Louis Ramirez - Apparently, it's OK in PA to Beat People to Death

How incredibly disgusting can the racist debate over illegal immigration get? How much further can or xenophobia plunge us into a love of lawlessness? Apparently, in my home state of Pennsylvania, it can get to the point where beating a man to death is OK. I received this e-mail yesterday:

KEVIN:

After they had beaten Luis Ramirez to death, the white teenagers who attacked him sent an ominous message to Luis' friends:

"Tell your f**king Mexican friends to get the f**k out of Shenandoah or you'll be f**king laying next to him."¹

Just over a week ago, two of Ramirez's killers were acquitted of all serious charges by an all white jury², with the jury foreman making it clear that justice for Ramirez had no chance in the small town of Shenandoah, PA:

"I believe strongly that some of the people on the jury were racist. I believe strongly that some of the people on the jury had their minds made up maybe before the first day of trial...And I believe the four boys that were involved the most are racist. I absolutely do..."³

The Department of Justice is now looking into Ramirez' death.⁴ But that's only part of what's needed. Where are the leaders in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Why has Governor Rendell had nothing to say? His silence is shameful.

Until our elected leaders speak up, we can expect more stories like Luis'--not just in Shenandoah, but across the country. Governor Rendell owes it to Pennsylvanians and Latinos everywhere to condemn and speak out on what's happened. Together we can demand that he does. Please click the link below to add your voice and ask your friends and family to do the same. It takes only a moment.

http://presente.org/ref/ad/14/campaigns/ramirez/org/keystone

If Luis Ramirez's death were an isolated event it would be outrageous enough. Sadly, it's part of a growing trend of racially motivated violence against Latinos, particularly in rural communities. According to the FBI, hate crimes against Latinos rose 35% between 2003 and 2006.⁵ And as author David Niewert writes, the target of hate crimes goes beyond their immediate victims: "The purpose is to terrorize the target community, to drive them out, eliminate them."⁶

That kind of intimidation only works only if the people who are targeted remain silent, and officials in positions of power remain unaccountable. That's why we need to speak out and let folks across the country know we won't tolerate hate and violence towards our communities. It starts with demanding that the Governor of Pennsylvania make clear that anti-immigrant hate has no place in Pennsylvania. It's time for him to show leadership now.

Join us in calling for him to speak out:

http://presente.org/ref/ad/14/campaigns/ramirez/org/keystone

Thank you and Adelante!

The Keystone Progress Team
and
The Presente.org Team

References

1. "Town struggles with fallout from immigrant's fatal beating," CNN, 7-31-2008
http://tinyurl.com/64u2sk

2. "Jury acquits teens of murder in Mexican immigrants' beating death," Associated Press, 5-2-2009
http://tinyurl.com/p8gusl

3. "Jury Foreman Calls Other Jurors Racist," WNEP, 5-2-2009
http://tinyurl.com/da6mcg

4. "Luiz Ramirez Hate Crime Petition," MALDEF, 5-5-2009
http://tinyurl.com/c24jvb

5. "The Year in Hate," Southern Poverty Law Center, Spring 2008
http://tinyurl.com/r6ldef

6. "A jury's hate-crime verdict in rural Pennsylvania reinforces the racial divide," Crooks and Liars, 5-3-2009
http://crooksandliars.com/node/27858/

Note that this letter includes references to articles detailing this information. This is not made up. This man really was beaten to death.

When I read this story, two things came to mind:

1. Do we really believe that being an illegal immigrant makes it OK for you to be beaten to death? I mean, really, we must consider that this was part of the thinking of the jury. Would these teens have been able to get away with this if this man was an average white 25 year old. I mean, just imagine a white man visiting Philadelphia from some other part of the state is waiting for a subway, when he gets into an argument with three black teens. The white man is beaten to death. We all know that those three black teens would be tried for felony crimes as adults. Connected to this, doesn't this underline the ways in which the immigration debate has created unsafe conditions for all Latinos in the United States, even those who have been U.S. citizens their entire lives? I mean, really, when you hear about these attacks, are the attackers first doing research to verify that their victims are indeed illegal immigrants?

2. I immediately flashed back to the Jena 6 incident, in which six black teens were charged with attempted murder for beating a white classmate. This, of course happened after a series of events left the African American community in Jena, LA, feeling threatened and targeted. These events included the hanging of a noose on a "whites only" tree that black students attempted to sit under, threatening words from the District Attorney seemingly directed toward black students, and an alleged incidents in which blacks students were threatened with a gun by white students, were able to take the gun, and then were charged with robbery for taking the gun. The real disgrace in the Jena 6 fiasco was not the exceedingly harsh level of the charges against the six black teens, but the fact that they came from a DA who showed a pattern of overacting to the actions of blacks, even when they were legal, but underreacting to violence against blacks. It is ironic that we here little about the Louis Ramirez incident, but we saw many Americans rush to the defense of the Jena DA.

