Sunday, July 25, 2010

"Imagine if the Tea Party was Black" by Tim Wise

 
Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care.

"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.
 

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

School Property - Proselytizing Prohibited

A remarkable observation, analysis and conclusion by a high school student in political science.
 
      "In my political science class today, we talked about the constitution and the first amendment. My teacher mentioned the case engel v. vitale, and when I researched it, I realized that mark wyland had violated the constitution, as well as US statutory law. so..... I wrote this letter to him. . . . "
Mr. Mark Wyland:
      I am a high school student at the Classical Academy High School. Recently, you spoke at my school's graduation. In your speech, you addressed religion, and more specifically, the Christian faith. A large portion of your speech was about the loss of morals in our society because of the trend toward a more secular country. You also encouraged us to follow the Christian faith in order to be successful and promote a more sacred society.
     The Supreme Court, in the case Engel v. Vitale, ruled that government-endorsed prayer or religion in federally-funded schools violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. My school is a publicly funded charter school. Since you explicitly endorsed Christianity at a school function, I believe you have violated constitutional and statutory law.
      In addition, many people were also offended that you equated Christianity with morality and success. The success of our society does not depend on Christianity, it depends on our freedom to practice the religion of our choice.
       In the future, I would like to request that, as a government official, at a public function, you do not use your position to endorse religion.
Thank you,
Anzy McWha

    I wrote back,  Anzi, . . .  the case you cited stands for the prohibition against an "official" imposition of a prayer or any activity recognizing, implimenting or imposing a religious doctrine by the government. In short, the government is not allowed to bring religion into a public school. The questions here are 1. Who is Mr. Wyland? Is he a government official or is he just a private person who was speaking for himself? 2. Was the school being used by Mr. Wyland, in either an official or unofficial capacity, to promote religion in any

Her answer.
1. He's a senator
2. Yes- he spoke to the graduating class and the rest of the school during the actual graduation ceremony. He stated several times that we should follow the Christian faith, promote a more sacred country, glorify God in everything we did, etc. And he was using a school function to promote Christianity, so yes.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

I'm goin to Arizona in my mind. An imaginary conversation between Governor Brewer and President Calderone.

Foreign nationals on American soil are, in many cases, subject to the terms of international treaties which are supreme law of the United States under the Constitution. Individual state governments cannot interfere with the relations between the U.S. and other countries and their citizens.  Just imagine . . . .  . . .
"Hello, Phillipe?. . . Yeah, its me Governor Brewer. Listen muchacho; my anti-racial discrimination law just went into effect.  It seems that by coincidence we caught about 200 people violating our traffic laws and who didn't have proof of legal presence in the U.S.. Anyway, the reason I called is that a lot of these people look like your people and I thought you might want them back."  . . . . No. no, no, not all of them . . . . some of them say they have green cards or that they were born here but we arrested them anyway . . .  well yes, they all looked suspicious . . . . we wanted to be fair to everybody. . . . Anglos? . . . . No . . . . . not a one.  What do you mean I have to go through the Embassy and notify the consulate? . . . .  But . . . What do mean that you are the President of a whole country and I am just a dumb shit governor of a desert state full of snakes, scorpions, and headless bodies?  Mr. Presiden.  Mr. President?. . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . imagine

Monday, July 5, 2010

Sunday, June 20, 2010

SHIKES DEFENDS GUATEMALAN COUNSEL CHARGED WITH DUI

Byline: Peter Hartlaub Daily News Staff Writer

Rafael Salazar's get-out-of-jail-free card didn't work.
        After he hit a trailer truck and spun into a center divider on the Pomona Freeway  and Interstate 215  in April 1997, the Counsel flashed his identification for a CHP officer, expecting diplomatic immunity. Instead he was handcuffed, driven to the station and given a breathalyzer used to detect alcohol on a suspected drunk driver's breath. Later, he was charged with drunk driving just like anybody else.
       Salazar responded by suing just about everyone connected to the case - including a Municipal Court judge. He claims that Article 41 of the Vienna Agreement makes him immune from misdemeanor arrest. He's seeking $1 million from the state, the California highway patrol and the officer who took him in. ``When Barney Fife  arrests a foreign diplomat in Mayberry, the ripple effect spreads to all foreign governments,'' attorney Stephen Shikes said. ``This case opens up a world of harassment for consulates everywhere.''

      Meanwhile, Salazar was promoted by his government to be an ambassador in another country. Salazar's decision to file a lawsuit might seem unusual, given that police say his blood-alcohol level was 2-1/2 times the legal limit. Perhaps even more unbelievable: He may have some legal ground to stand on. From parking tickets to suspicion of drunk driving, laws are set up to protect diplomats like Salazar from arrest. In recent years, however, law enforcement officials have been challenging immunity protection with several successful prosecutions of foreign government officials who thought they were legally  bulletproof. I think it's been tougher for diplomats. The political winds are shifting, ''The police used to turn the other way in these cases. Now I don't think it's in their interest politically.''

International law
By international law, consul generals enjoy an intermediate level of freedom from arrest - Salazar's Identification told officers not to arrest him ``except on a warrant for felony offense.''  In any case, CHP and officials say they can always restrain a diplomat who endangers the public safety. ``We'll put them in a taxicab, call a consulate or do whatever we have to do to stop them from hurting others,'' LAPD Lt. Wallace Graves said. But once the immediate danger is thwarted, Graves said police are instructed to treat the diplomat differently from a U.S. citizen. ``Once we've stopped them from doing things that are dangerous to other people, we can't arrest them per se,'' Graves said. ``If they want to walk off, they can walk off.''

On duty?

        In defending the lawsuit, Deputy District Attorney Richard De La Sota noted Salazar was not booked at the station and was taken home by a CHP officer because his car was wrecked. ``The real issue is whether Mr. Salazar was engaged in the performance of his consular functions while driving on the Pomona Freeway in his own automobile with a blood-alcohol level of 0.20 and slamming into the rear of a tractor-trailer rig,'' De La Sota said.

       A letter from U.S. State Department legal counsel backed De La Sota's assessment, pointing out that Salazar's ``consular immunity'' is dependent on whether or not he is at work. Salazar's attorneys claimed he was en route to his office when the crash occurred and that CHP officers made an illegal arrest.
Municipal Court Judge Conrad Aragon turned down Salazar's motion to dismiss the case in February and set a July 27 trial date. Salazar responded with a lawsuit in federal court, asking for dismissal of the charges and damages to be assessed. The case is pending.

Promotion for Salazar

Lutz says state prosecutors' best chance of convicting a consul or diplomat is to convince a lawbreaker's own government to waive immunity.  .  .  .  Rather than cut a deal in Salazar's case, the Guatemalan government promoted him twice since the incident, and he now is ambassador to Belize, according to consulate officials. Under U.S. law, an ambassador has even more immunity than a consul general.

Shikes acknowledged that some U.S. citizens may not want to believe that a diplomat can claim immunity. But he feels that foreigners won't understand the district attorney's action.  `There's a higher and more important consideration - the relation between the U.S. and the rest of the world,'' Shikes said.

Friday, September 18, 2009

WHO IS CALLING WHO NAMES?

ALI:
So sorry to have missed all this! May I ask that everyone posting here speak for themselves... not for me thank you. and Mr. Shikes, may I just say that when you call people names you just appear to be irrelevant.

ME
Ali, you not only missed all this. . . you missed the point. The protesters in Washington were well represented by the people we saw on that video. They are ignorant, uneducated, bigoted, racist morons who hate America. That's not name calling; that's an accurate description. Ahhh, If only name calling was irrelevant. Unfortunately however, calling has been raised to fine art by right wing instigators like Limbaugh, Beck, O'reilly, Hannity, and Savage.
I'm glad to see that I'm not nearly so irrelevant that you felt the need to acknowledge me - even if it was only to dismiss me. Don't just read these comments. Do your research. Go to the source - and then use the common sense that god gave you before you go to the defense of people who are ignorant, uneducated, bigoted, racist morons who hate America.

And then we hear, once again, from Brooke.  Remember Brooke?  Brooke chimed in with an all encompassing one word response.

BROOKE
 . . . fool.


Jane, who apparently had posted a comment at about the same time I had, and asked back if  Brooke's insult was directed at her or all of us commenting in this thread.

JANE:
You, me, or all of us combined? lol While I am glad people are so passionate with their beliefs, I would prefer we all play nice in the sandbox together....after all, we all do live in the same sandbox and we all want the same goals, we just have different strategies to achieve them.

It turns out however that the insult was narrowly focused - on me. 

BROOKE:
sorry that was a rash comment. it was directed at stephen.(emphasis added) i retract it. on the most respectful of terms i would like to point out that there was no playing nice in the sandbox until the strong republican joined in on the topic. the very act of posting the link was not playing nice in the sandbox, and virtually all the moments past it were increasingly bad. finally you bring up the bigger picture of us all living in the same world and having to share it together. if you truly believe in those words you typed i encourage you to not spread media that will only divide us, instead spread media that furthers your own viewpoint and educate others who may not see the same as you. dont continue to tear down your neighbors. the world will be a better place if we finally see that throwing sand at your brother will only leave you with less sand in the end.

ME:
Brooke. You are babblling.

JANE:
When I see a video such as this, I can either ignore it or speak out and say, "This type of bigotry and racism is not okay, and I will continue to speak against it until someday maybe it goes away altogether."