ULISH CARTER

In the new movie “42” about Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in Major League Baseball Wendell Smith is the fourth most important character in the movie behind Branch Rickey, (Harrison Ford), and Jackie and Rachel Robinson, (Chadwick Boseman and Nicole Beharie).  
The movie opens with Smith, played by Andre Holland, telling the story.
Smith was sent by the Courier to cover Robinson’s effort to integrate Major League Baseball and becomes the Robinsons’ chauffer, finds places for them to stay and becomes their best friend while covering his year in the minor leagues as well as his first in the Majors.
Even though there has been to my knowledge two other movies made about Jackie Robinson, this is the first to include Smith who led the crusade to get Major League Baseball integrated. Well, it really wasn’t just Smith, it was the Courier led by Bill Nunn Sr.  
After World War II ended the Double V campaign had to be revised by the Pittsburgh Courier, then the largest Black newspaper in the country. With victory overseas, and the military being integrated half the battle had been won, but the battle at home for equal rights was far from ended. Thus the Courier behind the leadership of Bill Nunn Sr., the managing editor, and a big time sports fan himself having been one of the greatest athletes to come out of Westinghouse, launched yet another battle, this one was to integrate major league sports. And since Major League Baseball was the biggest sport in this country at the time, this is what they targeted, with a weekly campaign by the entire sports staff as well as editorials demanding the Major Leagues accept Blacks into the league with the argument that Blacks were just as good as athletes and just as intelligent as Whites. This campaign was one of many the Courier launched to break down the walls of inequality and segregation. Leading the fight on the Sports front was Courier sports writer Smith and others on the staff. Also joining the fight was the Chicago Defender, which was the second largest Black paper of that time. But not only did they write in the papers they sent letters to all the owners and General Managers including Branch Rickey urging them to do the right thing, accept Blacks into the league, explaining to them how it would benefit their teams financially as well as in the win column. But it fell on deaf ears until Rickey finally decided to give it a shot in 1946.
The Courier sent Smith out to follow Robinson wherever he went. This was the story of the century, the biggest break through for Negroes since the Civil War if it happened.  Smith stuck to Robinson like glue, and many don’t believe Robinson could have made it if not for Smith, who made sure the Robinsons’ were housed in every city he traveled including Montreal where he spent his first year in White professional ball.
Smith also became a trailblazer by becoming the first Negro to get a seat in the Major League Press Box. Before this event Blacks had to sit out in the stands with their typewriters.
Even though Rickey was the man who made the final decision to accept Blacks into the Majors, and Robinson was the player who accomplished this great feat, it was the Courier behind the leadership of Nunn Sr., with the backing of Publisher Jesse Vann, who initiated the whole campaign to keep pressure on the Majors, and make everyone aware of the great Black baseball players, and why they were just as good as the White players. And why the Negro should not and would not accept anything but equal opportunity.
Meet the Press had Rachel Robinson and movie historian Ken Burns, who is working on a biography of Jackie Robinson, on the program. Burns called Robinson one of the greatest heroes of history and I totally agree with him. And I also agree with him that Robinson’s accomplishment was the greatest achievement for Blacks since, he said the Civil War, but I say since the Emancipation Proclamation, because the Civil War really wasn’t fought to free the slaves. Rachel said she was very pleased and thrilled with the movie but wondered out loud what took Hollywood so long. I’m still wondering why Oprah Winfrey, Tyler Perry, Spike Lee or some of those rich Black baseball players didn’t put up the money for the movie years ago.
She said hopefully young people, Black and White, would go out to see it and be inspired to lead more productive lives.
I agree with her also on how disappointing it is that so many young people don’t know about Robinson, and what he did to open the doors for them? I’m talking about young athletes as well. Especially when I hear them thanking Michael Jordan. That is one of the reasons there’s still a long way to go when it comes to Blacks getting a total piece of the sports or corporate pie.  Managers, coaches and management is still nowhere near what it should be and the number of Black American born players are rapidly dropping, despite the fact that baseball players are the highest paid players of any sport, and with the longest life expectancy which means they make more longer.
If you haven’t seen it go out and watch it. Take your kids. It doesn’t matter how old they are. It brought tears to my eyes, it made me mad, it made me happy, it made me laugh. What more could you ask from a movie.
I strongly feel it should be required of all Public Schools, and other students to watch this movie to know something of our history.
(Ulish Carter is the managing editor of the New Pittsburgh Courier.)

by Lee A. Daniels

(NNPA)—You could say “42,” the film about the life of Brooklyn Dodgers great Jackie Robinson, is a gripping baseball tale, and your assessment would be correct—but woefully incomplete.
“42” is not just a baseball story. It’s a compelling history lesson as well. It tells the story of not just baseball, but of a central facet of 20th Century American life—the suffocating reach of racism—in the decades before the 1960s.
It conveys the grievous wrong Black Americans endured and signals what it cost them, and America as a whole. And it indicates how the barrier of racism was cracked by Blacks and Whites who worked—many over the course of decades—to destroy it.
“42” reminds us, as the Major League’s season gets underway, that, given its mythic status in American life, baseball’s s most important milestone had nothing to do with the mechanics of playing the game or a particular game that was played but with cleansing the moral center of American democracy itself. It recounts once again in popular form the story of a man whose life proved that history sometimes acts through individuals and individuals can act to influence history.
“42” tells a story that never gets old; for it’s rooted in the saga of an America that once was, and then began to change sharply—a change which has yielded enormous benefits but which also remains both incomplete and resisted.
Jack Roosevelt Robinson, born in 1919, grew up in an America where the words “Too bad he’s the wrong color” were often the kindest remarks White Americans would say about Black Americans.
A Boston Red Sox scout said them in April 1945 during the now-infamous sham tryout at which that storied team passed on signing the future Hall of Famer despite his impressing Sox officials with his hitting and fielding. (A few years later, the Sox would also pass on signing Willie Mays. They would be the last team in baseball to add—in 1959—a Black player to their roster.)
Of course, the scout was wrong. As would become evident two years later, beginning on April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson was the right color, and of the right character, after all, to help ratchet up the pressure that had been building for decades among Black Americans in the North and South to confront the country’s great sin. To repeat, that wrong wasn’t merely Blacks’ 50-year exclusion from the playing fields of Major League Baseball.
Even as White America was boasting that its victory over Germany and Japan in World War II had made the world “safe” for democracy, Black Americans could see in every sector of American society—higher education, the movie industry, the civil service, residential housing, the military, large corporations and small businesses alike, the labor unions, collegiate and professional sports, and so on—that bigotry, not democracy, was triumphant.
The South’s apartheid system had its explicit “Whites Only” and “No Colored Allowed” signs. But, although the signs were absent, the same noxious sentiments existed almost everywhere in the North and West, from Boston to Pasadena, Calif., where the Georgia-born Robinson grew up.
In the immediate postwar environment, Robinson’s signing by the Branch Rickey-led Dodgers was the thunderclap that heralded the massing of new forces in the domestic fight to make America itself safe for democracy.
By then, Black Americans had the diverse organizational strength at the national and local levels to field multiple challenges to racism. By then, a still very small but growing number of White organizations—and individuals like Branch Rickey—were actively looking for ways to break the numerous “color barriers” that characterized American society. And by then, America’s position of global leadership was beginning to exert pressure on it to live up to its boasts about loving freedom by extending it to Black Americans, too. It was no accident of history that within a year of Robinson’s breaking baseball’s color barrier, President Truman ordered the desegregation of America’s other signal mythic institution—the military.
Jackie Robinson’s story was but one facet of the diamond of Black determination that in the 20 years after World War II would dismantle the legalized structure of racism. But he—an extraordinarily-gifted, fiercely-competitive athlete who possessed a deeply spiritual, disciplined character—was superbly suited for the challenge he, and America, confronted.
The wrong color? Not on your life.
(Lee A. Daniels is a longtime journalist based in New York City. His most recent book is “Last Chance: The Political Threat to Black America.” He collaborated with Rachel Robinson on her 1998 book, “Jackie Robinson: An Intimate Portrait.”)

