Our Time PressThe Local Paper with the Global View

Even the casual observer of local and global events would have to admit that these are strange times.  In rapid succession, a new event or devastation draws the attention of the world, replacing a previous calamity just fading from the scene. The Cold War is over and many countries are turning to democracy and taking aggressive steps toward developing their economies.  But there are still wars within our own borders.

Many economists report that the income gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen.  Inadequate education, unemployment and high rates of incarceration and homicide are common characteristics of our urban centers.  These problems are compounded by an apparent crisis in political leadership, media inattention to the issues that matter most, and a lack of spirituality in leadership overall.  It is evident there is a need for new methods of attacking the society’s problems, a need to critique the role major media outlets play in reporting and discoursing on politics and society and a need for leaders with integrity who are willing to struggle for a cause greater than themselves.

Most people would liken the current political state of affairs to a spectator sport or, even worse, a war without bloodshed.  Election campaigns are conducted as a combination of television ads, polls and personal attacks.  They are not issues-oriented information campaigns where voters can have true participation in the democracy.  Within the local political arena, many of our leaders have been elevated to stratospheric celebrity-status.  In many instances, sustaining power in the form of fame-and-fortune seems to be the goal as opposed to using power to empower and bring about change for the common good of the people.  Cornel West is referring to a crisis in Black leadership specifically, but would have been accurate if he was referring to leadership in general, when he writes, …most present-day black political leaders appear too hungry for status to be angry, too eager for acceptance to be bold, too self-invested in advancement to be defiant…

Look at the campaigns currently unfolding in New York State.  The Lieutenant Governor makes a Aduring the term@ party switch, changes Apolitical parties instead of changing her principles, then announces she is going to run as a Democrat against her former Republican running mate, and current boss, Governor Pataki. Although she is backed by a huge financial war chest, her backing from Democratic party leaders is tepid. Even more spectator sport is the upcoming Rumble in the Jungle Part II, with at least three Democratic heavyweights lining up to deliver the knock out punch to Republican Senator Al D’Amato.  Some of the candidates have already pledged to avoid the low-blows many witnessed in the 1992 campaign, a race in which some of the present candidates were involved. 

Besides observing the intrigue of the campaign, there is not much in the current political environment to motivate an individual to become engaged in public life.  Is it realistic to expect more thought provoking discourse?  Or is it more accurate to describe our culture as The Argument Culture, as the title of a new book by Deborah Tannen suggests?   People want answers to their questions and solutions to their myriad problems.  By voting, citizens entrust democratic institutions and individuals with the responsibility to solve national and international problems.  There is much doubt, however, about many of our leaders’ commitment and abilities to improve society’s ills.  Even those who maintain such faith have to have some degree of dissatisfaction over the current political state of affairs, and for good reason.
 
William Greider, in Who Will Tell the People (Simon & Schuster), says, Athe citizens’ attitudes and actions powerfully confirm that the political system we call democracy has lost substantive meaning.  They can testify from experiences to all the many elements of decay that have been identified as the realities of power.  Now is a crucial time to have citizens who play an active role in the fate of our country. Leaving the serious affairs of the world to our elected officials will not work.

In fact, the political dilemma can be solved in part by not placing the burden of solving problems on the politician.  Citizens have to defeat their own cynicism and apathy and have to find ways to become involved at some level.  The politician also has to create dialogue with the citizen (town meetings, meeting with community groups, community leaders) in order to demystify the legislative process.  There also has to be a realization that the gains we can make in improving the society through the political system alone are limited.  For example, community business leaders often do not receive nearly the degree of attention that politicians receive, yet they share an equal, if not greater, role in the struggle.  Historically, small businesses have played a major role in the growth of the nation.  Small businesses can also play a major role in the growth of our communities today.  

We also need individuals and organizations that observe and become involved with the political system to assure that legislation passed is not detrimental to our community and benefits most Americans, not just the financial elite individuals and special interests groups. A great deal of this role is fulfilled by nonpartisan advocacy groups, which engage in dialogue with politicians around a wide range of on-going, significant issues.  Politics in this democratic capitalist society, is fueled by economics.   Those with the economic means (foreign powers, big businesses, etc.) can hire lobbyists to fight on behalf of what is in the best interests of their survival. 

 We need individuals and nonpartisan advocacy groups that speak on behalf of byist.  An example is Marion Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund, who provides a clear, strong voice on behalf of the nation’s children. 

