This weekend in Phoenix, Arizona there was an anti-immigration protest held, organized by "American Citizens United". I checked their web site, and behind the patriotic lip service is a clear message: we hate Mexicans. One wonders, as the organization is based in Arizona, if you hate Mexicans so much, why are you living in a state that borders Mexico? I mean, it's just unrealistic of you to not expect to see Mexicans, here legally or not, all around you. By my count, there are 34 states that do not border other countries. You can't move to one of them?
That aside, some neo-Nazis showed up at this rally, and a scuffle ensued. Tea-bagging Mexican haters apparently don't wish to include the Nazis in their protests. I mean, hating Mexicans is one thing, but when someone shows up at your rally waving a picture of Hitler, it takes away from their credibility.
It occurred to me watching that, that there's no shortage of anger today in America. Most of it is from white folks, red state patriots who are convinced that our country is circling the drain, and that their opinions aren't being taken into consideration, and they want their country back. Okay, but back from whom? Who "stole" your country? Back when Bush was (failing at) running things, liberals like myself had the same mantra: "what happened to MY America?" In the case of the anti-Bush crowd, we felt our economic and foreign policies had been usurped by small minority, bent on world domination, both militarily and economically, at the expense of the poor and the overall majority. Despite massive disapproval of the war in Iraq, they would not consider changing course. Why should they? They were getting rich off the back and blood of brown people and their oil, much like the settlers in the Old West and plantations owners of the South. And even though we thought we'd evolved beyond such imperialistic domination fixations, our leaders were intent on reverting from being a Republic to an Empire. Thus, Rome fell.
Ever since the 2008 elections, the losers (Republicans and the Right Wing in general) have been scrambling to define themselves. The unspoken understanding was that Republicans were the party of the white Christians in America, the gun owners, the religious, and usually the more affluent. Democrats were the ones who always suggested increasing the federal minimum wage, and Republicans were the ones fighting for the poor business owners who would be forced out of business when they could no longer exploit their workforces for such slave wages. Democrats (synonymous with liberals and progressives for the sake of this piece) are typically the ones to champion the rights of minorities - blacks, women, gays, you name it. Democrats introduce hate crime legislation, Republicans argue that it's unnecessary. (No shit, fellas, no one is lynching white christian straight men, of course you think it's unnecessary.) Democrats argue for gay marriage, Republicans argue that civil unions are the same thing. Of course they're not, but the message is clear - don't rock the boat.
White Christian men have run America from the beginning. All the signers of the Declaration of Independence were white men, most were Christian. Same for the Constitution. And with the exception of Barack Obama, all U.S. Presidents have been white men. Only one was never married. We were a nation for 140 years before we had a woman in Congress. We were a nation for nearly a century before non-whites were allowed to vote, and over a century before women were allowed. So there is a strong tradition in this country of white male leadership, and legislation that primarily benefited white straight Christian men.
It stands to reason that when women and minorities got the right to vote, and started showing up in Congress and the Supreme court, that our rules and laws would undergo a change as well. No longer do our laws only allow for the rights of white straight men to win. Now women have rights, minorities have rights, and the white straight Christian men have to get used to a nation in flux; a nation that isn't all about them anymore.
With the election of a black president, we've put the final piece in place. America is no longer White Man Land, officially. Now, granted, Obama is mixed race - his mother was white, but such distinctions are lost on those afraid of change. He's not white if he's not 100% white.
Which brings me to hate. Let me say first that hate is simply the fear of the unknown. We fear what we don't understand, and we instinctively feel separate from things and people that are different. We are encouraged to fear, which leads to distrust, which evolves into hate. And that hate gets perpetuated through the generations. When I see men calling Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton a bitch, I know what they're really saying is that they resent having a woman in a position of authority over them, or indeed any man. When I hear people saying "I want my country back", I know it's not that they want it back to Republican or conservative rule, they just want a white man in charge. Case in point: when Bill Clinton was president, no one was going around talking about wanting their country back. That's because he was white, he was a man, he was straight, and he was a Christian. The right wing disagreed with his politics, but they didn't claim to have had their country stolen out from under them.
With Obama in the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Nancy Pelosi in charge in the House, it's apparent to all straight white men that their reign of power has come to an end. And this has a lot of the Old Guard uneasy: does this mean the end of an era, referred to in hindsight as the Caucasian Men's Period of American Power? Or is this simply a reaction to the anti-Bush sentiment borne of eight years of failed leadership? When will we have another black president? When can we expect a female president? How about a First Couple of mixed race? For that matter, when can we expect a gay or lesbian president? The first overtly non-Christian president? Surely the election of Barack Obama has many of us on the left and right wondering if the mold has truly been shattered, or what's next.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Monday, November 16, 2009
Thursday, August 21, 2008
English is the New White
The "english as our official language" crowd has been rattling their sabres lately. Let me boil this down:
The idea here seems to be that if you speak english, you are "better" than those who don't. You should not be made to wait in line behind someone who only speaks spanish. The inference here is that english is the "better" language, or that people who speak english are "better" people, more deserving for prompt service. Pressing "1" for english is offensive, they tell us. Imagine if they had to press "1" for spanish and "2" for english? Oh, the outrage! Who do those spanish-speakers think they are, acting so uppity?
They will use, as a rationale, the fact that more people in this country speak english. And since we are a democracy, and majority rules, those people who speak spanish are therefore "second-class", and should have no special treatment. Don't speak english? Too bad. Either they learn english like us "first class" people, or they shouldn't be allowed to vote, drive, get jobs, eat in restaurants, open bank accounts, rent property, own a home, send their kids to school, get medical care, etc.
The idea is offensive, they will say, to see any kind of print in spanish. Instructions on a voting ballot, for instance. Never mind that there's instructions in english. Never mind that the english instructions come first, and the spanish ones second. Never mind that no one has suggested removing the english language instructions, only that they make room for instructions in spanish as well. It's still offensive, we're told.
They seem to see spanish-speaking people as some kind of a threat, like they're a cult that's going to brainwash our kids when we're not looking. We get fed statistics of crime, shutting down emergency rooms, rape and murder, and we good white people are supposed to circle the wagons and protect ourselves from the invasion of these unwashed savages. We're told that spanish-speaking people are up to no good, and should not be trusted.
And of course, they raise the spectre of illegal immigration. They tell us that pandering to the spanish-speaking people (in other words, treating them like human beings) is going to encourage illegal immigration. Never mind that most if not all of these folks shop at Wal-Mart, one of the biggest offenders, hiring more illegal aliens than anyone else. They don't mind the spanish-speakers mowing our lawns and washing our cars like the good little peasants they are, but the minute they try to speak to us in spanish, look out. Now they've gone too far. Spanish speaking people want a living wage? Why, who do they think they are?
They tell us that we need to declare english as our national language, and thereby justify further mistreatment of those non-english speaking riffraff. They want other laws changed as well, to protect their "way of life", even though their way of life is not under attack by anybody. (Unless, by "way of life" you mean systematic and legal discrimination.) They want us to help them maintain their time-honored status of superiority by virtue of language. They want us to think of spanish speaking people as inferior. They create a crisis wher none exists, to scare us into passing laws to maintain their status quo.
But they're not racists - heavens no! This isn't a race issue, they assure us. It's a heritage issue. Just like slavery was a heritage issue. Just like "colored-only" swimming pools, lunch counters and water fountains were about "preserving our heritage". Of course they're not racists. Just because they automatically assume anyone who speaks spanish is an illegal alien doesn't make them racists, does it?
Surely not.
The idea here seems to be that if you speak english, you are "better" than those who don't. You should not be made to wait in line behind someone who only speaks spanish. The inference here is that english is the "better" language, or that people who speak english are "better" people, more deserving for prompt service. Pressing "1" for english is offensive, they tell us. Imagine if they had to press "1" for spanish and "2" for english? Oh, the outrage! Who do those spanish-speakers think they are, acting so uppity?
They will use, as a rationale, the fact that more people in this country speak english. And since we are a democracy, and majority rules, those people who speak spanish are therefore "second-class", and should have no special treatment. Don't speak english? Too bad. Either they learn english like us "first class" people, or they shouldn't be allowed to vote, drive, get jobs, eat in restaurants, open bank accounts, rent property, own a home, send their kids to school, get medical care, etc.
The idea is offensive, they will say, to see any kind of print in spanish. Instructions on a voting ballot, for instance. Never mind that there's instructions in english. Never mind that the english instructions come first, and the spanish ones second. Never mind that no one has suggested removing the english language instructions, only that they make room for instructions in spanish as well. It's still offensive, we're told.
They seem to see spanish-speaking people as some kind of a threat, like they're a cult that's going to brainwash our kids when we're not looking. We get fed statistics of crime, shutting down emergency rooms, rape and murder, and we good white people are supposed to circle the wagons and protect ourselves from the invasion of these unwashed savages. We're told that spanish-speaking people are up to no good, and should not be trusted.
And of course, they raise the spectre of illegal immigration. They tell us that pandering to the spanish-speaking people (in other words, treating them like human beings) is going to encourage illegal immigration. Never mind that most if not all of these folks shop at Wal-Mart, one of the biggest offenders, hiring more illegal aliens than anyone else. They don't mind the spanish-speakers mowing our lawns and washing our cars like the good little peasants they are, but the minute they try to speak to us in spanish, look out. Now they've gone too far. Spanish speaking people want a living wage? Why, who do they think they are?
They tell us that we need to declare english as our national language, and thereby justify further mistreatment of those non-english speaking riffraff. They want other laws changed as well, to protect their "way of life", even though their way of life is not under attack by anybody. (Unless, by "way of life" you mean systematic and legal discrimination.) They want us to help them maintain their time-honored status of superiority by virtue of language. They want us to think of spanish speaking people as inferior. They create a crisis wher none exists, to scare us into passing laws to maintain their status quo.
But they're not racists - heavens no! This isn't a race issue, they assure us. It's a heritage issue. Just like slavery was a heritage issue. Just like "colored-only" swimming pools, lunch counters and water fountains were about "preserving our heritage". Of course they're not racists. Just because they automatically assume anyone who speaks spanish is an illegal alien doesn't make them racists, does it?
Surely not.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright vs. Geraldine Ferraro
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another..." so begins the Declaration of Independence. Our first step towards greatness as a nation was to recognize that some relationships had become more of a hindrance than a help, and it was time to distance ourselves from those who would hold us back.
Such a time is now for the Democratic nominees for the Presidency. As bets are placed and candidates maneuver for votes, we can expect the inevitable parade of supporters. It is a symbiotic relationship, with the supporters getting to share the spotlight and the candidates getting to bask in the adulation of Important People.
The problem becomes when the media confuse the candidate with their supporters. The first blip on the radar came when Louis Farrakhan endorsed the candidacy of Barack Obama. You could almost hear the collective cringe from Obama's white and Jewish supporters, as the situation was defused with the delicacy of a time bomb. The candidate morphs and becomes one with the supporters in the eyes of the media, and we can almost imagine Farrakhan's hateful diatribes coming from Obama himself. Obama deftly sidestepped the issue, saying that while he was happy as a candidate to get an endorsement, he wanted everyone to know that he rejected the message of Farrakhan.
Then from the mist of time immemorial, Geraldine Ferraro emerges. Unless you were paying attention in the early 1980's, Geraldine Ferraro qualifies as little more than a Final Jeopardy answer. The question? Who was the first woman to run for Vice President of the United States for one of the two major political parties? Even today, the candidacy of Ferraro raised speculation: was it a stunt? A dare? Were Democrats, sure that they were unable to thwart Reagan's re-election in 1984, trying to simply make a statement that they were the party of Women's Liberation? After her and Walter Mondale's defeat, she had her brief foray on the lecture circuit, and from there retreated into the mist.
Then with Hillary running, and winning Texas and Ohio, it seemed entirely plausible that we would see a woman taking the Oath of Office next January. The time was right for Ferraro to emerge from obscurity and cast her lot for Hillary. The only problem is, Ferraro has a big mouth, and a bit of a chip on her shoulder. Politicking is a delicate dance, and all it takes is one botched do-si-do to get voted off the stage. So, Ferraro shoots her mouth off in ways that came off as pretty racist against Obama, saying he wouldn't be a candidate if not for the fact that he's black. Wow, not even "African-American"? So much for that famous liberal sensitivity. Hillary, who remained loudly silent in the aftermath, probably did her campaign more harm than good as a result. The fact that she insisted that Obama both "denounce and reject" Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments was spot on. It is important that the leader of the United States to show no bias towards or against any group. Obama did the right thing in distancing himself from Farrakhan's hate speech, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Hillary wasn't as prompt to do the same.
Finally, we have Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Born in Philadelphia, Rev. Wright spent 36 years as pastor to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the same church Obama attended. So what did the good Reverend say that is so horrible as to incur the wrath of mainstream media and cast aspersions on the candidacy of the Democratic Senator from Illinois? Simply this: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." He also said that Americans are "selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant,". America is also said to have, "put Nelson Mandela in prison", to "believe in white supremacy", and to have, "supported Zionism shamelessly."
Ouch.
