Black or African-American? Does it really matter?

A few weeks ago, an article written by Associated Press writer Jessie Washington drew much attention on the web, generated many comments, and was even posted on several different news websites. The article was concerned with a preference in race designation “Black or African-American” and was entitled “Some Blacks Insist ‘I'm Not African-American.’” This is something that I, a Haitian-American Christian minister, have given little thought to prior to engaging in the discussion after my publicist Stacy had arranged three radio interviews in which the theme was: “Which do you prefer: Black or African-American?” At first, I thought of asking Stacy to attempt to find me a different issue to discuss if possible, for the simple reason that I felt unprepared and so poorly informed to engage in such a topic. However, when I learned that one of my interviewers was going to be Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, a giant in the area of race relations – the very subject of interest to me and the object of my novel Martin’s Dream - Journey Onto the Promised Land, I reconsidered and did my best to prepare rather to decline. It proved to be a wiser choice as my knowledge and my understanding grew so much more through the experience of listening to other people’s sentiments about the matter. For one part, I realized how little aware I was of the magnitude of an issue this was to so many Americans who share an African ancestry. As I was a guest on “The Daily Drum,” a radio show that was hosted by Molette G. sitting for Harold Fisher on that day, many listeners called and expressed their preference for one or the other in a way that conveyed to me their strong affirmation for either one they chose. Some felt that being designated “African-American” was important to them because, historically, Americans of African descent were oppressed and disallowed a dignified identity. The appellation “Black” was abhorrent to many because of its evil undertones: black cat, black sheep, black flag, Black Death, etc. Others believed that “black” is merely a color, and, as such, it does not do justice to the variety of hues that are shared by Americans of African descent. Keisha, a young woman, felt that “black is beautiful,” as did Malone who had strong recollection of the civil rights movement days and took pride in “embracing who he is without being ashamed.” I must admit in passing that I was guilty of emotional anachronism: I was feeling for the present what others were expressing about a past wrought with evil deeds of dehumanization, degradation and disdain, which I dubbed the 3-d of the reality of Americans of African descent. Although I was mentally and intellectually aware of the oppressive life Americans of African descent endured in the antebellum south and under Jim Crow laws, I was not making the emotional connection that would have helped me to empathize with the plight of my fellow countrymen who must have carried in their heart a trans-generational pain reinforced by contemporary occurrences of perceived or real racism. Perhaps these people have adopted either one of those two labels, compelled to by an amalgamated emotional driving force that anchors their identity ship in an attempt to stop themselves and others from constantly navigating the raging sea of self-individualization and self-worth. After I heard the listeners expound passionately on the reasons for their choice of designation, whether “Black” or “African-American,” something strange began happening in me: I was having a heart connection with those who endorsed either label as I never had before. I did not know their faces; neither did I know much about them other than their words that reached me through the wonders of telephone technology as I sat at my desk. Nonetheless, it occurred to me at that very moment that I, like most others, had been profoundly unaware of and oblivious to, despite my pastoral counseling training, how the complexity of the human being and human relations was at play in the intense desire to be validated for one’s choice of racial designation. I probably owe you, reader, an explanation of my 3-d theory before I delve further into my point. First, Americans of African descent were considered less than human in a process of dehumanization through slavery. Then evil downgraded as race relations “progressed,” and Americans of African descent became merely second-class citizens in a process of degradation emphasized by segregation. Years after the civil rights movement, evil has become less subtle as the disdain that lay dormant during the antebellum and the Jim Crow eras is reaching its fullness in our days: Blacks or Africans-Americans can be anything they want, as long as they leave the majority alone and they learn to pull themselves by their own bootstraps – an alarming tendency that could culminate in race warfare with a vengeance. The disdain is palpable in the majority not appearing to be concerned about what happens to Americans of African ancestry. Like their counterparts of former times, their dilemma on how to address the “black” problem lingers. Therefore, this debate on how best to designate that minority race is bound to elucidate the next course of action for improvement in the relationship of American citizens of both European and African descents. Many people act as though time has indubitably acted as the great healer that should have vanquished the painful experiences, or at least their memories, from the psyche of the sufferers, but as Dr. King remarked in his Letter from Birmingham jail, “time is neutral.” It is not time itself that heals, but it is rather what you do in that time. If a wound is infected, and you leave it to time to heal it, the infection may worsen, and the wounded person is worse off after time has passed. However, if you clean the wound, excise the diseased part, dress the wounded area properly and take good care of it, then it will likely