How Race Impacts Perspective

Just a quick note: I've been less active in writing lately, due to some computer problems. Hopefully, I'll reach a final resolution soon.

Now, on to the topic at hand. I stumbled on this video of Andy Campbell while spending some time on YouTube. I don't really know who Andy Campbell is, but I thought this video of him presented an interesting case study.

Now, on the surface, this seems all good, but let's dissect what this gentleman is saying.

1. First off, it's clear that his overall theme here is to prove that he's not a racist. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing - I wouldn't want anyone to think I was a racist either. However, it always makes me suspicious when someone is tries this hard.

2. He attempts to link himself to Civil Rights leaders. This is a tactic that you often see when people want to prove they're not racist. They lift these figures up, in spite of the fact that they have no real understanding of what these people stood for. This brings me to my next point:

3. He characterizes Dr. King. Campbell says "Dr. Martin Luther King talked about creating a colorblind society, not a color conscious one." Yet, didn't Dr. King spend much of his life drawing attention to racial inequality and fighting to eradicate it? How can one do such a thing without being conscious of race? I find it hard to believe that Dr. King would ascribe to the colorblind philosophy of the 21st century, because this perspective compounds racial inequality by making it invisible.

4. Throughout his mini-lecture, Campbell refers to the Civil Rights Movement and civil rights in general in a way that suggests he sees these things as issues of the past. He refers to "history's civil rights activists," as if there aren't people working for still-denied civil right today. He applauds HBCUs for helping to "right wrongs" at a time when many American colleges and universities denied access to blacks, but ignores persisting, and in some ways growing, inequalities in the area of education.

5. He asserts that segregation is the preeminent force in perpetuating racism and prejudice. In doing this, Campbell does two frightening things. First, he ignores the systemic nature of racism. In reality, racism is a societal force, kept alive by both the desire to sustain and the ability to ignore white privilege. Second, Campbell constructs racism as a person-to-person phenomenon. By doing this, racism becomes about stopping individual persons from doing or thinking mean things, rather than addressing the real societal force that is reflected by those person-to-person interactions. In short, racism can't be solved just by blacks and whites living together, because such integration doesn't match the depth to which racism has infiltrated our society.

6. Here we go with the buzzwords: self-segregate. Oh, yes, because this is all black people's fault now. He calls self-segregation "counterproductive" to the "goal of racial harmony". Well, first one must ask what this "racial harmony" looks like. Is it the apparent hope of many white talking heads, that we reach a time when we can finally stop talking about race (not necessarily because it no longer needs to be discussed)? Or does it mean actually addressing and solving problems? If you subscribe to the latter description, then you must also think that it's worthwhile to discuss the ways in which persistent racism creates the desire for blacks and other minority groups to "self-segregate" into supportive communities where they can be experience a reprieve from the constant barrage of racism. However, instead of Campbell engaging in this discussion, he blames black people for delaying his fantasy world in which discussion of race magically disappears.

7. Back to the "great Civil Rights Movement," of which Campbell seems to be so fond. He describes its goal as "making us all equal." Funny, I thought we were always all equal. I thought the point of the CRM was to demand equal right for blacks. You know, full political, economic, educational, and social access. The full rights of citizenship. All still things we haven't gotten yet, by the way.

8. And then he polishes it all of with the whole "My family was discriminated against, too," and "I have black friends," only he puts a new twist on it. Listen, religious prejudice is wrong, but it's not the same as racism, so don't try and claim that you have an upclose and personal experiene based on you're family's experience with religious prejudice. You don't. And the fact that you're family is diverse is a great thing, but what are you trying to prove by bringing that up? That you're not racist? That you're color blind? Oh, and how is it that people who talk about color blindness can be so quick to jump to "my brother in law is Japanese," or "my best firend is black"? If you're so colorblind, how is it that the race of your friends and family are so close to the forefornt of your mind?

9. He says we shouldn't define ourselves based on race. And I think "Of course you can say that because you're white. I don't have a choice." And then he acknowledges that his whiteness makes it easier to say, but asserts that he's still right. Dude, white privilege is stairing you in the face to the point that you almost admit it, but still contradict yourself by insisitng we ignore the role that racial idenity plays our society. Wow!

The above video was posted as a response to the discussion seen here. It's clear from this video that the root issue is twofold: (1) striving for the goal of colorblindness, and (2) the belief that HBCUs exists only because blacks were turned away from other schools in the past. The fact of the matter is that predominatly white colleges and universities (which would be most of them, including mine) can sometimes be a hostile place minorities and their viewpoints. I'm fortunate enough to go to the first univiersity to offer a PhD in black studies. We also require that all undergraduate students take race studies courses that dig deeply into these issues. This makes us unique among HWCUs, but still, the hostility towards these classes is clear among the student bodies. Some students choose to go to schools where they can be among other African Americans and not endure some of the baggage that comes with HWCUs. So, you see, HBCUs, along with government housing, and minority scholarships, and affirmative action, address current problems, not just past problems.

And, finally, when are we going to wake up and realize that someone like Campbell can make such a completely rediculous staement and seem normal or even admirable only because he's white. There are more holes in his argument than in a block of Swiss cheese, yet he still represents the mainstream of American thining on race. We should all be disturbed with the nature of the racial discussion in our nation.

