Foundations donate $1.5M to help restore historic Black church in Memphis gutted by arson
Clayborn Temple had been undergoing a yearslong renovation when someone intentionally set a fire inside the church in the early hours of April 28, destroying almost everything but parts of the facade.
Before the fire, the Romanesque revival church was in the midst of a $25 million restoration project that included restoring a 3,000-pipe grand organ. The project also sought to help revitalize the neighborhood with a museum, cultural programing and community outreach.
Despite the extensive damage, Anasa Troutman, executive director of Historic Clayborn Temple, has said they plan to continue moving forward with the restoration. Troutman announced the new donations for that effort Wednesday. The money comes from the African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund along with the Mellon and Ford foundations.
Located just south of the iconic Beale Street, Clayborn Temple was built in 1892 as the Second Presbyterian Church and originally served an all-white congregation. In 1949, the building was sold to an African Methodist Episcopal congregation and given its current name. In 1968, the church served as the headquarters for a sanitation workers' strike, which brought the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to Memphis, where he was assassinated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Can a Netflix documentary explain what really happened to Jussie Smollett?
Few had it made at the beginning of 2019 quite like Jussie Smollett, an actor and singer who successfully navigated child stardom on the way to becoming a fixture on the hit TV series Empire. That was until late January of that same year, when news broke that Smollett had been attacked outside his downtown Chicago apartment in a possible hate crime. (Smollett is Black and gay.) The breakout details that Smollett shared early on – specifically, that he had been jumped by two Maga foot soldiers who doused him in bleach before placing a noose around his neck – both galvanized public supporters and made them cynical. (Really? They shouted: 'This is Maga country?' In Streeterville?) What's more, the police didn't do themselves many favors by registering their skepticism early and loudly. Ultimately, Smollett, who was suspected of staging the confrontation with help from two acting acquaintances, was charged with filing a false police report. When those charges were dropped in a deal with the county prosecutor's office, prompting cries of favoritism, Smollett was re-indicted, found guilty of framing himself and sentenced to five months of county jail. All the while Smollett was reduced to an object of global derision, with everyone from Dave Chappelle to Charles Barkley getting licks in. Explaining himself only made matters worse. Even though Smollett would win a conviction reversal on appeal in 2024 and has stuck to his original story, this idea that he manufactured outrage for clout continues to cost him his reputation and career. But is his story truly that far-fetched? 'That's the thing about this case,' says director Gagan Rehill. 'It has this gem-like quality where you turn it one way and it looks like one thing, depending on who you ask, depending on their experience, depending on who they are and their position in this case. There's nothing definitive.' Rehill's latest film, Netflix's The Truth about Jussie Smollett?, feels like the kind of thing that might well wind up on a criminology class syllabus. At the very least you could spend 90 minutes watching this documentary instead of pouring over the reams of studies that have been conducted over the decades about the inherently fragile nature of eyewitness testimony. The Truth is an intentional misnomer here; the film doesn't find the real perpetrators and isn't liable to leave viewers any more certain of the positions they've already staked out on Smollett's guilt or innocence. All that can be said for certain is: this case, still a head scratcher, is fit for the times. 'All you have to do is change a news channel, and you're given an alternate reality of what's going on out your window,' Rehill says. 'But in this case you legitimately have two competing narratives existing together.' The film spares no effort in getting down to the bottom of what exactly happened to Smollett. In addition to reviewing the stockpiles of police evidence and trial transcripts, the doc visits with a number of the main players in the case – including Smollett in an exclusive. As he begins sharing his version of events, this time with CCTV and other file footage providing additional context, you gain an appreciation for why the man would abandon the comfort of his luxury high-rise, at 2am, to brave -3C conditions for a Subway sandwich. (He had just arrived from Los Angeles, the fridge was bare, etc) Even his claim to being assaulted by a pair of white men gains credibility from two eyewitnesses (a neighbor and a security guard, both strangers to Smollett) who recalled seeing two people who fit that description lingering outside of Smollett's building – and testified to as much in court. Why wasn't a bigger deal made of this? Well for a start Smollett was tried in Chicago, not Los Angeles or New York. For another, cameras were only allowed for Smollett's post-trial sentencing – just in time for the world to watch the judge give him a good finger wag. 'The trial needed to be reported in a kind of measured, factual way,' Rehill says. Instead, it became an opportunity for overeager pundits to wallow in the void where genetic evidence, crime-scene video and other smoking guns might hang. 'I was defending myself against bullshit,' Smollett huffs at one point to camera. The documentary does now what the trial media should've done at the time: ask why we should believe the Chicago police. It bears reminding that four years before Smollett fell under suspicion, the city of Chicago came under fire for burying dashcam footage of an unarmed 17-year-old boy whom cops shot 16 times, sparking public outcry and protests. With help from investigative journalists Abigail Carr and Chelli Stanley, the film drops a few bombshells – not least footage from inside the county jail that appears to show the presumed attackers, Ola and Abel Osundairo, conspiring with police to throw Smollett under the bus. It lends credence to the idea that the fix was not only in, but that it came from on high. (Where else could police get the idea that Smollett hate-crimed himself as leverage for a higher Empire wage than from the mayor who came from the White House with the brother who happened to run one of Hollywood's largest talent agencies?) Special prosecutor Dan Webb explicitly went out of his way, after Smollett's conviction was overturned, to tell the public that this new state supreme court 'has nothing to do with Mr Smollett's innocence'. Even now Eddie Johnson, the ex-police chief who directed the investigation at the time, calls Smollett a 'narcissistic and troubled young man'. The public even scoffed with police when Smollett refused to hand over his cellphone for the investigation. In the film, Smollett doesn't just make the general case for his right to privacy. He reveals his true reason for contracting the Osundairo boys – to score a banned herbal supplement in Nigeria that might help him lose weight. And to think, semaglutides were just four years away from becoming widely available. 'Every contributor has their own viewpoint,' Rehill says. 'Some may call that an agenda. But these are just larger than life characters who just happen to be saying opposite things. It really makes you think about the nature of truth in society.' If Smollett can't be called a perfect victim, the documentary makes clear that the police aren't perfect villains either. Johnson, a Black Chicago native with roots in the Jim Crow South, took Smollett's lynching suggestion deeply to heart. Chief detective Melissa Staples, who identifies as gay, was affected by empathy early on as well. Training his camera lens like a loupe, Rehill has a knack for holding focus on one side of his figurative gem long enough for viewers to appreciate the clarity before pivoting it just enough to expose the flaws. Where that leaves his outsized characters in the end is anyone's guess. Smollett is slowly rebuilding his career, the Osundairo brothers are reveling in rightwing fame and the principal authorities have moved on – and yet so many of us are still stuck on this case. 'I wanted to leave the viewer in the end, like, not sure,' says Rehill, 'because I can see how one would not be sure. I understand why people would look into this case further. We live in a society where our trust in established institutions has eroded. So if people are going to go out and look at this again, why not put everything out there?' The Truth About Jussie Smollett? is available on Netflix on 22 August
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
US state claims TikTok uses addictive algorithms to target children
Minnesota has become the latest US state to launch legal action against TikTok, alleging the social media giant preys on young people with 'addictive algorithms' that trap them into compulsive consumption of its short videos. The lawsuit, filed in state court, accuses TikTok of violating Minnesota laws against deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison stated: "This isn't about free speech. I'm sure they're gonna holler that. It's actually about deception, manipulation, misrepresentation. 'This is about a company knowing the dangers, and the dangerous effects of its product, but making and taking no steps to mitigate those harms or inform users of the risks." This legal challenge follows a flurry of lawsuits filed by more than a dozen states last year, alleging the popular short-form video app is designed to be addictive for children and harms their mental health. With Minnesota 's case, the total number of states pursuing action against TikTok now stands at approximately 24, according to Mr Ellison's office. Many of these earlier lawsuits stemmed from a nationwide investigation into TikTok, launched in 2022 by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from 14 states, focusing on the app's effects on young users' mental health. Mr Ellison, a Democrat, explained that Minnesota waited to file its complaint while conducting its own investigation. Sean Padden, a middle-school health teacher in the Roseville Area school district, joined Ellison, saying he has witnessed a correlation between increased TikTok use and an 'irrefutable spike in student mental health issues,' including depression, anxiety, anger, lowered self-esteem and a decrease in attention spans as they seek out the quick gratification that its short videos offer. The lawsuit comes while President Donald Trump is still trying to broker a deal to bring the social media platform, which is owned by China 's ByteDance, under American ownership over concerns about the data security of its 170 million American users. While Trump campaigned on banning TikTok, he also gained more than 15 million followers on the platform since he started sharing videos on it. No matter who ultimately owns TikTok, Ellison said, it must comply with the law. TikTok disputed Minnesota's allegations. 