heal as time passes, and the wounded person’s lot will improve. Some people do feel strongly about either term, “Black” or “African-American,” because they are still trying to work through painful issues of a dreadful past. The radio interchanges have brought closer to me evidence of the sad reality about race relations. They helped me realize that I was an involuntary victim of the third d – disdain – in the 3-d saga I alluded to earlier. Even in the desire I had to engage an alternate talking point, I was communicating disdain, unbeknownst. There is a certain disdain in the majority’s feelings of sensory overload when it comes to racial matters, as well as social or economic justice. There is disdain in the generations X and Y showing little interest in learning about and from the past. There is nationally a widespread disdain about morality, truth and God. This is far from being the legacy that Reverend King left us. This is not at all the unfinished business President Lincoln was urging Americans of all backgrounds to be dedicated to. A resurgence of the debate on racial identity may indicate the need to revisit our history and the reasons for our divisiveness as well as the craving for meaningful individual identities. While the dominant culture is pushing for uniformity through conformity erecting itself as the epitome of American culture, minorities continue to seek meaningful identities, encouraged by a transformative freedom sipping out from the vaults of hearts stubbornly fused with the past. The article by Jesse Washington cited a “series of Gallup polls from 1991 to 2007 [that] showed no strong consensus for either ‘black or African-American.’” The author paralleled it with “a January 2011 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll [in which] 42 percent of respondents said they preferred black, 35 percent said African-American, 13 percent said it doesn't make any difference, and 7 percent chose ‘some other term.’” For fear of having to compare apples with oranges, I verified the author’s information, and, sure enough, both sets of surveys clearly delineated a discernible downward pattern in the number of people of African heritage to whom it did not make any difference or who had no opinion, from 1992 to the most recent survey to date. This underlines the fact that more Americans of African descent seem to want to adopt either designation of “Black” or “African-American” rather than none at all. In other words, more and more Americans of African lineage are tired of running around in the wilderness, and they want to come home. They want to enter the promised land. They want to be Americans in America. The understanding of the problem may not necessarily solve the terminology issue, but it does get us closer to Dr. King’s promised land – a land in which blacks and whites can “sit together at the table of brotherhood” and where the prosperous do not have to despise the poor. The promised land is an outcome to be desired out of this conversation, for Dr. King’s speech on the eve of his assassination was more than a premonition of his death: it was a prophetic address. “I just want to do God's will,” King said. “And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land.” Upon reaching that promised land, Americans of African descent may either still or no longer have to reevaluate anew their racial designation. However, their reasons for choosing either will surely be different than those they give now. What keeps us from getting to the promised land is the fact that Dr. King’s legacy is not being properly identified. There is a confused sense of what that legacy is. In seeking the meaning of that legacy, many of us have resorted to making a dead man talk. The best way to know what a person wants is to let him or her express himself or herself uninhibitedly. A legacy, by definition, is what a person leaves behind after his death. In this view, Dr. King shared his legacy with us before he left this earth. Here is what he said in his last sermon that was replayed at his funeral at his wife’s request: “If any of you [is] around when I have to meet my day, I don't want a long fu¬ner¬al… And if you get some¬body to de¬liv-er the eu¬lo¬gy, tell him… to say that day that Mar¬tin Luther King Jr. tried to love some¬body… tried to give his life serv¬ing oth¬ers… to be right on the war question… to feed the hun¬gry… to clothe all the naked… to vis¬it those who were in prison… I tried to love and serve hu¬man¬i¬ty. Yes, Jesus, I want to be on your right or your left side… But I just want to be there in love and in justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world.” Dr. King’s legacy was one of walking alongside God to love and serve others. He was not just content to preach the word of God from the safety of a pulpit, but he walked the walk while talking the talk to the point of death. Dr. King overcame by the incomparable love he had in his heart for God and for humanity, and by “the word of the testimony of Jesus; and he did not love his own life unto the death.” As I analyze the possible and plausible reasons for the desire to be labeled correctly as an American of African descent, I have a strange feeling of being a third party looking in. However, when I incorporate Dr. King’s dream into the mix, the schism seems to dissipate and the chasm filled. I can identify with where he stands because he stood and was grounded in love, and love is the universal language of man and God. I find myself paradoxically respecting how anyone wants to be designated and at the same time wondering if it really matters after all. Eventually, Americans of all races and ethnicity will have to be cautious not to be distracted from the most important issues of our lives here on this earth, which is to love God and to love our fellow human beings, for ultimately it does not matter what I am called if the one calling me, calls me such in love. By Ronald Stimphil

What You Do Not Know About Love Can Kill You!

