Recovery from a natural disaster should be able to make survivors “whole.” However, when the starting point is life in one of the poorest and most dangerous countries in the Western hemisphere, getting back to normal becomes a trickier proposition. Haiti has the highest rates of infant, under-five and maternal mortality in the Western hemisphere. In 2003, 80% of the population was estimated to live under the international poverty line. As demonstrated by the extended recovery process from Hurricane Katrina, economic condition has a determinative effect on the ability to recover from a natural disaster, with the worst impact and least independent ability to recover suffered by the poorest residents.
Although this paints a bleak picture, and there’s no denying that the reality is grim, the only possibility for hope or optimism lies in a new roadmap for recovery. Any attempt to rebuild Haiti must be developed with an eye to erasing past inequities. It cannot be enough to rebuild the Haiti of January 11, 2010. Most Haitians lived by subsistence farming. With a lack of arable land, continuing deforestation, and destruction of much of the country’s infrastructure, Haiti’s economy must be rebuilt on a new basis. If the country must begin anew, the opportunity to develop something entirely new exists.
The lingering effects of colonialism, racism, and poverty must be eliminated as the country begins to map out its future. Internal and external factors that have perpetuated, and actually increased, the disintegration of Haiti – its infrastructure, its agriculture, and its people – must be left out of the country’s future. The color line of Haiti’s elites must go. An economy based on unsustainable agriculture must go. Governmental instability and corruption must go. Unacceptable mortality rates for infants, children under five, and women giving birth must go. All of which leaves room for a new, more equitable, more self-determined Haiti – with the help of all of us.
A unique challenge faces advocates for meaningful dialogue on racial inequality and injustice in America. As people of color have made even modest gains in education, economic security, and professional opportunities over the past few decades, some Americans have increasingly insisted that racial discrimination is largely a thing of the past. Today that sentiment is more widespread and vocal than ever, with the election of Barack Obama as the nation's 44th president.
A shocking example of remaining racial inequality took place at the first ever National Tea Party Convention. Former Representative from Colorado, Tom Tancredo decried "the cult of multiculturalism," and argued that President Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."
Mr. Tancredo had to know that literacy and civics voting tests with impossible answers were notoriously used to prevent African Americans from voting during segregation—and were banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1964.
It's that time of year again. Some have vowed to hit the gym more often. Others are swearing off cigarettes. For some, coffee has been replaced with copious amounts of socialist green tea. Still others are signing up for community service projects to help improve the world around them.
Yes, many Americans have made their New Year's resolutions. Perhaps the conservative media establishment should do the same.
We at Open Left are taking the New Year's weekend off. Golden Oldies will run in their place. Regularly Scheduled programming will resume on January 4th--Chris Bowers
Jimmy Carter was a terrible President, but as a former President he's second only to John Quincy Adams, who was the foremost anti-slavery voice in the House of Representatives at a time when the South had virtually shut down all mention of slavery as a topic of discussion in Versailles. Carter has excelled at assuming the role of elder--a role found in human societies across time and around the world. It's the role of one who has made their mark in day-to-day world of material and status concerns, and has nothing more to prove. Their concern now is with the welfare of the whole and taking care for the future. And that's what Carter has done to a degree that's not been equaled by other ex-Presidents since the time of John Qunicy Adams. That was the context in which he spoke out about the role of racism in fueling that attacks on Obama.
It was the kind of thing that no one still bound up in the day-to-day world of material and status concerns could say--even though it was as obvious as the nose on your face. But President Obama responded by denying the obvious truth that Carter spoke. And, to be honest, very few people could be surprised that Obama lied the way he did. Lying about race has always been at the center of the racial bargain that Obama has struck: You pretend that I'm not black, and I'll pretend that racism doesn't exist. That's not it exactly, but it gets us in the right ballpark, sitting in our favorite seats, hot dogs and cold beer in hand.
Remember this exchange between Keith Olberman and Melissa Harris-Lacewell?
OLBERMANN: Previously, on many topics, this president has taken a minor controversy and turned it into something worth contemplating, worth analyzing, particularly on the issue of race itself. Is he missing an opportunity to take what seems like a central controversy and turn it into the same kind of thing by reacting the way he did to President Carter? To say through a spokesman that the White House doesn't believe racism is a significant factor here?
HARRIS-LACEWELL: Yes, I mean, I guess I understand that the president is trying to pass health care. But there are these moments-you know, I've heard people say maybe what President Obama is doing is the rope-a-dope strategy of Muhammad Ali, laying back and taking the body blows to tire out the opposition so he can come out with a knockout.
But one of the things that was true about Muhammad Ali, is that when he saw racism, he always spoke to it. He always said it. It was part of what we loved about his brashness. I wish it was a little bit more Muhammad Ali in Barack Obama today.
Sorry, Melissa, you must be thinking about the anti-Obama. Because Barack Obama would never go there. He accidentally stumbled vaguely in that direction when he called the arrst of Henry Louis Gates "stupid" (not "racist") and that's as close as he's ever going to get.
College is often described as a wonderful institution, a place in which many people have the best experiences of their lives. Students like me forge lasting friendships, take a leap into independence, and even sometimes learn.
College is also a place to make lifelong connections. If you're destined to be a future Wall Street businessman and your roommate an important politician - good things can happen.
Greek fraternities and sororities are particularly good at this. Take the University of Alabama. Its Greek organizations run The Machine, a secretive organization which effectively controls campus politics.
Since student government was initiated in 1915, the Machine's choice for the SGA Presidency has lost a grand total of seven times - the last of which occurred in 1986. That's a century of unchallenged Greek dominance.
