RSS

Tag Archives: white supremacy

A White Supremacist President – Playing With Fire

Ta-Nehisi Coates take on the Chumph….

Disagree with Coates on the CHumph being the first. That dishonor would fall to Woodrow Wilson. I feel there are massive parallels between Wilson and the re-segregation of the Federal Government and the Chumph’s “ethnic cleansing” of the government as well as Wilson’s relationship with the KKK just like the Chumph’s relationship with the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

The First White President

The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

IT IS INSUFFICIENT TO STATE the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

His political career began in advocacy of birtherism, that modern recasting of the old American precept that black people are not fit to be citizens of the country they built. But long before birtherism, Trump had made his worldview clear. He fought to keep blacks out of his buildings, according to the U.S. government; called for the death penalty for the eventually exonerated Central Park Five; and railed against “lazy” black employees. “Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” Trump was once quoted as saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.” After his cabal of conspiracy theorists forced Barack Obama to present his birth certificate, Trump demanded the president’s college grades (offering $5 million in exchange for them), insisting that Obama was not intelligent enough to have gone to an Ivy League school, and that his acclaimed memoir, Dreams From My Father, had been ghostwritten by a white man, Bill Ayers.

It is often said that Trump has no real ideology, which is not true—his ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power. Trump inaugurated his campaign by casting himself as the defender of white maidenhood against Mexican “rapists,” only to be later alleged by multiple accusers, and by his own proud words, to be a sexual violator himself. White supremacy has always had a perverse sexual tint. Trump’s rise was shepherded by Steve Bannon, a man who mocks his white male critics as “cucks.” The word, derived from cuckold, is specifically meant to debase by fear and fantasy—the target is so weak that he would submit to the humiliation of having his white wife lie with black men. That the slur cuck casts white men as victims aligns with the dicta of whiteness, which seek to alchemize one’s profligate sins into virtue. So it was with Virginia slaveholders claiming that Britain sought to make slaves of them. So it was with marauding Klansmen organized against alleged rapes and other outrages. So it was with a candidate who called for a foreign power to hack his opponent’s email and who now, as president, is claiming to be the victim of “the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history.”

In Trump, white supremacists see one of their own. Only grudgingly did Trump denounce the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke, one of its former grand wizards—and after the clashes between white supremacists and counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, Duke in turn praised Trump’s contentious claim that “both sides” were responsible for the violence.

To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. In this, Trump is not singular. But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies. The repercussions are striking: Trump is the first president to have served in no public capacity before ascending to his perch. But more telling, Trump is also the first president to have publicly affirmed that his daughter is a “piece of ass.” The mind seizes trying to imagine a black man extolling the virtues of sexual assault on tape (“When you’re a star, they let you do it”), fending off multiple accusations of such assaults, immersed in multiple lawsuits for allegedly fraudulent business dealings, exhorting his followers to violence, and then strolling into the White House. But that is the point of white supremacy—to ensure that that which all others achieve with maximal effort, white people (particularly white men) achieve with minimal qualification. Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible….Read the rest here...

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

White Supremacy Week at the Whites Only House…

The Chumph tries to drive a wedge between black and brown people with the fake Harvard lawsuit on Affirmative Action and Asians. The case is actually being driven by a white racist whohas formulated this sort of racist tactic in the past to force colleges to segregate.

Image result for racist trump supporters

White supremacy week at the White House: Even by Trump standards, the racism was dialed to 11

Trump’s overt racism isn’t aimed at liberals — it’s about distracting his base away from the Russia scandal

Donald Trump is too dumb to be trusted to butter his own bread, but one thing his limited brain is capable of understanding is that tickling the racist impulses of much of white America makes them cheer for him. This explains the dizzying escalation of white supremacist gibberish emanating from the Trump administration over the past week. Trump is afraid he’s losing his proverbial “white working class” base and believes his best bet to win them back is to remind them that he shares their hatred and distrust of people they view as racially or ethnically Other. Unfortunately, he’s probably right.

