The Charleston Church Shooting - What is "Terrorism?"

"We do not see things as they are.  We see them as we are."  --Anias Nin

That is my favorite quote of all time.

It’s 3 am as I start writing this piece. It’s a purely impulsive move on my part, as it’s in response to the recent racially-motivated shootings in Charleston, SC from earlier this week. I was motivated to so because of the amount of willful ignorant, apparently delusional people in America who so seem to come off as sane and/or reasonable upon first glance.
And no, I’m not talking about Dylann Roof—the white 21 year-old perpetrator who walked into the historically-black Emanuel AME church in South Carolina's largest city and proceeded to shoot and kill 9 black parishioners during prayer services because he “wanted to shoot black people.” No, what I am talking about are the people who reject the notion that what the avowed racist did was not an act of “domestic terrorism. “ What is so hard to comprehend? Roof killed to further an extreme political agenda—starting a race war.

                                                                     Dylann Roof

I’m going to out on a limb here and conclude that the reason that it’s so hard for those who are questioning whether or not this was in fact, an act of domestic racism is because of two fundamental reasons—both related to race. The first reason I suspect is that because of the prevalence of black-on-black crime within the black community. This is to say that so many Americans are so accustomed to being spoon-fed these negative images of the black community a daily basis, that it’s just too hard for many to comprehend reality that racism against black people is still an issue in modern-day, post first-elected-black-president America. To these people, many within the black community are routinely more likely to be victims of each other than of racism. We all know these individuals…they are the armchair pundits who usually deflect attention away from issue at-hand to tell black people that they should focus on the “troubles in their own communities” instead of “marching” and/or protesting against an act of racism—real or perceived—that shatters the myth that racism is not, in fact, still an issue for some in America.

The second reason why it seems so hard for some to accept that the Charleston shooting was an act of domestic terrorism is likewise related to race---that some people of a particular ideological stripe simply do not want to believe that racism still exist. This is to say that some people are so vested and entrenched in their own ideologically-political (and social) beliefs that they are almost delusional in their perceptions of America—especially as it relates to the perceptions of others. Take for example the following clip from Fox News’ coverage of the Charleston from this week. So unwilling were the producers and talking heads at the conservative news network to believe that the motives behind Roof’s rampage could have been racially-motivated that they totally ignored reality favor of “speculation.” They could not only bring themselves to call Roof’s act a case of domestic terrorism, but found it harder to bring themselves to accept that it was even an act of racially-motivated violence.

They ignored the reality that survivors reported immediately in the massacre’s aftermath that Roof himself declared that he “wanted to shoot black people” because “they are taking over” before he started opening fire inside the church. They ignored the pictures that Roof posted on social medical of himself promoting symbols associated with racist ideologies—including the flag of the old American Confederacy and of the defunct white-ruled African nation of Rhodesia. And they ignored his so-called “manifesto” posted online indicating his white supremacist beliefs...all to the conclusion that “we can’t possibly know his motivations” (“Dylann Roof Photos and a Manifesto Are Posted on Website”).
And it is this level of reality-denial that has fed into the narrative that questions, whether in fact Roof’s rampage in the Emanuel AME Church was an act of domestic terrorism. To embrace this absurd level of questioning, those who deny it resort to hair-splitting distinctions that have no basis in reality. For instance, they cite that Roof acted alone, and that he had no ultimate political purpose in perpetrating his act of violence. Honestly, it would almost amount to a conspiracy theory not to believe that it wasn’t terrorism.

It was agreed that Ted Kaczynski—the so-called “Unabomber”—was a terrorist. He killed, and he did so alone. He—like Roof—also left a ranting manifest outlining his aims and motivations.

Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympic Park and abortion clinic bomber killed. He acted alone. He was indeed dubbed a terrorist. He even has a webpage outlining his beliefs (Army of God). What’s so hard for people to accept?
Why are so many Americans so committed to formulating and living by their own distorted interpretations of reality instead of perceiving the reality as it is in front of us? Are we so polarized politically as a nation that we doubt and question reason just out of ideological reflex?

And as we ponder those question, here's another question to ponder...

Read More

Conservatism In The Age of Trump, Part 1 (...or, "Yes Virginia, There Really Are Deplorables!")

It’s hard to believe that it’s been a year since my last blog posting here…especially with so much having happened since. For me, observing and writing is a fulltime endeavor—even outside of my books and other blogs (such as my Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter page)s. However, given how reality has been turned and stood on its every-lovin’ head of late, this piece is long overdue. The reason, at least in part, for our collective trip down the rabbit hole is due to worst of ideologically far-right individuals who fancy themselves as representing “conservatives,” but have no clue, no real idea of what the particular ideological school of thought means in relation to American history, the rise of Donald Trump, and the rejection of pragmatic political policy. To say the least, these are the Deplorables that former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton referred to during her now infamous “Basket of Deplorables” speech during the Election of 2016 (For an in-context transcript of the speech, See: "In Context: Hillary Clinton and the 'Basket of Deplorables'" and the video below).

But to understand what sets Deplorables apart from traditional (i.e., real) conservatives, it’s best to understand what traditional conservatism is all about.

Traditional Conservatism 

Let’s just start by defining just who and what the Deplorables are; they include not just the most devoted of Donald Trump supporters, but those far-right, self-identified conservatives who are rigidly uncompromising, and seemingly incapable of practically legislating with others, who Deplorables support. They include racists, politically-active and fanatical "Christian" fundamentalists, rabid gun-owners (who believe that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing in the Bill of Rights), ardent isolationists, anti-government activists, xenophobes, and politicians who both cater to these constituents as well as share and express their views.  And though some of them may be proud to consider themselves such "real Americans" who "love America," to paraphrase Martha Stewart, this is not a good thing. Sadly, these individuals have made political discourse all but impossible with their brand of black-&-white, only-my-view-is-rightism—in some ways like their counterparts on the far left. What’s more, Deplorables as a group among conservatives have been around since long before Clinton’s speech.

The major reason for this is that among political conservatism in America, there has always been a strain of rigid adherence interpreted by nearly puritanical individuals with an intense sense of nativism. These hardest of right-wingers have always embraced this more potent idea of conservatism in much the same way that fundamentalists within any religious tradition do their more fanatical beliefs. And pretty much like religion, the problems lay not so much in the precepts themselves as much as they do in the hearts and minds of its adherents.
But it should be mentioned that any misunderstanding of conservatism as a political ideology is not entirely due to misinterpretations and/or misapplications by ardent believers. The fact of the matter is that there is a noticeable level of ambiguity in the definition of conservatism among many contemporary conservatives. According to most dictionary definitions, conservatism is defined as a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of a particular culture and/or civilization. But unless one is stepped in political philosophy, one might not know that there are many philosophical schools of conservatism, including liberal conservatism, which combines seemingly oxymoronic principles in the areas of social and economic policies (go ahead…you know you want to confirm this. Google this philosophy right now. I’ll wait…).
The problem then, is that what one considers “traditional” can vary from individual to individual, and place to place…even in America. This means that it is “conservatives” themselves who tend to define what the basis for their beliefs are, rather than rely on a list of universally recognized and accepted traditions. The result is that the definition of what conservatism is will in fact, vary from one point in time to another, and from one individual to the next…whether educated in the philosophically esoteric sense or not. Where one individual might consider, say, a tolerance for immigrants as representing traditional institutions worth maintain, another might see immigrants are being “anti-American.” Even so, trying to come up with a workable definition for American political conservatism is not as easy as one would think. But let’s make the attempt by using the words and thoughts of the late William F. Buckley, the erstwhile go-to idealist of modern American political conservatism.
In his 1959 classic "Up From Liberalism,"Buckley wrote:

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and Liberals at bay. And the nation free” (See: “Conservatism Defined”).

