Let me be clear: I'm a nobody. In the grand scheme of things, I'm not even on the totem pole. I'm a woodshaving trying to get onto the totem pole. As a part-time English instructor at a community college in the South with absolutely no publications behind my name, nobody gives a damn about me or my opinion. Hell, I'll bet not even two people read this blog. And, you know, that's fine by me. My job is to teach and educate. While being a public intellectual must have its perks, such as coveted paid positions as an analyst on one of the cable news network stations, that is not my calling. My purpose is empowerment and uplift through education and information access.
Though I am a nobody, it doesn't feel good to be ignored on an issue that I think is pivotal to the upcoming election year. On my Twitter account, I mentioned every media personality that I follow with a simple request: ask any conservative and/or Republican politicians that they may interview, "What, actually, is the definition for _______?" You may fill in the blank with any conservative code word that relates to economics: "socialism," "wealth redistribution," "fascism." The truth is, the American public, including the very people who are using these terms, don't know what the Hell they are talking about. They kind-of-sort-of know. Mention socialism or fascism and they picture Hitler or some European country where upward economic/social mobility is almost impossible. Mention wealth redistribution and they think Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution. In this sense, Republicans/conservatives expertly exploit the racist notions and ignorance of their constituents. It is one major way, outside of social/moral/religious issues that most Republicans/conservatives continue to get poor people to vote against their own interests by electing them to office.
Since I am a teacher by trade (an underpaid state worker with no healthcare benefits or a salary that would support my family should I suddenly find myself single), I'm going to take a moment and teach here. Maybe the two or three people who read this blog can spread the word. Webster's Dictionary online, as well the paperback copy has several definitions for socialism. Many people think they are hearing the first two major definitions which concerns a system where private property is eradicated, and the government controls all major industries. It basically exists as a transition from capitalism to communism (I'm using a lower-case "c" here because communism varies from people to people). However, there is a third definition listed by Webster's: a system in which exists as a transition between communism and capitalism, characterized by UNEQUAL PAY AND UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ACCORDING TO THE WORK BEING PERFORMED. According to that definition, I must ask, are we living in a socialist state here in the proclaimed capitalist meritocracy of the United States of America? From a worker's standpoint, wages have been frozen for the past decade. I could cite over 100 viable sources which point out that workers have seen their wages drop while the ones at the top, the people who benefit from the workers' production such as the Koch brothers, have done remarkably well.
While many people think of redistribution of wealth as taking from the rich, or taking private property and giving it to the state, it has actually played a reversal role here in the United States. Truthfully, George W. Bush presided over the largest redistribution of wealth in the country. The huge, tax-payer funded bail-out of private banks is just one manifestation of this redistribution. These companies got bail-outs, which were funded on the backs of the middle and working class here in America, and simultaneously distributed some of the largest salaries and bonuses to their executives the world has ever seen. The Republican regime of the 2000s did it all while smiling and yelling, "Country first." Anybody who questioned their policies were seen as "un-American." Again, according to Webster's, this is a textbook example of fascism.
The public's ignorance about the differences between their idea of these terms and the reality of it is partly due to a false belief in the upward economic mobility of the American Dream, centuries-old race baiting, and lack of concern shown by media figures of color here. When most Americans think "socialism" or "wealth redistribution," they think single Black women on welfare riding around in a Cadillac. This is due in part to Ronald Reagan's phantom Black welfare queen and the conservative media circus. However, I cannot let liberal or Black media figures off the hook for this. They, we (even though I don't consider myself a media figure at all) let this happen, too. We allow Black and Latino female faces continue to be the mascot for words and ideas that most Americans don't truly understand. They just know that these things are bad. To be clear, I'm not advocating that communism or socialism is good. What I'm talking about is how my Black female face could easily be grafted onto these ideas, and used to promote racist, wealth redistributing policies that continue to hurt ALL poor, working class, and middle class people.
And to think, some of this could be avoided if one damn newscaster or television/radio personality would ask a Congressman like Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor one simple question, "Could you please, for the sake of clarity, define socialism or wealth redistribution for the American public..." Even though I watch Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, I have yet to hear even the very liberal Lawrence O'Donnell (I can't say Maddow, since they dare not appear on her show), Ed Schultz, or Al Sharpton do so.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Sunday, July 31, 2011
A Certain Segment of White People Have Already Seceeded from the Union
On July 25, 2011, a Monday night, President Obama stood at a podium to talk about the stalemate in Washington concerning the debt ceiling. Immediately following him was Speaker of the House, John Boehner, standing at a podium talking about why he cannot possibly pass a bill that includes any sort of revenue increases (tax hikes). He would not give the president a blank check. At first, I could not believe what I was seeing. John Boehner's platform looked so much more presidential than the actual president's. There was a podium, an American flag in the background, and the corner of a very expensive-looking mahogany desk. If I were to simply glance at the screen, I would've thought that John Boehner were the President addressing the nation from his Oval Office.
When I woke on July 26, 2011, I got it: John Boehner is the unofficial President for a certain segment of white people. Yes, white people have already seceded from the country socially; therefore, they feel no need to cooperate politically. John Boehner is the last hope for a group of white people who are afraid and confused, and who feel that their world is topsy-turvy. With people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who make a living by race-baiting, the fear is real. The fear is tangible. Americans generally live by a fixed-pie mentality: there is only so much wealth to go around, and we must hoard it for ourselves in the name of self-preservation. Beck and Limbaugh get onto the radio and scream, "The ________ folk are coming." You may fill in the blank with your choice of minority group: women, African Americans, Latinos and Hispanics, or homosexual. Whichever low-hanging ethnic fruit is fashionable, they use it to scare white people.
And for the most part, their strategy is as effective as it is old. I can give you a perfect example. After school desegregation, there were many op-eds in local papers which said that school integration would only lead to race-mixing. Throughout the South, after enforcement of school desegregation laws began, white people began to withdraw their children from public schools, and they established Christian Academies. White people also moved away from the city limits and city politics, and into the counties, scarcely even showing their faces in town to vote or purchase groceries. In short, they seceded from their Southern towns socially, and refused to participate politically. Sometimes, they did not support the towns economically, choosing instead to purchase their goods in small cities such as Natchez, McComb, Baton Rouge, or Vicksburg rather than buy from their local grocers where Black people also shopped.