A lot happened during the unofficial White Supremacy Week at the White House, so it’s a bit hard to keep up. The festivities kicked off last Friday, July 28, when Trump went to Long Island to give a speech to assembled police officers in which he painted immigrants as criminals and recommended police brutality, to great applause. On Tuesday of last week, the Justice Department announced it would focus resources on fighting discrimination against white people in college admissions, shoring up the racist myth that undeserving people of color are “stealing” opportunities from more deserving whites. On Wednesday, the White House rolled out, with great fanfare, a proposal to cut legal immigration in half, which was clearly meant to prioritize white and/or English-speaking immigrants over others.

It doesn’t take much sleuthing to figure out why all this is happening right now. The Russia investigation is heating up and there’s irrefutable proof that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner attended a meeting with Russian operatives for the express purpose of undermining Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Trump practically apologized to Russia after being forced to sign a bipartisan sanctions bill, which does nothing to dispel fears that Vladimir Putin is pulling Trump’s strings. Prominent firings and subsequent leaks — which are probably linked — have further reinforced the public understanding of just how corrupt and incompetent our president is.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s approval ratings have fallen to record lows, which would be hard on any president but is especially brutal for a malignant narcissist who desperately wants to believe people like him. Even more disturbing for Trump, his own base is starting to harbor doubts. Three-quarters of non-college-educated white voters liked Trump back in March, but now that number has plummeted to 43 percent, and about half such voters openly disapprove of him.

In light of all this, White Supremacy Week was almost certainly an effort from Team Trump to re-ingratiate Orange Mussolini to his base. Promising to kick non-white people in the teeth is about reminding the most hardcore troglodytes why they loved Trump in the first place. The administration is clearly hoping that their base voters will overlook a whole lot of stupidity, corruption and damage as long as the racist hits keep on coming.

Since Trump took office, there has been a tiresome and circular debate over whether his incessant antics are meant to be a distraction. “He’s just trying to distract us from Russia/health care/kleptocracy!” one group will say whenever Trump tweets some crazy nonsense or pushes some bigoted and half-assed policy idea, like the trans ban. “But these antics cause real damage to our country and we need to pay attention to them!” the other side will say.

This debate is doomed from the get-go because it’s based on a false premise, which is that liberals are the primary audience for these antics. The likelier explanation is that Trump is mostly trying to divert his conservative base away from the Russia scandal, among other things.

Understanding this can help resolve this distraction debate. Trump’s antics are both a distraction and a serious cause for concern. Whenever Trump starts to worry that his own base is starting to lose faith, he starts tossing those folks some red meat, often in the form of finding a minority group to pick on.

This also should help resolve the question of whether Trump’s antics are sincere or calculated: The answer is both. Trump is as dumb as a sack full of rocks, but he understands that racism gets his base excited because it gets him excited. If anything, his incuriosity and stupidity are an asset when it comes to connecting with his base. Clever people might overthink this — Trump just goes out and says the vile, empty crap he’d want to hear. It generally works.

Obviously, Trump has other tactics besides racism exploits to occupy his base’s attention so that they don’t have time to think about whether they really want a corrupt president who seems beholden to a Russian dictator. Churning up hatred of ambitious, smart women is always a good bet too, as evidenced by Trump’s Thursday night speech in West Virginia in front of a bunch of whooping jackasses chanting “Lock her up.” He also straight-up asks his followers to ignore the Russia story, as with his announcement that there “were no Russians in our campaign” in that same speech.

This is crude strategy, but it could be effective. Not the part where Trump gets defensive about Russia, of course — that just serves to remind people that he’s worried about the investigation. But for two years now, Trump has been able to get his supporters to forgive him pretty much everything as long as he keeps sticking it to people they hate, from liberals to feminists to people of color.

Some of these dramatics seem substantively empty. Trump rolled the “trans ban” out with a lot of pomp on Twitter, but there seems to have been no effort since then to draft an order the military is obliged to pay attention to. The proposal to reduce legal immigration was presented with even more fanfare — with sneering douchebag Stephen Miller, a fan fave among the deplorables, sent out to announce it — but there’s no evidence that Congress has any interest in picking up a bill that would reverse five decades’ worth of immigration legislation.