                                                      The late William F. Buckley, founder of the conservative National Review

From this, let’s infer that many of the beliefs and principles of traditional conservatism can be extrapolated…most prominently that of limited government, an idea that hearkens to the notions of Thomas Jefferson's declaration that "government is best that governs the least." back to   Furthermore, by adding the “retaining traditional social institutions” aspect of the dictionary definition of conservatism, one can conclude that many of the same traditional ideals that helped to establish and grow traditional social institutions that—in turn—helped to grow and establish the country are the basis for conservative beliefs.
Indeed, from the duo standpoints of being a solid ethos, as well a proven institution for socioeconomic stability, there is much to be said of traditional conservatism (Buckley's sometimes questionable interpretations of left-of-center thought notwithstanding). The benefits of its emphasis on education, hard work, self-reliance, thrift, old-time religion, and the support of a traditional nuclear family have been principles by which the United States was built upon. What’s more, there was a time when these principles were universally promoted and practiced—to some degree—in America, until sometime around the arrival of the activist-driven counter-culture of the mid 20th-century.
Beginning in the late 1950's and into the decade of the 1960's, it was non-conservatives who noticed that the level of social stability and conformity that widespread conservatism demanded would reveal to have a major false bottom… that other groups, whether they practiced conservative beliefs, were being marginalized based on how other individuals and groups sought to preserve traditional institutions. We saw this most prominently in the equally traditional institution of stratified racial hierarchy among social groups in America—in other words, racism.
Widespread institutional and ‘Ole Boy Network biases (prior to the various social movements in the 60s) notwithstanding, those us who didn’t fit the socioeconomic model of Protestant white males soldiered on through life in America, adhering to conservative principles…some prospering economically. This reality was most prominently demonstrated in the African-American community, where—despite the oppressive reality of Jim Crow laws and (often violent) racially-based social subjugation—blacks had higher levels of family cohesion. This was evidenced by the fact that marriage rates between black and white women of child-bearing age up to the 1950's were nearly equal, despite their different social standings (see: “African American Marriage Patterns”). Additionally during these earlier times, the rate of black children being born to single mothers was equally as much as white children…upwards of 80% or better. In similar fashion, in the racially-regressive period between 1900 and the 1930s—when blacks were politically impotent and socially-marginalized as a demographic—black entrepreneurship was at its highest. From figures gather from the time period, that translates to between 40,000-50,000 black-owned businesses in a nation where blacks comprised just under 11-million of the total population of the U.S. in a climate where open hostility toward blacks was the norm. Finally, truancy rates, rates of major crime, and teenage pregnancy, and most of all of the other socioeconomic pathologies that are antithetical to traditionally conservative principles were far lower in earlier times than they are in contemporary times.

An example of African-Americans pooling their resources to form black businesses--despite the blatant and often oppressive racism of the time period (the 1920s)--utilizing the same moderately conservative principles that their white counterparts were utilizing.

Yes, I know…it all sounds idyllic. But this is by no means meant to imply that America was ever a Shangri-La, devoid of issues. The point is that when basic conservative principles were—relatively speaking—widely practiced by most seeking their particular piece of the American Dream, there was more social order, and less breakdown; statistics and anecdotal history from the recollections of those living in earlier times bears this out.

But to some, these earlier times of widespread conformity, conservative principles, and social order were, in fact a romanticized period of nostalgia. Of course, it didn’t matter that blacks and others were oppressed—both legally and illegally—and made to feel like Second Class citizens by law and often, by force, just so long as order was maintained. Then, as now, the most ardent of conservatives--the Deplorables--have always been able to reconcile maintaining America’s traditional institutions, while ignoring—or even justifying—any negative aspects or impacts on others.

The Deplorables Cometh 

One thing many ideological conservatives have always denied is that one major aspect of conservatism—the notion of limited government, at least at the federal level—worked against maligned groups like blacks, Hispanics, women, and other politically- and historically-disenfranchised groups. In the case of blacks, for more than a century local governments were allowed the freedom to institute discriminatory laws that affected every aspect of life...including life itself.  This was because any notion of the federal government intervening on behalf of the daily oppression of blacks at the hands of state and local governments was maligned as “federal government overreach,” and justified under the aegis of “states rights.” This reality included allowing laws to remain in effect that, among other things, restricted voting restriction and participation in the electoral process, enforced legal segregation, and even restricted marriage (in the form of anti-miscegenation laws). And for the record, most of those writing and enforcing laws that sought to preserve traditional Southern institutions were politically Democrat, and ideologically the most conservative (as most pro-segregation and/or racists white Southerners were).  This can be proven in the formation of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of the late 1940's, who were extremely-conservative white southern Democrats committed to states' rights and the maintenance of segregation (and like otgr early Deplorables, opposed to federal intervention into race, and to a lesser degree, labor relations). These enforcers of the racial social order in the South prior to—and during—the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s could be considered the first Deplorables.
In the infancy of the changing times and social upheavals that would mark the mid-20th Century, this earliest incarnation of today’s Deplorables in the form of The Klan, Old-Time Religioneers, Southern White Citizens Councils, John Birchers, and others who were to the right of traditional conservatism, saw themselves as defenders of the old ways. Many saw their collective cause as being righteous, Godly, and a preservation of the various social conventions that helped to make America the preeminent force on the globe.
What’s more, many of them believed that they were defending traditionally “wholesome” American institutions—discrimination, unfair advantages, and sexism all included—from those who worked to dismantle the old order (i.e., liberals). We see this in the way the Deplorable wing of conservatism described civil rights proponents and counter-culture types working for social change as being “Communists” and dupes of “outside agitators.” And to a country that already felt threatened by the competing ideology of Communism from its Cold War adversary, Russia, implying that any new ideas antithetical to the predictability and social order of traditional conservative idea would go on to help paint anyone harboring any idea to the right of rigid Deplorable thinking as—at the very least—as being a “socialist.”  However, then, as now, when Deplorables call those who harbor unpleasant ideas, they are not so much talking about the "anti-American" issue of wealth redistribution those seeing a redistribution of privilege.  As an example, early Deplorables often called Dr. Martin Luther King (as well as those associated with his progressive ideas) a communist because he wanted blacks to have the same rights as whites, and to them that was a redistribution of the privilege that whites had 'earned."  In other words, an attack on a value they saw as "traditional."

Early Deplorables, as shown during the push to integrate public schools in the South, as per the Supreme Court Brown vs. The Board of Education (1954).  Such obstinacy from extreme adherents to conservatism illustrates how any progressive, left of reactionary idea was considered "Communism," and by implication, "anti-American" (Source: "Race Mixing Is Communism").

So it could be argued that the various social protest movements of 50's and 60's was not so much a push back against conservatism, as much as a push against Deplorables’ defense of their being oblivious to how others were marginalized in their attempts to preserve the old social order. So as social activists and their liberal ideas began to chip away at these worst aspects of conservatism, the weaknesses of the Deplorables’ position began to become clearer. Their interpretation of conservatism failed to keep up with changing ideas and changing perceptions of others who did not benefit fully from the old ways. This is to say that, while conservatism produced a certain level of social order and stability, it demanded rigid conformity of thought that ignored the suffering of others.
For blacks and other maligned groups, social order took a back seat to the desire for equal rights under the laws…including oppressive state laws that sought to preserve the traditional social order of de jure racism. It didn’t help that at times, those who loudly proclaimed to represent a defense of “conservative values” seemed to be on the wrong side of history. Former arch-conservative and 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the then-recently passed 1964 Civil Rights Act is the best example of this. For blacks and others seeking federal government protection of their civil rights from the oppressive state government laws that worked against them, this represented a repudiation of the aspect of conservatism that emphasized smaller (federal) government. And as much as they did not—and still, do not—want to believe, the obstinacy of Deplorables was partially the blame for this.
On one side, there were ideologically-rigid conservative Southern Democrat (Deplorables) representing a defense of the old order (i.e., Jim Crow/segregation). On the other, you had equally hard-right of mainstream conservatism Republicans supporting a Republican presidential candidate taking a stance that equated to also opposing changing the old order (in the name of rejecting “federal government overreach” and supporting “states’ rights,” for who it was almost assured that Deplorables were also among their number). As it stood, moderate Northern Republicans would join with more liberal Northern Democrats—with very few Southern Democrats no Southern Republicans voting in favor—to pass the Civil Rights Act (“Were Republicans Really the Party of Civil Rights in the 1960s?”). Throw in social liberals’ activism and political liberals’ creation of social government

programs, and under such a reality, it was for hard blacks and other previously disenfranchised groups to continue to embrace conservatism as a social and political ideology...which, as time would go on to prove by widespread socioeconomic pathologies in the communities among these groups, abandoning basic conservative principles was not entirely a good thing.
With the old social order changing, Deplorables, instead of moving left to the more moderate, more mainstream mode of traditional conservatism that would fit with changing attitudes (while still keeping intact the more practical and proven aspects of conservatism), they would double-down on trying to preserve what was left of the notion that the country could return to a time where “things made sense”—at least to those who were in favorable socioeconomic positions in the traditional sense.  But many Deplorables would find champion in their beliefs in the form of a old Confederacy Southerner.
In 1968, former Alabama Governor George Wallace, who was a die hard segregationist, would make a run for the presidency under the third party American Independent Party. His campaign platform represented issues that appealed to right-of-moderate conservatives who—much like Donald Trump today—felt that moderate conservatism and every aspect of liberalism were dragging the country kicking and screaming into uncharted, and unappealing waters in both domestic and foreign policy. Among Wallace’ stances was his vehement anti-federal government position that was part and parcel of his anti-desegregation, anti-integration beliefs and platform...a questionable, if not politically-imaginative application of “limited government” to be sure. And like Trump today, he was dead-set against foreign-aid and getting the U.S. involved in foreign entanglements like Vietnam.

                                                          Former Alabama Governor, George Wallace

His campaign represented hard departure from changing social and economic realities that many saw as going upending traditional social and economic conventions at the time. And finally—also like Trump—Wallace’ campaign sought to siphon off more conservative votes from both established Democratic and Republican candidates…who had no problems distancing and distinguishing themselves from Wallace and his merry band of supporters (Deplorables among them). But what made put Wallace and many of his supporters in the right-of-traditional conservatism Deplorables camp was his stance against changing racial attitudes of the time. His appeal to his most ardently anti-federal-government, anti-racial integration fellow Southerners was enough to win him states of the former old Confederacy in the 1968 general election, placing him as a major figurehead among early Deplorables.
After Wallace’ 1968 presidential run, Deplorables as a group seemingly went underground, out of the limelight of mainstream politics. This, of course is not to say that they wouldn’t rear their heads from time to time to make national headlines (such as in the mid-1980's in Forsyth County, Georgia, when racist residents of the then-all-white country pushed back against efforts to integrate the county).  But from Richard Nixon’s administration through to the Bush I Administration, Deplorables would cease to be a significant political voice in American politics…overshadowed by the rise of a more and relatively moderate form of conservatism. This was symbolized by larger than life political figures who were ideological polar opposites, but willing to work together through political compromise...without the reoccurring gridlock we see in current politics.  Deplorables were relegated to the Lunatic Fringe, where they seemed to seethe politically--remaining stubbornly resistant mainstream attitudes.
In fact, the age of politically-active Deplorable conservatism wouldn’t be seen again until after late Reagan-era changes in broadcasting rules allowed for the rise and proliferation of right-wing radio—that in turn, both fed and fueled a paranoia-driven brand of far-right conservatism of the 1990's ("A Brief History of The Fairness Doctrine").
Driven by a combination of a new generation of self-styled conservative ideologues (and their talk radio programs) and the start of the Clinton Administration, the Deplorable wing of conservatism got an infusion of new life in the early 1990's. Gone from the public eye were the faces of Deplorables of days past. The blatantly intolerant coveralls-wearing hillbilly rubes, posturing governors facing down federal troops, and political outliers who provided occasional theater for the press. These Deplorables of old were replaced by gun-toting, Constitution-quoting militiamen, disenchanted and politically-astute blue- and black-collar working rural Americans, and articulate, expensive suit-wearing talking heads--along with traditional Deplorables—speaking to traditional conservatives as well as those with far-right beliefs—many who believed that the America they once knew was going the way of the dinosaur. These new Deplorables were not afraid to vote for those they considered representative of their own ideas and beliefs. What's more, they were also not afraid to take political office themselves. And in turn, when they were holding public office, they were not afraid to pander to just their own constituents (as opposed to the general voting electorate)--just like their fore bearers among the old Dixiecrats in Congress.  They would no longer compromise and work with those with opposing views as they had done throughout the 1970's and 80's.  These new Deplorables no longer possessed the honor of strength of character to point out the wrong-doing of those who shared their political affiliations...instead opting to deflect and defend their fellows by pointing and asking, "What about them when they...?"
In addition, they were now represented in the media by far-right conservative celebrity commentators—Deplorables in themselves—with surnames like Savage, Limbaugh, Liddy, and Drudge. For an unhealthy amount of hours per day, each week, these talking heads successfully fed throngs of listeners far-right interpretations of reality that was at times, seemed almost comically revisionist. To this point, they were no longer content with just returning to the old ways of Borg-like conformity and social order.  Their rhetoric now also emphasized the issue of government as having too much influence in our daily lives.  What's more, the overall message of the new Deplorable agenda had gone from solely promoting far-right-of-center conservatism and anti-government themes to anti-liberal propaganda.
The new Deplorables had begun to engage in the total demonization of every thought, idea, and belief that remotely smacked of progressivism. “Liberal” was now a bad word, synonymous with being anti-capitalism, government give-aways, and anti-wealth.  It didn’t help that liberals didn’t bother to take ownership and control of the way Deplorables painted them. This is the say that Deplorables were proud to call and proclaim themselves (far-right) “conservatives,” while many liberals would not adopt the same mindset in defense of, and pride in and of their own beliefs.

Deplorable caricature of liberal Democrats

Among traditionally conservatives, belief of smaller government had morphed into a paranoid fear of our own government, seized upon by Deplorables. There was talk about how “evil’ the federal government was, and how it conspired to take away the Second Amendment gun rights of each and every American (which, ironically, was only a “threat” when Democrats ran for the highest offices in the land). And of course, the government conspired—at least to the most deranged among the Deplorables—with (imaginary) Trilateral Commissions, one-world-governments, and even the Illuminati to take away our long-held Constitutional rights. Armed self-styled “patriots” in the form of far-right militias began to show up on radars, coalescing around events like Waco and Ruby Ridge….romanticized “proofs” that the federal government were in fact “suppressing our civil liberties.” Some among the numbers of Deplorables took their animus too far, and we got Oklahoma City in April of 1995. Also peppered throughout the decade, we got abortion clinic attacks, Olympic bombings, and various plots by far-right of center Deplorables that reinforced how far they were willing to go to express their political beliefs.
All of this happened as Republicans had seized control of Congress a year earlier.  And many of these
Republican Congressmen voiced many of the same right-of-center fears—such as a fear of impending "socialized medicine,” and his move to include homosexuals in the military by his "don't-ask/don't-tell"—that those far-right of center had voiced. On the whole, many Republicans had moved to the right of traditional moderate conservatives. Though not as paranoid, conspiratorial, and/or xenophobic as Deplorables, they were every bit as hostile to the notion of compromise or being open to even moderately liberal ideas.
Finally, Deplorables, many of whom were working Middle-Class or rural, working poor, became staunch defenders of trickle-down economics, a dubious form of economic policies that favored supply-side economics...which, ironically worked against the personal economic self-interests of those who were living one paycheck away from poverty. These new Deplorables bought into to questionable notion that "job creators" and rich business people were the driving force of economic growth...and not a thriving Middle-Class.
By the end of the 20th-century, the reality of somewhat more tolerant (compared to days past) general population, shifting ethnic/racial demographics, and the perception--in the minds of Deplorables--that America was paying the price because of these changes, had created prime and fertile political ground for the rise of today's Deplorables...which pretty much has left traditional and moderate (i.e., real) conservatism as the new fringe in politics.

To be concluded

Read More

The Anti-Government Protests Abroad - What America's Poor Can Learn!

In the past couple of years, we have witnessed both political and social change in many countries across the globe, initiated at the grassroots level. Although much of these changes have been effected in the Arab World (wrought by the so-called “Arab Spring” general protests), they have not been confined to the Arab World. In country after country, the socio-politically and economically disenfranchised have risen up in protest over what many of these individuals perceive as indifference toward them by lawmakers and overlords alike. In the last few days, the numbers of the disaffected protesting their lots in life have increased to include those protesting in both Brazil and Turkey. Citizens in these countries have taken to the streets to denounce economic conditions and political policies which have many of them feeling as though their governments are not working in their direct interests.

A scene from this week's protests on Brazil's Capital, Rio de Janeiro

In America, the most recent analogous show of discontent by the people toward the status quo were the Occupy and the Tea Party Movements. However, with the exception of still-unfolding events in Turkey and Brazil, the “demonstrations”—for want of a better term—in America lack the broad grassroots inclusiveness of the uprisings around the world. The chief difference between say, the Arab Spring as an example of popular uprisings and those much weaker variations having occurred in America is both their lasting effect and limited scope. The Occupy movement was a rejection of corporate greed and the type of hyper-capitalism that almost tanked the global market back in 2008. Despite the number of associated protests, the Occupy Movement was less of a protest against socioeconomic inequality and Big Money influence in the legislative process it should have been. The Tea Party protests—despite having tinges of the same issues that the Occupy Movement were protesting—was too ideologically partisan to the right to truly represent a cross-section of America ethnically, politically, and/or socially.

As I watch news coverage of more economic-issue-inspired protests unfurling across Brazil, I can’t help but wonder why the poor and disenfranchised in America don’t mobilize in a similar way against marginalization by politicians and policy makers? During the 2012 presidential elections, both President Obama and former Republican candidate Mitt Romney ran campaigns targeting the American Middle Class—as did Romney’s Republican Primary competitors. Democrats running for office at the national level tend to target the same constituency; at local levels they have no choice but to acknowledge poor voters simply because of the nature of local politics. However, as both, a campaign policy and policy focus, the welfare and interests of the underclass as a group in America simply doesn’t lobby on its own behalf when their interests are ignored or targeted for damning by legislators seeking to balance budgets on their already burdened backs. The underclass as a group is not usually given to vocalizing their discontent. This week’s failure in the U.S House of Representatives to cut funding to programs responsible for helping those needy families purchase food is an example of this (See: “Proposed Cuts in the House Farm Bill Mean "2 Million Less People on Food Stamps, 210,000 Children Will Not Receive School Lunches or Breakfasts”).
Those needing the program did not march on Washington to protest the attempt to cut the much-needed assistance; Democrats (and some Republicans) simply refused to support the cuts for differing reasons. Those who would benefit from the program were given the reprieve on the mercies of advocates in Congress. While the politically-connected Moneyed Class has the ears, hearts, and minds of policy-makers, the Middle Class catches policy-makers’ attention during election periods. The poor in America—lacking money, organization, and drenched in voter apathy—are nothing more than pawns in the political chess game. Having worked with and alongside (and at one time lived) with the politically and economically disenfranchised in America, my personal (and objective) observations as to why they as a group refuse to mobilize in the way that their brethren in other countries have are multidimensional.
A major reason the poor in America don’t organize and/or vocalize their discontent is the lack of interests in news and current events—such as the protests occurring abroad. Many lower income, lower class individuals tend to anesthetize with irrelevant distractions, and insulate from knowledge of relevant issues which could affect them. A great majority of them tend to spend inordinate amounts of time viewing music videos, so-called “reality television,” and other programming which specializes in commanding the narrow attention spans and interests of those who would rather be entertained than informed. And in the instances they are seeking to be informed, their curiosity extends only as far as the personal lives of celebrities and pseudo-celebrities. Having worked with at-risk kids (as well as their parents), I would observe and take note of their interests and their lack of interests in national and world events. When they have an opportunity to use the internet for schoolwork and/or recreation, they tend to use the time to listen to the latest offering of what passes for music nowadays, or view sites that delve into the meaningless lives of those “entertainers” who are responsible for today’s music. Their parents are little better in their knowledge (or interest) of current events. Of course, this is not to say that there are those of within the lower economic (and social) brackets who are not interested in what goes in Washington and their state capitals. What I speak is on the whole, this group is more inclined toward focusing on information on the most rudimentary of levels; the weather forecast, local news, and/or progress of their local sports teams. An observation that I made years ago provides an illustration. Back when I was in college, a good friend of mine and I travelled to Chicago (where I was born) and went sight-seeing along in the “Gold Coast” area of the city—where Big Money and affluence is concentrated. As we drove in the Lake Shore Drive area, I noticed that outside the couple-grand-a-month-rent condos were newspaper boxes stacked groups of 5 or more. They sold The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and a few more of the national dailies. Back in the old neighborhood, the corner newspaper boxes only carried the Chicago Sun-Times, the Tribune, and maybe the city’s historic black newspaper, The Defender. The takeaway for me was the “haves” were informed, while the “have-nots” were not.
Another reason that the poor in America are not able to gather the wherewithal to demonstrate in favor of their collective interests is that much of their time is spent simply trying to survive trying to live off of the meager wages offered in our new service-based economy. While lawmakers were busy gutting the gutting programs—in the name of “cutting spending”—that had some impact in supplementing low wage workers, those on the lower rungs of society were forced to dedicate more and more of their time trying to make up for these cuts by working two or even part-time three jobs to make up for the incomes and benefits that a single job used to offer. The 90s-era North American Free-Trade Agreement made it possible for many higher-paying U.S. manufacturers to move jobs to lower-labor costs Mexico. The manufacturers who remained lowered wages to compete with the new globalized economy. The emerging service industry didn’t have to pay as much to compete with the comparable-paying manufacturing industry; the $7.00-$9.00 starting pay is the same as moderate pay in the 1980s. With so much time dedicated to ensuring that families are able to pay bills, little things like attending parent-teacher meetings, community groups, city-council/town hall meetings, and other such gathering that would normally inform citizens of what’s going on around them (as well as fellowship with those who might also might be informed) became necessarily passé’ as a matter of survival. Among a group where many have to plan ahead just to vote in a way that doesn’t jeopardize their jobs or compromise any needed paid time, is it any wonder that voting is the only form of being “informed” or “protest” that many of them know?
There is also a level of willful ignorance as well as self-defeating thinking among the lower classes in America. Many rural poor whites for example harbor race-based animosities toward minorities; “blacks are lazy,” “Mexicans come to America and take all the jobs, “and “Foreigners are buying up American stores.” Many lower-class blacks tend to give racism more power than it has over their lives and the impact it has on their ability to work toward impacting their own lives in a positive sense. Sure, racism still exists, and it can have some negative impact over those who try to get ahead—no matter how much others want to believe otherwise. But it cannot overcome hard work or the desire to not be manipulated by uncaring legislators and policy makers who only seem to be motivated by the financially well-heeled. Such thinking leads to apathy, the feeling of powerlessness, and a fatalistic outlook toward those who expect and operate in concert with such thinking. In other words, uncaring, unmoved, and oblivious legislators and policymakers here in America need the disaffectedness and divisions among the lower-class and disenfranchised in order to keep themselves in power, and the masses from rising up in the same way those others have in other countries.
The Civil Rights, Feminist, Tea Party, and various other movements prove that people can impact decisions far more than they would give themselves credit for. The protests this week in Turkey and Brazil prove that masses of disaffected and disenchanted people can mobilize in ways that render the influence of Big Money moot. When the Founders Fathers crafted the Constitution, they intended for the people to tell government what it wants, not to have its representatives ignore the needs of the people. Since the Supreme Court’s democracy-weakening decision in Citizens United, our decision-makers and leaders have adopted the backwards notion that money should move and impact policy more than anything else. The poor in this country need to take a page from what’s happening around the world and start mass protesting in not only Washing, but in the various state capitals to show that policy and governing should be based on reality—what’s going on around us—rather than ideology—what one thinks or believes to “be right.”

One reason why the poor in America maintain a sense of powerlessness...exploitation by those benefit from their unfortunate circumstances (watch the video).

Read More

Let's Talk About Race...Again! (...or, "Get Ready To Be Pi**ed Off...Again!")

Allow me to lay the foundation. I’m an adherent to the politics (and thinking) of pragmatism. This is to say that I cannot abide by dogmatic- or emotional-based thinking. I shun it. It’s as much as abhorrence to me as stupidity and emotionally-based thinking. As such, I believe that public—and in most cases, individual—policy should be made based on what’s in the general interests of those involved, and not based on some narrow ideology…whether liberal, conservative, libertarian, religious, socialist, or whatever (with the acknowledgement that on occasion, a policy may originate from and/or be a platform of one of these traditions of thinking). I extend the following examples:

-The taking of a human life is wrong, whether its an individual decision, such as in the case of abortion, or by the state-sanctioned taking of a life in the case of the death penalty (neither of which addresses the personal or societal issues they stem from).

-Gun ownership should not be restricted among qualified and reasonable individuals (i.e., without criminal/psychological records or unsavory intentions). Personally I wouldn't feel safe living in a house without a gun to defend myself. Simply put, the police cannot be everywhere, nor can they always prevent crime.

-Government cannot solve every problem. And neither can the Free Market.

-There is no Constitutional provision which says that America must be a Capitalist/Free Market society...that's based solely on tradition.

-O.J. did it (Mark Fuhrman's racism not withstanding).

-Religion has no place in public policy (although there may some influence based on the level of tradition it has on a particular policy).

-Our government spends too much. So too do individuals; neither seems to have a sense of what it means to work within a budget, or save for a rainy day.

-People need affordable health care, not some ideological preservation of “American values." And simply put, 230 plus years of medical services being another commodity of the market economy, and an exploding amount of health care spending as a percentage as a part of our Gross Domestic Product proves that the Free Market is not wholly up to the task.

-Based on reason and a passing knowledge of history, there is no way that anyone—outside of an emotional argument—could have concluded that the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, in their wildest dreams, have imagined or even anticipated the reality that two adults of the same sex would want to ever get married, thus negating a “Constitutional Right” for them to do so (this is not to say that gay people don’t merit the same legal rights and/or protections against discrimination and persecution that all other Americans have, because they do).

I felt it necessary to establish the thinking behind this post. It is not about beliefs, emotions, or ideology, neither yours or mine. Policy should be based on what people need, not some ideological dogma...not reason, not passions. Setting the parameters is a way of heading off the accusations that I know are bound to come when one reads this; now you know that accusations of "Conservative," Liberal," "Fascist," "racist," or whatever are not going to fly. And now my rant.

I am an African-American.

And race is still an issue in America.

Given scope of issues in the news recently, once again I feel compelled to bring a little objective sanity into an otherwise contentious discourse (or lack thereof).