Machine candidates often go on to have shining political careers. In 2000, The New Republic reported that:
When the Machine's members leave Tuscaloosa, they typically go on to Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile, and Montgomery, and join Machine alums in Alabama's political and business elite. Machine members work in Alabama's most prestigious law firms and businesses; they have been state legislators, state party chairmen, congressmen, presidents of the state bar, members of the Public Service Commission, and federal judges. For most of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, both of Alabama's U.S. Senators, Lister Hill and John Sparkman, were Machine alums. Alabama's current governor, Don Siegelman, was the Machine-backed SGA president in 1968; Senator Richard Shelby is also said to have been a member of the Machine (although his office has denied this). As one former member of a Machine-affiliated sorority explained to the student newspaper The Crimson White, "The goal is to run campus politics, but the real reason they want to run campus politics is so they themselves can run politics in Alabama."
The meat of The New Republic article, however, does not dwell upon University of Alabama politics - but instead on a rather different theme. It tells the story of one Melody Twilley, a sophomore student at the University of Alabama attempting to join a Greek sorority. Like many of her fellow students, Ms. Twilley "blended right in to the roiling mix of social ambition and social privilege." Compared to her peers, however, Ms. Twilley was unique in two interesting ways:
For one thing, unlike the vast majority of rushees, who are admitted into sororities as freshmen, this wasn't Twilley's first time through. She had tried-and failed-to join a sorority the year before. Which may have had something to do with the other thing that set Melody Twilley apart: She is black.
...Indeed, when Melody Twilley stood in front of the Delta Zeta house last September, it was believed that no white fraternity or sorority at the University of Alabama had ever offered membership to a black student.
As is the tradition every year with the HRC national dinner, a lot of bitter criticism comes out about the group. I debunked the "they haven't done anything" argument last week. Today I want to write about a segment of the gay community whose influence we must all fear: the Rich, White Gays (RWGs).
You see, many in the LGBT community (examples here, here and here) have criticized HRC as a group made up entirely of RWGs, and that we should dislike HRC, their money, and their support because of the RWGs. In fact, the HRC headquarters was actually vandalized yesterday for the same reason.
Allow me to do my best to disabuse you of the notion that HRC, via the scary RWGs, are destroying all of Gayopolis (h/t Queer as Folk):
1. Corruption. In any discussion of financial support leading to certain policies, there should be an A->B argument, such as Max Baucus takes millions from insurance companies->his doing their bidding in Congress. Is this the case with the RWGs and HRC? Has HRC been particularly dismissive of poor LGBTers, or people of color, or lesbians/bisexuals/transgender individuals? It doesn't seem that way. Here in DC alone, I regularly see HRC's support everywhere in the community for non-RWGs, financially sponsoring everything from Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League brunches to the Mautner Project, an organization focusing on lesbian health. They also were the only LGBT organization to purchase sponsorship at Netroots Nation last year. These are all organizations whose constituencies are predominantly some or all of the characteristics of non-rich, non-white, non-gay male.
Legislatively, last time I checked (aside from the T issue in ENDA, which I and many others supported as a strategic measure), HRC hasn't been pushing legislation that only benefits, rich white gay men.
2. Financial support. Like with its support of SMYAL and the Mautner Project, lots and lots of organizations rely on HRC for financial support. HRC also puts tens of thousands into political support- in direct contributions, sending staff, and other ways- into political campaigns, like the 2005 Maine non-discrimination ballot initiative, this year's Maine marriage campaign, Referendum 71 in Washington, Prop 8, electing LGBT members of Congress, and more. Yet I know many people who cheer HRC's contributions to non-profits and political campaigns turn around and make the RWG argument.
But is this different than anywhere else? Many foundation boards are entirely rich and white. Many individual donors who give money in LGBT politics are rich, white and gay. Should the money be rejected because of the race and class from which it comes?
I also view HRC as a kind of aggregator for donors. Is it better there be no HRC Dinner at all, where non-profit executive directors go principally to get access to the RWGs to get additional direct financial support? Is it better for a non-profit like SMYAL to not get any money from HRC, and for its tiny staff to spend even more time and resources on development work, rather than helping underprivileged youth of color?
3. Hypocrisy. At the same time folks trash HRC's RWG demographic, they celebrate RWGs. Bruce Bastian is a classic example. Bruce, a Utah native and former Mormon missionary, co-founded WordPerfect and is on Fortune 500's list of richest people in the country. He is widely respected as one of the most inspiring and generous donors in the LGBT movement. I see praise heaped upon him in many quarters, as I should.
Bruce has also given millions to HRC. He is on the HRC Board of Directors. I went to the HRC Dinner last year, where he was the guest of honor, feted and given an award.
If anything, Bruce is the Rich White Gay incarnate, but he is praised, while the organization doling out his money to causes we all hold dear is demonized as "you're rich, white and gay, so you suck!!". Huh?
4. Diversity. In a perfect world, every foundation and political action group and non-profit would be a mix of races, classes, and colors. I would hope that HRC and lots of other groups are more diverse- economically, racially, and in terms of sexual orientation. That's not the case, and I don't think that will ever be. So why are we making race-based and class-based attacks on organizations that support the rest of the community? It's not like HRC is the only one. I live in DC, one of the gayest cities in the country, with a majority-black population. Yet I go to events all all the time- benefit galas, LGBT performing arts, sporting events, political group meetings, bars, you name it- that are almost entirely middle-to-upper-class, white and gay. I have friends who tell me the same in other cities. Yet I don't hear the kind of vitriol thrown at the sponsoring institutions like I do HRC.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the financial makeup of the LGBT community, but I don't think the class, economic, and sexual orientation structure of HRC- or the other events I mentioned- is because they're some kind of racist, classist, LBT-hating group. I think it's because there aren't exactly tons and tons of rich LBTs or people of color, particularly POCs who are "out". Is this HRC's fault?
