Showing posts with label white supremacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label white supremacy. Show all posts

Sunday, March 21, 2010

WHO IS THE WOLF AT THE DOOR?


Today The New York Times issued an admission, in the form of a column by its Public Editor Clark Hoyt, that it was wrong in its coverage of the so-called ACORN sting and had been wrong to defend its wording since the truth began to emerge.

ACORN (acronym for The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is defined by Wikipedia as "a collection of community-based organizations in the United States that advocate for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues." Because ACORN has, since its inception in 1970, been very successful in its goals and particularly effective in registering millions of low- to -moderate income voters, it has been the target of conservative attacks because lower income citizens tend to vote progressive and because ACORN promotes racial equality. Despite the fact that attempts at illegal disenfranchisement and voter fraud overwhelmingly originate from the conservative camp, the right-wing noise machine has prevaricatingly smeared ACORN as the source of voter illegality in recent elections.



In this campaign of "stop ACORN by any means", a right-wing con artist named James O'Keefe released video where he (falsely) claimed that he and another person dressed in outrageous "pimp and ho" costumes entered an ACORN office during July 2009 and were secretly taped receiving information on how to conceal illegal activities. The New York Times backed this story without ever viewing the original videotapes. Subsequently, Republicans succeeded in stampeding Congress to cut off all federal funding for ACORN and President Obama immediately signed the bill without batting an eye.

ACORN claimed it was fraud from the outset and demanded to see the unedited original video. They also filed suit for illegal secret videotaping. O'Keefe's employer, rightwing propagandist Andrew Breitbart, appeared in print and on TV repeatedly defending O'Keefe. Breitbart's story began to unravel when O'Keefe and three others were arrested in January after illegally entering the offices of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) in an apparent attempt to tap or damage her telephone system. The criminals were "charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony" and are awaiting further legal action.

In December 2009, former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshberger issued his results of "an independent inquiry into the organizational systems and processes surrounding the social services of the organization" pursuant to the recent allegations of corruption within that organization in the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy". His written report exonerates ACORN from any alleged illegal activity.

Likewise, media watchdog FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) issued an excellent analysis of The New York Times' coverage and concluded it was "wildly misleading" and that the paper had been "duped".

Harshberger's report was cited in the judgment issued ten days ago by U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon, which reversed the act of Congress by granting both declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to ACORN. In her ruling, Judge Herson stated "The government has offered no...unique reason to treat ACORN differently from other contractors accused of serious misconduct or to bar ACORN from federal funding without either a judicial trial or an administrative process applicable to all government contractors."

This means the right-wing can, and undoubtedly will, continue to target ACORN for destruction, but for the time being, actual proof will have to be produced before governmental punishment can be levied. And this assertion of the rule of law no doubt played a strong role in The New York Times' watery admission of error today.

The damage has been done, however. As Hoyt's column points out, "Now Acorn [sic] and its supporters say The Times got the story wrong and, by failing to correct it, has played into the hands of a campaign that has pushed the group near extinction."

These admissions arrive during a week when right-wing dissociation from honesty can be found all over the news. For instance, in a desperate last-ditch effort to derail even a semblance of health care reform, a fake memo was promulgated which "claims to be sent to 'Democratic health and communications staff' and which suggests the majority party leadership wants to make big changes to Medicare next year after health care passes". This memo was ballyhooed by right-wing blogs as proof of Democrat hypocrisy only briefly before it was declared a hoax -- though salivating Republican Congressman Scott Garrett (NJ) couldn't stop himself in time to avoid being revealed as a lying ass in public by Anthony Weiner (N-NY):



We have also learned that the 33 Haitian "orphans" kidnapped by U.S. christianist missionaries turned out to have parents, after all: parents who were devastated by the earthquake and accepted the missionaries story that the children would be taken to a free school where the parents could visit at any time. The children have been returned to their families, and while not enough news outlets are calling this what it was -- human trafficking -- at least the sob stories about how it was "all for the children" have died away.

I wonder if all the money raised by fundamentalist churches to "aid these orphans" will be now directed toward helping their families, or if instead it will go to Laura Silsby's defense costs. I'd love to see a breakdown of how much tax-free income generated by the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant groups has been spent in decades of cover-up and protection of pedophiles. There's a reason why the best place to find a child-sex predator is in conservative Christian strongholds, but I'll save that for another post.

