Last week President Barack Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. What has transpired in the wake of this have been ceaseless attacks by right-wing politicians like Tom Tancredo and Newt Gingrich, along with the likes of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and more. What are these conservative luminaries charging the Latina with?
Racism.
Say what?!?
I applaud the appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. It is a historic moment for the under represented and Judge Sotomayor seems amply qualified for the position. I'm not exactly ecstatic however. At first glance Judge Sotomayor doesn't appear to shift the court in any new direction. She seems an apt replacement for Justice David Souter, although where she stands on key issues is still unknown. Judge Sotomayor isn't close to a liberal/left answer to the likes of Thomas, Scalia or Alito. At best, her past rulings have indicated she's a liberal-leaning centrist. This all makes the right-wing rabid attack on her just that much more bizarre. Issues of immigration have seeped into the criticism directed her way, even though she's of Puerto Rican descent--and hence a legal U.S. citizen. And, in yet another indication that we've officially entered the Twilight Zone, some of the most offensive and rabidly intolerant right-wing commentators and politicians have dared to call the first female Latina Supreme Court nominee racist--all for stating something that should be plain common sense. If this were say, Marjorie Cohen, a dream pick were we playing Fantasy SCOTUS, I'd certainly see why the GOP would cringe. But the attacks so far from the Republican right have been so flimsy and personal, it only serves to make their issues with race, ethnicity and gender even more glaringly transparent.
Journalist William Rivers Pitt has defined this bizarre behavior as "Sotomayor Derangement Syndrome." But English and Cultural Studies professor Henry Giroux sees it as part of something more interwoven into the American fabric--what he calls the new racism, in which those who practice intolerance attempt to wrap themselves in victimhood while crying out against "reverse" discrimination. Giroux writes:While many liberals suggest that with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency the United States has become a post-racial society, many conservatives have now taken the opposition position, prompted by the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, that racism is alive and well in the republic.
Indeed what we are seeing with Sotomayor, as we have seen since the name Barack Obama was entered into the public discourse alongside the word "President," is American racism reinventing itself, adapting to current challenges and employing new tactics. By defining Sotomayor, or Obama, as the dangerous, irrational, unqualified "other," it is "whiteness" that is allowed to act as if it is under seige, even as it seeks to remain normalized. These new tricks by an old foe may be crude and untested, but rest assured they will continue. Because thus far, American history has shown that sooner or later they will strike the right chord.
The rest of Professor Giroux's article can be read here.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Judge Sonia Sotomayor & The New Racism
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Debunking the Post-Racial Myth
If it was one thing that made my teeth grate during the 2008 Presidential campaign, it was the notion that Barack Obama was signaling a "post-racial" era in America. Political pundits--conservative or moderate or even liberal--deemed our times the "post-Civil Rights" era. The popular idea was that if white America can vote for a black man as president, this would somehow negate the last few hundred years of American racism. Of course, it was utter rubbish.
Conservative commentator George Will early in the Democratic primaries crooned that Barack Obama's win would "bring down the curtain on the long running and intensely boring melodrama 'Forever Selma,' staring Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton." Chris Matthews of MSNBC marveled that with candidate Obama there was, "No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery....All the bad stuff in our history ain't there with this guy." Somehow all these pundits seemed to find a post-racial America despite the race-baiting of the Clinton campaign, the bizarre P.U.M.A. movement and Geraldine Ferraro's attempts to racialize feminism, white America's freak out meltdown over Jeremiah Wright and the full blown ugliness that was the McCain-Palin hate-fest.
Hoping for their post-racial dreamland, they failed to notice that to become the first black president, Barack Obama had to twist, shape and perform near acrobatic feats to keep white America (who in the end did not give him the majority of their votes) placated and at ease. Somehow the very pundits that could gloat about a post-racial society from one side of their mouths, could still worry endlessly about Obama's ability to connect with regular white voters. That his chances even among the more "enlightened white voters" were greatly influened by the fact that he was "black enough" to still be African-American in their eyes but was also not "too black" as someone of multi-racial heritage, is one of those taboo topics we're still not supposed to politely discuss in public conversation. As I once heard a black DJ joke to a colleague over the radio, it was unlikely white America would elect someone of a different demeanor than Obama or even a different complexion. This was followed by nervous laughter and the topic shifted--quickly.
Speed up to month four of 2009 and the election of a black president has seen everything from a rampant rise in white supremaicst hate-groups to incitations of violent government overthrow, secession and fake-populist, corporate-sponsored anti-tax protests with names that make them easy to mock.
Don't let me even start on the lack of post-racial awareness in American foreign policy, which seems to repeatedly find itself as odds with the darker, poorer masses of the world.