And a greater amount of HRC's programming- like this Ya Es Hora program- involves HRC Steering Committee partnering with local volunteers to help low-income Hispanics apply for citizenship. One colleague related how the Houston chapter volunteers were nearly all people of color, and split male/female with one transgender individual. HRC has also had several female executive directors and diversity within its staff and board.
---
Again, I wish organizations were more diverse in many ways. I was not happy there was a lack of diversity in local DC planning meetings for the National Equality March. But I don't get why hurling criticism at those that aren't, and can't do a whole lot about it, and do a ton of good, accomplishes anything.
Like the "they haven't accomplished anything" argument, the RWG criticism of HRC isn't entirely grounded in reality or fairness. I don't think HRC has done everything entirely right, but if you're going to make a criticism, at least do it in the interest of good faith, not for the sake of finding a mean adjective to slander them with.
Last week, the Labor Department reported that youth unemployment stands at 18.2%, nearly twice the national average of 9.8%. The percentage of young people without a job is a staggering 53.4 percent, the highest figure since World War II. Looking deeper, the statistics for youth of color are terrible and telling.
According to the most recent data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 40.7% of black youth between 16-19 are unemployed, almost double the amount of whites teenagers (23%). For Latinos the same age, the rate is nearly 30%. Get a little older and the gap grows wider. Unemployment for black Americans aged 20-24 is 27.1%, over twice that faced by white youth (13.1%) in the same age range.
The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
It's a sad irony that a President who wants to unite opposing factions presides over an increasingly entrenched and partisan political landscape. There seems to be no satisfactory compromise for both the health care and immigration reform debates. Well-worn rallying cries and talking points are tooled and retooled until the root issues are nearly forgotten. The situation is tragic because the people's needs are made secondary to an unending war between two political entities.
Jimmy Carter was a terrible President, but as a former President he's second only to John Quincy Adams, who was the foremost anti-slavery voice in the House of Representatives at a time when the South had virtually shut down all mention of slavery as a topic of discussion in Versailles. Carter has excelled at assuming the role of elder--a role found in human societies across time and around the world. It's the role of one who has made their mark in day-to-day world of material and status concerns, and has nothing more to prove. Their concern now is with the welfare of the whole and taking care for the future. And that's what Carter has done to a degree that's not been equaled by other ex-Presidents since the time of John Qunicy Adams. That was the context in which he spoke out about the role of racism in fueling that attacks on Obama.
It was the kind of thing that no one still bound up in the day-to-day world of material and status concerns could say--even though it was as obvious as the nose on your face. But President Obama responded by denying the obvious truth that Carter spoke. And, to be honest, very few people could be surprised that Obama lied the way he did. Lying about race has always been at the center of the racial bargain that Obama has struck: You pretend that I'm not black, and I'll pretend that racism doesn't exist. That's not it exactly, but it gets us in the right ballpark, sitting in our favorite seats, hot dogs and cold beer in hand.
Remember this exchange between Keith Olberman and Melissa Harris-Lacewell?
OLBERMANN: Previously, on many topics, this president has taken a minor controversy and turned it into something worth contemplating, worth analyzing, particularly on the issue of race itself. Is he missing an opportunity to take what seems like a central controversy and turn it into the same kind of thing by reacting the way he did to President Carter? To say through a spokesman that the White House doesn't believe racism is a significant factor here?
HARRIS-LACEWELL: Yes, I mean, I guess I understand that the president is trying to pass health care. But there are these moments-you know, I've heard people say maybe what President Obama is doing is the rope-a-dope strategy of Muhammad Ali, laying back and taking the body blows to tire out the opposition so he can come out with a knockout.
But one of the things that was true about Muhammad Ali, is that when he saw racism, he always spoke to it. He always said it. It was part of what we loved about his brashness. I wish it was a little bit more Muhammad Ali in Barack Obama today.
Sorry, Melissa, you must be thinking about the anti-Obama. Because Barack Obama would never go there. He accidentally stumbled vaguely in that direction when he called the arrst of Henry Louis Gates "stupid" (not "racist") and that's as close as he's ever going to get.
Back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the South (and let's face it, most of the rest of America) was still segregated in spite of Brown v. Board of Education and the burgeoning Civil Rights movement, and when South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) were still governed by apartheid, a small group of young Africans started coming to this country to go to college. Barack Obama's father was part of that wave, but it wasn't just exotic cosmopolitan places like Hawaii that received African students. The modest sized (150,000 population at the time), virtually all-white city I grew up in, Lincoln, Nebraska, had some come our way as well, and the arrival of a couple of these families was a central part of my childhood.
My dad and mom were the host family of two different African students, from Rhodesia, who were brought to Lincoln with the support of our church, the first arrived around 1961 and the second around 1968. Both of the young men brought their wives with them, and one of them had a couple of children while here, while the second family came with two young ones.