It is important to note here, however, that the subtext which makes sense of why this kidnapping is justified in the minds of the Christian Right is a racist conviction that children of color are always better off beign raised with at least white supervision of their parents, if not white parents. Children of color are presumed to have illegitimate births, lacking proper familial values or documentation by authority. The Right seeks control over families of color, not giving them independent assistance where it might be needed.

Jill Cozzi details recent white-supremacy-driven threats at this week's teabagger bundthall gatherings as further documentation for "GOP: The Party of Legitimized Hate" (see my earlier post on this at Kickin' Ass and Namin' Names). This week saw black members of Congress being called "n****r" by teabaggers as they tried to go about their work. Later they had a big laugh yelling "f****t at Barney Frank, and successfully refused to cease their menacing behavior when a Capitol police officer tried to eject them.

Violence and lying for the cause is not only justified and excused by the Right, it's expected. For the theocrats among them, coercion is part of their mandate from g*d tp prosyletize: Such a mandate is by definition disrespectful of others' right to self-determination. The non-theocrats on the Right have absorbed past lessons from fascism which proves Big Lies backed by localized community violence can dominate nations.

Republican control of public discourse has meant their version of reality has been imprinted on an entire generation or maybe two. One of their lies is that "the media is liberal", when in fact the reverse is true. (Where is OUR Faux News?) Another is that "Americans are mostly to the right of center", when nationwide polls and landslide elections indicate the opposite. (A denied reality which has squeezed the teabaggers out from their "independent" cover.)

A third Republican distortion is the folksy "All politicians lie" with an implicit tag of "and they all equally." I'm not about to argue for the veracity of politicians. I'm not even going to argue that so-called progressives don't engage in the Big Lie from time to time, not when our own President had the nerve to declare in his address to Congress yesterday "You have a chance to make good on the promises you made" the same week that despite running a campaign which included the promise of a public option in health care coverage, it was revealed Obama "made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation". a deal confirmed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina.

But with the obvious exception above, Democrat political lies usually don't deliberately reverse the truth and project their own actions into Republicans. Progressives who vote Democrats into office don't lie us into murderous, economy-breaking wars. We're educated enough to comprehend the difference between socialism, communism, and fascism, and to know who is/who ain't. We support separation of church and state as it was delierately written into this country's organizing fabric by its founders. We understand that habeas corpus either extends to everyone or we're all living one accusation away from the noose. We know goverment is a safety net for "the least among us" and that it is in everyone's best interest to have good free schools, a functioning infrastructure, public health and safety, clean water and food, oversight for business practices, and, of course, the unimpeded right to vote. We are adult enough to recognize these public goods must be paid for by our taxes, not left to corporate goodwill or other forms of magical thinking.

And being adult is a big part of what differentiates the progressive mindset from conservative thinking. We are not locked into a worldview dependent on fear of authority and hierarchies. We have matured enough to not be overwhelmed by the prospect of pluralism, respectful difference of opinion, or modernity in its unpredictable state. We are much better equipped to deal with real-world ambiguity and conflict. And, as Digby points out, "How the two sides handle defeat is a defining characteristic." Assassination and violence as an excuse for having immature mechanisms for dealing with emotion is typical of the Right, not the Left.

Standing here amid the debris left by the Bush administration, we are like the grown-ups who arrived to rescue the boys in Lord Of The Flies. Our current leaders may be distracted by the "lookit this, some of it's kinda cool" crap left behind by run-amok children, but we in the authentic progressive base know eventually Bush/Reagan fantasyland all has to go in a bonfire. Everybody gets a tetanus shot and we return to the Constitution.

Between then and now, there'll have to be an increasing awakening of a majority of those who thought Ronnie and Dubya at least "meant well". They will need to admit "Wolf!" has been repeatedly cried to keep them from their honest labor and their community values have been exploited to serve the egos of a narcissistic few. This kind of adjustment always occurs, eventually.

And maybe, just maybe, this week we're seeing the actual beginning rivulets of that turning tide.