LOUIS 'HOP' KENDRICK

On an ongoing basis, the conversation between Black and White folks is about Black leaders. Who are these alleged persons that are labeled Black leaders and what constitutes them as Black leaders? Are they truly Black leaders or generic? Black leaders are generally elected, appointed, self-anointed, sports figures, entertainers, rich, preachers, and successful businesspersons. It is amazing how often the drug dealers are thought to be alleged responsible Black businesspersons.
If a Black individual is elected to public office is that person a leader for those who voted for them or are they a leader for all constituents in their district? When a Black person is appointed to a position in government—generally by a White politician—does that make them a leader or just an appointee who answers to his employer? When a Black male or female forms a 501c3 and is fortunate to receive a grant are they leaders or self-anointed leaders? Sports figures and entertainers may be a leader in their profession, but that definitely does not make them a leader. Are those men and women, who are in charge of religious organizations of every faith automatically considered to be leaders? I don’t think so. There are Black men and women, who were endowed with entrepreneurial spirit and have done extremely well financially, but that does not automatically qualify them as Black leaders.
I am a strong proponent of Black leadership, because they demonstrate their commitment by their concern for the communities—us and not for themselves.
It is impossible to list all of those men and women during my life who have earned the mantle of Black leadership, so I will limit it to those who are living.
Alma “Speed Fox,” is a true champion for people’s rights Black, White, males and females.
William “Bill” Robinson, dean of Black politicians. Bill Robinson’s political defeat was partially his fault, because he made the mistake of believing that the voters would remember what he had done as a legislator, and he did not campaign in the custom he had done in prior races. Bill’s defeat primarily was the result of his releasing a report card that graded the Democratic Party on their absolute failure to hire over 2 percent Blacks to work on the two stadiums being built at the same time on the North Side. Pennsylvania Representative William “Bill” Robinson gave the Democratic Party a Red “E” complete failure. The Democratic leaders from Harrisburg, Allegheny County and the city of Pittsburgh issued orders that Bill Robinson must be defeated, and those colored politicians in the legislative district responded to old Massa.
Herman Reid, former CEO of NEED, dedicated his life to helping our youths further their college education.
Irvin Williams, born and raised on the Hill District, had a burning desire to help restore the Hill District. He and his wife founded Ebony Development and they accomplished something that had never been done nor duplicated. They built from the ground up two office buildings at 1801 and 1901 Center Ave. Both buildings were named appropriately 1801 Williams Center and 1901 One Hope Center. These are just four of an untold number of examples of proven Black leadership.
Please remember that Kingsley Association could use your financial assistance. It is another example of Black leadership. Originally it was a dream of some others, but it became a reality under the guidance of the Black leadership of the current executive director Malik Bankston.
(Louis “Hop” Kendrick is a weekly contributor to the Forum Page.)

BILL FLETCHER JR.

(NNPA)—Sequestration is like the sand in an hour glass. When the sand starts falling, it does not seem to amount to much. The full section of the hour glass seems not to change, at least at first. Yet at a certain moment it becomes clear that the sand is disappearing and that what was once full is now approaching empty.
When sequestration began, it began with a whimper. Discussions took place for months about the dangers of sequestration. We were led to believe that it was not very likely that it would actually happen because, after all, neither side really wanted to court such a potential disaster. We were wrong on a number of counts.
The first danger that we have to acknowledge is that sequestration actually is to the advantage of the Republicans. They are the ones looking for cuts. Yes, some of them are complaining about this or that cut, but the reality is that they are seeking cuts. In that sense, they can live with sequestration, or at least they think that they can. There is, as a result, no pressure on their side to end this.
The second danger is precisely the hour glass problem. In the beginning, there seemed to be little damage. Federal workers, of course, were upset, but many people are prepared to write off federal workers. In fact, too many people have thought about sequestration as punishing federal workers for any number of alleged evils. So, large segments of the public have been willing to let it happen.
The third danger is that no one seems to have a clear sense as to how to arrive at a budget that would actually end sequestration. That is the punch line: there are vastly different views on what government should look like and what it should fund.
Yet, with sequestration some strange things started to happen. An excellent example has been the closing of airport control towers around the country. In one story from the Midwest, pro-sequestration citizens were shocked to discover that sequestration meant that the airport control tower in their home town was going to be shuttered. Ooops! Was that supposed to happen?
Sequestration, as with other austerity measures, is a response to an imaginary crisis. The notion that the main problem facing the U.S.A. is debt is irrational. The main challenge is job creation and income. With job creation and income one gains tax revenue. Continuous cutting means fewer people on the payrolls and deeper levels of debt and poverty. One does not need to be an economist to see that reality.
Sequestration and other austerity plans are aimed at strangling the government and forcing an end to various programs that have been won over the last century. This is precisely what is meant when the right-wing suggests that it wants to return government to the size that it was under President McKinley (1898), i.e., to return government to the size that it was prior to regulations to protect our food, prior to unemployment insurance, prior to programs for the homeless, etc.
While many people have watched and yawned as sequestration has unfolded, the reality is that the sand is dropping faster and faster, and soon enough we will all find that we have been touched by further unnecessary, and frankly immoral, cuts.
(Bill Fletcher Jr. is a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forums. Follow him at www.billfletcherjr.com.)