It was an intense time in terms of racial politics in this country and around the world. Lincoln was a white enough city that I don't think my folks had ever been friends with a black person, and coming from highly segregated Rhodesia, I know that the Africans who arrived in Lincoln had never been friends with white people before either. The elementary school that I, and the children of those couples, attended had no other black children as far as I can remember. One of the most searing memories from my childhood was walking with the kids of the second family, the Chimonyos, to school. I was maybe10 or 11, the little girl Petonella was in kindergarten and the little boy Prayer was about 7, in 2nd grade I think. We would frequently hear catcalls of "nigger, nigger," and would get regular threats of being hit or a couple of cases having rocks thrown at us. I was not much of an athlete, so I didn't try to fight back, but I knew my parents would expect me to stand by those kids' side and hold their hands and comfort them when the bullies finally gave it up.
I am thinking on all this because 20 years ago today, my father died of cancer at the absurdly young age of 60. He would have been amazed at the world we're living in-Mandela was freed the year after his death, South African apartheid was finally ended, and most amazing of all, we actually have the son of one of the wave of African student who came to this country as President. The immigrants from third world countries who started arriving here in bigger numbers in the 1960s, and their children and grandchildren, have really begun to change this country for the better, and the fact that one of their children is President shows how far we have come. But in spite of all of this progress, we still have the bitter anger that I felt in the elementary school yard, we still have Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck and Pat Buchanan spewing their fear and hatred against immigrants and people of color. A whole lot has changed in the 40 years since I stood in that schoolyard holding the hands of the little ones in my care, and in the 20 years since my father died, but a whole lot of things haven't as well. We still have to fight the same battles: for immigrants and all people of color to be treated with respect; for those who are sick or are dying to be well cared for with dignity, in a manner of their choosing, as my father was lucky enough to do; for the poor of this world to have a change at a decent life and decent education and decent health care, as my dad wanted for all his life.
For my dad, it was his faith that gave him those values. To feed the hungry, to give water to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to visit the sick and those in prison. To welcome the stranger. To be our brother's and sister's keeper. To proclaim good news to the poor and let the oppressed go free. To show mercy and love kindness. Those are the values I was raised with, and when I hear Joe Wilson from the buckle of the Bible belt scream "You lie" at this President when he is talking about health care for all, I wonder how those values got so distorted.
So, Dad, wherever you are, thank you for raising me with those values and not the bitter angry ugliness of the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Joe Wilsons of this world. A lot has changed since you left this good earth, but we're still fighting the ugliness. But I honor you and all those famous and unsung pioneers for human justice who have gone before us. I am thankful that there were people like you and my mom who welcomed the stranger, people who welcomed Barack Obama, Sr and so many other immigrants who have contributed to the quality of this country, and still are. The next time I write, I hope I'll be telling you that we finally have decent health care for all, and that we live in a country where immigrants are finally welcome.
The American Nazi Party, the Fascists, and the Ku Klux Klan Had A Party Last Week-end.
The American neocons, right-wingers, the Nazis, the Fascists, the white Aryan Nation clowns, the separatists, the secessionists, the Texans (or a big chunk of them), the white southerners (or a big chunk of them), the morons, the born-agains, the Aramagedenists, the We-Love-Sarah-Palinists, the Friends Of The Drug Addict On The Radio, that drunken lunatic Glenn Beck, all the rent-boys from Rupert Murdoch's Whorehouse, every Methbrain with a Microphone, all had a big party this week-end in Washington D.C. They didn't lynch anyone, but they're getting close.
The party of Neville Chamberlain did nothing, as always. I mean the Democrats. They were too busy out collecting bribes and shaking down the insurance industry, selling their votes, betraying the public, starting new wars, and firing people like Van Jones. The party of Neville Chamberlain is too corrupt to actually do anything at all in response to this gathering storm. Of course it's us, the citizens, who will suffer the effects of the tidal wave of armed lunacy beginning to overtake our nation.
For some bizarre reasons, we now hear the right-wing screaming that there is something evil about the word "czar," and if Obama appoints any "czar," then he too must be bad. I'm reminded of the Tsar Nicholas. The Romanovs. Remember that in the final days, Alexandra was enthralled with Rasputin, the privileged associates of the court mostly spent their time drinking, drugging and having orgies while the peasants gathered with pitchforks in the streets, hungry, angry, with no hope or direction. The Romanovs and the 5% of the richest people in the country owned most of the wealth, while 95% went hungry. But the rich people ignored the poor.
Our politicians in D.C. are like the Romanovs -- they've got most of the wealth, along with their friends, they live incredibly privileged lives, they apparently spend much of their time out having sex with non-spouses, drinking, drugging, finding new places to hide their money, then show up occasionally in public to "run" for the offices which are purchased for them by their wealthy corporate sponsors. That means the rest of us are the peasants. And this angry mob that has begun to assault the public represents the fascist portion of the peasants. What will the Democrats do to protect us, or represent us? They do nothing. They do nothing to help us, the people who got them elected. How can they be so blind, so silent? Or do the Democrats secretly want the lunatics out marching in the street because it gives them an excuse to do nothing?
(Try to figure out what these people have in common, what is their issue? "Madam Speaker, Kiss Our Astroturf." What does that mean? They hate Pelosi because she's female and in a position of power? "Congress Enslaves America." What is that supposed to mean? "Audit the government." Where were these people when Bush was running up the debt, starting wars, cutting taxes for rich people? If they are really fiscal conservatives, opposed to debt, why weren't they out marching against the Wall Street Bailouts? Why are they opposed to their neighbors getting affordable healthcare? What are they talking about? What unifies them except their hatred of Obama?)
Meanwhile, there is a gathering storm in this country of fascists, murderers, mercenaries, assassins, racists. They have guns. They are threatening violence against any citizen who opposes them. It's not surprising they would believe that it's okay to just kill people if you don't like them, since that's exactly the motto of our federal government.
