New Candidates & The Whole Truth...

I am the Master of a Prince Hall Lodge, and I have dealt with this "problem" on one occasion. I think it is important to be very honest about such explanations. I had a good white friend who I have done business with meet me in the basement of my Lodge building where we have a bar. After meeting me there a couple of times, he mentioned that his father had been a Mason and that he had always been interested. I felt it was appropriate to inform my friend that although Prince Hall is Universal, that it was considered "for blacks" and that there was a whole other "white Grand Lodge" across town that, although it is not universal, he should at least be informed of. I am highly opinionated in this area, so I didn't shirk from the opportunity to put the whole matter in perspective for him.

I explained quite simply that Masonry, the way it is practiced today, is a very complicated topic, and I first explained what Masonry is … according to the ancient landmarks as I understand them, which first suggests that it is a universal brotherhood. If the organization you claim is not a universal brotherhood, then I don’t consider it Masonic. I then explained to my friend that Prince Hall should be his first choice if he wanted to be in an organization that was “recognized” and actually open to all races, but that he should consider the “mainstream” Lodges. I felt that he had a right to know that if he joined the Grand Lodge of New York, that he would be joining an “all white” organization. Of course there are a couple of Lodges in the building there on 23rd Street that do allow blacks, like Shakespeare 750, but everyone knows that that is the “token” lodge in the building. I felt kind of “petty” as I explained it all, but those are really the facts and they are important, especially when we take to heart what Masonry actually “is.”

You are lying to a candidate if you explain to him our excellent principles and useful maxims but do not explain that Masonry does not actually exemplify these principles. I also feel that it should be explained that there are hundreds of “Masonic” groups that are not “recognized” as Masonic by other “regular” bodies. If these things are not explained to certain candidates up front, they will become disenchanted and “leave the fold” soon after joining. I didn’t have a good understanding of the segregation or the regularity issues until I had been in the craft for over five years … Now I see these issues as important to discuss with incoming brothers, who will hopefully dedicate some of their time while in the craft to creating some sort of universality. Those of us who are proud to be Masons should spend a lot more time working to make it Masonic.

I have also attached an article to this post that was circulated in my jurisdiction related to the universality of the craft.

WM Thomas C. Brooks, Jr.
Adelphic Union Lodge, #14
1st District PHNY

Wor.·. Bro. Brooks,

You said:

<< I felt it was appropriate to inform my friend that [...] that there was a whole other "white Grand Lodge" across town that, although it is not universal, he should at least be informed of. [...] I felt that he had a right to know that if he joined the Grand Lodge of New York, that he would be joining an “all white” organization. >>

I understand your sentiment completely, but I have to tell you from personal experience that you have been misinformed regarding the GLNY. While it can in no way be construed that there is a large percentage of African American members there, it can truthfully be said that there is quite a bit more than the mere tokenism that you have been led to believe exists.

Even if we were to consider Shakespeare Lodge #750 a "token" Lodge, with a black member here or there, it is hardly the only example of black men in that jurisdiction. Allied Lodge #1170 "was constituted on May 21,1975 by the Grand Master, M.W. Arthur Markewich, himself a Past Master of Shakespeare Lodge. Allied Lodge is the smallest and youngest lodge in the Sixth Manhattan District. It is a healthy lodge and counts among its brethren men of different races, creeds and colors." (https://freemasonry.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&...).

The Lodge of the United Services #1118, older than Allied, has had at least two African American Masters, possibly three, each of whom are personal acquaintances of mine, and one of whom I personally brought into Freemasonry and who presides from the East at this date. The Lodge has had a significant African American presence amongst its membership for all the years I have known of it.

All Seeing Eye Lodge #1181, a Lodge primarily composed of Haitian members, was chartered in may, 2001. The Master there was my candidate to the Craft, and is now completing his second term. The primus of the Lodge is now a Grand Representative of the Grand Orient of Haiti near NY.

Mariners Lodge #67, Pacific Lodge #233, Chancellor Walworth #271, Franklin Lodge #447, Aurora Grata - Day Star Lodge #647, Shakespeare Lodge #750, and Queensboro Lodge #892 are all Lodges wherein I have personal acquaintance with African American members, and I can assure you that while their memberships do not reflect the 10% - 12% that is the national average of African Americans to the general population at large, it is not tokenism, either. Of the GLNY's 127 chartered Lodges currently on roll, these 7 only represent just over 5%, but when we look at the growth from the time that the constituency the GLNY actually was white-only, or at least not Constitutionally welcoming to African Americans to the present day, we realize that it is a jurisdiction trying to correct historical inequities, not a mere tokenism.