NOTE: Definitive and often exclusive coverage of the entire ACORN story has been untiringly performed by The Brad Blog, whose dogged persistence can be credited for much of the progress toward justice and exposure found above. Our ardent thanks to them for real truth-telling and an insistence on journalistic integrity.

[Cross-posted at Group News Blog.]

Read More...

Saturday, March 6, 2010

KICKIN' ASS AND NAMIN' NAMES


(Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist, holding his sign at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston)

The conservatism which took hold in America during the cultural devastation of Ronald Reagan, the Neocons who successfully married the Religious Right, depends on conning the working class to benefit the owning class by actively maintaining or advancing two bedrock values: woman-hating and white supremacy. It's a one-two punch that sucks in otherwise progessive males who are covertly terrified of powerful women and otherwise intelligent women who are covertly terrified of brown folks. (Or not so covertly.)

I agree with Katha Pollitt that I'm personally relieved we are not sitting in the raging floodwaters of woman-hating sewage that would fill all the airwaves if Hillary Clinton had won the Presidency. The backlash would be horrific.

But equally horrific is how white supremacy has come out from under wraps (well. it never was concealed for those of us without privilege or choosing to not accept denial) and has fueled a 250% increase in terrorist organizations whose raison d'etre is race hatred. And make no mistake about it, to quote Bob Cesca's essay at Huffpo today, "The Tea Party is all about race."


I'm going to quote a few sections from his post to whet your appetite but I hope you'll go read it for yourselves. We must continue challenging the media coverage which acts like these people have a rational agenda and force exposure of what actually brings them together -- why separatist, eliminationist Sarah Palin is their darling. Why Rick Perry is running for Governor of Texas with TV spots openly declaring his support for Tenthers, a code for white supremacists who want to roll back federal civil rights protection in "their" states. We have to decode their dogwhistles at every turn and organize that majority of citizens for whom race hatred is un-American. We are the real patriots, and we must not let them steal that term.

From Bob Cesca The Tea Party Is All About Race:
"...when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

"...The tea party is an extension of talk radio. It's an extension of Fox News Channel. It's an extension of the southern faction of the Republican Party -- the faction that gave us the Southern Strategy, the Willie Horton ad, the White Hands ad and the racially divisive politics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It's an extension of the race-baiting and, often, the outright racism evident in all of those conservative spheres.

"...In the final analysis, when you boil away all of the weirdness, it becomes clear that the teabaggers are pissed because there isn't yet another doddering old white guy in the White House -- like they're used to. That's what this is all about."


(Hat-tip to Brilliant at Breakfast for pointing me toward the Cesca post.)

[Cross-posted at Group News Blog.]

Read More...

Sunday, February 10, 2008

TEN LETTERS TOWARD AN ALPHABET OF PRESIDENTIAL CHOICE


I wonder how many other former Edwards supporters are now in a period of deep analysis, trying not just to decide on a second-choice candidate but to understand the "why" of that choice. So far, the differences between Barack and Hillary are not substantial enough to easily sway me. I'll be fuckin' thrilled with either one, and that's the truth.

I read a lot of blogs each day, liberal/progressive and radical feminist, mostly. Here's what I (very subjectively) seem to be noticing:


(a) A lot of women my age, white women from what I can tell, were not especially on the Hillary bandwagon to begin with but are now getting behind her just because of the appalling woman-hating being aimed her way. I don't find this public vituperation "unbelievable" because I'm a decades-long feminist who has never been "post" or in denial about how shit on women (and woman-ish folk) are in this culture. We've actually lost ground in the last 15 years in a number of key aspects, including (and often most painfully) within what used to be our "safe" communities, i.e., lesbian enclaves. Lesbian never did equal feminist, but the public room to question masculinity, woman-hating and gender essentialism has vanished from queer space; we tend to find it now only in straight feminist arenas. (For which I want to say here, thank you, sisters, for leaving the light on for us.)

(b) Once discussion is under way about Barack vs. Hillary in a blog comments section, so-called liberal white boys cannot seem to stick to issues and cannot resist oozing into anti-woman crap, even as they deny it IS anti-woman crap. Honest to god, the hateful stuff coming out of the mouths of Chris Matthews, et al in White Boy Media is really not substantially different from what's cropping up in comments at Kos, Digby, etc. So much so that responsible blog moderators are having to clamp down on misogyny in comments. Way to go, guys.