In addition to politics, another substantial concern is the increasing corporate control of media.  Corporate conglomerates place a high priority on what sells newspapers and magazines, not necessarily on disseminating fair and accurate information.  Hype and sensationalism generated by the media, adds to the confusion of the political dilemma. There is a sacrifice of the relevant, in favor of the ridiculous.  For example, the possible sexual improprieties of the President are given more thorough attention, examination and coverage than the recent standoff in Iraq, the decline of the American people’s standard of living, increasing global competition and other economic concerns. The issues that matter most to the masses of people are hardly discussed in the media.

There are many social ideas and political options that never reach the public view,  because the media chooses the sensational, the tantalizing, the profitable, over the relevant. 
The African-American community faces as many challenges as any other group, but the spate of the recent articles on black politics focuses more on personalities than on methods of progress. This past January, New York Magazine posed a rhetorical question to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,  AWhom Would You Choose, Dr. King? Dr. King’s was asked to choose (hypothetically) between The Reverend Al Sharpton and The Reverend Calvin Butts.  In addition to the arrogance of presuming to think for Dr. King, this article follows a historical tendency of creating binary conflicts between major black leadership. The mainstream media continues attempts to force us to face the same, Aeither/or proposition as Booker T. or W.E.B; King or X; Jesse or Farrakhan. All of these situations the media drums up are merely distractions. 

It is a valid point that there are significant disagreements amongst our leadership at local, national and international levels. Such is a reality of human beings in interaction with each other. But communities of color cannot afford to have dialogue stifled by media machinations and exaggerations.

The individual who is serious about seeing communities rebuilt has to be critical about the information received from our most common media sources. We have to give greater support to our local periodicals, such as The New York Amsterdam News, The Daily Challenge, The Beacon, Our Time Press, among others.  In these papers, relevant issues which have local, national and international implications (from school board concerns to U.S. relations with Africa), and which the major media outlets appear to ignore or hide, are often brought to light.  It is only when such periodicals struggle or become defunct, as happened with the City Sun, that we realize how relevant they really are.  Giving a great deal of support to these various information outlets will expose and reduce the hold media conglomerates have on the flow of information and control of political debate.

 The crisis of politics and media power, are not the only dilemmas we face.  What is also increasingly evident is the dilemma of spiritual deterioration. This deterioration manifests itself in the form of selfishness, prioritizing our own advancement at the expense of the masses, and measuring our goals and successes in the forms of fame and fortune.   The current major political parties, economic system, and media reporting are parts of the problem rather than the solution.

Solving the spiritual dilemma begins with spiritual leaders radically changing present human relationships and bringing people together who are willing to struggle for freedom, justice and equality for all of humankind. The movement that aims to change human relationships along these lines can lead to the beginning of the transformation process of our governments, ideologies, and even our religions and is our only chance of achieving world peace. We desperately need such leaders with integrity who are willing to inject a dose of spirituality into the veins of our society.  By spiritual leader I do not necessarily mean religious leader, clergy or anything of that sort.  Spirituality refers to a willingness to serve on behalf of others, setting aside material interests and tending to the needs of the least among us. It is insufficient and useless to think any longer in terms of the commonly used labels of Democrat, Republican, Liberal and Conservative. 

Spiritual leadership requires working towards a cause higher than self, party or ideological orientation. The higher cause, improving the human condition, must be the canon which we use to decide which ideas are discussed further and which are abandoned. Then the dialogue and debate will be able to be civil and conducted by rational and reasonable minds. It is also insufficient to think in terms of  giving our allegiance or voting based on the color of their skin. (It is indeed difficult to not think of power through racial lenses when we were held powerless for so long based on race.)  The focus still has to be on spiritual leadership with integrity. 

Why shouldn’t leaders be evaluated based on race?  If we evaluate merely on race there is a greater risk of approving leaders who do not have the desire or ability to progressively lead the people. The basic needs and wants in our society, and the anxieties that result from not having those needs and wants met is common to blacks, Whites and others. Poor people, the Have-nots, suffer anxiety to secure or maintain a job in order to maintain the basic needs to survive (food, clothing and shelter).  The main difference between blacks and Whites is the inordinae amount of blacks amongst society’s have-nots. 

The type of leadership we need from individuls and institutions is spiritual leadership with integrity, free of addictions to materialism, not driven by quests for the accumulation and consumption of things and attaining power for self- aggrandizement. The process of democracy from government Aof, by, and for the people has been transformed into a power grab by lobbyists, lawyers and legislators.  We have to find daring leaders and institutions (churches, mosques, synagogues, NAACP, Urban League, Million Man March local organizing committees, etc.), who will use their unique positions to devalue monetary wealth, materialism, and the quest for power as the values we strive for. 

