Tag Archives: privilege

PEARL BUCK on Black America

Re-blogged from one of the most informative blogs on the web:  abagond.wordpress.com


Pearl Buck, a member of the NAACP who won a Nobel Prize for “The Good Earth” (1931), wrote an “Open Letter to the Colored People of America”, which appeared in Black newspapers across the US in early March 1942. Three months later she gave a commencement speech at Howard University. This was just months after Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbour, bringing it into the Second World War.

She believed the war propaganda that the US was fighting for freedom and democracy.But she also understood that for Blacks, the US was hardly a democracy:

“Faulty as our democracy is, the United States must be the leader in this war for the right of peoples to be free – there is no other leader to whom we can look.”

She divided US Whites into three groups, listed here from smallest to largest:

  1. Those who have no racial prejudice and are on the side of Blacks in their fight for freedom and equality.
  2. Those who have strong racial prejudice and are against Blacks.
  3. Those in the middle. They suspect racial prejudice may be wrong, but do not know what to do about it.

Most Whites are in the middle. If Hitler and Japan win, the first group will be shot and the second one will be put in charge.

She sees Blacks as a nation within a nation, a subject people. They have suffered for hundreds of years. That has led some to be bitter, but has made most wiser and more mature in spirit than Whites. Because of their position in the democracy, Blacks have become its moral conscience. But they are weak. All their great leaders are in the past. She fears Blacks will withdraw behind the walls Whites have set up – instead of breaking them down and taking part in the US and the world as a whole.

Blacks need to break down those walls now more than ever: not just because it is the right thing to do, not just because it would make life better for them in the long run, but because it would be better for everyone, of all races, both in the US and across the world…Read full article on abagond



The Psychological Burden of Invisible Racism

“…Post-racial believers overlook incidents like the now famous racist rant of that Papa John’s pizza delivery man. Obviously, he’s not post-racial. And, you know, he didn’t learn his racism in a vacuum, nor was he singing to himself.

frozenfoods-434x400And this happened in Sanford, Florida, which brings the killing of Trayvon Martin and those increasingly popular Stand Your Ground laws to mind. Many of you will recall that Martin’s killer,George Zimmerman, created a fundraising website that originally included a picture of the vandalized wall at the black cultural center at Ohio State University bearing the slogan “Long Live George Zimmerman.” The website has raised nearly $200,000 from supporters who appear more concerned about the harm done to Zimmerman’s reputation by accusations racism than with the possibility of his having murdered a teen aged boy in cold blood. If not all outright racists, his donors certainly appear very sensitive to the idea of black people labeling non-blacks racist, and not in a let’s-be-friends kind of way.

The idea that we’re post-racial feeds colorblind racism, or the refusal to see race and acknowledge the role of racism in determining inequitable outcomes. Failing to acknowledge the persistence of racism robs us of the ability to recognize its effects on individuals and communities, not to mention on democracy itself.

But there’s another problem associated with post-racialism that is less discussed, mainly because its effects are largely invisible. In fact, invisibility is the problem.

I often encounter enraged white drivers when I’m on the road. And, no, I don’t fit the stereotype of the bad Asian American driver. What I am is a careful driver. But it’s the very act of driving carefully, and therefore within speed limits, that seems to anger harried rush hour drivers who shout out epithets, though rarely any that target my race. But compared with non-Asian men I know, the incidents are more frequent and much more threatening. The only people I know who are targeted for road rage more frequently are women.

Makes me wonder, is this happening because non-Asian (and non-immigrant) drivers are thinking, ifthose people weren’t here, the roads would be less crowded? And is the echo of my experience among my women friends evidence that anti-Asian stereotypes emasculate Asian men?

Portland, Oregon is my second home. On visits to Portland, whose overwhelming whiteness often makes it feel like the world epicenter of colorblind racism, I avoid the supermarket between 5-7 pm. At those times, when people are tired and the aisles and parking lots are crowded, I’ve often had white women tell me off for ogling them. I also get the aggressive buggy bump, frustrated sighs and theatrical displays of silent anger from the hand on the hip to over the top glares, and even the occasional in-your-face confrontations, including one in which I was asked if I could read English as I stared at a label.

It doesn’t happen everyday, and I’m not going to pretend I have nothing to do with it. Push me and I’ll generally push you back. But, as a political activist, I fight for a living. To me, non-work hours are best spent avoiding conflict.

I’m also not going to pretend that gay men don’t ogle women on occasion. I’m just not much of a gay ogler. And, yes, being GMO conscious and a vegan means I may take a little longer than many when choosing a brand. But I’m not a rude shopper.

These incidents happen often enough that even the most subtle acts of aggression can trigger memories of times when I’ve felt as though I’d been used as an emotional punching bag by some harried shopper hoping to vent their frustrations. I try empathy, thinking, maybe he had a tough day. But I find myself wondering, why is that my fault? Then I grow angry, and carry that stress into my evening, silently wondering, did you pick on me because you think I’m passive, or because you think I don’t belong?

Many of these incidents may have little or nothing to do with race. But in a world where our experiences are so powerfully organized by racism, I can’t help but consider it, and that consideration is costly, because racism, like sexism, is different than most ordinary slights. The racist objectifies his target, finds him less than, reduces him to stereotypes, and then acts accordingly on a continuum of actions that begin with angry looks or “accidental” bumps, and ends with political actions that have broad implications and sometimes even in acts of violence.

And each little act reminds us of the persistence of racism, forcing us to recognize the role it will play in the lives of our children. And that possibility compounds our frustration, breeding a sense of helplessness to do right by those we love, and a burden of stress that exacts a toll that though largely invisible is nonetheless a very real part of the experience of being a person of color in a far from post-racial America…”

Re-blogged from ChangeLab/Racefiles


Tremaine McMillian Becomes the Latest Victim of Racist Florida Juvenile “Justice” System at the Young Age of 14 (Memorial Day) [VIDEO]

United States Hypocrisy

mcmillianFor 14 year old Tremaine McMillian, Memorial Day of May 27, 2013 began just the same as it did for many other young kids his age in Miami-Dade County, spending the holiday with family and friends as they enjoyed a warm summer day on the beach. Unfortunately, what transpired shortly thereafter would put the young boy’s life and his entire future in jeopardy. It now lies in the hands of a notoriously racist Florida State Juvenile “Justice” System – a system which does not look kindly on the lives of young ones who get caught up in the system, especially those who happen to be Black.

tremaine-police-attackedIt all began shortly after 11:00 a.m., according to the Miami-Dade police, when Tremaine was supposedly seen pushing another kid into the sand. His sister who was present disputes this charge, however. Shortly afterward as Tremaine bottle-fed milk to his new puppy, Polo…

View original post 1,011 more words

The Long, Sordid History of the American Right and Racism

Other factors have come and gone for the Right, but racism has always been there.

Racism has been a consistent thread weaving through the American Right from the early days when Anti-Federalists battled against the U.S. Constitution to the present when hysterical Tea Partiers denounce the first African-American president. Other factors have come and gone for the Right, but racism has always been there.

Though definitions of Right and Left are never precise, the Left has generally been defined, in the American context, by government actions – mostly the federal government responding to popular movements and representing the collective will of the American people – seeking to improve the lot of common citizens and to reduce social injustice.

The Right has been defined by opposition to such government activism. Since the Founding, the Right has decried government interference with the “free market” and intrusion upon “traditions,” like slavery and segregation, as “tyranny” or “socialism.”

This argument goes back to 1787 and opposition to the Constitution’s centralizing of government power in the hands of federal authorities. In Virginia, for instance, the Anti-Federalists feared that a strong federal government eventually would outlaw slavery in the Southern states.

Ironically, this argument was raised by two of the most famous voices for “liberty,” Patrick Henry and George Mason. Those two Virginians spearheaded the Anti-Federalist cause at the state’s ratifying convention in June 1788, urging rejection of the Constitution because, they argued, it would lead to slavery’s demise.

The irony of Henry and Mason scaring fellow Virginians about the Constitution’s threat to slavery is that the two men have gone down in popular U.S. history as great espousers of freedom. Before the Revolution, Henry was quoted as declaring, “Give me liberty or give me death!” Mason is hailed as a leading force behind the Bill of Rights. However, their notion of “liberty” and “rights” was always selective. Henry and Mason worried about protecting the “freedom” of plantation owners to possess other human beings as property.

At Virginia’s Ratification Convention, Henry and Mason raised other arguments against the proposed Constitution, such as concerns that Virginia’s preeminence might not be as great as under the weak Articles of Confederation and that population gains in the North might erode Virginia’s economic welfare.

But the pair’s most potent argument was the danger they foresaw regarding the abolition of slavery. As historians Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg wrote in their 2010 book, Madison and Jefferson, the hot button for Henry and Mason was that “slavery, the source of Virginia’s tremendous wealth, lay politically unprotected.”

The Slavery Card

At the center of this fear was the state’s loss of ultimate control over its militia which could be “federalized” by the President as the nation’s commander in chief under the new Constitution.

“Mason repeated what he had said during the Constitutional Convention: that the new government failed to provide for ‘domestic safety’ if there was no explicit protection for Virginians’ slave property,” Burstein and Isenberg wrote. “Henry called up the by-now-ingrained fear of slave insurrections – the direct result, he believed, of Virginia’s loss of authority over its own militia.”

Henry floated conspiracy theories about possible subterfuges that the federal government might employ to deny Virginians and other Southerners the “liberty” to own African-Americans. Describing this fear-mongering, Burstein and Isenberg wrote:

“Congress, if it wished, could draft every slave into the military and liberate them at the end of their service. If troop quotas were determined by population, and Virginia had over 200,000 slaves, Congress might say: ‘Every black man must fight.’ For that matter, a northern-controlled Congress might tax slavery out of existence.

“Mason and Henry both ignored the fact that the Constitution protected slavery on the strength of the three-fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, and the slave trade clause. Their rationale was that none of this mattered if the North should have its way.”

At Philadelphia in 1787, the drafters of the Constitution had already capitulated to the South’s insistence on its brutal institution of human enslavement. That surrender became the line of defense that James Madison, a principal architect of the new governing structure, cited in his response to Mason and Henry.

Burstein and Isenberg wrote, “Madison rose to reject their conspiratorial view. He argued that the central government had no power to order emancipation, and that Congress would never ‘alienate the affections five-thirteenths of the Union’ by stripping southerners of their property. ‘Such an idea never entered into any American breast,’ he said indignantly, ‘nor do I believe it ever will.’

“Madison was doing his best to make Henry and Mason sound like fear-mongers. Yet Mason struck a chord in his insistence that northerners could never understand slavery; and Henry roused the crowd with his refusal to trust ‘any man on earth’ with his rights. Virginians were hearing that their sovereignty was in jeopardy.”

Despite the success of Mason and Henry to play on the fears of plantation owners, the broader arguments stressing the advantages of Union carried the day, albeit narrowly. Virginia ultimately approved ratification by 89 to 79. However, the South’s obsession over perceived threats to its institution of slavery remained a central factor in the early decades of the Republic.

Arming Whites

Though today’s Right pretends that the Second Amendment was devised to give individual Americans the right to own and carry any weapon of their choice – so they can shoot policemen, soldiers and other government representatives in the cause of anti-government “liberty” – it was primarily a concession to the states and especially to the South’s fears that were expressed at the Virginia convention.

Approved by the First Congress as part of the “Bill of Rights,” the Second Amendment explained its purpose as the need to maintain “the security of a free State,” an echo of Mason’s concerns about “domestic safety,” i.e. a Southern state’s ability to maintain slavery by force and defend against slave uprisings.

As the amendment emerged from various committee rewrites, it stated: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But that right, of course, did not extend to all people, not to people of color.

The Second Congress put substance to the structure of state militias by passing the Militia Acts, which specifically mandated that “white men” of military age obtain muskets and other supplies for participation in state militias. At the time, the concerns were not entirely over rebellious slaves, but also over rebellious poor whites.

Part of the backdrop of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 had been Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786-1787, an uprising of white farmers led by a former Continental Army officer, Daniel Shays. After ratification of the Constitution, the first significant use of federalized militias was in 1794 to crush an anti-tax revolt in western Pennsylvania led by poor whites known as the Whiskey Rebellion.

That uprising was treated as an act of treason as defined by the U.S. Constitution, although President Washington used his pardon power to spare rebel leaders from execution by hanging. Similar mercy was not shown when Southern states confronted actual or suspected slave revolts. In 1800, Virginia Gov. James Monroe called out the militia to stop an incipient slave uprising known as Gabriel’s Rebellion. Twenty-six alleged conspirators were hanged.

Jeffersonian Influences

Of course, slavery and racism were not the only defining characteristics of the Right during the country’s early years, as economic interests diverged and political rivalries surfaced. James Madison, for instance, had been a key protégé of George Washington and an ally of Alexander Hamilton during the fight for the Constitution.

Madison had even advocated for a greater concentration of power in the federal government, including giving Congress the explicit power to veto state laws. However, after the Constitution was in place, Madison began siding with his Virginian neighbor (and fellow slave-owner) Thomas Jefferson in political opposition to the Federalists.

In the first years of the constitutional Republic, the Federalists, led by President Washington and Treasury Secretary Hamilton, pushed the limits of federal power, particularly with Hamilton’s idea of a national bank which was seen as favoring the financial interests of the North to the detriment of the more agrarian South.

The Jeffersonians, coalescing around Jefferson and Madison, fiercely opposed Hamilton’s national economic planning though the differences often seemed to be driven by personal animosities and regional rivalries as much as by any grand ideological vision regarding government authority. The Jeffersonians, for instance, were sympathetic to the bloody French Revolution, which made a mockery of the rule of law and the restraint of government power.

Nevertheless, history has generally been kind to Jefferson’s enthusiasm for a more agrarian America and his supposed commitment to the common man. But what is left out of this praise for “Jeffersonian democracy” is that Jefferson’s use of the word “farmers” was often a euphemism for his actual political base, the slave-owning plantation aristocrats of the South.

At his core, despite his intellectual brilliance, Jefferson was just another Southern hypocrite. He wrote that “all men are created equal” (in the Declaration of Independence) but he engaged in pseudo-science to portray African-Americans as inferior to whites (as he did in his Notes on the State of Virginia).

His racism rationalized his own economic and personal reliance on slavery. While desperately afraid of slave rebellions, he is alleged to have taken a young slave girl, Sally Hemings, as a mistress.

Jefferson’s hypocrisy also surfaced in his attitudes toward a slave revolt in the French colony of St. Domingue, where African slaves took seriously the Jacobins’ cry of “liberty, equality and fraternity.” After their demands for freedom were rebuffed and the brutal French plantation system continued, violent slave uprisings followed. Hundreds of white plantation owners were slain as the rebels overran the colony. A self-educated slave named Toussaint L’Ouverture emerged as the revolution’s leader, demonstrating skills on the battlefield and in the complexities of politics.

The ‘Black Jacobins’

Despite the atrocities committed by both sides of the conflict, the rebels – known as the “Black Jacobins” – gained the sympathy of the American Federalists. L’Ouverture negotiated friendly relations with the Federalist administration under President John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, a native of the Caribbean himself, helped L’Ouverture draft a constitution.

But events in Paris and Washington soon conspired to undo the promise of Haiti’s emancipation from slavery. Despite the Federalist sympathies, many American slave-owners, including Jefferson, looked nervously at the slave rebellion in St. Domingue. Jefferson feared that slave uprisings might spread northward. “If something is not done, and soon done,” Jefferson wrote in 1797, “we shall be the murderers of our own children.”

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the chaos and excesses of the French Revolution led to the ascendance of Napoleon Bonaparte, a brilliant and vain military commander possessed of legendary ambition. As he expanded his power across Europe, Napoleon also dreamed of rebuilding a French empire in the Americas.

In 1801, Jefferson became the third President of the United States – and his interests at least temporarily aligned with Napoleon’s. The French dictator wanted to restore French control of St. Domingue and Jefferson wanted to see the slave rebellion crushed. President Jefferson and Secretary of State Madison collaborated with Napoleon through secret diplomatic channels. Napoleon asked Jefferson if the United States would help a French army traveling by sea to St. Domingue. Jefferson replied that “nothing will be easier than to furnish your army and fleet with everything and reduce Toussaint [L’Ouverture] to starvation.”

But Napoleon had a secret second phase of his plan that he didn’t share with Jefferson. Once the French army had subdued L’Ouverture and his rebel force, Napoleon intended to advance to the North American mainland, basing a new French empire in New Orleans and settling the vast territory west of the Mississippi River.

Stopping Napoleon

In 1802, the French expeditionary force achieved initial success against the slave army, driving L’Ouverture’s forces back into the mountains. But, as they retreated, the ex-slaves torched the cities and the plantations, destroying the colony’s once-thriving economic infrastructure. L’Ouverture, hoping to bring the war to an end, accepted Napoleon’s promise of a negotiated settlement that would ban future slavery in the country. As part of the agreement, L’Ouverture turned himself in.

But Napoleon broke his word. Jealous and contemptuous of L’Ouverture, who was regarded by some admirers as a general with skills rivaling Napoleon’s, the French dictator had L’Ouverture shipped in chains back to Europe where he was mistreated and died in prison.

Infuriated by the betrayal, L’Ouverture’s young generals resumed the war with a vengeance. In the months that followed, the French army – already decimated by disease – was overwhelmed by a fierce enemy fighting in familiar terrain and determined not to be put back into slavery. Napoleon sent a second French army, but it too was destroyed. Though the famed general had conquered much of Europe, he lost 24,000 men, including some of his best troops, in St. Domingue before abandoning his campaign. The death toll among the ex-slaves was much higher, but they had prevailed, albeit over a devastated land.

By 1803, a frustrated Napoleon – denied his foothold in the New World – agreed to sell New Orleans and the Louisiana territories to Jefferson, a negotiation handled by Madison that ironically required just the sort of expansive interpretation of federal powers that the Jeffersonians ordinarily disdained. However, a greater irony was that the Louisiana Purchase, which opened the heart of the present United States to American settlement and is regarded as possibly Jefferson’s greatest achievement as president, had been made possible despite Jefferson’s misguided – and racist – collaboration with Napoleon.

“By their long and bitter struggle for independence, St. Domingue’s blacks were instrumental in allowing the United States to more than double the size of its territory,” wrote Stanford University professor John Chester Miller in his book, The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery. But, Miller observed, “the decisive contribution made by the black freedom fighters … went almost unnoticed by the Jeffersonian administration.”

Consequences of Racism

Without L’Ouverture’s leadership, the island nation fell into a downward spiral. In 1804, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the radical slave leader who had replaced L’Ouverture, formally declared the nation’s independence and returned it to its original Indian name, Haiti. A year later, apparently fearing a return of the French, Dessalines ordered the massacre of the remaining French whites on the island. Jefferson reacted to the bloodshed by imposing a stiff economic embargo on Haiti. In 1806, Dessalines himself was brutally assassinated, touching off a cycle of political violence that would haunt Haiti for the next two centuries.

Even in his final years, Jefferson remained obsessed with Haiti and its link to the issue of American slavery. In the 1820s, the former president proposed a scheme for taking away the children born to black slaves in the United States and shipping them to Haiti. In that way, Jefferson posited that both slavery and America’s black population could be phased out. Eventually, in Jefferson’s view, Haiti would be all black and the United States white.

While the racism of Jefferson and many of his followers may be undeniable, it is not so easy to distinguish between Right and Left in those early years of the American Republic. Though Hamilton was more open-minded toward freedom for black slaves, there were elements of his government intervention on behalf of the fledgling financial sector that might today be regarded as “pro-business” or elitist as there were parts of Jefferson’s attitude toward greater populism that might be seen as more “democratic.”

Stumbling toward War

Yet, as the first generation of American leaders passed away…”;  Read more here

Re-blogged from:  Moorbeyz Blog


Institutionalized racism and censorship are relatives

Moorbey'z Blog


Statement from the Pelican Bay Human Rights Movement First Amendment Campaign


by Sondai Dumisani, Abasi Ganda, Mutope Duguma, Abdul O. Shakur, Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa


'Censorship Pelican Bay' drawing by Michael D. Russell, web
Drawing by Michael David Russell, C-90473, D7-217, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City CA 95532

The San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper for March 2013, Vol. 38, Issue 3, was censored by staff at Pelican Bay due to an article titled “Prisoners’ peaceful protest to resume July 8 if demands are not met” on Page 3 in the “Behind Enemy Lines” section. The article was written by our four representatives, Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa, Arturo Castellanos, Todd Ashker and Antonio Guillen.

Before it was sent to Willie and Mary Ratcliff for publication, it was sent to the following: Gov. Brown, the secretary and undersecretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and to the warden of Pelican Bay State Prison

View original post 1,719 more words

What Is White Supremacy, Anyway?

See on Scoop.itTHE LAW & INJUSTICE

This Saturday, ChangeLab and OneAmerica are hosting an event in Seattle called The Past, Present & Future of Multiracial Solidarity. In preparation, I t

See on www.changelabinfo.com

So you’re an educated ‘(wo)man’. You can ‘think’. You’re not susceptible to brainwashing and propaganda? “Think again”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHMo64KSApQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMjJyJtVbCw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npbl1zfwsEw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJXtl6b2VJM


“Wikipedia defines “propaganda” as “a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.”Image

It amazes me how much we tend to underestimate the role white supremacist propaganda plays in creating, justifying and maintaining our oppression. Certainly this phenomenon impacts several groups of people, but my focus in this article is on Black people.

What purposes do white supremacy and racism serve?

All you need do is view Marlon Riggs’ pioneering documentary “Ethnic Notions” to appreciate white America’s long and systemic effort to thoroughly degrade and denigrate the Black image and psyche. But why so much effort toward this sinister goal? At its core, white supremacy postulates the lie that whites are innately superior to and therefore naturally poised to dominate and oppress people of color. The theory of racism falsely justifies this lie by assigning value and ranking to people based on their presumed racial category. Naturally, “white” people and those resembling them are assumed to be superior in almost every form of human expression and activity including but not limited to: beauty, intelligence, ability, leadership, potential, hygiene, health, judgment, ethics, etc.

Racism serves multiple purposes. It provides pseudo empirical evidence to “support” the false claims of innate white superiority and Black inferiority. On one hand, it justifies…”;  Read more here

About the Author Agyei Tyehimba





racism school | Tumblr

See on Scoop.itWhite’s Only

John Smith; “How can you say I have white privilege?  Why do you insult me so?”  Response:  “Privilege isnt something to be ashamed of John Smith.  Its something to be aware of”

See on www.tumblr.com

racism school | Tumblr

See on Scoop.itWhite’s Only

John Smith; “How can you say I have white privilege?  Why do you insult me so?”  Response:  “Privilege isnt something to be ashamed of John Smith.  Its something to be aware of”

See on www.tumblr.com