“Race In America: Where Are We Now?” Presidents Day Weekend Symposium Begins with “Jackie Robinson Steals Home & Other Meditations on the Presidency”

Six months in the planning, the weekend is finally here, and so far, so excellent. Our “Race in America” weekend has gotten off to a rousing start.
WJW ad
You can read the preamble to the weekend here.  And check out highlights of the first presentation below.  Video clips will be coming once edited.  Until then, we’ve got opening remarks to share, and our student bloggers following up in the Comments section on the first day’s sessions.

Ari speaking (from a distance).aspxPresented by E. Ethelbert Miller, poet and director of the African American Resource Center at Howard University

A multi-media think-piece on the backlash against the Obama Presidency, using as its model the audacity of the first African American in Major League Baseball’s unforgettable act of stealing home in the 1955 World Series against the NY Yankees and the outrage and inspiration it provoked.

Here are some of my words of introduction to Ethelbert:

Words about E. Ethelbert Miller – Poet, Sportswriter, Teacher, Activist, Agitator, Artist, Board Member, Father, Friend.

What’s he doing here?  Contributing to a hifalutin ‘Discourse on Race?’

He says ‘not so much.’   Continuing a conversation among friends?  Coming back to the neighborhood and picking up where we’ve left off?

He says, ‘That’s more like it.’

For Ethelbert, there is relationship here — between a man and a Community Center — Most especially, a friendship that began — with Miriam Morsel Nathan —  (a mentor to many of us here) — and from a first meeting at the Corcoran Gallery of Art, they forged a dialogue, that became a program:  “Windows and Mirrors,” a series of cultural encounters and interchanges that spoke to a shared history between African-Americans and American-Jews…

Miriam and Ethelbert met at a Corcoran outreach event involving the book “Swastika to Jim Crow: Refugee Scholars at Black Colleges” by Gabrielle Simon Edgcomb,  for which Ethelbert helped do research and laid much of the groundwork in reaching out to both the African American and Jewish community.

Ebert points to Gabrielle Edgcomb’s primary thesis, looking at Holocaust Survivors who found work in the South in Historically Black Colleges.  These were Jewish Marxists in the Segregated South — educating Black youth in communitarian values; youth who would go on to become leaders in SNCC (the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee).… Farrakhan was in the news back then… As was Leonard Jeffries and the Crown Heights riots.  Miriam and Ethelbert forged a friendship amid the turbulence…

So Ethelbert says: “Let’s not have a dialogue about Race.  Let’s continue to extend and explore our friendship.”

Ethelbert asks, Why do this program here?  You’re not an academic institution.

He answers:  ‘You’re a COMMUNUTY CENTER.

You want to be at the center.  You come here to play ball.  You come here to eat.  You come here to kick back, to take in… To actively contemplate:  What is our community now, with all a whole bunch of new issues swirling about?  We got a black man in the White House.  We got folks being pushed out of their homes.  We got gentrification, we got charter schools, we got a baseball team, and a black quarterback and a bunch of Jewish owners, and we should be talking about Race, here of all places….’

Let the program begin, and let the friendships deepen.

We begin with a film trailer of 42.  And then we move into history.


And Ethelbert’s essay, reprinted here with his permission:

Jackie Robinson Steals Home & Other Meditations on the Presidency 

(c) E. Ethelbert Miller, 2013

We often solve problems, challenges and experiments by asking questions. Here are a few we might want to consider today:

–       How should we view or talk about race in the 21st century?

–       What is the state of race relations today?

–       How do we measure racial progress? What should we look for?

–       What should be our tools of measurement?

–       How significant are some events and individuals in determining the

parameters of racial discussion and dialogue?

I was thinking about these types of questions when looking back at the Civil Rights Movement of the 1940s and 1950s. I was also reexamining how the Civil Rights Movement had been taught to me in school during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Much of the focus was often on the Brown Supreme Court decision of 1954, the Emmett Till lynching in Mississippi in 1955, or the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 and the influence of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.

I had been taught to look at the 1950s with only a partial glance over the historical shoulder at the 1940s. So names like A. Philip Randolph and Jackie Robinson were not given the important attention they deserved. It would be the equivalent today of celebrating the achievement of Barack Obama without acknowledging the contributions of Jesse Jackson and Ron Brown. To understand race in America means we must understand the motion of history, the endless connection between events and individuals.