Once we begin to study the leaders on which the media has focused lately and attempt to understand their motivations, one thing becomes obvious: although their approaches, friends, and enemies vary drastically, many of their goals and motivations are very similar. The questions we have to ask ourselves are:  What are the issues? What is at stake? What are the principles these leaders have dedicated themselves to fighting for? Where can we find the new leadership? We need institution builders such as Booker T. Washington, Rev. Flake, those who recognize the sins of the power structure such as Rev. Sharpton and Min. Farrakhan, intellectuals in the mold of W.E.B. Dubois and Cornel West.  We need brilliant politicians such as Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Ronald Dellums, and those who can negotiate within the power structure such as the late Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan and William Parsons.  The most effective leadership is in such a collective, with serious leaders galvanized around the higher cause of improving the human condition. Unity is vital because no one person has all of the traits necessary.  It emanates from the common, unifying theme of the higher cause.

Although we do need unity, we do not need, and can never attain, uniformity. What is the difference? Unity implies that we are one in our purpose and goals, improving the human condition, increasing world peace, ending human suffering and misery. Uniformity implies that there should be a monolithic group- that we should think alike and behave alike.  Uniformity is something black communities are measured by, but something that no family, church, community or society can ever achieve. Unity is possible once the group defines and articulates its values and objectives. Allowing unity without uniformity is necessary, yet it will not emerge from politics as we know it today. This theme of unity was recently echoed by the great Civil Rights and Pan Africanist leader Kwame Toure at an event celebrating his life and legacy.  Mr. Toure said, AWe must have unity in our community, and we must understand that we can have unity in the widest diversity. We have a responsibility to insure this unity.  The challenge for our political leaders today is to lift the veil of partisan postures. The cause has to be bigger than the interests of the party, winning the next election or arguing our ideologies. Neglecting to define, articulate and commit to a higher cause is what produces selfishness and erosion of civility amongst our leaders. This same condition eventually gives rise to the loss of faith, in our leaders and institutions, and cynicism amongst the electorate. It also represses that certain part of each of us that yearns to connect and contribute to a whole, greater than ourselves. The talented leader might be apprehensive about dedicating themselves to public service. The intelligent, concerned citizen might not feel compelled to go to the voting booths on election day. 

The higher cause can only emerge from and be sustained by  honoring the capacity that is unique to each of us as individuals. If our priorities continue to be commitment to self and partisan interests, rather than the interests of the community, we will lose touch with the best elements of our humanity- the capacity to contribute our unique thoughts, creations and discoveries. We will be deprived of the potential leader=s capacity to think of new economic concepts, to discover new political paradigms and to ponder new possibilities.  We will be deprived of a golden opportunity to improve the human condition. We will be deprived of a chance to achieve victory against what Peter Drucker calls Athe turbulences, the transformations, the sudden upsets, which have made this century one of the meanest, cruelest, bloodiest in human history.  Some would describe all of this talk of spiritual leaders, new relationships, new politics as empty rhetoric, idealistic and impossible.  I would respond by asking them what alternatives do you propose?  It is necessary to analyze, to dialogue and to debate. But more than anything this is the time, the precious present, to begin creating the bright future that we all desire.  This is a time for men and women of action.
The only alternative is to continue on our current chaotic path.  We would do so at our peril.

Part II of a two part Interview
Paul Robeson Jr.:  The interests of a vast majority of African Americans, has always been very clear.   And that is a society that includes economic justice as a right, along with political justice.  Even the Pope is for that.  So in that case, a totally free-market economy is against our interests.   Totally.
 
We’ve always been a communal culture.  Beginning with Africa, and every year since then up to 1998.  African-Americans are more communal-minded than Anglo-Saxon Americans.  We’re a vastly greater percentage of organized union membership than white people.   You look at the unions today; we’re thirteen percent of the population, thirty-something percent of the unions.  That tells you something.  We’ve been pro-union all our lives.  Ever since Roosevelt we’ve been their backbone.  Why? Because it’s in our interests.  Why?  Because we’re a working-class people.   We’re not a middle-class people.   We’re a professional and working class people as opposed to an entrepreneurial people.  