What do these people share in common? What is their unifying bond? Look at some of the photos below. Old white people, mostly. Their signs are a confused muddle. Some say Obama is a Communist. Some talk about a health care program meaning that we need more coffins ready. Some talk about redistributing wealth. They're a mess. There is no unifying theme. Some may be anti-abortion. So what is it that really unifies these people?
Ask Jimmy Carter what's going on. It's racism. These people who proudly wear T-shirts describing themselves as an angry mob are against Obama because he's black. They don't even know what any of his proposals are. If they understood his health care proposal, they would understand that it's the same thing the Republican Baucus supports: doing nothing at all to help the citizens. Typical Republican policies. But the people in the photos below are stupid. They have no idea what's going on. Ask any one of them to explain anything that Obama has done or proposes, and they will be unable to answer. Because they are stupid and ignorant. But mostly, they are motivated by racism. They "want their country back," means that they are horrified to see a black man as president. And that's it.
You know what they remind me of? Cult members. They would strap a grenade on their love-handles and throw their bodies on an Obama yard-sign if Bill O'Really told them to. These people are mentally unstable. Cultists. Look out for them, they're not rational and they're armed.
As far as the party of Neville Chamberlain, they think that they can always count on the liberals, progressives, left, to jump in to defend Obama against these attacks, which are so clearly racist. Don't count on it. I'm not jumping. When Obama starts working for me, then maybe I'll show up to defend him. As things stand right now, I could care less.
At least 30% of the country is fundamentally fascist. Obama refuses to support programs on the grounds that he wants everyone to support him. By definition, at least 30% don't, and never will. If Obama is too stupid to realize that, he deserves no support.
But I think he knows exactly what he's doing. He's playing with fire. He's encouraging the angry mobs, the fascists, the racists, the klan, with his polite language and deferential style, calming demeanor. His job is to keep us distracted while the leadership in the Democratic party is in the background hauling in the loot, the bribes from the insurance and war industry. It doesn't look like the Democrats have any policies or programs to help the people of this country. They are just using their dominant position to get lots of money for themselves. Who is going to protect the rest of us from the angry mobs?
("God Bless America," "I am the mob," "don't tread on me," "term limits"? What does all of this mean? What are these idiots talking about? One thing: they hate Obama because he is black. They are cultists and will do and say as instructed.)
There is a gathering storm. The Democrats are either encouraging the lunatics or, at a minimum, will appease them and do nothing to stop them. What shall we do? With no national party, no national leadership, what shall we do?
This is republished from the current issue of Random Lenghts News.
Racism by Another Name
Wild Claims About Obama's Birth and His Healthcare Plan Have A Pernicious Racial Subtext
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor
During the 2008 elections, serious questions were raised about the eligibility of one of the major party candidates to hold the office of President. Born outside the continental US, it was unclear to some if he had been born on US soil. And so members of the opposite party took quick action to lay those concerns to rest.
In May, 2008, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were co-sponsors of Senate Resolution 511, which affirmed that Senator John McCain was a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution, regardless of being born in the Canal Zone when its legal status of the Zone was unclear.
Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama clearly was born on US soil. His Hawaiian birth certificate has been posted online, as have birth announcements from two Honolulu newspapers. But Republican lawmakers have done the exact opposite of their Democratic counterparts, not only failing to decry a baseless conspiracy theory ("Birtherism") that Obama was actually born in Kenya, but sometimes actively encouraging it.
Blogger/videographer Mike Stark has produced hilarious tapes of various Congressmembers trying to avoid his straightforward questioning, and a July 31 poll by Research 2000 commissioned by the Daily Kos website helped to explain why. While only 11 percent of all Americans believed that Obama was not "born in the United States of America", 28 percent of Republicans believed he was not, and 30 percent said they were not sure. Only a minority of 42 percent of Republicans said they believed that Obama was born in the US, compared to 93 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents. Similarly, only 47 percent of Southerners believed Obama was born in the US, compared to 93 percent of Northeasterners, 90 percent of Midwesterners, and 87 percent of Westerners.
While there could be any number of reasons people might believe such a confused claim, a wide range of scholars, researchers, and activists specializing in race relations readily recognize a racial component, which has also cropped up in the "tea parties" and health care protests as well, in language, symbolism and the persistence of wild fantasies ("death panels", "pulling the plug on grandma", etc.) with a paranoid dimension similar to past racist narratives.
Most of our discussions about rankism here at Open Left have been about its application in specific political contexts. But for me, the essential power of the concept is its vast generality without dissolving into mindless mushiness. And to really grasp the power of that generality, it helps to go back to basics, as Robert Fuller does here in this guest post.
There's just one thing I want to stress in advance--the fact that everyone can be on the receiving end of rankism is extremely useful. It stands in sharp contrast to the extreme defensiveness we've seen among whites about recognizing the continued existence of racism.
At the same time that we need to keep confronting the denial involved in this, taking up the new, broader theme of rankism opens up another line of potential progress, an easier way, in that it invites a more inclusive outlook, in which all have experienced some form of abuse, but a harder way, once the lesson has sunk in, in that it ultimately removes all our excuses for resisting change.
One last thing: tremayne has a diary scheduled for 5 PM EST about a dramatic example of rankism that started off victimizing poor and minority criminal suspects, and now threatens just about everyone: the routine abuse of tasers.
Somebodies and Nobodies:
Understanding Rankism
by Robert Fuller
What is rankism? First, some examples; then, a definition.
An executive pulls into valet parking, late to a business lunch, and finds no one to take his car. He spots a teenager running towards him and yells, "Where the hell were you? I haven't got all day."
He tosses the keys on the pavement. Bending to pick them up, the boy says, "Sorry, sir. About how long do you expect to be?"
The executive hollers over his shoulder, "You'll know when you see me, won't you?" The valet winces, but holds his tongue. Postscript: That evening the teenager bullies his kid brother.
The dynamic is familiar: A customer demeans a waitress, a boss humiliates an employee, a principal bullies a teacher, a teacher mocks a student, students ostracize other students, a parent beats a child, a coach bullies a player, a professor exploits a graduate student, a doctor insults a nurse or patronizes a patient, a priest abuses a parishioner, a caregiver mistreats an elder, executives award themselves perks and bonuses, police use racial profiling, politicians serve the special interests. Surely, you can add to the list.
GOP Sees Opportunity With White Voters After Gates Saga
Obama's Response to Professor's Arrest Dents Numbers Among Swing Voters By David Weigel
Two weeks after President Obama said that Cambridge, Mass., police had "acted stupidly" by arresting Harvard University Prof. Henry Louis Gates for arguing with them inside his home, Republicans are still taking stock of their unexpected political gift.
A Pew Research poll released on July 30 found the president's approval rating among white voters slipping seven points, from 53 percent to 46 percent, explicitly because of their disappointment in the Gates remarks. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released on August 4 found that six out of 10 white voters disagreed with the president's remarks. A Quinnipiac poll released on August 6 found that white voters, by a 2-1 margin, believed that the president had "acted stupidly" in talking about Gates.
"He would have been a whole lot wiser to shut up," said Roy Fletcher, a Republican strategist based in Baton Rouge, La. "He got really close to losing the image he has as a post-racial president. For a few days, the question for a lot of people became, 'Wait a minute. Is he the president of the United States? Or is he just the president of minorities?' And that was a really unfortunate thing."
Being President of minorities instead of President of real Americans! Yeah, that was a real "forgetting his place" moment.
Sure it's a GOP operative, but those types have Versailles wired. And, indeed, Obama should have known what a straight-jacket the whole "post-racial" posture was. But he compounded it by not treating it as a teachable moment, and instead treating it as a photo-op. Once he opened the can of worms, he should have realized he had no choice but to go fishing for something bigger.
What could have been taught? Quite a lot, actually, starting with something seemingly quite small. To begin with, he could have taught the reason why he reacted as he did. And he could have bilt up from there. He could have said something like this:
"Much as we strive to be one nation, we still have very different experiences. Most white professionals never have any contact with the police, beyond an occasional traffic ticket. But most black professionals do have contact, and it usually involves some questioning of their right to be wherever they happen to be....
The arrest of Henry Louis Gates, and all that has followed it provides countless different angles to explore, but I want to just focus attention on the following. First is the little-known fact that this wasn't an isolated incident. There's a persistent problem with blacks at Harvard suffering from police harrassment. From the Boston Globe last August: (H/T Jesse Taylor at Pandagon)
It was the quintessential college scene: dozens of students from the Harvard Black Men's Forum and the Association of Black Harvard Women picnicking on the Radcliffe Quad, playing capture-the-flag and running relay races at their end-of-the-year field day.
But just an hour into the festivities on the sunny afternoon in May 2007, the fun screeched to a halt. Two campus police officers rode up on motorcycles. Were they students, the officers asked. Did they have permission to be there?
The young men and women, dressed in Harvard T-shirts, would discover that a fellow student in a nearby dorm had mistaken them for trespassers, according to students who were there and whose account was confirmed by Harvard officials.
The incident, which ignited criticism from black students and faculty, highlighted the prejudices that many black students say they continue to face at Harvard, not only from police, but from classmates, as well.
More from that article on the flip, including some brief descriptions of other such incidents.
Second, is the fact that Obama's initial response was refreshingly honest and real: For the police to arrest someone in their own home, just because the person is upset? Calling it "stupidity" is kind.
But, third, that momentary honesty doesn't really accomplish anything, beyond giving us a rush. That's why I--someone who's generally infuriated by the walk-back routine--am actually quite pleased with Obama's followup. The fact is, Gates may very well have been wrong about the officer--but only because the most widespread problem we face today is "Racism Without Racists" (aka "colorblind racism"--see the book by the same name by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva here.), the persistence of subconscious racial attitudes that have a pervasive, pernicious impact on black, Latino and other minorities' lives, without any conscious animosity on the part of whites who harbor such attitudes. And anything that helps us make some headway in sorting through the deceptive intricacies of colorblind racism is a good thing.
Fourth, special bonus points for outing the plain old-fashioned racism that still lurks in many parts of the GOP/conservative establishment, trying to exploit the persistence of colorblind racism. (See, for example, "Gates arrest: GOP congressman still on political warpath.") As Obama's sudden shift in tone struck a chord with the police involved in the incident, and presumably with many millions more white Americans, the hatred-fanning GOP/conservative dinosaurs were caught flat-footed. And that's a very good thing, indeed.
(This diary builds on the analysis of lifestyle activism in Part I to look at the related phenomena of lifestyle politics, using an example from the black community, based on the book, Black on the Block. The author of that book, Mary Pattillo, joins us for the discussion. So I invite everyone to take advantage of this opportunity. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
--recycling,
--reducing "carbon footprints," or
--creating a compost piles in the backyard.
rarely contributes in any effective or coherent way to positive social change.
Why? Because:
1) Individuals' private acts, however well meant, have little or no impact on the actions of others (if no one knows you recycle, how does that encourage anyone else to recycle?); and
2) While publicly modeling actions can affect people, there is little evidence that a righteous lifestyle will lead many others to pick it up unless they were already so inclined.
Real social change comes when people gain enough (usually collective) power to make structural changes in social structures or on the incentives that affect individual and group action.
Occasionally, a group of early adopters may get together and start actually organizing to generate enough power to make changes like these.
But when this happens, the results can be perverse. Take recycling, for example:
Early recyclers came together and convinced governments to pass laws to support and mandate recycling. In this way they made real changes in people's daily lives. It turns out, however, that recycling is an incredibly inefficient approach to reducing waste. (Reducing waste on the front end, for example, is much more efficient) In fact, the recycling movement made its most important impact on American society by miseducating people about social change.
The impetus to "recycle" reinforces the problematic idea that alterations in one's individual lifestyle actually make much of a difference in the larger world. Far from encouraging effective social action, the recycling movement has actually degraded progressives' capacity to generate real power.
In this follow-up diary, I look beyond the general arguments of Part I .
I discuss a fascinating case study of the ways lifestyle activism and politics can have distorting effects on social change, drawing from a recent book by the sociologist Mary Pattillo. In Black on the Block she examines what happened when middle-class African Americans used lifestyle strategies in their effort to "reclaim" an impoverished central city neighborhood, North Kenwood-Oakland, in Chicago. This example is especially fascinating because it shows how class-based preferences for lifestyle activism functioned among a group of middle-class African Americans also grappling with racial inequality.
As a special treat, Dr. Pattillo has agreed to join our discussion. A professor at Northwestern University, Dr. Pattillo is one of the most sophisticated analysts of the relationship between race and class in America, among other issues. She is new to this odd world of blog dialogue, so keep that in mind.
After the flip I summarize part of my argument from Part I, and then examine how Pattillo's fascinating case study helps illuminate and complicate my arguments.
On Monday, Latino online advocacy group Presente Action -- with the support of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee -- started airing radio ads in key congressional districts holding Republican politicians accountable for not denouncing Limbaugh's racist attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
As Chris mentioned yesterday, this was the fruition of a great idea that began with him.
Well, Limbaugh responded on the air. If you have a strong racist-dar and you felt a weird tingly feeling yesterday, that's probably why.
Limbaugh mentioned DenunciaRush.com (where folks are chipping in to keep the ads on the air) four times. In the course of his response, he said, "Sotomayor's comments are much worse than Macaca" and "She reflects the racial anger, attitude that Obama has."
Rush Limbaugh has no shame -- launching more racist attacks on Judge Sotomayor during a historic week when her credentials are on full display and our community is beaming with pride. Our elected leaders cannot remain silent in the face of these inflammatory comments polluting the public discourse. We demand that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee denounce Limbaugh's latest remarks immediately.
Politico's Glenn Thrush has already reported on this statement, and it'll be interesting to see if any reporters ask Senate Judiciary Republicans directly whether they denounce Limbaugh's latest racism.
I've been thinking lately about how ridiculing, demeaning, criticizing and humiliating are weapons of oppression in our country. They are no longer shameful secret tactics used behind closed doors by mentally-ill parents on their helpless and vulnerable children. They now are the favorite public expressions of "the boss" or the persons in charge on most reality shows.
More and more we learn that very successful business owners, CEOs, agents, movie stars, authors, and top-level politicians have apparently achieved their success largely by ridiculing, demeaning, criticizing, and humiliating their competitors and the people over whom they have any authority. We see young ambitious people in all the professions stand up publicly and proclaim that they will enthusiastically not only cheat lie and steal to get ahead, but they volunteer their views on their competitors by openly ridiculing, demeaning, criticizing and humiliating them. "That punk, I'll kick his butt." We even saw some of this in the Max Blumenthal video about privileged young kids in Israel mouthing off demeaning comments about the President of the United States, calling him a "pussy," openly and deliberately trying to humiliate him. Behavior that once would have been unthinkable is more and more openly embraced among certain privileged segments of society
People who were abused as children often end up being abusers themselves. We understand that there is a tragic mimicking of sick behavior, a terrible destruction of lives, created by the abusive parent, destroying the lives of their children, but also creating damage for future generations.
But what about the current popularity of extolling and embracing sick abusive behavior as a part of our public persona? What used to be the hidden, shameful, secret conduct of disturbed parents, usually kept secret by the victim/child who felt ashamed that they were treated horribly, has now been incorporated into the basic training for all of our professions and other high-paid positions. What formerly was considered horrible behavior is how applauded.
Women and minorities, as individuals and as members of a group, are routinely subjected to ridiculing, demeaning, criticizing, and humiliating comments and behavior. These tactics are used by the dominant and powerful groups in our society to rationalize and reinforce the oppression of the minority and weaker groups. Every time we hear men making "jokes" about women's bodies, almost dissecting women and treating them as body parts and objects instead of as human beings, this has the effect of reinforcing the exclusion of women from opportunity in our society. It also creates terrible feelings of both fear and shame in women: fear that their body parts will be attacked or molested, shame that they are publicly humiliated in that fashion.