News: US Citizens Illegaly Deported

From ABC News / The Associated Press:

Pedro Guzman has been an American citizen all his life. Yet in 2007, the 31-year-old Los Angeles native — in jail for a misdemeanor, mentally ill and never able to read or write — signed a waiver agreeing to leave the country without a hearing and was deported to Mexico as an illegal immigrant.

He's not the only one:

In a drive to crack down on illegal immigrants, the United States has locked up or thrown out dozens, probably many more, of its own citizens over the past eight years. A monthslong AP investigation has documented 55 such cases, on the basis of interviews, lawsuits and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. These citizens are detained for anything from a day to five years. Immigration lawyers say there are actually hundreds of such cases.

It is illegal to deport U.S. citizens or detain them for immigration violations. Yet citizens still end up in detention because the system is overwhelmed, acknowledged Victor Cerda, who left Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2005 after overseeing the system. The number of detentions overall is expected to rise by about 17 percent this year to more than 400,000, putting a severe strain on the enforcement network and legal system.

The result is the detention of citizens with the fewest resources: the mentally ill, minorities, the poor, children and those with outstanding criminal warrants, ranging from unpaid traffic tickets to failure to show up for probation hearings. Most at risk are Hispanics, who made up the majority of the cases the AP found.

Read More

"... o're the land of the free, and the home of the brave," right?

So, essentially, over the past eight years, US citizens have not been free in their own land. People who are citizens of this country, and disproportionately the mentally ill, children, and minorities, are being kicked out for no reason. If you think back to the Stat of the Day that centered on the increase in hate crimes, on of the new factors is crimes against Latinos due to the recent immigration debate.

So, we can see one of the nasty effects of racism in this country: people automatically assume that Latinos or Asians or blacks with African accents are here illegally. Are people so paranoid when it comes to someone with a British accent? Do we fear being taken over by the French and Germans? No. Clearly this debate on immigration is racially tinged, and is spilling over to impact the lives of American citizens. To make it worse, I fully expect the many will pay such offenses little mind, because racism has so warped our minds to think that such actions are justified, just as after 9/11 many felt it was completely reasonable to profile anyone who appeared Middle-Eastern.

The more I read and learn the more a realize how little this country has actually changed.

News: Philly Cop Under Fire for Racist Comments

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

A college class assignment may have gotten a Philadelphia police officer into some hot water.

William Thrasher, a white cop in the 22nd District, at 17th and Montgomery, has been put on desk duty after an article written by a Temple University student quoted him describing his disgust for black people in the district where he works, likening them to animals and calling their problems "typical n---- s---," or "TNS," during a ride-along with the student Jan. 30.

The article enraged The Guardian Civic League, an organization of black Philadelphia police officers, which is calling for his dismissal.

Read More

What is Racism? (the long version)

Sunday afternoon, I came home to find out that another blogger (Denis Navratil), one who has offered thoughtful and challenging comments on my own writing, chose to use the way that I define racism as a launching point for one of his own post. After reading what he wrote, realized that, neither on this blog nor in the comments that I had made on his blog, I had never explicitly offered my own definition of racism. I also came to the conclusion that he had not fully comprehended all that I had said. So, what follows is my appraisal of what racism is.

First, for the sake of background, the post that started it all is here. That post was followed by comments back and forth between the two of us. You can check out my post for the past week or so to see his comments. Then, there was the post Denis's post that mentioned me specifically. Here's how it started:

Kevin Lockett (see comments on most recent post) is an advocate for the new definition of racism (prejudice plus privilege plus power) as it acknowledges "the history of racism and the power structure in this country" and it acknowledges that racism is not just an individual problem but also a collective problem.

Now, of course, I never explicitly said that this is how I define racism. However, I can see how he would get the idea that I do define it in this way. Denis then goes on to list his critique of my argument. He says that I use the word racism to define racism, which, of course, we all learned not to do in elementary school. He also argues that I focus only on the United States, when racism is a global phenomenon. For much of the rest of his piece, he explains why he thinks that "changing" the definition of racism is wrong.

Now, I don't want to sound too much like I'm picking on Denis. It's just that, he's such a good representative for one side of the discussion on how to define racism. He started out on the subject by criticizing a local YWCA leader for defining racism as "prejudice plus privilege plus power to oppress." It appears to me that Denis agrees with a more "basic" definition of racism that basically boils down to not liking people of other races (Denis, my apologies if I am misrepresenting your view). The contrasting view is that racism is tied to those who control the power structure. This is the view that Denis is challenging, and the idea that I want to discuss a little further.

Let's take a look at some of the various definitions of racism. First, the definition that people from Denis's side of the argument would be more likely to agree with: the dictionary definition. Here's an offering from Merriam-Webster:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Now, that is a very brief, easy to understand definition. It is likely in line with how many of us are used to having racism defined. However, some (like me) would say that this is a somewhat cowardly definition. It is completely divorced from the history and context of racism. In addition, it is reasonable to question whether or not the dictionary should serve as the final authority on such an issue. After all, there are other definitions of racism, offered by people who have devoted their lives and professional career to studying, researching, and analyzing subjects relevant to this discussion. Let's consider some of the definitions offered by sociologist and anthropologist - people who study human behavior.