None of which is meant to minimize the harm that Trump can cause with all this. Even if Trump fails on every policy initiative he tries, he succeeds in whipping up bigotry and sowing animosity and fear in the public. Hate crimes are rising in number and white supremacists feel emboldened. Members of targeted groups are experiencing higher levels of fear and stress. The mental health damage being done by Trump, in and of itself, is impossible to measure. Some of his bigoted ideas are turning into policy, largely thanks to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is as racist as Trump but not nearly as lazy or stupid.

All of which is why there’s a good reason to worry things will get worse before they get better. The Russia investigation is heating up and special counsel Robert Mueller has reportedly impaneled a grand jury. Whatever the legal importance of that fact, that kind of news makes it that much harder for Trump to pretend the Russia scandal is a media concoction with no substance to it. The need to distract his base is intensifying, so we can expect Trump to double down on the racism and misogyny in an effort to keep the reactionary base on his side.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Historic ‘End White Supremacy’ Sign

We need to find ways big and small to fight back, disrupt, and yes – even destroy the Chump’s government and plans every single day…

Historic ‘End White Supremacy’ Sign Reinstalled In New York City

The message, referencing a 1963 civil rights protest, is shamefully relevant today.

In 1963, a protestor scrawled the words “End White Supremacy” onto a sign and carried it during a civil rights march in New York. Over 50 years have passed and, disgracefully, the message pleading for the most essential of human rights remains just as relevant.

In 2008, digging through archival photographs, artist Sam Durant found an image of the ‘60s sign. Durant creates large-scale lightboxes featuring language culled from various protests and demonstrations throughout history, often focusing on the Civil Rights Movement and Black Panther protests. He gravitates towards words whose relevance is not bound up with any one time or event, whose message resounds regardless.

The artist scanned and cropped the sign’s language to create one such text-based artwork, which was mounted on the exterior of New York’s Paula Cooper Gallery just around the time America elected its first black president until 2009.

On Nov. 29, however, the piece was restored to the Paula Cooper Gallery facade. The sign’s return is a response to the recent election of Donald Trump, who, as a candidate, was widely accused of feeding off the racism, misogyny and xenophobia lingering on the fringes of the American psyche, giving bigotry a platform and ushering it into the mainstream.

Gallery owner Paula Cooper explained the importance of using skills and resources to fight against the normalization of hate and fear in an interview with Hyperallergic.

“We should, as spaces available and open to the public, do whatever we can to resist and overcome whatever abominations are about to confront us,” Cooper said. “How we best do that is the question.”…

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 5, 2016 in Second American Revolution

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Black As We Wanna Be

The author makes the argument that to destroy racism, you first need to destroy the concept of race.

mcknight_douglass_otu_img

Frederick Douglass, February 21, 1895. (National Park Service, Frederick Douglass National Historic Site, Washington, DC)

Black as We Wanna Be

Trying to remedy racism on its own intellectual terrain is like trying to extinguish a fire by striking another match. The fiction must be unbelieved, the fire stamped out.

In her 2003 book Regarding the Pain of Others, Susan Sontag explored some questions about the ever-evolving technology of photography and what it does to us, particularly when it’s used to capture moments that would normally make us avert our eyes. “Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this extreme order,” Sontag wrote, “are those who could do something to alleviate it—say, the surgeons at the military hospital where the photograph was taken—or those who could learn from it. The rest of us are voyeurs, whether or not we mean to be.” Sontag spends much of the book discussing war photography; scant pages mention images and cruelties closer to home.

In the modern American context, there remains perhaps no more insidious cruelty than the belief—constantly manipulated and reinforced—that race is a natural and constant thing, something that should have any bearing on how we choose to organize our society and our lives. And though the convergence of racism and the photographic impulse isn’t new, the recent pictures and videos of killings by police officers have given renewed life to the questions that Sontag explored—and those she didn’t. Indeed, these images raise fewer questions about the act of looking at them than about the ways in which we view ourselves.

To modern eyes, the photographic portraits of Frederick Douglass are not so remarkable. Douglass was almost always photographed seated, wearing a dark suit, alternately staring directly into the camera and looking off to one side. As he abided by the portrait conventions of the era, only his skin color would have made these portraits remarkable in Douglass’s own time. The real joy of Picturing Frederick Douglass (2015)—a collection of 60 portraits, taken between 1841 and 1895; his four speeches on his theory of photography; and a critical essay by Henry Louis Gates Jr.—is to study his constancy. The changes in Douglass’s facial expressions across all of the portraits are mostly imperceptible: He looks serious, defiant, and proud.

The final portrait of Douglass was taken on February 21, 1895. He’d died the day before. That image shows him lying on his bed in Washington, DC. It is mostly a spectral gray-white. His hair and beard, his clothes, the bed linens, and the wall in the background all appear to be about the same color. There’s a faint outline of his profile, and with his hands crossed over his abdomen, he looks as dignified as ever.

The photographers can be forgiven for what time has done to their work—milkiness where there might have been clarity, yellows and browns where whites and blacks might have once revealed more. But looking through the portraits, you could well begin to think that Douglass was more an artist than any of the photographers who pointed the camera at him.

His portraits are, in effect, the emblems of his more than 50 years of performance art. Photography was a tool that Douglass used in his abolitionist efforts to counteract images of inferiority and magnify the presence of a dignified, well-dressed, intelligent Negro. In total, the editors of Picturing Frederick Douglass have identified 160 distinct portraits of the former slave, abolitionist, writer, and orator. There are more photographic portraits of Douglass than there are of Abraham Lincoln, George Custer, Red Cloud, or Walt Whitman. Moreover, Douglass was deliberate about disseminating them. He gave them as gifts; he printed them in newspapers, including his own, The North Star; he used them to promote abolitionist and civil-rights organizations.

In 1849, Douglass found an unauthorized engraving of himself that pictured him with a smile. The image angered him. In The North Star, he wrote that it had “a much more kindly and amiable expression than is generally thought to characterize the face of a fugitive slave.” By then, Douglass had not been a fugitive slave for three years, but something in his psyche remained trapped. Paintings and engravings, he continued, were too dependent on the artist’s predilections to figure into Douglass’s mission:

Negroes can never have impartial portraits at the hands of white artists. It seems to us next to impossible for white men to take likenesses of black men, without most grossly exaggerating their distinctive features. And the reason is obvious. Artists, like all other white persons, have adopted a theory respecting the distinctive features of Negro physiognomy.

Thus, Douglass preferred the burgeoning technology of photography—which faithfully rendered the appearance of its subject—and a few trusted engravers. In “Pictures and Progress,” a speech he gave sometime between November 1864 and March 1865, he more fully articulated his theory of photography and its potential to inspire social change. In reference to photographs in general, he said that “by looking upon this picture and upon that [one],” we are able to compare, “to point out the defects of the one and the perfections of the other.” More specifically, he viewed his own pictures as signs of perfection, in contrast to the defects of the more common images of Negroes during his lifetime.

Objectivity is part of what Douglass liked best about photography, and so Douglass, with his exercise in constancy, manipulated what he set in front of the camera. He performed his vision of perfection, which he sought to use as a basis for antislavery and civil-rights advocacy. But as much as Douglass worked for and achieved progress in the abolitionist movement, he knew the limits of human endeavor. “All subjective ideas become more distinct, palpable and strong by the habit of rendering them objective,” he said in an 1862 speech. “By its exercise it is easy to become bigoted and fanatic, or liberal and enlightened.” Photographs merely represented both the technology and the form that, he believed, gave him the best chance at reaching the latter.

