Oh Hell, I'm Talking About Race Again!

"There are two kinds of white people, John Brown's and all the rest of them are clowns." -Malcom X


A Facebook friend posted the above observation from Malcolm on her wall and it generated quite a few comments. Many of them were along these lines: "Malcolm X owed an apology to every white Union Soldier that died in the Civil War." The topic of reparations was brought up and a friend queried, "do I get "reparations" for my ancestor from the 2nd Massachusetts Regiment who was killed by the Confederate Army?"


Then there was the following observation from a white male whom I don't know: "I get frustrated as well with every white person being blamed... slavery was due just as much to black Africans as white Americans... and not all white Americans past or present accepted or believed/supported slavery/racism... my family and self being one of those... don't slap those who are supporting you."

I have some empathy for the frustration and confusion expressed by people regarding Malcolm's words. Most people have never engaged in any honest dialogue about race and race relations in this country. We avoid the topic as much as possible even though the history of race permeates all aspects of American culture. It's why we have a president born of a white mother and a black father who is identified as black. Trust me, I'm happy to claim Obama as black, but he is no more black than he is white, but in these United States of America, the one-drop rule still holds true. Every time I write about race in America, I promise myself it will be the last time. I never keep that promise. I am so weary of trying to explain what seems perfectly clear to me; yet, I cannot simply let the moment pass when maybe there will be a moment of pure communication where someone nods their head in understanding and we make a meaningful connection. So here I go again.

Slavery was an abominaton but it may be argued that it was based on a system of economics; however, after the Civil War, there was the Jim Crow era (link to detailed PBS historical overview of Jim Crow). That takes a lot more explaining. The intense discrimination that followed slavery is the real shame of America. I don't blame every white person as having individual responsibility for slavery but in my opinion, white America benefited as a whole from the institution of slavery. The subsequent spread of Jim Crow, the legalized, systemic oppression of black people based solely on skin color was not supported by every white person either, but again the benefit of such a system accrued to white people, not blacks (examples of Jim Crow laws).The concept is called "white privilege" and until white people understand and acknowledge the very real benefits of white privilege in a society that made discrimination based on race not just a practice but the law of the land, then I don't think that an honest dialogue about race is possible.


One Facebook comment dwelled on the unfairness of affirmative action to white males. He asserted that he has worked hard for all that he has achieved. I don't doubt that he has. So have I. So have most people, regardless of race, but there are obstacles on that "level playing field" for people of color that aren't there for whites.  


Affirmative action does not negate white privilege; it affirms it. (What Is White Privilege?) If not for the legalized discrimination of Jim Crow, there would have been no need for affirmative action. If the playing field had been meaningfully and permanently leveled post Civil War, then the freed slaves would have been able to fully participate in the society and eventually compete with white America. Instead, after a brief period of Reconstruction when blacks were becoming educated (remember, it was a crime punishable by death to teach slaves to read), being elected to public office, developing businesses and integrating themselves into the larger society, white America began to implement laws to take away the newly realized rights of blacks. Not just in the South, the North had its own issues of legalized discrimination as well.


Here's an analogy: imagine that you have worn a chain attached to a heavy weight around your ankles all of your life. Finally someone removes the chain and the weight and tells you can now participate in a 10K race and if you win, you get a prize. All of the other runners have been racing for years and have never worn the weight. Some of them participated in placing the weight around your ankles in the past but some of them did not. You have never run before, your muscles have atrophied, but hell, they are letting you run so it's an allegedly fair race. Affirmative action was the scooter provided to black people after generations of being denied the right to even particpate in the race. Those who didn't actively oppress black people, nonetheless benefitted from being allowed to freely participate in the race without the encumbrances that were imposed on black people. If there had never been the chains of oppression, then affirmative action would have never been a necessity.


In addition, it's a self-serving lie that makes some white folks comfortable to believe that affirmative action has placed unqualified black people ahead of qualified white people in jobs, promotions, and admissions to schools. It is just another variation on racism to assume that black people are less qualified than their white counterparts. As for preference, it's an American thing. When I attended the University of NC at Chapel Hill, I was the first person in my family to do so. My parents didn't have the option; no colored were allowed. Plenty of my classmates were "legacy" admissions. Their parents, grandparents, great grandparents had all attended UNC. I don't hear a lot of concern about that variation of affirmative action.


