Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts

Thursday, August 26, 2010

September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows Speaks Out in support of NYC Islamic Community Center

Donna Marsh O'Conner, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows:

"Democracy lives in our actions. When I see the towers fall, l feel pain, but I have to acknowledge that the pain I am feeling essentially comes from 19 individual criminals, who murdered 3,000 people on our soil and it left us horrifically scared."


This makes me cry. Thank you, Donna. I am so honored and humbled to have been a small part of spreading your message to the world.

I was so happy to see September-11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows on last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Donna Marsh O'Conner, who lost her daughter on 9-11, speaks out against the fear and hatemongering currently stoked by politicians and some mass media against Muslims and people of color.

Here is a direct link , to the video segment as it appeared on MSNBC, in its entirety on August 25



Here's the direct link, in case the televised segment doesn't show up here | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/38857745%2338857745

Earlier, at a dinner held to mark the end of Ramadan, NY Mayor Blooberg also addressed the issue. The Mayor had this to say:


"Compromise, is by itself, a defeat of religious freedom and what this country is all about."


Thank you Mr. Bloomberg for standing on the right side of history. You can read more about the Mayor's address here.

Bloomberg News | http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/mosque-project-near-nyc-s-ground-zero-tests-u-s-freedoms-bloomberg-says.html

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Fear of "the Other." The Religious Right Wraps Bigotry in the Guise of Christianity

CULTURAL DIVERSITY: Keith Olbermann and Michael Eric Dyson from Georgetown University call the religious right to the carpet for their bigoted, un-Christian and un-charitable attitudes toward President Obama, who is a Christian.

The pair discussed the recent CNN appearance by Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham who was uninvited from the National Prayer Breakfast for his less-than-charitable attitudes towards people of other faiths, specifically Muslims.

Graham was speaking on speculation about the President's faith, specifically if Mr. Obama was secretly Muslim. Mr. Grahams observations were exceedingly troubling, filled with nonsensical, repugnant references to the "seed" of the President's father, who was an atheist.

Shades of Rosemary's Baby and the "Demon Seed." Franklin's father Billy was exposed as virulently anti-Semitic. Does that say something about inherited "seed?"

Some of the more poignant thoughts from Dyson:

The racial subtext here can't be ignored. We're trying to "otherize" him....The jumble of epitaphs that are being hurled with lethal intensity against Mr. Obama are nothing but the made-over bigotry of people trying to find new-fangled ways to dress up old-fangled bigotry.



More from Dyson:

Mr. Graham is on horrible ground here. If we're looking at people's Christianity the Bible tells us to "judge them by their fruit.' We don't want to get into slinging accusations about who is Christian and who is not.


And later:

The President is fighting an uphill battle. He's got racial issues, he's got religious issues, he's got issues of American citizenship.


Finally, what probably amounts to the most profound statement regarding who is or is not Christian, at least for me:

Another way [to fight the bigotry] is for members of religious communities, of Christian communities, to step out on their faith and say look, let's top haranguing this man,' let's stop berating him...Jesus said a lot of people who call my name will not ultimately be in the kingdom with me. So it's not what you say out of your mouth it's what you perform in your heart....I can't discern any credible connection between the God I worship, who is about justice and mercy and truth and love, and the judgmental, harshly indifferent to the plight of the poor God that Mr. Graham seems to worship. I'd rather be with those who perform the realities of the faith, than who simply claim it out of their mouths.



Featured Newsclip. August 20: Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham spews his anti-christian venom on CNN.

Visit msnbc.com for a direct link to this segment, other world news, and provocative discussion about today's toxic political environment



Here's the direct link, in case the video segment doesn't appear on your screen | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38793108%2338793108

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Altered mural fuels racial debate in Prescott, Arizona

Just when you thought the folks in Arizona couldn't get any nuttier, something new comes along. This time some people are offended because a group of kids painted on a local mural are "too dark."

The debate to remove the mural was spearheaded by, you guessed it, a local politician.

