racism – Page 2 – RI Future

April 29, 2014April 29, 2014

Defending Donald Sterling: John DePetro’s race-baiting

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The racist comments allegedly made by Clipper’s basketball team owner Donald Sterling to his girlfriend V. Stiviano provided local talk radio jerk wad John DePetro the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his race-baiting skills.

Under Depetro’s careful shepherding, callers were invited to defend Sterling’s comments because he’s a tired, possibly drunk old man who doesn’t fully understand modern society, or more ominously, because Sterling’s a victim of a conspiracy hatched by former basketball player Magic Johnson, who wants to buy the Clippers for himself. See, it’s not the old racist white guy’s fault that he’s an old racist white guy, it’s the black guy’s fault.

Along the way DePetro proved the point I made last week about how there is essentially no difference between WPRO News and WPRO Talk. When Jim Vincent, President of the Rhode Island NAACP appeared on Jim Valicenti’s morning news program, did he know that his words would be used against him repeatedly during DePetro’s broadcast? DePetro hoped that the mere mention of the NAACP would stir the racist “hearts” of his listeners, riling them to say nasty things on the air.

(Vincent’s comments allowed Depetro the opportunity to tell the audience that he didn’t think 12 Years a Slave was Academy Award worthy and that the only reason it was in the running was because it had the word “slave” in the title. A quick look at a list of Academy Award winning pictures show that 12 Years a Slave is the only film with that word in the title to have been nominated for best picture, so make of that what you will.)

The strategy DePetro uses is to phrase every bit of racism and race baiting that dribbles from his mouth as a question. Are old racist people really racists, DePetro asks, inviting his listeners to call in and make excuses for the people in their lives who behave similarly to Sterling. Depetro’s callers respond by excusing Sterling’s racism, picking up on DePetro’s cues that the man was old, tired, possibly drunk, speaking with the expectation of privacy, recorded without his knowledge or the victims of a Machiavellian plot engineered by Magic Johnson. His callers buy into Depetro’s narrative, never once thinking that they are being cruelly manipulated as DePetro consumes the resulting bigotry like a psychic vampire.

Perhaps DePetro’s most interesting critique was his claim that the Democratic Party and local unions were the most racist institutions in Rhode Island. DePetro listed off a series of white male union heads and politicians as proof of his contention. Are minorities under represented in positions of authority throughout Rhode Island? Absolutely. Is John DePetro bringing up this issue out of a deep concern for minority rights and representation? Please.

Following DePetro’s lead, I made my own list of white males:

Gene Valicanti, John DePetro, Dan Yorke, Buddy Cianci and Matt Allen.

Obviously, following DePetro’s logic, WPRO is the most racist radio station in New England. Looking at WPRO’s “Shows and Staff” page, I don’t see a single person of color listed.

DePetro carefully engineers his show to bring out the very worst in his listeners. He has built a show in which anger, confusion, bigotry, intolerance, hatred, racism and misogyny can thrive because, apparently, this is the kind of thing the Associated Press looks for when they give out the award for Best Talk Show.

For Our Daughters, the campaign to have DePetro fired in the wake of his misogynist comments about women union workers, should expand the scope of their campaign to include everyone offended by DePetro’s ugly race-baiting. The show is a blight on the soul of Rhode Island. Removing Depetro from the air would not just be good for our daughters, it would be good for our very humanity.

Lest you think I’m taking DePetro out of context, listen to his full comments on the subject here:

March 10, 2014

ACLU report shows record high racial disparities in school discipline rates

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A report issued by the ACLU of Rhode Island today shows that Rhode Island’s public schools last year disproportionately suspended black students at the highest rates in nine years, while white students were suspended at record low rates. Like black children, Hispanic students remained severely over-suspended, with these disparities reaching all the way to the lowest grades. In addition, students generally – including elementary school children – were given out-of-school suspensions at alarming rates for minor disciplinary infractions.

The report, “Blacklisted: An Update,” is a follow-up to one the ACLU issued last June, which examined eight previous years of suspension data. That report also documented and explored the dangers of out-of-school suspensions and the disproportionate impact of suspensions on black and Hispanic youth, but the latest statistics demonstrate that the inappropriate and discriminatory use of out-of-school suspensions – even at the elementary school level – continues unabated across Rhode Island.

Among the findings from a review of data from the 2012-2013 school year:

Black students were suspended from school 2.19 times as often as would be expected based on their school population. This is a record high suspension disparity for black students over the nine years the ACLU has studied. Hispanic students were suspended over one-and-a-half times as often as expected. White students, in contrast, were suspended just 0.64 times what would be expected, a record low.

Twenty-five school districts disproportionately suspended black students. Twenty-six school districts disproportionately suspended Hispanic students.

Suspensions remained endemic at the lowest grades, and continued to disproportionately affect minority students. Nearly 1,400 elementary school students – and 147 first grade students – were suspended last year, and black elementary school students were suspended more than three times as often as expected based on their representation.

Despite nationwide efforts to promote the use of out-of-school suspensions only in extreme circumstances, over 60 percent of the suspensions for Rhode Island students last year were for low-risk behavioral infractions.

One-third of all suspensions were served for the vague infractions of “Disorderly Conduct” and “Insubordination/Disrespect.” In fact, thousands more suspensions occurred for “Disorderly Conduct” and “Insubordination/ Disrespect” than for assault, bomb threats, breaking and entering, possession or use of controlled substances, fire regulation violations, fighting, gang activity, harassment, hate crimes, hazing, larceny, threats, trespassing, vandalism or weapon possession combined.
More than a quarter of elementary school suspensions were for “Disorderly Conduct” alone. Despite making up one-third of the elementary school population, black and Hispanic students constituted two-thirds of the elementary school students suspended for “Disorderly Conduct” or “Insubordination/Disrespect.”
Although the total number of suspensions overall was down from previous years, that reduction can be attributed almost exclusively to implementation of a law passed by the General Assembly in 2012 prohibiting out-of-school suspensions for attendance infractions. In fact, while overall suspensions decreased, the number of suspensions for low-risk behavioral infractions increased by more than 400.

The report concluded: “Rhode Island’s students deserve an education system that seeks to promote rather than punish them, and efforts by educators and the legislature in 2014 can make that possible. Swift action by Rhode Island’s leaders can ensure that another cohort of children does not find themselves the subject of increasingly grim statistics, and instead finds them granted all the educational opportunities we have to offer them.”

In finding little change from the eight years’ worth of statistics analyzed in its last report, the ACLU reiterated a series of recommendations for policy-makers to address this serious problem. Among the ACLU’s recommendations this year: the General Assembly should approve legislation limiting the use of out-of-school suspensions to serious offenses; school districts should examine annually their discipline rates for any racial or ethnic disparities, and identify ways to eliminate them; schools should ensure that punishments are clearly and evenly established for various offenses; and the state Department of Education should investigate and promote the use of alternative evidence-based disciplinary methods.