Consider its sister jurisdiction, the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, which will have its first Grand Master next year in the person of the R.·. W.·. Kwame Acquaah, or those several Masters and Past Masters of its many Lodges who have been black, to say nothing of the Wardens and Deacons in line.

There is Alpha Lodge #116, holden to the GLNJ, which has been chartered for over 100 years and composed of nearly 100% black membership - but whose immediate PM, the Wor.·. Eugene Hill, is currently sitting in the East of Cincinnati Lodge #3, obviously carrying the cachet of being one of Jersey's eldest Lodges, for the second time. Bro. Gene is African American, and he is not #3's only such member.

You have to travel with me more, Bro. Thomas; let's see the differences between what is, and what we were sometimes told it is. Catalogue these thoughts and data for the next candidate who knocks. Btw, and fwiw, I just had a candidate of my own (who happened to be African American) whom I gave the same stats, and the same choices. After being fully informed and joining me for the tour of the GLNY's Lodge rooms, he chose Prince Hall, of his own "free wheel and a cord," and will likely be coming to Boyer to visit you and yours within a year of this post, GAOTU willing.

Your Brother,

.·. Rashied ~
--


.·. Rashied K. Sharrieff-Al-Bey, PM
Chaplain
Cornerstone Lodge #37

Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge
Free & Accepted Masons
State of New York
--

"Si Opus Quadratum vis, angulos praecidere noli..."
(If you want Square Work, you don't cut corners...)

Bro Rashied

Thank you for that information, I feel that I may have judged the GLNY a bit harshly. Is it true though that there are lodges, the majority of them who have never had a black member? And is it also true that when a black candidate approaches the GLNY, that he is steered toward those lodges that do accept blacks?

WM Thomas C. Brooks, Jr.
Adelphic Union Lodge, #14
1st District PHNY

Wor.·. Bro. Thomas,

It is true that there are Lodges that have never had a black member. I think that it has only been about 10 years or so that GLNY Lodges began to accept black candidates with any expectation of getting them in. One PGM there sort of "snookered" the members of his Lodge by not telling them that his candidate was black. Neither did the Investigating Committee, because that was not a condition of Masonic membership. Kudos to them! When some of the old PMs found out on initiation night, they threatened to walk out of the Lodge and never return, if he was brought in. They were told, "We'll miss you". Some never did return, some did. The Lodge is doing great now. Just fine.

It is also true that some Lodges are exclusive, period. They have a very high admission fee, and certain financial requirements so that many white Masons cannot petition either. I don't know if that's Masonic or not, but at least it is not because of false criteria such as "race".

I do understand and empathize with the Connecticut Brother who wrote the blog; that's why I responded to him the way I did. The best thing he could do in a situation like that - and the best thing that we could do - is to be honest. It needn't be a dilemma. Just tell it to him like it is. Perhaps when we tire of telling that ugly truth, we will find more effective ways of fighting and changing it.

My black candidate could very well feel the same way about my not telling him about the GLNY as a choice, if I withheld that. He could feel that I lied by omission. What if I traveled to NC to see my Masonic friends there, and he went with me and wanted to visit the GLNC, AF&AM, the "mainstream" body, where I in fact know Brethren? Wouldn't I have to make the same explanation to him?

So, I tell him upfront what his choices here are, and I make him understand the implications of each. I can't make his choices for him, and I need to pull my own influences and bias out of the choice equation as much as possible. I give him the facts, give him the implications on each side, let him make his own choice, then work with him from there. I don't feel conflicted as long as I'm truthful.

I'd feel conflicted for omitting material facts, not for telling a man what was what in this Craft of ours. It is Masonry that needs to feel conflicted that there are such realities to need explanation. When it does, those realities will change.