(c) Rightwing verbal rape of Hillary, as usual, finds a mirror outlet in the mainstream media, who simply laughs at hate rhetoric in a frat-boy snicker of appreciation. The origin of that laugh is, of course, Ronnie Raygun. The one consolation I keep finding in this pile-on is the audible "click" I keep hearing from progressive bloggers, a "click" my generation heard in around 1975: Yeah, it's that vicious. Yeah, it runs all discourse in this country. Yeah, how'd YOU like to try to assume leadership or a voice in the midst of that kind of onslaught?

(d) The emotionality of the men who are trying to shout down any (even imagined) Hillary support is never acknowledged as emotionality and hysteria. Because, you know, men don't get hysterical.


(e) We're not seeing how Barack would respond to this kind of furor (yet), so I don't have a good guess as to how cool he can stay. I'm duly impressed with Hillary. She's been in the crosshairs for a long time, and is doing well -- except, of course, for the slow, long-term damage that is a result of living in crosshairs. I kinda need to know if Barack is going to lose it and get pissy, unfocused, rigid or wobbly, when his turn comes, like Kerry -- not to mention McCain, Bush, etc, of course.

(f) I just listened to Prairie Home Companion, and they did a long segment where their talented crew of mimics did pretend speeches from Barack, Hillary, McCain, Reagan, and Bush. These were wildly funny, poking at folks on both sides of the divide, and I was struck with how well they did Barack and Hillary. Barack couldn't answer a question in specifics, instead always speaking about "vision" -- convincingly, it was actually persuasive, in the way that good mimicry will be. Hillary kept making it about her ego and her experience, and I laughed hard, though uncomfortably. This gave me a lot to think about, in conjunction with:

(g) More than one blogger had suggested checking out the Presidential selector quiz at Select Smart, so I finally did. The unsettling results were that my position on the issues covered by their list of questions (which would NOT be my list of questions, let me issue that caveat) was shared by
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100 %)
2. Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (94 %)
3. Barack Obama (86 %)
4. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (81 %)
5. John Edwards (withdrawn) (80 %)
6. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (79 %)
7. Hillary Clinton (79 %)
8. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (78 %) [who???]
9. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (73 %)
10. Al Gore (not announced) (70 %)
11. Bill Richardson (withdrawn) (65 %)
12. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (65 %)
13. Mike Gravel (63 %)
14. Elaine Brown (55 %)
15. Ron Paul (40 %)
16. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (37 %)
17. Mike Huckabee (28 %)
18. Rudolph Giuliani (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (28 %)
19. Wayne Allyn Root (27 %)
20. John McCain (27 %)
21. Chuck Hagel (not running) (24 %)
22. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (20 %)
23. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (20 %)
24. Mitt Romney (withdrawn) (19 %)
25. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (18 %)
26. Alan Keyes (13 %)
27. Fred Thompson (withdrawn) (13 %)
28. Duncan Hunter (withdrawn) (11 %)
29. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (11 %)
30. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (6 %)
31. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (4 %)


To respond, I'll begin by saying that Kucinich's avowed willingness to consider Ron Paul as a running mate wiped him off my radar permanently. No cozying up to Nazis, that's a deal-breaker for me. Biden, Edwards and Dodd's alignment with my own views I already knew about. But Barack was a shock. I realized, at that point, I actually don't know his hard views on issues. All I get from the mainstream press and his blogger cheerleaders alike is "the vision" thing. Which isn't enough for me -- I liked and believed in Bill Clinton, I was very swayed by his charismatic speeches, even though I suspected he was at best a moderate. It was the first time I voted for a candidate who won, that blissful year in 1992: Clinton, Ann Richards for Governor and Glen Maxey for my state representative, folks I believed in and they all won. I've been a voter since 1972, and for a long time I used my electoral capital on Socialist, Peace and Justice, or Green party causes. After Reagan came along, I began voting for sheer survival and have stuck to it. But Bill seemed to be the best of both. Well, no more voting for personality reasons. I'll go research Barack's stands, as well as his Senate career, and we'll see.

(h) The questions I want addressed by a candidate are not appearing on these lists. Will they restore habeas corpus as it was in its entirety? Will they reverse NAFTA? Will they strip away the "unitary executive" power-grab of the Bushies and restore checks and balances to our government? Will they not just get us out of Iraq, but drastically cut the military and return that funding to social services plus a foreign policy based on compassion instead of building empire? I felt like I knew how Biden and Edwards would answer these questions, and their answers were mine. I'm not so certain of either Hillary or Barack, and I'm equally unsure of both, Hillary because she's a gifted "player" and Barack because he fumbles (as he has, repeatedly, around gay issues).


(i) Doris Lessing tossed a piss-filled water balloon into the plaza today by with her statement that Barack "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him." This has been said for a few weeks now on various blogs, and I have repeated it myself. But now it's an international item. Lessing certainly has a history of speaking her mind in ways that I may or may not agree with (her pointing out that the September 11th attacks were not that big a deal -- agreed -- and her disavowal of feminism -- stupid, stupid Doris). Still, I don't seeing the notion of "Of course they'll kill him" being given a sort of legitimacy, an air of inevitability. Energetically it's bad news.

(j) This brings me back around to the beginning, how different the attacks are on Barack and Hillary, but I insist we cannot quantify which is worse, woman-hating or white supremacy. I have a distant cousin whom I know only through similar genealogy research, from South Carolina (the problem child of the South), who after 9/11 sent me anti-Muslim group e-mails on a regular basis, no matter my protests. In the last six months, however, he's switched his focus to anti-Barack garbage. It's my barometer on what's up for those who have no reluctance to proudly display their mental illness known as racism. The corporate elite who run our government and the Republican Party will stop at nothing to deny our will, and if they can find a way to bring the nigger-hating out from their 30% base to a larger view with as much public acceptance as their woman-hating receives, they'll do it.


Which, as a conscientous citizen, makes me question everything I hear, looking for the manipulation behind it. Question my own beliefs, and dig deeper. This essay is just one manifestation of my quest to overcome the conditioning which has rotted my soul and which, at least, I am not dense enough to deny exists.

(Image by little gator, now on the FRONT PAGE! at I Can Has Cheezburger

Read More...

Saturday, February 9, 2008

MORE ON AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVES: LAND AND REPARATIONS

(A family picking peas in their garden, Flint River Farms, near Montezuma, GA. May 1939; historical photo from Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund)

Ding over at Bitch Ph.D. has an extraordinarily good post up, Black History Month: A Case for Voting Black that is also a result of her watching Henry Gates' African American Lives. She relates some of the research in the documentary to her own family stories of how crucial land ownership became to African-American trying to undo the effects of slavery, and all the ways their land was eventually stolen from them (a process going on at this moment). Her comment about having land sums it up: "It acts like a bracket around early black families: you were property and now you have property."


She also ties the struggle to own land and develop economic security to the history of lynching, which lasted as a strong form of terrorist activity in this country until the 1960s and whose enduring symbol -- the noose -- has not died one iota (The Jena 6; Professor Madonna Constantine).

Regarding lynching, Wikipedia cites a number of good sources:

'In The Strange Career of Jim Crow, the historian C. Vann Woodward wrote of the post- World War I period: "The war-bred hopes of the Negro for first-class citizenship were quickly smashed in a reaction of violence that was probably unprecedented. Some twenty-five race riots were touched off in American cities during the first six months of 1919, months that John Hope Franklin called 'the greatest period of interracial strife the nation had ever witnessed.' Mobs took over cities for days at a time, flogging, burning, shooting, and torturing at will. When the Negroes showed a new disposition to fight and defend themselves, violence increased. Some of these atrocities occurred in the South — at Longview, Texas, for example, or at Tulsa, Oklahoma, at Elaine, Arkansas or Knoxville, Tennessee. But they were limited to no one section of the country. Many of them occurred in the North and the worst of all was in Chicago. During the first year following the war more than seventy Negroes were lynched, several of them veterans still in uniform."

'The executions of 4,743 people who were lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968 were not often publicized. It is likely that many more unrecorded lynchings occurred in this period. Lynching statistics were kept only for the 86 years between 1882 and 1968, and were based primarily on newspaper accounts. Yet the socio-political impact of lynchings could be significant. In 1901 the state of Colorado restored capital punishment, in response to an outbreak of lynchings in 1900. The state had abolished capital punishment only in 1897.