Did you know that God has a love affair with you? After Yahweh God sent Moses to deliver the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt and set them on their way to the Promised Land, He gave them as a commandment, to always remember how much He loves them. Here is how the word of God puts it: "Listen, Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One. Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. These words that I am giving you today are to be in your heart. Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them be a symbol on your forehead. Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." [HCSB Deuteronomy 6:4-9] That is why from the times of Moses until today, practicing Jews still wear a little box called a “phylactery” on their wrists and forehead, and they recite daily the above Scripture called the “Shema” (Shema means listen or hear in the Hebrew language). In Matthew 23:5, Jesus called the Pharisees “hypocrites,” because they would carry bigger phylacteries than the common people as a sign that they loved God more. The best known verse in the Bible is John 3:16, For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. [HCSB] John, who called himself at the end of his gospel “the disciple Jesus loved,” [John 21:20], understood that the love of God was central to the word of God specifically and to life in general, and that love was only demonstrated in God sending His Unique Son to reconcile mankind to Himself, for mankind had been separated from Him through sin. He reiterated that message in a letter he wrote to the Church, saying, “God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent His One and Only Son into the world so that we might live through Him.” [HCSB 1 John 4:9] Beloved, this love of God is serious business. Most of us live our daily lives not realizing what that love entails. There are a few key words in the above paragraph that must be explained in order for the meaning of God’s love to be clearer. They are: love, reconcile, separated, and sin. First, love is a powerful force of attraction between God and His Son. The only reason we have the ability to love is because the Creator of the universe put it in us (1 John 4:19). When God created mankind, he created them in His image, meaning that this love held us together with Him in a powerful bond that allowed us to continually be in God’s presence. However, the first couple’s (Adam and Eve’s) disobedience (sin) broke that bond, and death (spiritual and physical) came, threatening to separate us from God forever. It took an amazing act of love on the part of God in sending His Son to earth to break the power of sin, to reconcile us with Him. God made an enormous sacrifice in that He had to separate Himself from His One and Only Son, made of the same fabric as He, in order to reunite (reconcile) us with Him. However temporary that separation was, it hurt God. Furthermore, since breaking away from God is punishable by the ultimate penalty of eternal isolation for the simple fact that life is only found in a relationship with God, the Creator, God suffered even more, for His own Son had to take upon Himself the punishment that was duly reserved for mankind. The Bible is very clear about all this. When some of the angels, which are powerful creatures of God, rebelled led by Satan, God punished them by creating hell for them (Matthew 25:41), which is a place where souls will remain in eternal fire, away from God’s presence. Contrarily to popular belief, hell was created for them and NOT for mankind, but sadly, some people will choose to follow the devil there. Moreover, we read in the Bible that whenever people thought they had seen God, they were always afraid, because they thought they would die, because sinful man cannot withstand God’s presence (Exodus 20:19; Numbers 17:13; Judges 6:22,23). You see, beloved reader, Many people misunderstand God’s plan. They think that Christians worship a mean and capricious God who is constantly playing Gotcha! They also think that God lurks around waiting to catch people in their sins in order to send them to hell. That could not be further from the truth. On the contrary, God is patiently and actively seeking to save people (Deuteronomy 4:31; 2 Chronicles 30:9; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalms 78:38; 103:8; 145:8; Jonah 4:2; 2 Peter 3:9), and not hurt them as some would have people believe. Please do not misconstrue the truth I just shared to mean that God does not punish people. In His love, He does punish people. However, in His love also He does provide a way out of the punishment if we care to believe. John 3:16 tells us that “everyone who believes in Jesus will not perish, nor will be destroyed, but that person will have eternal