What we're seeing from the Tea Party and their irrational ideological stances, is the secession of white people from American society. Tea Party members are the only people that stand between a world which makes sense, and what a certain segment of scared whites must certainly see as a viable "planet of the apes" (Is there any wonder that the movie is making a resurgence at this exact moment?). In less than a decade, this country will be a majority minority country: combined, there will be more minorities here than white people. By refusing to cooperate politically, and hoping to destroy the country economically, Tea Party members are making the last stand for a certain segment of isolated Americans: the scared white constituents who elected them to keep the fate of the free world out of the hands of a Black man. I have the sneaking suspicion that "big government," to the Tea Party is synonymous with "Black government." When John Boehner and other conservatives say they will not hand over a "blank check" to President Obama, they mean that they're not willing to hand over the government to a Black man, or any other person of color for that matter. One way or the other, they're letting their constituents know who's really in charge: the white man is still in control. Their strategy: crash the economy and put the country back into the hands of a white man. Their rationale: though we may all suffer if the economy defaults and President Obama loses the 2012 election, at least we'll be suffering in a world where white person is in charge, and therefore makes sense.
When I woke on July 26, 2011, I got it: John Boehner is the unofficial President for a certain segment of white people. Yes, white people have already seceded from the country socially; therefore, they feel no need to cooperate politically. John Boehner is the last hope for a group of white people who are afraid and confused, and who feel that their world is topsy-turvy. With people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who make a living by race-baiting, the fear is real. The fear is tangible. Americans generally live by a fixed-pie mentality: there is only so much wealth to go around, and we must hoard it for ourselves in the name of self-preservation. Beck and Limbaugh get onto the radio and scream, "The ________ folk are coming." You may fill in the blank with your choice of minority group: women, African Americans, Latinos and Hispanics, or homosexual. Whichever low-hanging ethnic fruit is fashionable, they use it to scare white people.
And for the most part, their strategy is as effective as it is old. I can give you a perfect example. After school desegregation, there were many op-eds in local papers which said that school integration would only lead to race-mixing. Throughout the South, after enforcement of school desegregation laws began, white people began to withdraw their children from public schools, and they established Christian Academies. White people also moved away from the city limits and city politics, and into the counties, scarcely even showing their faces in town to vote or purchase groceries. In short, they seceded from their Southern towns socially, and refused to participate politically. Sometimes, they did not support the towns economically, choosing instead to purchase their goods in small cities such as Natchez, McComb, Baton Rouge, or Vicksburg rather than buy from their local grocers where Black people also shopped.
What we're seeing from the Tea Party and their irrational ideological stances, is the secession of white people from American society. Tea Party members are the only people that stand between a world which makes sense, and what a certain segment of scared whites must certainly see as a viable "planet of the apes" (Is there any wonder that the movie is making a resurgence at this exact moment?). In less than a decade, this country will be a majority minority country: combined, there will be more minorities here than white people. By refusing to cooperate politically, and hoping to destroy the country economically, Tea Party members are making the last stand for a certain segment of isolated Americans: the scared white constituents who elected them to keep the fate of the free world out of the hands of a Black man. I have the sneaking suspicion that "big government," to the Tea Party is synonymous with "Black government." When John Boehner and other conservatives say they will not hand over a "blank check" to President Obama, they mean that they're not willing to hand over the government to a Black man, or any other person of color for that matter. One way or the other, they're letting their constituents know who's really in charge: the white man is still in control. Their strategy: crash the economy and put the country back into the hands of a white man. Their rationale: though we may all suffer if the economy defaults and President Obama loses the 2012 election, at least we'll be suffering in a world where white person is in charge, and therefore makes sense.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill Affair: A Symptom
This is not a stinging indictment of Black men. This is not an insidious attack on Black women. Rather, it is a warning: both Black men and Black women must free ourselves of Euro-American patriarchal thinking. If not, Thomas has shown us how we pay at the structural level. Black male-on-Black male crime shows us how we pay at the individual, daily level.
As a people, African Americans, since slavery, have been very bold and somewhat successful in forcing Euro-Americans to practice the words they wrote both in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Despite conscious decisions by the authors of those documents to strike any reference to slavery out of the declaration, and to list Black people as only three-fifth human in the Constitution, African Americans knew the power and the meaning behind the words, "freedom," and "liberty." They, too, as builders of the world's global capitalist economy which freed Europe from a system of oppressive feudalism, wanted the ability to live in "pursuit of happiness." From David Walker to Frederick Douglass to Harriet Jacobs to Langston Hughes to Richard Wright to June Jordan to Eldridge Cleaver to Ernest J. Gaines to Martin Luther King, Jr. to Anne Moody to Malcolm X, Black Americans have cried out against tyranny of white racism and the oppression of white greed.
However, since the times of Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, something has been seething within the Black community that we have NEVER adequately addressed. We have always been so watchful of the forces which are suppress us from without. Yet, we have not even attempted to remedy what is tearing us apart from within: Black people's internalization of Euro-American patriarchal thought. It is the acceptance of gender inequality, notions of masculine superiority and feminine inferiority, which threaten to destroy our communities. Young, Black men are dying on the streets every day due not only to poverty and violence, but also to how we define ourselves as gendered people.
As a Black woman, I could not be more proud of my literary ancestor, Harriet Jacobs, when she would stop telling her story in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl to say (I'm paraphrasing here), "Reader, do not judge by a white woman's standards. I am not a white woman. I have not had the life of a white woman, so do not impose society's standards of behavior and dress for white women on this Black woman's body." This stands in stark contrast to the writings of Frederick Douglass and David Walker which seem to say to their Puritanical audiences, "Yes, I too, can be a patriarch. I deserve to be given the same opportunities and judged by the same standards as a white man." So, Black women have at least attempted since slavery, to define themselves outside of Euro-American standards (Though I'm not sure if we continue to do so during modern times). It seems, though, Black men have always embraced them. One of the most poignant criticisms of this attitude came from Ruth in Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun. She patiently listens to her husband, Walter, talk about his humiliating job as a chauffeur for a white man, Mr. Arnold, then replies, "So you'd rather be Mr. Arnold than work for him." It would seem so. Walter never considers that his mother and wife work equally humiliating jobs as domestics. How might they feel? He never asks. He simply wants to be the patriarch of the family....in charge of things... in charge of his own person and his family's direction. What about his wife's dreams and desires? Does Ruth want to be anything other than a domestic? Who is she as an individual? We don't know.
Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth had public, sometimes heated, exchanges. Douglass had a disdain for Black women that we seldom learn about. Douglass essentially felt that Black women, by their refusal to simply absorb Euro-American standards of behavior, were the millstone around the neck of Black male progress. Many Black women of the time purposefully refused to become literate. Right or wrong, they felt that absorption of literature outside of the the Bible would lead to absorption of Euro-American standards, and Black women rebelled against this. Though many did stay away from public life, Sojourner Truth openly spoke in public and would challenge Black men like Frederick Douglass for their acceptance of white standards of masculinity.