A few months ago I went back and took another look at President Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race delivered in March 2008. This is a speech he gave in response to the controversial surrounding his relationship with Minister Jeremiah Wright. Wright was presented in the media as having extreme or radical views on race. The question the media (and public) wanted to know was whether Obama shared the same views as his minister and one time mentor.

Reviewing Obama’s speech I discovered a remark that made me think of physics. In distancing himself from Minister Wright, President Obama mentioned that the difference between him and Wright was that Wright saw race relations in the United States as being static. He saw no progress.

The term “static” should be looked at closely when we consider the motion of history.

Is it possible for race relations to remain static?  If so, how do we measure this? What if the motion was simply invisible to our eyes or could not be detected by our tools of measurement?  Is the word “static” the best word to use? Was Minister Jeremiah Wright, right or wrong?

President Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race was praised primarily because it was delivered at a time when the issue of race was about to derail his campaign for the presidency. It was a speech which eventually game him a safe lead off first base.

But let us go back in history and look at third base on September 28, 1955. Our attention is now on the baseball player Jackie Robinson playing in the World Series, the Brooklyn Dodgers against the New York Yankees. Here is a man who must be viewed as more than a gifted athelete; instead he should be recognized as one of our major Civil Rights leaders. Robinson’s life even before he signed with the Dodgers was one of activism when it came to race. As a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, while stationed in Fort Hood in Texas, he refused to move to the back of a bus. This resulted in a court martial case against Robinson in 1944.

We tend to view Jackie Robinson’s life and career as starting on April 15, 1947  when he played his first game in Ebbets Field for the Brooklyn Dodgers. One could say that Robinson not only changed the color of baseball but also how the game was played. In the Negro Leagues players like Cool Papa Bell brought speed to the field. Bell, many claimed was so fast that he could climb into bed quicker than the light could be turned off.  Jackie Robinson was also fast and we see this on display in the 1955 World Series which actually took place at the end of his career.

One can perhaps see a symbolic turning point in race relations as Jackie Robinson danced off third base in 1955. Here is how he described that moment in his memoir – I Never Had It Made published in 1972.:

During the 1955 season I played in approximately two-thirds of the games. My batting average was down. I was doing a poor job in comparison to past seasons. The newspapers began subtly – and some not so subtly – to refer to me as a has-been.

However, despite this the team made it into the world series. It was the fifth series we had been in during my 9 seasons with the Dodgers. (We had been in only a total of 7 since 1905 and we had never won one.)

There was a saying in Brooklyn which everyone has heard about the Dogers (“the bums”): “Wait ‘till next year.” Well, here we were in our seventh world series in fifty years and there was hope that this would be the year, but our fans were also ready to shrug their shoulders and say “Wait ‘till next year” if we lost. The way we were playing in that first game – down 6-4 in the eighth inning – it looked like we might have to wait. I was on third base and I knew I might not be playing next year. There were two men out, and I suddenly decided to shake things up. It was not the best baseball strategy to steal home with out team two runs behind, but I just took off and did it. I really didn’t care whether I made it or not – I was just tired of waiting.

What should be underscored in this passage from Robinson’s book is his unwillingness to wait or remain on third base. He is also aware that he is going against the rules or laws of baseball. He is placing his team (and himself) at risk. But what should not be overlooked is that Robinson doesn’t care if he will be safe or out.  How is one to interrupt Robinson’s words?  Is he being reckless?  What is Robinson attempting to do?

From his own words, it seems as if he is attempting to change the narrative. Robinson wants to change the story of the Dodgers (or bums) losing all the time.  Is he successful?

Well, even though the Dodgers will lose the game – they would win the 1955 World Series. Robinson’s stealing of home is one of the most memorable stories in baseball history.

But let us go back and look at the footage of that play. Is Robinson safe or out?

Ari Roth who invited me to speak today asked me what I thought. I responded to my friend Ari by saying – “Ari, I’m a black guy – I know Robinson was safe.”

Robinson’s play on the baseball field creates a narrative that has special meaning for African Americans. It is a story of excelling on a major stage – in this case the World Series.

