Saturday, February 27, 2021

Black History Month

I’m all for celebrating the accomplishments of African-Americans, African-Europeans, African-Asians, African-Australians, African-Antarcticians, and African-Africans with a month dedicated to their contributions to society, but it does make me wonder a bit about the writing of our history and modern accomplishments of the race.

For example, are my local television news broadcasts racist?  As I watch the nightly news from time to time, I am struck by how one-sided their stories are when it comes to showing the faces of people who are arrested for murder, assault, theft, or drug use.  Proportionally, African-Americans account for about 17%[1] of the state population in Florida yet in broadcasting the most egregious crime reports I see about 90% of those reports involve African-Americans. Perhaps this is just my perception but in looking at the FBI analysis[2] it seems to me for a minority population (nationally about 16%) the number of violent crimes they commit seems to far outweigh the other races.  In looking at total arrests in 2018 blacks were arrested for about 27% of them with Murder/Manslaughter and Robbery exceeding the other populations.  Why is that?  Is it the entirety of law enforcement is racists, as the Black Lives Matter organization would have us believe, or is there a systemic failure within the black community?

Have we, the unhyphenated-Americans, done something or failed to do something which may have caused a systemic failure to raise confident and successful young black men?  I am unconvinced by the social justice theories regarding Critical Race, or White Privilege, they may speak to specific acts, but for the most part, they attempt to eliminate personal responsibility from those who fail.  Accepting the idea that failure is never the individuals' fault flies in the face of over 5,000 years of human history. Those who’ve succeeded in their lives have never accepted that as a reason to not pursue excellence, so why would we as a society?

 A lot of people with much larger voices than I have certainly weighed in on this, but as I look at those voices there is always an underlying motive for those opinions.  Just as there is with mine.  The difference is I seek no power from my opinion while those with the loudest voices certainly do.  I will use Al Sharpton[3] as an example.  Starting out from his upbringing in Brooklyn he became a Baptist minister and advocate in the race issues of the 1970s and 80s.  But history has proven him to be before all else an opportunist who has enriched himself during his campaigns to allegedly help the helpless.  The case of Twana Brawley stands out as an example of this.

As I said earlier, I am all for celebrating the accomplishments of successful people of color, but when the career of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is discounted and someone like George Floyd is held up as the reason for the destruction of a city I have to question the legitimacy and value of the month.

Monday, February 22, 2021

Is There Plan, Or Just a Bunch of Policies?


We would like to believe the Government plans for things -- but does it?  During this past Presidential campaign, the complaint of the Democratic candidates was President Trump didn’t have a plan for the pandemic.  Once elected, President Biden promised a plan that would have 100 million people vaccinated within his first 100 days in office.  As the weather becomes uncooperative, there are delays in getting the vaccines to the people.  I am reminded of two simple truths in military planning.  First, the plan never survives the first contact, the second we never finalize the plan we just run out of time to make changes.

As I look at all the policy changes being implemented it sure doesn’t look like the government has an overarching plan to make America better than it was.  Rather they seem to be implementing policies that made good sound bites, but in the end, will do little to make life better for the most vulnerable of us.  For example:

There is a great push to make $15.00 the national minimum wage. There is also the rallying cry for “a living wage,” whatever that is.  At the same time, the government policy is to allow unfettered access into America by those seeking its refuge.  These two policies would seem to limit the economic well-being of the poor while growing their dependence on the state for survival.  Of course, we can argue the morality of replacing humans with machines, but all the moral arguments in the world won’t stop the inevitable.  Machines improve productivity and when they are cheaper than the human, they become the choice of every business there is.  One has only to look at the auto industry to see this reality.  As union wages grew and robot technology developed how many union members were replaced by the robots who could do their job better and cheaper?  The same can be said for cashiers at supermarkets and fast-food places.  Can you go into a Walmart these days without seeing a self-checkout lane?  Of course, there are those who will resist such a place but they will not stop the move if it becomes the economical choice for the store. 

But replacement by machines is only one side of the problem.  As much as the socialists of the DNC think the government controls all things, that is simply not the case in a predominately market-driven economy.  The law of “supply and demand” would seem to be unavoidable.  As we bring more unskilled labor into the United States who will they displace as they attempt to find employment? It certainly won’t be the University Professors, will it?  They will displace the minimally skilled for sure, but should we assume only the minimally skilled? Wouldn't we assume those with a wide range of talents seeking to escape the failures of their own country would seek a better life here?  That is, after all, the American model. Those with marketable skills will also begin to displace the salaried employees making far above the minimum.  In fact, we already replace a lot of our potentially skilled workforce by importing cheaper skilled labor to work in our high-tech companies?[1]  Why shouldn’t we expect those categories of exemption to expand as the government meets the needs of its high-tech donors?  What a wonderful way to keep the profits of those companies high while reducing labor costs, and limiting the potential of our own citizens to find jobs that would help them escape the trap of poverty.

And then there is the myriad of policies to make the world green, save the environment for future generations, and enrich those who can profit most from the policies.  Like my Mom used to say, you’ve got to break some eggs if you want to make an omelet, and so it is with the policies of this administration.  One of the President's first acts was to stop the building of an oil pipeline.  There are, of course, good things and bad things with this decision.  One side will point out how the oil that would flow through the pipeline won’t stop, it will just be moved by other means (like the railroad system Warren Buffett owns). Those who favor this decision will point to the environmental risks of pipelines that leak, and the need to begin our transition away from carbon-based fuels.  Caught in the middle of these debates are the human beings who work in the oil fields of North Dakota, Montana, and Canada who will perhaps lose their jobs, and the average American who will pay a higher price for fuel to run their car or heat their home.  Again, the poorest among us will be the ultimate victims.  But as John Kerry pointed out the skilled labor building the pipeline can then find work in some kind of green factory assembling solar panels.  My question to John would be “isn’t it cheaper to hire the recent immigrants from South and Central America for these simple tasks?” 

Aside from the grandiose “Green New Deal” proposals of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez where we abandon trans-oceanic air travel for trains, is there really a plan that makes these environmental policies practical, affordable, and actually does eliminate man’s impact on the environment?  If joining the Paris Climate accord is any indication I’m guessing not.  As we see in most environmental protests, the activists tend to leave a lot of garbage behind, expecting someone else to clean up after them. We are pushing policies for the sake of enriching someone; the question is who?

Finally, we have new policies ranging from “diversity for all” to elimination of “hate speech.”  It will be interesting to see how science, morality, and the law are shaped by these favored policies of the new Democratic Reich.[2]

 



[2] Purposely chosen to acknowledge our societal debt to Charles Godwin, creator of “Godwin’s Law”  This in no way refers to Robert Reich, although I am sure he would love to be part of the new Reich.

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

The Mindless Accumulation of Wealth.

I was presented with an opinion today as it was a fact. This is not unusual in today’s world, as almost everything we see on television, in social media, and in what is portrayed as news is now opinion, most often presented as fact, but what caught my attention was an opinion on what the phrase “Money can’t buy you happiness.” The author believes the meaning is clearly that the “mindless accumulation of excess wealth leads to diminishing returns on happiness.”  A wonderfully egalitarian view that if you have too much money it won’t improve your happiness (however that is defined).  In fairness, it goes on to say it does not mean “poor people should learn to be content without basic necessities or financial security.” An equally wise and wonderful opinion on what the phase can’t mean. But are either opinion true? 

To answer this question, I think we first should define happiness, but is there such a thing?  Is there one “Universal” standard for happiness? Going back to our founding we see in the Declaration of Independence the claim that all men have an equal claim on the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Did they mean that all men had an equal claim on wealth? The men who wrote these words, and who endorsed them with their signatures had wealth and standing they put at risk with the declaration.  So, it seems unlikely they considered wealth as a key to the pursuit of happiness.  Rather, several scholars note a desire for the government to not control an individual’s life, without that individual having a voice in the decisions.  These three attributes, life, liberty, and the ability to attempt to be happy were, and are, considered natural rights or rights a government can’t (or shouldn’t) attempt to control.

In 1943, Abraham Maslow, a noted American Psychologist, wrote a thesis on what motivates people.  His theory stratified human needs into an escalating series beginning with the most basic of survival needs going up to self-actualization. While the hierarchy deals with human motivation, we can presume it also speaks to the pursuit of happiness, for if you are concerned with where your next meal is coming from, you cannot reasonably pursue your dream, can you?  The socialists among us would say that is absolutely true, yet we have case study after case study where those who ultimately achieved great success did precisely that. How many artists struggle to survive while painting, composing, writing, or in some way creating a masterpiece?  All without the government promising to maintain a standard of living or a minimum livable wage?

At the end of the day I, and others, come away with an understanding that happiness can only be defined by the individual.  What makes me happy is not what will make someone else happy.  The idea of happiness is an intrinsic condition to our species. Is the accumulation of wealth related to happiness? Perhaps for some, but I suspect the accumulation of wealth is a simple by-product of those driven to achieve something that others find ultimately desirable.

For example, is Bill Gates happy?  Let’s assume so.  Would he be happier if he had less wealth, or is he happy because of his wealth?  Or maybe, just maybe there some other reason? How did Gates become wealthy?  He pursued a strategy that made his software the most desired commodity in the dawning of the home computer age. In a time when the world transitioned from analog to digital, he was on the ground floor with a product that allowed that growth. Should the government demand Bill Gates forsake his wealth to pay for others who were not so driven or fortunate, or should Bill be allowed to use his wealth as he sees fit?  That is the question.

Did his pursuit of wealth lead to the loss of happiness for others, or did he bring thousands along with him?  Was his accumulation of extreme wealth mindless or was he driven by some other need?

But what about the “anti-Gates?”  Someone who lives in the inner city, someone who has dropped out of school, someone who can’t hold a job, perhaps is addicted to something, and just barely survives on the welfare of the state?  Is he happy? Should the government do more to improve his lot in life and would that make him happy?  What should the government do?  If happiness is an inner decision then how can the government with all its impersonal decision-making (where one size fits most), motivate this individual to pursue his happiness?

I come back to the basic phrase that started this “Money can’t buy you happiness.” My generation spent the entirety of its parenting years trying to buy happiness with its money.  We created trophies for everyone, we’ve told ourselves and our kids everyone is unique and worth admiration, we’ve tried to minimize the impacts of racism and discrimination while we pursued financial security for our senior years.  Our government told us “don’t worry you have social security,” so too many of us felt we should buy more than we could afford and are now looking at a bleak future.  We’ve passed those qualities on to your youngsters who now believe the government is responsible for making sure everyone achieves all the need levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, while men like Gates, Buffett, Musk, and Bezos are vilified for their extreme wealth and “white privilege.”

When does someone stop and ask, do we have too much government, and are all those supposed safety-net policies destroying the very things the poorest among us need to have the motivation to pursue their own definition of happiness and success? 

Saturday, February 13, 2021

Political Promises -- Who Cares

It is good to see a return to normalcy, new normalcy, or old politics, whichever you prefer.  A time when the President is not held to the promises he makes, a time when his every utterance is forgotten within moments of his making it, and the DNC, media, and media moguls can resume their love fests without concern for those “other guys” and the average citizen.

It seems like a lifetime ago when then-President (Elect) Biden was telling the media how important they were and how his administration wouldn’t put up with the abuse the Trump administration had leveled on them by calling them fake news and tweeting mean things about the people who were carrying the water for the DNC.

I seem to remember a promise by the soon to be President where anyone caught abusing the Press would be “Immediately fired.”  I’m pretty sure that was the promise.  Except was it really?  

Now there is a story (curtesy Ann Althouse and Legal Insurrection) about the Deputy Press Secretary TJ Ducklo who threatened to destroy a female reporter from Politico named Tara Palmeri for asking questions about his on-going affair with an Axios reporter named Alexi McCammond.  

TJ, for those keeping scores, is the same guy who went on Bret Baier’s show and accused him of being a Trump Campaign stooge when Baier had the gall to ask what Biden would have done differently about COVID if he were President.

This brings us to the present.  We have clearly returned to the traditional political age were “immediately fired” actually means “suspended for a week.”

Saturday, February 6, 2021

Evolution

Charles Darwin created quite a stir in the mid-nineteenth century with the publication of his thesis “On the Origin of Species” suggesting the evolution of the various animal species, including man, spring from common ancestry. His theory has been widely embraced by the scientific communities, and widely condemned by fundamentalist religions. As with most theories their proponents can point to examples of how this must be true, and the opposition -- examples to question its legitimacy. Let’s put those arguments aside and use the theory to talk only of the evolution of mankind.

How long has man (homo) been around? According to Wikipedia (so it must be true, right?), some form of man began roughly eight million years ago, give or take a few hundred millennia.  From those early days, we’ve evolved from our chimpanzee cousins into the fully evolved Homo Sapiens of today.  Or have we?  Have we really evolved?

The earliest recorded histories we find are paintings or etchings of the early survival of mankind.  Hunting, gathering, and religious festivals celebrating their survival.  It wasn’t until about 3,000 BCE (Before the Current Era)[1], that mankind sat down and decided we should have some simpler way to record what was going on.  

According to the worldwide web of all things, the Sumerians were the first to record their history, but some believe the hieroglyphics found in the tomb of Egypt’s Scorpion 1 (AKA Scorpion King or Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson) predate those early Sumerian writings by a few hundred years.

Somewhere along the way, we find the earliest history of war is dated back to about 9,000 BCE when the city of Jericho (in what is now called the West Bank between Israel and Jordan) was destroyed by people who coveted their modern mud huts.  So here we are some 11,000 years later still fighting over the same piece of parched earth.  We’ve certainly found new and more lethal ways to wage war and to kill each other for the power, and domination of our fellow man, but it doesn’t appear the inherently human qualities of greed, envy, lust, and jealousy have evolved very much in the last eleven millennium. So, tell me, how have we evolved?

Looking back on the ancient empires of Egypt, Babylon, Samaria, Greece, Rome China, and India, we see the evolution of man from simple creatures of survival to the various classes of poor and privileged.  The privileged had free time on their hands so they invented leisure where they could dabble in various arts like literature painting, theater, and sculpting.  They studied the heavens to find out the right time to have the unprivileged head out to the fields to plant and harvest, and of course, they convinced the unprivileged they were too important to not obey. Being a god came in handy in the early days of empires. The privileged were able to convince their followers of the destruction of the earth if they did not fall in line. Today we see the destruction of the earth is a mere decade (maybe two) away unless we fall in line and do what the privileged say.  Again, have we evolved?  If so, how?  Back then they had gods for everything and they could not be challenged or their whims questioned.  Now we have science, but like the gods, it cannot be questioned.

Finally, when our survival depended on our abilities and death was a constant companion, we mourned the loss of children stillborn, or children who died from decease, accidents, or violence.  Families grew and supported each other, Parents became grandparents and remained close to help as long as they could and then to be cared for by the younger generations as they became more dependent. Now we have a society that cries about the inequality of mankind but places their own elderly into remote nursing homes.  We have groups of people whose passion is to save the wildlife, but at the same time think nothing of helping someone destroy human life. We shut down our economy (and vilified the President for not acting however the left thought he should) over a virus that has taken over 400,000 lives, but think nothing of destroying 800,000 lives a year because the mother and father choose not to accept the responsibility of its creation. So how have our values for what makes us human evolved? 



[1] BCE is the currently fashionable term for what used to be BC (Before Christ) noting the greatest event in human history. 

Monday, February 1, 2021

A Black Life That Mattered

I saw a story on a Friend’s FB post and it gave me pause to consider the current social controversy over the BLM movement.  Sadly, we do such a poor job actually teaching our young history this is all too common.  We set curriculum by “Education Professionals” who serve up their own agenda, pushed upon teachers who then put their own bias into place, and at the end of the day, it seems, at least to me, much easier to teach what is wrong with history rather than what some truly remarkable individuals did to shape it. 

This link is the story of Eugene J. Bullard.  A person of color who escaped the racism of the United States to become a hero of France.  The link above paints a simple story of Mr. Bullard, but the story I saw on FaceBook was much more vibrant.  It was written by Will Stenberg.

 The Black Sparrow

Will Stenberg

“They called him the Black Sparrow, and from the beginning of his life, all he wanted to do was get to France. He was born in Georgia, his father a former slave from Haiti, his mother full-blooded Creek. He ran away while still a child, determined to fulfill his destiny.

He lived for a time with a group of English Romani, learning the art of horsemanship and working as a jockey. He kept traveling and working until he made his way to Norfolk, where he stowed away on a ship bound for Scotland. He wouldn't see America again for thirty years

In Glasgow he got work as a lookout for gambling operators, saving money until he had enough to get to England: one country closer to his goal. In Liverpool, he did hard labor until his muscles developed and he turned to box. He became part of a whole ex-pat community of Black boxers — some of the finest fighters in history — who had fled to Europe to find opportunities denied them in the States. Soon he was fighting regularly as a welterweight, racking up an impressive record, even fighting on the undercard of a few Jack Johnson bouts. His boxing career earned him a decent amount of money, and eventually took him to Paris, where he won his bout and promptly hopped off the tour.

He was home. 

Imagine, if you will, being a young, handsome Black/Creek man, son of a slave, escaped from the American South, newly arrived in Paris in the springtime with your own apartment and a pocketful of money. Then imagine it is 1914.

Fighting for France was a no-brainer. After all, in his heart at least, it was his country. He joined the French Foreign Legion, training to fight in the 3rd Marching Division alongside wealthy Ivy Leaguers, mariners, farmers, doctors, executives, refugees, cooks, and plenty of characters from all over the world running from undisclosed situations. These were Belgians, Italians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, a handful of Black Americans; Muslims, Catholics, Jews, and Protestants — the legendary rabble of the Legion.

Sent directly to the front along the Somme, he was thrust into a world of filthy, bloody trenches still filled with the body parts of the dead and the rancid smell of shit and blood as his unit experienced some of the worst losses of the war.  At the end of this stint, what was left of the 3rd was disbanded and he had only the briefest respite before he joined the 170th Cavalry and was sent straight to Verdun to participate in what would become one of the worst battles in the history of the human race.

Now a corporal, he led a machine-gun crew and again was front-and-center for the worst of the fighting, suffering first a shrapnel wound to the face that he simply fought through, then finally sidelined by a massive, nearly fatal wound to his thigh that finally sent him away from the front.  Decorated with the Croix de Guerre for his valor at Verdun — one of France’s highest military honors — he was well within his rights to find a desk job in the military. He had other ideas. He wanted to fly

Already viewed as a hero, he was able to pull the necessary strings to enter flight school and became the first Black American fighter pilot in history. He flew a SPAD VII C1 with a distinctive alteration to its appearance. Painted on the outside of the fuselage was a red heart with a dagger through it. Above the heart was his personal slogan, one he would later use for the title of his unpublished memoir: Tout Le Sang Qui Coule Est Rouge; roughly, in English: “All Blood Runs Red.”

He flew with honor and distinction until his career in the air came to an abrupt halt. The Americans had entered the war and the involvement of a certain Dr. Gros, a US Army Major with racist attitudes, led to the end of the Black Sparrow's career as a pilot. 

But the French continued to celebrate him. He ended this part of his military career with the Military Medal, Croix de Guerre, Volunteer Combat Cross, Medal for Military Wounded (twice), World War I Medal, Victory Medal, Voluntary Enlistment Medal, Battle of Verdun Medal, Battle of Somme Medal, and the American Volunteer with the French Army Medal.

And that is when his life got interesting.

The Great War over, he found himself in Paris in the 1920s at the onset of the Jazz Age. He got back in shape, took work as a sparring partner, and fought a few more times. But it wasn't sustainable with his injuries.

So he learned to play the drums and became a jazz musician. He gigged frequently, saved money, and ended up in a business partnership with a biracial American blues singer whose birth name was Ada Beatrice Queen Victoria Louis Virginia Smith — known as "Bricktop" for her red hair. Together, they opened the Le Grand Duc, and thus he became proprietor of the hippest nightclub in the hippest city during the birth of hip.

He got married around this time to a Frenchwoman named Marcelle and they had two daughters. For reasons that remained private, Marcelle ended up leaving him with their children, to whom he would remain devoted for the rest of his life, as we will see. But he had to balance the duties of being a single parent with Le Grand Duc — and later his other club, L’escradille, which was connected to a boxing gym so that patrons could party, then exercise, take a steam bath, get a massage, and start partying again

To name the personages that frequented his clubs is basically to list the greatest names in art and culture in the renaissance that was the 1920s. Langston Hughes was a busboy and dishwasher. Arthur Wilson — you may know him as "Sam" of Casablanca fame — was part of the house band. Charlie Chaplin was a favorite. Gloria Swanson. Fatty Arbuckle. The Prince of Wales. Staff would move tables when Fred and Adele Astaire came in to tear up the floor. Picasso would stop by, and Hemingway was there often enough that he wrote about it in "The Sun Also Rises." Josephine Baker could not be missed and even babysat for the Sparrow. F. Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda were frequent, notorious guests. Cole Porter would come in; he adored the way Bricktop interpreted his songs. When Louis Armstrong encamped in Paris, he and the Sparrow became close

But the good times couldn't last. In 1933, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. In France, the Deuxième Bureau was created as a counter-intelligence service, and the Sparrow was recruited to work with the beautiful Alsatian spy, Cleopatra "Kitty" Terrier, whose father's murder by Germans in the disputed border region had instilled in her a lifelong hatred of German expansionism.

Kitty and the Sparrow worked as a team at the club. He would serve tables and play dumb, exploiting German prejudices that would never suspect he was fluent in German. She would flirt her way into privileged information. It was a highly successful (and probably romantic) pairing, but with rationing, blackouts, and other wartime austerity measures, keeping businesses running became harder and harder.

He tried. He procured a wagon and would visit markets at the end of the day for discounted goods, throw them in a stew at the club. Come evening he would feed everyone for free, plus a free glass of wine per person and a pack of cigarettes per table. He tried. But of course, things got worse.

He pulled his daughters out of their convent school to keep them close. Closed the club. Many were fleeing as the Nazis came storming through Belgium. He wouldn't run. He continued to work with Kitty in the Resistance until 1940 when the Nazis marched down Champs-Élysées and through L'arc de Triomphe.

Tens of thousands fled the city only to be bombed from the skies. He left his daughters in the care of Kitty, who promised to do what was necessary to keep them safe, packed his gear, and headed for the frontlines, determined, despite his age and multiple injuries, to find his old unit and rejoin the Legion. When he arrived, it was only to find that his unit had been destroyed. Returning to Paris, he couldn't enter; it had been completely overrun.

But he heard rumors that the French 51st was holding out at Orléans. He started off on foot. The roads were full of starved, half-mad refugees. Bombings were frequent. When he got there he discovered that his lieutenant from the last war was the commander of the 51st, and, in what must have felt like the world's worst case of déjà vu, he was once again in charge of a machine-gun crew, fighting the Germans. He fought with his usual bravery. But it was a hopeless last stand. A shell that killed 11 men threw him forty feet and cracked a vertebra.

His fighting days were over. Using his rifle as a crutch, he struck out for a military hospital in Angoulême, trying to stay out of sight.  But there was little they could do for him there: painkillers, some bandages, and a few cans of sardines with a suggestion to head for Bordeaux and into Spain which, although Fascist, had maintained official neutrality, and was tacitly allowing Allied rescue efforts on Spanish soil.

He made it, somehow, received his first passport, and was put on a Navy ship to finally return to the United States he had fled decades before.

Life in Manhattan wasn't easy. He had to start from scratch. He worked odd jobs — longshoreman, salesman of French perfume. Through a contact in the State Department, he was able to get in touch with Kitty, who was true to her word: his daughters were safe. They came to the States without a word of English between them and moved in with their beloved father in Spanish Harlem.

He became involved in Free French groups, working to support General de Gaulle, head of the Free French government in exile, and was also filmed getting beaten by police as part of a human chain to protect Paul Robeson when his concert was disrupted by white supremacists. Times were tight but he was doing okay. His old friend Louis Armstrong came to help, hiring him as a tour manager and occasional drummer. He even tried to recover his club and gym in Paris, but the postwar situation was hopelessly complicated and he had to give up.

In 1959, via the French Embassy in New York City, he was made a chevalier (knight) of France. He said at the ceremony, "My services to France could never repay all I owe her.”

Working at the time as an elevator operator at 10 Rockefeller Plaza, he was wearing his medal on his work uniform when Dave Garroway, the host of The Tonight Show, asked him about it. Naturally amazed by what he heard, Garroway saw that this elegant elevator operator got the day off of work so he could come to his office for an interview

It took a week to confirm facts. They all checked out: the elevator man at 10 Rockefeller Plaza was the first Black American fighter pilot in history — and a lot more.

He appeared on The Today Show, which led to a slew of other appearances and speaking engagements. At least in parts of America, he became a celebrated figure, his heroism recognized. 

During his one return visit to Georgia, though, things were not so bright. His family has been scattered. One brother had been lynched by squatters when he'd tried to recover ancestral Creek land.

He never returned to the South, living out the rest of his life in New York City. But there was one final honor.

In 1960, General Charles de Gaulle, leader of Free France, came to visit Eisenhower. A million people greeted him in the streets when he arrived in New York. Hundreds of children sang "La Marseillaise." He gave speeches at City Hall and the Waldorf Astoria, then went where he truly belonged, to the Seventh Regiment Armory. Five thousand French were there. And the Sparrow. His presence had been requested

After de Gaulle's speech, he looked into the crowd as though searching for a friend. The thousands gathered, and assembled press may have wondered what was going on as the general left the podium and headed into the sea of faces to find a lone Black man, his chest gleaming with medals.

The man stood at attention and saluted. De Gaulle returned the salute.

Then the general stuck out his hand and, when it was received, pulled the old soldier into a massive hug

"All our country is in your debt," he said. 

Crying, the man whose journey began as a stowaway, bound for an uncertain future, sure only that he belonged in France, could only respond, "Merci, mon general. Merci beaucoup."

Not long after, he entered the hospital with stomach pains. He'd been ignoring them, but the insistence of his daughters finally prevailed.

The cancer was advanced. He turned 66 on October 9, 1961, and died on the 12th

The woman who had been helping him with his memoirs visited him on the day he died. She was crying at the bedside where he lay, seemingly lost to the world he was leaving. Hearing her sobs, his consciousness returned from wherever it had been.

He pulled the tube out of his mouth. He had something he wanted to say to her.

The old horseman, boxer, soldier, pilot, spy, club-owner, musician, and father turned to his friend and smiled. ‘Don't fret, honey,’ he said. ‘It's easy.’

His name was Eugene Bullard --They called him the Black Sparrow.”

I find it sad a modern organization that claims Black Lives Matter chooses to represent itself with people whose lives are on the margin through their choices.  Of course, in these days of rationalization, it is never the individual choice that caused the marginalization it was some societal ill.  Yet, we have example after example of people of color who made remarkable differences to the lives of thousand when the racism of America was far worse than today and those names are allowed to be buried under the ruble of protest.

We are entering into the sixth decade of the Great Society, where the government has implemented program after program to make life better for the poor.  Yet no one is willing to actually talk about the destruction of the African-American communities as their families are destroyed, their role models shifted from men like Eugene Bullard to the leaders of gangs and cartels, and children are murdered on the streets by the violence that has become their lives.

Just a thought, but maybe the best intentions of a government whose moral values center on individual wealth and power isn’t the answer.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...