Nowadays, it’s become popular, again, to note that white supremacy is a harmful ideology. By insisting on that fact tirelessly, Black Lives Matter has brought about the slogan for a countervailing ideology and become the vessel for activist energy and potential change. That BLM has focused national attention on police injustice is a commendable achievement. However, for all its dynamism and appeals to moral goodness, the movement shares a foundational belief with Douglass: the ideology of race as a natural fact.

Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality, a 2012 book by the scholars (and sisters) Karen and Barbara Fields, should be more widely read than it is—no matter its current reach. In it, the authors achieve an intelligence and agility that is rare in discussions of identity, racism, and inequality. They start by asserting distinctions between two common words. Race is “the conception or the doctrine that nature produced humankind in distinct groups, each defined by inborn traits”; racism is “an action and a rationale for action, or both at once,” which “always takes for granted the objective reality of race.” To describe the “mental terrain” on which race and racism operate, the Fieldses coined the term racecraft, which defines “what goes with what and whom (sumptuary codes), how different people must deal with each other (rituals of deference and dominance), where human kinship begins and ends (blood), and how Americans look at themselves and each other (the gaze).” The term takes its provenance from “witchcraft,” which, the authors argue, is a useful way to understand the fiction’s dominance over our minds.

In “Pictures and Progress,” Douglass spoke pointedly about the limits to his insistence on objectivity. Pictures, he said, “are of the earth and speak to us in a known tongue. They are neither angels nor demons, but in their possibilities both. We see in them not only men and women, but ourselves.” But the fiction of race, the authors of Racecraft remind us, thrives in that uncertain balance between the angelic and the demonic. They take a different stance: “No operation performed on the fiction can ever make headway against the crime” of racism.

The rhetoric and thinking common to Black Lives Matter and its supporters reaffirm that same fiction. To assert and maintain its antagonistic political goals, the organization must accept the “objective” reality of race. Douglass’s pictures make a similar case: Negroes are the same as white folks. The deeper truth, which perhaps is impossible for a photograph to say—or perhaps impossible for our eyes to see—is that there’s no such thing as a Negro and no such thing as a white person.

Our writers and political activists, however, possess tools that are more attuned to nuance. Recently, in The New York Times Magazine, Nikole Hannah-Jones walked through a series of questions that she asked after the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile by police officers on consecutive days in early July. She began:

How do you explain the visceral and personal pain caused by the killing of a black person you did not even know to people who did not grow up with, as their legacy, the hushed stories of black bodies hung from trees by a lynching mob populated with sheriff’s deputies?

Read the Rest Here

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Soledad O’Brien: Cable News coverage of Trump normalizes white supremacy

Soledad hits the nail on the head again…

 

Soledad O’Brien eviscerates CNN: ‘You have normalized’ white supremacy with shoddy Trump reporting

Former CNN host Soledad O’Brien blasted the cable news business over the weekend for profiting off the hate speech that has fueled Donald Trump’s political rise.

According to O’Brien, the media had gone through “contortions to make things seem equal all the time” when comparing Trump to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basically pointed out that what Donald Trump has done — actually quite well — has normalized white supremacy,” O’Brien explained to CNN host Brian Stelter on Sunday. “I think she made a very good argument, almost like a lawyer. Here is ways in which he has actually worked to normalize conversations that many people find hateful.”

“I’ve seen on-air, white supremacists being interviewed because they are Trump delegates,” she noted. “And they do a five minute segment, the first minute or so talking about what they believe as white supremacists. So you have normalized that.”

“And then Donald Trump will say, ‘Hillary Clinton, she’s a bigot.’ And it’s covered, the journalist part comes in, ‘They trade barbs. He said she’s a bigot and she points out that he might be appealing to racists.’ It only becomes ‘he said, she said.’ When in actuality, the fact that Donald Trump said she’s a bigot without the long laundry list of evidence, which if you looked at Hillary Clinton’s speech, she actually did have a lot of really good factual evidence that we would all agree that are things that have happened and do exist. They are treated as if they are equal.”

O’Brien insisted “that’s where journalists are failing: the contortions to try to make it seem fair.”