Jackie Robinson’s story however is just one narrative. What about Yogi Berra – the catcher for the New York Yankees that day in 1955. He still believes he tagged Robinson out. It is at this point we see two narratives coming together. Who will be the umpire?

There is a key moment in David Mamet’s play –Race where Jack says to Susan:

The jury has a story, in their head, about what happened in that room.

We have to drive that story out of their heads.

Susans responds by asking  – How?

Jack says – Tell them a better story.

So Jackie Robinson is safe,  how does Yogi Berra now look at the world?  How might he explain not just baseball but also what is happening around him?

Yogi Berra is known not just for playing baseball but also his statements about reality.

After Robinson steals home, one might imagine Yogi beginning his narrative with one of his famous quotes. Here are four he might begin with:

–       A nickel ain’t worth a dime anymore.

–       You can observe a lot by just watching.

–       If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up someplace else

The best one however – which to me explains race matters is:

–       The future ain’t what it used to be

Jackie Robinson had an interesting career after baseball. The views he held while standing on third base in 1955 didn’t change.  In a letter to President Eisenhower dated May 13, 1958, he wrote:

My dear Mr. President:

I was sitting in the audience at the Summit Meeting of Negro Leaders yesterday when you said we must have patience. On hearing you say this, I felt like standing up and saying, “Oh no! Not again.” I respectfully remind you sir that we have been the most patient of all people. When you said we must have self- respect, I wondered how we could have self-respect and remain patient considering the treatment accorded us through the years. 17 million Negroes cannot do as you suggest and wait for the hearts of men to change. We want to enjoy now the rights that we feel we are entitled to as Americans. This we cannot do unless we pursue aggressively goals which all other Americans achieved over 150 years ago.

The excerpt from the Robinson letter I just read can be found in the book First Class Citizenship: The Civil Rights Letters of Jackie Robinson edited by Michael G. Long.

The book contains Eisenhower’s response to Robinson which he wrote the next month.

Eisenhower began his June 4, 1958 letter by saying:

Dear Mr. Robinson:

Thank you very much for taking the time to write me some of the thoughts you had after the meeting of the Negro leaders here in Washington. While I understand the points you make about the use of patience and forbearance, I have never urged them as substitutes for constructive action or progress.

Eisenhower ends his 5 paragraph letter to Robinson with:

This progress, I am confident, will continue. And it is gifted persons such as yourself, born out of the crucible of struggle for personal dignity and achievement, who will help lead the way towards the goals we seek.

Six days later (June 10th, 1958) Jackie Robinson would write Eisenhower back:

My dear Mr. President:

I was very pleased at the contents of your letter and extremely happy about your personal tribute to me. However, my concern isn’t for personal achievements but for the accomplishment of our nation and the part 17 million loyal Negro Americans can play in bringing about equality for all Americans. 

I think in Robinson’s second letter to Eisenhower we find a good reminder that one shouldn’t take the success of one person as being the answer to the various issues confronting the African American community.  That’s what we might need to realize in 2013.  The election of Barack Obama to the US. Presidency in 2008 and 2012 is a wonderful individual achievement by a black man. It doesn’t solve the inequalities in our society. Placing a black man in the White House will not make poverty or forms of discrimination disappear.

What we must not fail to celebrate however is that our nation created a new narrative by electing him. This is why Obama’s remarks in 2008 in many ways echo Lincoln’s. Where our nation might have been divided over the issue of slavery and turning our country into a conflict between blue and gray – today we are too often divided into blue and red states.

Where Lincoln fought to save the Union, Obama is confronted with the task of creating a more perfect Union.  And  it is here where we find a clash of narratives and a desire to tell the story slant.  One might ask the question – Why do we need a more perfcct Union, what’s wrong with the old one?  How many people would like to return to the good old days?  We like the old stores – even if they might not be true. And who is to say – what’s true or false? Out or safe?

What we do know is that things do not remain static. History is often best described when it is viewed as a river. It is against this backdrop or interpretation that we can understand our daily struggle and what the scholar Vincent Harding called “our continuing movement toward freedom.”


8 thoughts on ““Race In America: Where Are We Now?” Presidents Day Weekend Symposium Begins with “Jackie Robinson Steals Home & Other Meditations on the Presidency”

  1. What a lovely tribute to Gabrielle Edgecomb — that her book is mentioned this weekend, and the story told in “From Swastika to Jim Crow” will be recalled again in “The Hampton Years,” the final play of this year’s Theater J season. Meanwhile, any who can shouldtry to see the related exhibit in Philadelphia at the National Museum of American Jewish History in the next few monthshttp://www.nmajh.org/SpecialExhibitions/#bsjc

  2. I attended both days of the “Race in America: Where are we now?” workshop and I’d like to comment in chronological order, going from Saturday to Sunday. This is the first part of my blog post:

    I attended the opening plenary on Saturday to listen to the discussion regarding the impact of race now that President Obama has been elected for another four years. This was a very interesting workshop for me because I studied this topic last semester, in a somewhat different context, but with the same meaning. It was nice to hear the discussion regarding the fact that an individual’s achievement does *not* represent a population as a whole. The greater public and the media focus on the achievements of a few and generalize from their success that there are no longer any problems in regards to race when in reality there is still a ways to go. I’d also like to comment on something in particular that came up during the latter half, before the question and answer session started, and that is the results of polling. Mr. Steele discussed the fact that people “lie” to pollers –I don’t disagree with this, because it’s very true that people lie to make themselves look better- but I did wonder whether or not the example he gave (I think it was California passing some sort of bill?) took into consideration the fact that they may have polled a population on their beliefs, but neglected to consider the fact that beliefs don’t necessarily translate to action. How many of those who were polled actually showed up to vote on that bill? That would have some sort of repercussion on the polling results in relation to the actual outcome (no passage), right?

  3. On Sunday, I attended the workshop “Race and the Law in an Age of Scandal”. I actually very, very much enjoyed this discussion, though I do get the feeling that there was a little bit of tension in the room because of the uncomfortable topic. From the very start, I was pulled in by the clarification of what the panel was about: that “race” equated to “racism”, “gender” to “sexism”, and “law” to “justice”. The Duke Lacrosse and DSK cases were mentioned several times in this discussion as an example of race making a difference in the law. The discussion very much reflected the dynamics of “Race” by Mamet, where a case is brought into the spotlight and generates extreme controversy because the accused is an individual that is seen as “privileged”, and there is a sense of wanting to fix the imbalance by rallying around the accuser and against the accused. This “immediate pigeon-holing” of the accused obviously puts the accused at a disadvantage, which leads to the question of whether or not our judicial system is adequate to address these tensions in the dynamics of race, gender, and socioeconomic differences. The answer that the panel reached was that the system doesn’t deal well with the complexities that come with “history” and “biases”. Is the white man guilty because he is white? Because the accuser is black? How much do past transgressions count in each individual case? As the discussion brought up, there is a sense of fairness that the legal system searches for that doesn’t necessarily translate to the truth. And this idea is built into the country’s foundations, with the existence of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, which allows accused individuals specific rights that aid them in protecting themselves against the prosecution. As a (self-proclaimed) U.S. history buff, I’ve always considered most of these amendments as initially made in respond to previous transgressions, and that it was later case law that made these amendments more relevant to criminal rights. After this discussion, it really puts these amendments in a different light.

  4. During the past weekend, I was lucky to attend this fabulous event— RACE in America: Where Are We Now? — on Theater J (DCJCC). The event invited top writers, filmmakers, artists and thinkers for different panels to discuss about issues related to the most controversial topic in American history—race; besides, this event provided three opportunities for audiences to enjoy David Mamet’s most recent play—RACE; moreover, this event also provided us with the film screening for Joel Katz’s documentary film—White: A memoir in Color. Generally speaking, this event embodied the topic of race by incorporating different forms of activities.

    On Saturday, the very first sub-event was the Prologue presented by E. Ethelbert Miller. The prologue was leaded by Professor Roth’s introduction of the author, and then a short video that showed one of the most famous issues about race. Due to my limited knowledge, I could guess it was the Baseball World Series in 1965. He had the experience with 1960s Civil Rights Movements, and he started with talking about the Civil Rights Movements and how he was taught in school at that time. He first started with soft and deep tone, but then, gradually become relatively light and comfortable. He said that “To understand the race in America means you must understand the motion of history.” He said his favorite quote to explain race was “the future aren’t what it used to be”. I really like when he talked about that we might need to realize in 2013 the election of Obama to the U.S. president was the wonderful individual achievement of a white-black man; it doesn’t slow the inequality of the society. Generally, he touched on the serious topic with words that were very interesting and hilarious and drew examples from many remarkable issues.