What this really highlights is who can and cannot be a victim in this country. Black teenagers can't be victims. It just doesn't fit the archetype we've created. So when we look at their encounters with the law, we can't see the injustices perpetrated against them; we only see the wrong they've done. So, when the Jena story broke, almost all the focus was on the beating. On the rare occasion that anyone focused on the events leading up to that incident, the focused in on the hanging of the noose, something that dealt with race in the general. However, to focus on the way in which the legal system, particularly that corrupt DA, had victimized the black youth of Jena was virtually impossible.

Likewise, in the United States, an illegal immigrant (at leas a brown illegal immigrant) cannot be a victim. These white teenagers essentially had a free pass to do just about anything to Louis Ramirez, because there is almost no way that a jury would unanimously agree to seriously punish them for attacking an illegal immigrant. This incident is just the latest illustration of a truth that minorities have know for the entire history of this country: when it comes to certain people, the rule of law just does not apply.

Stat of the Day: Hate Crime Increase

So, obviously, I'm not going to be able to do these EVERY day.

Also, feel free to submit a stat, and you can even submit one to counter one that I've posted, just be sure to include a source.

In 2006, the FBI reports a 7.8% increase in the number of hate crimes from the previous year.
Source: Human Rights First

As I can gather, this is the most recent information available.

After reading the Human Rights First analysis and then thinking about what has been going on over the past few years that could cause such an increase, the following comes to mind.

1. Persistent anger about 9/11. There's still a lot of people out there who are angry about the terrorist attacks and blame all Muslims or Middle-Easter persons.
2. Immigration. In 2006, people were hot about this issue. I suspect that the recent economic crisis doesn't help things. (side note: does this make anyone else think about about then Senator and candidate Obama's "bitter" remarks?). I fear that many Latinos have and will continue to fall victim to hate crimes because they are associated with illegal immigration, even if they themselves are U.S. citizens.
3. LGBT Rights. As this has become a more publicly contested issue, I suspect that more violence has been committed against members of the LGBT community. It was September of 2005 that NBA star Shaquille O'Neal helped arrest a man accused of attacking a gay couple (he does everything but shoot free throws well).

Overall, this is a disturbing trend, because it suggest not only that hatred is on the rise, not the decline, in this country, but that it is increasingly manifesting itself in violent and criminal behavior. While Latinos make up an increasing share of the U.S. population, they face increased violence. While members of the LGBT community gain more rights, they also face more violence. And, while we have a black president, we also have a population that has generated more threats on his life than for a typical president.

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Stat of the Day: Racial Violence?

Ever hear people talk about how it's really black people who are so racist because they are so much more likely to commit violent crimes against white people then the other way around? Conservatives often use this argument to paint a picture of white America under attack from blacks. This is an image in which blacks are some great threat to the white community.

Well, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, withes are about 5 times more likely to be attacked by another white person than by a black person.

So, maybe instead of [some] white people being so afraid of blacks, instead of conservatives use this to argue that white racism isn't really that prevalent and "reverse racism" is the real problem, and instead of people trying to justify the over representation of blacks in America's prisons and jails, people should look a t the actual facts.

Source: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2004, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006)
*** Based on analysis of tables 40 and 42; originally found here; Justice Department tables here

Stat of the [Tues]Day: Rise in Hate Groups

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of hate groups in the United States is on the rise. Here are the stats:

• 926: number of active hate groups identified by the SPLC in 2008
• 54%: the rise in the number of hate groups from 2000 to 2008
• 4%: the rise in the number of hate groups from 2007 to 2008
• 40%: the rise in hate crimes against Latinos from 2003 to 2007, according to the FBI

As explanation for the rise in hate groups and hate violence, the SCLC cites the immigration debate, the economic crisis, and the election of Barack Obama.

You can read more about the SCLC's findings here.

Respect the Truth of Lewis's Statement

The latest distractions in this year's presidential election revolve around race. The mess started as V.P. Candidate Sarah Palin made it a point to attack Barack Obama on his non-relationship with William Ayers. Palin also suggested that it might be a good idea to attack Obama on the issue of his former paster, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Now, if you've been reading this blog for long enough, you know that my immediate response to this was that such a line of attack – depicting Obama as scary and anti-American – only has the possibility of being effective because of Obama's race.

Well, this increasingly negative tone was effective in inciting increased fear and hatred at least among John McCain's base. Before we knew what was happening, McCain-Palin rallies turned into places for almost all white crowds to vent their hates and their fears (are they synonyms?) in increasingly disturbing ways. When McCain sought to conjure up the image of Obama as a scary unknown by asking “Who is the real Barack Obama,” someone in the crowd yelled out, “Terrorist!” While Palin was speaking of Obama and Ayers, a supporter cried “Kill him.” Someone even yelled, “Off with his head.” There was booing at the mere mention of Obama's name. Those allowed to pose questions at McCain's “town hall” style events were noticeably angry and expressed fear of Obama. One lady even said, incorrectly, that Obama is Arab, and even McCain had to correct her on that one. After some bad press, McCain decided that he needed to urge his audiences to tone down the hate. This was, of course, received with a chorus of boos.

It's also worth pointing out that McCain had, at first, criticized Obama for attacking those in attendance at McCain-Palin rallies.

This all led up to this weekend, when civil rights legend and Georgia Congressman John Lewis took McCain to task. Although this post is already getting long, I think it's worthwhile to post Lewis's comments in their entirety.

As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.

In case you don't know, George Wallace was a racist who ran for president on a segregationist platform.

Of course, John McCain was quick to issue a response:

Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

For his part, Senator Obama's campaign issued the following statement:

Senator Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies. But John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night, as well as the baseless and profoundly irresponsible charges from his own running mate that the Democratic nominee for President of the United States ‘pals around with terrorists.’ As Barack Obama has said himself, the last thing we need from either party is the kind of angry, divisive rhetoric that tears us apart at a time of crisis when we desperately need to come together. That is the kind of campaign Senator Obama will continue to run in the weeks ahead.

So, after all this, the question is, was Lewis right for saying what he did? I say no. And yes.

Let's deal with the no first. New Jersey Governor Jim Corzine said today on Meet the Press that Lewis's comments showed poor timing, serving as a distraction from the real issues. I agree in that, strategically, this is not good for Obama in that it allows McCain to paint him as a race-baiter who wants to distract voters from the real issues at a time when McCain has been the one truly guilty of distracting.

However, since Lewis did make the comments, I must say I agree with what he said. The statement from the Obama campaign first points out that McCain's policies are not pro-segregation, as were Wallace's. With this I must also agree. While McCain's policies will have a disproportionately negative impact on African Americans, they are not unapologetically racist. John McCain is no George Wallace.

Here's the thing: No one accused McCain of sharing policies similar to those of Wallace. Lewis only accused McCain and Palin of creating an atmosphere that breeds hatred and, potentially, violence. Are we really going to argue that this isn't true? Sarah Palin all but calls Obama a terrorist, John McCain ask, “who is Barack Obama,” and we really don' think that contributes to a hateful and divisive atmosphere? Although we can't read their minds to prove it, we essentially know that part of the McCain-Palin strategy was to remind easily swayed voters that Obama is a scare/shadowy/creepy/unknown young black guy with ties to terrorists and angry black men. He's “not one of us.”

Palin complained that Obama saw America as “imperfect enough” to be friends with a domestic terrorist. When I heard this it made me sick, because I immediately recognized it as the argument that blacks complain too much and are ungrateful to this country. It echoed her low blow at Michelle Obama, and was an attack on every black person who has ever dared to point out the flaws of their country. This was a divisive statement if ever there was one, and it was a dog whistle to her supporters, reminding them, “we can't let this ungrateful, America-hating black man win.”

What kind of response did John McCain expect when he described Obama as a vague and unknown figure? Did he really not expect people to respond by being afraid of Obama? Did he really think that he could paint Obama as a danger to America and not incite anger and violence? At a debate for senate in Georgia, a woman in the crowd cried out, “bomb Obama.” Given the tone of his rallies – a tone he helped to create – is McCain really surprised at such comments?

Let's look at Lewis's words one more time:

He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.

While Lewis here was speaking of Wallace, such words could soon come to describe the reckless and repulsive actions of McCain and Palin. Judging from the atmosphere of their rallies, violent encounters at polling places wouldn't surprise me. Barack Obama already received Secret Service protection earlier than any candidate ever (other than those who already had it, like V.P.s or first ladies) because of racial tensions. There was already a poorly planned assassination attempt during the Democratic National Convention in Denver. And now we hear threats of violence as McCain and Palin stoke the worst fears of their supporters.

If anyone would know about such a thing, it would be John Lewis. He's not a professional race-baiter. He doesn't go around crying “racism” just to get attention from the media. When someone who lived through racial violence just because he tried to exercise his legal rights tells you that the potential for such a thing to happen again exists, you listen! I dare anyone to show me what, exactly, Lewis said that was untrue. As far as political strategy is concerned, I question the timing of Lewis's comments. Still, we must respect the truth and wisdom within his statements, or we risk allowing our already struggling democracy to slip into a fear- and hate-fueled chaos.

Food For Though:

The Racism You Can't See

Note: This entry is one of those original Facebook notes. It was posted on Thursday, May 15.

By now you may have read the article in the Washington Post by Kevin Merida or at least heard about it. It deals with the topic of racially motivated incidents of hate experienced by volunteers working to help elect Senator Obama. You can find the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html.

These are the highlights:

• Comments like: “I'll never vote for a black person”
• Doors slammed in face
• Students campaigning on a main road being called racial slurs by passers-by
• ”One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: 'Hang that darky from a tree!'”

Now, these are very specific, tangible examples of racism and racial hatred. Racism is being shown toward those who refuse to vote for Senator Obama because of the color of his skin, and to those, black and white, who are volunteering for him.

But I personally believe there is another type of racism mentioned in this article. Merdia notes that the Obama campaign has not made much fuss about these issues. Now, surely there is more than one reason for this. One tactical reason is that they do not want to discourage people from volunteering. However, there is another reason. As an African American candidate, Senator Obama has to avoid appearing as complaining about racism too much. This is a more subtle form of racism, one that few notice and even fewer are willing to admit exists.

Traditionally, the media, when it comes to racial relations, is only concerned with the first manifestation of racism: calling someone the N-word, police brutality, blatant racial discrimination in the workplace, and the like. However, the second form is much more controversial, because it strikes at the heart of racial relations and what it means to live in a racialized society such as ours. The fact of the matter is that there is a double standard. If Senator Clinton or Senator McCain decried the attacks on Obama volunteers or vandalism of his campaign office, they would be seen as noble. If Senator Obama were to do it, he'd be another complainer, another Sharpton, another Jackson. It would be seen as “race-baiting” which I'm sure some people would accuse me of just for writing this letter.

It is this double standard in the way we assign credibility when discussing race that is key evidence of the existence of white privilege in this country. For a better understanding of the very real but very controversial topic of white privilege, check out Unpacking the invisible knapsack by Peggy McIntosh. This article addresses the way in which, in this society, whites area aloud to say certain things that others just aren't allowed to say without being cast in a negative light. It is, I believe, the chief reason that Senator Obama, as well as countless silently angry black journalist (Eugene Robinson from MSNBC come to mind) have had to bite their tongue on a number of issues this election season.

You can even look at the fallout over spiritual leaders. Senator Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, claimed that, following September 11th, the U.S. needed to consider what impact being an international bully has on incurring the wrath of peoples of other nations. He's been branded as anti-American, and virtually all of the news media asked when and how – not if – Senator Obama would “denounce” him. Meanwhile, one spiritual adviser to Senator McCain, John Hagge, claimed that the Hurricane Katrina tragedy was a result of the wrath of God. He believes that God destroyed New Orleans because “homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.”(read here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hagee-hewitt/) Where are similar calls for McCain to denounce and reject Hagge? Or how about Rod Parsley, who believes that America was founded to destroy Islam? Or the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, who blamed “gays” and “abortionists” among others for the attacks on 9/11? Why no calls for Senator McCain to throw these men under the bus, men whom he has publicly held in high regard, being fully aware of their statements? Why only such a call for Rev. Wright? Who's take on 9/11 makes more sense, Falwell or Wright? But how gets lambasted and daemonized by the media?

But, no one wants to talk about this. To acknowledge that there is such a double standard would mean to acknowledge the existence of white privilege (for those of you who watch FOX “News” you may better know it as “reverse racism,” which is an oxymoronic concept that determines it's own lengthy note unto itself). If white privilege is real, than that means that we as a nation must re-evaluate everything, because it means that everything is in some way, shape, or form racialized. This means everything from how we choose presidents to how we choose spouses to how the cast for the Oscar Meyer commercial I just watched was chosen. It means that race is involved not only when a white police officer shoots an innocent black victim, but also if the officer was black, or if the victim was guilty of a crime. It means that race is involved in what I lean in school, who teaches it to me, and if I retain the knowledge. Essentially, it means that race is inescapable because it has been so deeply entrenched into modern American culture. Sadly, that's not a notion that many are willing to accept, despite the evidence for it, because they believe in the phone, romanticized view of America that they were taught in school, or at best they believe that we have “turned the page” and “gotten past all that.”

Race in America is like termites. If you only look at what can be seen, you'll never think anything is wrong. It's only once you peel back the layers that you realize how extensive the damage is. We have yet to peel back the layers.