Brother Rashied-

I read the article on the other blog that you are referring to and I sympathized completely with the brother. In my town we only have the regular blue lodge, so if I was approached by an African American who wanted to join I would not be in the same quandery. If there were a Prince Hall lodge in town I would be really torn. Any attempt to inform him about the existence of a Prince Hall Lodge could be misconstrued as the subtle racism that has been all too common. I feel that honesty is the best policy. I would sit him down and inform him about the P.H. Lodge. I would inform him that I felt it was my duty to do this because he was making a big decision, and that I was afraid it would be misconstrued as racism. I would then tell him that whatever decision he made he would still be my brother, and that I would prefer to have him in my lodge.

Bro. Warwick

You post presents a different twist to the "problem" that what we face as PH Masons. If I were a white person in a Lodge that actually accpeted Blacks, I would feel quite conflicted because although the Black brother could join your Lodge, be treated with dignity and contribute to your good works, ... he would not be allowed to travel with you, particularly if you went visiting below the Mason-Dixon line. In this way, there is nothing subtle about Masonic racism. It is quite blatant ... and frankly "un-Masonic."

WM Thomas C. Brooks, Jr.
Adelphic Union Lodge, #14
1st District PHNY

Too true, brother, too true. Although I as a white man would have no interest in visiting a lodge if they would not let my black brother visit as well.

Bro. Joshua,

I really do empathize with the dilemma; don't think that I am insensitive to it. Perhaps I have the luxury of being black and that, to some extent, does influence my outlook. But what if, say, a white doctor or administrator at my hospital, knowing that I am a Mason and thinking highly of my character because of what he's seen at work, wanted to petition my Lodge? Wouldn't I face essentially the same dilemma?

I think that the only difference is in mindset and approach, really. Do I not tell him about the GLNY, because I want him to be in my Lodge, or because I'm embarrassed to let him find out that there is Masonic apartheid still on-going in America? Maybe not in NY, but even with 75% of "mainstream" GLs having some level of recognition with PHA in the U.S., the vast and overwhelming majority of PHA Masons live in states where there is no recognition, and aside from NC, and possibly FL following somewhat closely behind, it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon.

So, I'd tell him as I tell my black candidates: "I am here, they are there, we recognize one another and visit sometimes, here is the GLNY tour, here is the PHA-NY tour, here are the implications of a PHA membership; here are the implications of a GLNY membership. I want you as a Brother in my Lodge, but you have your own choice to make. Either way, I will support you, be your Brother, and visit you if you choose GLNY."

After that, it's up to him.

WFR,

Rashied ~

Brother Rashied-

It is embarrassing that there is Masonic Apartheid. The fact that we have to have this discussion in the 21st century in the U.S. is rather sad. Perhaps I can't quite relate to this issue in the same way as you and brother Brooks can. I live in a state that has 100% recognition of PHA, and they are looked upon as being a unique branch of Freemasonry and also as complete brothers. It really isn't much of an issue where I live.

I understand the feelings that you express, Bro. Joshua; it isn't that it's not embarrassing to me as well. I guess I just have a different way of approaching it, and part of that is that I have been a human services practitioner for nearly my whole professional career, and social change is a part of my life's work. I have a certain perspective about it.

Recognition in our state only occurred in the early '90s; part of the outcome of that long history of separatism in NY Masonry led to a plethora of illegal organizations making the excuse that "the white Masons won't let you in anyway, so we need to be together because we're black", which has nothing at all to do with Masonic legitimacy. Trying to make them see the distinctions of Masonic law is a really difficult matter.

One Grand Master in one of those GLs once told his members, when asked whether they were regular or not, that they were indeed regular, because they "paid their taxes and assessments to the GLNY," which was a complete, out and out lie. In the first place, that would have rendered them a vassal of the GLNY, and a loss of their "sovereignty" would then ensue, which is a prerequisite for a Grand Lodge's legitimacy, and in the second place, if he really believed that and wasn't lying to his membership, it means he has NO understanding of how Masonry works, and their leadership is unworthy of the name in either case.

And btw, that same PGM is now a member of our 4th Masonic District, having come over to PHA Masonry after all that, through an Occasional Grand Lodge (our mechanism for healing Masons made in unrecognized jurisdictions).

I agree; it is embarrassing to have to admit that Masonry is not being what it says it is, here in America. But it is only through our talking about it and being sick of its existence that Masonic apartheid can ever be banished to the shadows of its ignominious past.

WFR,

Rashied ~