As a people, we protested the system without making fundamental changes to this "system." We criticized "The Man," but simply changed the color of his face. Clarence Thomas, a Black man, was chosen when a white one would have sufficed. I honestly believe that Dr. Hill knew he'd be "The Man" in blackface, and tried to prevent that. But her quest led to something more. The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill affair was one of those rare times when we did see Black gender differences play out nationally. It was also a prime opportunity for us to do the hard work of redefining ourselves outside of Euro-American patriarchal standards.
But, we blew it! The lashing out against Anita Hill was shameful and irrational, considering the "system" which benefited from her demise. Clarence Thomas's behavior was well-documented and the President who appointed him was a notorious conservative from a "Zero-Population Growth" family. Black man or white, Clarence Thomas is the keeper of the door of white conservatism and economic elitism: the status quo, the "system" which Black people so vehemently fought against.
From barber shop philosophers to Ivy-League academics such as Orlando Patterson, we once again blamed a Black woman for impeding the progress of Black men. Just like E. Franklin Frazier. Just like W.E.B. DuBois. Just like Frederick Douglass. Dr. Hill became a public representation of Black women who many Black males such as Richard Wright, felt were complicit with white men in psychologically/economically castrating Black men. Over 20 years after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill affair, I can say that psychological/economic Black male castration was not Dr. Hill's intention. And after 20 years, with Black males leading for the charge for the dismissal of Shirley Sherrod, I can say that we haven't learned a damn thing from our ignorance.
The appointment of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice, largely with the support of Black people, has cost us dearly: the weakening of affirmative action, the 2000 election of one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history, and the weakening of the ability to bring class action law suits which would curtail system-wide discrimination in huge corporations. When will we, as African Americans, learn to dialogue about gender without attacking one another? When will we begin to teach Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Maria W. Stewart, Anna Julia Cooper, and Anne Moody alongside DuBois, Wright, Malcolm X, and even Martin Luther King, Jr.? Lord knows, I do not want another The Color Purple, which turns Black men into the boogey man. I don't believe the patriarchy should be replaced by a matriarchy. What I believe is that Black men should fundamentally embrace a new definition of masculinity in the United States, because the status quo is killing us.
As a people, African Americans, since slavery, have been very bold and somewhat successful in forcing Euro-Americans to practice the words they wrote both in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Despite conscious decisions by the authors of those documents to strike any reference to slavery out of the declaration, and to list Black people as only three-fifth human in the Constitution, African Americans knew the power and the meaning behind the words, "freedom," and "liberty." They, too, as builders of the world's global capitalist economy which freed Europe from a system of oppressive feudalism, wanted the ability to live in "pursuit of happiness." From David Walker to Frederick Douglass to Harriet Jacobs to Langston Hughes to Richard Wright to June Jordan to Eldridge Cleaver to Ernest J. Gaines to Martin Luther King, Jr. to Anne Moody to Malcolm X, Black Americans have cried out against tyranny of white racism and the oppression of white greed.
However, since the times of Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, something has been seething within the Black community that we have NEVER adequately addressed. We have always been so watchful of the forces which are suppress us from without. Yet, we have not even attempted to remedy what is tearing us apart from within: Black people's internalization of Euro-American patriarchal thought. It is the acceptance of gender inequality, notions of masculine superiority and feminine inferiority, which threaten to destroy our communities. Young, Black men are dying on the streets every day due not only to poverty and violence, but also to how we define ourselves as gendered people.
As a Black woman, I could not be more proud of my literary ancestor, Harriet Jacobs, when she would stop telling her story in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl to say (I'm paraphrasing here), "Reader, do not judge by a white woman's standards. I am not a white woman. I have not had the life of a white woman, so do not impose society's standards of behavior and dress for white women on this Black woman's body." This stands in stark contrast to the writings of Frederick Douglass and David Walker which seem to say to their Puritanical audiences, "Yes, I too, can be a patriarch. I deserve to be given the same opportunities and judged by the same standards as a white man." So, Black women have at least attempted since slavery, to define themselves outside of Euro-American standards (Though I'm not sure if we continue to do so during modern times). It seems, though, Black men have always embraced them. One of the most poignant criticisms of this attitude came from Ruth in Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun. She patiently listens to her husband, Walter, talk about his humiliating job as a chauffeur for a white man, Mr. Arnold, then replies, "So you'd rather be Mr. Arnold than work for him." It would seem so. Walter never considers that his mother and wife work equally humiliating jobs as domestics. How might they feel? He never asks. He simply wants to be the patriarch of the family....in charge of things... in charge of his own person and his family's direction. What about his wife's dreams and desires? Does Ruth want to be anything other than a domestic? Who is she as an individual? We don't know.
Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth had public, sometimes heated, exchanges. Douglass had a disdain for Black women that we seldom learn about. Douglass essentially felt that Black women, by their refusal to simply absorb Euro-American standards of behavior, were the millstone around the neck of Black male progress. Many Black women of the time purposefully refused to become literate. Right or wrong, they felt that absorption of literature outside of the the Bible would lead to absorption of Euro-American standards, and Black women rebelled against this. Though many did stay away from public life, Sojourner Truth openly spoke in public and would challenge Black men like Frederick Douglass for their acceptance of white standards of masculinity.
As a people, we protested the system without making fundamental changes to this "system." We criticized "The Man," but simply changed the color of his face. Clarence Thomas, a Black man, was chosen when a white one would have sufficed. I honestly believe that Dr. Hill knew he'd be "The Man" in blackface, and tried to prevent that. But her quest led to something more. The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill affair was one of those rare times when we did see Black gender differences play out nationally. It was also a prime opportunity for us to do the hard work of redefining ourselves outside of Euro-American patriarchal standards.
But, we blew it! The lashing out against Anita Hill was shameful and irrational, considering the "system" which benefited from her demise. Clarence Thomas's behavior was well-documented and the President who appointed him was a notorious conservative from a "Zero-Population Growth" family. Black man or white, Clarence Thomas is the keeper of the door of white conservatism and economic elitism: the status quo, the "system" which Black people so vehemently fought against.
From barber shop philosophers to Ivy-League academics such as Orlando Patterson, we once again blamed a Black woman for impeding the progress of Black men. Just like E. Franklin Frazier. Just like W.E.B. DuBois. Just like Frederick Douglass. Dr. Hill became a public representation of Black women who many Black males such as Richard Wright, felt were complicit with white men in psychologically/economically castrating Black men. Over 20 years after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill affair, I can say that psychological/economic Black male castration was not Dr. Hill's intention. And after 20 years, with Black males leading for the charge for the dismissal of Shirley Sherrod, I can say that we haven't learned a damn thing from our ignorance.
