Soldiers Without Swords

The Black Press: Soldiers Without Swords is a documentary about the virtual invisibility of African American media and their struggle to get their voices heard. When slavery was abolished, blacks in American had to viciously fight to maintain in society. Life was arguably more grueling as a freedman, especially in the South; there were no means to employment, no wealth distribution, nobody teaching them how to survive, and blitzkriegs for frivolous lawbreaking to remove them from society (the law was essentially a tool for exclusion and expulsion). It was kind of like legally permitting 10-year-olds to drive, discontinuing driver’s education, and then arresting them for turning right on red. With such strong oppression, the black population fought a tough battle to keep their culture alive.

The sheer wonder that media possesses is beyond underrated, but The Black Press is really mind opening. Using a newspaper as a tool to transport ideas, dignity, hope, inspiration is beyond extraordinary and marvelous. It told people how to get jobs, how to get housing, how to manage in the jungle, that no one should stand for the heinous treatment from white people. There was a chance to comeback to the obscenely offensive cartoons and articles in the white papers and a chance to leave a legacy worthy of their respect.

The revolutionized means of communication gave a voice to the profound intellect that was formerly oppressed in the black community. Knowledge otherwise ignored of black history (like how the entire genealogy of the human race has black origins) was surfaced; new scholars now had a medium to talk and teach. The diversity of opinion was a substantial advancement for the growth of not only blacks, but also America as a whole. Without the new range of opinions, Americans were smothered with only one (delusional and senseless) vantage point.

One of the surprising things of The Black Press was the origin of the “Double V” movement. I had recognized it as a Dick Nixon trademark, but had no idea it started in the black media during World War II. As WWII surfaced, America scrambled to recruit as many soldiers as possible, and they didn’t see a chance of winning without the involvement of African-Americans. Under this sudden desperation for compliance, the Double V campaign emerged and exposed the extreme injustice being called for. The Double V’s represented the fight for domestic victory at home, not just overseas- calling for a victory against racism. Why should one risk their life for a country that doesn’t acknowledge their human rights and maintains a conviction of hypocrisy? Why would one fight to better a country that has no intention on bettering their living conditions? This movement encompassed every valid reason for blacks to fight for citizenship at home if they were expected to give their lives for America’s victory.

Even with every valid reason, every logical rebuttal, white America will refute motives that appear undermining. The black media had to proceed with caution, otherwise risk claims of sedition, or behavior deemed with the intent to overthrow established order. The lines of sedition are blurry, akin to the Espionage Act, but the purpose was to outlaw statements during war that were "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive … about the form of government of the United States." Being cautious wasn’t enough for the black media, as their papers got banned from military circulation because the army felt it was dangerous.

The story behind the black press of America is one of heroism and inspiration. In conditions that were dominated by whites and egregious prejudice, the black press persevered with exceeding courage, honor, valor and distinction, fighting a battle that diligently persists today. We can acknowledge this history and regard it as admirable, but to continue as though it doesn’t apply to today is neglecting the bigger principle, and therefore rendering it useless.

Visibility Does Not Translate Into Equality

Hide your wife, hide your kids… cause there are black people rapin’ everyone out there, while selling your kids crack. According to most media outlets, especially local news, white people are victims to violent crimes, drug dealers and backdoor “reparations” for slavery of black people. Loving mothers will desperately warn their grown children to be careful before wandering into the labyrinth of terror, otherwise called Dallas, alone. It’s no obstacle to find danger lurking in the corners of inner cities in news, but how many know about the CIA-crack-connection in the 80’s? Is it possible that this disproportion coverage represents reality and minorities have this embedded anger that white people are innocent of? Are non-whites simply more prone to crime? Rational thinking, personal experience with the angriest white people, the fact neither you nor I have probably never met someone that’s been attacked by a black person lead me to believe no.

News stations have standards for what makes a crime story “newsworthy.” Feature crimes are usually audacious, vicious, or unusual in some way. If the crime is an immediate threat, then it is considered newsworthy. Other than that ambiguity, newsworthy standards fluctuate between stations and intuitions of reporters. But this “intuition” I speak of invites slanting biases opposing minorities, for the most part. Our mainstream news is more compromised than ever. Floods of stories that seem objectively newsworthy are ignored all the time, for reasons that are open to speculation. The ratio of black criminal coverage to white criminal coverage is 3:1, even though statistics say they commit about ¼ of national crime and only represent 13% of the population (back to rational thinking). And when white criminals are shown, their race is used as an ironic juxtaposition to emphasize how surprising it is that educated white people misbehave. Like in this case, where a suspect involved with child pornography is "not under criminal investigation and police are just concerned for his welfare." This disproportion leads to severe public opinion perversion, whether they’re maximizing people’s failures or ignoring their existence. Mass media is the largest player in public opinion and racial progress because of the amount of people they reach and subtly persuade.

Well-meaning people might question the motive behind racial typecasting and argue that news only broadcasts what is happening. Unfortunately, the news is highly perpetuated by lobby groups and corporations with economic affiliations that have redefined conflict of interest. Politics have their own agenda to set and use the news to reach their audience. White people with power have an unspoken fear of losing what privilege comes with being white; and make no mistake; there is definitely still a gap between white and non-white privileges. Stated bluntly- while we abolished a formal apartheid system, there still remains a white-supremacist dynamic. Race is a tried-and-true tool to wedge a divide between people that would otherwise unite and challenge elites. “Political language," wrote George Orwell in 1946, "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

These points may seem cynical to sweet idealists that have been target to covert manipulation, but these tactics are hardly original. A little research will dig up plenty of examples in history where media is used flagrantly to oppress non-whites. By no means does this come from some arrogant high ground, rather another person stuck in the same dynamic fighting to get out.