January 27, 2014January 27, 2014

Jim Vincent: 40 percent of ‘youth of color’ ages 18 – 24 are unemployed

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“Over 40 percent of the youth of color between the ages of 10 and 24 are unemployed,” Jim Vincent, executive director of the Providence branch of the NAACP. “That’s a recipe for disaster.”

Because of this, the lack of good public schools in the urban core and the general feeling that the streets there have become less safe has inspired he and others who fight for social justice to hold a press event today at 4:30 in front of the Garrahy Judicial Complex in Providence today.

Vincent told me some 12 community organizations are coming together to advocate for a safer city, better education and a firmer commitment that Rhode Island’s urban core will not be left behind.

Listen to our conversation here:

November 6, 2013November 6, 2013

Brown, Paxson create ‘Committee on the Events of Oct. 29’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The shout down at Brown has led to the creation of the “Committee on the Events of October 29,” said Brown President Christine Paxson today.

The committee will “identify issues that may have contributed to the disruption” and “address the broader issues of campus climate, free expression, and dialogue across difference,” she wrote.

Paxson authored a critical letter on the night of the incident. In this one she writes, “Making an exception to the principle of open expression jeopardizes the right of every person on this campus to speak freely and engage in open discussion. We must develop and adhere to norms of behavior that recognize the value of protest and acknowledge the imperative of the free exchange of ideas within a university.”

Conversely, Martha Yager of the the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization that promotes “peace with justice … through active nonviolence” wrote an impassioned defense of the activists who shouted down Ray Kelly last week in today’s print edition of the Providence Journal (online version here).

“The students and members of the Providence community refused to be devalued. They refused to accept business as usual,” she wrote. “That act of refusal has forced conversation within Brown, and indeed in the larger community, that has the potential of being life changing and profoundly educational for the community.”

Andrew Tillett-Saks writes that social change only happens when civil discourse and civil disobedience work in tandem.

“The implication that masterful debate is the engine of social progress could not be more historically unfounded,” he writes in this post. “The free flow of ideas and dialogue, by itself, has rarely been enough to generate social progress. It is not that ideas entirely lack social power, but they have never been sufficient in winning concessions from those in power to the oppressed. The eight-hour workday is not a product of an incisive question-and-answer session with American robber barons.”

November 1, 2013November 1, 2013

Dirty tricks, broken promises and voter suppression in RI

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Justice Department is challenging the legality of North Carolina’s and Texas’ voter ID laws on civil rights grounds, and they have good reason. These laws disproportionately disenfranchise people of color, latinos, immigrants, women, queer people, students, seniors, the disabled, and, particularly, the poor – demographics that have a harder time than many getting an accepted ID.

The nation-wide conservative push for this legislation is a politically-motivated attack on universal suffrage and a threat to American democracy. Like poll taxes and literacy tests these laws belong in history books on the Jim Crow South, certainly not in 21^st Century Rhode Island. Unfortunately, House Democratic Party leadership seems to be throwing universal suffrage under the bus for their own electoral advantage against progressive candidates, whose lower-income and minority supporters are less likely to have accepted IDs.

When Gordon Fox was running for reelection last year, he said that voter ID was the biggest complaint he heard from the constituents in his diverse East Side district. So he pledged to do something about it, promising to sponsor new legislation to “include a ‘sunset provision’ in the law.” Last session, that campaign promise went unfulfilled.

But Attorney General Eric Holder’s suit against North Carolina has brought voter ID back into the progressive crosshairs, and the grumbling on Hope Street has begun to grow louder. This year, Gordon may find that his constituents aren’t so easily outfoxed.

It’s well established: voter ID laws effectively disenfranchise many black, latino, female, queer, young, old, disabled, and poor voters who are otherwise eligible but disproportionately lack the right kind of ID. Further, the only “evidence” to justify these laws are anecdotes told by politicians, which are not supported by real evidence. That’s why the laws have been labeled “voter suppression” and likened to the disenfranchisement tactics of Segregation. And it’s no accident that these laws have been the pet project of the tea party and reactionary Republicans across the country in recent years; the disenfranchised groups all tend to vote left. Don Yelton, a Republican Party precinct captain in North Carolina, openly admitted this in a recent interview on the Daily Show. Voter suppression is a political game – and the biggest loser in this game is the ideal of popular government.

Embarrassingly, Rhode Island was the only state in which Democratic Party politicians passed this sort of voter suppression law, and it has made us into a right-wing talking point. When Fox passed this law, he even rejected a personal appeal from the chairwoman of the national Democratic Party.

Worse, against popular pressure and his very own campaign promises, earlier this year Fox actually succeeded in revising the law to make it harsher!

The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats of America (RIPDA) collected more than 1,800 signatures on a petition for the repeal of the Voter ID law. According to RIPDA’s Sam Bell, after collecting these signatures they met with one of the Speaker’s legal advisors, who arranged a meeting with Fox for January of this year. This was a “promise he refused to honor,” Bell regrets. When the repeal bill came up, RIPDA, the NAACP, the ACLU and other pro-voting groups put together a strong testimony at the hearings.

In spite of this overwhelming support for a full repeal of the draconian law, Fox offered what initially seemed to be a compromise bill far to the right of the sunset he had pledged to introduce: the law would be frozen in its 2012 form, and the even more onerous requirements scheduled to come on line in 2014 would be dropped. As Bell recounts, “although we [the pro-repeal groups] were severely disappointed, we felt it was best to support this holding action.”

This, it turned out, was a tragic mistake. In a cowardly political maneuver, House leadership decided to keep the amended version of the bill secret until the minute before it would be voted on, leaving the members of the Judiciary Committee and the public no time to read the actual text. And with good reason: the revised bill included a provision that sharply tightened voting restrictions. With the revisions, not only would fewer forms of ID be accepted than in 2012—fewer forms of ID would be accepted than under the original law’s much tighter 2014 limits! Such a draconian bill would never have passed if the democratic process had been respected, so Fox and his friends resorted to trickery.

In a display of brazen dishonesty, leadership portrayed the amended bill as just a “freeze” of the current law. This story seemed plausible. Several committee members were visibly furious about how weak this leadership-described “freeze” compromise was. “This sucks!” exclaimed Representative Joe Almeida. But the leadership neglected to inform the Judiciary Committee about the part that clearly “sucked” much more: the provision they’d snuck in to dramatically increase voting restrictions. Thanks to the leadership’s deception, even strong opponents of voter ID on the Judiciary Committee ended up inadvertently voting for this assault on our basic democratic rights.

What makes the voter suppression law so valuable to Gordon Fox that he’s willing to lie to defend it?

In most states, Republican politicians support voter ID measures in order to disenfranchise their Democratic opponents’ voting base. The same partisan politics clearly aren’t at work here in deep-Blue Rhode Island, but perhaps a similar motive is behind the law nonetheless.

Consider this: in the upcoming Democratic Party primary campaign for governor, the conservative party establishment is expected to get behind state Treasurer Gina Raimondo, whose voting base will be heavily rich and white – demographics likely to have driver’s licenses. Raimondo’s chief opponent may be Providence Mayor Angel Taveras. With many of his black, latino and low-income supporters turned away at the polls, Taveras would be skating on a broken ankle. A strict voter ID law is a serious advantage for Raimondo and other establishment Democratic Party candidates, and a serious disadvantage to progressive, insurgent challengers. The upcoming gubernatorial race is just one example of the benefits of voter suppression for conservative incumbents; these candidates will have a much easier time getting re-elected if they disenfranchise large blocs of their progressive challengers’ voting base. Fox and his friends – at the expense of universal suffrage – are playing a Republican political game in a Blue State: they are refusing to play fair.

But the Speaker can’t outfox his constituents this time. If Gordon Fox wants to serve the interests of his racially diverse, progressive constituents, he needs to fulfill his campaign promise of sponsoring a sunset to this odious law. And to prove that he and the Party leadership aren’t playing a vicious game of disenfranchisement for political advantage, the sunset will need to be a fast one: the law must be fully and permanently repealed before the next election cycle.

If the Speaker has a change of heart and pledges to support the repeal of the voter ID law at the beginning of the upcoming session, the progressive will gladly work with him to restore voting rights in the Ocean State. But if he hesitates, he’ll find himself up against a coalition much larger, much more militant, and much more pissed off than last time.

Voter ID is the greatest threat to the right to vote in this state in over a hundred years. Rhode Islanders historically haven’t taken very kindly to being taxed without being represented. Gordon Fox would do well to remember that.

October 31, 2013October 31, 2013

Shout down at Brown: what would John Lewis do?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Speaking of civil disobedience, Congressman John Lewis will be in Providence on Friday and I can hardly wait to ask the this living legend of the struggle for civil rights what he thinks of the instantly infamous Shout Down at Brown.

Lewis, like those who prevented Ray Kelly from lecturing on his controversial and currently unconstitutional “stop and frisk” policing style, broke the rules of civil society in an effort to force our nation to have a conversation about racism. He was arrested 40 times during the 60’s, and here’s what I heard him say at the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington:

“…we used what we had to bring about a nonviolent revolution (applause) And I say to all of the young people that you have to push and to pull to make America what America should be for all of us.”

It’s really worth listening to what this icon said just a few weeks ago about civil disobedience:

There are both obvious similarities and differences in how Lewis pushed and pulled for change during the Civil Rights era compared to the direct action successfully coordinated by a surprisingly organized coalition of Brown students and local community organizers. For one, Lewis broke rules he felt were unjust. And when he did interrupt civil society he did so merely with his presence, or his blackness, as the case was.

It’s worth noting that Gandhi’s world-changing Salt March was in tactic more akin to refusing to pay a bridge toll than shouting down an invited guest. But it’s also worth noting that Nelson Mandella was best known for leading a known-terrorist organization, Spear of the Nation, before doing 27 years hard time for other reasons.

There’s no doubt in my mind that nonviolent resistance is a more effective change agent than its morally inferior cousin civil disobedience. But there is also little doubt in my mind that if local activists want Rhode Island to have a discussion about civil rights, playing by the rules will not work. The left has lost serious ground on important issues that smack of latent racism in recent years, such as voter ID and high stakes testing. Both initiatives, like “stop and frisk,” target minority populations and these angles don’t get a fair share of attention in our marketplace of ideas.

Perhaps it’s telling that the Providence Journal’s day 2 story on this Shout Down at Brown does not offer insight from DARE, the Olneyville Neighborhood Association or Fuerza Laboral but it does have perspectives from both the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute – two groups that advocate for low taxes and small government, not civil rights or free speech.

In a way, there is a connection between austerity and what Ray Kelly calls “proactive policing.” It places a higher value on efficiency than individual liberty. When that starts happening, and information gatekeepers like the media and academia, don’t want to talk about it, it’s worth forcing the conversation a little bit.

August 29, 2013August 29, 2013

The conservative counterpunch to the March on Washington

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

I like to believe that more Americans believe in the concept of equal justice today than in 1963. The 50^th Anniversary of the March on Washington will evoke different thoughts from different people, some with nostalgia, others with disdain. My point isn’t to take a historical narrative, as others can provide that quite well. What is important for America to realize today is that the struggle for equal civil and human rights continues in 2013.

A new video, “Our Turn to Dream,” expertly explains the current situation of low-income people, particularly Black and Latino Americans, facing what can only be considered a police state. Pastor Kenny Glasgow, founder of The Ordinary People Society (T.O.P.S.), started working towards rebuilding his own community in Dothan, Alabama; but then realized that this issue looks the same nationwide.

Here are a few myths that need to be debunked:

Racism is over. Most people will acknowledge that racism is a cultural phenomenon dating back hundreds, even thousands, of years. They will acknowledge that slavery could not have worked without the skin color; that Manifest Destiny (i.e. seizing all the land from sea to sea) would not have worked without designating the residents as “savages.” Yet we don’t want to believe racism is still at play in 2013. It was all the way up to 1963, but it disappeared as soon as President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
It’s a coincidence that the American system of mass incarceration also addresses the effects of poverty, unemployment, mental illness, and addiction by using prison cells. We cage those of us who fall by the wayside or get caught up with a youthful indiscretion or a moment of uncontrolled emotion. It is a myth that over-incarceration is some sort of mistake. The flaws and results are not a mistake. Anything of this magnitude is not a mistake. Thus, we can’t just educate American politicians and believe that the mistake will be corrected.

People ask me “how can you say the criminal justice system is racist, that’s just hyperbole.” I don’t want that person to catch a sound-byte and move on, believing or disbelieving. I want them to ask for an explanation. There are dots to connect regarding power and economics. So check this out:

Prison as System to Control ALL Americans

Wars have always been fought for multiple reasons. There is generally some resources to seize, or strategic position to gain, but they also unite citizens against a common “other” enemy. Wars also create profits for those who build the war machinery, and employ soldiers at low wages based on the ideology of “defending their country.”

Wars, and their residual effects, don’t always go so smoothly. Black soldiers returned from WWII with a sense of entitlement and opportunity. The G.I. Bill and the Civil Rights Movement vastly expanded a middle-class, right in the face of those who freely used the N-word. Twenty years later, the Vietnam War took a very bad turn. The war militarized young Black men, some of whom had a similar sense of entitlement and opportunity. Meanwhile, President Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover infamously waged a covert domestic war against people struggling for equality here in America.

The “War on Drugs” was launched in 1972. It was direct replacement of the Vietnam War. This time the enemy wasn’t fascism or communism and we didn’t need to draft anyone or violate a sovereign nation to fight it. The enemy lived in low-income urban communities, the same places these Black and Latino young men returned to after service in Vietnam. Many had the physical, mental, and spiritual challenges of surviving war- and were now looking for jobs.

City police forces began bulking up as federal dollars started to roll. The cultural campaign of describing drugs as an evil scourge started to bloom. And who would say our leaders are wrong? The Civil Rights Movement had been appeased, infiltrated, arrested, and assassinated. Peaceful assembly, free speech, and petitioning the government became scary. Some of the survivors blinked, or looked the other way, or (most likely) never really saw it coming. The master-stroke of the drug war was in full swing before long.

The drug war is genius. It is bipartisan. Industrial magnate Jay Gould once bragged that he could “pay half the working class to kill the other half.” In the drug war, half the working class is paid to incarcerate the other half. There are White prisoners and Black guards, yes. But those exceptions do not stunt the fact that skin color is an essential element of the cultural messaging of the drug war.

Mass Incarceration Evaporates Without Racism

It is understandable, if one believes drug users and drug sellers to be such an evil scourge, that we send police into the most concentrated areas of drug use. Particularly if these perpetrators are young people; the younger we get them the longer we can punish them without paying for their geriatric care in prison. And the earlier we can get these people off the streets. Now imagine this group of concentrated drug users…

What did you imagine? If you are seeing young Black men hanging out on a basketball court you are wrong. The most concentrated area of drug use is in college dorms, frat houses, and similar apartments in such neighborhoods.

Oh, but young White people are just going through an “experimental” phase. I’ve never heard such a description of drug use by young Black and Latino people. As someone who has been among drug users and sellers of both communities, I can tell you there are experimenters, steady users, and people who need help everywhere. But you knew that. The gut reaction is due to 40 years of cultural messaging by those in power. Thank the 11 o’clock news, while you’re at it.

Serving Multiple Masters- Excess Labor

Its not like America’s best economic minds have a better idea. In our state-subsidized economic system (call it Capitalist, Socialist, or whatever), the tax-payer is the top customer and top employer, whether directly or indirectly. Without manufacturing jobs, where do we send the labor? One super-crane eliminates 100 dockworkers. Even the checkout girl has been replaced with a machine.

Police, guards, and sheriffs require little training and education to be on the job. Their existence has also massively expanded the jobs for judges and lawyers. Furthermore, the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated are not counted amongst the “unemployed.” They (or “we,” I should say) are written off as non-existent. More importantly, we are not allowed to come home with a sense of entitlement and opportunity. Even if some of us did, we are sometimes traumatized by our experience with no outlets through which to heal.

And Yet It Crumbles…

The Law of Diminishing Returns is the principle where something only works to a certain extent. If you keep doing more of it, the thing starts getting worse. Put two cooks in the kitchen and make twice the food. Put four cooks in the kitchen and you start getting half the food.

The American governments can’t literally pay half the working class to lock up the other half. Just like telecommunications have made it difficult to wage war against the “savage” foreigner, it is difficult to maintain the rhetoric that drugs are evil, a moral curse, or that children who commit crimes expose their inner evil, or that formerly incarcerated people are incapable of raising children and being good neighbors.

Fifty years after the March on Washington and some reports indicate we are more segregated than ever, with a greater class disparity than any country except India. Yet all the private schools and gated communities cannot keep the tides of change at bay. Tens of millions of Americans have been put in cages. Each is part of a family and circle of friends. With over 65 million Americans having a criminal record, and likely over 100 million people directly impacted by an over-criminalizing, super-sentencing criminal justice system costing billions of dollars every year… it is tough to keep the lie alive. The lie is that this is all for your own good.

When the cure becomes worse than the disease, you have lost the confidence of your patient. Americans want to redesign the solutions and reallocate the billions of dollars. A movement is in place. We can call it a Civil Rights Movement, a Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement, or anything else. When the incarcerator begins expanding their industry to probation, parole, electronic monitoring, rehabilitation, and halfway houses: its because the rhetoric of cages has fallen on deaf ears and empty pockets.

Read the essential Unprison, here.

August 22, 2013August 22, 2013

A former prisoner’s view of ‘Orange Is The New Black’

Those of you without Netflix might be wondering what’s all the fuss about with “Orange is the New Black.” The first 13-episode season of ONB is the second TV show to debut on the website. It is time to get past the controversy over who created the show and use it for advancing discussion on mass incarceration in ways that only mass media can accomplish.

The setting of ONB is simple: a women’s federal minimum security in upstate New York. Roughly a dozen main characters provide the drama, humor, and sex. Yes, sex (go figure). The storytelling device is that the show’s central viewpoint is through the character Piper Chapman- a White chick. She is based on a real life character, Piper Kerman, who wrote the book “Orange is the New Black” after serving a year in just such a penitentiary. Chapman/Kerman both went to a fancy college and were born with privilege, rather than the working class and impoverished neighborhoods destroyed by a war on people, dubbed the “War on Drugs.”

So lets get a few things out of the way:

1. This is neither a documentary film nor a news piece. It is thought-provoking television entertainment. i.e. the last review I wrote was for the film “Les Miserables.” My thoughts have been provoked. For those of you in Rhode Island who want a scholarly assessment of incarcerated women, find the book “Mothering in Prison,” by Prof. Sandra Enos.

2. The show is racist. Yes, I said it. That’s because the entire prison apparatus is racist, thus any show based on it, rooted in it, must also be racist. For my non-believers in racism, I leave it to endless studies showing that similarly situated White people overwhelmingly receive less-punitive treatment than Black and Latino folks. This starts with where police patrol to the discretion of police, prosecutors, grand juries, judges, juries, parole boards… and it all compounds at every stage to form a massive ball of racism.

3. The writer, Jenji Kohan, did not do time in prison. She wrote the show “Weeds” about a suburban mom who sells weed. I’m not sure if Kohan has experience with that, but I know several weed dealers who loved the show. She, her brother and father, have all won Emmy awards for their writing. Here, Kohan pulls her story out of Kerman’s book, and consults with Kerman on the scripts. And wherever she is pulling it from: she’s got skills, and not just getting by because she’s Jewish in Hollywood.