In 1993, David Wellman defined racism in this way:

Culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities

First of all, this definition can be applied to a variety of countries. Even though it mentions whites specifically, it could conceivably be tailored to nearly any imaginable scenario. It also acknowledges the historical context of racism, which was created for the purpose of subjugating and oppressing particular groups, but we'll get to that later. This definition also deals with the systematic and societal nature of racism, instead of looking at it as only individual instances of prejudice.

Wellman is not the only sociologist to offer a definition of racism. Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as follows:
A highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy. Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry

Again, the systemic nature of racism is emphasized. Cazenave and Maddern are defining racism as a system or force, and not simply something someone does or feels toward another person.

Anthropologist have also made attempts at defining racism. The following definition was written by Dr. Helen Enoch Page for the Center for the Study of White American Culture. This long, and fancily worded definition is actually the first part of a much longer definition of racism, but I think it captures Dr. Page's main argument:

Racism is an ideological, structural and historic stratification process by which the population of European descent, through its individual and institutional distress patterns, intentionally has been able to sustain, to its own best advantage, the dynamic mechanics of upward or downward mobility (of fluid status assignment) to the general disadvantage of the population designated as non-white (on a global scale), using skin color, gender, class, ethnicity or nonwestern nationality as the main indexical criteria used for enforcing differential resource allocation decisions that contribute to decisive changes in relative racial standing in ways most favoring the populations designated as 'white.'

Let me make a [lame] attempt as summarizing that in a way that is easier to understand: racism, according to this definition, is a tool used internationally by the dominant white culture to maintain their own benefit and at the expense of non-whites.

Now, there's one last piece that I want to bring into this conversation, and then I'll stop with the long, boring, academic quotes. See, at this point some people probably think that we're I'm just beating up on white people. "Why are whites the only ones who can be racist? Don't some blacks not like whites?" Yes, certainly there are many prejudiced blacks, and we need to have serious conversations about how we can all deal with our personal biases. However, in discussing race and racism, we must also take a look at the history of this phenomenon. So, i want to bring in some of this history. Now, If you find this kind of stuff boring, skip the long quote and read my summary at the end. This is from the American Anthropological Association's Statement on Race:

Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.

As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the "racial" categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes.

Basically, the point of this quote and of the entire AAA document is to say that race has not always existed. Rather, it was created as a way to control and oppress non-whites. Once created, race was used to justify the enslavement of African Americans, the oppression of Native Americans, and the mistreatment of various other groups around the world. This system of classifying, labeling as inherently inferior, and oppressing is racism. This is how the sociologist and anthropologist mentioned above come to their definition of racism. This is why it is important to look at the historical context of this issue.

Now, some may say that this type of definition leaves out many prejudiced people. Certainly it does. However, I would argue in some instances these people are products of racism. They don't always represent racism itself. Rather, their prejudices are created from this process. An individual white may not feel that they have "power to oppress," but their prejudice may be the result of this system of racism, which operates apart from that individual. There are some African Americans who are express prejudice against whites. Is this racism? I would argue that this is not racism, but rather a response to racism. Is it wrong? Yes. But it is important to be honest about what it is and why it is wrong. In many instances, the solution to the prejudices of minorities is not to simply label them as racist. Instead, we must address the racism that is responsible for creating their prejudices. Likewise, we can not deal with the issue of white racism if we view it only as many instances of individual prejudices. Instead, we must address the system, the force that is racism, that has caused such a twisted way of thinking.

Now, someone like Denis may argue that this is letting minority groups off the hook. I would argue that his definition of racism lets white people off the hook. Why should we not acknowledge the unique role that whites play in the creation and perpetuation of this phenomenon? By using the same terminology to describe whiter racism and minority prejudice, or by using phrases like "both sides are wrong" or "we all need to stop the hate" we're ignoring this unique role. What such language does is place an equal responsibility for racism and an equal burden for fixing the problem on all races. However, when one looks at the history of race, it is clear that not all groups are equally responsible. When one looks at the present situation that has been wrought by that history, it is clear that we do not all share the same burden. So, my question to those who want to stick with the strict dictionary definition: Why do you want to let white people off the hook?

So, clearly I have a lot, maybe too much to say on this topic. I think you can see that I agree more with the definitions offered by people who actually study this topic. Racism is not when one person does, thinks, or says something bad to another person. Racism is a systemic force created tosubjugate the non-white people's of the earth. It is based on the idea that certain groups (defined by physical traits, and increasingly in combination with culture) are inherently inferior. Racism creates privilege and power for whites, even those who are not racist, and even those who do not feel particularly privileged or empowered.

I've talked long enough, but before I go, I just want to clear up some things between me and Denis. He wrote:

It seems to me that the most charitable explanation for the redefinition (including the power element) is to accomodate or account for the differing expressions of racism. I do understand this argument. A great example is anti-semitism. This could range from a mildly harmful attitude to death in a gas chamber. But the range of actions that might flow from a mindset (anti-semitism or racism) is not sufficient, imho, to justify changing a definition and confusing an already difficult issue.

Sadly, it does not appear that I made my opinion clear, and Denis misunderstood what I was saying. When I talked about different types of prejudice, I was not simply pointing out the differences among racism and anti-semitism and xenophobia (actually, I consider the last two part of the system of racism). What I mean was that a white racist who feels he has the right to subjugate blacks because he is biologically superior is a lot different than an African American who doesn't like to be around whites because he is angry about racism. A white voting public that refuses to fund pubic education in black communities on the basis that black cultural deficiencies are to blame for academicweaknesses is a lot different than a black student who doesn't like whites because they refuse to fund his school. The fact of the matter is, many minorities feel that whites can't be trusted. And while it is inaccurate to create such a generalization, it's notsurprising that people feel this way. As far as those individuals are concerned, whites have not shown themselves to be trustworthy. Their hatred, hanger, and prejudice is a result of the ways in which they andtheir community have been harmed by racism. So, to call them racist is inappropriate.

Denis has characterized my opinion on racism as hinging solely on one's ability to inflict harm. He writes:

So my point is that if we are to change the definition of bad attitudes, like racism, to reflect the varying ability of people or nations to act on said bad attitudes, then we should do the same with good attitudes.

However, in trying to shift responsibility off of whites, he has totally missed my point. It's not just about one's ability to act on bad attitudes. It's about the source of those attitudes. Are they birthed out of the system of racism defined above? Or are they in response to the pain of being oppressed by that system? I think this is a key question to ask in such a discussion. I hope that all who read (or, let's be real, skim) this post will join in this discussion by posting a comment.

News: Medical Racism

From The Boston Herald:

A patient alleges racism in a hospital's handling of a botched surgery and the lax investigation that followed. Here are excerpts from his letter that appeared in the Herald:

My name is Michael K. Hicks and on June 27, 2008, I had a liposuction and breast reduction procedure at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center by Dr. Loren Borud.

This is a high-profile case because of the allegations that Dr. Borud was impaired while doing my surgery.The Department of Public Health conducted what they claimed to be a full investigation and cleared Beth Israel of any wrongdoing. However, the DPH did not interview Dr. Loren Borud, the lead plastic surgeon; they did not interview me the victim; nor did they interview Dr. Eran Bar-Meir, who is the fellow surgeon that put me back together the best way he knew how.

And...

Three days after my surgery, another surgeon at Beth Israel Deaconess operated on a white woman on whom a wrong-side surgery (orthopedic surgery) occurred. Beth Israel Deaconess apologized to her immediately after she awoke from surgery. They even made the statement public and did everything right and respectfully for the white woman, and gave her dignity. In my case, they sent me home the same day of the surgery without a doctor even seeing me. What was different about Michael Hicks? I am African-American, and to Beth Israel I am a Negro. My life is worth absolutely nothing to them. It is apparent my civil rights are being violated by Paul Dreyer, Beth Israel Deaconess and the Department of Public Health.

Read More

Go read the full letter, and then leave a comment on what you think. Does he have a case?

News: Russian Ads Using Obama Seen as Racist

From Asiaone News / Associated Free Press

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - Obama ice cream, anyone? Chocolate-vanilla ice cream is one of several Russian products being marketed using America's first black president, even as critics call the ads racist.

Other ads featuring US President Barack Obama have promoted tanning salons and tooth-whitening services.

But the creator of one Obama-themed ad - for ice cream bars which have a chocolate-flavoured centre embedded in a layer of vanilla - insisted Friday that it was not racist and should be seen as a joke.

Read More

So, what do you think? Racist? A good marketing ploy? Just a joke? Or all of the above?

News: NAACP Sues Mortgage Lenders, Alleging Racism

From CNN.com:

The NAACP filed lawsuits Friday against two of the nation's largest mortgage lenders -- HSBC and Wells Fargo -- alleging "systematic, institutionalized racism" in their subprime lending.

NAACP CEO Benjamin Jealous says, "We are not seeking damages; we just want them to fix the problem."

"We have targeted these banks because we have gone through what we can get our hands on, and it seems like there's a real problem here," NAACP CEO Benjamin Jealous told CNN.

Jealous said the group wants "transparency." "We want to see the books," he added. "We are not seeking damages; we just want them to fix the problem."

More:

Under subprime lending, people who don't qualify for lower interest rates can borrow money at higher rates. The NAACP argues that the companies gave subprime rates to African-Americans who qualified for better rates and gave better rates to white customers with similar credit histories.

The lawsuits note studies showing African-Americans have been disproportionately affected by subprime lending. But that's not solely because of intentional efforts to target African-Americans, according to the lawsuits.

"These statistical disparities are not mere happenstance, but instead result from the systematic and predatory targeting of African-Americans, as well as facially neutral lending policies and practices that have a disparate adverse impact on African-Americans," said the lawsuits, which were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read More

Ironic, considering some have tried to blame the financial crisis on African Americans.

Chuck Norris and the New Confederacy

When Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer-turned-congressman from Illinois, relatively new to national politics was elected president in 1960 at a time of great national turmoil, many panicked. Even though Lincoln insisted that he would not abolish slavery, many feared the young radical would do exactly that. As a result, most of the Southern states decided that they no longer wanted to be part of the United States. They quit the country. It was this conflict that lead to the Civil War.

Over a century later, Barack Obama, a lawyer-turned-congressman from Illinois who was relatively new to national politics has been elected president at a time of great national turmoil, and many are panicking. Recently, I posted a news item noting Chuck Norris's desire to run for “president of Texas” and his claim of many conservative cell groups ready to join his cause. I also noted various individuals who seem to have issues with the very notion that President Obama is eligible to be president. One member of the military is even contending that he does not have to follow the President's orders until he sees the president's birth certificate: proof that he was born in the U.S.

As a side note, I know of no such demands for past presidents. Also, John McCain was born in Panama.

As I observe all of this, my mind is drawn back to Lincoln, and not just for all the weird Illinois connections. The main fuss over Lincoln was race: “We're quitting the country because the president might free blacks.” Is it totally illogical to suggest that race may also be at the root of all the fuss over Obama?

First, let's look quickly at some of the complaints about Obama:

1. He's an unpatriotic socialist who wants to destroy American values and make America less American

2. He wasn't really born in the United States, but, rather born to an African, Muslim father and raised by Islamic extremist

Of course, we know that neither of these claims are true. There's no reason to believe that Obama is particularly unpatriotic (not that I think these empty displays of blind patriotism are all that good for the country anyway). He's not a socialist. He, like probably 99.9% of other sane Americans, just doesn't believe in pure capitalism. Translation: he likes people. The president was born in Hawaii, after Hawaii had become a state. His birth certificate has already been checked. His father was atheist. He's been a Christian for two decades. He actually gave his testimony of how he got saved (look up his Call to Renewal speech).

So, why have these attacks been so persistent? Let me ask this: what are “American values”? This is a phrase often used attack liberals and minorities. “American values” are hard work, industry, and capitalism – Joe the Plumber stuff. Minorities have been stereotyped as lazy, unindustrious, and desiring handouts. Apple pie is American, sweet potato pie isn't. Baseball is American (but not really), basketball isn't (but really it is). Rock-and-roll is American (now that they've gotten rid of all the blacks), rap isn't. Small towns are American, big cities (where most Americans live) aren't. So, when the President, a black man, talks about improving education, or lowing taxes for 95% of working families raising them on only the wealthiest 2%, or when he discusses issues relating to urban areas, or when he talks about his experience as a community organizer, it's no surprise that the fringe, right-wing nuts that make up what's left of the Republican party label him as an un-American socialist.

It's not just that Republicans disagree on policy issues with Obama. It seems that he, for them, embodies the great threats to the American way. I truly believe, deep down, for many Americans, whiteness is American. Not that blacks can't be American, they just have to be white. This presents a problem, because while Obama is no Al Sharpton, he is also makes no apologies for being black. He plays basketball. He fist-bumps his wife and easily makes references to hip-hop because he actually listens to it (heck, his generation invented it). He's also a liberal Democrat. He talks about cities. He appointed the first black attorney general, who recently made a big stink about race. He used to go to a church where the pastor dared to talk about race openly. His wife is Michelle Obama (read: “angry black lady”), and their kids aren't named Sally and Betty Sue. For all those with JTP Syndrome, these things are threats.

Certainly, there are lots of factors in Obama being labeled “un-American,” but it is clear that race plays an important role in this characterization. I would take this a step farther, arguing that, in fact, many who think like Chuck Norris feel the need to tear down Obama because they are frightened by the fact that a black man is their president. Just as many were repulsed by the idea of living in a land lead by Lincoln, many view being governed by a brotha' is an apocalyptic event. They see opposing him to the point of rebellion as defending the American way. This, by the way, is one of the most disheartening things for blacks: the idea that anyone, let alone a seizable group of people, could find us so repulsing because of our skin tone.

However, such hatred still exist. Somehow, questions of where Obama was born have been raised by military personnel, and notable politicians, including Alan Keyes and Senator Richard Shelby. Was this such an important issue with George W. Bush? Bill Clinton. George H.W. Bush? Ronald Regan? Why was there not more of a challenge to John McCain's status? He wasn't born in the United States. It's sad that so many can not accept the idea that Barack Obama is the president.

So, what can we learn from all of this? For all the talk of unity, hope, and change over the past several months, our nation remains very divided. On one side, there are the sane individuals. On the other is a minority of ignorant, hot-headed, hateful hooligans. Their number is small, but their voices are loud, and their potential for causing damage is great. Unless the economy miraculously turns around in the next few months, which it likely won't, we'll be dealing with these people. Will he have another Civil War? Likely not. However, we should prepare for a level of venomous hate higher than this country has seen in a while. I'm guessing this isn't the last we'll hear of Chuck Norris and the New Confederacy.

Joe Scarborough: Shut Up and Listen

I probably shouldn't say this, but when will white people shut up and actually listen to black people when we talk about race?



Seriously?

So, black people aren't allowed to talk about racial injustice or inequality or the lack of substantial dialogue on race if we do something successful? Do we need your permission to speak our minds?

And are you really responding with "guys our age don't think about race?" Joe, that just shows how ignorant you are on this issue. It also shows how much of a coward you are that as soon as someone starts talking about race in a way that doesn't make white America look like angles sent from heaven, you go to "I'm not a racist." No body called you racist. Yet you go straight to talking about how colorblind you are.

If you wonder why some blacks feel so fed up with, so annoyed by whites, here's your answer. If you really want to make progress on the issue of race, try this: shut up and listen.

News: Advertisement Industry Under Fire

From Target Market News:

The inability of the advertising industry to fill its desks, cubicles and offices with a diverse work force is coming under fire again, this time from a lawyer with a track record of extracting large settlements on behalf of employees of giant corporations like Coca-Cola, Morgan Stanley and Texaco who believed they had been the victims of racial discrimination.

Cyrus Mehri (above), a lawyer who has sued corporations over racial discrimination, said that "favoritism rules and merit is cast aside" in the advertising industry.

The lawyer, Cyrus Mehri, joined the N.A.A.C.P. at a news conference on Thursday in Midtown Manhattan to release a report on race and employment in advertising. The 100-page report, addressing subjects like hiring, compensation, assignments and promotions, is part of what the N.A.A.C.P. and Mr. Mehri, of the Washington law firm of Mehri & Skalet, are calling the Madison Avenue Project.

There's More:

Blacks remain underrepresented on Madison Avenue, according to the report, "Research Perspectives on Race and Employment in the Advertising Industry," which concluded that only 5.3 percent of managers and professionals at agencies in 2008 were black.

And those blacks who do manage to land jobs on Madison Avenue are significantly underpaid, the report said, earning 80 cents for each dollar earned by their white counterparts.The economy worsens the problem, Ms. Ciccolo said, because "many training, recruitment and antidiscrimination programs come to a complete halt" in hard times.
Read the full article
or Read more about the Madison Avenue Project

This is for all those that think that discrimination in the workplace is a thing of the past.

The Left Can Be Racist, Too

I don't like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Can't stand him. His speech last week - I couldn't decide if I was annoyed, horrified, or amused it was so horrible. But none of that excuses this.

We have to stop this. How can those of us on the left combat racism if we participate in it. There are about 197,298,200,912 things to make fun of Bobby Jindal for that aren't racist. Let's stick to those.

Report: Housing discrimination on LI 'routine practice'

Newsday.com Report:

In 2004, Kirk and Orlandina Carter, a young African-American couple soon to marry, started to look for a house to buy in a "good neighborhood."

"We probably had about three to five Realtors," said Orlandina Carter, 32. "They would always lead us to neighborhoods that were low-income, rundown."

A new study released today suggests the Carters' experiences were not unusual.

In "Racial Equity Report Card: Fair Housing on Long Island," the Syosset advocacy group Education Research Advocacy Support to Eliminate Racism criticizes real estate brokers and federal, state and local government agencies, which the group says do not act aggressively on discrimination complaints or enforce fair housing laws.

Read the entire article

Nation of Cowards?

Not long ago, our new Attorney General Eric Holder (the nation's first black top prosecutor) gave a speech where he addressed the history and present of race relations in the United States. Holder asserted that, in spite of our progress, we remain a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race. As you can imagine, this sparked a brief but intense controversy.

As I was gearing up to write this post, I stumbled upon a clip from Hardball With Chris Matthews that focused on this very topic.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The amazing thing about this clip is that serves as fabulous proof of AG Holder's argument. If you watch this video closely, you will observe the very cowardice that AG Holder is seeking to confront. Consider the following.

After letting Dr. Michael Eric Dyson explain why he agreed with Holder, guest host Mike Barnicle asks ultra-conservative talking head Pat Buchanan what happens when whits talk candidly about race. This was a blatantly obvious set up to allow Buchanan to complain about how unfairly whites are treated when they talk honestly about race. By perusing this line of reason, Buchanan was actually displaying cowardice by avoiding a real conversation on race.

But even before that point, Barnicle argued that, while America may be uncomfortable or reluctant when talking about race, we're not cowards. Huh? Did he just say "we're cowards, but we're not cowards"? Way to prove the point you're arguing against.

If you continue to watch the video, you'll witness Barnicle and Buchanan distort Holder's words and avoid any discussion of white racism. In fact, it appears that Buchanan's only understanding of racism involves bad things black people do. He also seems stuck in nineteenth century thinking in that he doesn't yet seem to grasp the concept that many of the problems in the African American community (crime, drug abuse, poverty, a lack of education, fatherlesness) are, at least in part, traceable to white racism.

Here's the bottom line. Many Americans, especially white Americans, are afraid to talk about race in a real and substantial way. People are afraid to talk about the existence of white privilege. They're afraid to talk about black disenfranchisement in the 2000 election. They're afraid to talk about racial inequality in public schools or in the criminal justice system. If you were to suggest to "average" Americans that Ronald Regan was racist, they'd get uncomfortable and defensive. They wouldn't counter your argument, they'd challenge your right to open the discussion in the first place.

This is exactly what happened in the wake of AG Holder's comments. It wasn't "Let's discuss the accuracy of Holder's statements," or "Let's look at ways in which what Holder said was true or untrue." It was more like, "How dare he say that." Many will offer that the "successes" of the Civil Rights Movement (some of which have been since reversed) or the election of President Obama, or the achievements of a small minorities of blacks show that Holder's accusation is unreasonable. Never mind little black children shot dead in our streets, or a lack of adequate health care or access to nutrition or inconsistencies in criminal proceedings or the unequal distribution of resources for public schools. Instead of a mature and comprehensive discussion on race, the media fallout was little more than a childish attack on Holder.

Of course, such a reaction should come as no surprise. The same thing happened last year in the reaction to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. At no point did the mainstream media pause and actually evaluate his statements. Rev. Wright's words about were challenging and caused many discomfort. Instead of addressing this issues he raised, many resorted to calling him "racist" and "anti-American." How is it racist to say that Hillary Clinton doesn't know what it's like to be a black man? Is there something Secretary Clinton needs to tell us? Why did the "revealing" of those few seconds of Rev. Wright's three decade preaching career become another opportunity to lampoon another crazy black race baiter? Why not let it be an opportunity to discuss the intersection of race and gender, or the consequences of U.S. foreign policy, or the lasting effects of our nations antagonistic actions toward African Americans - all issues raised by Wright.