Some of the comments on FB have accused black people of dwelling in the past. First of all, racism isn't dead. Secondly, although the 1960s brought some end to Jim Crow laws, we were still fighting for equal rights in the 1970s. I went to segregated schools until 1971. It's easy to dismiss the past when it isn't yours. If I or any black person actually dwelled on the past then we would become obsessed not with reparations but retribution.


Slavery was well before my time but I grew up under Jim Crow. I try to be a reasonable person, but legal discrimination is not ancient history; it is my life. Where I could shop, where I could sit down and have a meal, where I could receive medical care, where I could attend school, and where I could live was all dictated based on my skin color. The jobs available to my parents were restricted because there were some jobs that black people were not allowed to do.

Personally, I'm not much interested in reparations, although I respect those who consider reparations to be appropriate. However, I think that the failure of this nation to acknowledge and apologize for the subjugation of a race of people is long overdue and that true healing cannot begin without it. I don't expect that white people should shoulder any guilt for having benefitted from white privilege but I do expect that you acknowledge its existence and that you have benefitted from it. Then we can talk.

Proud Progressive

I hope that Joe Sestak, in his run for a Senate seat from Pennsylvania, won’t be pushed into a corner by Right Wing Toomey and act defensive. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 16, 2010,“Sestak had a 'hypersensitive reaction' to valid criticism, Republican opponent Pat Toomey said Thursday.” Sestak needn’t apologize or minimize support for a liberal, progressive, populist voting record. He needs to point out strongly, as he is very capable of doing, that the right wing has successfully deceived much of the middle class into thinking that right wing politics favor the average American. The right wing media has cast a spell over a lot of people and created the very false impression that right wing politics are populist and liberal politics aren’t. I think Joe can campaign to expose that fallacy.

Exposing the agenda of political groups favoring large corporations would be a good way to start. The US Chamber of Congress is one such group. Here are their talking points published this week:

• Privatize Social Security
• Cut taxes for the rich
• Log the national forests
• Expand offshore gas and oil drilling
• Privatize highways and waterways

The above list is as anti-average-person as possible. All progressive folks, Democrat, Independent and Republican alike need to blast such policies.

When Joe dickers over 94% vote with Nancy Pelosi vs. 100% he is defensive. When he is defensive, he is not attacking the anti-average-guy right wing. He seems as though he is trying to be “Republican Lite.” Instead, he needs to be aggressive and show the right wing leaders for what they are: self-serving defenders of the wealthy corporations, who have become the 21^st Century King George ruling and dominating the American people.

GUN RIGHTS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

(Your mischievous cephalopod is sneaking in this post before our good Captain returns – shhshh, don’t tell him, please!)

"A well regulated indicia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Please forgive. An octopus has little need for law because it is hard for us to read, interpret, and understand the “shall nots” of living in a human society. We live as solitary creatures with little social skill. Yet, the language of the Second Amendment seems clear to me. If you intend to keep and bear arms (and I have at least 8 of these), you need to bring your well regulated indicia with you.

Perhaps well regulated indicia imprinted on tee-shirts will suffice (TAO, we should discuss licensing rights). Ones that read:

This armed robbery brought to you by Walmart.

This Post Office massacre is sponsored by UPS.

This gang killing is backed by Smith & Wesson.

… or …

This political assassination is a
public service message of Koch Industries.

Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it! After all, these indicia are timestamps that let you know when you have expired.

Many thanks to Sheria who inspired this post. Any more t-shirt ideas?

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN

This billboard went up in some Podunk town in Iowa, the brainchild of the North Iowa Tea Party. It is so slanderous and tasteless and inaccurate that others in the tea party movement have roundly condemned it.

To me it is reminiscent of the type of propaganda posters used by Hitler and Lenin to invoke fear and suspicion among the people. Isn’t it ironic that the only “leaders” in this country trying to incite fear and suspicion among the naïve masses is the right?

I have yet to hear an Obama speech that hysterically accuses the right of trying to form a tyrannical estate in which we will all be oppressed and enslaved by draconian laws meant to control our every movement.

Maybe he should…

Taking Back America

As I’ve previously mentioned, I somehow ended up on some random Tea Party e-mailing list. So, every few days or so I receive an e-mail in my inbox (or my spam box, as Gmail is getting much better at filtering those bad boys out) with headlines screaming about Obama or the Feds or taking back America.

Let’s touch on that last point. The taking back America crowds irk the ever loving hell out of me. Not everyone in that crowd mind you, but the general idea behind it. Different folks give different emphasis on what America is for them. For some folks, it truly is a land of wonderful opportunities. For some folks it’s a land of oppression. And for some folks it is (or should be) whiter than Glenn Beck’s ass. Invariably within the “Take America Back!” crowd, there are folks who actually mean “Take America back…to a time when all these uppity Negroes/fill in your other minority/previously-not-considered-white-but-given-honorary-white-status ethnic group of choice here couldn’t do sh*t.”

I suppose my issue with the Take America Back crowd is more or less the same as the Tea Party crowd: it lacks definition. Take America back from what? And what are you trying to take America back to? Other than general anger and pissiness (let’s pretend that’s a word) towards the government/the crappy economy/unemployment/a tanked housing market/etc, what exactly are you, dear Take America Back crowd, trying to achieve?

I ask not to be snarky but because, much like the Tea Party, I’m genuinely trying to figure this one out. Thus far all of my listening to Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck has yet to help me get a grasp on this. And yes, I’ll ‘fess up to listening to both on a regular basis…it’s the old journalism major/news dork in me. I like to listen to viewpoints that contrast/conflict with my own. Gets the old brain working. Which is what I’m going to need the brains of some folks in the Take Back America crowd to do in order to better articulate what the hell they stand for other than philosophy of “we’re-mad-as-hell-and-we’re-not-going-to-take-it-anymore-ism.”

Oh, and one minor point for the folks in the “Take Back America” crowd who keep bring up Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: y’all realize that the vast majority of you guys are the modern day embodiment of underling class left high and dry right? Unless of course you’re a captain of industry, in the Atlas Shrugged world y’all would be well and truly f*cked. Granted it’s been a good 10 years since I’ve read that 1,000+ page brick by Ayn Rand, so my interpretation could be a bit rusty and/or off. Anyone with an alternate interpretation that doesn’t involve calling me/all black folks/all minorities/all liberals/all progressive any combination of the words “elitist,” “America hating,” “socialist/communist,” “moron,” or variations thereof is welcome to leave a comment.

Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.

Horses In Mid-Stream

Via my friend Steven at Projections, an article for the Chico News & Review by Sgt. Garth Talbott, stationed in Afghanistan.

Driving through to nowhere

A soldier’s view of the Afghanistan war

By Garth Talbott 

This article was published on 07.08.10.

Army Sgt. Garth Talbott is a Chico native who has served in Iraq and is now serving in Afghanistan. The CN&R’s Aug. 14, 2003, cover story, “Dear Anna,” was based on his letters from Iraq to his sister. This is an edited version of a recent letter from Afghanistan.

I’m beginning to feel the wear. This whole war just seems so pointless. I’ve come here with my eyes wide open, having done this before, and volunteered specifically for route clearance, but there is no sense of accomplishment, and the whole problem is systemic.

We clear routes, and the only clear part of the route is the section between the first truck and the last. Usually. Then the fourth truck back gets blown up. Well, at least that’s one less easily emplaced IED, and at least almost everyone in the truck is fine.

Then you run the same route back the next day and get blown up again. You start asking yourself what progress is being made. You can at least look at the short-term result, which is that usually you’ve saved the people behind you from getting hit, which really is a lot. Then you look at the long-term result, which is nothing.

They start putting pressure plates in, so we put $2.39 million mine rollers on the noses of the trucks. My first one lasted four hours. Then they offset the pressure plate, which costs them nothing except a few more feet of wire. Then we put big digger contraptions on the front of the mine rollers. We throw more and more money at the problems, and the adaptations to beat our money cost next to nothing.