The former CNN host argued that the question that journalists should be asking is if Trump is “softening the ground for people — who are white supremacists, who are white nationalists, who would self-identify that way — to feel comfortable with their views being brought into the national discourse to the point where they can do a five minute interview happily on national television?”

“And the answer is yes, clearly,” she said. “And there is lots of evidence of that.”

O’Brien observed that cable news outlets were effectively being rewarded for bad behavior.

“So hateful speech brings a really interested, angry audience,” she noted. “This is genius! We should do this more often. What shall we do when this election is over? We’re going to have to think about ways to really rile people up, make them angry and divide them.”

“Because that is something that cable news, frankly, and everybody can cover really well,” O’Brien lamented. “So, I find it very frustrating. I believe he was over-covered at the beginning.”

“Now, it is ‘he said, she said’ all the time. We have lost context. We actually don’t even cover the details of something. We just cover the back and forth of it. It’s funny to watch if it weren’t our own country and our own government actually operating.”

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 6, 2016 in The New Jim Crow, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

On that Reverse Racism Myth

During the Bushit Administration the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was gutted, with replacement lawyers largely from Liberty University (Jerry Falwell’s school). The new conservative management decided to ignore the more than 11,000 discrimination cases submitted to the Office of Civil Rights a year to pursue cases of reverse discrimination against whites. Like WMDs in Iraq, after 8 years of searching for mythic reverse discrimination case – the Department found exactly 1 (one) prosecutable case.

Yet the myth, like the Southern Myth still lives through racists projecting their own morality on black folks…It’s called projection, the old conservative “I’m not racist, you are, for pointing out my bigotry”.

The New Jim Crow, just like the Old Jim Crow…Just without the sheets.

Racism Vs. Whites? You’re Kidding Me

Majorities of whites think anti-white discrimination is as bad as the anti-black kind. Honestly, are they out of their minds?

Last week, New York Times columnist Tom Edsall, in a piece about Donald Trump’s appeal amongst conservative voters, cited an alarming survey on white people’s racial attitudes that made me wonder if large segments of white America are completely misinterpreting what racism is and how prevalent it remains in our society.

Edsall pointed to a study conducted last fall by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that 52 percent of white respondents agreed with the following statement: “Today discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.”

Among subsets of respondents, 76 percent of those affiliated with the Tea Partyagreed with the statement. Another 61 percent of Republicans, and 53 percent of independents. A majority of whites over age 50 also agreed with the statement, and 58 percent of working-class whites agreed. Evangelical Protestants (63 percent) and Catholics (56 percent) also agreed.

62 percent of white Democrats disagreed, and 61 percent of those with a college education. White Americans under 50 also disagreed, even though it was close. Only 48 percent of whites between the ages of 18-29 agreed, and 49 percent of them disagreed. Of whites 30-49, 46 percent agreed and 52 percent disagreed.

Upon seeing these figures I immediately wondered about what exactly white Americans perceive racism to be, and how the supposed racism they receive has become equal to that of African Americans and other minority groups.

Did a leading American presidential candidate refer to large swaths of the white American population as “rapists” and “murderers”?

Have countless white Americans taken to the streets to express their frustrations with a criminal justice system that disproportionately harms and negatively impacts the lives of white Americans?

Are white Americans campaigning against profound levels of income inequality that negatively impact the white community far worse than other racial and ethnic groups in America?

When I look around America I do not see white voices making these complaints. Instead I see large amounts of white Americans expressing their frustration that some traditional white American values are being questioned, or are “under attack” as some might say.

The controversy over the Confederate Flag has ruffled the feathers of many conservative white Americans because it questions the value and legacy of certain Southern traditions and their heroes. But should it be right for a nation’s or even a state’s decision to refrain from celebrating the lives and ideals of known traitors who were hell bent on destroying America (who also happened to be white) to be viewed as a racist attack against the white race?

Additionally, the growth of Black Lives Matter has led many white Americans to proclaim that they are “under attack” along racial divisions, but the closest incidents of an “attack” have been occasional protests that have turned violent and resulted in the destruction of property. There has never been a concerted effort to destroy white-owned establishments in the movement, and the random destruction of property is defined as criminality and not racism.

Apart from the recent and unfounded accusation that Black Lives Matter has morphed or been hijacked into a rabid, uncontrollable movement that emphasizes the killing of white law enforcement officials, the greatest cause for concern has been the name of the movement. To some Americans, the name Black Lives Matter implies that other lives do not matter, despite the fact that this notion is actually the inverse of the intent of the name. Black Lives Matter’s intent is to highlight how historically and even to this day, but with lesser severity, black lives have been dehumanized, devalued, neglected, and abused within American society, and that collectively we need to put a stop to this damning status quo.

At no point has the existence of Black Lives Matter been about the dehumanizing or abusing of other races. It has not been about pitting the races against one another and saying that one race is superior to the other. It has been about highlighting the centuries of abuse inflicted upon black Americans, acknowledging the existing abuses, and aspiring to increase the empathy and humanity of the American public to combat these systemic problems.

Proclaiming that the movement should change its name to “All Lives Matter” or creating spin-off, competing slogans such as “Blue Lives Matter” only displays a lack of understanding of the intent of Black Lives Matter. And while the motivations of such reactionary suggestions might be honest and pure, I struggle to see how the misunderstanding of certain segments of white America regarding a national civil rights movement led by black Americans should be interpreted as a racial attack against white Americans.

Black Americans expressing their frustrations against the oppressive institutions that govern them that have been erected primarily by white Americans should not be viewed as a racial attack against white Americans.

In another PRRI survey, support among whites for public protests to combat an unfair government dropped dramatically – from 67 percent in favor to 48 percent — when the protestors were identified as black.…More…

Examples of Projection and “white victimization”?

From Here, an article written by a racist conservative promoting the black-on-black crime meme, and responses by white racist conservatives (but I repeat myself!). If I choose to go over to one of the racist cesspools of the right, like the National Review, which shares articles from the white supremacist site VDARE, it gets even more blatant especially with authors like Heather McDonald and Michelle Malkin.

Avatar

Racial healing? That is easy. All you have to do is to put proven black racists into positions of power, in control of government, and results will come. Just like they came to Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, Memphis, Department of Justice, Obama’s government, and the list goes on. Democratic party at action. You deserve it, for you vote for it.

Avatar

BLM is a tool of the Obama Administration that seeks to divide in every way possible and pit groups against one another. It sounds evil because it is. The instigators in the movement are opportunists who see something attractive in black population areas that are lightly or not policed at all. What could it be? But if the average black doesn’t wake up and push back against this lawlessness, who pays? They do.

Avatar

Sorry, Barone . . . the ‘movie’ of rampant crime will NOT end differently.

Thanks to the likes of Jessa Jackson, Sharpton, the black caucus, the Black Panthers and all the other race-baiters who have plied their hate-trade for fun ‘n profit over past 40 years.

These purveyors are proud members of the left and have worked hand-in-hand with the dem politicians to get & keep as many as possible dependent on gov’ment, thus keeping the jack boot of liberalism exactly where it does them the most ‘good’….

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 8, 2015 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“AllLivesMatter” = White Supremacy

Really good article from over at “The Root”. I agree with most, if not all of what the author is saying. AllLivesMatter is nothing more than a diversion, and a denial of the basic human right of black folks to seek redress for a system of racial privilege which catastrophically affects their lives. It is an extension of Jim Crow, in that it denies the very existence of a Criminal Justice System which has ripped any possibility of the American Dream from the poor – and serves as a constant reminder to the rest of the black community of their tenuous position in American Society. A mechanism of political and citizenship disenfranchisement, built upon the foundation…

That All Lives do not matter.

Where I tend to wander into question is the statement “Racism is “a polymorphous agent of death.” as expressed by Leonard Harris. The goal of racism is the preservation of a system of privileges and outcomes for the majority group. It’s result may be death, especially in terms of it’s enforcement upon the body Minority – but death is neither necessary or quintessential to its goal. The use of power as a mechanism to enforce a system of racism, where the minority group has the ability and cohesion to reject racism and attack it’s benefit to the majority group, is violence and death. As such, the use of power to enforce a racist system isn’t “racism” – it is business as usual in many human endeavors – in this writer’s humble view. The goal isn’t elimination – the goal is subjugation and incorporation into the economic and political gestalt as a resource.

If you eliminate the Minority Group, as HItler and others of his ilk attempted to do – then in a system of racism and privilege another group needs take it’s place. Which is the very reason poor whites support political racism on the part of the Republican Party.

Do the Math on #AllLivesMatter and It Equals White Supremacy

The unfortunate truth is that the hashtag #AllLivesMatter is a reaffirmation of white supremacy.

Let me be clear here. Yes, all language is contextual, and at face value, this particular hashtag, #AllLivesMatter, seems to be an affirmation of humanity. However, let us not be fooled into reading the word “all” as in “everyone.” We are reminded that the Founding Fathers used the same language of humanity. We do, indeed, “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” In the language of U.S. politics, “all” has never meant everyone. #SomeLivesMatter.

More important, #AllLivesMatter does not have an organic origin. If the hashtag began on its own—organically—it might be possible to rally around its humanist potential. But this is not the case here. Contextually speaking, #AllLivesMatter is a rejoinder. It is a retort. It originates in direct response to the creation of the hashtag and movement #BlackLivesMatter. And it is here that we find its promotion of white supremacy.

For the past couple of years, I have given talks and presentations with a general title of “Diversity Kills.” This “diversity kills” theory is a three-part argument. No. 1, “diversity” has become a shortened pseudonym for “racial diversity,” and the way that institutions and universities practice “diversity” has become a new form of racism (i.e., organizations may want a face for the poster but have few plans to become more inclusive of nondominant cultures). Diversity becomes tokenized. Diversity equals racism.

No. 2, and most important to this conversation, is my definition of racism. Racism is “a polymorphous agent of death.” Racism is “group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death.” This is to say that at the end of racism is death. Racism is a wanton disregard for humanity and life. Raced bodies are more likely to have shortened life expectancies, higher asthma rates, closer proximity to contaminations, and less access to health care, quality food and water. In addition, as Frank Wilderson once put it, raced bodies also seem to “magnetize bullets” (pdf). At the end of it all, it means inessential dying and gratuitous mortalities. Racism equals death.

The third, and last, part of the argument involves doing the math. If diversity equals racism, and racism equals death, then diversity equals death. Or … diversity kills. This is meant to be both metaphorical and literal—e.g., hypertension, stress, anxiety and hostile work environments. Diversity takes years off the lives of raced bodies. Diversity kills.

It is the racism-equals-death equation that gives the #BlackLivesMatter movement its resonance. #BlackLivesMatter has become significant to the new organizing movement precisely because it clearly and crisply identifies the truth of the racism-equals-death equation. As oppressed people speak back to and challenge white supremacy, there is a dire need for a mantra that counters anti-black racism … counters death … i.e., #BlackLivesMatter.

The response of #AllLivesMatter is an attempt to shift our focus away from the value of black lives. It is an effort to divert our attention away from the end result of racism: the death of black, brown and raced bodies. #AllLivesMatter is not a life-valuing statement. As Talib Kweli recently told an audience, “All lives will matter when Black Lives matter.” Replacing “black” with “all” is an attempt to respond to and ultimately replace (that is, silence) #BlackLivesMatter. It is a statement of disregard. It’s a denial of the reality that racism equals death. And the unfortunate truth is that this is the work of white supremacy.

Sean Eversley Bradwell is an assistant professor at Ithaca College. He is coordinator of the minor in African-Diaspora studies at Ithaca’s Center for the Study of Culture, Race and Ethnicity and has research and teaching interests in educational policy, race theory and hip-hop culture.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 5, 2015 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: