"For Whom The Bell Tolls", a novel by Ernest Hemingway, tells the story of an American professor of Spanish who joins the International Brigades as an explosives specialist against the forces of fascism. I have no intention of turning this into a term paper on Hemingway's work, but rather to draw a parallel between 1937 Spain and what's happening here in our own country in 2007; that we are living in dangerous times and that a wave of fascism is bearing down on us, if it has not already crashed ashore.
What troubles me more about the political climate is not that fascism is now alive in the U.S., but that the response from those we elected to defend us against this tide has been both ineffectual and tepid. While David Horowitz proclaims this week Islamofascist Awareness Week from his far-right pulpit of duplicitous hypocrisy, from press releases fresh off the Hillary and Obama spin machines, we learn how much they have in their campaign war chest. Like the insurgents in Hemingway's book, the fascists are fighting an organized well-funded war, while the rebels are arguing the intellectual merits of communism. Like those rebels, we have divided ourselves into our own petty issues. All that's left is the conquer, and it's happening as we speak.
Evidence? There's plenty for you to consider. I would start with the murder of Chauncey Bailey, which I wrote briefly about in a previous post here, who was killed by a Muslim thug for writing about Your Black Muslim Bakery -- a now-defunct organization based in Oakland, CA. that was once hailed as a model of black empowerment. Tell me. What kind of thuggery is this?
The evidence continues to mount, and grows closer to home. Witness the increasingly brazen thuggery that sprouted in my neck of the woods. In the last month alone here in the New York area, there have been several well-known noose placings. You may already know about the ones that made national headlines -- the one left on the office door of the Columbia University professor and the other on the locker of the Village of Hempstead (NY) police chief's locker. There have been several more noose droppings in my area since those incidents, the latest being yesterday when the Principal of Canarsie High School in Brooklyn received a two page hate letter in which a noose made of string was enclosed. You can read about it here. Copycats of the Jena, La. stupidity? I don't think so.
And, what do we get in response? We get podium outrage from high-profile individuals who trot themselves out before the camera to speak for a community, calling for more ineffectual laws and leading prayer circles to a non-existent God in the hopes things will get better. I can only imagine the laughter of the neo-con pundits who encourage this behavior from their less learned brethren because they know that all the laws and praying in the world won't do any fucking good if the net effect is to create more division and distrust between liberal blacks and whites. Like I said, all that's left is the conquer.
It gets much closer to home than this though. Recently, the author of Politits relayed in a recent post an ugly incident that happened to her on a business trip to San Antonio. DCup has many friends in the blogsphere and I am proud to consider myself one of them. So, when I learned of this news through her site I was too pissed for words. I applaud DCup for her decorum and good sense in the way she handled this ever-evolving situation. But there are several women in my life, including my dear sister and mother, who would have used some form of the incredulous expression "Oh no you di'int" and beaten this woman to a bloody pulp. Where I come from, there are just some lines you do not cross, without asking for a fight.
The final straw for me was this e-mail that I got the other day from someone, who I am ashamed to say, with whom I share the Village of Lindenhurst. I came through the Village softball league's e-mail address, the text of which I tried to preserve below. This is exactly the misguided and uninformed sentiment that feeds this monster called fascism.
Let's spread this one around the United States two or three times!!!!!!
AMEN TO THIS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm proud to send this one
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD , INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having "In God! We Trust" on our money and having "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Shut Up and BE QUIET!!!
If you agree, pass this on, if not delete.... I AGREE !!!!
Now tell me, do you really want your lives and livelihoods to be controlled and coerced by the goons and morons who claim to be 86% of the populace? I know that some may need invoke an all-powerful god to make sense of their lives but I don't. And while I have serious doubts and offer no respect for their delusional faith in such a being, nonetheless, I do recognize their "right" to worship and not have my lack of faith imposed on them. This is a constitutionally protected freedom. Don't believe me? See for yourself.
U.S. Constitution
This document is loaded with many more self-governing rights and freedoms, which for some not-so-mystifying reason, we are now choosing to NOT defend. Instead, we are being mired with issues like racism and abortion, and the ethics of stem cell research, which while they may be important in their own right, are being used to divide us and prevent us from defending the current "fascist" assault on what should be our most sacred, secular text.
Robert G. Ingersoll once said:
They knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man out. They knew that the recognition of a Diety would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible history of the church too well to place in her keeping, or in the keeping of her God, the sacred rights of man. They intended that all should have the right to worship, or not to worship; that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed. They intended to found and frame a government for man, and for man alone. They wished to preserve the individuality of all; to prevent the few from governing the many, and the many from persecuting and destroying the few.
I can only imagine what the Great Agnostic would say now...
What kind of thuggery is this?
I'm one of the many people of faith who absolutely despise the way the right continues to pervert Christianity towards its own ends. You're dead right about the use of "faith" and "social issues" to divide people and distract them from the real issues, like war, the growing divide between rich and poor and the erosion of civil liberties. Great post.
ReplyDeleteThere might be some value in recognizing the difference between interpersonal battles that occur everyday between private citizens and governmental intimidation.
ReplyDeleteFascism:
A political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized sutocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
The Nooses
The noose situations have zero connection to the fascist concept. In fact the noose hangings could not be more different.
Moreover, I'm taking bets that the noose hanging from the doorknob of Madonna Constantine's door at Columbia University was placed there by Madonna herself. She had the means, motive and opportunity. Furthermore, the police have had the Teacher's College videotapes and building ID access records for almost two weeks without hinting that leads have developed.
Here's a theory. Everyone entering and exiting the building that night has an alibi. Except Constantine, who simply says she didn't do it. However, her door is not visible to the security cameras. Thus, she can't convince police she didn't do it. Unfortunately, such circumstantial evidence isn't conclusive.
Additionally, in several recent cases on college campuses, the people who claimed to be victims have been revealed as the perpetrators of their own harrassment.
Meanwhile, it appears you have reached a conclusion about the noose and note sent to the principal of Canarsie High School. The fact that you mentioned it at all suggests you believe the perpetrator is an anti-black racist sending an intimidating message.
However, the students at Canarsie High School are almost exclusively black and hispanic. I'll take a bet that one of them is behind this prank. It would be unusual for someone with no connection to a school to send an intimidating message to its principal. Frankly, I cannot imagine a white racist in Brooklyn sending a nasty letter and noose to a principal of a school attended by a population of minority students.
It's more likely she's a tough adminstrator who has angered some students with some disciplinary actions. They saw their chance to attack her. The noose business is similar to phoning in bomb threats.
On the other hand, if a black principal were to become the head of a school with a predominantly white student body, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that an angry white was responsible. Though I would not jump to that conclusion.
Several years ago, Sonny Carson, one of the vilest black activists New York City has ever had to endure, confronted the very white Mary Cashin, who was the principal of the Gil Hodges school -- P.S. 193. He very publicly insulted her, claiming she was bad for black students, then further ridiculed her for her past as a nun.
As for the killing of Chauncey Bailey, well, it appears you have completely misunderstood the situation.
However, if anyone is aimed at causing a problem, it is legislators who are hurrying to enact laws against nooses. Workplace intimidation is illegal. Defacing public and private property is illegal. Acts of intimidation against private citizens are illegal. But burning the flag is not. No law stops a person from wearing a swastika. Constitutional guarantees of free speech will override noose legislation.
It seems you are unfamiliar with the Nation of Islam. More important, however, is the fact that Bey "family" known for operating Your Black Muslim Bakery, was a well known criminal enterprise operating out of Oakland. It was never a "model of black empowerment" except in the press, where obliging journalists willingly ignored everything beyond the surface of the fronting enterprise.
Chauncey Bailey was murdered because he angered some vicious criminals. His murder had nothing to do with any government activities.
Meanwhile, we do not live in Franco's Spain. We live in a democracy. Not a dictatorship. No matter what anyone might believe, George Bush is leaving office at the end of his current term. A new president will replace him.
At this point there are at least a dozen potential replacements. And not one fascist among them.
Slappz-
ReplyDeleteForgive me for drawing a connection between what seem to you to be interpersonal conflicts and the thuggery being endorsed tacitly by this government.
Indeed what I was talking about was the thuggery that quasi-fascist governments use as battering rams to wear down the populace before lifting the veil of their ugly intentions. And despite our apparent disagreement on this notion, this current administration's attempts to restrict the constitutional rights of private citizens and to seize power through the use of flawed legal wrangling has been, at best, reprehensible.
Specific to your comments, I'll say that while no one is overtly stating that the United States is a now a fascist nation, if we continue on this slide were on, vis-a-vis my post, we will.
You say that there's no connection between the noose hangings to the fascist concept. Really? How much more "forcible" can you get than sending a noose in the mail or leaving in someone's locker. Moreover, I find the notion that the Columbia professor would perpetrate her own hate absurd. I think you have this woman confused with Tawana Brawley and judged by your callousness to the situation, it sounds to me like you're telling everyone that's gotten a noose -- and lately there have been several -- to shut the fuck up and be a good little boy. That's mighty white of you slapzz. Thanks for making that clear to me.
I have to agree with you on the Sonny Carson quip, but nowhere in this post do I say that racists come in only one color. Or did I? My favorite quote of yours in this diatribe was this....
On the other hand, if a black principal were to become the head of a school with a predominantly white student body, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that an angry white was responsible. Though I would not jump to that conclusion.
I love spotting duplicitous bullshit like this because you're providing the very conclusion to which you claimed to not have jumped? O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al (which I see you are a HUGE fan of) are famous for recklessly lobbing these verbal grenades and standing at a distance as they explode. Limbaugh's phony soldier comment comes immediately to mind. I'm sure there are more.
It's thuggery, plain and simple. It should be noted that before Hitler and the Nazis took power, he had a group of thugs known as the brownshirts run interference for him and suppress any and all forms of opposing voices whenever he spoke. Tell me. How is that different from a Bush or Cheney press conference or speaking engagement. Why is that during the 2004 Republican primary, protesters were rounded up and penned into holding cells and out-of-the-way locations from where Republican events were taking place? Security was the reason given, but suppression of vocal opposition was the aim. As I recall, the White House even had a documented strategy to do just this.
Why? What is the White House so fearful of?
As for the parallels to Franco's Spain, let's just say that the 2008 elections have not arrived. Let's also say that my point in drawing the parallel between that period of Spanish history and this period of American history was to bring light to the fact that we on the progressive left are dividing ourselves and not uniting against the current assault on our most precious text -- and I don't mean the Bible.
Asshole!
CDP -
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by again and leaving a comment. I'm sorry you had to endure the bloviations of no_slappz. He's a pot stirring troll who's becoming quite known for his cut and paste posting skills.
Earlier, I did an analysis of his site and found that he has just 7 posts up and of the 7, 5 are cut and pasted verbatim from well-known authors. Moreover, there is a sixth in which he extensively quotes another author.
Please understand, CDP, that I am open to all forms of critique and discussion. This is what makes ours a vibrant nation. However, I have no patience for psuedo Ayn Rand money managers and financiers who live off the fat of the land and act as though their lot in life was granted to them by some form of divine or social Darwinian fiat.
spartacus, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Forgive me for drawing a connection between what seem to you to be interpersonal conflicts and the thuggery being endorsed tacitly by this government."
When employees don't like the boss, or students don't like teachers or principals, they attack anonymously. Fascist governments pass laws that deprive citizens of their rights. Not one of the incidents you cited involved a government action. The conflicts were entirely between two or three or perhaps four people who don't like each other. You're confused about fascism.
You wrote:
"Indeed what I was talking about was the thuggery that quasi-fascist governments use as battering rams to wear down the populace before lifting the veil of their ugly intentions."
First, we don't have a quasi-fascist government in charge. And second, the noose incidents, as previously mentioned, involve a handful of people, not "the populace." You're into melodramatic political thrillerism.
You wrote:
"And despite our apparent disagreement on this notion, this current administration's attempts to restrict the constitutional rights of private citizens and to seize power through the use of flawed legal wrangling has been, at best, reprehensible."
I doubt you can point to any example of a citizen losing his rights in the last seven years. On the other hand, it is most probably true that a broad anti-noose law would violate the 1st Amendment.
You wrote:
"Specific to your comments, I'll say that while no one is overtly stating that the United States is a now a fascist nation, if we continue on this slide were on, vis-a-vis my post, we will."
Free elections ensure that your nightmare scenario will not occur. IN any case, claiming that we're on the way to becoming a fascist state is your admission that democracy is finished in the US. Thus, you are backtracking and contradicting yourself.
You wrote:
"You say that there's no connection between the noose hangings to the fascist concept. Really? How much more "forcible" can you get than sending a noose in the mail or leaving in someone's locker."
Nooses? Fascism? No connection. Unless you find a return address of either the White House or Congress on the box in which they were sent. But one anonymous sender who mails a noose to a target is powerless in any meaningful way. When the threat on Salman Rushie's life was made by religious muslims, he was informed of his status by people with a reputation for carrying out murderous threats, as Theo van Gogh learned the hard way. Anonymous noose mailers have zero credibility and more importantly, nothing ever follows these threats. No one is ever harmed.
IN fact, in the Jena, LA case, it was one of the likely noose hangers who was injured. Not any of the blacks who were targeted.
Meanwhile, based on your definition of fascism, a huge proportion of Internet content is evidence of a rising fascist state. But if the presence of hateful attitudes is evidence of the fall of the Republic, then we're facing a communist threat, a muslim threat and a theological threat as well.
You wrote:
"Moreover, I find the notion that the Columbia professor would perpetrate her own hate absurd."
It's the most logical conclusion of all. She's got no known enemies and her business depends on the presence of racial bias. She's like the fireman who starts fires. Anyway, my claim stands. She did it.
You wrote:
"I think you have this woman confused with Tawana Brawley and judged by your callousness to the situation, it sounds to me like you're telling everyone that's gotten a noose -- and lately there have been several -- to shut the fuck up and be a good little boy."
Tawana, along with Al Sharpton, Alton Maddox and Vernon Mason repeatedly lied to the national media about a crime that never happened.
However, you are right, when it comes to people lying about crimes that never happened, especially when the lie includes an accusation against a wholly innocent person, then yes, I am unquestionably telling people to shut up.
Meanwhile here's the statistics on Canarsie High School. The student body is 85% black, 11% hispanic and 4% everybody else.
I don't know if you've ever been inside Canarsie High School, but I have. The administration struggles with discipline every day. I have no doubt there's more than one student who hates the principal enough to consider sending a threatening letter. Since kids are not terribly inventive when it comes to criminal acts, it will not surprise anyone if the writer of the Canarsie letter is a black student who saw an easy way to start an uproar at the school.
You wrote:
"That's mighty white of you slapzz."
What does the preceding mean?
You noted my comment:
"My favorite quote of yours in this diatribe was this....
"On the other hand, if a black principal were to become the head of a school with a predominantly white student body, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that an angry white was responsible. Though I would not jump to that conclusion."
"...I love spotting duplicitous bullshit like this..."
Whether you care to admit it or not, crimes have discernable characteristics. The odds of a white person writing a nasty letter to the black principal of a school populated almost entirely by black students are roughly zero.
On the other hand, when black Glen Moore wandered into white Howard Beach in June 2005 to steal a car, he was confronted by Fat Nick Minucci who hit Glen in the head with a bat. That's an example of the white pattern of anti-black behavior.
Or, since you seem to like literature, when the black family in A Raisin in the Sun is preparing to move from the black urban neighborhood to the white suburban neighborhood, a member of the white community visits the family in their apartment and discourages them from moving to the white neighborhood.
You wrote:
"...because you're providing the very conclusion to which you claimed to not have jumped? O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al (which I see you are a HUGE fan of) are famous for recklessly lobbing these verbal grenades and standing at a distance as they explode."
You make almost no sense.
You wrote:
"Limbaugh's phony soldier comment comes immediately to mind."
Again, you seem to read only what your favorite media source provides. Limbaugh was referring to people who were never in the military but lied and claimed they had served. "Phony soldier" sounds right to me.
You wrote:
"It's thuggery, plain and simple. It should be noted that before Hitler and the Nazis took power, he had a group of thugs known as the brownshirts run interference for him and suppress any and all forms of opposing voices whenever he spoke."
Aside from the irrelevancy of your comment, there are no groups of people silencing others, except at universities where left-leaning students have barred conservative speakers from reaching the podiums to address groups of listeners.
You wrote:
"Tell me. How is that different from a Bush or Cheney press conference or speaking engagement."
Press conferences and speaking engagements involving presidents and vice presidents are rare wide open to the public. The president addresses the nation on TV or in relatively small groups.
You wrote:
"Why is that during the 2004 Republican primary, protesters were rounded up and penned into holding cells and out-of-the-way locations from where Republican events were taking place?"
Since I was on the streets for quite a while during those Convention days, I can tell you. Long story short. Nobody was stopped from speaking. Period. The restrictions were all made for crowd control and safety. Absolutely no one was prevented from speaking. Moreover, there were TV cameras and video cameras everywhere. Feeds were going straight to the Internet or news venues. Thus, for the purposes of making a statement, everyone was equally able to rant and rave.
YOu wrote:
"Security was the reason given, but suppression of vocal opposition was the aim."
You are simply wrong. The city was a madhouse and the protestors were verbally abusive to anyone who appeared conservative. Yet despite their threatening manner and verbal abuse, no one was stopped from ranting and raving, no matter what they were ranting and raving about.
You wrote:
"As I recall, the White House even had a documented strategy to do just this."
The White House had no strategy. Safety was handled by the NYPD, Secret Service and the FBI. There were efforts by the NYPD to infiltrate organizations that were planning to disrupt and disturb the peace by doing such things are releasing thousands of marbles if the police should approach them.
YOu wrote:
"Why? What is the White House so fearful of?"
There were at least 500,000 visitors to the city during the convention. Serious civil disorder was a concern.
YOu wrote:
"As for the parallels to Franco's Spain, let's just say that the 2008 elections have not arrived."
Despite presidential elections every four years since the founding of the republic, as well as the regularly scheduled elections of representatives and senators, you're claiming that we're about to see a suspension of our democracy. You gotta cut back on the paranoia.
You wrote:
"Let's also say that my point in drawing the parallel between that period of Spanish history and this period of American history was to bring light to the fact that we on the progressive left are dividing ourselves and not uniting against the current assault on our most precious text -- and I don't mean the Bible."
I gather you believe a Republican will win the 2008 elections that you previously stated will not occur due to the fascist takeover of America.
Are you one of those guys who thinks 9/11 was an inside job committed by the current administration?
spart
ReplyDeletedont bother responding to that asshole slappz -- just delete him -- i do....
not only he is wrong on so many counts, he will continue to just put up more phoney bullshit just to argue
he is ann coulter with nicer words and not on tv
btw -- great post...and as for the pledge of allegiance.... i was 'sent' to the principle in 11th grade for refusing to say it -- i refuse to bow to a flag -- when my uncle/lawyer came down and talked to the principle... i never had to say it again.
and i wont
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the advice DCap, but one thing you should know about me is that I never back away from a good fight.
ReplyDeleteslappz, you wrote:
"When employees don't like the boss, or students don't like teachers or principals, they attack anonymously....."
In fact, this is not true and your connection between employees and students is fatuous. Students are by and large immature kids whereas employees generally are not. Either way both schools and the workplace have places to air grievances, which, remarkably work well.
As for Fascist governments pass(ing) laws that deprive citizens of their rights, what would you call the Patriot Act. I really feel safer knowing my phones can be tapped without a warrant. So, no, I am not confused about fascism.
Quoting slappz:
And second, the noose incidents, as previously mentioned, involve a handful of people, not "the populace." You're into melodramatic political thrillerism.
So, then, what you're saying is "ha ha ha...those silly people and their nooses." What are supposed to do with these acts, wait, like our government did until it kills 3,000 people?
Slappz said
I doubt you can point to any example of a citizen losing his rights in the last seven years. On the other hand, it is most probably true that a broad anti-noose law would violate the 1st Amendment.
Actually, I can. Let's start with the President's faith-based initiatives, which are, in my estimation a violation of the 1st amendment's establishment clause. Of course, dick that you are, you probably see your right to own a gun firmly entrenched in your misreading of the second. We can also get into violations of the 4th, 6th, and 10th Amendments, but I highly doubt you've read past we the people.
Slappz wrote:
Nooses? Fascism? No connection. Unless you find a return address of either the White House or Congress on the box in which they were sent. But one anonymous sender who mails a noose to a target is powerless in any meaningful way. When the threat on Salman Rushie's life was made by religious muslims, he was informed of his status by people with a reputation for carrying out murderous threats, as Theo van Gogh learned the hard way. Anonymous noose mailers have zero credibility and more importantly, nothing ever follows these threats. No one is ever harmed.
And, of course, all those black folks still living today with vivid memories of lynchings and cross burnings in the 50s and 60s were just figments of their imagination; lynchings I might add that were done with the full blessing of local and state authorities. One does not have to have a 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address in order to follow this government's lead.
slappz
IN fact, in the Jena, LA case, it was one of the likely noose hangers who was injured. Not any of the blacks who were targeted.
One question. Would you ever make this statement publicly, let alone a black neighborhood? I dare you to own up to this ridiculous comment. Let me know if you have any teeth left if you do.
Slappz:
Meanwhile, based on your definition of fascism, a huge proportion of Internet content is evidence of a rising fascist state. But if the presence of hateful attitudes is evidence of the fall of the Republic, then we're facing a communist threat, a muslim threat and a theological threat as well.
Okay, I call bullshit. Where is the communist threat of which you speak? I agree that we are facing a theological threat, but it's not just from radical Islam. It's anyone who wants to enforce some notion of an almighty authority on any portion of the populace that doesn't believe it. Sorry, slappz, but we do NOT live in a christian nation despite the large number of christians living here. (Recall the 1st Amendment?)
Slappz:
It's the most logical conclusion of all. She's got no known enemies and her business depends on the presence of racial bias. She's like the fireman who starts fires. Anyway, my claim stands. She did it.
How would you know this? Does one need a "known" enemy in order for this act to be considered legitimate? Your logic is flawed. Why would she need to stir up the waters by hanging her own noose to keep her business going when she has idiots like you to study?
Slappz:
I don't know if you've ever been inside Canarsie High School, but I have. The administration struggles with discipline every day.
What school doesn't struggle with discipline problems everyday? Columbine HS is a perfect example of this; only there's led to people getting killed. Has that happened at Canarsie? Moreover, you assume that a student did this. How did you come to this conclusion? Oh, wait, I know. Because the school is now predominantly black and hispanic, and because we are all known to lie, well then logically who else can it be? Moron.
I wrote:
"That's mighty white of you slapzz."
You wrote:
What does the preceding mean?
It means that you're a fucking racist and a closet one at that. You probably pay lip service to minorities at work because you have to, and then run off to say how fucked up they are to your white friends who care not to interact with them at all.
Slappz:
Whether you care to admit it or not, crimes have discernable(sic) characteristics. The odds of a white person writing a nasty letter to the black principal of a school populated almost entirely by black students are roughly zero.
No, but the odds of a disenfranchised white student painting a swastika or shooting up his school is through the roof. What's your point? Are you saying that we need a long and detailed pattern or a high probability of occurrence to act on a veiled threat as this?
Okay...I've grown tired of responding to your bullshit. However, unlike my fellow bloggers who think you're a dick..well I do too...feel free to come back and comment anytime you want.
Like I said, I enjoy a good fight every now and then...verbal and otherwise.
That's funnny, you slapped the slapper with cut 'n paste madness! I deleted it today and will continue to do so.
ReplyDeleteAnyway great post. I was going to say something pithy and wonderful, but I am tired and reading these long comments above seems to have disconnected my brain!
spartacus, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"In fact, this is not true and your connection between employees and students is fatuous. Students are by and large immature kids whereas employees generally are not. Either way both schools and the workplace have places to air grievances, which, remarkably work well."
Students may be more likely to pull pranks and harass each other, but the fact that we have an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate such issues as workplace harassment should tell you that plenty of problems are not resolved in grievance sessions. Meanwhile, with respect to the appearances of nooses in places like police department locker rooms and fire houses and other non-academic settings, the recipients have all mentioned having disputes with co-workers, making those co-workers leading suspects.
Furthermore, in every case of nooses appearing in black/white employment settings, I do not recall a single case being solved. Moreover, I don't recall any actual physical attacks upon the noose recipients.
You wrote:
"As for Fascist governments pass(ing) laws that deprive citizens of their rights, what would you call the Patriot Act."
In your previous post you suggested we were not living under the control of a fascist government. In the preceding paragraph you claim we are. Based on your overall tone, I conclude you believe, in fact, that we are citizens of a fascist nation.
That aside, I'm still waiting for that first article from someone claiming to have lost a son, daughter, husband, wife, friend, etc to a group of policemen arriving in the middle of the night to take away the loved one without an arrest warrant.
You wrote:
"I really feel safer knowing my phones can be tapped without a warrant. So, no, I am not confused about fascism."
Phones are an interesting issue, particularly cell phones and other wireless communications devices. Meanwhile, you have once again altered the facts and repeated rumors about powers of the Patriot Act.
You wrote:
"So, then, what you're saying is "ha ha ha...those silly people and their nooses.""
You can be counted on to add your own fictional aspects to simple situations and unrelated occurrences. These noose issues do not complex evil political movements. They are pranks guaranteed to provoke intense emotional responses. A handful of the nooses that have appeared around the country over the last few years have attracted a lot of press coverage. Maybe a few other noose appearances have been ignored. Nevertheless, no physical attacks on the noose recipients have occurred.
You asked:
"What are supposed to do with these acts, wait, like our government did until it kills 3,000 people?"
Oh. Are you equating the appearances of a handful of nooses in a few cities around the country with a well-funded organization of murderous religious nuts who have vowed to destroy the US?
Like I said, you really need to cut back on the paranoia.
You wrote:
"Actually, I can. Let's start with the President's faith-based initiatives, which are, in my estimation a violation of the 1st amendment's establishment clause."
Like I said, you can't point to a single example of someone losing rights.
You said:
"Of course, dick that you are, you probably see your right to own a gun firmly entrenched in your misreading of the second."
The Second Amendment does grant me the right to own a gun.
You suggested:
"We can also get into violations of the 4th, 6th, and 10th Amendments, but I highly doubt you've read past we the people."
You seem to think you are a mind-reader and possess great powers of insight. However, it's clear you don't.
You wrote:
"And, of course, all those black folks still living today with vivid memories of lynchings and cross burnings in the 50s and 60s were just figments of their imagination; lynchings I might add that were done with the full blessing of local and state authorities."
The total number of people executed by lynching is somewhere around 4,500. Most of the dead were killed before 1900 and most were killed in the South. By WWII there were very few cases. Meanwhile, the US government has taken a hard line against the Ku Klux Klan for decades. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has destroyed the Klan financially.
These realities contradict your notion that lynchings are sanctioned by state and local governments. There were obviously cases of police departments ignoring their legal obligations by refusing to pursue whites who murdered blacks.
However, contrary to you view, there are very very few people alive today who witnessed lynchings or lost close family members in this way.
On the other hand, I doubt there is any black who does not know a murder victim. Meanwhile, lynchings are obviously not committed anonymously. Neither are cross burnings. That's difference between today's appearances of nooses and the past, when society was substantially different, when black lives were truly restricted by prevailing laws.
You wrote:
"One does not have to have a 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address in order to follow this government's lead."
Previously you stated the miscreants were found in the state and local governments. Here you are suggesting the federal government was complicit, or at least turning a blind eye to lynchings. If that were true, how do you explain the fact that lynchings more or less stopped by WWII?
You asked:
"One question. Would you ever make this statement publicly, let alone a black neighborhood? I dare you to own up to this ridiculous comment."
Let's see. Some white kids at Jena high school were angry that some black kids were occupying their favorite outdoor space. To show their displeasure some of the white kids placed nooses over the branch of the tree beside the contested space. In response one white kid was beaten into unconsciousness by several black students who was subsequently jailed for their attack on the white student.
Those are the facts. Nothing I've stated is incorrect or inaccurate. Nevertheless, the facts seem to disturb you. Why is that?
You asked:
"Let me know if you have any teeth left if you do."
My teeth are fine.
You wrote:
"Okay, I call bullshit. Where is the communist threat of which you speak?"
Perhaps this is news to you, but there is a Communist Party in the US, and various communist and socialist candidates run for office in virtually every election. Meanwhile, go to the Internet if you want to correspond with marxists who live in hope of a worker's revolution. After that, visit the economics departments of any college. You will find a huge excess of socialists/marxists over capitalists.
You wrote:
"I agree that we are facing a theological threat, but it's not just from radical Islam."
Yes it is.
YOu wrote:
"It's anyone who wants to enforce some notion of an almighty authority on any portion of the populace that doesn't believe it."
No one is legislating or enforcing or coercing religious beliefs on anyone. Following a faith is free of government interference.
You wrote:
"Sorry, slappz, but we do NOT live in a christian nation despite the large number of christians living here. (Recall the 1st Amendment?)"
We do live in a Christian nation. But we do NOT live in a Christian theocracy. The fact merely reflects the demographic reality that the majority of Americans are Christians.
You asked:
"How would you know this? Does one need a "known" enemy in order for this act to be considered legitimate?"
People file false police reports every day. This one just happened to receive a lot of attention, as she suspected it would. Most hate symbols are undirected. Swastikas are spray-painted on public walls or sidewalks, or occasionally on synagogues. But almost never do they appear on the homes of Jews.
Meanwhile, when an individual is targeted, there is always a preceding event. In Jena the white kids were angered over blacks occupying their favorite piece of real estate. Response -- nooses hanging from an overhanging branch. Workplace nooses are always traced back to feuds between employees.
You asked:
"What school doesn't struggle with discipline problems everyday?"
Plenty. There are very few discipline problems in the private schools in NY City, for starters. Discipline is not much of a problem in many suburban schools. And discipline is not a problem in the Brooklyn public schools my kids attend.
You said:
"Columbine HS is a perfect example of this; only there's led to people getting killed. Has that happened at Canarsie?"
No Canarsie students have been murdered inside the school, but many have died nearby. Meanwhile, the deaths at Columbine occurred nearly a decade ago -- all on one occasion. No similar event had occurred before or after the one catastrophe. On the other hand, murders averaged more than 2,000 a year in New York City for a five-year stretch before dropping down to our current 600 or so per year.
You wrote:
"Moreover, you assume that a student did this."
Correct.
YOu asked:
"How did you come to this conclusion?"
I will repeat that the principal has probably made a few enemies among the student for attempting to enforce some discipline. Thus, a disgruntled student is probably the culprit.
You, in another failed mind-reading act concluded:
"Oh, wait, I know. Because the school is now predominantly black and hispanic, and because we are all known to lie, well then logically who else can it be?"
And in yet another act of failed mind-reading and screwball insight, you said:
"It means that you're a fucking racist and a closet one at that. You probably pay lip service to minorities at work because you have to, and then run off to say how fucked up they are to your white friends who care not to interact with them at all."
You've got a lot of hostility in you. It really clouds your thinking.
You wrote:
"...the odds of a disenfranchised white student painting a swastika or shooting up his school is through the roof."
If I were investigating public property defaced with spray-painted swastikas, it would not surprise me to collar a white perpetrator. As hate crimes go, this is a common one.
Shooting up schools is a rarity. But the perpetrators have been almost exclusively white.
There's patterns to consider with every crime.
You wrote:
"What's your point? Are you saying that we need a long and detailed pattern or a high probability of occurrence to act on a veiled threat as this?"
Veiled? Veiled threat? Please. The perpetrators of hate crimes fall into predictable categories. Meanwhile, like I've said, crimes involving images or symbols rarely rarely include actual violence. They are generally pranks that frighten people, briefly. Then the targets speak of how they regained their psychological balance and how they became stronger and now feel as though no piece of rope could intimidate them.
Whatever slappz.
ReplyDeleteYou and I simply disagree in a very fundamental way and I doubt we ever will come to a consensus on any issue.
However, as I stated in an earlier comment, and to the chagrin of my fellow bloggers, you are still welcome here.
Please feel free to bloviate and bullshit and lob your linguistic hand grenades, whenever the mood suits you. Unlike what you did to me, I will not delete your comments on this blog. I may dismiss them outright or not respond, but I will not delete what you write here.
Have nice day, jerk off. Enjoy the rain.
spart
ReplyDeleteyou are a better person than i -- i couldnt even argue with such an ass and out and out idiot....
how can you even respond to some of the complete idiocy of his comments ---- i read through this and i am exhausted -- exhausted that we have such morons and hate-mongers in this country (oh there is one in the white house too)...
good for you for wanting the good fight and letting him bloviating his ann coulter-like hate, i for one wont bother to read him anymore -- because like ann coulter -- you know EXACTLY what he is going to say and like a good karl rove minion-- he NEVER goes off his ridiculous message
spartacus, like I said, when the boss gets anonymous threats, you can be sure an employee is responsible. Here's a little tale from the workplace:
ReplyDeleteWoman Gets 8 Months in Hate Note Case
Oct 24 10:37 PM US/Eastern
By MARYCLAIRE DALE
Associated Press Writer
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A woman who sent her Arab-American boss a threatening note that warned "Remember 9/11" and "You and your kids will pay" was sentenced Wednesday to eight months in a federal halfway house.
Kia Reid, who described herself as Christian, donned gloves to craft the note from magazine clippings and then left it in Nina Timani's office, prosecutors said.
Timani said during a victim impact statement that she had spent months wondering who sent the anonymous note and fearing that her two young children would be harmed.
Timani said she was stunned when an FBI investigation led to the 35- year-old Reid, whom she had mentored and befriended during nine years together at a Philadelphia hotel.
"How could you—when you have written that you want to tie my kids to the fence—play with my daughter at a ... picnic?" Timani asked.
Reid said she sent the letter in anger, not in hatred, after she had been unable to get help with a workplace dispute at the airport Sheraton Suites Hotel.
"I thought all of the nonsense that was going on would stop," the mother of three teenage children explained Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter.
Reid did not detail the nature of the work dispute. The Philadelphia woman was arrested in October 2006 after an FBI informant recorded her discussing the note.
She later pleaded guilty to one count of sending a threatening hate note, a misdemeanor.
The judge probed Reid's cultural attitudes at length before announcing the sentence. Prosecutors had sought a one-year prison term.
Timani, a practicing Muslim born in Egypt, said she sought help from the FBI over the objections of her husband. "I defied convention because I had to know who was going to kill me and my kids," she said.
Timani said that her father, a California surgeon, could not fly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks because he was mistakenly listed on a no-fly list. Her brother took an American name to blend in after his Dallas home was egged and stoned, she said.
"I came forward for my kids," she said. "I have found my inner peace by helping spread tolerance to people of other faiths," she said.
spartacus, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Unlike what you did to me, I will not delete your comments on this blog. I may dismiss them outright or not respond, but I will not delete what you write here."
I did not remove any comments of yours. I have no idea what you are referring to.
slappz-
ReplyDeleteThanks again for leaving your comments. Really. The traffic and the thoughts are appreciated.
However, I stand corrected. My comment is still up on your site. I apologize.
Again, thanks for stopping by. Your newest cut-and-paste job is duly noted.
spartacus, despite the buzz over the appearance of nooses -- followed by an absence of violence -- and their racial implications, there are serious events that have attracted much less media attention. Like the following story from Newsweek:
ReplyDeleteRacial ‘Cleansing’ in L.A.
Federal prosecutors say a powerful Latino gang systematically targeted rival black gang members and innocent black civilians in a reign of terror.
By Andrew Murr
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:10 PM ET Oct 24, 2007
A south Los Angeles Latino street gang targeted African-American gang rivals and other blacks in a campaign of neighborhood "cleansing," federal prosecutors say.
Alleged leaders and foot soldiers in the Hispanic gang Florencia 13, also called F13, are being arraigned this week on charges stemming from a pair of federal indictments that allege that the gang kept a tight grip on its turf by shooting members of a rival gang—and sometimes random black civilians.
The "most disturbing aspect" of the federal charges was that "innocent citizens … ended up being shot simply because of the color of their skin," U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien told reporters in announcing the indictments.
...Whatever the causes, L.A. Sheriff's Department statistics chart the war's violent toll: 80 gang-related shootings in the past three years, including 20 murders.
...Top-down organization in F13 aided the assaults on black gangsters. The federal indictments charge that Mexican mafia leaders "make sure that all the F13 cliques were participating in the assaults of African-American rival gang members." But the assaults went beyond rival gangs; they "target[ed] African-American individuals for assault," according to the indictment.
...Gang leaders even allegedly instructed foot soldiers in how to hunt blacks in the most efficient manner, the feds maintain.
...A wiretap cited in the RICO indictment reveals that one gang leader allegedly told an underling that "when he went looking for African-Americans to shoot, only a driver and a shooter were needed."
...But clearly race was a motivating factor for the F13 gang
...The F13 indictment marks the third high-profile Latino gang charged with attacking blacks in the past two years. Last year federal prosecutors won life sentences against four members of the Latino Avenues gang for civil rights violations of blacks they had murdered simply for moving into the gang's Highland Park turf.
...State prosecutors say the Latino 204th Street gang targeted African-Americans not affiliated with gangs, writing graffiti such as "187 N———" (187 is shorthand for "kill"; it's the California penal code section number for homicide).
Two 204th Street members face an upcoming trial on state murder charges for the slaying of 14-year-old Cheryl Green, a black teen killed on the street last December.
...But law enforcement officials say the F13 members—and the Crips—frequently targeted victims based on race. "The way it came out was that any young black man could be the target of [F13] and any young Hispanic man was the target of the [black gang]," says Rosales. "All they see is race."
...L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca tells NEWSWEEK that early wiretaps in the case recorded phone calls in which a senior F13 member ordered a young gang "soldier" to kill a particular East Coast Crip.
...But when "the soldier called back to say he couldn't find the [Crip], the gang leader told him to shoot any black," Baca says.
slappz-
ReplyDeleteThanks for sending this. I agree. The problem of race relations in this country is not just a black vs. white and a latino vs. white issue. I would add that black on black and latino on latino crime is an issue.
But I''m curious of your motives in bringing this up? Doesn't this happen in the white world too? Are you saying that this type of violence is under-reported nationally and indicative of a much wider problem? That we should be paying more attention to this than, what I feel, is the more dangerous noose incidents?
Again, we may simply end up disagreeing on this point, but in my view, whites hold both the power and the money in this country and that the type of violence that you've cited here is indicative more of a battle for scraps than a power struggle. In my view, the white majority (particularly those on the extreme right) have been making every effort to disenfranchise the minority and to keep them from passing through the portals of your "gated communities."
Again, I thank you for this comment and the works you cite. I look forward to hearing your response. Also, if I may ask one favor of you: if your response to me is that I am way off base in my assertion, please don't counter it with another assertion with no supporting evidence. I will try and do the same.
Regards... Spart
You’ve raised several issues here. But I’ll give a shot to responding.
ReplyDeleteFirst, with respect to crime – by crime I mean violent crime – no group is completely free of it. But it is absolutely true that crime patterns differ among racial and ethnic groups in this country and the world.
For the most part, crime is a local issue. By that I mean a crime victim is most likely to experience an attack committed by someone who lives nearby. Thus, blacks most often attack blacks, latinos attack latinos. And asians attack asians, and whites attack whites. These crimes are typically crimes of financial opportunity, but sometimes include an extra dose of violence or sexual assault.
However, when racial and ethnic lines are crossed, they are most often crossed when blacks and latinos attack whites or asians. Once again, the chief motive is financial gain. But excessive violence and sexual assaults are common aspects. The reverse almost never occurs. Attacks committed by whites or asians against blacks or latinos are so rare they are headline news. Moreover, when these attacks occur, they almost all involve whites attacking blacks who have appeared in predominantly white neighborhoods, and there is generally a racial aspect to the attacks. The Fat Nick Minucci/Glen Moore case in Howard Beach in 2005 is one of the few examples. However, Glen Moore admitted in court he was in Howard Beach to steal a car. Frankly, I can’t recall any examples of whites attacking latinos for racial or outrightly criminal reasons. but, once again, I’m focusing on serious violent crimes, not shouting matches, name calling, shoving contests or minor physical altercations.
You asked if violence is under-reported, presumably in response to my comment that insufficient attention is given to stories like the LA gang story. The answer is this: it’s not a matter of under-reporting per se. The stories are in the news. But they are lost in the sauce. The stories of murder and violence in minority communities are so common they don’t arouse much emotion. However, stories involving white perpetrators become issues that dominate media airwaves far in excess of their impact. Media obsessions with white criminals who commit violent crimes or whites who commit violations driven by bias push a lot of other news off the front page. Then there’s the media-grabbing power of claims that whites are out to victimize blacks or latinos. The chief example is OJ and the double homicide he committed versus the assertion among a sizable percentage of blacks that he didn’t do it and that the LA police department attempted to frame him.
The number of books written and Ph.Ds awarded to sociologists studying every element of the lives of the poor and less fortunate is staggering. Libraries are filled with them. The subject has been studied to death. But almost every popular author concludes that blacks and latinos have suffered due to a force that invariably boils down to white oppression, and that the solution to the problem is money. Giving money to those who have little is invariably the prescribed medicine.
This solution appears to include the notion that you expressed as “the white majority (particularly those on the extreme right) have been making every effort to disenfranchise the minority and to keep them from passing through the portals of your "gated communities".
This minority belief has turned reality on its head. Every person with an understanding of economics knows that prosperity solves most social problems. No sane person thinks more poverty is the solution to existing poverty. As they say, a rising tide floats all boats. There’s no benefit to holding back or impinging upon the advancement of any racial or ethnic group. The cost of blocking the way is carried by everyone. Moreover, that cost would multiply many times as the burdens of maintaining the oppression of a large group grow.
But when stories of noose hangings lead in the news, it’s clear that media decision-makers want to perpetuate the notion that minority group members are victims of some vast conspiracy perpetrated against them. The notion that nooses appearing here and there are symptoms of some broad desire among the members of the majority to keep financial and social equality from minority groups is preposterous. Yet the idea seems to dominate the thinking of blacks and latinos.
Coverage of both the Jena story and the New Orleans Katrina story demonstrate the gullibility of the American public when it comes to scapegoating and blaming the wrong parties for the turn of events. The arguments for spending more money on NYC schools show more of the same.
Schools are a good example of where erroneous perceptions start. There are 1.1 million public school students in NYC. Black and latino students account for 70% of students in NYC public schools. About 13% of students are white and roughly 13% are asian. The remaining 4% is everyone else. The annual per-pupil expenditure in NYC is now about $15,000. But at Stuyvesant, the best high school in NYC, the annual per-pupil expenditure is about $9,500. In other words, it costs LESS to educate better students.
Stuyvesant student-body demographics are as follows: 50% asian; 42% white; and 8% everybody else. Entry to this school is based entirely on merit determined by the results of ONE test open to every student in NYC. Asians, though accounting for less than 15% of NY City’s population dominate when it comes to passing the Stuyvesant entrance exam. The same is true for Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech, though the percentages vary.
Why do I mention this? Because your idea of “gated communities” is in play. There seems to be a widespread belief that blacks and latinos are excluded from segments of American life simply for racial or ethnic reasons. Black and latino critics of the NYC public school system have cited the near absence of black and latino students at Stuyvesant as “proof” of racial or ethnic bias. In other words, that there is a “gate” at the entrance to Stuyvesant blocking their way. Of course the real obstacle is knowledge. Everyone whose entrance-test score exceeds the cut-off is offered admission to Stuyvesant. Friends and relatives of mine are graduates. My niece is currently a student. I know how hard they worked before they were accepted. College. Same story.
Meanwhile, regarding actual gated communities, well, this is once again, an overblown media issue. Of course there are communities with gates and guards who control access to the property. Breezy Point in Queens is one and Sea Gate at the end of Coney Island is another. Guess what? I can’t enter either without an invitation from a resident. What of it?
More importantly, however, is the fact that no one would prevent a black or latino buyer from acquiring property in gated communities. Equally important is the idea that there is something troubling about people with similar characteristics forming a neighborhood if the community is “gated.”
New York City had been a city comprising small ethnic and racial neighborhoods. Since the city’s founding there’s been neighborhoods defined by race, religion, ethnicity, creed and so on. Two of my great-grandparents lived in a Scandinavian community that once existed around 135th St in Harlem. The two of them and my grandmother lived there in the early 1900s. Two other great-grandparents lived on the Lower East Side. No gates controlled access to the area, but there were boundaries.
Furthermore, with respect to actual gated communities, private property is private. Not all sidewalks are public thoroughfares. Nor are all hallways open to anyone. What’s the difference between a gated community and an apartment building with a doorman who only allows announced guests to enter?
Why should they be? Free and open access is risky. We pass through security checkpoints before boarding airplanes. Students at many public schools must pass through similar metal detectors to enter their buildings and government workers must do the same. Office buildings require IDs as do colleges.
What’s troubling about the notion of people restricting access to their neighborhoods?
You wrote that “whites hold both the power and the money in this country”. These claims are both weak. It may be true that most of the nation’s wealth is in the hands of whites. But it is far more important to acknowledge that anyone can accumulate wealth. No one is prevented from acquiring wealth due to race or ethnicity. Most professional sports are dominated by non-whites. Football, basketball, baseball and boxing are populated with a majority of non-white players. Entertainment as well.
Meanwhile, your claim of whites holding the power and the money suggests that whites are able to withhold sharing wealth and power. But withholding wealth and power are impossible in a democratic capitalist society. Wealth is created. But there seems to be a view that wealth is finite, and that it must be “shared” if less affluent people are to obtain any. This is false.
Power, if you mean political power, is not held exclusively by whites. My city councilman is Matthieu Eugene. He is black. He’s also an idiot, a doctor who lost his medical license. My congressional representative is Yvette Clarke, a black woman who lied about graduating from college. She holds the congressional seat in the district that was created for Shirley Chisholm.
The claim that whites hold the power is disturbing. The claim includes the belief that white goals are bad for non-whites. Such as acquiring effective reading, writing and speaking skills. This couldn’t have been clearer when city councilman Charles Barron fought for the academic acceptance of “ebonics” for black public-school students. He urged the school system to accept a low form of communication that increases the alienation of blacks from the economic mainstream. In other words, he attempted to undermine their potential for post-academic success by encouraging students to practice communicating in a self-defeating patios or argot. Meanwhile, Barron is well known for his anti-white and anti-Semitic comments.
This attitude suggests the science, mathematics, English, history, social studies and language taught to non-whites needs to differ from that taught to whites. Unfortunately, these racial and ethnic ideas are hard to shake.
Meanwhile, you wrote, “the type of violence that you've cited here is indicative more of a battle for scraps than a power struggle.”
Your statement attempts to create equivalence between the criminal activities of gangs fighting for control of the local drug trade and socio/political power in the economy. In other words, either you consider gang activities legitimate, or you consider our government illegitimate.
Here’s the question. Would you support the decriminalization of drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc)?
I do. But virtually no politicians agree. Black, white, latino or asian, they oppose or are silent regarding drug decriminalization or legalization. Even though drug convictions have put an extraordinary number of blacks and latinos in prison, there’s no serious move to repeal laws that do more harm than good. No activists like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton advocate changing the laws. On the other hand, much of rap and hip-hop culture praises criminal behavior. Though much of the wealth accumulated by successful rap and hip-hop entertainers flows from white consumers, the bulk of bad behavior occurs in the minority world.
Sharpton, Jackson and some minority political leaders have spoken out against the message of many rappers and hip-hoppers. But that’s nothing more than attacking strawmen.
Most recently, Sharpton has spoken about increasing the penalties for hanging nooses. In other words, he’s far more interested in misdirection than getting to the heart of any racial or ethnic matter. It is nearly impossible to examine the true causes of unequal outcomes when the loudest voices in the black and latino communities only rant about victimization. But here it is.
The chief factor that has kept many minority group members from the heart of the mainstream has been repeated many times by Bill Cosby and a couple of others. He and Alvin Poussaint have co-authored a book on the topic. It all boils down to self-destructive behavior. Illegitimacy and fatherlessness are major factors. Low academic achievement is another. Financial foolishness is also a problem. Substance abuse takes things down another notch. It all adds up to the existence of a dysfunctional culture.
Last week in the Sunday NY Daily News, Errol Louis raised the same points. Nevertheless, the cult of victimization has grown into a majority among blacks and latinos. But the success of most immigrant groups in the US undermines the claims of those who believe themselves to be victims.
In fact, the success of many immigrant groups may well embarrass the lagging groups. Embarrassment may explain the behavior of people like Madonna Constantine, who, I repeat, placed the hangman’s noose on her own office door at Columbia. Her career depends on her victimhood and her ability to sell and promote victimology. Unfortunately, it is mythology of this kind that has contributed to differences in lives. The belief that a group of people living in a free society are perpetual victims suggests weakness and inferiority. And why would it not? Standards are continually dropped to accommodate falling achievement. Even today, with high school graduation made easy, the drop-out rate among blacks and latinos is painfully high and their attendance at the best schools is startlingly low.
Sunday’s NY Post carried an article on the gangs operating in New York City today. It will surprise no one to learn that almost 100% of the gang members are either black or latino. However, a tiny handful – about 100 gangsters -- are Chinese. There is no white equivalent. You might argue the Mafia represents whites in that department. But law enforcement against the Mafia has crippled it, leaving many members looking almost comical these days.
On the other hand, combating gang violence is tougher. There is, as I am sure you know, a code in minority communities. Two words. Stop Snitchin’. The phrase is popular on t-shirts. In other words, many people in poor minority neighborhoods are aiding and abetting criminal activity. More self-defeating behavior. Some residents of Hollis, Queens are honoring it by refusing to admit they witnessed the murder of Jam Master Jay of Run DMC. He was shot in the head in front of witnesses five years ago. But the suspected shooter, identified as Ronald “Tinard” Washington, is still free, even though the police have questioned him. None of the witnesses will speak.
In sum, anyone can live in a “gated community”. All it takes is a little money. Earning enough may be an obstacle. But overcoming that obstacle has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete