Travel Advisory!

People of “a certain age” (myself included) remember when it was common knowledge that persons whose skin was darker than a very mild tan should take care in traveling in territories of the USA south of Nebraska or Maryland and in areas less populated than major cities. I personally recall traveling by car with my grandfather to Louisiana, to visit relatives, and having to sleep in the car because even third rate hotels and motels would not rent a room to two respectable and reasonably well dressed persons [one a child and the other a middle aged gentleman] driving a Cadillac. In the early 1960’s, this was considered “normal” social behavior for white folks and something to be accepted by people of color “or else.”

One would think that the sacrifice and struggles of the Civil Rights Movement, the deaths of Rev. King, Bobby Kennedy, three little Black girls in Alabama and many others might have awakened a sense of morality and elevated social decency in the US populace at large. Some people rejoiced in the election of Barack Obama, a person of color, as US President. They apparently believed that the election was a watershed moment in which the US had put behind the virulent racism that motivated social and political policies of the past. Much to their dismay, these optimists may be terribly wrong.

The State of Arizona has enacted an authoritarian, at best, [perhaps Nazi is more apt] system that enables and encourages police to stop and question any person who does not look “American” [substitute “Aryan”] to require that they prove their US citizenship. Anyone who actually believes that the Arizona police will be detaining white folks under the law is hopelessly naïve or simply self deluded. The so-called “probable cause” the Arizona cops will be looking for will be skin color and physical features that suggest Hispanic ethnicity. Virtually every published statement by Arizona authorities makes reference to “illegal aliens” and equates the term with Mexican or Hispanic origin. Now there are many US citizens who happen to be of Hispanic ancestry, just as there are of Asian, Eastern European and Southern European and just about every other background. So how do you profile a non-citizen on sight? An equally mystical question is how the State of Alabama plans to “train” its law enforcement officials to spot illegal immigrants, as opposed to simply targeting brown skinned folks who do not appear to be upper middle class.

One commentator provided cogent documentation and historical analysis that suggests that racism is only the tip of the cynical iceberg in official Arizona politics. The current Arizona governor, when Secretary of State, improperly kicked many thousands from the voter rolls; and a very substantial portion of those removed were persons with Hispanic surnames. Then when these people sought to re-register to vote, many experienced rejection of their application, despite ability to establish citizenship. This history suggests that the broader agenda is to intimidate and keep Hispanic citizens from voting. After all, who wants to be harassed by police, even when trying to exercise legitimate rights of citizenship? Now it is probably true that the right wing Gestapo-like tactics and the hate mongering by right wing fringers [egged on by GOP leaders and spokespersons] have not endeared the GOP to many Hispanic potential voters. So preventing them from voting probably favors GOP candidates. But at some point there needs to be a choice whether the US Constitution still means anything of substance, or whether it is simply cute wallpaper suitable for framing, but little else.

If the State of Arizona were honest and sincere about a legal measure to identify and prosecute illegal immigrants, it could have used existing laws to systematically inspect and monitor every business establishment that has employees. The existing law requires employers to check I-9 documentation respecting persons that are employed. In that circumstance, EVERY person of any race, religion or walk of life would be monitored to confirm legal status and authorization to work in the US. The penalty would properly fall upon companies that encourage and support illegal immigration.

But the business community that survives and thrives from the employment of non-documented immigrants has not and would not stand for such enforcement measures. It is easier and more profitable to support the racist blowhards and hate mongers while quietly employing illegal immigrants at substandard wages and disingenuously proclaiming “patriotism.” Green, after all, is the only color that they respect.

For now, however, anyone [non-Aryan] considering traveling to or even passing through Arizona should be forewarned. The summer brings tourist season and travel. There are 49 other US states in which a citizen is not required to produce a birth certificate or a passport to prove citizenship simply to walk on the sidewalk or drive a car. A prudent traveler would do very well to plan accordingly and avoid Arizona at all costs. The government of Mexico has already issued an advisory to its citizens that travel to Arizona should be avoided, and all other Latin American nations would do well to follow that prudent example. Indeed the US Department of State should issue a similar advisory to its own citizens inside the USA, as it does to citizens in other countries, to avoid trouble areas in which USA citizens may be subject to inconvenience and potential law enforcement harassment.

Link Posting- Tea Party / Black Tea?

My son graciously sent me the following posting that I think is important to share with you. I did not write it, Tim Wise wrote the piece. But it deserves to be forwarded, read, discussed an thought about as widely as possible.

It has been said that a greater threat to democracy than those who do evil, are those of good will who see and recognize evil and yet say nothing and do nothing. Wherever you are, speak out!


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

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

So let’s begin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game Over.
http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

The Skinny on Plus Size Advertising

It would seem to the objective observer that Media Network Management, ABC [Disney] and FOX in particular, have gotten so deep in denial that they simply cannot recognize truth, reality or reason. The latest flap comes over the refusal of the networks to air commercials for lingerie sold by Lane Bryant, the seller of “plus sized” clothing for women. The lingerie ads come at a time when the airwaves are inundated with sexually implicit and physically explicit ads hawking perfumes and intimate wear in advance of Mother’s Day consumerism. Lane Bryant accuses the networks of rejecting, demanding edits and delaying broadcast of ads because the Executives do not consider plus sized women to be appropriate images of “beauty” or “sexiness” that should be shown to the public. Network Executives deny the allegation and claim that they applied the same standards as to all other advertising.

Hold the phone! Do these network mavens not realize that anyone with an IQ above 50 can simply take a look at the Lane Bryant ads and the other fare currently being freely aired (for example the ads for J’Adore or Irresistible perfumes & Victoria Secret)? Even a moment’s viewing will expose the patent discrepancy and hypocrisy in the network’s claim. If the models are wafer thin, they are considered sexy and beautiful. But if the model is normal sized [let’s be honest, most women are not sized 0-4 like the Victoria Secret and perfume ad models], the exposure of the same sexy format is deemed too salacious or indecent to televise.

A couple of years ago, the fashion industry running the show in Barcelona attempted to back away from the destructive ideology of “women’s fashion” by requiring that exhibitors could not use models unless they had a body mass index that was not emaciated or anorexic. While this effort failed to gain industry acceptance around the globe, it was at least a clear admission of the unspoken strategy to make women feel insecure and inadequate with their normal weight and size. This recent action by the ABC and FOX network executives only completes the admission. Their message is simple: If you are thin, you can be beautiful, but If you wear a size 10 or up, the display of your body is not only unsexy, but indecent.

The ultimate question, however, is whether women of all shapes and sizes will recognize this insult and assault on their collective self esteem. Will women object to the double standard and discriminatory filtering on publicly aired television? Or will they meekly accept the “status quo” and self-deprecatory message that the networks are broadcasting? Will they declare their outrage over the mistreatment, covered up by outright lies and dissembling justifications? Or will they go buy more diet pills, cellulite reducing creams and spend more time in the gym trying to look like the skinny models they see on TV, but whose shape they will never attain? It was not always thus, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Mansfield and Raquel Welch were not size 2 women, and they were some of the most iconic beauties of their time.

Can we really blame the media for this destructive campaign if the women who are targeted by it quietly accept the mistreatment? After all, if the image and message sells products to women, it is doing its intended job. Whether or not it is moral or healthy matters little to profit oriented Executives when even the most deleterious actions actually work. As soon as women collectively decide not to accept this open and public denigration, the networks will have no choice but to change. I will be marching with them in protest, though they won’t need my help. For it is about women defining who they are and not what men want or how Ad Men would define them. And as to female Executives and apologists for the ABC and FOX [note how they cynically put women out front to explain and defend their actions], we can only say: “shame on you!”

The “Blind Side” and the Plebiscite

Both the movie going public and Hollywood seem to have embraced the recent picture starring Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side” but both seem to have failed to look beneath the surface to the more important lessons to be learned from the entertaining experience of the movie. In times of challenge and strife, the US public loves to embrace “feel good” movies that represent some of the better values to which the public might aspire. In the movie, a White suburban wife challenges her family to take in a young Black man, Michael Oher, who literally has no place else to go. The young man is able to reach his potential and the wealthy White family both learns and grows from the experience. Based upon a true events [with liberal Hollywood artistic license taken] the story is about, but ultimately transcends race. The heroine, played by Bullock neither loses sight of her humanity, nor is she willing to be bullied or persuaded by her peer group to ignore that humanity. One might argue that the hero is the young Black man who takes what life has given him and never really gives up a belief that something good will come of life, no matter how unlikely that may seem. And one may also argue that the true hero of the story is the young son of the family who befriends Michael Oher without artifice or guile and never seems to see race as an issue. Michael goes on to become a successful student and athlete who is ultimately drafted by the NFL and plays pro football.

But beneath the surface of the movie lie more significant messages and questions. If Michael had not been a rare physical specimen with athletic potential, would any of the Whites reached out to him to help a child survive and succeed in that society? Why was the Sandra Bullock character set in a wealthy suburb with a multimillion dollar home? Would any White private “Christian” school today really take a chance on a homeless and destitute Black child like Michael unless he had the likely potential to excel in sports? And most important, what does the movie say about the hundreds of thousands of young Black, Hispanic, Asian and White children in similar circumstances to those faced by Michael? Is the movie a representation of real hope in US society, or simply a cruel Hollywood hoax?

The reality in US society today seems quite different from the ethic depicted in the movie. Millions of children are homeless in the USA today and without their most basic needs of survival and care being met. Until passage of the recent Health Care Reform legislation, those children did not even have hope of access to basic medical care that they would likely need as a result of their destitution and living conditions. Yet instead of reaching out to those children, adults organized in unruly mobs to shout racial slurs and epithets at the legislators who voted to extend at least some measure of basic support to those children. The media pundits and prognosticators are treating such rabble as a “political movement” likely to challenge sitting Congressmen in the Fall 2010 elections, rather than as a small and insular group of mindless hooligans making fools of themselves. Some pundits tout the group as symbolic of the voice of the “average American.” Sandra Bullock, the star actress who won the Oscar for her portrayal of the wife who took in Michael, has no children of her own and is being challenged for not really being the “perfect wife” in the tabloids because of the infidelity of her husband. The media loves to tear down anything and the public appetite for such destruction seems endless.

Now it must be noted, in fairness, that the corporate control of media requires reservation before adopting its line as a true representation of the public spirit and the public will. The same media pundits seriously doubted that the US public would ever really vote to elect a non White President. The same media has spared no expense in attacking President Obama, perhaps in an effort to show that it was on the right side of the issue and the public should not have elected a Black or non White President. This media would claim that the average American is now gathering in the shadow of the Capitol to yell “Nigger” and “Faggot” at duly elected Congressmen going to vote in favor of legislation that would not only help millions of children like Michael Oher, but also provide benefits to these same protesters if they should happen to fall seriously ill or lose health insurance through their job. That conduct is a far cry from the selfless humanity portrayed by Bullock in the movie, and it does not even approach enlightened self interest – the American value supposed to undergird the democratic process.

The real question and the true plebiscite presented for the Fall elections is whether the media and the pundits are correct in proclaiming that the Tea Party and protesters like those who gathered on the Capitol, and the 14 Attorneys General who have sued to overturn the law actually do represent the current spirit and character of the “American People.” Each voter should ask him or herself, when entering the voting booth, whether their personal values, ethics and character are better represented by the family in “The Blind Side” movie or by the group of mean spirited and hate filled hooligans who gathered outside the Capitol. Would you rather be like the Sandra Bullock character or like Sarah Palin? Given what is at stake in the recovery of the country, economically and morally, this is no simple Hollywood poll.

It may prove true that “Average Americans” have become a mean spirited and hate filled mob that is more interested in being against something than in favor of anything representing the common welfare, for that is the rhetoric and agenda of the Tea Party and the leadership it appears to follow, even to the point of speeches advocating armed violence against elected officials who disagree with them. This is becoming a question that defines a divided Nation in which major social legislation must be passed without a single vote of bipartisan support. It has been said in times of prior division and heated public discourse in the USA that: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Which of these two visions does the American voting public truly hold? The question goes to the very heart of what the United States of American really is at present and whether it ever hopes to return to the values of fairness, opportunity and justice upon which it proclaimed freedom and strove to be a beacon of liberty.