We’ve got nothing against entrepreneurs.   But you’re not closer to God because you’re a big businessman or an entrepreneur.   The most prestigious thing in my generation and the generation before it was to be a hellified professional.  If you were an entrepreneur, you were small time.   Only recently have we gotten into the big corporations, and at that, with a ceiling.  What big corporation does a Black person actually run?  Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs aren’t the be-all and end-all of African-Americans as a people.  It’s not the most important segment of our population.  Nor are the interests of Black entrepreneurs the interests of the majority.    The opposite is true. In other words, whose interests do we pursue in advancing ourselves as a people? The role models who are busy making money through successful entrepreneurship and professional athletes, and entertainers?   Are their interests ours?  That’s called trickle up.  Bootstrap in black face.  See, I’ve made it.  Pick up your pants and pick a role model and be like Michael Jordan, or Bill Cosby, or whoever.  Now that’s one philosophy.   Another is, let’s pursue the interests of the Black working and professional people.  People who work for wages.   Who are below an income of 40 -50 thousand dollars a year, which is the vast majority, 80% or more.   Are their interests the most important things?  Or the interests of the top ten-twenty percent?    Now there are those who say we should be pursuing the interests of the bottom eighty percent.  Because if you have a solid base, trickle-up becomes a stream going up.  And in fact, it’s in the interests of the top ten percent, to make sure the eighty percent, is rising.  Then they will rise even faster.   The other philosophy is, the more successful the top five or ten or twenty percent is, the better it is for the bottom eighty- percent.  That’s the exact reverse.   One is, climb as high as you can and don’t look back, the other is lift while you climb.  Totally different philosophies.   So we have to choose at each crucial period, which idea is the best one.  And I’ve always been for Lift while you climb.  The interests of the eighty- percent are more important than the top twenty-percent.  That'[s true for white-folks too.   Only when the interests of the working people, the bottom eighty-percent were being pursued, was there a successful civil war and a reconstruction that was.  Then there was the Depression, and here comes Roosevelt.  Same thing.  Then there is the Civil Rights Movement and John Kennedy.   Now it’s the nineties, and it’s time for another one of those.

DG:  When you say entrepreneurs, there are entrepreneurs and there are entrepreneurs.   What about the little guy?  The guy across the street from me is an entrepreneur.  He employs three people part time.  There are entrepreneurs and there are entrepreneurs.  It seems that there is really a need for a real strong Black entrepreneurial class.
PRJ:  Let me put it to you this way.   A generation ago, there was no integration.  Meaning that Blacks were excluded from this integrated melting pot, right? 
DG:  Right, yes.
PRJ:  The only people being integrated were white immigrants.  That’s what the melting pot was about:  to integrate white immigrants and exclude Blacks.  But civil rights went with, Okay, we’re in the melting pot with everybody else.   We=re integrated.   We can’t have a separate country, and a separate bank, and a separate government, but being integrated does not mean we have to be like whites, anymore than integrated Jews or integrated Italians, have to be like WASPS. 