Why do discussions about race always devolve into debates over whether or not blacks have a right to discuss race? Isn't that what happened in the clip above? Pat Buchanan is challanging Dr. Dyson's right to even participate in a discussion on white racism. He's revealing his belief that blacks don't have a wright to blame blacks for anything. He's avoiding the conversation because he's a coward.

This is why AG Holder was correct in his statements. We, as a nation, are afraid to confront our nation's racial past and the challenging present reality it has created. It's OK, good, in fact, that we feel uncomfortable when certain issue of race are raised. That discomfort let's us know that those are the very areas that require the most attention. However, when we shy away from this discomfort, and become defensive or only talk about race in cosmetic ways, we're little more than a nation of cowards.

**Note: I elected to speak of the nation as a whole for this post, and not simply white Americans. I did this for a few reasons. First, minorities can also be cowardly when discussing race. This is also a problem that must be dealt with on a national level. While I do feel that white Americans bear a unique portion of the blame for creating this atmosphere, we are a nation of cowards, and we must deal with this issue as a nation, and not as separate groups.

News: CA Mayor Resignes over Racist E-mail

From the Los Angeles Times:

The mayor of Los Alamitos said he will resign after coming under fire for an e-mail depicting the White House lawn as a watermelon patch, saying the controversy over racism has made it difficult to lead the city.
Click for full story

Here's the picture:

NY Post Cartoon - Racist?

What do you think? Is this racist?
I think there are a few options for explaining this political cartoon:

1. Straight-up racism: Throughout history, African Americans have suffered the insult of being portrayed as monkeys. Some may see this cartoon as an attempt to call the first black president, President Obama (so fun to type) a monkey. It is Obama who was the chief promoter of the simulus bill. This also wouldn't be the first time that Obama has been called a monkey. Check out YouTube for a quick reminder of the presidential campaign.
2. Extreme ignorance: Maybe the creator of the cartoon and the Post's editor didn't know the history of comparing blacks to monkeys.
   
3. Connecting politics to current events: Apparently, some lady's pet chimpanzee recently went wild and decided to attack her. In an effort to save her, police officers shot the chimp dead. Maybe this was just a lame attempt at combining two news stories.
4. The monkey wasn't meant to be Obama, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or just Democrats or liberals in general.

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't know better than to publish a cartoon that potentially portrays the first black president as a monkey who's just been assassinated doesn't deserve a job. In an economic downturn like this, I'm sure that there is some unemployed person out there with more than three working brain cells, giving them the mental capacity to avoid this catastrophe.

Speak For Yourself III: More McCain/Palin Rally Insanity

This time, McCain-Palin supporters at a rally in Ohio express their views.

Again, one must ask, what is it about these rallies that attracts this element? Why would people who think like this also support John McCain? What does that say about McCain and Palin? What does it say that these people support McCain's policies?

Apparently, I Will be a Deadbeat Dad

That's right, according to Bill Cunningham, if I should father any children, I will promptly abandon them, on account of my blackness, because "that's what black fathers do." Yeah, it sounded unbelievable to me, too, until I played the Media Matters audio clip, and heard it for myself.

Oh, and since I made it to age 18 without being abandoned by my father (thanks, Dad!) I guess that means my dad isn't black. WOW! And all these years, he thought he was a brotha. Maybe one day Mr. Cunningham will come out with some theory that my mom is an alien from Jupiter.

By the way, this is the same Bill Cunningham that was given the privilege (if you can call it that) of introducing John McCain before one of his rallies. He took this opportunity as a prime moment to repeatedly, and in a malicious way, mention and disparage Barack Obama's middle name (in case you didn't know, that name - Hussein - has been in Obama's family for a long time, probably since before Saddam Hussein was born in a country far away from Obama's family). Here's the obligatory video clip:

One more thing on Mr. Cunningham. He was gracious enough to warn us that black people, regardless of the result of the election, will create mischief and mayhem in the streets.

Now, aside from the fact that he attributed comments to police chiefs that no police chiefs ever made, this is just racist. Yes, hateful fear-mongers like Cunningham should be afraid of what will happen if this election is stolen, because we will make our voices heard, just as we did in the 1960s when our right to vote was being compromised. This issue may come up again, because this idiotic mess probably deserves its own, more detailed post.

Speak For Yourself I: Racism in Pottsville, PA

I'm starting a new series, entitled "Speak For Yourself," in which I will offer minimal commentary and allow the words of others to speak for themselves. This first installment is a video featuring a slew of persons outside a McCain rally in Pottsville, PA, making racist comments about Senator Obama and even blacks in general.

Now, some of the comments are obviously racist, like "I'll never vote for a black man." But go back and ask yourself this: how does race factor in the views of those who want to "bomb Obama," or think that his "associations and judgment" are "un-American," or who insist that he was "born in Kenya" and demand to see his birth certificate (in case your wondering, factcheck.com actually did see and examine his birth certificate, and have proven, as most sane individuals already knew, that Obama was born in Hawaii, and we should all know by now that Hawaii is part of the United States).