And of course, those are just the more overt issues. Rarely discussed are the varied forms of domestic institutional racism that do not disappear under an Obama presidency--from an unfair prison system to racial wealth inequality gaps. These are race-based systems that will negatively impact the lives of millions of people of color far beyond any hate-group or FOX News. And it should put the lie to any claim of some post-racial society that will magically appear because black and white kids can now identify with a bi-racial African-American in the White House. As Henry Giroux writes in a recent article, "the idea that we have moved into a post-racial period in American history is not merely premature - it is an act of willful denial and ignorance."
Giroux's article below:
Youth and the Myth of Post-Racial Society Under Barack Obama
Monday 27 April 2009
Henry A. Giroux t r u t h o u t Perspective
With the election of Barack Obama, it has been argued that not only will the social state be renewed in the spirit and legacy of the New Deal, but that the punishing racial state and its vast complex of disciplinary institutions will, if not come to an end, at least be significantly reformed. From this perspective, Obama's presidency not only represents a post-racial victory, but also signals a new space of post-racial harmony. In assessing the Obama victory, Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein wrote, "It is a place where the primacy of racial identity - and this includes the old Jesse Jackson version of black racial identity - has been replaced by the celebration of pluralism, of cross-racial synergy."
Obama won the 2008 election because he was able to mobilize 95 percent of African-Americans, two-thirds of all Latinos and a large proportion of young people under the age of 30. At the same time, what is generally forgotten in the exuberance of this assessment is that the majority of white Americans voted for the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket. While "post-racial" may mean less overt racism, the idea that we have moved into a post-racial period in American history is not merely premature - it is an act of willful denial and ignorance.
read full article here.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Crying Wolf
It was Thursday when I got an email about a woman who claimed she had been mugged and mutilated by a supporter of Barack Obama. Ashley Todd, a 20-year-old white campaign worker of John McCain, alleged that late Thursday night she was attacked by a 6'4" black male who robbed her in front of a bank ATM in the Bloomfield neighborhood of Pittsburg. According to Todd, the politically astute attacker, upon seeing a McCain-Palin sticker on her car, became so enraged he punched her in the back of the head, knocked her to the ground and then proceeded to carve the letter "B" (an allusion to Sen. Barack Obama) into her face with a dull knife.
The story was shocking, sensational and threatened to perhaps upend the presidential campaign. Except for one problem. Turns out as of this afternoon, the alleged victim has confessed that her story was a complete HOAX.
The Scarlet "B" story made internet headlines as the Drudge Report, in its usual propaganda fashion, sent it rocketing out with blaring red capital letters. Right-wing blogs went full lynch mob, as political rage quickly turned into blatant race-mongering. The story emphasized the attacker's "blackness" and went so far as to make Jim Crow Era allusions to sexual molestation. The Pres. of the College Republicans called the attack a "disgusting act of violence" and a "hate crime." The McCain-Palin campaign released a statement
saying they were "shaken" and "sickened" by the crime, and both candidates called Todd to express their sympathies. Realizing the racially-driven sh*t storm that could come their way, the Obama-Biden camp quickly sent out their own sympathies and prayers, hoping the perpetator would be brought to justice.
But to some, including the Pittsburg police, the story seemed fishy from the beginning. For one, the site of the alleged attack is a well known busy street. And many from Bloomfield found it shockingly-odd that no one had witnessed the crime. Todd herself baffled police when she refused to seek medical attention--after a stranger supposedly used a foreign object to mutilate her face. Still, the usual culprits like FOX News ran the story as if it was settled. Some members of the McCain campaign even embellished the story to reporters, seeming eager to exploit it to their gain. And others like CBS and CNN, while not delving in head-first, still blared it across their tickers and donated brief time to it.
Surprisingly, one of the most sane voices through the entire affair came from the usually rabid right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin. As early as Thursday Malkin was beyond skeptical, claiming of the story "it smells awfully wierd," and warned her fellow conservatives not to buy into it. I'm officially filing that under my "hope springs eternal" category.
What can't be expressed enough is the importance of the blogosphere. Because if not for them, this story could have run around and done a bit of damage in its near 24-hour life cycle before it was proven a hoax.
On many liberal and left-leaning blogosphere there was shock at the story, and immediate suspicion. In addition to the oddity that the alleged victim denied medical attention, many pointed out the "B" etched into her face was backwards--as would happen if it was self-inflicted through the use of a mirror. There were immediate suspicions raised about Todd's black eye, which was dark but not in the least bit swollen. Some openly called it a hoax from the first glance; others voiced their doubts and waited to see what would happen.