African-Americans

Although African-Americans have a right to be angry over last month’s shooting death of 16-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, every American should not only be just as angry but in the mood to engage in deep introspection. This includes African-Americans.
For African-Americans, such outrage should be a daily occurrence. Throughout many urban areas, we see or read about killings of children every bit as tragic Trayvon’s, almost on a daily basis. Maybe if Americans were to exhibit as much outrage over these murders, maybe we could make an impact. But sadly, most Americans—especially African-Americans—have adopted a level of fatalism with regard to life in the ‘hood. Many of us have come to see the senseless death of children as part of our daily existence.
Yes, there are instances of organized protests and candlelight vigils in these areas whenever there is a particularly brutal or senseless murder of an innocent occurs, but in general all such murders are senseless. If traditionally recognized “black leaders” such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were as motivated to travel around the country and address the deaths of young black children who are victimized by similar violence almost daily as they are at appearing at higher-profile murders, they would soon have to be hospitalized for exhaustion. And the lack of even acknowledgment from black conservatives speaks for itself; it gives the appearance that it’s not even a concern for them.
As a matter of priorities, black leaders—both locally- and nationally-recognized leaders—should be as quick to organize and shame those criminal elements in black communities who would engage in the same level of unreasonable behavior as George Zimmerman.
Yes, there is an acknowledgement that revealing the identities of perpetrators of such violence on black children may result in violent reprisals against would-be responsible individuals, the “don’t snitch” mentality which feeds this insanity needs to be eradicated See: "Stop (Not) Snitching! Part 1" and "Stop (Not) Snitching! Part 2").
Black parents need to be more responsible and not validate such counter-productive thinking. They need to be even more of an influence in the lives of their children than their children’ friends.
Black mothers and relatives need to treat their hearts like the enemy. If black-on-black murder is to stop, blood relationships can no longer be allowed to influence blood allegiances. If these individuals know that their relatives are responsible for the murders of young black children, they should be not only obligated but pressured to turn them into the authorities. Such behavior needs to be shamed like the community offense and threat that it is.
Black churches, and in particular black clergy need to do more than, in the words of the late great James Brown, “talking loud and saying nothing.”
More professional police officers are needed in communities where getting to know the people who reside there is more of a tactic than profiling those who live there. Working relationships with organized groups are needed.
If you want a more radical solution, I would propose that responsible black people arm themselves and start patrolling the streets in groups, and enforcing order. The Black Panthers did it in the 1960s and early 70s. Perhaps the “New Black Panthers” would be more constructive in redirecting their anger into the black community and threaten those who would disrupt the lives of law-abiding black citizens instead of putting a monetary bounty on the head of Trayvon Martin’s killer, or shouting to the rooftops how they “hate Whitey!” (See: "New Black Panther Leader Arrested as Group Sets Bounty in Florida Shooting"). Maybe if African-Americans were just as willing to patrol their communities with the same fervor of George Zimmerman, then maybe Trayvon Martin’s murder could be placed within the context of an abhorrent single instance instead of another senseless taking of a young black life. Maybe black child murders need to be the ones living in fear for a change...

White-Americans

No, soul-searching is not just for blacks. White American thinking with regard to race is something of mystery, not just for myself, but for most blacks.
But before I make my points, allow me to say that I like President Obama. I admire his intelligence, his cool-under-pressure-demeanor, and his desire to want the best for all Americans. Is he perfect? Of course not…and no, I don’t agree with every policy he proposes or enacts. Among the policies I have issues with was his decision to involve America militarily in what was essentially an internal matter of Libya. I don’t agree that enhanced interrogation techniques employed against suspected and confirmed terrorists should be banned or discouraged (when at war, fear is every bit an option as any other when it comes to matters of security…especially against foes who are willing to die for their cause anyway). And I don’t agree that America should have closed down prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay (enemies willing to die to inflict harm on Americans need something to fear). But I still like him. He means well.
However, a great many whites do not—or are not able to—view their opposition to (seemingly) every policy proposed or enacted by Obama, our nation’s first African-American president as being problematic, especially in regards to race relations. Indeed, some of these individuals have successfully managed to convince themselves that their opposition to policies such as health care reform is nothing more than ideological differences. And while any difference of agreement is not meant to imply that the President should be given a “pass” with regard to his policies being scrutinized, make no mistake about it; much of this opposition is just a proxy for racial-based animosity.
Without question, President Obama is the most disrespected American president since Abraham Lincoln…an ironic observation considering that many of those who opposed Lincoln’s policies did so based on their racial animus also. One would be hard-pressed to find a president in recent memory that has had his credibility assailed in the most non-traditionally disrespectful of manners—remember South Carolina’s conservative Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst, “You Lie!” from the president’s 2009 address in front of Congress (yes, there have been occasional “boos” or jeers from other Congressmen toward other presidential addresses, but nothing in the records like Wilson’s)? Then there was that famous picture of Republican Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer pointing her finger in the face of the president of the United States. Simply put, if these individuals had tried that with most other African-Americans of lesser stations, their actions would have rated an immediate (and probably illegal) response. And then there are the thousands of unflattering caricatures of the president meant to (ostensibly) mock his policies, but in many cases, amount to attacks on Obama’s ethnic heritage, without appearing as such.

Aside from the caricatures, President Obama has had nearly every aspect of his life either challenged or impugned in ways that white presidents have rarely experienced. Despite long-ago revealed evidence proving otherwise, many people still continue to think that the president’s birth certificate is a forgery. And of course, those willing to believe such paranoid insanity don’t offer an alternative birth certificate showing his “true” birthplace (hint birthers: instead of trying to prove the president’s birth certificate is a “forgery,” try providing a birth certificate from Kenya…it would go a long ways to proving your assertions. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to produce one). Many Americans also still continue to believe that Obama is a Muslim partially because non-Anglo name, despite the fact that he had to distance himself shortly after taking office from the church of Chicago Pastor Jeremiah Wright…a Christian pastor!
President Obama is also the most threatened American president in memory. He's the former presidential candidate who's required the earliest Secret Service protection, and also the most. Please don't tell me this all about "ideological differences."
And sadly, the issues surround the president’s legislative Pièce de résistance, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—health care reform—has given white xenophobes a great policy issue to mask their racial animus toward Obama. We see this most often in how they accuse him of being a “socialist,” which for many is a proxy term for the “N-Word.” More so, they mask their fears and racial apprehensions behind a paranoid fear that health care reform someone is a “threat to individual liberties.” Really? In reality, when have whites in America ever had their individual liberties “threatened” on a wholesale level? On the other hand, history showcases many instances where government entities have actually—not implied—to not only threaten the lives and livelihoods of African-Americans, but done so.
Shall I cite how Southern states conspired to keep blacks from enacting their right to vote, to be represented in the South up until the early 1970s? How about the instances in American history where entire black towns were wiped off the map due to racist mobs because local government’s complicity in refusing to intervene (or because of government intervention)? The Greenwood district of Tulsa during the May 1921 race riots? The Rosewood Massacre of 1923? How about the various gun control laws that were enacted when blacks opted to (legally) pick up weapons and defend themselves against lynchings in the South and official abuse by authorities elsewhere back in the 1960s? The upshot is that whites possess a phantom fear of having their liberties threatened (that health care reform is supposed to do) in a way that has never happened to them on the same scale in which blacks have experienced them. So where does such fear and paranoia stem from? From the fact that an African-American occupies the Oval Office, and their intolerance of that fact. The health care debate is just a convenient vehicle for many whites to voice this point without having to be vocal about it in the way they would like.
Think about it this way: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are seen as “race baiters” by many whites, who invariably (and ironically) do not see the same tactic being employed by white politicians who pander to white suburban fears. In much the same way, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum recently made subtle racial innuendoes pandering to these white fears:

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money" (Rick Santorum at a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa, January 1, 2012).

“I will go to the NAACP convention, and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps” (Newt Gingrich at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, January 5, 2012).


These are the same white suburban paranoid fears which caused George Zimmerman to carry a weapon whereas many black neighborhood watch volunteers—who operate in far worse neighborhoods than Zimmerman’s—leading to the death of Trayvon Martin.
These are the reasons that radio and television demagogues like Rush and Glen can surreptitiously slide in a subtly but racially-insensitive remark and not be called on it; it takes something more blatant, such as calling a law school student “a slut” before people react.
Yes, both black and white America has some serious soul-searching to to. Sadly, it was needed before Trayvon Martin was killed, and it will no doubt be needed long after.

Read More

For The Aspiring Political Activist…The Most Politically-Charged Colleges Campuses

Before I begin this week’s post, I would like to say that this post marks a milestone for me. This is my 100th post here on Beyond The Political Spectrum, and I would like to thank those who regularly visit my page and e-mail me their thoughts and suggestions (and to those who haven’t heard back from me, I am diligently working to make their issue suggestions known). It’s a labor of love that I enjoy bringing to you. And now without further adieu, my thoughts for this week…


When I began college back in 1991, I had just come out of a period of extended unemployment, and newfound purpose. I remember having spent most of my days involved with local as well as national political issues. This period culminated in many full days—hundreds of hours volunteering (that’s unpaid for those of you who cannot wrap their minds around the concept)—on the political campaigns of local candidates, attending block club meetings, and working with nonprofit organizations.
The political atmosphere of college (s) back then was/were reflective of the political atmosphere of America in general; a few politically active individuals and organizations and a level of subdued contention among competing interests in Washington and nationwide.
Twenty years later, the political (and by extension, the social) polarization is unlike that at any other time in American history except for maybe the period leading up to the Civil War or during the 1960s. Just as in those periods, we have politically-involved individuals—both unaligned activists and those affiliated with organizations and political parties—who have arrogantly (and ethnocentrically) christened themselves as “true Americans,” while maligning those who do not share their values as “un-American,” “socialists,” fascists,” “uncaring,” “elitist,” "racist," and a whole host of subjective pejoratives.
Below the surface of these accusations are sentiments of class divisions, dueling socioeconomic ideologies, and—with the first African-American in the White House—racism (although some of those most rabidly against anything Obama-affiliated will simply deny that race plays no issue…and I emphasize some, lest someone accuse me of being “elitist”). Conservatives accuse Liberals of wanting to turn America into a Socialist Utopia, while liberals routinely accuse conservatives of caring about nothing more than the Free Market (the truth of the matter is that I find both individuals ideologically umbilicaled to those particular narrow views of the world to be morally bankrupted at times).
So, thanks to Beyond The Political Spectrum reader Tim Handorf over at Best Colleges Online.com (thanks Mr. Handorf for soliciting the information for this piece), I thought it would be great to provide those aspiring to become involved in politics and political activism with a list of (some of the ) 12 Most Politically Charged College Campuses in America. And hopefully those seeking to become part of the politically-inspired in this country will become truly educated, and spur true solutions which give the American people what we need rather than what some narrow, ideologically-encircled politician and/or “activist” thinks we should have.

12. American University, Washington D.C.

11. Oberlin College, Oberlin Ohio

10. Wesleyan University, Connecticut

9. University of Wisconsin, Madison

For the rest of the list, read here.

Read More

From The Riots In Baltimore, A Case Of Excellent Parenting

Sometime ago, I wrote a couple of pieces on the issue of corporal punishment in the role of child-rearing ("To Spank Or Not To Spank? (Hell Yes!)" and "Did That Internet Father Who Spanked His Daughters Go Too Far?").  With regard to this issue, many times high-profile events will bear out why such things need to happen.
Spikes in current events is pretty much blogger gold to someone like myself. We who critique and analyze ongoing events in the news are often treated to a noteworthy occurrence that just begs attention. During the riots that raged through a predominantly black section of Baltimore yesterday, one of those things that just begs for closer attention took place in them in the middle of the destruction and violence.
Now bear with me as I lead up to my overall point.
Like many Americans, I watched news coverage of the riots, sparked by the as-now unexplained death Freddy Gray, a young black male while in police custody (Gray was arrested for running from police and possession of a knife). As per the usual dynamic of many such cases that have come to light in recent years, the public chooses sides—usually along the lines of their preconceived beliefs, sans the logic or reason of critical thinking—by blindly justifying the police’s actions, or by condemning them as inexcusable under any circumstance. One side will assert racism (or at least biased applications of the law) are at the heart of these events, while the other will assert the lack of personal responsibility, bad parenting, warped social values, and adhering to a particular political ideology are the reasons for such tragedies. I took note of this as I (regrettably) watched the partisan commentators on Fox News attempt to outline an—albeit marginally truthful—narrative of the issues behind the events in Baltimore. To see what I mean by the sides that such events tend to form, please watch the video segment below, which sets up my point for the rest of this post.

I have always subscribed to the rational approach that an amalgam of all of these factors lays at the heart of these fatal encounters. What’s more, toss in the lack of professionalism among many police departments, ethnocentrism, lack of self-respect, and a little bit of history, and you get the ingredients for what’s happening in Baltimore. But if you watched the video clip I posted above, you might have noted that some will attempt to oversimplify “solutions” to the rioting by asking, “Where are the parents (of the rioters/looters)?”
Though every parent of every young rioter/looter weren’t to be seen, there was one angry parent who was present at the rioting—but she wasn’t taking part. She made her way to the scene of the mayhem to make known her disgust with her son’s involvement in the rioting, and took action to that point. Enter 42-year old Toya Graham. The reaction single mother of a 16-year old son found participating in the melee has gone viral (below).

My overall point is that parents today are in a battle for the souls of their children; drugs, gangs, sex, degraded cultural norms, wayward friends, and a whole host of other temptations are constantly pulling youth in the opposite direction of the one a parent chooses for their child/children. If a public display of old school discipline is what it takes to keep a child in line, so be it.

And despite what the neo-parenting literature says about spankings and corporal punishment “teaching children to be violent,” this is total and utter nonsense. The number of parents who spank their children as a way to help discipline them has decreased, yet more and more young teens and older youth are participating in adult crimes such as the rioting in Baltimore. Spankings also don’t the violence of youth gangs, school shootings perpetrated by students, and other such acts of violence.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a parent who is looking after the best interests of their children using direct parenting, in conjunction with a firm hand when it comes to helping their children stay on the straight and narrow. A little national exposure and embarrassment for Ms. Graham's son is a small price to pay for the alternative for criminal behavior.
And for those critics who might disagree, consider the event that brought the mother and son to the point of confrontation…the death of Freddy Gray. As yourself which is worse; a slapping an unruly and disruptive child upside the head a few times, or them dying in policy custody because they couldn’t appreciate the difference between right and wrong? Now, if only the mothers of police officers who abuse their authority would do the same thing to their sons…

(Read more about Ms. Graham's actions during the rioting in Baltimore, here...)

Read More

The Zimmerman Verdict And Our Dueling Perspectives

Congratulations Black America…you’ve just gotten your very own “O.J.” moment! And why should we be shocked? George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder charges in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin yesterday in a Florida courtroom resonated with many white suburbanites and gated-community types. Such individuals—rightfully or not—harbor fears of creeping “thuggery” from the inner-city areas that they see as chronically infected with socioeconomic pathologies and dysfunctions that they would rather not see in their own well-manicured backyards.
As expected, early opinions about the verdict have come along racial-ethnic lines. Most of those who supported Zimmerman are white, while the majority of those feeling sympathetic toward the death of Martin are black. The verdict speaks to two ongoing issues in our culture: race and guns.
The verdict reflects the fact that America has never truly came to any substantive resolution with regard to its racial past. We see this in the different perspectives that whites and blacks have on many issues, not just the outlook on the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman. Blacks were surprised by the verdict; it’s not a stretch to think that whites were not. Black parents did not see a stranger in Trayvon Martin, they saw their own potential sons being gunned down. This is why riots broke out in the wake of the 1992 verdict in the videotaped beating of Rodney King in California. The acquittal of four white policemen—caught red-handed on tape—beating an unarmed and apparently unthreatening black male resonated with many with the black community; they saw themselves being beaten. This ability that identify and sympathize with the Trayvon Martins and Rodney Kings among black Americans is due to the reality that more than a few African-Americans have either experienced or personally know of someone who have had similar experiences with regard to race. Each of these (relatively) recent high-profile racially-charged incidents were, in turn, based on the century’s long patterns of all-white juries acquitting whites—authority or laymen—of crimes against blacks. This is what President Obama meant with his remark, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” What’s sad is the fact that this has to be explained to whites in this country; the president’s remarks were more in line with the resonance such incidents have in the collective black memory and mindset than the political response that many whites felt the president’s remark were.

The assumption by whites that the president’s remarks to the Trayvon Martin shooting was a political statement rather than a statement of personal interest reveals that America has two histories—one white and one black. This duality of perception comes to bear anything such racially-charged incidents arise in the news. During these times, the effects of not coming to terms with the past usually finds blacks and whites talking at and not to one another. The white conservative stance tends to be one based absolution, which minimizes the reality of racial and ethnic privilege, and downplays the propensity for insensitivity to our historical racial past (and present). The white liberal stance is usually an attempt to express sympathy on a weak understanding of the black experience. Am I saying that all whites cannot be sympathetic or understanding of what it’s like to be black in the context of America’s racial history? Of course not; I’m sure there are many. What I speak of are valid generalities that our disparate perspectives support. We see this whenever blacks demand some level of recompense for racial slights that align with historical patterns, such as lawsuits or reparations. Whites tend to see such demands are a handout. These same whites, whom like most Americans of any ethnic, cultural or economic persuasion, have a poor sense (and interest) in history that keeps them seeing any validity in black claims that their actions might fit a pattern of racial insensitivity. And why not? The past is the past…unless it exalts one’s place of self-importance. Americans are quite fond of remembering Paul Revere’s midnight ride, the rag-tag American military over the British superpower in the Revolution, and the triumph of Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders of the Spanish Army. But our history of formerly all-black towns and counties purged or sacked (Tulsa in 1921, Rosewood in 1923) by white mobs, mass lynchings, and race-based laws are not allowed to be the bad taken with the good in American history. Insomuch as the black experience, many whites have then somewhat valid (if not ethnocentric) point that blacks have not taken advantage of the socioeconomic and political environment of self-determination that relative freedom in America affords. Large cities with large numbers of African-Americans are plagued with issues across the socioeconomic scale, from high percentages of public school dropout rates, high crime rates, high unemployment, to high incidents of single-parenthood, incarceration rates, etc. In many instances, whether or not such conditions are exacerbated by legislative policy, the majority of these pathologies can alleviated by personal responsibility. But when blacks view issues of race tied incidents such as the Trayvon Martin shooting and George Zimmerman’s acquittal, they tend to see these socioeconomic pathologies as either perpetuated by the forces of racism and bias, or by absolute design of "The Man." Blacks see that the police drug-tested Trayvon after the incident, and not George Zimmerman. Blacks wonder why whites who live in relatively safe—very much so in comparison to many areas that blacks reside—gated communities feel the need to carry guns under a “stand your ground” law? Whites point to the Second Amendment and being “prudent” as a justification to carry arms against would-be “criminals” such as Trayvon Martin and the underneath-the-surface fear of rioting in the wake of the verdict. Blacks see whites as being paranoid in carrying guns when many of them don’t in areas with actual (as opposed to perceived) threats to life and property.  Blacks see in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman verdict, more of the same old institutional biases and advantages of racial privilege from America's legacy of unresolved racial attitudes.  And Whites ask themselves, "Why can't they pull themselves up like everybody else does?"
These different perspectives speak to the American infatuation with guns. Many of us are too quick to see guns as the solution to crime, fear, the need for personal protection under all circumstances, and as an expression of a “God-given right.” Many law-abiding black Americans are more fatalistic than whites in terms accepting one’s fate, and dealing with reality. This is one of the ways by which many are able to live in virtual war-zones, not to say that they do not have fears about death, dying, and being victimized by crimes. It’s just reality to black Americans. Many law-abiding white Americans tend to adopt the mantra of preparation and anticipation. We see this in not only the various variation of “stand your ground” laws, but the increasing legislation around the country enabling the carrying of guns in school, on college campuses, in churches, and even in bars. What makes one wake up in the morning and decide to carry a gun in much the same way as one would presume to carry a pocketbook? It’s surely not the same thing that makes one get up in the morning knowing they are taking their chances in a high-crime, high poverty area.
Gun sales soared when President Obama was elected back in 2008, and again after his re-election last year, driven mostly by a thinking fear that our precious gun might be "taken away by the government."  Gun sales continue to soar, even as we are seeing a train of high-profile mass shootings. Owning a gun for “protection” is both pathology and a delusion. What such a justification ignores is that for many citizens (law abiding or otherwise), the firing lethal weapons is legitimate entertainment. Our love of shoot-‘em-up movies, rabid defense of the Second Amendment, violent video games, and fear of urban crime testifies to an immersion in a culture of gun fascination. It’s no wonder that individuals on the edge are so quick to take up arms and shoot up malls, schools, and even churches. Zimmerman represents this pathological fetish with weapons that we attempt to write off as a means of “self-defense.”
Why? Because most neighborhood watch volunteers don’t carry weapons—even those who bravely volunteer in areas of higher crime and threat levels than Zimmerman’s neighborhood (See:  Zimmerman's 911 Transcripts). For whatever reasons, Americans don’t seem ready to let go of either negative attitudes or its pathological reliance on guns for a feeling of emotional and personal security. And until such a thing happens, there will continue to be Trayvon Martins, George Zimmermans, and the two Americas divided by perceptions they represent.

Read More