Whether Obama believes this or not is not the issue at this point. The good things the Reverend has done for his community will not be considered here. It's a shame too, because on the merits of the aforementioned quotes, it's hard not to lump Reverend Wright in with Minister Farrakhan. But regardless of how this boils down one lesson is already emerging: be careful who you count as your friends, especially in politics when everyone wants to be your friend. Whatever asinine stunt they pull becomes your stunt. Whatever invective spewed in a moment of anger becomes your new campaign slogan.
Hillary and Barack have done themselves and one another a good deal of harm in this "I hate your supporters" tiff. I do believe that they would both love to get back to the issues of the election and let this other stuff slide. I mean really, just because Geraldine Ferraro is a closet racist doesn't mean Hillary Clinton has to be one too. Just because Louis Farrakhan is gong to vote for Barack Obama doesn't mean that Obama hates Jews too. But even the fact that we have to pause to remind ourselves of that is a bad thing.
Such a time is now for the Democratic nominees for the Presidency. As bets are placed and candidates maneuver for votes, we can expect the inevitable parade of supporters. It is a symbiotic relationship, with the supporters getting to share the spotlight and the candidates getting to bask in the adulation of Important People.
The problem becomes when the media confuse the candidate with their supporters. The first blip on the radar came when Louis Farrakhan endorsed the candidacy of Barack Obama. You could almost hear the collective cringe from Obama's white and Jewish supporters, as the situation was defused with the delicacy of a time bomb. The candidate morphs and becomes one with the supporters in the eyes of the media, and we can almost imagine Farrakhan's hateful diatribes coming from Obama himself. Obama deftly sidestepped the issue, saying that while he was happy as a candidate to get an endorsement, he wanted everyone to know that he rejected the message of Farrakhan.
Then from the mist of time immemorial, Geraldine Ferraro emerges. Unless you were paying attention in the early 1980's, Geraldine Ferraro qualifies as little more than a Final Jeopardy answer. The question? Who was the first woman to run for Vice President of the United States for one of the two major political parties? Even today, the candidacy of Ferraro raised speculation: was it a stunt? A dare? Were Democrats, sure that they were unable to thwart Reagan's re-election in 1984, trying to simply make a statement that they were the party of Women's Liberation? After her and Walter Mondale's defeat, she had her brief foray on the lecture circuit, and from there retreated into the mist.
Then with Hillary running, and winning Texas and Ohio, it seemed entirely plausible that we would see a woman taking the Oath of Office next January. The time was right for Ferraro to emerge from obscurity and cast her lot for Hillary. The only problem is, Ferraro has a big mouth, and a bit of a chip on her shoulder. Politicking is a delicate dance, and all it takes is one botched do-si-do to get voted off the stage. So, Ferraro shoots her mouth off in ways that came off as pretty racist against Obama, saying he wouldn't be a candidate if not for the fact that he's black. Wow, not even "African-American"? So much for that famous liberal sensitivity. Hillary, who remained loudly silent in the aftermath, probably did her campaign more harm than good as a result. The fact that she insisted that Obama both "denounce and reject" Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments was spot on. It is important that the leader of the United States to show no bias towards or against any group. Obama did the right thing in distancing himself from Farrakhan's hate speech, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Hillary wasn't as prompt to do the same.
Finally, we have Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Born in Philadelphia, Rev. Wright spent 36 years as pastor to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This is the same church Obama attended. So what did the good Reverend say that is so horrible as to incur the wrath of mainstream media and cast aspersions on the candidacy of the Democratic Senator from Illinois? Simply this: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." He also said that Americans are "selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant,". America is also said to have, "put Nelson Mandela in prison", to "believe in white supremacy", and to have, "supported Zionism shamelessly."
Ouch.
Whether Obama believes this or not is not the issue at this point. The good things the Reverend has done for his community will not be considered here. It's a shame too, because on the merits of the aforementioned quotes, it's hard not to lump Reverend Wright in with Minister Farrakhan. But regardless of how this boils down one lesson is already emerging: be careful who you count as your friends, especially in politics when everyone wants to be your friend. Whatever asinine stunt they pull becomes your stunt. Whatever invective spewed in a moment of anger becomes your new campaign slogan.
Hillary and Barack have done themselves and one another a good deal of harm in this "I hate your supporters" tiff. I do believe that they would both love to get back to the issues of the election and let this other stuff slide. I mean really, just because Geraldine Ferraro is a closet racist doesn't mean Hillary Clinton has to be one too. Just because Louis Farrakhan is gong to vote for Barack Obama doesn't mean that Obama hates Jews too. But even the fact that we have to pause to remind ourselves of that is a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