'This lawsuit is based on misleading and inaccurate claims that fail to recognise the robust safety measures TikTok has voluntarily implemented to support the well-being of our community," company spokesperson Nathaniel Brown said in a statement. "Teen accounts on TikTok come with 50+ features and settings designed to help young people safely express themselves, discover and learn. "Through our Family Pairing tool, parents can view or customise 20+ content and privacy settings, including screen time, content filters, and our time away feature to pause a teen's access to our app,' Brown added. Minnesota is seeking a declaration that TikTok's practices are deceptive, unfair or unconscionable under state law, a permanent injunction against those practices, and up to $25,000 for each instance in which a Minnesota child has accessed TikTok. Ellison wouldn't put a total on that but said, 'it's a lot.' He estimated that 'hundreds of thousands of Minnesota kids' have TikTok on their devices. 'We're not trying to shut them down, but we are insisting that they clean up their act,' Ellison said. 'There are legitimate uses of products like TikTok. But like all things, they have to be used properly and safely.' Minnesota is also among dozens of US states that have sued Meta Platforms for allegedly building features into Instagram and Facebook that addict people. The messaging service Snapchat and the gaming platform Roblox are also facing lawsuits by some other states alleging harm to kids.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Tulsi Gabbard revokes security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has revoked the security clearances of at least 37 current and former top government officials, accusing them of 'abusing the public trust' and manipulating and leaking documents. Gabbard recently revived the 'Russiagate' furore of the president's first term by recommending that the Justice Department investigate several Obama -era intelligence personnel, including former FBI director James Comey, ex-CIA director John Brennan and her predecessor James Clapper, after accusing them of 'manufacturing' evidence of Kremlin meddling in an effort delegitimize the Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Some of the officials concerned in the latest clearance cull were involved in assessing the extent of Russia 's efforts to interfere in that year's presidential election, according to a memo obtained by CNN. Members of former President Joe Biden 's National Security Council have also had their access removed, the memo reveals, although it does not make specific accusations of wrongdoing. It does, however, accuse the officials targeted of engaging in the 'politicization or weaponization of intelligence to advance personal, partisan, or non-objective agendas inconsistent with national security priorities.' Gabbard confirmed the story, first reported by The New York Post, in a post on X on Tuesday evening, in which she said: 'Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. 'Those in the intelligence community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold. 'In doing so, they undermine our national security, the safety and security of the American people and the foundational principles of our democratic republic.' She went on to say that the 37 officials concerned had 'abused the public trust by politicizing and manipulating intelligence, leaking classified intelligence without authorization, and/or committing intentional egregious violations of tradecraft standards.' Gabbard concluded: 'Our intelligence community must be committed to upholding the values and principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and maintain a laser-like focus on our mission of ensuring the safety, security and freedom of the American people.' In addition to her 'treasonous conspiracy' allegation against the Obama-era intelligence community, CIA Director John Ratcliffe has also released his review attacking 2017 assessments of Russia's actions to influence the contest between Trump and Clinton. Obama himself issued a rare retaliatory rebuke to Gabbard last month in which his spokesperson, Patrick Rodenbush, said: 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.' Democrats have echoed his 'distraction' critique, noting that Gabbard first made her accusations in late July after three weeks of non-stop coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal left the president and his administration under siege. They have also accused her of 'weaponizing' her office, contradicting her claims to be 'depoliticizing' its operations. 'These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,' said Mark Zaid, a national security attorney whose own clearance was previously revoked by Trump. 'For this administration to claim these individuals politicized or weaponized intelligence blatantly wreaks of hypocrisy. This administration would make Senator [Joseph] McCarthy proud.'