'Most lynchings were inspired by unsolved crime, racism, and innuendo. 3,500 of its victims were African Americans. Lynchings took place in every state except four, but were concentrated in the Cotton Belt (Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Texas and Louisiana).

'Members of mobs that participated in these public murders often took photographs of what they had done. Those photographs, distributed on postcards, were collected by James Allen, who has published them in book form and online, with written words and video to accompany the images.

'Retaining incriminating evidence is not uncommon for sadistic criminals and in a study conducted by Robert R. Hazelwood, M.S. it was reported that of the sadistic criminals studied: "Forty percent of the men took and kept personal items belonging to their victims... which included... photographs... and some of the offenders referred to them as 'trophies'."

In her post, Ding links to James Allen's exhibit biography page for her at their website states:

'In 2003, Mark co-directed with Alferdteen Harrison the Unsettling Memories Conference, for which she and Harrison received the Public Humanities Achievement Award from the Mississippi Humanities Council. The conference, which Mark describes as an “exciting and terribly sad five days,” brought together artists, civil rights activists, and historians to address through art three of the most devastating moments in southern culture: the Cherokee removal, slavery, and lynching. “It was as if humanity and what we see as our souls and our ability to love and perceive each other as human beings was taken into question,” she says. “When you have slavery, when you have lynching, when you have the Cherokee removal – how can we even be America? The notion of democracy is potentially devastated by that.” She compares these moments in American history to the war in Iraq, the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib, and FEMA’s response to Katrina. “It’s those exact kind of moments, when our democracy tilts on its side and becomes something we can’t even recognize,” she says. “People will be writing about Katrina for the next 300 years. We can’t even look ourselves in the face.”'

(Rebecca Mark beside Dean's Cottage, Newcomb Institute, Tulane, New Orleans)

Dave Neiwert at Orcinus, which should be your number one online source for information about the Klan and other hate groups, published a ten-part series on Eliminationism in America. In an earlier essay, The Elimination Game, Dave defined eliminationism as "a kind of politics and culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas for the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination."

Part Six of his series, Strange Fruit, talks about lynching, in particular drawing the line between lynching as a form of terror control vs. lynching as a form of eradication. The latter led to "sundown" towns. In a later essay, How to Out a Sundown Town, Sara Robinson at Orcinus explains this as "American towns that once had small African-American communities -- which, at some point, simply up and vanished. The historical fact is that if you're a middle-class white American living in the north or west of the country, the odds are overwhelmingly good that the town you live in, right now, is a sundown town -- or was one at some point in the not-so-distant past."

How, then, do we find our way beyond this legacy? In her post, Ding speaks eloquently about the idea of reparations, and you should go read it because she says what I think and feel. But, with your promise that you won't settle for anything less than her complete essay, I'll excerpt some of her beautiful language here:

"What I want is a deeper, more public acknowledgment of how slavery impacted and drove our capitalist system, and how our nation's participation in the slave trade laid a foundation for practices, industries and institutions that not only continue to have an adverse affect on communities of color today but still provide the elite in this country with wealth and prosperity. That's not too much to ask, is it?"


EXTRA RESOURCES:
African-American Land Ownership statement by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund

Website for Homecoming, a PBS special about African-American land loss and chronicle of black farmers from the Civil War to the present ("In 1920 there were nearly one million black farmers in America. In 1999 there are less than 18,000.")

The African-American Mosaic, Library of Congress Resource Guide for the Study of Black History & Culture

Read More...

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

BROAD CAST, 6 FEBRUARY 2008: POLITICS, POP CULTURE, AND POETRY

(March for Women's Lives, Washington D.C., April 25, 2004)

I have no comments about primary results except to say this: If woman-hating and white supremacy are playing an open role in this Presidential race, as they assuredly are (the only difference being that the malignancy has been unroofed), I think going to white men for analysis about "what it means" is like going to a male gynecologist. Choose your caregivers, as well as your information outlets, as lovingly as you choose your friends. This doesn't mean insularity -- some of my closest friends disagree with me in fundamental ways, which I appreciate. It means using trust and respect to winnow out who has your ear.