Now, if you want a powerful entrepreneurial class, go back to segregation.  The only doctor you’re going to find the only dentist you’re going to find is a Black one.  But now, how many Blacks go to White doctors.  How many go to White lawyers?  A generation ago, they couldn’t.  So you’ve got segregation.  You see my point? If you want a powerful entrepreneur class overnight, resegregate the country.  That surely will do it. 
DG:  Don’t we need a powerful Black entrepreneurial class?   It seems as though they are the ones who would be most likely to provide jobs.
PRJ:  How many jobs do they provide?
DG:  Well, statistically, most jobs are provided by small businesses. 
PRJ:  Small business is now defined as businesses employing hundreds of people.  Let me put it this way.   Supposed you put the question, don’t we need a lot of Black entrepreneurs?  Well that looks at it from the point of view of entrepreneurs?  If I were working in a factory, I’d shrug right?   
DG:  Yes, unless…
PRJ:   The only way I wouldn’t shrug is if the Black entrepreneur were providing me with…
DG:   A job.
PRJ:  No.  Primarily better service at a better price than I can get elsewhere.   Right now, the opposite is true.   If I go to Pathmark I get a better deal than if I buy from a mom and pop grocery right next door.   Therefore Black entrepreneurs, and they’re small, are going down the tubes at a huge rate.  They’re going out of business at a huge rate.  Where’s the Black newspapers?  I mean, anything you look at: Savings and Loans, you’ve got to look hard to find them.  So small businesses are getting wiped out by large businesses, which are classified like Microsoft.   Intermediate-sized businesses, which is a trick bag of how we use words.  Small business is up to a couple of hundred employees.   Most Black businesses are small: two to five employees.  That’s irrelevant to the needs of most people, Black, White or other.  Since the businesses that affect your life are like ten to twenty employees and up.   You don’t go buy a radio in a two-employee place, usually.  
Suppose we pose the question, with 30 million people, how do you go for a situation in which every Black person has a job?  If you ask the question that way, then it=s totally different than how do we increase the number of Black entrepreneurs.   It’s light-years different in thinking and in solution.   Right?
DG:  Well during slavery, everybody had a job.   Are you saying that everybody should have a job or, a full share of the opportunity to own businesses and create jobs?
PRJ:  No, no, no, that’s the wrong…
DG:  No?
PRJ:  That’s from a century ago.   Right now, huge conglomerates own manufacturing and business.  A group like Jewish Americans, get maligned a lot by Blacks who say, AThey own all the banks, they own everything. That’s nonsense.  Ninety percent of everything is still controlled by Anglo-Saxons.  Not White people now.  Not Italians, not Jews, none of that.  Anglo-Saxons.  The Rockefellers, Astors, Duponts.  Anglo-Saxons include Swedes, Dutch, French, Irish Protestant and Scotch Presbyterian.   The rest do not control very much.   Irish Catholics do not.  Jews do not.  There are certain niches.  Hollywood, for example.  But when you take the whole thing, those who decide the trend, Anglo-Saxons control the banks that lend to Hollywood moguls.  They run the show.  If you want to look at the politics, there has never been a non-Anglo-Saxon president until Kennedy.   And that’s why the Anglo-Saxon right assassinated him.  This Irish Catholic still thinks he’s an Irish Catholic and he hangs out with the Blacks.  He’s got to go.   The real Mafia is not the Italians or Jews, the real Mafia is Anglo-Saxon.   They do the real stuff.   They take out the real contracts. 
The idea that bootstraps, by of all people, a group as economically weak as African-Americans, can in the next 200 years make a dent in providing employment for Black people through small business is an incredible piece of fantasy. 
DG:  You think so?
PRJ:  Incredible fantasy.  If you took every Black business right now and assumed that they employed only Black people, which they don’t.  The requirements are, they have to meet the same affirmative action and diversity standards too.   So they have to hire some White folks, by law.   Or they won’t get contracts from the government.   If you take that economy and multiply it by ten, I assure you that if they hired all black folks, which they couldn’t, they couldn’t employ one tenth of the employable black population.
DG:  But that’s only because Blacks don’t usually shop in Black-owned stores, even when they have the option.  A lot of Black places have comparable goods, comparable prices, etcetera.
PRJ:  No.  There’s no way a small entrepreneur can beat Pathmark or a chain in anything except in service.  There’s no way a small store can sell a television set less than a huge conglomerate. 
DG:  But then how can…

Patricia Middleton talks about celebration and pain in the same sentence.  She has become a kind of griot, a genealogist of street history.  From her living room on Jefferson Avenue, she calls the names of victims of violence, recounts the last chapters in their lives, and relates how the mothers are coping. 

In one long sigh, she describes cruel ironies: a child was beaten and killed.  The officer claims he suffered an epileptic fit and his gun went off. 

As President of Families of Victims Against  Violence, formed in 1992 by Reverend Herbert Daughtry at House of the Lord Church on Atlantic Avenue, she knows the tragic stories and obituaries of many families.  They share them the second Monday of every month at 6pm at the church.

There is nothing maudlin here.  Pat has a great sense of humor.  It’s a mix of that rare southern homespun and urban kickbutt.  But along with the laughter there is always the sense of commitment to her mission to help families who are suffering from the loss of a loved one to a violent act.  She files the bleak stories about  homicides unsolved and unnoticed.  And there are other poignant stories: the late Randolph Evans is remembered through a scholarship fund established in his name;  Francine Davis lost five family members to separate apparently unrelated acts of violence.  At FOVAV’s ADay of Remembrance event last March, Ms. Davis lit candles for three sons and two nephews.  And there are many more –hundreds–on life in the war zone, where there are no winners. AHow many do you want to hear? At any given moment I feel the pain.

   There can be no pretense of understanding the pain a woman like Pat feels when the child she labored with soul, body and heart to bring into this world and raise, is brutally wrenched from life. Wade Denson, Pat’s 17 year-old son, was killed in the Red Hook projects during Labor Day weekend in 1995.  She was told he was slain by a friend who is now in jail.  Wade had graduated from Paul Robeson H.S., that past June, and was looking beyond the streets to higher horizons.