life.” The requirement for all human beings not to be destroyed is to believe in what Jesus came to accomplish on this earth, which was to offer Himself as a sacrifice, because it takes a sacrifice to pay for the violence that was done to our original loving relationship with God, and it will also take an enormous sacrifice from God to fix things back up. There is no other choice for mankind but to accept Jesus and His sacrifice, for sin shall not enter the presence of God (Hebrews 12:14). If we say we have no sin, we become liars and therefore sin anyway, because all people are sinners (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10). There is absolutely no way around it. This is an incredible amount of information that I just shared with you right now. It is up to you to use it to your benefit. If you are still confused about your purpose on this earth, go to God in prayer, and ask Him to guide you. He promises not to cast away those who come to Him in repentance. Satan is looking for companionship on his way to hell. The apostle Peter calls him “a roaring lion seeking to devour who he can” (1 Peter 5:8). Pray that God may break any bond you have with Satan and protect you from his sharp-clawed paws. Look around you, or on TV, or on the internet, and notice what is happening in the world. You can trace every terrible event to an absence of love, a lack of love, or an inability to love. The family – the basic unit of society – is being destroyed, because husbands do not know how to love their wives, wives do know how to love their husbands, parents do not know how to love their children and vice versa. Love is a multi-billion-dollar business. The best songs are either romantic songs about love, or they are about hearts broken by love. Magazines and tabloids make billions following who is falling in or out love. Romantic movies are not about to get out of fashion as Gone With the Wind stills warms people’s heart every Christmas season. On the other hand, thefts are perpetrated because the thief has no love for his fellow man. Rapes are committed because the rapist hates his victims. Some employers exploit their employees because they do not care much for their welfare. Dictators mistreat their fellow countrymen because they do not care a bit about their wellbeing. Gang members and religious sects create their own marginal social subculture because both are made of leaders who believe they can provide an alternative to love to followers who cannot identify true love. Every ill in the world can be traced, as I stated earlier, to an absence of love, a lack of love, or an inability to love. Ultimately, it is all rooted in a misunderstanding of God’s love for His own Son and for the human beings He created. What you do not know about love could kill you… literally… and spiritually. Do not be left in the dark.

A Racy Racial 2012 Presidential Race

As we navigate the murky waters of the 2012 presidential race, one cannot help but ponder how race will affect the election cycle this time around. Black teenager Trayvon Martin’s fatal shooting by George Zimmerman, a presumed white Hispanic, despite the many unanswered questions, has irreversibly turned racial and may compel contenders for the highest office of the land to consider the precarious state of the Union in strategizing their campaign rhetoric. At the risk of reviving old animosities, I must resurrect something that the US Attorney General said at the beginning of his career for which he got much grief, and it is that “in things racial,… we have always been and… continue to be… a nation of cowards.” [http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6905255&page=1] Despite the deluge of criticism that overflowed the airwaves after he so stated, Eric Holder was not the first one to have declared what he did. The remarkable Frederic Douglas, in sharp disagreement with his former protégé – the abolitionist Lloyd Garrison, over the fate of the Union, uttered a similar statement. While Garrison favored Southern Secession because he was eager to part with slaveholding states, Douglas called his position a “cowardly measure,” because it avoided Garrison dealing with the greater issue of insuring the immediate abolition of slavery in a unified United States. One hundred and fifty years later, the accusations levied against those who would do everything in their power to avoid dealing with the difficult racial issues faced by the Union are still as relevant now as they were then, and even as far back as the inception of this nation, over two hundred and thirty-five years ago. In fact, in a letter to John Holmes, Thomas Jefferson made it clear that he struggled over the fate of the “non-freemen,” i.e. African slaves in America, in the new republic. He likened the issue of slavery to a wolf he was holding by the ears, saying, “[A]s it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” [Adrienne Koch and William Peden’s Life and Selected Writings by Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Holmes, p.698]. His choice to delegate to subsequent generations the laborious task of rectifying the racial wrongs of his time has been a hot subject of debate among many scholars, notably the late Dr. John Hope Franklin. While we understand the economic and political reasons behind the founders’ decisions to adopt self-preservation to the expense of justice, it is obvious to today’s common citizens that the decisions had not given every American any lasting economic security, neither had they ensured a full-proof solidarity in the Union. On the contrary, economic disaster seems to be looming over the nation all the more while the race matter shows no sign of abating. Therefore, even while our economy is in the throes of depression, there is one issue that might be as pressing for the presidential contenders to contemplate; and it is racial reconciliation. There have been three major events that, though diverse in their context, are very indicative that race cannot be easily overlooked in this upcoming presidential election. Those three selective events have stormed social media and occupied people’s lives to the point that while they generated much conversation and agitation, the economic situation was momentarily eclipsed. They are: Tebow 316, Kony 2012, and more recently 17-year-old Trayvon. First, Tebow overtook the global net with the gospel message of John 3:16 painted under his eyes. John 3:16 is the quintessential tenet of Christianity in which God declares His love for people and the price He is willing to pay to get them back into a loving relationship with Him. He gave His Son, so that through faith in him and what he did, everyone has a shot at spending life forever with God rather than away from Him in the fire of His anger. The biblical context for this passage is one in which Jesus was talking to a Jewish rabbi named Nicodemus who knew full well that the greatest commandment to humans is to love God, and the second greatest is to love one’s neighbor like oneself. Those two commandments, in theory, are more important to Christians than even economic prosperity. After Tebow 316, Jason Russell, one of the founders of the Invisible Children organization, narrated a powerful documentary, Kony 2012, in which he inspired viewers to remember they are people and that they should care for their fellow human beings, especially when they are tens of thousands of innocent children who are physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually violated by one evil man named Joseph Kony somewhere in Eastern and Central Africa. Whether or not we disagree with his assumptions, this man Kony’s evil deeds are a reality that we probably would not tolerate in our nation, and we would go after that man whatever the economic costs might have been. Remember the Civil War: the economic costs were dwarfed by the idea of a divided America. More recently, the cost of going after Osama bin Laden is still weighing heavy on taxpayers, but we all felt justified in spending the money after the man orchestrated the death of over three thousands of our citizens causing hundreds of families to mourn. Lastly, the heartbreaking death of Trayvon Martin reminds us all of the possible danger caused by the neglect to rectify the wrongs of the past. While Trayvon ended up losing his life, both he and his shooter George Zimmerman are victims of a system that has effectively wiped out “love for neighbor” from their spiritual slate and pinned them against one another. Now we must ominously anticipate the possible economic damage that will result from the hopelessness of a peaceful and just resolution that has been created in major part by an obstinate refusal to have an open dialogue on racial reconciliation. America needs a president with the fortitude of an Abraham Lincoln or the courage of a Martin Luther King Jr. to tackle what will be indubitably the most important issue of the 2012 presidential race: racial reconciliation. This nation needs to enter an era of reconciliation and new beginnings. It needs a leader who, more than merely seeking economic prosperity, will see through it that tragedies like Trayvon Martin’s death no longer galvanize one side to protest, but rather rally all to weep together and find healing together.

Racial Reconciliation & American Revival: Black or African-American? Does it really matter?

Racial Reconciliation & American Revival: Black or African-American? Does it really matter?

Black or African-American? Does it really matter?

Two weeks ago, an article written by Associated Press writer Jessie Washington drew much attention on the web, generated many comments, and was even posted on several different news websites. The article was concerned with a preference in race designation “Black or African-American” and was entitled “Some Blacks Insist ‘I'm Not African-American.’” This is something that I, a Haitian-American Christian minister, have given little thought to prior to engaging in the discussion after my publicist Stacy had arranged three radio interviews in which the theme was: “Which do you prefer: Black or African-American?” At first, I thought of asking Stacy to attempt to find me a different issue to discuss if possible, for the simple reason that I felt unprepared and so poorly informed to engage in such a topic. However, when I learned that one of my interviewers was going to be Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, a giant in the area of race relations – the very subject of interest to me and the object of my novel Martin’s Dream - Journey Onto the Promised Land, I reconsidered and did my best to prepare rather to decline. It proved to be a wiser choice as my knowledge and my understanding grew so much more through the experience of listening to other people’s sentiments about the matter. For one part, I realized how little aware I was of the magnitude of an issue this was to so many Americans who share an African ancestry. As I was a guest on “The Daily Drum,” a radio show that was hosted by Molette G. sitting for Harold Fisher on that day, many listeners called and expressed their preference for one or the other in a way that conveyed to me their strong affirmation for either one they chose. Some felt that being designated “African-American” was important to them because, historically, Americans of African descent were oppressed and disallowed a dignified identity. The appellation “Black” was abhorrent to many because of its evil undertones: black cat, black sheep, black flag, Black Death, etc. Others believed that “black” is merely a color, and, as such, it does not do justice to the variety of hues that are shared by Americans of African descent. Keisha, a young woman, felt that “black is beautiful,” as did Malone who had strong recollection of the civil rights movement days and took pride in “embracing who he is without being ashamed.” I must admit in passing that I was guilty of emotional anachronism: I was feeling for the present what others were expressing about a past wrought with evil deeds of dehumanization, degradation and disdain, which I dubbed the 3-d of the reality of Americans of African descent. Although I was mentally and intellectually aware of the oppressive life Americans of African descent endured in the antebellum south and under Jim Crow laws, I was not making the emotional connection that would have helped me to empathize with the plight of my fellow countrymen who must have carried in their heart a trans-generational pain reinforced by contemporary occurrences of perceived or real racism. Perhaps these people have adopted either one of those two labels, compelled to by an amalgamated emotional driving force that anchors their identity ship in an attempt to stop themselves and others from constantly navigating the raging sea of self-individualization and self-worth. After I heard the listeners expound passionately on the reasons for their choice of designation, whether “Black” or “African-American,” something strange began happening in me: I was having a heart connection with those who endorsed either label as I never had before. I did not know their faces; neither did I know much about them other than their words that reached me through the wonders of telephone technology as I sat at my desk. Nonetheless, it occurred to me at that very moment that I, like most others, had been profoundly unaware of and oblivious to, despite my pastoral counseling training, how the complexity of the human being and human relations was at play in the intense desire to be validated for one’s choice of racial designation. I probably owe you, reader, an explanation of my 3-d theory before I delve further in my point. First, Americans of African descent were considered less than human in a process of dehumanization through slavery. Then evil downgraded as race relations “progressed,” and Americans of African descent became merely second-class citizens in a process of degradation emphasized by segregation. Years after the civil rights movement, evil has become less subtle as the disdain that lay dormant during the antebellum and the Jim Crow eras is reaching its fullness in our days: Blacks or Africans-Americans can be anything they want, as long as they leave the majority alone and they learn to pull themselves by their own bootstraps – an alarming tendency that could culminate in race warfare with a vengeance. The disdain is palpable in the majority not appearing to be concerned about what happens to Americans of African ancestry. Like their counterparts of former times, their dilemma on how to address the “black” problem lingers. Therefore, this debate on how best to designate that minority race is bound to elucidate the next course of action for improvement in the relationship of American citizens of both European and African descents. Many people act as though time has indubitably acted as the great healer that should have vanquished the painful experiences, or at least their memories, from the psyche of the sufferers, but as Dr. King remarked in his Letter from Birmingham jail, “time is neutral.” It is not time itself that heals, but it is rather what you do in that time. If a wound is infected, and you leave it to time to heal it, the infection may worsen, and the wounded person is worse off after time has passed. However, if you clean the wound, excise the diseased part, dress the wounded area properly and take good care of it, then it will likely heal as time passes, and the wounded person’s lot will improve. Some people do feel strongly about either term, “Black” or “African-American,” because they are still trying to work through painful issues of a dreadful past. The radio interchanges have brought closer to me evidence of the sad reality about race relations. They helped me realize that I was an involuntary victim of the third d – disdain – in the 3-d saga I alluded to earlier. Even in the desire I had to engage an alternate talking point, I was communicating disdain, unbeknownst. There is a certain disdain in the majority’s feelings of sensory overload when it comes to racial matters, as well as social or economic justice. There is disdain in the generations X and Y showing little interest in learning about and from the past. There is nationally a widespread disdain about morality, truth and God. This is far from being the legacy that Reverend King left us. This is not at all the unfinished business President Lincoln was urging Americans of all backgrounds to be dedicated to. A resurgence of the debate on racial identity may indicate the need to revisit our history and the reasons for our divisiveness as well as the craving for meaningful individual identities. While the dominant culture is pushing for uniformity through conformity erecting itself as the epitome of American culture, minorities continue to seek meaningful identities, encouraged by a transformative freedom sipping out from the vaults of hearts stubbornly fused with the past. The article by Jesse Washington cited a “series of Gallup polls from 1991 to 2007 [that] showed no strong consensus for either ‘black or African-American.’” The author paralleled it with “a January 2011 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll [in which] 42 percent of respondents said they preferred black, 35 percent said African-American, 13 percent said it doesn't make any difference, and 7 percent chose ‘some other term.’” For fear of having to compare apples with oranges, I verified the author’s information, and, sure enough, both sets of surveys clearly delineated a discernible downward pattern in the number of people of African heritage to whom it did not make any difference or who had no opinion, from 1992 to the most recent survey to date. This underlines the fact that more Americans of African descent seem to want to adopt either designation of “Black” or “African-American” rather than none at all. In other words, more and more Americans of African lineage are tired of running around in the wilderness, and they want to come home. They want to enter the promised land. They want to be Americans in America. The understanding of the problem may not necessarily solve the terminology issue, but it does get us closer to Dr. King’s promised land – a land in which blacks and whites can “sit together at the table of brotherhood” and where the prosperous do not have to despise the poor. The promised land is an outcome to be desired out of this conversation, for Dr. King’s speech on the eve of his assassination was more than a premonition of his death: it was a prophetic address. “I just want to do God's will,” King said. “And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land.” Upon reaching that promised land, Americans of African descent may either still or no longer have to reevaluate anew their racial designation. However, their reasons for choosing either will surely be different than those they give now. What keeps us from getting to the promised land is the fact that Dr. King’s legacy is not being properly identified. There is a confused sense of what that legacy is. In seeking the meaning of that legacy, many of us have resorted to making a dead man talk. The best way to know what a person wants is to let him or her express himself or herself uninhibitedly. A legacy, by definition, is what a person leaves behind after his death. In this view, Dr. King shared his legacy with us before he left this earth. Here is what he said in his last sermon that was replayed at his funeral at his wife’s request: “If any of you [is] around when I have to meet my day, I don't want a long fu¬ner¬al… And if you get some¬body to de¬liv¬er the eu¬lo¬gy, tell him… to say that day that Mar¬tin Luther King Jr. tried to love some¬body… tried to give his life serv¬ing oth-ers… to be right on the war question… to feed the hun¬gry… to clothe all the naked… to vis¬it those who were in prison… I tried to love and serve hu¬man¬i¬ty. Yes, Jesus, I want to be on your right or your left side… But I just want to be there in love and in justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world.” Dr. King’s legacy was one of walking alongside God to love and serve others. He was not just content to preach the word of God from the safety of a pulpit, but he walked the walk while talking the talk to the point of death. Dr. King overcame by the incomparable love he had in his heart for God and for humanity, and by “the word of the testimony of Jesus; and he did not love his own life unto the death.” As I analyze the possible and plausible reasons for the desire to be labeled correctly as an American of African descent, I have a strange feeling of being a third party looking in. However, when I incorporate Dr. King’s dream into the mix, the schism seems to dissipate and the chasm filled. I can identify with where he stands because he stood and was grounded in love, and love is the universal language of man and God. I find myself paradoxically respecting how anyone wants to be designated and at the same time wondering if it really matters after all. Eventually, Americans of all races and ethnicity will have to be cautious not to be distracted from the most important issues of our lives here on this earth, which is to love God and to love our fellow human beings, for ultimately it does not matter what I am called if the one calling me, calls me such in love.