, applying the doctrine to public education. In several cases, the court has ordered the admission to colleges and universities of Negro students on the ground that equal facilities were not available in segregated institutions.

Today, however, the court held the doctrine inapplicable under any circumstances to public education.

This means that the court may extend its ruling from primary and secondary schools to include state-supported colleges and universities. Two cases involving Negroes who wish to enter white colleges in Texas and Florida are pending before the court.

The question of "due process," also a clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, had been raised in connection with the state cases as well as the District of Columbia.

The High Court held, however, that since it had ruled in the state cases that segregation was unconstitutional under the "equal protection" clause, it was unnecessary to discuss "whether such segregation also violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

However, the "due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment was the core of the ruling in the District of Columbia case. "Equal protection" and "due process," the court noted, were not always interchangeable phrases.

Liberty Held Deprived

"Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which an individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective," Chief Justice Warren asserted.

"Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the due process clause."

Two principal surprises attended the announcement of the decision. One was its unanimity. There had been reports that the court was sharply divided and might not be able to get an agreement this term. Very few major rulings of the court have been unanimous.

The second was the appearance with his colleagues of Justice Robert H. Jackson. He suffered a mild heart attack on March 30. He left the hospital last week-end and had not been expected to return to the bench this term, which will end on June 7.

Perhaps to emphasize the unanimity of the court, perhaps from a desire to be present when the history-making verdict was anounced, Justice Jackson was in his accustomed seat when the court convened.

O Apartheid negro que os companheiros querem nos impingir - artigo de Demetrio Magnoli

O título acima é meu, obviamente, e apenas denota uma constante em meus argumentos: o atual governo, desde 2003, e os militantes da causa racialista negra, desde muito tempo atrás, querem criar duas nações no Brasil: de um lado, a dos negros, que são todos aqueles pretos retintos, mulatos inzoneiros, mestiços variados, mas todos afrodescendentes, ou melhor, a dos afroancestrais (o que queira isso dizer), e de outro lado, todos os demais, os brasileiros que não parecem ter vindo da África, descendentes de europeus, asiáticos, levantinos, mestiços lavados, e quem sabe até "negros de alma branca", ou quem quer que seja, que não tiver essa aparência morena, ou amulatada, que serviria, segundo os novos racistas do Apartheid em construção, para distinguir os novos eleitos dos orixás, os beneficiários das cotas e outras prebendas estatais.
Este é o país dividido, segregado, racista que pretendem criar os companheiros e seus militantes negros de "alma nazista", ou afrikander, enfim, à la Gobineau, mas ao contrário.
O artigo do polemista segue aqui, mas vocês já sabem o que eu penso.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Heraldo, a cor e a alma

Demétrio Magnoli

Estado de São Paulo, 1/03/2012

A retratação, obtida por meio dos tribunais, circula na imprensa e na internet. Nela o blogueiro Paulo Henrique Amorim retira cada uma das infâmias que assacou contra o jornalista Heraldo Pereira, apresentador do Jornal Nacional e comentarista político do Jornal da Globo. No seu blog, entre outras injúrias, Amorim classificou Heraldo como “negro de alma branca” e escreveu que o jornalista “não conseguiu revelar nenhum atributo para fazer tanto sucesso, além de ser negro e de origem humilde”.

Confrontar o poder, dizendo verdades inconvenientes às autoridades - na síntese precisa do intelectual britânico Tony Judt, é essa a responsabilidade dos indivíduos com acesso aos meios de comunicação. Amorim sempre fez o avesso exato disso. A adulação, reservada às autoridades, e a injúria, dirigida aos oposicionistas, são suas ferramentas de trabalho. Não lhe falta coerência: ao longo das oscilações da maré da política, do governo João Figueiredo ao governo Dilma Rousseff, sem exceção, ele invariavelmente derrama elogios aos ocupantes do Palácio do Planalto e ataca os que estão fora do poder. Às vésperas da disputa presidencial de 1998, no comando do jornal da TV Bandeirantes, engajou-se numa estridente campanha de calúnias contra Lula, que retrucou com um processo judicial e obteve desculpas da emissora. Há nove anos, desde que Lula recebeu a faixa de Fernando Henrique Cardoso, o blogueiro consagra seu tempo a cantar-lhe as glórias, a ofender opositores e a clamar contra o jornalismo independente. Funciona: a estatal Correios ajuda a financiar o blog infame.