The appointment of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice, largely with the support of Black people, has cost us dearly: the weakening of affirmative action, the 2000 election of one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history, and the weakening of the ability to bring class action law suits which would curtail system-wide discrimination in huge corporations. When will we, as African Americans, learn to dialogue about gender without attacking one another? When will we begin to teach Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Maria W. Stewart, Anna Julia Cooper, and Anne Moody alongside DuBois, Wright, Malcolm X, and even Martin Luther King, Jr.? Lord knows, I do not want another The Color Purple, which turns Black men into the boogey man. I don't believe the patriarchy should be replaced by a matriarchy. What I believe is that Black men should fundamentally embrace a new definition of masculinity in the United States, because the status quo is killing us.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Black America Owes Anita Hill a Long Overdue Apology
When Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas interrupted my Saturday morning cartoons, I was angry. A little snot-nosed brat at the time, I could not understand the huge ramifications of what was happening around me. As a nine-year-old, this is all I remember of the affair: a Black man, a Black woman, and a pubic hair on a Coke can.
And yes, I remember the conversations surrounding Anita Hill. People hated her. "Why would this dumb bitch try to hold the man back?" "See, that's why Black folk can't get nowhere, we always acting like crabs in a barrel." "Now this the first Black man since Thurgood Marshall to be nominated. Where the white folk dig this bitch up at?" These were just a few of the insidious comments made about Professor Anita Hill around my head. People wanted to kill her. People would throw things at the television when her face came onto the screen.
Oh. My. Lord. If Black people knew then what we know now....Black America owes Dr. Anita Hill a long-overdue apology. In our haste to elevate a Black man to one of the most prestigious, respected, and powerful positions in the land, we didn't even stop to look at who nominated Clarence Thomas: a socially conservative, Republican President from a zero population growth family. Professor Hill was trying to save us, but she couldn't save us from our scornful selves. And over twenty years later, we are paying the price.
When Democratic presidents nominate Supreme Court justices, Republicans always yell about "activist judges." They understand that no people in the country have as much power to change the landscape and culture of the country as those individuals who sit on the Supreme Court. Unlike other policy makers, Supreme Court justices don't have term limits.
Whereas conservative lawmakers yell this phrase out to instill fear in their constituents about liberal-leaning judges, no Supreme Court justices have been more politically active than Scalia and Thomas. However, they tend to vote AGAINST poor folk and minorities. On all things that may help minorities and poor folk, Scalia and Thomas have both voted overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining the unfair and unbalanced status quo. For an alphabetical listing of Thomas's rulings as well as concurrences, please see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas.
Thomas, having benefited from affirmative action, ruled it unconstitutional. Thomas, having been appointed by his father, ruled in favor of George Bush II becoming president when he stole the election in 2000. Thomas, whose wife is an active Tea Party member which is in turn funded by corporations, made a remarkable ruling in favor of corporations recently: he made it very difficult for people to bring class action law suits against huge companies like Wal-Mart. Sigh...
Anita Hill, even though I was entirely too young to know what was going on, from the bottom of my ignorant heart, I'm sorry. I wish I could have supported you. I wish we could have foreseen how you tried to save us from this activist, conservative judge whose only duty on the bench seems to be to do the bidding of his corporate-funded masters. I know that for the good of the country, this apology is much too late, but please accept it. You were right all along....
I will post again on Anita Hill in about two weeks. Anita Hill is a prime example of how Black men have routinely not supported Black women or trusted their leadership and judgement. You'd think we would've learned our lesson, but the Shirley Sherrod fiasco proves that we are still struggling to think of Black women as leaders, and that we are still embarrassed by Black women when we should be supporting them.
And yes, I remember the conversations surrounding Anita Hill. People hated her. "Why would this dumb bitch try to hold the man back?" "See, that's why Black folk can't get nowhere, we always acting like crabs in a barrel." "Now this the first Black man since Thurgood Marshall to be nominated. Where the white folk dig this bitch up at?" These were just a few of the insidious comments made about Professor Anita Hill around my head. People wanted to kill her. People would throw things at the television when her face came onto the screen.
Oh. My. Lord. If Black people knew then what we know now....Black America owes Dr. Anita Hill a long-overdue apology. In our haste to elevate a Black man to one of the most prestigious, respected, and powerful positions in the land, we didn't even stop to look at who nominated Clarence Thomas: a socially conservative, Republican President from a zero population growth family. Professor Hill was trying to save us, but she couldn't save us from our scornful selves. And over twenty years later, we are paying the price.
When Democratic presidents nominate Supreme Court justices, Republicans always yell about "activist judges." They understand that no people in the country have as much power to change the landscape and culture of the country as those individuals who sit on the Supreme Court. Unlike other policy makers, Supreme Court justices don't have term limits.
Whereas conservative lawmakers yell this phrase out to instill fear in their constituents about liberal-leaning judges, no Supreme Court justices have been more politically active than Scalia and Thomas. However, they tend to vote AGAINST poor folk and minorities. On all things that may help minorities and poor folk, Scalia and Thomas have both voted overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining the unfair and unbalanced status quo. For an alphabetical listing of Thomas's rulings as well as concurrences, please see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas.
Thomas, having benefited from affirmative action, ruled it unconstitutional. Thomas, having been appointed by his father, ruled in favor of George Bush II becoming president when he stole the election in 2000. Thomas, whose wife is an active Tea Party member which is in turn funded by corporations, made a remarkable ruling in favor of corporations recently: he made it very difficult for people to bring class action law suits against huge companies like Wal-Mart. Sigh...
Anita Hill, even though I was entirely too young to know what was going on, from the bottom of my ignorant heart, I'm sorry. I wish I could have supported you. I wish we could have foreseen how you tried to save us from this activist, conservative judge whose only duty on the bench seems to be to do the bidding of his corporate-funded masters. I know that for the good of the country, this apology is much too late, but please accept it. You were right all along....
I will post again on Anita Hill in about two weeks. Anita Hill is a prime example of how Black men have routinely not supported Black women or trusted their leadership and judgement. You'd think we would've learned our lesson, but the Shirley Sherrod fiasco proves that we are still struggling to think of Black women as leaders, and that we are still embarrassed by Black women when we should be supporting them.
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Other Double Standard
Rather than write a long rant about what's wrong with our current political system, I just have a few questions about a double standard:
1. What if a Black man showed up to a presidential event with a gun strapped to his back and a sign that read, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants?"
2. What if a Black man got on a nationally syndicated radio show, such as Glenn Beck's, and advised people to go out and purchase guns...to be armed and dangerous?
3. What if a Black man had spat on a Congressman?
4. What if a group of Black men had beat up a small, white female protester in Kentucky?
5. Why haven't there been any Congressional hearings for White Supremacist groups? Why haven't they been summoned to the Hill?
I think we know the answer to these questions...People often conclude that Black people in America are too sensitive and play the race card when race isn't even in the game. But anybody reading these questions, regardless of color, knows the answer.
Think I'm just spouting conspiracy theories here? Replace the word "Black" with "Mexican." The answers would still be the same.
1. What if a Black man showed up to a presidential event with a gun strapped to his back and a sign that read, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants?"
2. What if a Black man got on a nationally syndicated radio show, such as Glenn Beck's, and advised people to go out and purchase guns...to be armed and dangerous?
3. What if a Black man had spat on a Congressman?
4. What if a group of Black men had beat up a small, white female protester in Kentucky?
5. Why haven't there been any Congressional hearings for White Supremacist groups? Why haven't they been summoned to the Hill?
I think we know the answer to these questions...People often conclude that Black people in America are too sensitive and play the race card when race isn't even in the game. But anybody reading these questions, regardless of color, knows the answer.
Think I'm just spouting conspiracy theories here? Replace the word "Black" with "Mexican." The answers would still be the same.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Unacknowledged Debt and Phallic Distractions
I have not posted in a long time. I normally take my posts directly from the nightly news. However, I feel that the news has gone on a constant political sideshow for the past three weeks; between Palin and Weiner's picture of a package, there has not been much substance behind the reporting.
The coverage of the false arguments about the debt ceiling has been rather scant. Instead of focusing on Weiner's package, our outlets should have been focusing on the false connections made between employment and the debt ceiling. I am appalled at the way Republicans and conservatives misuse the press by repeatedly making rhetorical/argumentative errors that we learn to avoid in any debate or composition II class. And since these people have all had some sort of higher learning, I want to say that they do this by design. And since journalists have also gone to college, I want to say that they are not calling the culprits on their error by design. Why kill this argument and kill the ratings? Better yet, why have this argument and kill the ratings when Palin's stupidity and Weiner's penis are much more interesting to viewers?
Here is the false argument that the Right and Republicans repeatedly make: the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing to do with employment, or economic growth. The debt ceiling is simply an acknowledgement of the bills we have to pay. That's it: to raise the debt ceiling is to acknowledge the nation's bills so that they may be paid. To constantly conflate the debt ceiling with economic growth or the need to decrease taxes on the rich or the need to cut social spending programs is to commit several non sequitur fallacies. One thing has almost nothing to do with the other, but may appear that way. It is like saying: "if we hold firm on the debt ceiling, the economy will bounce back." Anyone with a healthy understanding of composition II, economics, or simply running a household budget knows this is a lie. For example, we have a light bill, but we do not acknowledge the light bill. Yes, we will have more money in our pockets, but we won't have any electricity...which in the end, will cost us more money. We'd lose our food because the freezer will not run without electricity, for instance.
To the average viewer, this is a pretty boring conversation to have. It rests upon logical fallacies and economic talk. Neither of these things are ratings gold for liberal or conservative media. It is just more fun to focus on a beautiful, silly half-governor from Alaska and a senator's penis.
But my question is this: what will our love of people's personal lives -these national distractions -cost us in the future?
The coverage of the false arguments about the debt ceiling has been rather scant. Instead of focusing on Weiner's package, our outlets should have been focusing on the false connections made between employment and the debt ceiling. I am appalled at the way Republicans and conservatives misuse the press by repeatedly making rhetorical/argumentative errors that we learn to avoid in any debate or composition II class. And since these people have all had some sort of higher learning, I want to say that they do this by design. And since journalists have also gone to college, I want to say that they are not calling the culprits on their error by design. Why kill this argument and kill the ratings? Better yet, why have this argument and kill the ratings when Palin's stupidity and Weiner's penis are much more interesting to viewers?
Here is the false argument that the Right and Republicans repeatedly make: the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing to do with employment, or economic growth. The debt ceiling is simply an acknowledgement of the bills we have to pay. That's it: to raise the debt ceiling is to acknowledge the nation's bills so that they may be paid. To constantly conflate the debt ceiling with economic growth or the need to decrease taxes on the rich or the need to cut social spending programs is to commit several non sequitur fallacies. One thing has almost nothing to do with the other, but may appear that way. It is like saying: "if we hold firm on the debt ceiling, the economy will bounce back." Anyone with a healthy understanding of composition II, economics, or simply running a household budget knows this is a lie. For example, we have a light bill, but we do not acknowledge the light bill. Yes, we will have more money in our pockets, but we won't have any electricity...which in the end, will cost us more money. We'd lose our food because the freezer will not run without electricity, for instance.
To the average viewer, this is a pretty boring conversation to have. It rests upon logical fallacies and economic talk. Neither of these things are ratings gold for liberal or conservative media. It is just more fun to focus on a beautiful, silly half-governor from Alaska and a senator's penis.
But my question is this: what will our love of people's personal lives -these national distractions -cost us in the future?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
"Islamic Terrorists" Should be Dropped from the Lexicon
We've heard two presidents, one Republican and the other Democratic, say that "we are not at war against Islam." I concur.
However, there's a phrase circulating around the media, sometimes from the mouths of our politicians and other government officials, to describe Osama bin Laden and his followers: "Islamic extremists" or "Islamic terrorists." I have serious concerns over those phrases.
First, our presidents can't keep saying that we're not at war against Islam, and then have the media and other officials use the adjective "Islamic" to describe the enemy. That adjective phrase makes null and void efforts to preach religious tolerance to the masses.
Second, our two spheres of philosophy, the Orient (East) and the Occident (West) have what's called Ur texts. These texts are the foundation for much of what is written or spoken in these respective societies. In the East, that text is the Holy Koran. In the West, it is the King James Bible. All laws, good stories, and yes, good movies are taken from some part of these texts. But just as law makers and myth makers use these texts to provide order to society as well as entertainment and moral instruction, so do people who are in simple quests for power and dominance.
Ever since Reconstruction, certain Americans have been terrorized by other Americans. The rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan is filled with "Bible talk." They burn the cross to signify Christ, and kill in the name of God. However, I would not call these people, "Christian terrorists," though by the logic of the media concerning Al Qaeda, I could.
Just because Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other Eastern terror factions use the rhetoric of the Koran, it doesn't make them "Islamic terrorists." Just like their American counterparts, many of these leading terrorists find people who are young and idealistic, and maybe living in poverty, and use the words of the religion to turn them to evil. Much of what the Klan and Al Qaeda says cannot even be found in their foundational texts. For instance, the Bible specifically says that there is no male nor female no Greek nor Jew in the body of Christ. Yet, the Klan, by some twisted logic, has used the Bible to justify the torture and killing of innocent African Americans for decades. To make matters even worse, the Klan has whole churches, complete with their own Klan-inspired hymn books, dedicated to preaching hate and intolerance.
The Koran commands that women should be treated with respect and if a woman is due some sort of inheritance, she should have it. It commands that a widow be taken care of by family, even if that family is her husband's. Yet, the Taliban, by some twisted logic, has forbidden women by law to inherit property. In many countries, widowed women and children are left on the street to starve, since the Taliban has also forbidden women to work and attend school. Also, there is nothing in the Koran about blowing yourself to bits for heaven and 70 virgins.
See a pattern here? So call these people what they are: misguided people who have been influenced by power-hungry ego-maniacs. In my book, Osama Bin Laden is the same as Timothy McVeigh. Please don't conflate these two with religious leaders...of any sort. I just want the media to drop "Islamic" when describing these terrorists. Drop "Islamic" because the Klan is not "Christian."
However, there's a phrase circulating around the media, sometimes from the mouths of our politicians and other government officials, to describe Osama bin Laden and his followers: "Islamic extremists" or "Islamic terrorists." I have serious concerns over those phrases.
First, our presidents can't keep saying that we're not at war against Islam, and then have the media and other officials use the adjective "Islamic" to describe the enemy. That adjective phrase makes null and void efforts to preach religious tolerance to the masses.
Second, our two spheres of philosophy, the Orient (East) and the Occident (West) have what's called Ur texts. These texts are the foundation for much of what is written or spoken in these respective societies. In the East, that text is the Holy Koran. In the West, it is the King James Bible. All laws, good stories, and yes, good movies are taken from some part of these texts. But just as law makers and myth makers use these texts to provide order to society as well as entertainment and moral instruction, so do people who are in simple quests for power and dominance.
Ever since Reconstruction, certain Americans have been terrorized by other Americans. The rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan is filled with "Bible talk." They burn the cross to signify Christ, and kill in the name of God. However, I would not call these people, "Christian terrorists," though by the logic of the media concerning Al Qaeda, I could.
Just because Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other Eastern terror factions use the rhetoric of the Koran, it doesn't make them "Islamic terrorists." Just like their American counterparts, many of these leading terrorists find people who are young and idealistic, and maybe living in poverty, and use the words of the religion to turn them to evil. Much of what the Klan and Al Qaeda says cannot even be found in their foundational texts. For instance, the Bible specifically says that there is no male nor female no Greek nor Jew in the body of Christ. Yet, the Klan, by some twisted logic, has used the Bible to justify the torture and killing of innocent African Americans for decades. To make matters even worse, the Klan has whole churches, complete with their own Klan-inspired hymn books, dedicated to preaching hate and intolerance.
The Koran commands that women should be treated with respect and if a woman is due some sort of inheritance, she should have it. It commands that a widow be taken care of by family, even if that family is her husband's. Yet, the Taliban, by some twisted logic, has forbidden women by law to inherit property. In many countries, widowed women and children are left on the street to starve, since the Taliban has also forbidden women to work and attend school. Also, there is nothing in the Koran about blowing yourself to bits for heaven and 70 virgins.
See a pattern here? So call these people what they are: misguided people who have been influenced by power-hungry ego-maniacs. In my book, Osama Bin Laden is the same as Timothy McVeigh. Please don't conflate these two with religious leaders...of any sort. I just want the media to drop "Islamic" when describing these terrorists. Drop "Islamic" because the Klan is not "Christian."
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The False Deification of Ronald Reagan: Whatever Happened to Republicans Like Ike?
As I listen to Republicans yell and scream about smaller government, balanced federal budgets, and lower taxes, I began to wonder when any Republican president ever balanced the budget. I know that Republicans have deified Reagan, holding up his presidency as the Holy Grail of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. But they know, as well as the general public knows, that this is all malarcky. As a kid of the 1980s, I don't recall Reagan's presidency being all that great.
As a matter of fact, I'm the child of a Vietnam veteran and a school cafeteria lady. Reagan's cuts to domestic funding for veterans and his trickle down economic policies were devastating to my family, and thousands of others like my family across America. He grew government, and increased the deficit to astounding proportions, the likes of which the world had never seen. However, through it all, he kept saying he believed in smaller government and lower taxes for all without actually implementing those beliefs.
My curiosity about the discrepancy between Republican rhetoric and the way they actually govern led me to a wild google search for the last Republican president to actually practice what he preached. That man, who is never mentioned by today's crazy, ubher-Right Wing, TEA Party Driven, birther infiltrated Republican Party was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Yes, the last Republican to actually shrink government and balance the budget served when my mother was a toddler, from 1953-1961. As a leader, Eisenhower was a Republican's dream....A five-star general, a southerner, and former supreme NATO commander.
After reading several academic articles in Foreign Policy Magazine, and all of the valid google articles I could find, I wonder why more Republicans do not celebrate the fiscal genius of old Ike. It's probably because as a general and commander of the armed forces, Ike knew that no army can survive without the well-being of its foot soldiers. Yes, Ike did balance budget while avoiding killing job creation and overly-taxing the rich, and without making the poor and disadvantaged carry the entire country. Ike, though hesitant and conservative concerning racial issues at first, realized the danger inherent in oppressing such a large and important segment of the United States population. Like a true general, Ike saw unequal treatment as a national security threat, which is why he intervened in Little Rock. Also, Ike saw the REAL ramifications of being unwilling to compromise simply on ideological premises alone. Somewhere out there, real people suffer due to abstract arguments in Washington. He reached out to his Democratic Congress and worked to balance the budget. He even put defense on the table, and cut back on defense spending by opting for weapons that were slightly less expensive. He expanded many of the New Deal Policies, and invested in infrastructure by implementing an national interstate system program. Did I mention he also balanced the budget?
While Republicans try to justify giving gifts to their rich benefactors, and ask themselves what would Reagan do, I wonder why Ike's legacy, one of the greatest Republican presidents this country has ever seen, lies in the background collecting dust?
As a matter of fact, I'm the child of a Vietnam veteran and a school cafeteria lady. Reagan's cuts to domestic funding for veterans and his trickle down economic policies were devastating to my family, and thousands of others like my family across America. He grew government, and increased the deficit to astounding proportions, the likes of which the world had never seen. However, through it all, he kept saying he believed in smaller government and lower taxes for all without actually implementing those beliefs.
My curiosity about the discrepancy between Republican rhetoric and the way they actually govern led me to a wild google search for the last Republican president to actually practice what he preached. That man, who is never mentioned by today's crazy, ubher-Right Wing, TEA Party Driven, birther infiltrated Republican Party was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Yes, the last Republican to actually shrink government and balance the budget served when my mother was a toddler, from 1953-1961. As a leader, Eisenhower was a Republican's dream....A five-star general, a southerner, and former supreme NATO commander.
After reading several academic articles in Foreign Policy Magazine, and all of the valid google articles I could find, I wonder why more Republicans do not celebrate the fiscal genius of old Ike. It's probably because as a general and commander of the armed forces, Ike knew that no army can survive without the well-being of its foot soldiers. Yes, Ike did balance budget while avoiding killing job creation and overly-taxing the rich, and without making the poor and disadvantaged carry the entire country. Ike, though hesitant and conservative concerning racial issues at first, realized the danger inherent in oppressing such a large and important segment of the United States population. Like a true general, Ike saw unequal treatment as a national security threat, which is why he intervened in Little Rock. Also, Ike saw the REAL ramifications of being unwilling to compromise simply on ideological premises alone. Somewhere out there, real people suffer due to abstract arguments in Washington. He reached out to his Democratic Congress and worked to balance the budget. He even put defense on the table, and cut back on defense spending by opting for weapons that were slightly less expensive. He expanded many of the New Deal Policies, and invested in infrastructure by implementing an national interstate system program. Did I mention he also balanced the budget?
While Republicans try to justify giving gifts to their rich benefactors, and ask themselves what would Reagan do, I wonder why Ike's legacy, one of the greatest Republican presidents this country has ever seen, lies in the background collecting dust?
Friday, April 8, 2011
Immigration and Planned Parenthood Are Social Smoke Screens
As a woman, I am really alarmed at the assault on women's health that has been taking place since January 2011. But, I have to lay aside my emotions, and see things rationally: this Planned Parenthood debate, just like the immigration debate, is a social smoke screen.
Republicans have a pattern: whenever they are in trouble for their obvious hypocrisy, they raise a social issue. Republicans run on platforms -and win elections - based upon fiscal responsibility. Yet, once in office, they do the opposite. When the Right speaks of Ronald Reagan, they can never credit him with balancing the budget. He didn't. As a matter of fact, he ran up the biggest deficit and ran a bigger government than the country had previously known. He just kept saying that government should be smaller. He just kept saying that we needed to balance the budget. He never really did it. Instead, he distracted us with a war on drugs campaign. George W. Bush, who simply re-implemented Reagan-style trickle down economic policies. But in this world, a world with 24-hour news cycles and dozens of political commentary shows on the Right and the Left, he could not get away with it as easily as Reagan. People began to ask questions: how were we going to pay for two wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the company, and a gift to the pharmaceutical companies via the Prescription Drug plan for seniors? If Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, they certainly did not actually govern that way. What did Bush do? Start a roaring debate on immigration.
Remember immigration? Remember the border patrol? Remember the fence the United States wanted between us and Mexico? Yeah. Whatever happened to that? Well, like I said, we live in a 24-hour news cycle society. Some political science professors simply got on some of the television shows and stated the obvious: if we were really serious about immigration reform, we'd simply punish the companies that employ illegal immigrants. Since many Republican lawmakers have financial interests in those businesses, they killed the debate they started. It really died when a camera crew visited Lamar Alexander, a represented from Tennessee and very vocal anti-immigration lawmaker, at a construction site. Yes, he owns a construction company. Who was working there? Illegal immigrants.
But, Planned Parenthood is safe. Those clinics are largely federally funded, and no one has any financial stakes in them. And, since it is illegal to federally fund abortions, this debate and possible defunding of Planned Parenthood, get the base all heated and upbraided without actually affecting abortion anyway. Perfect. And, and...these cuts affect only 12% of the entire budget. We have been focusing so narrowly on this 12% that we haven't asked a pivotal question: what the hell else is contained in the other 88% of the spending?
Republicans have a pattern: whenever they are in trouble for their obvious hypocrisy, they raise a social issue. Republicans run on platforms -and win elections - based upon fiscal responsibility. Yet, once in office, they do the opposite. When the Right speaks of Ronald Reagan, they can never credit him with balancing the budget. He didn't. As a matter of fact, he ran up the biggest deficit and ran a bigger government than the country had previously known. He just kept saying that government should be smaller. He just kept saying that we needed to balance the budget. He never really did it. Instead, he distracted us with a war on drugs campaign. George W. Bush, who simply re-implemented Reagan-style trickle down economic policies. But in this world, a world with 24-hour news cycles and dozens of political commentary shows on the Right and the Left, he could not get away with it as easily as Reagan. People began to ask questions: how were we going to pay for two wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the company, and a gift to the pharmaceutical companies via the Prescription Drug plan for seniors? If Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, they certainly did not actually govern that way. What did Bush do? Start a roaring debate on immigration.
Remember immigration? Remember the border patrol? Remember the fence the United States wanted between us and Mexico? Yeah. Whatever happened to that? Well, like I said, we live in a 24-hour news cycle society. Some political science professors simply got on some of the television shows and stated the obvious: if we were really serious about immigration reform, we'd simply punish the companies that employ illegal immigrants. Since many Republican lawmakers have financial interests in those businesses, they killed the debate they started. It really died when a camera crew visited Lamar Alexander, a represented from Tennessee and very vocal anti-immigration lawmaker, at a construction site. Yes, he owns a construction company. Who was working there? Illegal immigrants.
But, Planned Parenthood is safe. Those clinics are largely federally funded, and no one has any financial stakes in them. And, since it is illegal to federally fund abortions, this debate and possible defunding of Planned Parenthood, get the base all heated and upbraided without actually affecting abortion anyway. Perfect. And, and...these cuts affect only 12% of the entire budget. We have been focusing so narrowly on this 12% that we haven't asked a pivotal question: what the hell else is contained in the other 88% of the spending?
Monday, March 21, 2011
What's With the Politicization of Education
One of the easiest ways to oppress a people is to systematically deny them a quality education. One of the easiest ways to systematically deny people a quality education is to defund education. One of the easiest way to hide the racist/classist/elitist motives behind defunding education is through subterfuge and opacity. Thus, we have the modern-day American educational system.
N'gugi wa Thiong'o once said that after the canons of the night came the chalkboard of the morning, and of the two, clearly the chalkboard has been most effective in colonizing the mind. That may be true of the British colonial educational systems left behind in Anglophone Africa and Caribbean nations. America, however, operates by a different strategy. Simply keep people stupid. Keep people stupid concerning the real history of America. Keep people stupid concerning how policy eventually effects the pocketbook. Keep people stupid by using confusing and emotionally-charged rhetoric that will guarantee the person using it that he/she will get poor white people to vote against their own interests.
So far, this has been the Southern/conservative/Republican strategy. There is a reason why they always rally against the national department of education -as if it matters in the first place. Heaven forbid if the American public receives a real education and political discourse must be elevated past anti-intellectual gabble. How would they ever win office? Would the governor of Wisconsin have won office had he explained that he'd be a union-busting corporate pawn? Probably not. So he used flowery languaged and slipped one past the people of Wisconsin, and now they are sorry.
As a person who is pursuing a degree in the humanities, I am also the victim of Americans' beliefs that the only professions are in law and medicine. When was the last time you saw a riveting television drama about a history professor? An English degree? It's just a big waste of time, and I feel that from most of my friends who are outside of the humanities. I have a friend who is an education major that I love dearly, but every time I talk to him concerning what it is that I do, I get a hint of condescension from him. They feel that our degrees do nothing practical. I say that they have everything to do with practicality. It's the reason why humanities professors, and not business, law, or education professors, are perpetually listed by Conservative think tanks as the most dangerous intellectuals in America: we PURPOSELY expose the politicization of America's educational system. When we see the state of Texas literally try to rewrite American history, stripping it of the ugly truths it contains, we are not afraid to say that the educational system here (sadly) serves the same purpose as those of the imperialist European nations: to keep certain races and classes at the bottom, and to maintain an elite hegemony.
N'gugi wa Thiong'o once said that after the canons of the night came the chalkboard of the morning, and of the two, clearly the chalkboard has been most effective in colonizing the mind. That may be true of the British colonial educational systems left behind in Anglophone Africa and Caribbean nations. America, however, operates by a different strategy. Simply keep people stupid. Keep people stupid concerning the real history of America. Keep people stupid concerning how policy eventually effects the pocketbook. Keep people stupid by using confusing and emotionally-charged rhetoric that will guarantee the person using it that he/she will get poor white people to vote against their own interests.
So far, this has been the Southern/conservative/Republican strategy. There is a reason why they always rally against the national department of education -as if it matters in the first place. Heaven forbid if the American public receives a real education and political discourse must be elevated past anti-intellectual gabble. How would they ever win office? Would the governor of Wisconsin have won office had he explained that he'd be a union-busting corporate pawn? Probably not. So he used flowery languaged and slipped one past the people of Wisconsin, and now they are sorry.
As a person who is pursuing a degree in the humanities, I am also the victim of Americans' beliefs that the only professions are in law and medicine. When was the last time you saw a riveting television drama about a history professor? An English degree? It's just a big waste of time, and I feel that from most of my friends who are outside of the humanities. I have a friend who is an education major that I love dearly, but every time I talk to him concerning what it is that I do, I get a hint of condescension from him. They feel that our degrees do nothing practical. I say that they have everything to do with practicality. It's the reason why humanities professors, and not business, law, or education professors, are perpetually listed by Conservative think tanks as the most dangerous intellectuals in America: we PURPOSELY expose the politicization of America's educational system. When we see the state of Texas literally try to rewrite American history, stripping it of the ugly truths it contains, we are not afraid to say that the educational system here (sadly) serves the same purpose as those of the imperialist European nations: to keep certain races and classes at the bottom, and to maintain an elite hegemony.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Words DO Mean Something
Words mean everything to me. They have to, I'm attempting a Ph.D. in English. And even though some may call me melodramatic, the recent shooting of a United States Congresswoman should prove that there's something behind my bombast.
I'm not trying to be too cold here, but Saturday's shooting was no surprise to me. With today's gun rhetoric and political labeling, I'm only surprised that it didn't happen sooner. I'm not playing the blame game here. As a student of history, violence can come from the Left and the Right. Indeed, there was a time in this counry when most of the violence came from the Left via war protests and bombings.
However, with 95% of talk radio time being consumed by the Right, it is safe to say that most of the gun talk and revolutionary rhetoric comes from the Right. Just listen to the hate-filled speech of Rush Limbaugh and the gun play of Palin. To some, what they say is just red meat for the base. To them, I personally believe that their talk is just a way to make $12 million in one quarter. To some psychopathic fringe elements, their words are God-sent gifts. Their words give them a way to dehumanize people who don't agree with them. Crosshairs on a map become real political targets. People become enemies. Enemies that must be snuffed out by any violent means necessary.
Ironically, Right-Wing Conservatives play down the importance of words. Some even advocate the eradication of English departments across America; afterall, we don't DO anything productive for our societies. We only deal with the words of dead men and the bitter ones of living minorities. Thereby, we poison the minds of the youth of America, with words.
What then, after this horrible tragedy has occurred, do we call the hate-filled, fear-inducing rhetoric of someone like Glenn Beck? Even more dangerous, gun lobbyists, with words, successfully lobbied Congress to let the assault weapons bans to expire. What words, following this horrific act, will convince our conservative public servants to place a stricter ban on assault weapons that could more than likely harm or kill them?
I'm not trying to be too cold here, but Saturday's shooting was no surprise to me. With today's gun rhetoric and political labeling, I'm only surprised that it didn't happen sooner. I'm not playing the blame game here. As a student of history, violence can come from the Left and the Right. Indeed, there was a time in this counry when most of the violence came from the Left via war protests and bombings.
However, with 95% of talk radio time being consumed by the Right, it is safe to say that most of the gun talk and revolutionary rhetoric comes from the Right. Just listen to the hate-filled speech of Rush Limbaugh and the gun play of Palin. To some, what they say is just red meat for the base. To them, I personally believe that their talk is just a way to make $12 million in one quarter. To some psychopathic fringe elements, their words are God-sent gifts. Their words give them a way to dehumanize people who don't agree with them. Crosshairs on a map become real political targets. People become enemies. Enemies that must be snuffed out by any violent means necessary.
Ironically, Right-Wing Conservatives play down the importance of words. Some even advocate the eradication of English departments across America; afterall, we don't DO anything productive for our societies. We only deal with the words of dead men and the bitter ones of living minorities. Thereby, we poison the minds of the youth of America, with words.
What then, after this horrible tragedy has occurred, do we call the hate-filled, fear-inducing rhetoric of someone like Glenn Beck? Even more dangerous, gun lobbyists, with words, successfully lobbied Congress to let the assault weapons bans to expire. What words, following this horrific act, will convince our conservative public servants to place a stricter ban on assault weapons that could more than likely harm or kill them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)