And I do wonder: If the Barack-hating were as in his face on news shows as the Hillary-hating is, how well would he deal with it? I know the man is surely facing assassination attempts by rightwing nutjobs as his campaign progresses. It's clear from what's going out on their talk radio, websites and flyers. Clearly the hate aimed against him is no less than what is targeting Hillary. But it bubbles up in different forms.

I can't read anything on a so-called progressive blog dominated by white males about Hillary that doesn't reek of woman-hating in its intellectual, I-am-the-great-objective-thinker guise. (Jesse Wendel being a strong exception.) Whereas the female bloggers that I read are, for the most part, struggling to identify their crap pro and con about both candidates and find a path through the minefields -- but then, we're raised to admit our mistakes.

Well, you can't kill maggots until you find out where the rot is. I keep telling myself that.

(Vulture woodcut by Tugboat Printshop)

One of the parenting policies of my mother which may or may not have been a good idea (I waffle) is that she seldom interfered with my choice of reading material. Mostly this freedom expanded my horizons, particularly since she did keep track and tried to engage me in conversation about what I had just absorbed after I finished a book. I remember that after I read Fanny Hill at around age nine, she poked questions at me in a way I knew meant there had been something in the book that concerned her. The sexual escapades were so decorously worded (in that 50s style) that they had gone over my head. I had blitzed through them. My only complaint to her was that "People smoked an awful lot of cigarettes", which sent her into crazed laughter I didn't comprehend until years later.

A few books, however, did upset me, at times enormously. I was sickened by Lolita, and given weeks of nightmares by the one-two punch of Triumph (by Philip Wylie, whom my mother had a love/hate relationship with as a reader) and On The Beach (by Nevil Shute), both of them post-nuclear-war apocalyptic nightmares that I read at around age 11.

I was also seriously rattled by by Richard Matheson's I Am Legend. The vampires were bad enough (and let me state here, this author should be credited for creating the world that Buffy would later inhabit). More thought-provoking was the message about conformity and difference: In a culture of vampires, the single "sane" individual who carries stakes and seeks their destruction is not only perceived by them to be "the bad guy", but possibly really is the problem. It gave me a great deal to think about, and in this case, I believe it was good for me.

I haven't seen the newest movie version of the book, although reviews say it does the message justice. I saw the previous adaptations, The Last Man on Earth (1964) and The Omega Man (1971), both of which I found disappointing when compared to the complexity of the book. But then, the only Charlton Heston role that seemed convincing to me was his gun-toting rant in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.



Having mentioned Buffy, let me direct you to a fun exercise, The GOP Primary Field Expressed As Buffy Villains, created by Neil Sinhababu at Cogitamus. Imagining Ron Paul as Morloch the Corruptor makes glimpses of him easier to bear.


From the folks at via Poor Impulse Control comes a video of the kind of cooking show I'd love to see (now that the Two Fat Ladies are no more): Cookin' and Cursin' with the Grandsons of Italy Warning: Not for work consumption or kids' ears!



There's a great interview with Susie Bright at Susie Bright-ens Boston at Sue Katz: Consenting Adult about the current state of publishing and writing on the internet. Gave me some chewy bits.

(Window with garden landscape, by Louis Comfort Tiffany circa 1902-1920)

The selection two days ago from The Writer's Almanac stuck with me enough that I'd like to share it with you. Offered through American Public Media, The Writer's Almanac sends out (to those who sign up, like I did) a daily poem selected and read aloud by Garrison Keillor, along with literary and historical notes for the day in question. A welcome addition to the e-mail box.


MISGIVINGS
by William Matthews, 1998, from After All: Last Poems

"Perhaps you'll tire of me," muses
my love, although she's like a great city
to me, or a park that finds new
ways to wear each flounce of light
and investiture of weather.
Soil doesn't tire of rain, I think,

but I know what she fears: plans warp,
planes explode, topsoil gets peeled away
by floods. And worse than what we can't
control is what we could; those drab,
scuttled marriages we shed so
gratefully may augur we're on our owns

for good reasons. "Hi, honey," chirps Dread
when I come through the door, "you're home."
Experience is a great teacher
of the value of experience,
its claustrophobic prudence,
its gloomy name-the-disasters-

in-advance charisma. Listen,
my wary one, it's far too late
to unlove each other. Instead let's cook
something elaborate and not
invite anyone to share it but eat it
all up very very slowly.