When I first got out of law school, I worked in a law firm in which one of the partners would invite all the male associates out to lunch once a month. I was the only female associate at the time, and I was never invited. One of the male associates who was a good friend of mine told me that the lunches were horrible, and nobody wanted to go. This partner, who was as uptight, rigid, Republican, racist and sexist as can be imagined, used to spend the whole lunch hour making vulgar comments about the waitress or other women who walked by -- vulgar comments about their breasts and other body parts. No wonder I wasn't invited. This is male-bonding behavior intended to reinforce sexist attitudes, and the exclusion of women.
Another partner in that firm actually made a watermelon joke to me about a black secretary -- behind her back, of course. The privilege felt by professional white men, the obligation almost, to perpetuate the exclusion of women and minorities by ridicule, is widespread, extremely damaging, and ultimately very effective.
I have a friend who is a white male, and in 2008, his "boss" inside a relatively successful mid-sized company had the habit and practice of circulating, at work, by e-mail, disgusting and vulgar drawings of women engaged in sexual activity, as well as horribly racist drawings of Obama. This is not history. This is current and ongoing. Criticizing, ridiculing, demeaning, humiliating women and minorities, in particular, is a weapon used to reinforce sexism and racism, to break down the individual members of the groups as well as deprive the group overall of any sense of self-esteem or dignity.
A refusal to ever praise or acknowledge the merit of anything done by members of these groups is a part of that same tactic. I used to work with an attorney who never praised, never thanked anyone for any work they did for him. It was apparently part of his effort to keep control over his employees. This is a white man born into wealth and privilege, a man whose most creative work in the past 20 years was probably writing up a grocery list for his wife. Yet he never once complemented his secretaries or thanked any of the attorneys who did sometimes remarkable work. It's a tactic. It's intentional. The intent and the effect is to undermine other people, strip them of any sense of worth to make it easier to manipulate and use them. Simply ignore people's achievements, never praise. It works to convince people that maybe their work isn't really that good, maybe they're not that good.
Not only is this true on an individual level, but on a group level as well. When we think of famous American artists, for example, few women or minorities come to mind. Men decide what art is valuable, what art has merit, and they routinely exclude women and minorities from consideration, or they judge them to be inferior. We have so few women or minorities allowed in politics, and they are kept at low levels in most professions, so it's hard to find role models, or people to be proud of in those fields. The history that is taught in our schools ignores most women and minorities, and still generally only praises and discusses the conduct of white men. The failure to praise, refusal to give credit, is itself a form of oppression, a tool intended to prevent women and minorities from every being able to feel good about "their" people.
What does this have to do with Michael Jackson?
We see some groups highly critical of Michael Jackson since his death, only discussing his alleged sexual molestation of children. There are newspaper cartoons showing him going straight to hell, for example. I don't recall ever seeing a newspaper cartoon when Nixon died showing him going straight to hell for the two million Vietnamese who died as a result of the war against Vietnam, a war which he accelerated and enthusiastically supported. I don't recall ever seeing a newspaper cartoon when Reagan died showing him going straight to hell for all the death squads he set up and funded in Central America, and all the people who were murdered because of that. And I don't recall seeing newspaper cartoons showing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that whole goon squad they ran with going straight to hell because of the illegal war against Iraq and the torture and murder of innocent victims.
I would never minimize sexual abuse of children. But I sometimes wonder whether our society imposes a harsher, fatal condemnation of any women or black person who allegedly violates some law or norm, in contrast with the known mass murderers who are our heads of state, whose slaughter of people in other countries is always given a pass on their death. White men who kill millions are buried with white rose wreaths and fancy limousines and church choirs, while women or minorities who allegedly harmed one person are condemned to secret burials, pine boxes, insignificant headstones. Not This Time.
I've noticed a really strong cohesive response by leaders throughout the black community in this country, all uniformly praising and supporting Michael Jackson, all using very laudatory words about his body of work, all rejecting any media discussion of the questions about Jackson being a man with severe problems. But the leaders of the black community not only are hushing up any discussion of this, they are praising Michael Jackson and mourning his death as if he was Martin Luther King, Jr., instead of just a pop-singer.
It occurred to me that this is intentional conduct by the black community. Despite the overwhelming contribution of black Americans to music, they do not yet have "their" black American popular performer who can be called, for all time, a "King" of some type.
Michael Jackson was their best bet, and they will not allow white society to take that away from them by the same old tactics of criticizing, ridiculing, demeaning, and humiliating either Michael Jackson himself, or the black community for supporting a man who was flawed in his personal life. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee, all the young rap and R&B artists, have made an announcement to white America that they will not allow Michael Jackson to be destroyed by being criticized, demeaned, ridiculed, and humiliated. They will not allow white America to take away from the black community "their" Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, whose name will reign forever alongside the greats such as Sinatra, Elvis, and the Beatles. Not This Time.
President Obama has often stated that immigration reform cannot be approached in a piecemeal fashion, and that his administration would tackle the issue in 2009. This week, Obama will be meeting with members of Congress to kick off a bi-partisan approach to reform. These meetings don't guarantee any legislative action will take place this year, but are at least an encouraging sign. In the meantime, the deportation industry shows no sign of slowing, hate crimes are rising and hate groups are being main streamed. As a result, the polarization between reform advocates and foes is getting worse.
On May 30, 29-year-old Raul Flores and his 9-year-old daughter Brisenia Flores were shot to death, purportedly by a group of far-right anti-immigrant activists who broke into the Flores home by posing as police officers. On Friday, Shawna Forde, anti-immigrant activist and Executive Director of the Minutemen American Defense, (MAD) along with accomplices Jason Eugene Bush and Albert Robert Gaxiola were arrested on two counts of first-degree murder and burglary charges related to the Flores murders.