Final question: Why are McCain/Palin rallies attracting so much of this element?

Here We Go

Finally, we've reached the beginning of the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, and this beginning is marked by a new line of attack from John McCain and his campaign. Finally, they are beginning to unleash the below-the-belt, outlandish and baseless attacks that many feared would come at some point in the election

With McCain's numbers slipping both nationally and in key battleground states, and Sarah Palin's not harmful but also not overwhelmingly great debate performance, the desperation within the McCain camp is so thick you could cut it with a knife. So, they've decided to attack Barack Obama by linking him with William Ayers, a man who has been labeled as a domestic terrorist for actions he participated in back in the 1960s - when Obama was a whopping eight years old! Just as there is no real substantive link between Obama and Franklin Rains (the sinister looking black former Freddy Mac executive) the Obama-Ayers connection doesn't extend beyond living in the same neighborhood and serving on a charitable board together.

Way back during the primary election factcheck.com pointed out that there is no substantive link between Obama and Ayers. I expect that they will be ripping this new McCain line of attack to shreds in the coming days.

Of course, in this morally deficiant society of ours, lies have become par for the course in high stakes elections. However, this particular lie reeks of an attempt to paint Senator Obama as a terrorist himself. It conjures up those nasty e-mail smears that are going around, spewing some hate-filled version of: "Barack Obama is a secret Islamic terrorist who is infiltrating the country by running for president so that he can destroy it from the inside out." This is code language, a dog whistle intended to appeal to the worst aspects of American society by sending the message that "he's not one of us, be scared of him."

Expect McCain campaign surrogates and Conservative commentators to began questioning Senator Obama's Christian faith within the next few days. This will probably be followed by a renewed bashing of his former mega-church Christian pastor. And if Obama tries to respond with that annoying little thing we know as the truth, expect the right-wing fanatics to accuse him of playing the race card.

Those of us who actually pay attention to the world around us, watch with a critical eye, and aren't fooled by such shenanigans know exactly what this is. We know that Republicans couldn't get away with this against a white candidate (although the fact that Obama is a Democrat and that Democrats are often portrayed by Republicans as weak does help some). We recognize this as an attempt to paint Obama as one of those crazy, unpatriotic, radical, angry black people who we must all fear and hate because he has the nerve to speak up when our nation does something wrong.

We must also know that there is more to come. It remains to be seen how close the Republicans will come to using overt racism to scrape together votes. The more desperate the become, the more likely it is. As their poll numbers slip, they will have less to loose by using race as a tool to create fear of an Obama administration. We should expect to see more ads that depict Obama as a sinister black man, soft on crime, wanting to give handouts to lazy welfare queens, and willing to sacrifice the safety of the nation to meet his own personal ambitions. Expect that the Republicans to be reckless in their lies (as they already have been). Be prepared for the possibility that [publicly] independent organizations will be overtly racist, especially in ad campaigns targeted as specific media markets.

This is the test of America's morality that we all knew would come if we nominated a black man. Now it's time for us to see if we pass the test, and to respond appropriately to the results. The next 30+ days are not for the faint of heart.

Is John McCain Racist?

It's been about a week that I've been debating doing this post. Throughout this entire presidential campaign, I've maintained that I don't think John McCain is racist, and I think it's a just wrong to accuse him of being so without any type of proof. So, one can imagine the internal conflict I felt when I found reason to believe that John McCain's views of other races are less than acceptable.

I've decided to simply present the information that I have found. Before I do, let me say that I am not fully convinced concerning the credibility of the source. Personally, I think it's likely true, but this evidence is in no way definitive. That's why this post is titled "Is John McCain Racist?" and not "John McCain is Racist!"

At http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/10086 you will find a list of questionable actions by Senator McCain. These are mostly first hand accounts from Doug Thompson, a former Capitol Hill staffer who interacted with McCain over the years. Here is one of the less vulgar comments that Thompson reports:

Question: Why does Mexican beer have two "X's" on the label?
Answer: Because wetbacks always need a co-signer.

Thompson also adds,

McCain loved to tell jokes about lesbians, blacks, Hispanics and the Vietnamese community that occupied a large section of Arlington County, Virginia, just south of the District of Columbia.

Of course, McCain didn't use polite language in the jokes: He used names like "fags" or "queers" or "dykes" or "niggers" or "spics" or "wetbacks" or "gooks."

and,

McCain's collection of off-color jokes are riddled with racist words and sentiments. Advisors have toned down the raunchy rhetoric of his early years in Congress but close aides say his attitudes have not changed.

McCain opposed making the birthday of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King a national holiday. During his 2000 campaign for President, he told reporters on his "Straight Talk Express: "I hated the gooks (North Vietnamese). I will hate them as long as I live."

Finally, I want to point out one more of Thompson's many disturbing claims. He sites the book Gook: John McCain's Racism, written by Irwin A. Tank, stating that McCain once endorsed a frequent speaker at white supremacist rallies, and that "in answering a question about divorced fathers and child support, McCain called the children 'tar babies.'"

If these claims are true (and McCain's opposition to the MLK holiday and his use of the anti-Asian slur "gook" are known to be true) it should be quite alarming to all Americans. We must be concerned and ask ourselves if a person who believes and behaves in this way is the best choice to lead our nation.