And, to close out my post, another poem from Judy Grahn. I have to admit a personal attachment to this one because, a very long time ago, a woman I loved quoted it to me as if it were meant to be about me. A lovely memory.

A GEOLOGY LESSON

Here, the sea strains to climb up on the land
and the tree blows dust in a single direction.
The trees bend themselves all one way
and volcanoes explode often
Why is this? Many years back
a woman of strong purpose
pass through this section
and everything else tried to follow


by Judy Grahn, circa 1971, in She Who

Read More...

Sunday, December 30, 2007

BROAD CAST, 30 DECEMBER 2008: STILL NOT SAFE TO BE FEMALE OR BROWN


I am grieving the loss of Benazir Bhutto. I didn't actually know much about her, except that she was the first woman to be elected head of a Muslim nation (something we haven't managed yet, and the woman-hating aimed at Hillary Clinton is really coming out from under wraps, ain't it). Still, her death feels like a world loss to me.

So far, the best response I've read has come from Heart at Women's Space, so I'll link you all over there (do read the comments, too): Benazir Bhutto Assassinated.

(Serafina Pekkala from "The Golden Compass")

For those of us who've been discussing the His Dark Materials trilogy, mostly at Maoist Orange Cake (also briefly a while ago at Dykes To Watch Out For), Pandagon's Amanda Marcott has published a great review and launched a wonderful conversation about it. Not too late to join in, I don't think.

("Mexican Cook", woodcut by Michele Ramirez)

I want to second Feministing's recommend of a post at Guanabee concerning the pornification of the term "Latina": Hottt Wired: The Currency Of The Word "Latina" Online.

I remember when I read Andrew Holleran's Dancer and The Dance, a pivotal gay novel of the 80s, I was struck by the implicit racism of the gay male community, especially with regard to the sexual objection of "Latins". It's not desire, it's not love, it's not appreciation, and it's not positive.

And, this post brings up an interesting aspect of using Google images, which I rely on heavily for graphics on my blog: Seems like most any term having to do with women (including and especially, to my disgust, lesbian) brings up mostly pornographic images for pages on end. Don't tell me this severe imbalance of visual stimuli is NOT having a negative impact on how we see things. What if a search for "white male" 80% of the time showed images of dismemberment and pain? Would that be no big deal, either? (Although, given who's doing the killing and raping, it would be accurate in terms of projection...)


Alex Jung has an excellent article up at Alternet, White Liberals Have White Privilege Too!, and I recommend reading not just it but also the comments -- despite the fact that the initial defensive, at times hostile reaction from white liberals tended to prove all the point she'd just made. But the comments list gets better after a while. Here's an abbreviated version of her "List of misunderstandings that many white liberals have about race":
1. White supremacy? You mean white men in white sheets? (Not only.)
2. I'm not racist, but...
3. Colorblind as a bat.
4. Kumbaya, multiculturalism!
5. It's not a "[insert racial group here]" issue as much as it is a "human" issue.
6. One of my best friends is [insert nonwhite group here]!
7. How could I have white privilege? I'm poor/female/gay/Polish/disabled!
8. The white savior complex.
9. "Good" people of color
10. All that guilt.


Another recommended read is an examination of "Acceptable Sexism and Racism" in the media and punditry world by Chris Bowers at Open Left. The opening paragraph states:

"Long-standing sexist narratives that macho pundits have often used to denigrate not only female candidates, but also Democrats in general, are more acceptable in our national political discourse than crass, barely coded racism against African-Americans. Crass, barely coded racism against Muslims and Mexican immigrants is a different story. Talk of deporting the tens of millions of people in America who falls into these categories is quite acceptable, for example."

It's not just macho pundits, however. Too many white male "progressives" can't disagree with a woman without engaging in thinly-veneered woman-hating, and even the "good" ones still use mankind instead of humanity. Or think it's most important for them to say what they think than find a way to encourage the voices not yet present in the discourse.


For all the vocabulary geeks who read this blog, The New York Times' List of New Words of 2007 is out and includes:
Colony collapse disorder
Forever stamp
Life-stream
Mom-job
Global weirding
Post-kinetic environment

(Good news, only one out of the six takes a jab at women.)

Read More...