Considering the above, some are outraged that it’s “only a story when a White person gets locked up.” There is some truth to that, but ONB is not just about the White character. I’m reminded of “ER,” where the storytelling device is to show the insanity of the hospital through the eyes of Dr. Carter, the rookie intern. It’s a device, to create some tension- and in prison culture, roles can be reversed. As a guy told me within a few weeks of my incarceration: “You people run shit out there, we run shit in here.” Yes, I would love to watch Mumia’s TV drama, if he wrote one. I also know that if it were my show, there would be flack that it’s a White writer, even if the main character were Black. And finally, it seems to me that people want stories about either total monsters or people who were justified/innocent. We don’t like to wade in the murky waters of good people who do really bad things.

The Power of the Female Lens

Women are about 7% of people in prison. Clearly they are not representative of the norm, however, I believe this is a better lens for society to see through and comprehend what is going on. We often have little compassion for men and no outrage when they are trampled. If America were presented with a cellblock full of Black men, people shut down, revert to stereotypes, and innate prejudices drive their view. Consider all the voyeurs who watch the MSNBC “Lockup” series, or the other one (you know the one). Such shows are reinforcing the norm that “these people” belong in prison; that these dangerous dudes shouldn’t live on my street. Some people rush to judgment at the slightest hint of “thug” behavior. The fact that a significant percentage of America could do this over a skinny unarmed high school kid who was shot and killed… it is almost astonishing, unless you have a pulse of American cultural wavelengths. Trayvon Martin’s story, in 2013, has many lessons still to be addressed.

I was in a prison group where a counselor showed us part of an Oz episode. About two guys were shanked, three raped, a few tattoos, massive drug use… all within a few minutes. “That’s what people think you’re doing in here,” she said. Imagine hearing, years later, someone in a social justice sphere say (only half joking): “I know what prison is like, I watched Oz.” I gave her a look and said “ouch.” She knew what I meant to say. With ONB, I hope these female characters will succeed in exploring (for the viewer) genuine issues of the human condition. It just so happens that my favorite book on prison is also written by a woman who served time.

One of my friends once said, “They should give us royalties,” while walking the yard. He concluded that without us doing crazy, messed up stuff to inspire the writers and suck in the voyeurs, those with criminal fantasies, the fetishists, even the studious- they would have no TV, no movies, because “crime” stories are everywhere. On the funny side, he’s right. But on a serious note, this highlights a deeper dilemma where a group of people aren’t allowed to, nor sought out, to write their own stories. The creators of Oz (Tom Fontana) and The Wire(David Simon) are both White guys with writer backgrounds. Both have long ‘cop show’ writing credits.

It isn’t fair to writers, in general, that they be lauded only when they write from their direct experience. But it is more unjust when the subjects are excluded from the storytelling process. This is not to say anyone who has been in prison can construct a complex web of characters with properly paced plot lines. Nor to say any “writer” can use their skills for any scenario. There are writers who have been incarcerated, of all skin tones, and this Kohan/Kerman story is just one of the tales that can be told. Lets not ever forget that Netflix is in it for the money, not to advance an agenda.

Most agencies that serve incarcerated, and formerly incarcerated, people also have disproportionately White staffs. The same can be said for those who study us or represent us in court. Most of them have folks running reentry programs who have never reentered society from prison. Many People of Color who do such work aren’t from low-income over-policed communities, and perhaps went to colleges like the ONB lead character rather than the state homes like Taystee. Ultimately, we can draw hard lines in the sand to exclude all but the perfect voices, perfect in both style and substance, or we can embrace it a bit- based on people’s true intentions. Lease with the option to call you out on some bullshit.

Character-Driven Issues

Chapman, like the book’s author, caught a year for being a money mule- yet never actually getting arrested with drugs or money. It is true that the biggest drug dealers in the world never get caught while people just getting by, often Black and Latino folks with few (if any) economic alternatives, are fueling an incarceration industry. Once the dealing goes corporate, those millions of dollars create private bankers, private militaries, and paid-off officials. My frustration with this character’s legal dilemma is that she didn’t go to trial, not the presumption that, if she were Black, she would be serving 20 years on a mandatory minimum sentence.

Its tough to pick a favorite character, as the acting is brilliant. None of the characters are just cartoon cut-outs, they have multi-dimensions, and most manage to remind me of someone I knew in prison. Pennsatucky is brilliantly portrayed by Taryn Manning (8 Mile); lovable/avoidable ‘Crazy Eyes’ (Uzo Aduba) allows a window into mental illness, and the grim reality of prison medical treatment; Red (Kate Mulgrew) grows on you like a Soprano, and you quickly forget she is not the captain of Starship Voyager. I’m not feeling Laura Prepon’s character (Alex) who, sadly, is a central character. I’m not sure if its her skinny eyebrows, hipster sarcasm, or stool-pigeonry, but she can just go away. Some may argue that ONB has too many characters who appear justified in their criminal behavior, and/or they were not the real culprit (just along for the ride), or it was an accident, or they only victimized themselves. Lets not forget this is a minimum security where, typically, people are in on bullshit charges. But yes, for some of us: we did some fucked up shit and can never take it back. With a show like this, however, we can take the time to see that even the most heinous actions have a story attached to them.

The show goes far enough to create a transgender character (Sophia) played by Laverne Cox, who is (surprise) a transgender woman in real life. She is another potential show-stealer, with many story lines to work out. Surely the creators can consult with Miss Major and TGI Justice on this issue. The problem with prisons brutally failing trans people, in many ways, starts with their troubling policies on where to incarcerate someone. I’ll leave it to others to discuss the reality of the character’s journey, but its excellent to see ONBattempt to cover the landscape.

Allowing for character development is a bonus where a show has perhaps five seasons and over 60 hours to spend- especially where the characters are in prison. New people will come in, some may get out and come back, and an incarcerated mother’s life is perhaps one of the most complicated personalities to unpack and understand. Elizabeth Rodriguez portrays Aleida, whose own daughter becomes incarcerated. She is probably my favorite character, in anticipation of her growth on the show.

And then there is Chapman, the main character. She is lovable and hate-able, which I believe is the intent of the show. ONB may vault actress Taylor Shilling into a leading lady, or sideline her to a memorable role, like the friends on Friends. Either way, she is just right for the show. Her awkwardness and confidence are evident, two traits one might expect from an Upper West Side-type-of-girl who finds her way into the Joint after thinking her adventures in the drug world were above the law… and buried in the past.robably my favorite as I sense the room for her growth and the revelations of what drives her.

And the character, Pornstache… he is possibly my favorite villain since Dr. Evil. There are also some “good” guards. But keep watching- we shall see if they go the way most go over time.

Its not all Perfect

Struggles with poverty, addiction, violence and difficult choices are not gender-specific. Rape by prison guards is almost (not totally) unique to women prisoners, and the rate of HIV is much higher. Hardly any men are in prison for prostitution, but the root cause of desperately needing money is often the same: addiction, a health issue. Despite some differences, the insanity of prison regulations is the same for both genders. Addiction is part of ONB, but I expect to see further health problems- including amongst the older “Golden Girls,” as people die in prison every year, often amidst brutal neglect.

My primary critique thus far is that there is not enough emphasis on children of the prisoners. Organizations such as Women On the Rise Telling Her Story (WORTH) in NYC, and Justice Now in Oakland, must be going nuts, as they do the real work with women locked up. About 75% of incarcerated women are mothers, and most of them are in constant struggles with DCYF over visitation, or even termination of their parental rights. Prisons are still sterilizing women. A few mothering plot-lines exist: one woman who gives birth behind bars (which received decent treatment, but could have been more intense); or the Mother-Daughter who are both incarcerated.

I’m hoping to see not just a political prisoner (there is one), but prisoners who become political. Some refer to such people (I was one, myself) as “Political Prisoners” all the same. I won’t mince words and terms, I just want to see some higher analysis of The System by a few of these women. It is self-evident that wherever there are people caged for more than long enough to gather their thoughts, there will be wisdom. One might think that Red, the kitchen matriarch, would be the font for such perspective, but I think it may be better drawn out through Gloria, with her constituency of Latinas. Taystee is a quality “brains of the operation,” but a certain college girl not named Chapman could also develop into an intellectual force.

I would like to see more exploration of the racial dynamics in prison. It is not the same as the outside, although it is an extension of an America that protected slave ownership through force of laws and weapons; a society that can currently whip some people up into a fury by mentioning “illegals” on welfare. I’m someone who directly confronted racial politics and culture while incarcerated. This was some of the most rewarding experiences for me, as it was a strike against the “Divide and Conquer” power structure that serves an outnumbered master class. ONB sets up the “tribes” and “families” that form the society in this prison, creating a large canvass upon which to paint our human condition.

If you want to know the humanity of society, look to its prisons

Prison is a peculiar place that molds us in ways that often depends on our disposition towards other people. Do we care about other people? Despise them? With that said, self-preservation is crucial. Chapman is not an angel. She screws up on more than a few occasions. If this prison were more violent, she may have been shanked two or three times already. She is like the “NewJack” that inspired me to write “NewJack’s Guide to the Big House,” when I finally got to minimum security, after 11 years of prison.

In full disclosure, I know the writer of the book ONB (Piper Kerman), upon which Jenji Kohan based the show, and had breakfast with her the other day. She corrected my false assumption that the prison setting, including the seeming unlimited movement of the ladies, was made for TV. In fact, the real version of this prison is much like the show. I was also quick to recognize that she is not the character “Chapman”- its just an awkward derivative. We are both looking forward to the second season.

Prison is a funny place. It is a scary place. It is a hole in the ground where power dynamics can make you a ruler or an outcast in a matter of hours. Someone who spent a year in there can’t know it all, and neither Piper Chapman nor Piper Kerman nor Jenji Kohan knows it all. We can watch the show and think about fake characters confronting real issues, or we can just change the channel. Yesterday, a guy on the plane behind me, who was finishing up his degree in accounting, was saying how one particular show is “the best, its real. The guy basically just fucks women and makes money.” The girl next to him asked, “is that your goal in life?” He replies, “Basically.” We can always aspire to be that guy.

August 1, 2013

Why the response to Trayvon Martin falls short

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The death of Trayvon Martin and acquittal of his murderer, George Zimmerman, unleashed widespread discussion and protest of racism in America. The response has been rightful outrage; protestors filling streets and indignant polemics filling the media. Yet a lion’s share of the response misses the mark.

Trayvon Martin’s death, like most all instances of racism, resulted from the structural racism which exists in the United States—income, education, incarceration, voting inequality, etc. Systemic, pervasive racial inequality inevitably breeds racist behavior. But, in a manner both common and pernicious, most of the response has ‘individualized’ racism, reducing the problem to the depraved attitudes of George Zimmerman and other racists like him. The problem becomes just Zimmerman; the grand remedy is nationwide attitude reform. Any course of action that individualizes racism as such is circular, leading directly back to where we stand today. If we are serious about stopping the rushing stream of Trayvon Martins, a different conceptualization of racism and a different action plan is necessary.

Most of the mass outcry at Trayvon Martin’s murder and Zimmerman’s acquittal has treated racism as an individual problem. The limitations of the demands and the proposed program to fight racism both treat racism as an individual attitude rather than a systemic ideology rooted in material inequalities.

In example, the nearly singular demand expressed by the outraged has been a guilty verdict, to lock Zimmerman up. Op-ed after op-ed, tweet after tweet, and speech after speech blasted the Florida justice system. Here most of the outrage stops. Zimmerman is a racist who must be imprisoned, and perhaps the acquitting jury members share some of the responsibility as well. The call on the Obama administration to prosecute Zimmerman on civil rights grounds has been far and away the most resounding and organized response, quickly amassing over one million signatures. Overwhelmingly, anti-racists have directed their rage at Zimmerman the individual.

Even when the discussion has moved beyond Zimmerman, the outraged have generally kept racism at the level of the individual. The common plan of action to combat further racism has been to promote self-reflection on racism amongst racist individuals everywhere. President Obama summarized this strategy in his widely celebrated speech on the matter. Obama concluded,
“And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race… [A]sk yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.”

The remedy is to ‘wring bias’ out of people, to question our individual attitudes. In the same vein, perhaps the most trendy social media response was to declare ‘I am not Trayvon Martin’. Turning the traditional ‘I am’ rally cry of unity on its head, the ‘I am not’ strategy focuses on stimulating discussion of ‘racial privilege’. Like Obama’s conclusion, the implied solution is to cleanse racists’ attitudes through sober discussion. While there hasn’t yet been anything akin to the Million Man March, we have certainly seen a Million Man Recognition of Racial Privilege of sorts in the past weeks.

Both responses are fine starting points. Zimmerman should be imprisoned as a matter of justice and racism’s omnipresence in American society needs to be talked about. But stopping there, as most of the conversation has, is not only stunted but also politically harmful. To imply that racism is merely a free-floating cancer in the minds of individuals and can be eradicated through widespread individual persuasion is to condemn the anti-racist movement to failure.

The problem with the individual-centric response is that racism is an ideology inextricably rooted in the material racial inequality of American society. Rather than existing simply in the realm of ideas, ideologies such as racism exist as a means for individuals to interpret and explain material realities. That is, ideologies help us understand the world around us. As the great historian of American racism, Barbara Fields, writes,

“Ideology is a distillate of experience. Where the experience is lacking, so is the ideology that only the missing experience could call into being…An ideology must be constantly created and verified in social life; if it is not, it dies. Ideology is not a set of attitudes that people can ‘have’ as they have a cold, and throw off the same way. Human beings live in human societies by negotiating a certain social terrain, whose map they keep alive in their minds by the collective, ritual repetition of the activities they must carry out in order to negotiate the terrain.”

Racism in the United States is an ideology that helps ‘negotiate’ the country’s drastic racial inequality. In a country with such great inequality along racial lines, racism as an ideology is profoundly powerful in explaining the ‘social terrain’. As long as this inequality exists, along with a class with an interest in exploiting it (think Fox News), racism as an ideology is not likely to disappear.

An isolated maniac thus did not alone murder Trayvon Martin. The rampant racial inequality in our society that engenders racial prejudice, along with Zimmerman, ultimately shares responsibility. Zimmerman reacted in fear and hate towards an African-American just as thousands of other Americans do each day, just as our unequal society encourages them to do. In a society that disproportionately criminalizes, impoverishes, imprisons, and generally oppresses African-Americans, an ideology of racism which understands African-Americans as ‘underclass’ criminals readily flourishes. Zimmerman looked at the world around him, one in which African-Americans are disproportionately criminalized and impoverished, and the ideology of racism made sense. When he saw Martin walking home, his instincts sprung to action and he committed racist murder.

Most of the outraged responses fall short because they fail to address these root causes of racist violence. If racist violence such as Zimmerman’s were an isolated phenomenon, a mere conviction would be sufficient. Racist violence—physical, economic, and psychological—is, however, an every-minute occurrence in America. Discussion of racism in America is vital, but discussion is only worth the action it precipitates. A political strategy of discussion that will convert American racists is bound to leave American racism safely intact. A political strategy of merely discussing ‘privilege’ in hope that racist White Americans recognize and denounce their racism is bound to leave American racism safely intact. Any political program that treats racism as a mere idea or attitude, detached from our country’s racialized slums, prisons, schools, etc, is bound to leave American racism safely intact.

To truly fight racism in America and to stop future racist brutalities like the murder of Trayvon Martin, we must focus our energies on ending the sweeping racial inequalities that generate George Zimmermans. For example, we must channel our outrage at ending the racist criminal justice system. For as long as one in three African-American men are imprisoned in their lifetimes, there will be racism and more Trayvon Martins. We must channel our outrage at fighting for decent jobs and full employment in African-American communities. For as long as African-American unemployment is more than twice that of white unemployment, and as long as African-American poverty rates nearly triple those of whites, there will be racism and more Trayvon Martins. We must channel our outrage at fighting for decent public schools in African-American communities. For as long as only roughly one-half of all male minority students graduate high school on time, there will be racism and more Trayvon Martins. We must channel our outrage at fighting the attack on voting rights. For as long as thirteen percent of all African-American men have lost the right to vote, there will be racism and more Trayvon Martins. So on and so forth.

The list is potentially long, the conclusion the same: racial inequalities must be uprooted to end racist behavior. Racism is an ideology that flourishes in unequal societies. Like any ideology, its mass appeal is in its ability to help members of society navigate their everyday reality, and its reproduction cannot occur if this reality fundamentally changes. Fighting racist behavior without fighting America’s material racial inequalities is akin to prescribing Tylenol instead of radiation for a cancer patient. George Zimmerman should be imprisoned. However, those interested in ending such racism must make demands that would dismantle nation-wide racial inequities. We need to have a wide-ranging discussion of racism in America. However, the endgame cannot be individual catharsis or moral exposé in recognizing racial privilege. Instead, our discussion must focus on why racial inequalities exist and how we are going to organize to collectively vanquish them. Continuing to discuss racism as an individual problem keeps the struggle on the American elite’s preferred terms, deflecting culpability from society’s policy-makers and leaving social structures unquestioned.

Those of us outraged must not let Trayvon Martin’s death be in vain. Let’s talk far and wide about the deep societal inequalities that cause racist injustices like Trayvon’s every day in America. In Trayvon’s name, let’s organize far and wide and fight for an end to the racial inequalities that exist at the very core of American society.

April 12, 2013April 12, 2013

‘Accidental Racism’ The Song, Not The Practice

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The sensational buzz around country star Brad Paisley‘s song “Accidental Racist” is perfect fodder for a Twitter blurb- but is this the extent of racial analysis we can muster in America? If someone stops reading this article at the first sentence, I feel like this provides a more appropriate response than the shallow condemnations filling the airwaves. First for some caveats, because I respect that our own experiences fuel our opinions:

I am a man from the North who lives in the South (less than two years) who can’t trace his lineage back into the 1800′s at all. I forgot everything taught to me in school and replaced it with over a decade of independent research on a variety of topics, especially history. I learned my deepest lessons on race relations from close affiliations with multiple self-acclaimed racists of various colors and intensities; I learned it in prison. Since my release I have been in an anti-racist social justice community that strives to confront racism and find pathways beyond this beast.

Now back to the song: I don’t find it particularly good, on its artistic merits. I don’t listen to much Country, so I suspect many non-Country fans will be instantly turned off simply by the sound of it. Similarly, I don’t think I can take another Lil’ Wayne song which basically sounds like he was in the studio smoking weed with some strippers and someone left the mic on. But when I say Mos Def, Immortal Technique, Rage Against the Machine, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, and the Grateful Dead are among my all-time favorite bands, its clear that the genre isn’t my problem. ”Accidental Racist” isn’t very poetic nor musically dynamic.

But I like this song. The courage of both Paisley and LL Cool J is admirable. Surely some agent or other was telling them “Nooooo!!!!!” Paisley probably doesn’t know this, but the most common theme among People of Color, when discussing racism, is that White people need to go back and educate their White families, colleagues, and neighbors about racism. I imagine that only certain radio stations are going to play this song, and a certain demographic will buy this album- the same demographic that White anti-racists are called upon to reach.

It is not easy to get an anti-racist message out to mainstream America, particularly one which is digestible to the group you want to change. A documentary on the horrors of imprisoning families suspected of migrating to America without government permission, one which condemns racist statements of various actors, may win a human rights film festival and be seen by every activist I know… yet not enlighten a single person with racist tendencies (be they subconscious or overt). So how do we reach them?

A message has to be heard to be effective. One that merely reinforces what you already believe is of little use except where it helps to clarify your thoughts and elevates your understanding. To get people to examine their own beliefs, the message (and the messenger) needs to meet you where you’re at.

In the social justice policy sphere, we recognize that there are not enough true believers in equality and caring about the least fortunate. So we spend a lot of energy trying to convince Conservatives and “Tough On Crime” Liberals that they should change course. The most popular tactic lately has been the finances: it costs a lot of money to patrol, arrest, and incarcerate millions of Black, Latino, and poor White people. The reality is, the approach is to speak in terms they can understand.

If I can get you to the table, we have a chance of building a conversation and learning what your needs and fears are. If I can get everyone on the spectrum to just move a little bit in the direction I’m headed, then each movement is a victory. A Liberal wakes up and realizes the Drug War needs to stop; a Moderate becomes outspoken against the racist undertones of Voter ID and drug testing TANF recipients; a Conservative decides to not oppose a decision to close a local jail; a Klan member stops going to secret rallies… Its all about moving people a little bit.

“To the man that waited on me at the Starbucks down on Main, I hope you understand
When I put on that t-shirt, the only thing I meant to say is I’m a Skynyrd fan
The red flag on my chest somehow is like the elephant in the corner of the south
And I just walked him right in the room
Just a proud rebel son with an ‘ol can of worms
Lookin’ like I got a lot to learn but from my point of view”
The Hook:

“I’m just a white man comin’ to you from the southland
Tryin’ to understand what it’s like not to be
I’m proud of where I’m from but not everything we’ve done
And it ain’t like you and me can re-write history
Our generation didn’t start this nation
We’re still pickin’ up the pieces, walkin’ on eggshells, fightin’ over yesterday
And caught between southern pride and southern blame

They called it Reconstruction, fixed the buildings, dried some tears
We’re still siftin’ through the rubble after a hundred-fifty years
I try to put myself in your shoes and that’s a good place to begin
But it ain’t like I can walk a mile in someone else’s skin”

LL Cool J:
“Dear Mr. White Man, I wish you understood
What the world is really like when you’re livin’ in the hood
Just because my pants are saggin’ doesn’t mean I’m up to no good
You should try to get to know me, I really wish you would
Now my chains are gold but I’m still misunderstood
I wasn’t there when Sherman’s March turned the south into firewood
I want you to get paid but be a slave I never could
Feel like a new fangled Django, dodgin’ invisible white hoods
So when I see that white cowboy hat, I’m thinkin’ it’s not all good
I guess we’re both guilty of judgin’ the cover not the book
I’d love to buy you a beer, conversate and clear the air
But I see that red flag and I think you wish I wasn’t here”

I’m just a white man
(If you don’t judge my do-rag)
Comin’ to you from the southland
(I won’t judge your red flag)
Tryin’ to understand what it’s like not to be
I’m proud of where I’m from
(If you don’t judge my gold chains)
But not everything we’ve done
(I’ll forget the iron chains)
It ain’t like you and me can re-write history
(Can’t re-write history baby)

Oh, Dixieland
(The relationship between the Mason-Dixon needs some fixin’)
I hope you understand what this is all about
(Quite frankly I’m a black Yankee but I’ve been thinkin’ about this lately)
I’m a son of the new south
(The past is the past, you feel me)
And I just want to make things right
(Let bygones be bygones)
Where all that’s left is southern pride
(RIP Robert E. Lee but I’ve gotta thank Abraham Lincoln for freeing me, know what I mean)
It’s real, it’s real
It’s truth”

Could Paisley have left the Confederate flag out of the song? Perhaps, but he would have been evading the most prominent symbol of racism. A swastika is universally condemned, yet the Stars and Bars fly freely around this country. But what the singer suggests, to me, is that symbols mean different things to different people. Many viewers see the flag and basically equate the one displaying it to a Klan member. Those flying it, however, may be Southerners at various points of a spectrum on racial views. It is doubtful that a lecture from Obama, or even a Congressional law banning it, will change many attitudes.

LL’s line about forgetting the iron chains is a tough line. Some people would like to forget and move on, while others still think there needs to be closure- with Reparations being required. Considering there were roughly 40 million Americans in 1870, yet over 50 million have immigrated since then, it is obviously difficult to allocate slavery reparations to actual descendants. I believe the money could be spent on housing and education among low income People of Color, a systemic investment (in the same way the American system protected and enabled slavery).

Either way, it is difficult to have a fresh dialogue without putting aside, even for a moment, the sins and sufferings of the forefathers. What is perhaps most relevant is identifying the unbroken timeline between slavery and today, regarding America’s laws and attitudes. And if this were solely a Southern problem, laid at the feet of Southern men who have become the face of repression… this ignores the situation in all parts of the nation. History is full of selective amnesia, and there is plenty of blame to go around for past and present oppression.

Robert E. Lee is not labeled a “traitor” in American history. After the war, he became the president of a university and is highly regarded by the U.S. military for his tactical ability. Statues of him are aplenty. He more than likely (along with many slaveowners bankrolling the Rebellion) passed along considerable wealth to his children. His lionization and acceptance is, dare I say, similar to hating Al Qaeda while appreciating Osama bin Laden’s leadership skills.

The inability to properly condemn the leaders of the Confederacy, while blaming the rank and file soldier, is consistent with a structure where the poor are always manipulated to fight the rich man’s war. People in the South died by the hundreds of thousands. They overwhelmingly died in the South believing their lands were under attack. In the past century, the same could be said about Iraqis, Vietnamese, Germans, and so many more. People need to be allowed to honor their dead, in their own ways.

I am far from an apologist for racism, yet I recognize that we live in a nation where local leaders and institutions surround young people with many remnants of the Rebellion. History has not eliminated it- I go past Lee Circle and Jeff Davis Boulevard all the time, among other names such as Jackson, MLK, and Simon Bolivar.

I have had cellmates from the North and South, I have lived in a box with members and leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood, Hell’s Angels, Five Percenters, and Latin Kings, among others. Many of them never heard a guy like me speak before, and I likely would have dismissed their views without any critical discussion until we were forced into the situation.

I’ve seen opposed racists play sports together, work out together, and actually moderate their expressions over time. One Neo-Nazi tried to shred his knuckle tattoos off with steel wool, because he didn’t hate people as much as when he was a kid getting beat up by others who looked different than him.

With the movie “42″ coming out in a week, people might approach that movie knowing Jackie Robinson did not cast a magical spell over America that Black athletes were good people. Similarly, Jesse Owens returned to a racist and segregated America, flag in hand, after showing up the Nazis. Even Abe Lincoln did not think too highly of those families he freed; he merely saw it as pragmatic. The point is: we reach people where they are at, and just try to move them a little bit.

The Anti-Haters need to stop the hate.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387