Of course, the henny-pennys and handwringers made their appearances. Worried about "piling-on" the victim, they cautioned restraint. Some of them expressed outright doubt that anyone would do this to themselves, and warned Obama supporters should be prepared for a rough couple of days that could shake up the presidential race.
On numerous blogs and other forums mostly inhabitated by African-Americans, there was little doubt that this story was completely conjured up. Many pointed to the American historical phenomenon of the brute caricature, that conjures up black males as dangerous rapists and attackers of white womanhood. Others needed go no further than Susan Smith or Charles Stuart, to see the brute caricature in practice.
By midday Friday however, Todd's story was falling apart under police questioning. And after being administered a polygraph test, like a character from Law & Order, she broke down and confessed the entire sordid tale had been concocted. There was no 6'4" black male attacker. No mugging. No crime of any kind. And the B carved onto her cheek? Todd claimed she wasn't certain how it had gotten there--that she looked into a mirror and then it was just there, so now she thinks she *must* have been the one to do it.
By Friday night, the right-wing bloggers and news outlets who had been taken in by Todd had either expressed their sadness that they had been duped--or seemed sad the story wasn't true after all. Others never recanted, and simply went silent on the topic--returning to their usual attacks on ACORN, Obama, and whatever other liberals can be assigned blame. Most left leaning blogs simply shook their heads at the madness of it all, and hoped Ashley Todd (under an Obama administration) would be able to get the mental healthcare she seems to so desperately need.
Not everyone was willing to let by-gones be by-gones so easily. On more than a few blogs, there were calls to find out just how much the McCain camp had pushed and fanned the flames of this story. Others, noting the danger of racial fear-mongering Todd had unleashed, demanded she be charaged with a hate-crime. For many black blogs and forums, Todd was not only making a risky political manuever, but playing a dangerous game which in the past had resulted in blacks being intimidated or even murdered.
And more than a few, pointed to John Moody, executive vice president at Fox News, who had made the following comments before Ashley Todd's confession:
"If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee. If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."
According then to Moody, by today and for the next week up to the election, we should see the FOX News station bemoan the downfall and end of the McCain campaign--a victim of Ashley Todd's reckless, fear-mongering and racially polarizing hoax. Riiiiggght.
So, just over a week from the presidential campaign, the "mavericky" crew at McCain-Palin have managed to once more make their campaign look like the bizarre and freakish side-show of the species Politicus americana that it has become.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
That One
When Sen. John McCain angrily referred to Sen. Barack Obama as "that one" during the last presidential debate, something in me twitched. At a past employ, I recall a colleague (a white male) who used the phrase often. Though he never directed it at me, he would always call others (most often women and people of color) "that one" when he was joking or voicing a complaint. I never knew why, but it irked me to hear him say it. Then John McCain used it and almost immediately my phone buzzed with a text message from my sister. It read:
And suddenly, I was struck with why I never liked that term. Its condescension is glaring, and has the ability to transform the person of your ire into a "thing"--some type of "other" separate and apart from yourself.
My sister and I weren't the only ones who got that vibe. By that night blogs were abuzz about the strange reference. Many--across the demographic spectrum--had the same unease. Of course, there were those erstwhile white iberal referees of racial incidents--who see fit to make the call on any act of bias perceived by a person of color, usually with doubts and concerns of "over-reacting." These same refs fought down any mention early on that the McCain-Palin crowds were becoming dangerous and unruly. That they were woefully wrong in that regard hasn't stopped them from their usual officiating. Because goodness knows, they are much more equipped to know when someone is making a racially tinged slight better than those who have actually experienced it. To some of my white liberal friends, god bless ya'--but let's try to keep the paternalism in check.
Though most of the media did not "go there" on the quote, simply referring to it as bizarre, I was pleased to see journalist Hugh Hamilton of WBAI "Talk Back" speaking plainly on the topic. I re-post his brief but illuminating commentary below.
Talk Back radio show host Hugh Hamilton, Oct 8th, 2008:
At the moment anything I have to say about last night’s debate can be said in 90 seconds or less…
You know that all pretense of civility or parliamentary decorum has been irretrievably lost from our public discourse when one of the candidates in a presidential debate takes to flailing his arms about onstage and referring to his opponent as “that one.” It was a comment that had all the delicacy of a barnyard epithet.
At best it exposes the absence of tempermental sobriety and statesmanship on the part of Senator McCain. At worst it betrays an attitude of racially tinged condescension and disdain that invalidates any further aspiration on his part to leadership in a multicultural, multiracial and multiethnic 21st Century America.