Amorim não tem importância, a não ser como sintoma de uma época, mas a natureza de sua injúria racial tem. “Negro de alma branca”, uma expressão antiga, funciona como marca de ferro em brasa na testa do “traidor da raça”. No passado serviu para traçar um círculo de desonra em torno dos negros que ofereceram seus préstimos interessados ao proprietário de escravos ou ao representante dos regimes de segregação racial. Hoje, no contexto das doutrinas racialistas, adquiriu novos significados e finalidades, que se esgueiram em ruelas sombrias, atrás da avenida iluminada da resistência contra a opressão. Brincando com a Justiça, Amorim republica no seu blog um artigo do ativista de movimentos negros Marcos Rezende que, na prática, repete a injúria dirigida contra Heraldo. Custa pouco girar os holofotes e escancarar o cenário que a infâmia almeja conservar oculto.

O líder africânder Daniel Malan, vitorioso nas eleições de 1948, instituiu o apartheid na África do Sul. Amorim e Rezende certamente não o classificariam como “branco de alma negra”, pois uma “alma negra” não seria capaz de fazer o mal e, mais obviamente, porque Malan não traiu a sua “raça”. Sob a lógica pervertida do pensamento racial, eles o designariam como “branco de alma branca”, embutindo numa única expressão sentimentos contraditórios de ódio e admiração. Como fez o mal, o africânder confirmaria que a cor de sua alma é branca. Entretanto, como promoveu os interesses de sua própria “raça”, ele figuraria na esfera dos homens respeitáveis. William Du Bois (1868-1963), “pai fundador” do movimento negro americano, congratulou Adolf Hitler, um “branco de alma branca”, pela promoção do “orgulho racial” dos arianos.

Confiando numa suposta imunidade propiciada pela cor da pele ou pelo seu cargo de conselheiro do Ministério da Justiça, Rezende converteu-se na voz substituta de Amorim. No artigo inquisitorial de retomada da campanha injuriosa, ele não condena Heraldo por algo que tenha feito, mas por um dever que não teria cumprido: o jornalista é qualificado como “um negro da Casa Grande da Rede Globo”, que “não dignifica a sua ancestralidade e origem” pois “nunca fez um comentário quando a emissora se posiciona contra as cotas”. No fim, os dois linchadores associados estão dizendo que Heraldo carrega um fardo intelectual derivado da cor de sua pele. Ele estaria obrigado, sob o tacão da injúria, a subscrever a opinião política de Rezende, que é a (atual) opinião de Amorim.

O epíteto lançado contra Heraldo é uma ferramenta destinada a policiar o pensamento, ajustando-o ao dogma da raça e eliminando simbolicamente os indivíduos “desviantes”. O economista Thomas Sowell produziu uma obra devastadora sobre as políticas contemporâneas de raça. Ward Connerly, então reitor da Universidade da Califórnia, deflagrou em 1993 uma campanha contra as preferências raciais nas universidades americanas. José Carlos Miranda, do Movimento Negro Socialista, assinou uma carta pública contra os projetos de leis de cotas raciais no Brasil. Sowell é um conservador; Connerly, um libertário; Miranda, um marxista - mas todos rejeitam a ideia de inscrever a raça na lei. Como tantos outros intelectuais e ativistas, eles já foram tachados de “negros de alma branca” pela Santa Inquisição dos novos arautos da raça.

A liberdade humana é a verdadeira vítima dos inquisidores do racialismo. Mas, e aí se encontra o dado crucial, essa forma de negação da liberdade opera sob o critério discriminatório da raça, não segundo a regra do universalismo. Se tivesse a pele branca, Heraldo conservaria o direito de se pronunciar a favor ou contra as políticas de preferências raciais - e também o de não opinar sobre o tema. Como, entretanto, tem a pele negra, Heraldo é detentor de uma gama muito menor de direitos - efetivamente, entre as três opções, só está autorizado a abraçar uma delas.

Sob o ponto de vista do racialismo, as pessoas da “raça branca” são indivíduos livres para pensar, falar e divergir, mas as pessoas da “raça negra” dispõem apenas da curiosa liberdade de se inclinar, obedientemente, diante de seus “líderes raciais”, os guardiões da “ancestralidade e origem”. Hoje, como nos tempos da segregação oficial americana ou do apartheid sul-africano, o dogma da raça prejudica principalmente os negros.