Why do black folks love the Kennedys? Does a white liberal agenda = a black freedom agenda?

My take? Edward (Ted) Kennedy's legacy as a civil rights advocate and champion of black American aspirations is largely mythic--a ball of confusion.

Why, you might wonder, a "ball of confusion"? Good question.


Recently, I had a conversation with an elder that went sumthin' like this...

elder: So you are back in Boston? Just in time for Ted Kennedy's funeral.

kzs: Yes. I am back in Boston.

elder: You know I was sick with grief when I heard of Ted Kennedy's passing. I could not stop crying. We have lost our last great fighter for Civil Rights. Maybe one of the younger Kennedys will take up the slack.

Out of respect and love for my elder I didn't challenge her statement. She needed to mourn. But for the sake of clarity I think it is important that the record on the Kennedys' role in the black freedom struggle is set straight. We (black people) cannot go forward if we are confused about where we are and where we have been. Yah dig??

The Kennedys, and white liberals generally, have been playing bait-and-switch with black American aspirations. Virulent white racist attacks on the Black Freedom Movement of the  60's forced John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy to champion black struggle; they did so only reluctantly and for geopolitical ends. JFK's direct intervention leading to Martin Luther King's release from a Birmingham, Alabama prison bolstered the Kennedys' reputation as white liberators in the eyes of many black Americans. But the image was strategic--both domestically and geopolitically. Federal inaction in the South threatened to push along a regional or even a national racial implosion. And on the international front, inaction might tarnish America's (false) reputation as democratic leaders of the so-called free world.

Malcolm X alerted us to the fact that John F. Kennedy bought off the "Big Six" leaders of the March on Washington (he also said that the JFK crew hand-picked some of "our" (mis)leaders). Here is Malcolm X in his own words breaking down how the Kennedys colluded to undermine the March on Washington.

When the late President saw that he couldn’t stop the march, he joined; he endorsed it; he welcomed it; he became a part of it; and it was he who put the six Negro civil rights leaders at the head of it. It was he who made them the Big Six.How did he do it? How did he gain control of the March on Washington? A study of his shrewd strategy will give you a glimpse of the political genius with which the Kennedy family was ruling this country from the White House, and how they used the America Negro in all of their schemes. The late President endorsed the march; that should have been the tip-off. A few days later in New York City, at the Carlysle Hotel, a philanthropic society known as the Taconic Foundation, headed by a shrewd white liberal named Stephen Currier, called a meeting of the six civil rights leaders in an effort to bring unity of action and purpose among all the civil rights groups.

How much does it cost to pimp a movement? Malcolm X observes that:

According to the August 4 edition of The New York Times, $800,000 was split up between these six Negro civil rights leaders on June 19 at the Carlysle Hotel, and another $700,000 was promised to be given to them at a later date after the march was over, if everything went well with the march.

[Read Malcolm X's entire account here .When you get to the website, scroll down to the speech titled "God's Judgement of White America."]

Once the movement was co-pted pimped, Edward (Ted) Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a few other millionaire politicians magically became champions of Civil Rights (on white liberal terms rather than black freedom terms).

And, as Cobb notes (see below), why on God's earth do politicians need to remain in power for 20+ years?! Don't we criticize African leaders for clinging to power? Isn't that why "we" waged that revolution back in 1776 and did away with the Queen? Does the fact that U.S. senators (mostly old wealthy white men) are serially elected make it any less problematic? A 10+, 20+, 40+ year incumbent distorts the meaning, purpose and intent of constitutionality. And can anyone explain to me how a political dynasty bolsters American democracy? After Edward Kennedy's first Senate victory in 1962 a New York Times editorial (Sept. 19, 1962) rightly noted that,

“[T]his initial victory for Edward Kennedy is demeaning to the dignity of the Senate and the democratic process." (source: http://fairspin.org/author/3278 via Jared Ball)

Amen.

Some of these guys are wheeled in on their death beds to vote.

Two words. TERM LIMITS!

Our system is a sham. It is utterly ridiculous and often criminal what America does under the cloak of "democracy" and "freedom." Indeed, our democracy is a hypocrisy as baba Malcolm X observed.

The Verdict: We have been bamboozled. Ted Kennedy's stature among African Americans is overblown. He only jumped on the Civil Rights bandwagon after his brothers had hijacked the freedom wagon and stole the wheels.

By the way: As it turns out I am not the only black Kennedy skeptic on the planet. A popular blogger who goes by the handle "Cobb" recently posted this:

Edward Kennedy: Dead

Once again, here is a man whose accomplishments seem to me to have been entirely vague. I have to say that he's one of those old farts who needed to be out of power a long time ago, then again, who are we to point out the brain death of Massachusetts?

That leaves Arlen Spector and a host of others, 29 to be precise, who have been in the Senate for more than 20 years. Just yike. Are we supposed to have a permanent constituency of no-ops? Is that what this political phlegm is all about?

Meh. I can't say anything nice. I may as well shutup.

http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2009/08/edward-kennedy-dead.html

tags: ball of confusion, big six, civil rights, Edward Kennedy, liberal, lyndon johnson, march on washington, shell game, ted kennedy, term limits, the kennedy myth