If that slight was intentional, then it exposed either an appalling lack of judgment or a blatant disregard for historical sensitivities on the part of Senator McCain. And if it was accidental then it betrayed a complete lack of grace under pressure, and a reflexive tendency in such circumstances to seek recourse in the undignified rhetoric of bigotry and prejudice. There are no good choices here.
At their next debate, Sen. McCain may choose to either apologize either directly to Sen. Obama or he may choose to go for broke and simply address him as “boy.” Either way, it is unlikely to make a difference to the image that the Senator from Arizona has now crafted for himself.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
That Race Factor...
Barack Obama's greatest hurdle to reaching the presidency is that he's black.
Hey, I didn't say it--TIME magazine did. But I will concur.
No more beating around the bush and tip toeing through the tulips. From Michelle Obama being derided as everything from a militant to a baby-mama, to her husband's depiction as a radical secret Muslim bent on pulling a fast-one on America, RACE has been all over this campaign. The election has tightened up in recent days not because Obama can't "reach" voters or because McCain and Palin have come up with some new amazing strategy. Rather its because large swaths of white voters, who were going to opt out of the race are now being mobilized to show up and vote against the black guy. Call it the "racism vote" or the "invest in whiteness" vote. Whatever you want to name it, the McCain campaign is secretly counting on it showing up at the polls on Nov. 4th.
Race has been the most danced around topic in this entire campaign. Barack Obama himself has had done much of the dancing. When the corporate media has a meltdown freakout at hearing the pent up anger of black America, he's forced to give this generation's "Gettysburg Address" on race. But when his campaign headquarters are vandalized throughout the nation with racial epithets or sitting US Congressmen call him "Uppity," he has to bury the story--fearful that in sticking up for his dignity he might come off as the "angry black guy"
It's a bizarre arrangement where in our upside-down world, it is white America that gets worked up at the first mention of "racism" or "race"--especially from the mouths of its victims. There's even a mocking name for it--"playing the race card." So Barack Obama must endure this double-standard, where he must take thinly veiled or even blatant racial attacks on the chin, grinning and bearing it, while at the same time attempting to make white voters feel comfortable.
Heckuva predicament.
Tim Wise has some thoughts on it...
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
White & Black & Obama
"Poll Finds Obama Isn’t Closing Divide on Race." So read today's NY Times headline. In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, it was found that while there is excitement over the prospects of America's first black president, its meaning is viewed quite differently depending on one's "racial" lens. While whites polled believed this historic event would signal a watershed in race relations, blacks polled--while enthusiastic about Sen. Obama--shared no delusions that an Obama presidency would herald a new age of racial harmony. In fact, many believed things to be the same or worse today than just four years or a decade prior. As the Times put it, "Black and white Americans agree that America is ready to elect a black president, but disagree on almost every other question about race in the poll."
Yeah, tell me something I don't know...
According to the poll:
Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites. Four in 10 blacks say that there has been no progress in recent years in eliminating racial discrimination; fewer than 2 in 10 whites say the same thing. And about one-quarter of white respondents said they thought that too much had been made of racial barriers facing black people, while one-half of black respondents said not enough had been made of racial impediments faced by blacks.
Hardly a surprise here. The notion that things are not as bad as black people think, that racism and oppression are more so figments of our minds than reality, has been a common mantra among white America as far back as the end of the Civil War. Then, as now, whites claimed blacks had achieved all they desired or needed to succeed and declared the project of ensuring equality over. Deciding 100 years later, after a history of Jim Crow repression, disfranchisement and white terrorism, that perhaps they were wrong, white America--pushed and cajoled by black protest and agitation--decided to once again "level the playing field." Within a few years, white America decided things were much better and blacks had never had it so good--and immediately set about dismantling every facet of the Civil Rights Bill they could, helping in part to fuel the growing Conservative movement. With a black candidate poised to perhaps take the White House, white America is more certain than ever that blacks have "overcome." From pundits like George Will and Chris Matthews, the Obama candidacy is hailed as the virtual "end of racism"--or at least the end of black people whining about it.
The NY Times article noted the following:
In this latest poll, over 40 percent of blacks said they believed they had been stopped by the police because of their race, the same figure as eight years ago; 7 percent of whites said the same thing. Nearly 70 percent of blacks said they had encountered a specific instance of discrimination based on their race, compared with 62 percent in 2000; 26 percent of whites said they had been the victim of racial discrimination. (Over 50 percent of Hispanics said they had been the victim of racial discrimination.)
If anything, experience is one heck of a teacher--provided it doesn't kill you first. Living while black or brown is not something whites have to contend with. Thus acts considered to show subtle or even blatant racism to those who experience it daily, may be lost on others who do not have to live that reality. What many people of color may be well aware of is that while an Obama presidency might be phenomenal, and quite symbolic, it won't solve the everyday problems of race in their lives. Having Obama as president isn't going to lessen unwarranted stops and searches by police. It won't eliminate racial profiling (although the Illinois Senator has admirably worked towards this). And it won't stop the innate concern that getting stopped by law enforcement could inexplicably escalate to a deadly confrontation, even if you're wholly innocent of any crime.
More from the article:
And when asked whether blacks or whites had a better chance of getting ahead in today’s society, 64 percent of black respondents said that whites did. That figure was slightly higher even than the 57 percent of blacks who said so in a 2000 poll by The Times.
That white America so joyously thinks things are getting better with each passing minute is amazing--given the fact that most of them aren't working to end white privilege, that invisible force that permeates institutions, systems, culture and more of our society. You'd think with such rosy outlooks, masses of white America were working daily steeped in studies on whiteness and reading Tim Wise articles by the bulk. If anyone is puzzled at how black people can be so pessimistic about opportunities and race, take the following Mar 2008 report by United for a Fair Economy into account.
*Due to the subprime lending catastrophe, the greatest loss of black wealth is unfolding. People of color have collectively lost between $164 billion to $213 billion over the past eight years.
*Given historic unfair discriminatory practices regarding homeownership, white wealth had been allowed to accumulate while blacks were left behind. Even though blacks began closing these gaps in the 1970s, even at such a steady pace it was estimated that it would still take 594 years-more than half a millennium-for blacks to catch up with whites in household wealth.
*Worse yet, that number was *before* the subprime lending catastrophe struck. Taking the loss of wealth into account, at current rates it would take a staggering 5,000 years before blacks achieve homeowner parity with whites.
We could go on discussing everything from a prison industrial complex, poor healthcare, enviromental racism, unfair drug laws, impoverished communities and more. Add in numerous studies that show continued acts of discrimination--even white felons have a better chance of landing a job than blacks with no criminal record--and we could question just whose view of reality is more accurate.
And the number of blacks who described racial conditions as generally bad in this survey was almost identical to poll responses in 2000 and 1990.
So how is it many are puzzling, that with things as bad as black people claim, we may possibly see an emerging black presidency? The problem here is thinking that Obama the man somehow translates into all of black America. While I never entertained silly notions cooked up by the likes of Stanley Crouch and Deborah Dickerson--who are aptly called the eternal black contrarians--as to whether Obama was "black enough," at the same time I knew that how whites viewed his race had alot to do with his success. Let's be blunt. Obama is just black enough in white eyes without being too black. What is "too black?" Think Jesse Jackson, or Rahim on the block--that is, anyone who might file a grievance against American racism. It's not only that Obama fits middle class American norms, or that he is bi-racial, it's that white America has decided to project on him their idea of what they would like black people to be. Were he anything else, anything that threatened to make them uncomfortable in their whiteness, they'd skittishly run to the hills and steer clear of his candidacy--like many of the more xenophobic members of the right. We almost saw just that, when the white world (liberal, moderate and conservative alike) were shocked to hear his former pastor Rev. Wright utter sentiments commonly heard (even if not wholly believed) in the black community, but utterly alien to white ears. Of course, Obama's appeal as the "friendly black candidate" remade to fit white expectations isn't his fault. But I'm more than certain he is as aware of it, and probably uses it to his benefit--as much as we *all* do in our everday lives.
So it looks like the good news is we may have a black president. The bad news is, we can't substitue a symbolic victory for the real racial and social equality. That is work in which both sides of the Hegelian power relationship will have to engage.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Why the Supreme Court Matters
In case there are those who still ponder the merits of voting, and who sits in the Oval Office, a quick glimpse of recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court might give you some pause for reflection.
In the first three rulings, all of them dealing with the First Amendmant, the Roberts Court estalished its conservative leanings. In a case involving student free speech, the so-called "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the court found in favor of the school against the student. The court also ruled in a separate case that taxpayers can't challenge the Bush Administration's faith-based program, And finally, in what is being called a blow to campaign finance reform, the court allowed corporate backed "issue ads" close to elections. In yet another ruling this Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that race could not be a deciding factor in attempting to diversify public schools--a decision that could have far reaching effects across the nation. The rulings highlighted a heavily divided court, where the newly assigned Chief Justice John Roberts helped lead the shift in a court that seems more friendly to corporate causes, authoritarianism, the erosion of the separation of Church and State and whining white males. What follows are some analyses, reactions and commentary on the court's rulings.
Three Bad Rulings
The New York Times Editorial
Tuesday 26 June 2007
The Supreme Court hit the trifecta yesterday: Three cases involving the First Amendment. Three dismaying decisions by Chief Justice John Roberts's new conservative majority.
Chief Justice Roberts and the four others in his ascendant bloc used the next-to-last decision day of this term to reopen the political system to a new flood of special-interest money, to weaken protection of student expression and to make it harder for citizens to challenge government violations of the separation of church and state. In the process, the reconfigured court extended its noxious habit of casting aside precedents without acknowledging it - insincere judicial modesty scored by Justice Antonin Scalia in a concurring opinion.
First, campaign finance. Four years ago, a differently constituted court upheld sensible provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act designed to prevent corporations and labor unions from circumventing the ban on their spending in federal campaigns by bankrolling phony "issue ads." These ads purport to just educate voters about a policy issue, but are really aimed at a particular candidate.
The 2003 ruling correctly found that the bogus issue ads were the functional equivalent of campaign ads and upheld the Congressional restrictions on corporate and union money. Yet the Roberts court shifted course in response to sham issue ads run on radio and TV by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life with major funding from corporations opposed to Senator Russell Feingold, the Democrat who co-authored the act.
It opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections. The exact extent of the damage is unclear. But the four dissenters were correct in warning that the court's hazy new standard for assessing these ads is bound to invite evasion and fresh public cynicism about big money and politics.
full article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062707D.shtml
Did Student-Speech Rights Up in Smoke?
By David L. Hudson Jr.
First Amendment scholar
With a stroke of the powerful pen of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the U.S. Supreme Court limited student-speech rights this week, creating another exception to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, its landmark 1969 First Amendment decision in which it declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
As a result of a colorful case colloquially known as “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” the Court ruled June 25 that students just outside the schoolhouse gate lose their First Amendment rights if they speak even ambiguously about drugs. Though many associate the “war on drugs” with a loss of Fourth Amendment freedoms, the First Amendment also fell victim in the Court’s decision in Morse v. Frederick.
The question becomes whether the Court’s recent decision will curtail student-speech rights dramatically or will represent only a narrow “drug exception” to Tinker.
full article:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18730
Resegregation Now
The New York Times Editorial
Friday 29 June 2007
The Supreme Court ruled 53 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education is inherently unequal, and it ordered the nation's schools to integrate. Yesterday, the court switched sides and told two cities that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together. It was a sad day for the court and for the ideal of racial equality.
Since 1954, the Supreme Court has been the nation's driving force for integration. Its orders required segregated buses and public buildings, parks and playgrounds to open up to all Americans. It wasn't always easy: governors, senators and angry mobs talked of massive resistance. But the court never wavered, and in many of the most important cases it spoke unanimously.
Yesterday, the court's radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition in a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It has been some time since the court, which has grown more conservative by the year, did much to compel local governments to promote racial integration. But now it is moving in reverse, broadly ordering the public schools to become more segregated.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who provided the majority's fifth vote, reined in the ruling somewhat by signing only part of the majority opinion and writing separately to underscore that some limited programs that take race into account are still acceptable. But it is unclear how much room his analysis will leave, in practice, for school districts to promote integration. His unwillingness to uphold Seattle's and Louisville's relatively modest plans is certainly a discouraging sign.
In an eloquent dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer explained just how sharp a break the decision is with history. The Supreme Court has often ordered schools to use race-conscious remedies, and it has unanimously held that deciding to make assignments based on race "to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society" is "within the broad discretionary powers of school authorities."
full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/opinion/29fri1.html?8dpc
Monday, March 12, 2007
300 Spartans, 1 Million Persians & The Altering of History
So I saw 300 last week. Driven by action, the movie had enough blood and battle to dazzle the senses and up testosterone levels. As cinematography it was a visual CGI masterpiece—though one might ask when and where reliance on computer generated imagery enhances or devalues a movie. The acting was tolerable—not like Ghostrider where I wanted to gnaw off my left leg rather than sit through the excruciating dialogue. As plots go, it was mediocre— not bad but not exactly filled with complex intrigue. Syriana or Babel this movie was not. Noble Greeks fight scary Persians to Alamo type finish. Freedom. Honor. Glory. The End. But my anticipation of 300 was only partly based on my expectations of it as a film.
300 is based on the Frank Miller graphic novel of the same name, and is a retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae between Spartan Greeks and the Persian Empire in the 5th Century BC. I read the comic back in 1998, and found it fascinating—yet discomforting. The story itself is a surreal fantasy. And though the film's director Zack Snyder makes the grandiose claims that "the events are 90 percent accurate," I hardly expected it to be factual. So that these Spartans fight bare-chested with CGI enhanced abdomens straight out of Chippendales, instead of in breastplates as would have been common, wasn't really of consequence to me. I took it for Hollywood cosmetic to sell tickets—and maybe even reach that coveted gay male audience. I was more concerned with the changes to the movie—and before that the comic—that had deeper meaning, and give us an interesting mirror into the society we live in.
The Spartans
In 300 there is much celebration of Sparta—the Greek city-state known well for its warrior cult, who pose as the heroes of the film. But these are not the Spartans of history; they are instead, something else. For instance, though it's alluded that Spartans were known for killing infants who may have been born with defects or bad omens (this might be a physical deformity or a birth mark), this ritual infanticide is toned down to ambiguity. While the harsh life of a Spartan male, who endures years of brutality to become a warrior, is portrayed, it too is softened and made noble—in its own way. In the movie Spartan boys are forced out into the wild and must face fierce animals, not becoming a true warrior until they kill one. In reality however, Spartan youths didn't go out and kill animals to prove their worth. They actually had to go out and kill a slave—a Helot, fellow Greeks of nearby Lakonia and Messenia conquered and reduced to bondage by Sparta's "free" militaristic elite.
Perhaps because this sounds too much like a modern gang initiation rite (and the comparison certainly fits), it is altered for the viewing audience. As told by the film, slavery is absent in Spartan society—and is something only their enemies practice. This sanitizing of Spartan history may be because in 300, there is much made about Sparta being a land of "freedom." In fact, this is the central theme of the story—the entire reason for the war against Persia. These Spartans are even mildly homophobic, laughingly scoffing at homosexuality among their fellow Athenian Greeks. This is ironic, as ritualized homosexual liaisons among Spartan boys in training was both common and obligatory at the time. In the film Spartan women are not altogether equal, but gender relations have an air of egalitarianism hard to find in the historical record.
The reality, that Sparta was actually a slave society that conquered fellow Greeks, practiced state sponsored eugenics, and was run by a patriarchal male-dominated military oligarchy who maintained their power through force and violence, is radically altered—as it would no doubt clash with the cries for liberty and the "new era of freedom" Spartans boast of repeatedly throughout the film. Altogether, Spartan culture is re-arranged to fit modern (mostly American) ideas on democracy, masculinity, sexuality and gender. And this is necessary not merely to glorify Sparta, but to make certain they were seen as different from their enemies as ever.
The Persians
One of the first things I noticed when I read Frank Miller's 300, was the main villain of his story—the Persian King Xerxes. He was black—a towering bald giant with earrings in his ears and face and nose, like a brown-skinned Michael Clarke Duncan merged with Dennis Rodman. More than a few of Xerxes soldiers and generals were also black. I found that odd, because the historical Xerxes was Persian—modern day Iran. While the Persian Empire was certainly massive and assimilated all sorts of people, its black population was probably nowhere near that pronounced. And there are enough depictions of Xerxes to not mistake him for the average brother. So why make Xerxes a black giant?
Frank Miller's version of the Battle of Thermopylae took its cue from age-old western notions of Orientalism—a Western perception of the East as alien, inferior and yet menacing. The Persia of 300 is the opposite of the Greeks, the opposite of the Occidental West: a fantastical imagining of the mysterious East, both exotic and frightening, with bizarre peoples and customs, ruled by superstition and tyrants. Most of all the "Orient" is dangerous, and holds the power to destroy the West if it isn't controlled or beaten back. For Miller, Xerxes as a Persian wasn't enough to embody this dark symbolism. He had to be transformed into a more threatening figure—one that only blackness seemed able to conjure up. The movie version changed this somewhat. Xerxes is no longer black. He is however still a giant, garbed in a speedo and decked out in about two tons of bling—from earrings to body chains. As opposed to the hyper-masculine Spartans of the film, Xerxes is effeminate, foppish and a gender-bending sexual deviant. His army is either dark and faceless, or horribly monstrous—and as we are told, all slaves whipped into the service of their tyrannical king.
But like Sparta, this depiction of Xerxes and the Persian Empire has more to do with modern western—and especially American—imagination than reality. The actual Xerxes of history probably dressed little different than many of his Greek enemies, though much better—in velvet robes or tunics, as Persia was an opulent kingdom. As far as his rule went, while he was probably not someone you'd elect to the local city council, for a monarch of an Empire of his time, he and the other Achaemenid kings of Persia were not precisely the tyrants of Hollywood depiction. They actually instituted what some have called one of the earliest declarations of Human Rights, detailing religious tolerance and (albeit limited) expressions of personal freedom. They even debated the merits of democracy, though choosing against it. Now don't get me wrong. Kings like Xerxes were undoubtedly conquerors, and were no nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize. By our standards, his empire would be unilateralist, rapaciously imperialist and ignore many aspects of international law. But Persian rulers also allowed their territories to have limited independence, demanding only tribute and conscript soldiers. And in what is probably one of the greatest ironies that the movie manages to reverse, under the Achaemenids, for religious reasons, slavery was nominally opposed—though by no means non-existent. This is at least a step-up from Sparta, where the enslavement of fellow Greeks was not a topic up for debate. In the end Xerxes and his fellow rulers were not saints, but neither were they the bloodthirsty tyrants of 300.
The Battle of Thermopylae
Centered on the famed Battle of Thermopylae, 300 depicts fantastic fight scenes—as endless hordes of Persians bash themselves against Spartan soldiers who skillfully hold them off. For Frank Miller's graphic novel and the movie, 300 Spartans led by their king Leonidas hold off 1 million Persians. In reality, the Persians probably numbered between 60,000 to 120,000. The Greeks were actually a force of 7,000—some 4,000 of which were killed—whose success was based mostly on better bronze weapons and a tactical strategy of utilizing the natural landscape. While it's true that fellow Greeks abandoned the Spartans in the final battle, some 700 remained and also fought to the end. As for the Athenian navy who kept Persia occupied at sea and unable to deploy their full might, these Greeks are wholly absent from 300. The movie instead is certain to give the full glory only to the 300 super-manly Spartan soldiers (not those wimpy "gay" Athenian sailor boys), who in death achieve a cinematic display of quasi-Judeo-Christian sainthood. The undignified beheading of Leonidas and the eventual burning of Athens with the Greeks scurrying away in fright before the Persian forces, is erased from Hollywood-created history, to be sure our Spartan heroes are able to keep their manliness intact.
Just a Movie?
So in the end, what's the point of all this? 300 is just a movie after all, and before that a comic book. It's not history—even if it's director tries to pass it off as such to his audience. It's a story. And it doesn't have to follow the facts. If we're looking for historical accuracy, we'd be better off sticking to a classroom. Films are sold to us as entertainment, not lessons. But at the same time, like any work of art, we would be remiss to leave it at that. Films reflect our culture, our values, our perceptions, what we think of as normal or perverse, right or wrong, good or bad. And they can reinforce larger societal thoughts we take for granted. That Hollywood alters history isn't particularly surprising or even relevant. But how that history is altered, what history is altered and why the altering takes place can reveal a great deal.
The Battle of Thermopylae has long been more than just an ancient event, a comic book or a movie, in modern western imagination. European colonisers and conquerors often portrayed themselves similar to the Spartans, facing hordes of usually darker-skinned enemies—be they Native American Sioux, East Indians or Afghans. In 1964, using the Battle of Thermopylae as partial inspiration, the movie Zulu depicted several British soldiers who make a last stand against hordes of fierce African warriors. (Curiously, no one seemed to catch the irony that these latter-day Europeans, unlike the Spartans, were the invaders.) In this way, an ancient battle was changed to not only support European colonialism and the "white man's burden," but also the claimed physical and moral superiority of western civilization, as opposed to the savage multitudes of the East.
Some have accused 300 of being intentional propaganda, portraying (embodied by the Spartans) as noble freedom fighters and Iran (Xerxes and the Persians) as dangerous threats to freedom and democracy. The film even comes equipped with a local Spartan anti-war movement, who in the end are corrupted or weak and ineffectual. In Iran, the movie has caused uproar—with protests against what are seen as negative and even racist portrayals of their beloved ancient Persia. Many Iranians even charge 300 is a precursor to a US invasion. Paranoia? Certainly. But given current US threats against Iran, coupled with daily images of US bombs caving in homes in next-door Iraq, those fears may be justified.
Still, I don't think that's the case. I doubt Frank Miller or this movie rendition has anything to do with current US foreign policy maneuvers. This isn't 24—where Jack Bauer's torture acts have literally been tied to the current White House And the average American may not even know Persia is one-in-the-same with modern Iran—though hordes of veiled and monstrous enemies from "that" part of the world might serve the purpose just as equally. Rather, what 300 portray are common images of ourselves—or how we would like to see ourselves—with themes of masculinity, whiteness, freedom and moral virtue. And in order to create that image, a foil is needed—darker in both skin and deed, threatening and powerful, but at the same time able to be overcome if we just show the courage to do so. It is Orientalism—part of a long history of western perceptions of the "other," made exotic to fit our ideas of how different "they" are from "us." On some level these perceptions help define "us"—as it previously helped generations of conquerors and colonizers—by defining "them." In that sense Frank Miller's 300 is not dangerous new propaganda. Rather, it's the same old propaganda—just more entertaining.