 After her job and her union refused to help pay for Wade’s funeral, Pat called Reverend Daughtry.   AIf it wasn’t for FOVAV, I’d be lost somewhere in space. I went to the union.  They said it was drug related and they couldn’t give me money. But no drugs were found on my son’s body.  I called the House of the Lord Church and spoke to Debra Dawkins, coordinator of FOVAV.  I went to heal, to cry and laugh. No one said, AStop crying.  Now I’m ready to help others recover.
Like Pat, Ammie Council, Vice President of FOVAV, values photographs that bring back moments in time. 

A week before Mother’s Day, Ammie searched for photographs of her son, at the urging of this interviewer.  From stacks of albums, she showed us photographs of her son Kevin Moshe Council in the arc of his shortened life: Kevin as toddler, bright-eyed, ready for the world, six months after his birth at Brooklyn Jewish Hospital.  Kevin, as an elementary school student, just at the point when science and art stirred his imagination; Kevin, as teenager, a  Sterling H.S. student, at that point in a young man’s life where he says he knows the deal,  but the eyes reveal something totally different,  and one of her favorites: a polaroid of Kevin taken with Ammie and his supportive godfather,  Jerome Payne, on Easter Sunday morning.  Then, there is Kevin’s marble headstone monument at the family gravesite at Sweet Rose Cemetery in Estill, S.C, Hampton County, where he was laid to rest in a second funeral at the request of his  great grandmother.  Bring my great grandson home’.

Five months after that last happy Easter Sunday, Ammie, living in Harlem,  filed a Missing Persons report  at the 79th in Brooklyn on her son.  She had not seen him in several days.  He attended Sterling High School in Brooklyn, and sometimes stayed with his grandmother, Catherine Council.  But she had not seen him.  She turned to the 32nd precinct in Manhattan for help, and they in turn contacted the 79th precinct.  At 2am on a Saturday morning in late September 1988, she was awakened by a phone call.  A young man matching the description of her son had been shot and killed, his body lay in the morgue.   Earlier that day, Ms. Council had one of those feelings, a  premonition, that mothers of African descent know so well.  She went into Kevin’s room and dropped to her knees and prayed and cried.  When she stood up she was ready for whatever was to come.  And that’s how she found the strength to take the long subway ride from 145th Street all the way to Brooklyn, alone.   She met her partner Rodney McBain and Kevin’s godfather at the hospital; they had already identified the body. AI went in.  His eyes were open. It was as if he was trying to say, why?   The hospital did not want her to see the body, but she insisted. He had died of bullets causing mortal wounds to the heart, kidney and lungs, the report said.

Information was not forthcoming so she conducted her own investigation into her son’s death.   Although there were witnesses to the shooting, to this day, no one has come forward to report on what happened to Kevin one block from his grandmother’s home the night of September 20, 1988.  All that is known is a young man ran out of a building on Andrews Place across from Kingston Park, and shot her son, then again point blank as he lay on the ground.

AI don’t know what transpired in the park.   The case is still open. Maybe someone will come forward. One moment he’s leaving to go to Brooklyn, the next moment, he’s gone. 
 This June 30, Kevin would have been 27. That’s a day when Ammie becomes more silent than usual.  It is a day she wonders what if. 

She misses birthdays, but she longs for the hard times, too.  AI had my problems with him, trying to get him to stay on the straight-and-narrow but I miss raising my young man.  I miss worrying where he is; when is he coming home; scolding him about grades, about picking up his room.  All those things.   Don’t take any of those moments, for granted, she tells parents. AYes, you are struggling, but you are struggling with children who are very much alive.  Be careful what you wish for.  I used to wish for peace, peace of mind..  He is not here, but that is not the kind of peace  I meant.

  Losing a loved one to violence is devastating to any family,  she said.  The affect is so unbearable – they can’t even begin to see beyond the hurt and pain.  But when you have God in your life, and a supportive group like FOVAV (which has become my extended family), it makes it easier to bear the loss.

As Mother’s Day approaches, greeting cards and telephone calls and dinners out do not come so easily, said Ammie.  Some observers with good intentions tiptoe up to her and other bereft mothers offering this advice: Get over it.  Get on with your life.

What they don’t understand is: this is your life, says Ammie Council. AI look at these photographs. I have these moments.  It is something  and I am strong about it.  Sometimes I get choked up. Sometimes people don’t know how to deal with me.  Especially on Mother’s Day.  They do not wish me Happy Mother’s Day.  He was part of my life. He is my son.  I am a mother.   I can be smiled and hugged and wished, Happy Mother’s Day.