    After the Prologue, there was an opening plenary to discuss race. It’s facilitated by the very famous host of NPR, Michel Martin, and the attendees were Michael Steele, Rabbi David Saperstein, Maria Cardona and Jenee Desmond-Harris. It’s very interesting when Michael shared his experience of how he was criticized by many Republicans as chairman stating that he would be proud to have Obama as the president of the U.S., as an African American. And his response of someone who said, “The chairman was proud of Obama being an African American, so, should we be proud of George Bush being a white man?” he response was “Well, if you want to be!” All of the audiences laughed and I think that’s more than a laughing point. Everyone have the right to choose the fact that they are proud of, why couldn’t be the fact about their race? I think what Michael trying to portrait was that race is what one couldn’t deny because it embedded in your blood and embodied on your skin. I really like how he taught his son to admit that he’s black, no matter how “white” the community is.

    I did enjoy these activities. I like the fact that people can talk about whatever they want in this country, especially towards very intensive and controversial topics; I like the fact that the arguing between speakers during the panel was that natural-happened, and I really appreciated they still commend on each other even they had different opinions. I’m proud of this country, and proud to be a new citizen of the United States.

    Thank you.

  5. On Sunday, there were varieties of activities too and I enjoyed all of them.

    The Jazz Brunch was fantastic: selected bagels with all different kinds of fishes: smoked salmon, raw or cooked, smoked tuna, tomatoes, cream cheese, slides cheese, cakes, fruits… juice, coffees and tea were also provided. I really love the fact that they were not only delicious, but food was put in such a nice shape. I picked a front seat so that I could enjoy my brunch while listening to the live Jazz. I was surrounded by people which most of them are reaching their 70s. And this kind of event I could only see in TV before I came to the U.S. I realized that I was adapting such elegant habits— live Jazz with Brunch, film screening, theater play— in my life; I could imagine that when I reach my 60s, I would definitely attend this kind of events more often.
    After an hour, we were asked to move to the theater, to watch the film screening— White: A Memoir in Color directed by Joel Katz. That was a very touching film which illustrates the racial issue by showing his own experience of a white couple—he and his wife—adopting their daughter, who is an African American. The most touching point to me was when his wife said that, she wanted to be more darker-skin, be more like their daughter. Because at the beginning of the film, it explained that his wife was white essence but with much darker skin than people around her; and she used to hate it, she wanted to get whiter. However, after adopting and raising their daughter, because of the love, she wanted to be more like their daughter. I really respect of what they did, to their daughter, and to race.

    There were one post-screening discussion and one panel discussion after the film. Joel Katz also joined the post-screening discussion, shared more thoughts and answered the questions from audiences. During the post-screening discussion, what made me think the most were words from one audience and one speaker. One speaker mentioned, race is never about biology but is always about sociology. Yes, the different colors that appear on our skin would never been realized unless you are with different people, in another word, when you put yourself into the society. As I have mentioned before, in countries that are less diverse, people would barely face the term race in their daily life because they look similar and are belonging to the same race. It’s the special culture in the U.S. which makes the issue of RACE happen. It’s the special character of American history, American culture, and it also shows how lenient American culture is. One speaker, (I forgot whom.) stated that he or she still wanted to see a colorblind society. I admired this point. However, as an African American audience stood up and said that she didn’t want to see the society become colorblind because she’s proud to be an African American, I was nodding my head. I think what their sayings were not contradicted to one another.

    I believe they would reach the consensus when saying that in terms of the social and political environment, the country should be colorblind in order to achieve the equality; in terms of individual, we have all the rights to be proud of our races and ethnicity, and we should.

    Thank you

    • Hello Jingru,

      I spoke a bit about color blindness in my blog. It is definitely a complicated issue. What people want to see is what this country stated that all “men” are created equal. In a color blind society, theoretically, everyone would be treated the same regardless of their race. I understand how that would be a great idea and in concept works with personal relationships. Who we associate with, how we perceive each other, and the access we are giving to opportunities should be colorblind. The issue is that there are so many issues along racial lines that have to be addressed before we can have a colorblind society. Issues like poverty, high drop out rates, health, ect. effect all populations but there are disparities that disproportionately affect people of color. With statistics that show that these issues are along racial lines, to want to reset the clock and say that everything is color blind now would be to dismiss the issues and to declare that everything is fair when indeed it is not.

      One of my favorite quotes from Malcolm X speaks to what this is like. “If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress. Even if you pull it all the way out, that is not progress. Progress is healing the wound, and America hasn’t even begun to pull out the knife.”. For us to make progress, the answer, I believe is to address the economic, health, and educational disparities that exist in this country. Once those issues are addressed, then we can claim an equal playing field where race is not a factor.

  6. The Second Time seeing RACE
    Every time I see a play, I have to bring my notepad and pen with me in case I missed something important. I knew it would be much better if I could fully enjoy the play without interrupting myself by writing down notes. So this time, I didn’t try to record down anything but enjoy the play.
    As this is the second time to see RACE, I didn’t feel as nervous as the first time because all my energy was put for trying very hard to follow the conversations at the first time. Besides, I got a very close seat this time, so I started to pay attention to the things that I didn’t do so for the first time. For instance, I found out audiences normally watch the actor who is speaking; by knowing the fact, I was watching the actors who were not speaking, and observing their facial expressions. They were doing a very good job! Even they were not acting, they still maintained their jobs by making the right facial expressions or nodding their heads. During the play, I realized one of the actor’s hands was trembling when he/she were speaking his lines. I believe it was because of the nervousness, but what made me feel impressive was that he/she could still fully act on his/her part.
    As this is my second time seeing this play, I found there were some minor changes in their acting and wording. For instance, Susan changed her hair-style but she still wore the very beautiful necklace; for the part that Jack asked her for forgiveness, her facial expressions were different than the first time I saw it, it’s more like reluctant than last play. For one scene when Henry drank the water, he was choking by the water and I knew that was real choking but the actor made it really suitable for the play…
    I paid special attentions on the dialogues that were discussed last time during the post-show discussion between students and actors. And I don’t know if it’s because of I was re-seeing the play, I felt those dialogues were not acted as furious as before. But I totally understand that those talented actors were acting three plays within two days, which must be very tired and it’s very understandable that they might think of saving some energy for their last play at that night.
    At the end of the play when actors were acknowledging the applauses, I felt very surprised and interested to see actors of Jack and Susan were especially happy and couldn’t stop laughing. I felt happy for them as well as their hard workings were acknowledged by more and more people. Really, really enjoy the play and their acting!!

    Thank you.

  7. I attended the “A Second Term for the First Black President: Considering the Impact of Race at the Midpoint of the Obama Era”. This panel discussion was very interesting for me as it addressed the state of race relations in America. In 2008, I heard many people declare that now that there is a Black President, it must be proof that we are past racism and that everyone truly has an equal opportunity to succeed. People have also pointed to me as a testament to how far we have come as a country because I have been successful thus far and have overcome racial and socioeconomic barriers. The argument has been that we are a “post-racial society” or “race-blind society”.
    To me these terms are insulting to the history of my ancestors. To claim to not see race is to ignore the institutional barriers that have plagued my community for centuries. There were policies against voting, reading, and living in certain areas that served to limit progress for African Americans. While the rest of the country was allowed to live the “American Dream”, Blacks were denied these liberties on paper and in practice. The election of a Black President does mean that we are less prejudice than our history suggest, but it does not mean that all the barriers are gone. Opportunities are still limited for particular segments of the population and research shows that these divisions are clearly along racial lines.
    The panelist discussed these issues and shared their views on how America deals with race. The overall view was that we have a lot of discussing to do and that we cannot be afraid to tackle race relations. I appreciated comments particularly from the former chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele, who made several statements of how he dealt with challenging the Republican Party to move beyond scare tactics using race and deal with the issues. He was attacked for being proud that there was an African American as President. He admitted that he was proud as an African American but he was able to separate his pride from his work. It was respectable to hear about someone challenging racism in their party and move them to a place where underrepresented citizens feel included. The fact that he was attacked for that only further demonstrates that we have more work to do in this country.

Comments are closed.