On his talk show on KYCA-AM (1490) in Prescott, City Councilman Steve Blair complained because he thought the the most prominent child in the painting was African-American.

"To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person," says Blair. "I would have to ask the question: Why?"

Umm, why not? Something wrong with dark-skinned black kids?

Blair has since lost his radio gig. But not before he digs an even bigger grave, blaming the artists themselves for creating racial controversy where none existed before.

"Personally, I think it's pathetic," Blair whines. "You have changed the ambiance of that building to excite some kind of diversity power struggle that doesn't exist in Prescott, Arizona. And I'm ashamed of that."

Really now? Somehow Blair would have us think that painting a dark-skin child on an Arizona mural so insults his sensibilities that it destroys the "ambiance" of his community? How dare be reminded that people come in a wealth of colors, shapes and sizes?

The faces are drawn from photos of actual students in a local elementary school. The child in question is Mexican American.

What is it, exactly, about skin color that makes some people so bananas? I remember not to long ago the Sphinx was being discussed on a popular blog. A forensic scientist was analyzing the jut of the jaw line and some other features of that famous treasure and claimed it likely depicted someone of Sub-Saharan African decent. From the hateful comments that followed his observations, you would have thought he was hurling epitaphs, instead of making a scientific observation.

At least the school board has come to its senses. It now admits making a mistake, and wants the artist to continue with his original vision, without "lightening" the skin color of the child in the picture.

While they're at it, someone should tell Mario, child on the mural whose dark skin first sparked the controversy, that he's a beautiful child -- the stuff great paintings are made of.

Miller Valley School District officials admit their mistake.

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnO6DJ8RqIE


Here's More:

From the Arizona Central:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/04/20100604arizona-mural-sparks-racial-debate.html

Altered mural fuels racial debate in Prescott



From AOL News: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/principal-asks-artists-to-lighten-faces-of-children-in-arizona-school-mural/19504774

Principal Asks Artists to Lighten Faces of Children in Arizona School Mural

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Guest Blog: “Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise « Don't Tea on Me

A friend sent a copy of a recent blog written by Tim Wise, the prominent anti-racism trainer and facilitator who has spoken on over hundreds of college campuses and to community groups across the country. In addition to the link, I'm posting his message in its entirety.

Guest Blog: “Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise « Don't Tea on Me

On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-wise/imagine-protest-insurgency-and-the-workings-of-white-privilege/10150151948920459

“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 protesters — 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.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Tim Wise Discusses the Racial Undertones of Health Care Reform

Tim Wise talks about the "elephant-in-the-room" in health care reform debate, as he discusses a woman dragged from a town hall meeting when her Rosa Parks poster is destroyed.



Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Reflections on Michael Steele's Press Conference

See: Steele says time to focus on future. From the Boston Globe

Today, while talking on the phone to a friend, I stumbled on Michael Steele's press conference as it aired on CNN. I was infuriated, as so often the far right-winged Republican rhetoric tends to send me these days.

Sadly Michael use to be his own person. But after his oh-so-public Rush Limbaugh smack-down, he has lost his own voice. And today, it was even more obvious that Rush, the newly throned party King as annointed by Dick Cheney, has Steele on a very short lead. No wonder rational Republicans, like Arlen Specter, (and Colin Powell, according to Cheney) are fleeing the party.

First let me say I am so very disappointed that the far-right-winged arm of Republican party continues to pit one person of color against another. Next, we can be sure to look for Bobby Jindal --coming soon to a press conference near you. Their tactics are so transparent, and I like most Americans feel it's really getting old.

Getting back to Steele's press conference. In it he claims: "the era of apology for Republican mistakes of the past is officially over." How convenient. Let's just forget about an illegal war and war crimes seemingly commited by the Bush administration along with it. Let's forget about the multi-billion dollar deficit.

How about this: the next time a criminal goes on a robbery spree, selling all the loot and covering up his tracks, he just washes his hands, sits back and decides to be done with the past and simply move forward. He can indeed move forward, but not before paying for the crimes of the past.

Steele then dares call the Obama first 100 days a reigh of "error." As if launching an entire war search for non-existant 'weapons of mass destruction' and even more non-existant links to al-Queda -- making the entire world less safe in the process -- wasn't enough.

"American needs us now more than ever," he quips. Why?

Steele says that Republican ideas are "being delivered to Washington in a tea bag." Ideas like having Texas succeed from the union? Like pitting Steele, a black man, against the President, another black man, while reducing Steele to simply becoming the public mouthpiece of Rush Limbaugh?

"We continue to borrow money we do not have," he ascerts. You mean like the 720 billion spent waging the Iraq war? Or like squandering the budget surpus left to us by the Clinton administration?

But most appalling was Steele's use of the phrase speaking truth to power. Exactly where was the truth in Steele's speech?

Let's face it. If there was any truth to Steele's ascertions, he would have preferenced his analogies this way:

Because of the Republicans we have: "spen(t) our country into the abyss,"

Because of the Republicans we have: "borrow(ed) money we don't have"

Because of the Republicans we were: forced to "usher in the most massive expansion of federal government control in the history of our Republic."

How about this, Steele. Let's stop this revisionist history once and for all. Go back to navel gazing. That was far more productive and much less scary.

Friday, October 31, 2008

The Politics of Race

I was watching Chris Mathews last night on CNN's Hardball. Chris was expressing his relief that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have brought race into the election. According to Matthews, the fact that John McCain refuses to use Reverend Wright as part of his smear campaign against Obama, Mathews believes race hasn't been a factor. He's wrong.

When a recent New York Times editorial accused the McCain camp of racism, Mathews scoffed. But the fact is, racism has run ramphant in this election. It was apparent during the debates. It's a prominent thread running through many of McCain's ads. It has even played a role in, how news coverage is interpreted and disseminated.

Take the issue of experience. McCain's attacks against Obama challenge his alleged "inexperience." Obama served in the Illinois senate for eight years (1996-2004) before becoming a U.S. senator in 2005. That's twelve years....which is more actual legislative experience than Hillary Clinton, who became a U.S senator in 2001, but had no legislative experience before that. How much more experience does he need?

Bush only served eight years, or two terms as Governor before becoming president. Was he called "naive" when he first ran for president? Labeled "inexperienced?"

And what exactly are we talking about? Experience with what? Foreign policy? If that's the gauge then no first-term U.S. president for the past 32 years, save one, has had "experience" before they were elected.

Yet in debate after debate McCain looked down his nose at Obama's lack of "experience." Time and time again he rolled his eyes with disdain at what he called Barack's naiveté. The charge has nary been challenged by the press, who repeat the ridiculous assertion as if it were a given.

More scary is the number of people who actually buy the charge that Obama, a magna cum laude graduate from Harvard, is somehow lacking in reasoning capacity. Question is: How many similarly educated Harvard graduates finishing at the top of their class would be branded as "naive?"

In fact the converse is true. As Robert Silvers recently observed in the Huffington Post: "...if you run a tally, Obama's record over the last year shows a remarkable degree of foresight, even-tempered judgment, and a real willingness to make hard calls that aren't the politically popular flavor of the week. Indeed, almost every one of Obama's foreign policy positions has been vindicated."

Here's a recent New York Times article that explores this issue.

It fascinates me that so many McCain supporters claim that Obama doesn't have a plan for the country, or they don't know what his plan is. How could that be after, in debate after debate, Obama was the person focused on actual policy issues while McCain kept repeating old sound bytes?

If they didn't hear Obama's proposed policies, what on earth were they listening to? In one debate McCain repeatedly ask Obama "how much is fee you'll charge small businesses for health care," even after Obama stressed repeatedly stressed that there was no fee.

Some questions for McCain:
What's all the fuss about Bill Ayers or Rev. Jeremiah Wright? One of McCain's chief political advisors is Richard Quinn, editor of the racist Southern Partisan Review.

Wright was Obama's former pastor. Obama was eight years old when Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground.

But Quinn advises McCain NOW. To get a clearer picture, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) describes the Southern Partisan as "a publication that defends slavery, white separatism, apartheid and David Duke.'' Quinn, himself has supported Duke as a "political maverick." Say what???

Judging from McCain's track record on issues effecting people of color, maybe that's one association worth learning more about.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Today's Rant: Diary of a Black Woman in the Peace Movement

I am humbled and honored to be reminded how unusual it is to have a woman of color serve as major spokesperson for an internationally recognized peace organization. In practice, I am also reminded of the real, decision-making power it takes to succeed and accomplish all that I set out to.

It’s a power I’ve had to fight for, regardless of the titles put behind my name.

A quick review of articles written by Black activists in the movement reflects what has often been my experience – I have worked with many well-intentioned, well-meaning colleagues. Then suddenly, there it is. I walk face-first into what can only be described as that age-old paternalistic racism: I’m not taken seriously for what I know or what I do.

The pattern replicates my experiences placing “well-heeled” minority professionals in leadership positions with high-profile nonprofit boards.

Here’s a snapshot of these experiences.

Being marginalized -- treated like a ‘token.’ Often the slight is innocent enough. I once had a key person in authority tell colleagues it was fine to schedule a meeting to plan media outreach without me, the DIRECTOR of media relations. The reason? “Because it’s hard to schedule everyone together at one time.” I, the DIRECTOR of the program, can catch up later. Say whhaaat???

Other times, it’s more blatant -- like the time organizers planned a hip-hop concert, inviting press and doling out press passes without my knowledge. Luckily for the organization the only media that arrived was press I arranged -- and they didn’t need passes. An added sting was that same individual being named as a “champion of diversity” by another staffperson.

Being expected to serve as “spokesperson” for my race, or always asked to give the “minority perspective.” This usually happens when I least expect it. Like the time when, after a planning research session, a colleague asked me for the name of a good Black pollster. Problem is she had already approached someone else for her primary contact list, never thinking I might know more than minority pollsters.

Another time, I was having a congratulatory conversation with a key volunteer after the close of an exhibition. The discussion started out innocent enough then without warning descended into a question of ”why Blacks on public transportation were so loud” -- as if I had insight into a group people I didn’t know, on a train I didn’t ride, in a community in which I didn’t live.

Dealing with nonverbal and/or disparaging, repressive attitudes or remarks. This is the one I find hardest to stomach. I have to admit I haven’t perfected not falling into that classic stereotype of a loud, angry, hands-on-my-hips Black woman when this occurs.

Having my leadership constantly challenged:
And how. Similarly, many black activists site a resistance by established peace organizations to share leadership with, much less follow the leadership of, activists of color.

For example, in the days leading up to peace marches held around the start of the Iraq war, a group of activists of color wrote an open letter reflecting upon racism in the anti-war movement. In it they observed:

…the failure of predominantly white organizations to endorse or participate in anti-war activities sponsored by people of color groups; a discussion climate that excludes or demeans the contributions of activists/organizations of color, and disparaging or insensitive remarks by individuals. These practices have alienated individuals and organizations, and they have prevented cooperative bonds from forming as we work to build broad and deep opposition to war.

They went on to write:

Serious attempts have been made in the past to build anti-racist/racial justice politics among white activists. Yet we still see white activists and predominantly white organizations acting in ways that effectively marginalize and disrespect activists and organizations of color in anti-war work. While many of these individuals and organizations view themselves as anti-racist, their words and actions consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or not - effectively marginalize and disrespect activists and organizations of color.

The reality is, I believe, many peace activists have a keen awareness that they need to bring more Blacks into the movement. However, they are less clear on what to do with us when we get here.

Interestingly enough, I love what I do. Over the years, I have met a wealth of wonderfully inspiring people: Cindy Sheehan for example, the "peace mom" who camped out at President Bush’s Texas estate. Celeste Zappalla, Sue Niederer –- mothers who lost sons to the Iraq war and people I’ve come to love and admire. These ladies have always been genuine in their support and I see them as an oasis in an otherwise murky sea.