The problem is that we have no real presence. We’re the dudes who drive by once in a while in our big-ass trucks. To the average Afghan, we’re no more than an occasional visitor, whereas the Taliban, whether welcome or not, are there, operating under our noses.
We provide nothing for the locals in the way of security. In fact, with our only occasional presence, we cause the problems. We’re the reason there are bombs in the roads through their villages.
What we need is not more equipment or facilities. We need to take the ridiculous amounts of money we’re spending here and put small units inside of every little town, not huge bases on the outskirts staffed almost entirely by support personnel. American and coalition soldiers need to be more like beat cops who know the town. They need to show the locals, through a constant presence, that they can be trusted.

We need to demonstrate by our actions that we can defend their way of life better than the Taliban by being present, and we can’t do that by just driving through, even if it’s every day. [my bolds]

Note Sgt. Talbott's words. Are we asking the Afghans to believe that we can defend them or that we can train some of their own villagers to defend them--from the Taliban--better than the Taliban can?

Whatever our goals and methods should be now, it may be too late to enact them due to the mixed agendas we've espoused since we first got there and the utter confusion that's come of changing leadership at the top at this critical moment. And, if that's the case, then our goal needs to be to get the young men and women, many of whom have given long and miserable stretches of their lives to our totally FUBAR'd Middle East wars through back-to-back and/or extended deployments, out of there as safely as possible.  I have no idea how.

There is supposed to be a critical, game-changing Kandahar offensive in process that makes it possible for COIN to succeed...right? We are supposed to be prepared for an increase in American fatalities as our troops attempt a modified clear-hold-build-and-transfer strategy used in Iraq to the very different conditions in this Taliban stronghold...I think.  I'm not prepared for that, and I don't think I would be even if I understood what we're doing. The Marjah-style offensive seems to have morphed into Operation Hamkari (Operation Cooperation), where our troops try to displace the Taliban by forming a bond with local leaders.

The build-and-transfer chunk of the plan is dependent on arming and training local police and militia.  That's a strategy that Karzai believes will result in armed challenges to the authority of the central government he's trying to build; he's putting his case to Petraeus in a series of meetings over the past week--a case that calls the entire plan into question. Between you and me, it sounds like a goat-rope.  I have a sinking feeling that I'm watching the prelude to one of those last-helicopter-out-of-Vietnam moments.

What's your take?

UNEMPLOYMENT, CLASS WARFARE, AND VICTIM BLAME: MORE GOP HYPOCRISY

Four years ago, Ben Stein, the conservative commentator for the New York Times wrote this article, In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning. He recalls an interview with Warren Buffett, chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, who says the rich do not pay enough taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap:

Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income (…) It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office (…) “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Whenever this subject - closing the deficit gap by raising taxes on the wealthy - is the topic of conversation, free market voices raise the ugly specter of 'class warfare.'  At least Ben Stein and Warren Buffett are willing to be honest and reveal an inconvenient truth.

After 30 years of supply-side economics, the argument that lower taxes will stimulate the economy and raise tax revenues is so discredited, one wonders when the corpse will finally be laid to rest.  In the last year of Clinton’s administration, the government raised over $1 trillion in tax revenue - generating a surplus. By 2003 after two Bush tax cuts, revenues fell to $794 billion - adding $2.7 billion to the national debt. Of course, when Republicans lose one argument, they can always muster another: “Don’t raise taxes; cut spending!” Fat chance when the country is mired in two wars and a severe recession that has impoverished the middle class. When you lose two arguments, why not muster a third:

At the 1992 Republican Convention, Vice President Dan Quayle attacked the concept of progressive taxation with this question: “Why should the best people be punished?”

Quayle’s remark offers us a glimpse into a Republican mindset that regards the richest people as the “best people” at the pinnacle of an economic, social, and moral order.  However, when the serfs and vassals lose their jobs and go on unemployment, then they must be considered defective and unworthy and undergo devaluation.

At least, this is the attitude of GOP Senator Jon Kyl who says: “In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work." I cannot imagine a more callous, cruel, and dishonest argument: When the economic policies of your party bring economic ruin to tens of millions of people, blame the victim!  Try finding work when there are no jobs available, or try raising a family on a paltry unemployment check. How can the senator honestly claim an unemployment check is preferable to a job when creditors threaten to foreclose on your home and take away what’s left of an already tormented life!

On a scale of moral depravity, there is no one lower than Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who wants mandatory drug testing of all unemployment insurance recipients. “Too many Americans are locked into a life of a dangerous dependency not only on drugs, but the federal assistance that serves to enable their addiction,” he claims.  In other words, according to the twisted logic of Senator Hatch, everyone on unemployment is an automatic drug user suspect who will be ordered by the state to urinate on command … or lose benefits.  If you are unemployed and broke, then it must be your fault.  If you are unemployed and broke, then you are a suspected felon. If you are unemployed and broke, then you are deserving of suspicion.  These days, the last refuge of a scoundrel is victim blame.

An estimated 10 million people are receiving unemployment insurance in some form, and another 2 million people receive no aid because their benefits have expired.  Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have filibustered an unemployment insurance extension bill.  They rationalize their callous disregard of human suffering in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility.’ If the Democrats want a $10 billion unemployment extension bill, they demand, then Democrats must find ways to trim $10 billion from the federal budget. Except for one minor detail:  Republicans refuse to consider the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal subsidies and tax benefits that privilege their wealthiest patrons.

Should Billionaires Pay Lower Taxes Than Everyone Else?

“The latest list of richest people published by Forbes magazine includes 27 American billionaires who made their fortunes by managing private equity investments (…) Is it fair that they pay tax on their extravagant incomes at only a 15% rate when everyone else in the country has to pay up to 35%?”

Closing Tax Loopholes for Billionaires

“Who could be opposed to closing a tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private equity managers to treat their earnings as capital gains -- and pay a rate of only 15 percent rather than the 35 percent applied to ordinary income? (…) The House has already tried three times to close it only to have the Senate cave in because of campaign donations from these and other financiers who benefit from it. (…) Closing this particular loophole would net some $20 billion.”

Meanwhile, what is to become of the millions of people who lost jobs through no fault of their own … those formerly ‘honest’ American workers suddenly turned indigent and ‘dishonest’ for having turned poor? Take away from the rich to help the unemployed? But that’s class warfare, which is socialism, which is un-American! We can always expect Republicans to hide their policy failures behind specious arguments, or demonize those who are NOT their patrons, or dismiss any human suffering that does not advance their political ambitions; but never, never, NEVER expect social justice from a Republican.

CEPHALOPODS 8, HUMANS 0

My nephew Paul has done it again! A clean sweep! Paul predicted 8 consecutive World Cup soccer wins with uncanny accuracy. It makes an Uncle Pus proud. Story here.

Off with his hair!

Yes, it's hard to get behind anything the government of Iran does: stoning people to death, building nuclear weapons and all that, but to give credit where it's due, they do have the same lack of tolerance for certain hairstyles that I do and when it comes to demonstrating intolerance, Iran has few equals.

Yes, I'm all for freedom of expression, but there are limits and the mullet haircut is beyond that limit. As I'm concerned, ponytails on anyone over 60 and greasy spikes or Mohawks on anyone of any age are an abomination unto the Lord. So yes, I'd be right at home in the Islamic Republic and they certainly agree with me over there about what needs to be stomped out if the human race is to avoid divine retribution. Police in Iran can lop off that ponytail and that mullet can earn you jail time -- and rightly so. As I said, there are limits.

Of course, being a land of compassionate conservatism, Iran has provided an illustrated compendium of hairstyles that, according to Jaleh Khodayar, the man in charge of the government- backed Modesty and Veil Festival, are acceptable in light of "Iranians' complexion, culture and religion, and Islamic law." See for yourself:

Just Had To Share...

From Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Mark Fiore, a case of vuja dey all over again.



And a Bill Day cartoon to make your day:

Click on image to enlarge

Have a good weekend, Zoners!