Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
December 12, 2015
Anchor babies in Saturday Night Live
November 23, 2015
Refugee cartoon for Thanksgiving
Many people have posted Native-themed cartoons about immigration and refugees--especially around Thanksgiving. This one caught my eye because it's sweet and simple.
For more on terrorism, see Conservative Christians Aren't Good Samaritans and Let's Deport White Men.
For more on terrorism, see Conservative Christians Aren't Good Samaritans and Let's Deport White Men.
October 20, 2015
Captain America is a liberal
Fox News Goes Ballistic Over The New Black, Anti-Racist Captain America (Video)
By Tasha DavisYou know Fox News has stooped pretty low when they start going off on superheroes.
Captain America has really pissed conservatives off, but the reason why is f*cking hilarious.
A recent plot-line of the comic book has Captain America on a new mission, a mission against a group of White Supremacists called, Sons of the Serpent.
Only a Republican would get upset over a superhero fighting white racism, because duh, we all know white supremacy is code-word for Republican. And:Childers also, very ignorantly, said:
“Keep politics out of comic books.”
That Childers person should start doing some research on the subject on which they are about to speak, before words come out of that mouth. Because duh, Captain AMERICA is a political hero and always has been. 
More on Captain America's politics:
Sorry, Fox News: Captain America has long been a liberal, anti-nationalist character
Conservatives are throwing a fit because Captain America opposes nationalism. Which is what he's always done.
By Amanda MarcotteThere’s no surer evidence that conservative media coasts on exploiting the ignorance of its audience (and in many cases, the willful ignorance of its pundits) than the hissyfit being thrown over the first issue of a new run of Captain America comics.
In the issue, Sam Wilson, a character who used to be called Falcon and who took over the mantle of Captain America after Steve Rogers became too old to handle the duty any longer, has been on the outs from various intelligence agencies, which he believes have grown corrupt from what is essentially a comic version of the “war on terror.” He also helps out undocumented immigrants that are being plagued by white supremacists. Oh yeah, and he’s black, something white conservatives know better than to be openly angry about but Allen West will go ahead and get angry over for them.
Breitbart, Daily Caller, and Fox News all threw utterly fact-free temper tantrums over this new development, whining that Captain America’s progressivism is somehow new and different and that his stance against racist conservatives is somehow a new development for the character. “Instead of going against Hydra and the typical Captain America villains,” supposed comics expert Clayton Morris said (after incorrectly claiming comic sales are down when, in fact, they are rising), “he’s going up against conservatives! That’s his new enemy!”
What is bizarre about this rant is that it depends on an audience who not only hasn’t ever read the Captain America comic, but has never seen either of the blockbuster pictures starring Chris Evans. If you had, you would remember that Hydra, the fictional enemy of the Captain, was started by Nazis to spread the joys of fascism around the world. In other words, Captain America’s enemies have always been nationalists intent on stomping out anyone they see as untermensch. And:[I]t’s just exploiting audience ignorance to argue that Captain America’s progressivism is “new” or a “change.” Again, if you’ve seen the movies, you can see the flaw in that. The first movie is an allegory about how strength is useless without the liberal value of protecting the vulnerable behind it. The second movie is overtly political, a story that openly suggests that the “war on terror” is becoming indistinguishable from fascism.
The Steve Rogers from the movies is unmistakably liberal: Anti-racist, a lover of independent women, and a man who believes that the best patriot is one who questions his government instead of blindly follows orders. This characterization is consistent with the canonical Steve Rogers of the comic books, who has long been an icon of progressive patriotism, a believer that fighting for America should only be done if America defends its own liberal values.
By Tasha Davis
Captain America has really pissed conservatives off, but the reason why is f*cking hilarious.
A recent plot-line of the comic book has Captain America on a new mission, a mission against a group of White Supremacists called, Sons of the Serpent.
Only a Republican would get upset over a superhero fighting white racism, because duh, we all know white supremacy is code-word for Republican.
“Keep politics out of comic books.”
That Childers person should start doing some research on the subject on which they are about to speak, before words come out of that mouth. Because duh, Captain AMERICA is a political hero and always has been.
More on Captain America's politics:
Sorry, Fox News: Captain America has long been a liberal, anti-nationalist character
Conservatives are throwing a fit because Captain America opposes nationalism. Which is what he's always done.
By Amanda Marcotte
In the issue, Sam Wilson, a character who used to be called Falcon and who took over the mantle of Captain America after Steve Rogers became too old to handle the duty any longer, has been on the outs from various intelligence agencies, which he believes have grown corrupt from what is essentially a comic version of the “war on terror.” He also helps out undocumented immigrants that are being plagued by white supremacists. Oh yeah, and he’s black, something white conservatives know better than to be openly angry about but Allen West will go ahead and get angry over for them.
Breitbart, Daily Caller, and Fox News all threw utterly fact-free temper tantrums over this new development, whining that Captain America’s progressivism is somehow new and different and that his stance against racist conservatives is somehow a new development for the character. “Instead of going against Hydra and the typical Captain America villains,” supposed comics expert Clayton Morris said (after incorrectly claiming comic sales are down when, in fact, they are rising), “he’s going up against conservatives! That’s his new enemy!”
What is bizarre about this rant is that it depends on an audience who not only hasn’t ever read the Captain America comic, but has never seen either of the blockbuster pictures starring Chris Evans. If you had, you would remember that Hydra, the fictional enemy of the Captain, was started by Nazis to spread the joys of fascism around the world. In other words, Captain America’s enemies have always been nationalists intent on stomping out anyone they see as untermensch.
The Steve Rogers from the movies is unmistakably liberal: Anti-racist, a lover of independent women, and a man who believes that the best patriot is one who questions his government instead of blindly follows orders. This characterization is consistent with the canonical Steve Rogers of the comic books, who has long been an icon of progressive patriotism, a believer that fighting for America should only be done if America defends its own liberal values.
February 24, 2015
Immigration at the 2015 Oscars
This year's Oscars unmasked Hollywood's most dubious views
Despite stirring support for the spirit of Selma, and big prizes for Hispanic film-makers, it was the unfortunate throwaway remarks which will linger longest after the 87th Academy Awards
By Steven W Thrasher“Who gave this sonofabitch his green card?” Sean Penn demanded before presenting Mexican film-maker Alejandro González Iñárritu the best picture Oscar for Birdman, giving a whole new political dimension to the racism of the 87th Annual Academy Awards.
Penn, who starred in Iñárritu’s 21 Grams all the way back in 2003, probably thought it was a funny joke with an old friend. But racism from friends assumed to be benign can be the worst kind, especially at an awards show: just ask black author Jackie Woodson, whose “friend” used presenting her with a National Book Award to make a watermelon joke.
The incident highlighted Oscar’s uneasy relationship with race, which was on full display throughout last night’s ceremony. Along with Tinseltown’s fraught relationship with American militarism, Penn bookended a politically awkward and often uncomfortable evening, which started with host Neil Patrick Harris making a joke about Hollywood celebrating its “best and whitest”.
Four hours later, Penn reminded the world that white supremacy is never far away in America, and it’s at its most insidious and powerful when wielded by self-proclaimed Hollywood liberals–like Penn. And:Hollywood likes to think it is cutting-edge on social issues, but it’s usually very conservative. So it was good to see Glory’s musicians provide at least reference to what the hell has been happening in America between Happy and Everything is Awesome.
And Penn’s penultimate moment of the broadcast was its lowest point, when he brought to the fore not just the simmering, weird way race was near at hand with several African Americans who weren’t nominated. He showed that white supremacy in Hollywood needs to assert itself even in the face of minority exceptionalists who are nominated and actually win–that it needs to remind a brown film-maker receiving the Academy’s highest honor that he is still a sonofabitch with a green card, ostensibly stealing work from good white folk.
In a way, Penn did us a favor: he exposed Hollywood’s faux liberalism for what it truly is. Hollywood has an uneasy relationship with racism, feminism and militarism because it will exploit all of them to keep making money. It is not concerned with diversity or economic justice, except to the extent it can feign interest in any of them to perpetuate its own power. “Who gave this son of a b*tch his green card?”: On the Oscars stage, there’s no such thing as a joke between friends
It doesn't matter if Alejandro Inarritu thought Sean Penn's joke was funny—the Oscars belong to the people at home
By Erin KeaneAccording to the Associated Press, Iñárritu brushed off concerns others voiced about Penn’s joke after the ceremony. “I found it hilarious,” Iñárritu said. “Sean and I have that kind of brutal (relationship) where only true friendship can survive.”
There’s no reason to believe that’s not true—as comedian Sara Benincasa tweeted last night, “Innaritu and Penn are both rich successful dudes who probably bro down in piles of money and make fun of each other.” As is their right! Friends know where the line is that they allow each other to cross and none of us know the particulars of their “brutal” friendship. My own family includes several different nationalities, and cultural differences do come up, and when they do, sometimes we joke about them, as is our privilege as private citizens with functioning senses of humor.
But Sean Penn wasn’t pulling his buddy’s leg at an afterparty or backstage. He planted himself front and center on stage and made a groaner of a green card joke at the climax of a long and weird ceremony that capped off a long and often intense Oscar campaign season that left many viewers furious over an #OscarsSoWhite and acting and directing snubs for “Selma.” None of that necessarily is Penn’s responsibility to ameliorate, but would it have killed the guy to keep the ethnic jokes to himself until he and his friend were safely off-screen?
I’m sure Penn just felt excited to see his good friend’s name in the envelope and responded the best way he knew how, with a comment that he perceived as fond. But even if the Oscars are Hollywood’s biggest night of the year, once the stars are on stage during the broadcast, the awards cease to belong only to them. Iñárritu might have been the man of the night, but this wasn’t a private party, or even a Comedy Central roast where the form explicitly calls for brutal personal jokes that cross the line of good taste. The Academy Awards are really for the viewing audiences at home. Isn’t that the contract behind this spectacle? They put on designer finery and learn to pronounce each others’ names and walk up on stage without making an ass of themselves, and we watch and clap and tweet and fawn and criticize and generally remind them that they’re still relevant in a world where television in all of its mutating glory is fast overtaking their industry in relevance, quality and diversity. And when an A-list star makes a tasteless joke in the middle of all of that, it can’t just be a personal gag at a close friend. Penn’s immigration joke went out to the whole viewing public—many of whom struggle with immigration status challenges that Iñárritu will not likely face again, if he ever did. 
Of course, conservatives responded to this as well as Selma in a racist way:
Trump Weighs In On The Oscars: 'It Was A Great Night For Mexico, As Usual'
"There was a lot of conservative-hatred there. There was no question about that," Trump said. Yes, there's no question that Hollywood hates the conservatives' bigotry against blacks, women, gays, immigrants, et al. Trump nailed it for once.
For more on the subject, see Hollywood Still White in 2015 and Another White Year at the Oscars.
Despite stirring support for the spirit of Selma, and big prizes for Hispanic film-makers, it was the unfortunate throwaway remarks which will linger longest after the 87th Academy Awards
By Steven W Thrasher
Penn, who starred in Iñárritu’s 21 Grams all the way back in 2003, probably thought it was a funny joke with an old friend. But racism from friends assumed to be benign can be the worst kind, especially at an awards show: just ask black author Jackie Woodson, whose “friend” used presenting her with a National Book Award to make a watermelon joke.
The incident highlighted Oscar’s uneasy relationship with race, which was on full display throughout last night’s ceremony. Along with Tinseltown’s fraught relationship with American militarism, Penn bookended a politically awkward and often uncomfortable evening, which started with host Neil Patrick Harris making a joke about Hollywood celebrating its “best and whitest”.
Four hours later, Penn reminded the world that white supremacy is never far away in America, and it’s at its most insidious and powerful when wielded by self-proclaimed Hollywood liberals–like Penn.
And Penn’s penultimate moment of the broadcast was its lowest point, when he brought to the fore not just the simmering, weird way race was near at hand with several African Americans who weren’t nominated. He showed that white supremacy in Hollywood needs to assert itself even in the face of minority exceptionalists who are nominated and actually win–that it needs to remind a brown film-maker receiving the Academy’s highest honor that he is still a sonofabitch with a green card, ostensibly stealing work from good white folk.
In a way, Penn did us a favor: he exposed Hollywood’s faux liberalism for what it truly is. Hollywood has an uneasy relationship with racism, feminism and militarism because it will exploit all of them to keep making money. It is not concerned with diversity or economic justice, except to the extent it can feign interest in any of them to perpetuate its own power.
It doesn't matter if Alejandro Inarritu thought Sean Penn's joke was funny—the Oscars belong to the people at home
By Erin Keane
There’s no reason to believe that’s not true—as comedian Sara Benincasa tweeted last night, “Innaritu and Penn are both rich successful dudes who probably bro down in piles of money and make fun of each other.” As is their right! Friends know where the line is that they allow each other to cross and none of us know the particulars of their “brutal” friendship. My own family includes several different nationalities, and cultural differences do come up, and when they do, sometimes we joke about them, as is our privilege as private citizens with functioning senses of humor.
But Sean Penn wasn’t pulling his buddy’s leg at an afterparty or backstage. He planted himself front and center on stage and made a groaner of a green card joke at the climax of a long and weird ceremony that capped off a long and often intense Oscar campaign season that left many viewers furious over an #OscarsSoWhite and acting and directing snubs for “Selma.” None of that necessarily is Penn’s responsibility to ameliorate, but would it have killed the guy to keep the ethnic jokes to himself until he and his friend were safely off-screen?
I’m sure Penn just felt excited to see his good friend’s name in the envelope and responded the best way he knew how, with a comment that he perceived as fond. But even if the Oscars are Hollywood’s biggest night of the year, once the stars are on stage during the broadcast, the awards cease to belong only to them. Iñárritu might have been the man of the night, but this wasn’t a private party, or even a Comedy Central roast where the form explicitly calls for brutal personal jokes that cross the line of good taste. The Academy Awards are really for the viewing audiences at home. Isn’t that the contract behind this spectacle? They put on designer finery and learn to pronounce each others’ names and walk up on stage without making an ass of themselves, and we watch and clap and tweet and fawn and criticize and generally remind them that they’re still relevant in a world where television in all of its mutating glory is fast overtaking their industry in relevance, quality and diversity. And when an A-list star makes a tasteless joke in the middle of all of that, it can’t just be a personal gag at a close friend. Penn’s immigration joke went out to the whole viewing public—many of whom struggle with immigration status challenges that Iñárritu will not likely face again, if he ever did.
Of course, conservatives responded to this as well as Selma in a racist way:
Trump Weighs In On The Oscars: 'It Was A Great Night For Mexico, As Usual'
"There was a lot of conservative-hatred there. There was no question about that," Trump said. Yes, there's no question that Hollywood hates the conservatives' bigotry against blacks, women, gays, immigrants, et al. Trump nailed it for once.
For more on the subject, see Hollywood Still White in 2015 and Another White Year at the Oscars.
January 21, 2015
Natives in the 2015 SOTU
President Obama mentioned Natives in his State of the Union speech Tuesday, saying:I want future generations to know that we are a people who see our differences as a great gift, that we’re a people who value the dignity and worth of every citizen--man and woman, young and old, black and white, Latino, Asian, immigrant, Native American, gay, straight, Americans with mental illness or physical disability. Everybody matters. A posting suggests why this is significant:
"Immigrants and Native Americans"Rather that listing black and white, Latino, Asian and Native American--which is what most people do when they are being inclusive--he introduced the pairing of immigrant and Native American. In other words, we're all either an immigrant (by choice or slavery) to this country or Native American.
Some might simply write this off as political correctness. But I think it represents the deep respect President Obama has demonstrated for both the gifts and challenges of this land's First Nations People.
"Immigrants and Native Americans"
Some might simply write this off as political correctness. But I think it represents the deep respect President Obama has demonstrated for both the gifts and challenges of this land's First Nations People.
July 19, 2014
Dislike of immigrants = Manifest Destiny
Who Is the Refugee? Native Americans and Mexicans Lived in California First
By Mark KarlinThose on the buses fleeing for their lives and for food to survive were mostly youth and primarily from Central America. The protests in Murietta continued, with the support of the mayor, for days, even though the individuals in humanitarian need were just temporarily being processed in Murietta and then being moved on to other facilities.
As part of a series for Truthout that I have been working on, I have been researching the origins of anti-immigrant mania in the US and its relationship to colonization. After all, one of the egregious ironies of a fever-pitched cry to "secure the border with Mexico" to keep out non-US citizens is that the United States is composed of land seized from its original inhabitants–Native Americans. Moreover, as the US pursued its drive across the continent, its lodestar was a philosophy of "Manifest Destiny," born of a belief in the superiority of the white race. And:To those who protest the meager humanitarian relief granted to young people running for their lives from Central America and Mexico, one can ask if the hatred would appear if the immigrants were white Anglo-Saxons? Because that is what the tectonic war over democracy in the United States has been about for nearly 50 years.
Is the United States only a "democracy" for the kind of people who founded this colonial state (descendants of anglo saxons)? Does it exclude the very people who lived on this continent before it was "discovered" by Europeans–and then seized through near-genocide and opportune purchases by the US? Comment: This commentary makes its point implicitly. I'll make the point explicit. The recent hatred directed at immigrant children is racist. It's based on the same fear and loathing behind the "American holocaust" of Native peoples. Euro-Americans have hated brown-skinned people ever since 1492 and they still hate them with a passion.
For more on the subject, see Conservatives Fear Minorities and Republicans: White People Own America.
By Mark Karlin
As part of a series for Truthout that I have been working on, I have been researching the origins of anti-immigrant mania in the US and its relationship to colonization. After all, one of the egregious ironies of a fever-pitched cry to "secure the border with Mexico" to keep out non-US citizens is that the United States is composed of land seized from its original inhabitants–Native Americans. Moreover, as the US pursued its drive across the continent, its lodestar was a philosophy of "Manifest Destiny," born of a belief in the superiority of the white race.
Is the United States only a "democracy" for the kind of people who founded this colonial state (descendants of anglo saxons)? Does it exclude the very people who lived on this continent before it was "discovered" by Europeans–and then seized through near-genocide and opportune purchases by the US?
For more on the subject, see Conservatives Fear Minorities and Republicans: White People Own America.
June 27, 2013
Nightline explores Tohono O'odham border
In Efforts to Secure US-Mexico Border, Ariz. Native Americans Feel Caught in the Middle
By Byron Pitts"Nightline" spent 48 hours with U.S. Border Patrol agents and the Tohono O'odham reservation police force to get a firsthand look at the battle on the border.
"The Tohono O'odham Nation is one of our most problematic areas," Arizona Commander Jeffrey Self of the U.S. Border Patrol told "Nightline". "The narcotics smugglers have moved up into the mountainous area. There is not a lot of access."
While border-crossing apprehensions in Arizona are down 43 percent from two years ago, it is a different, more complicated story on the Tohono O'odham Nation. Drug seizures on the reservation are steadily climbing--nearly 500,000 pounds of marijuana was seized last year, a number that has nearly doubled since 2010. Recently, Tohono O'odham police seized $1 million worth of marijuana in just one week.
But the Tohono O'odham tribal members are caught in the middle of a war between the Mexican drug cartels coming through their community and the U.S. Border Patrol officers who tribal members say have become more aggressive to stop them.
In the Tohono O'odham Nation is "The San Miguel Gate," an area on the U.S.-Mexico border considered to be sacred by the Tohono O'odham. It is the only place where Native Americans can freely walk across the border, but there, the only thing separating Mexico and the U.S. is a low fence guarded by a lone border patrol agent and a light pole powered by a generator.
Verlon Jose, a Tohono O'odham tribal leader whose family has lived on the reservation for generations, and other members of his tribe talked to "Nightline" at "The San Miguel Gate." Jose acknowledged that the Gate carries a myriad of problems.
"Drugs come through here, migrants come through here," he said. "We see harassment from individuals who are moving contraband north, moving migrants north. Homes broken into, vehicles broken into. It's gotten more aggressive." Comment: For more on Tohono O'odham, see Kitt Peak Observatory on Tohono O'odham Land and Jance's Tohono O'odham Mysteries.
Below: "The Tohono O'odham are caught in the middle of a war between the Mexican drug cartels coming through their community and the U.S. Border Patrol officers who tribal members say have become more aggressive to stop them."
By Byron Pitts
"The Tohono O'odham Nation is one of our most problematic areas," Arizona Commander Jeffrey Self of the U.S. Border Patrol told "Nightline". "The narcotics smugglers have moved up into the mountainous area. There is not a lot of access."
While border-crossing apprehensions in Arizona are down 43 percent from two years ago, it is a different, more complicated story on the Tohono O'odham Nation. Drug seizures on the reservation are steadily climbing--nearly 500,000 pounds of marijuana was seized last year, a number that has nearly doubled since 2010. Recently, Tohono O'odham police seized $1 million worth of marijuana in just one week.
But the Tohono O'odham tribal members are caught in the middle of a war between the Mexican drug cartels coming through their community and the U.S. Border Patrol officers who tribal members say have become more aggressive to stop them.
In the Tohono O'odham Nation is "The San Miguel Gate," an area on the U.S.-Mexico border considered to be sacred by the Tohono O'odham. It is the only place where Native Americans can freely walk across the border, but there, the only thing separating Mexico and the U.S. is a low fence guarded by a lone border patrol agent and a light pole powered by a generator.
Verlon Jose, a Tohono O'odham tribal leader whose family has lived on the reservation for generations, and other members of his tribe talked to "Nightline" at "The San Miguel Gate." Jose acknowledged that the Gate carries a myriad of problems.
"Drugs come through here, migrants come through here," he said. "We see harassment from individuals who are moving contraband north, moving migrants north. Homes broken into, vehicles broken into. It's gotten more aggressive."
Below: "The Tohono O'odham are caught in the middle of a war between the Mexican drug cartels coming through their community and the U.S. Border Patrol officers who tribal members say have become more aggressive to stop them."
March 20, 2013
Oregon professor shoves Native student
Professor Caught on Video Shoving Student, Arrested
By Simon Moya-SmithA confrontation between University of Oregon adjunct law professor James Olmsted and student activists ended Thursday with Olmsted’s arrest and subsequent removal from the campus, said Julie Brown, director of media relations.
Several students videotaped Olmsted of Eugene, Oregon, as he shoved one student and aggressively took a cell phone from another.
The incident occurred at the Erb Memorial Union, near 13th Avenue and University Street, as members of the group Students Against Imperialism held a political performance by setting up a mock border checkpoint.
After inquiring about the purpose of the performance, Olmsted grew irate and began harassing students.
“Indians keep slaves too. Look at your sophisticated indigenous people—Mayans, Toltecs, Incans—they all kept slaves. They all fucking tortured and sacrificed institutionally... If you want this country back start a fucking war and take it back... Instead of just being pussies and talking, do something," Olmsted said to the students. "To make something happen you need lots of people that are doing action... like when Native Americans took over Alcatraz—very, very brave. This is nice but it's very small." Comment: Great arguments, professor. Let's deconstruct them:
1) Olmsted's first argument is equivalent to: "Some Indians 3,000 miles away and 500 years ago did something bad. Therefore, something's wrong with you on this 21st-century Oregon campus."
"Similarly," Olmsted might've continued, "Catholic priests tortured people in Europe during the Inquisition. Therefore, something's wrong with me too. Because guilt by association is how I process things."
2) Olmsted's second argument is equivalent to: "Natives peacefully occupied Alcatraz and negotiated with government officials, so you should do the opposite and start a war. The Aztecs and Inca were decimated when they tried to fight the Spanish, but your war against the much more powerful US government should be more successful."
In other words, Olmsted is babbling nonsense. I guess his point was that the Natives students need to do more. If so, he phrased it rather poorly.
For more on immigration, see Native Lawmaker Thinks Kobach Is Illegal and Native Tells Protesters They're Illegal.
By Simon Moya-Smith
Several students videotaped Olmsted of Eugene, Oregon, as he shoved one student and aggressively took a cell phone from another.
The incident occurred at the Erb Memorial Union, near 13th Avenue and University Street, as members of the group Students Against Imperialism held a political performance by setting up a mock border checkpoint.
After inquiring about the purpose of the performance, Olmsted grew irate and began harassing students.
“Indians keep slaves too. Look at your sophisticated indigenous people—Mayans, Toltecs, Incans—they all kept slaves. They all fucking tortured and sacrificed institutionally... If you want this country back start a fucking war and take it back... Instead of just being pussies and talking, do something," Olmsted said to the students. "To make something happen you need lots of people that are doing action... like when Native Americans took over Alcatraz—very, very brave. This is nice but it's very small."
1) Olmsted's first argument is equivalent to: "Some Indians 3,000 miles away and 500 years ago did something bad. Therefore, something's wrong with you on this 21st-century Oregon campus."
"Similarly," Olmsted might've continued, "Catholic priests tortured people in Europe during the Inquisition. Therefore, something's wrong with me too. Because guilt by association is how I process things."
2) Olmsted's second argument is equivalent to: "Natives peacefully occupied Alcatraz and negotiated with government officials, so you should do the opposite and start a war. The Aztecs and Inca were decimated when they tried to fight the Spanish, but your war against the much more powerful US government should be more successful."
In other words, Olmsted is babbling nonsense. I guess his point was that the Natives students need to do more. If so, he phrased it rather poorly.
For more on immigration, see Native Lawmaker Thinks Kobach Is Illegal and Native Tells Protesters They're Illegal.
Native lawmaker thinks Kobach is illegal
Emotions flow during immigrant tuition hearing
Indian lawmaker to Kobach: Who's the illegal immigrant here?
By Andy MarsoThe Legislature's annual attempt to repeal a statute allowing in-state tuition for Kansas students without legal residency drew an emotional crowd to a House committee Wednesday.
Students who have lived in the United States most of their lives got choked up as they described the academic lifeline in-state tuition has provided to improve their lives. A counselor who works with such students in Wichita high schools shed tears as she showed legislators a scrapbook of success stories. Murmurs of unrest were heard in the gallery as one House member asked about the prevalence of illegal immigrants from gangs and drug cartels in American prisons.
But nothing drew a bigger reaction than when Rep. Ponka-We Victors, D-Wichita, wrapped up a series of questions to the bill's chief proponent, Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
“I think it’s funny Mr. Kobach, because when you mention illegal immigrant, I think of all of you,” said Victors, the Legislature's lone American Indian member.
The heavily pro-immigrant gallery burst into cheers and applause—a rare reaction in normally staid hearings. Comment: For more on immigration, see Native Tells Protesters They're Illegal and Twitter War Over Immigration Reference.
Indian lawmaker to Kobach: Who's the illegal immigrant here?
By Andy Marso
Students who have lived in the United States most of their lives got choked up as they described the academic lifeline in-state tuition has provided to improve their lives. A counselor who works with such students in Wichita high schools shed tears as she showed legislators a scrapbook of success stories. Murmurs of unrest were heard in the gallery as one House member asked about the prevalence of illegal immigrants from gangs and drug cartels in American prisons.
But nothing drew a bigger reaction than when Rep. Ponka-We Victors, D-Wichita, wrapped up a series of questions to the bill's chief proponent, Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
“I think it’s funny Mr. Kobach, because when you mention illegal immigrant, I think of all of you,” said Victors, the Legislature's lone American Indian member.
The heavily pro-immigrant gallery burst into cheers and applause—a rare reaction in normally staid hearings.
February 10, 2013
Conservatives fear minorities
Tendency to fear is strong political influence
Fear can play a role in influencing political attitudes on hot-button issues like immigration, according to new research co-authored by Brown political scientist Rose McDermott. The study, published in the American Journal of Political Science, shows that individuals who are genetically predisposed to fear tend to have more negative out-group opinions, which play out politically as support for policies like anti-immigration and segregation.The research indicates a strong correlation between social fear and anti-immigration, pro-segregation attitudes. While those individuals with higher levels of social fear exhibited the strongest negative out-group attitudes, even the lowest amount of social phobia was related to substantially less positive out-group attitudes.
“It’s not that conservative people are more fearful, it’s that fearful people are more conservative. People who are scared of novelty, uncertainty, people they don’t know, and things they don’t understand, are more supportive of policies that provide them with a sense of surety and security,” McDermott said.
The researchers make clear, however, that genetics plays only part of the role in influencing political preferences. Education, they found, had an equally large influence on out-group attitudes, with more highly educated people displaying more supportive attitudes toward out-groups and education having a substantial mediating influence on the correlation between parental fear and child out-group attitudes.
“In this way, the definition of unfamiliar may shift across time and location based on experience and education, and a genetically informed fear disposition is hardly permanent or fixed,” the researchers wrote. Comment: I'm not sure it matters which came first: the conservative beliefs or the fear of minorities ("out-groups"). The fact is that there's a "strong correlation" between the two.
In other words, the research confirms what many of us have been saying for years. Namely, that conservative antipathy toward blacks, Latinos, Indians, Muslims, gays, et al. is motivated by fear.
For more on conservative racism, see Whiteness Defines Others as Outsiders and White Men Lose to Demographic Change.
Fear can play a role in influencing political attitudes on hot-button issues like immigration, according to new research co-authored by Brown political scientist Rose McDermott. The study, published in the American Journal of Political Science, shows that individuals who are genetically predisposed to fear tend to have more negative out-group opinions, which play out politically as support for policies like anti-immigration and segregation.
“It’s not that conservative people are more fearful, it’s that fearful people are more conservative. People who are scared of novelty, uncertainty, people they don’t know, and things they don’t understand, are more supportive of policies that provide them with a sense of surety and security,” McDermott said.
The researchers make clear, however, that genetics plays only part of the role in influencing political preferences. Education, they found, had an equally large influence on out-group attitudes, with more highly educated people displaying more supportive attitudes toward out-groups and education having a substantial mediating influence on the correlation between parental fear and child out-group attitudes.
“In this way, the definition of unfamiliar may shift across time and location based on experience and education, and a genetically informed fear disposition is hardly permanent or fixed,” the researchers wrote.
In other words, the research confirms what many of us have been saying for years. Namely, that conservative antipathy toward blacks, Latinos, Indians, Muslims, gays, et al. is motivated by fear.
For more on conservative racism, see Whiteness Defines Others as Outsiders and White Men Lose to Demographic Change.
February 05, 2013
Native tells protesters they're illegal
Immigrant Protest: ‘Y’all Are All Illegal!!!’
By Abena Agyeman-FisherAt a Tucson, Ariz., anti-illegal immigrant rally, a group of self-righteous protesters were literally put on mute after a Native American decided to drop some knowledge on who the real “illegals” are.
Pushing a toddler in a stroller, a rightfully irritated self-identified Native American began yelling at the group, saying:
“Y’all f*cking illegal. You’re all illegal. You’re all illegal!
“We didn’t invite none of you here!
“We’re the only native Americans here.” Comment: I've seen this response--Natives telling non-Natives they're illegal immigrants--before in cartoons. But this is the first live-action version I've seen.
For more on immigration, see Twitter War Over Immigration Reference and Obama: Natives Are the Only Natives.
By Abena Agyeman-Fisher
Pushing a toddler in a stroller, a rightfully irritated self-identified Native American began yelling at the group, saying:
“Y’all f*cking illegal. You’re all illegal. You’re all illegal!
“We didn’t invite none of you here!
“We’re the only native Americans here.”
For more on immigration, see Twitter War Over Immigration Reference and Obama: Natives Are the Only Natives.
February 01, 2013
Twitter war over immigration reference
The immigration comment I noted in Obama: Natives Are the Only Natives triggered a war of words:
Obama's 'Native American' Reference During Immigration Speech Sparks Bering Strait Twitter Surge
By Simon Moya-SmithYesterday, during a speech on immigration in Las Vegas, President Obama reacquainted the nation with the actuality that “unless you’re one of the first Americans, Native Americans, you came from somewhere else–somebody brought you,” he said.
Immediately, anti-amnesty apologists and Bering Strait Theory enthusiasts took to Twitter to argue against Mr. Obama and the position that Native Americans never migrated across the northern land bridge 15,000 years ago:
Conservative tweeter @MarkWonderful remarked: “Needless to say, those of us w/some education know that even ‘Native Americans’ are immigrants, having come over land bridge from Asia.”
@QuoteLawrence wrote: “This is the stupidest comment made by stupid criminal sympathizers. You’re a native once you’re born here.”
Although the Bering Strait Theory is frequently considered as an irrefutable fact (at least in the Twitter-sphere), Harvard Medical School Professor of Genetics David Reich declared in July that the Bering Strait remains a theory–and one he anticipates will be refuted with further research.
Still, that hasn’t staved the American populace from utilizing the Bering Strait argument whenever the issue of immigration is the topic of caustic debate. 
Comment: To answer "@MarkWonderful," those of us with some education understand that "native" is a relative concept, not an absolute. Since the earth coalesced out of space dust, continents merged and split, and species evolved, it's hard to say anything is truly "native" to a particular time or place. You have to pick a reasonable cutoff point or the word has no meaning.
As for "@QuoteLawrence," Obama was talking about historic groups of people, not individuals. That's generally what we talk about when we talk about immigration. People such as the Irish migrated to America even if many Irish children were born here.
To use an analogy, even if something--say, a spaghetti dish--was created here, it may come from elsewhere. A particular serving of spaghetti originates where it was cooked, or where its ingredients came from. But "spaghetti" as a kind of food originated in Italy.
If you don't understand this childishly obvious distinction, "@QuoteLawrence," you win the award for stupidest comment. Duhhh.
Clarifying the point
Moya-Smith raises several issues in his commentary, but he doesn't distinguish them clearly. Let's go through them:
1) Conservatives are using the Bering Strait theory only to claim Natives aren't "native" to the Americas. If another migration theory replaced the Bering Strait theory, conservatives would use that theory instead.
I've addressed this claim several times--for instance, in Conservatives Think They're "Natives," Conservative Website Calls Indians "Beringians," and Were Indians "Colonists" Too?
Marty Two Bulls's cartoon captures what's going on here. Conservatives don't care about the science behind the Bering Strait theory. They're using the theory to delegitimize and discredit Natives. It's part of the 500-year Euro-Christian effort to promote white superiority and justify stolen land.
2) Based on their origin stories, Natives such as Vine Deloria Jr. claim Natives have always lived in the Americas. Presumably because their gods created them here, not because they evolved from apes here. I don't think any reputable scientist buys this theory.
3) Many scientists do dispute the Bering Strait theory, saying indigenous people may have arrived by boat. This doesn't affect the immigration debate. Conservatives still would say Natives were immigrants, and Natives still would say they're "native" by any reasonable definition of the word.
For more on migration theories, see Paleo-Indians Arrived Before Clovis and Ice Age Documentary Stars Alaska Natives.
Obama's 'Native American' Reference During Immigration Speech Sparks Bering Strait Twitter Surge
By Simon Moya-Smith
Immediately, anti-amnesty apologists and Bering Strait Theory enthusiasts took to Twitter to argue against Mr. Obama and the position that Native Americans never migrated across the northern land bridge 15,000 years ago:
Conservative tweeter @MarkWonderful remarked: “Needless to say, those of us w/some education know that even ‘Native Americans’ are immigrants, having come over land bridge from Asia.”
@QuoteLawrence wrote: “This is the stupidest comment made by stupid criminal sympathizers. You’re a native once you’re born here.”
Although the Bering Strait Theory is frequently considered as an irrefutable fact (at least in the Twitter-sphere), Harvard Medical School Professor of Genetics David Reich declared in July that the Bering Strait remains a theory–and one he anticipates will be refuted with further research.
Still, that hasn’t staved the American populace from utilizing the Bering Strait argument whenever the issue of immigration is the topic of caustic debate.
Comment: To answer "@MarkWonderful," those of us with some education understand that "native" is a relative concept, not an absolute. Since the earth coalesced out of space dust, continents merged and split, and species evolved, it's hard to say anything is truly "native" to a particular time or place. You have to pick a reasonable cutoff point or the word has no meaning.
As for "@QuoteLawrence," Obama was talking about historic groups of people, not individuals. That's generally what we talk about when we talk about immigration. People such as the Irish migrated to America even if many Irish children were born here.
To use an analogy, even if something--say, a spaghetti dish--was created here, it may come from elsewhere. A particular serving of spaghetti originates where it was cooked, or where its ingredients came from. But "spaghetti" as a kind of food originated in Italy.
If you don't understand this childishly obvious distinction, "@QuoteLawrence," you win the award for stupidest comment. Duhhh.
Clarifying the point
Moya-Smith raises several issues in his commentary, but he doesn't distinguish them clearly. Let's go through them:
1) Conservatives are using the Bering Strait theory only to claim Natives aren't "native" to the Americas. If another migration theory replaced the Bering Strait theory, conservatives would use that theory instead.
I've addressed this claim several times--for instance, in Conservatives Think They're "Natives," Conservative Website Calls Indians "Beringians," and Were Indians "Colonists" Too?
Marty Two Bulls's cartoon captures what's going on here. Conservatives don't care about the science behind the Bering Strait theory. They're using the theory to delegitimize and discredit Natives. It's part of the 500-year Euro-Christian effort to promote white superiority and justify stolen land.
2) Based on their origin stories, Natives such as Vine Deloria Jr. claim Natives have always lived in the Americas. Presumably because their gods created them here, not because they evolved from apes here. I don't think any reputable scientist buys this theory.
3) Many scientists do dispute the Bering Strait theory, saying indigenous people may have arrived by boat. This doesn't affect the immigration debate. Conservatives still would say Natives were immigrants, and Natives still would say they're "native" by any reasonable definition of the word.
For more on migration theories, see Paleo-Indians Arrived Before Clovis and Ice Age Documentary Stars Alaska Natives.
January 29, 2013
Obama: Natives are the only natives
Obama: Unless you were a Native American, you came from someplace else
By Charlie SpieringThis afternoon in Las Vegas, President Obama reminded most American citizens that they were descended from immigrants themselves.
Obama warned that the issue was an emotional one, but that it was important for Americans to not view it as “us versus them.”
“It’s really important to remember our history,” Obama continued. “Unless you were one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else, somebody brought you,” he said. Who You Calling an Immigrant?
By Mark TrahantFor many in Indian country, President Barack Obama said magic words, “It’s really important for us to remember our history. Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else. Somebody brought you.”
Somebody brought you. Or you showed up. Even uninvited. Yet after two centuries of borders, two centuries of crossing a line on a map, who’s really an immigrant in the 21st century? Comment: This partially makes up for the lack of Native mentions during Obama's inauguration. As anyone would, Indians want reassurances that their existence and issues matter. A shout-out like this shows Obama hasn't forgotten them.
For more on the subject, see Obama's Columbus Day Proclamation and Republicans: White People Own America.
By Charlie Spiering
Obama warned that the issue was an emotional one, but that it was important for Americans to not view it as “us versus them.”
“It’s really important to remember our history,” Obama continued. “Unless you were one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else, somebody brought you,” he said.
By Mark Trahant
Somebody brought you. Or you showed up. Even uninvited. Yet after two centuries of borders, two centuries of crossing a line on a map, who’s really an immigrant in the 21st century?
For more on the subject, see Obama's Columbus Day Proclamation and Republicans: White People Own America.
October 08, 2012
Obama’s Columbus Day proclamation
President Barack Obama’s Columbus Day Proclamation
By President Barack ObamaAs dawn broke over the Atlantic on October 12, 1492, a perilous 10-week journey across an ocean gave way to encounters and events that would dramatically shape the course of history. Today, we recall the courage and the innovative spirit that carried Christopher Columbus and his crew from a Spanish port to North America, and we celebrate our heritage as a people born of many histories and traditions.
When the explorers laid anchor in the Bahamas, they met Indigenous Peoples who had inhabited the Western hemisphere for millennia. As we reflect on the tragic burdens tribal communities bore in the years that followed, let us commemorate the many contributions they have made to the American experience, and let us continue to strengthen the ties that bind us today.
In the centuries since that fateful October day in 1492, countless pioneering Americans have summoned the same spirit of discovery that drove Christopher Columbus when he cast off from Palos, Spain, to pursue the unknown. Engineers and entrepreneurs, sailors and scientists, explorers of the physical world and chroniclers of the human spirit–all have worked to broaden our understanding of the time and space we live in and who we are as a people. On this 520th anniversary of Columbus’s expedition to the West, let us press forward with renewed determination toward tomorrow’s new frontiers.
As a native of Genoa, Italy, Christopher Columbus also inspired generations of Italian immigrants to follow in his footsteps. Today, we take time to celebrate the innumerable contributions that generations of Italian Americans have made to our country. Throughout 2013, Italy will also commemorate this rich heritage and the enduring bonds between our countries with the Year of Italian Culture in the United States, which Americans will join in celebrating.
In commemoration of Christopher Columbus’s historic voyage 520 years ago, the Congress, by joint resolution of April 30, 1934, and modified in 1968 (36 U.S.C. 107), as amended, has requested the President proclaim the second Monday of October of each year as “Columbus Day.”
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 8, 2012, as Columbus Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of our diverse history and all who have contributed to shaping this Nation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh. Comment: My Native Facebook friends were surprised and a little shocked at this whitewashing of American history. They shouldn't have been. Speeches and proclamations like this are par for the course in the US. Politicians must regurgitate America's founding myth if they don't want to be kicked out of office.
Despite his multiracial background, Obama is no exception. He's barely mentioned race since he was elected in 2008. I've noted his myth-making several times before:
Michelle Obama on "doing the impossible"
Why US chose "Geronimo" codename
The Story of Us whitewashes history
Obama refused to use g-word
Settling the west in the Inaugural Address
Obama to dissolve tribes
Analysis
Let's discuss what Obama wrote paragraph by paragraph:
1) Obama talks about Columbus's "spirit" but not his goals. Especially in Columbus's second through fourth voyages, when he knew he'd found something. He wanted gold...slaves...and territory under Christian domain.
There's nothing noble about any of these goals. As with most Westerners during most of Western history, he was motivated by a lust for wealth and power. He wasn't aiming to help anybody except himself.
Also, we do not celebrate immigrants in general on Columbus Day. Not the Irish who came in the 19th century, the Eastern Europeans who came in the 20th century, or the Latinos who are coming now. If you want to celebrate these things...great. Let's replace Columbus Day with Immigrants Day.
2) "The tragic burdens tribal communities bore in the years that followed"...what a sorry euphemism for genocide. To state the obvious, Columbus instigated the so-called tragic burdens. He forced the Indians to bring him gold and enslaved, mutilated, or killed those who didn't cooperate.
As indigenous people across two continents have said, why are we celebrating this thug? Hitler had an innovative spirit too; who else would've thought to incinerate an entire ethnic group in ovens? It's asinine and immoral to celebrate someone's "spirit" without noting the intentions and consequences of that spirit.
3) This paean to explorers ignores the fact that most immigrants have been driven by economic necessity, not a quest for knowledge. It further ignores the fact that many arrived here as indentured servants or slaves, not willing travelers.
But if you want to celebrate explorers instead of immigrants...great. Let's replace Columbus Day with Explorers Day.
4) This sounds like a big wet kiss to the Italian American community, who would squeal like pigs if we replaced "their" day. But why are we celebrating Italians rather than Germans, the French, the Dutch, Scandinavians, and other ethnic groups that have contributed to America? What's the justification for singling out Italians?
Conclusion
This proclamation tells us more about why we shouldn't celebrate Columbus Day than why we should. Namely, because it fabricates a US history that's only vaguely related to reality. It's all about making us feel good about ourselves, not informing us about history.
The proclamation doesn't tell us much more than the 1492 poem does. You know the one:In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Indeed, the poem is more accurate and informative than the proclamation:Columbus sailed on to find some gold
To bring back home, as he'd been told.
He made the trip again and again,
Trading gold to bring to Spain. The poem says more about Columbus's greed than his "spirit." When an old children's poem is a better history source than a presidential proclamation, that's a problem.
In conclusion, all this fairy-tale fantasizing about how we cherish Indians and immigrants is a crock. It has little to do with the last few centuries of history or with conditions today. It suggests why we should abolish Columbus Day or replace it with something worth celebrating.
For more on Columbus, see Columbus Day Celebrates Conquest and "6 Ridiculous Lies About Indians."
By President Barack Obama
When the explorers laid anchor in the Bahamas, they met Indigenous Peoples who had inhabited the Western hemisphere for millennia. As we reflect on the tragic burdens tribal communities bore in the years that followed, let us commemorate the many contributions they have made to the American experience, and let us continue to strengthen the ties that bind us today.
In the centuries since that fateful October day in 1492, countless pioneering Americans have summoned the same spirit of discovery that drove Christopher Columbus when he cast off from Palos, Spain, to pursue the unknown. Engineers and entrepreneurs, sailors and scientists, explorers of the physical world and chroniclers of the human spirit–all have worked to broaden our understanding of the time and space we live in and who we are as a people. On this 520th anniversary of Columbus’s expedition to the West, let us press forward with renewed determination toward tomorrow’s new frontiers.
As a native of Genoa, Italy, Christopher Columbus also inspired generations of Italian immigrants to follow in his footsteps. Today, we take time to celebrate the innumerable contributions that generations of Italian Americans have made to our country. Throughout 2013, Italy will also commemorate this rich heritage and the enduring bonds between our countries with the Year of Italian Culture in the United States, which Americans will join in celebrating.
In commemoration of Christopher Columbus’s historic voyage 520 years ago, the Congress, by joint resolution of April 30, 1934, and modified in 1968 (36 U.S.C. 107), as amended, has requested the President proclaim the second Monday of October of each year as “Columbus Day.”
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 8, 2012, as Columbus Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of our diverse history and all who have contributed to shaping this Nation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.
Despite his multiracial background, Obama is no exception. He's barely mentioned race since he was elected in 2008. I've noted his myth-making several times before:
Michelle Obama on "doing the impossible"
Why US chose "Geronimo" codename
The Story of Us whitewashes history
Obama refused to use g-word
Settling the west in the Inaugural Address
Obama to dissolve tribes
Analysis
Let's discuss what Obama wrote paragraph by paragraph:
1) Obama talks about Columbus's "spirit" but not his goals. Especially in Columbus's second through fourth voyages, when he knew he'd found something. He wanted gold...slaves...and territory under Christian domain.
There's nothing noble about any of these goals. As with most Westerners during most of Western history, he was motivated by a lust for wealth and power. He wasn't aiming to help anybody except himself.
Also, we do not celebrate immigrants in general on Columbus Day. Not the Irish who came in the 19th century, the Eastern Europeans who came in the 20th century, or the Latinos who are coming now. If you want to celebrate these things...great. Let's replace Columbus Day with Immigrants Day.
2) "The tragic burdens tribal communities bore in the years that followed"...what a sorry euphemism for genocide. To state the obvious, Columbus instigated the so-called tragic burdens. He forced the Indians to bring him gold and enslaved, mutilated, or killed those who didn't cooperate.
As indigenous people across two continents have said, why are we celebrating this thug? Hitler had an innovative spirit too; who else would've thought to incinerate an entire ethnic group in ovens? It's asinine and immoral to celebrate someone's "spirit" without noting the intentions and consequences of that spirit.
3) This paean to explorers ignores the fact that most immigrants have been driven by economic necessity, not a quest for knowledge. It further ignores the fact that many arrived here as indentured servants or slaves, not willing travelers.
But if you want to celebrate explorers instead of immigrants...great. Let's replace Columbus Day with Explorers Day.
4) This sounds like a big wet kiss to the Italian American community, who would squeal like pigs if we replaced "their" day. But why are we celebrating Italians rather than Germans, the French, the Dutch, Scandinavians, and other ethnic groups that have contributed to America? What's the justification for singling out Italians?
Conclusion
This proclamation tells us more about why we shouldn't celebrate Columbus Day than why we should. Namely, because it fabricates a US history that's only vaguely related to reality. It's all about making us feel good about ourselves, not informing us about history.
The proclamation doesn't tell us much more than the 1492 poem does. You know the one:
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
To bring back home, as he'd been told.
He made the trip again and again,
Trading gold to bring to Spain.
In conclusion, all this fairy-tale fantasizing about how we cherish Indians and immigrants is a crock. It has little to do with the last few centuries of history or with conditions today. It suggests why we should abolish Columbus Day or replace it with something worth celebrating.
For more on Columbus, see Columbus Day Celebrates Conquest and "6 Ridiculous Lies About Indians."
September 02, 2012
Republicans: White people own America
A roundup of postings about the Republican convention shows it's all about keeping white male Christians in power.
Republicans want to build a time machine
But don't be fooled: Republicans aren't just nostalgic for 1950s-style social barriers. They want to rebuild them
By Rebecca TraisterRepublicans are panting for a tricked-out DeLorean that can take them back! Back in time! To a period when the power structure was fixed and comfortable, when there were no black first ladies or black camerawomen, when loud Jewish ladies were not in charge of national political parties, back to a time when only a select few—the white, the male, the straight, the Protestant—could reasonably expect to exert political or financial or social or sexual power.
The desire to chronologically reverse our nation’s history has been the undercurrent of the 2012 election cycle and its primary debates; it’s barely been disguised in the agenda of John Boehner’s House or in state legislatures around the country.
The mission to drastically curtail women’s reproductive rights, taking aim not just at abortion but at birth control; the blocking of the Paycheck Fairness Act; objections to expanding the Violence Against Women Act; crazed locutions about rape and sluts: In word and deed, conservatives have been telegraphing their hope to return us to a moment not just before Roe, but before the birth-control pill, before the sexual revolution, before second-wave feminism hammered pesky terms like “harassment” and “equal pay” into our lexicon, to a moment when women’s bodies and sexuality and identities were men’s to define, patrol and violate at will.
The state-by-state assault on voting rights, a dizzying array of propositions designed to keep brown and black people, poor people and young people from the polls? This too is an attempt to turn back time, to return the country to a moment before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 helped ensure safe enfranchisement for African-Americans.
For many months, we have been watching a lengthy, multi-tentacled attempt to shut tight doors that were opened by the social movements of the mid-20th century, to push back those who have apparently gotten their hands on a little too much power, by aiming back toward a time when men were white, women were long-suffering vessels, and black men were definitely not president.
But if time travel has been an understated drumbeat of the past two years of Republican machination, in Tampa, it was conveyed with all the subtlety of an AC/DC riff from Paul Ryan’s iPod.
First there was the swooning over the Greatest Generation, the fetishistic shout-outs to hard-laboring forebears, Welsh coal-mining grandfathers and Breyer’s Plant employee dads. Speakers were presenting us with visions of men who lived in an earlier America and the women who sacrificed their own passions (as Mitt Romney recalled of his mother, who gave up Hollywood) to marry them, move to Detroit and raise their babies while the men embraced success and made money.
None of the stories of ye olde American achievement actually jibed with the convention’s “We Built It” theme. The tales were of white men whose class mobility and moon-walks were boosted by G.I. Bills, state-school educations, government-funded space programs and unions. These guys and their unconditionally loving wives were part of a white American middle class that was able to expand thanks to the kinds of post-Depression financial regulations and government-goosed infrastructure and housing programs that modern Republicans are keen to obliterate.
But the incoherence of message didn’t matter, because what all these stories were really flicking at wasn’t the size of the government, but the whiteness and the maleness of those who were helped along with their businesses and wealth and broods of straight-parented families. Just listen to Romney’s assertions about this “nation of immigrants” who came here seeking freedom, a sentiment that is both disingenuous from someone who wants this nation’s current immigrant population to self-deport, and that does not even bother to acknowledge those Americans whose forebears were brought here against their will in an exercise of freedom’s opposite. Romney didn’t include those people because they don’t exist—in a meaningful, threatening way—in the America Romney and his party are trying to bring back.
The keening desire to be back there, to be back then, was responsible for the presence of Clint Eastwood, an actor who came to prominence as a star of the cowboy show “Rawhide,” which aired from 1959 to 1965. People may disagree about whether Eastwood’s vertiginously awful appearance at the RNC on Thursday was intentionally aggressive or just loopy, but there’s no question that his creepy intonation of the phrase “We own this country” came off like a segregationist-era, George Wallace-inspired catchphrase—one the crowd went wild for. Stop talking about your grandpa!
Republicans like to talk about their "humble roots" in order to disguise their true upper-class ideology
By Andrew Burstein and Nancy IsenbergRepublicans hype the “Greatest Generation” when doing so fits their narrative that anyone who tries hard enough can make it in America. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose blowhard manner has made him the idol of the party, bellowed before the Tampa crowd that his father was part of the World War II generation, and that he is the beneficiary of his old man’s positive values. “He grew up in poverty,” Christie intoned. Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum similarly tout their humble connections in assuring voters that they come by their conservative values honestly.
This is the new Republican playbook. They are running away, as fast as they can, from the upper-class ideology to which they really subscribe. Romney “loves” his Costco shirts; and, his wife says, they began married life in a basement apartment with a “fold-down ironing board for a dining room table.” We are now supposed to believe that theirs is not the party of wealthy businessmen on one end of the scale, and on the other, angry, spellcheck-resistant Tea Party sign wavers who hate the deadbeats that are bilking the government out of hard-earned tax dollars. No, the new Republican Party is the party of self-made men with loving wives and mothers, “real Americans” who embrace educational opportunity and the American dream for all.
The “new” Republicans owe more than they will acknowledge to a federal government that dispensed a long list of subsidies from World War II forward. The GI Bill made higher education possible for millions, just as New Deal legislation before that helped secure federally backed loans for businesses and homeownership for the first time in our history. The growth of suburbia was financed by big government. Businessmen did not accomplish this change in class structure on their own. Not nearly. The federal government created the middle class of the 1950s. Surely, the Republicans can admit this much. But doing so is risky; it might lead them down the slippery slope from “Greed is good” to “Government is good.” And:Labor Day should make us think more about class distinctions. Romney is a good husband, but it doesn’t diminish his life of privilege. Ann Romney is not a typical housewife either; her hobby is dressage, not knitting. Contrary to the Republicans’ wished-for America, it is not just the hardworking, honest American who gets ahead: so do mobsters and Hollywood blondes without talent, Enron executives, corporate raiders and members of the patrician class who never worked a day in their lives.
Let’s talk about labor in honest terms. Thomas Jefferson may have designed Monticello, but his slaves mixed the lime and baked the brick and erected the mansion. Slaves built much of early America, long-despised Irishmen dug the Erie Canal, and Chinese peasants were conscripted to lay railroad tracks all the livelong day. Businessmen need a vast array of workers to build any corporate enterprise; employers need employees. White-collar workers, manual laborers, electricians and carpenters make businesses run. Why must Republicans these days take such joy and displaced pride in suggesting that business leaders do it all, building the country brick by brick, by themselves, our precious job creators? A football team needs blockers as well as a quarterback.
Casablanca’s Rick is saying that the pursuit of wealth often gets in the way of virtue as well as justice. If you listen to Chris Christie, public school teachers aren’t accountable enough, and unions are a selfish perk for a coddled generation. Why does the same accountability not extend to big businessmen? No prosecutions on Wall Street? This is where the Republicans’ moralizing platform sinks in quicksand. One standard for ordinary folks, and another for the rich and powerful?
Mitt Romney doesn’t think he should be subject to the same accountability as others. He won’t provide tax returns so that citizens can judge the man and be certain that he puts his country before personal gain. Before the unpropertied were allowed to vote, Jefferson held that those who served in the militia and paid their taxes should be granted that right. It was the Dream Act prequel. The tough stand on undocumented workers taken by Romney and the Republicans reflects the “American value” that Spanish-speaking people can’t be trusted to … love America? Work hard? Pay their taxes? Whose American dream are we focused on? The implications for Indians
Why don't Republicans say anything about the Indians killed and the Africans enslaved so their white ancestors could prosper? Because that would contradict their misleading message of self-reliance. A Native columnist hits the message home:
Deconstructing Chris Christie’s Speech at the GOP Convention
By Laura Waterman WittstockIndian viewers who tuned in and listened to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie give his keynote speech on August 28 at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, would have heard him tell stories of his immigrant family.
As he talked, it became clear this was a man who knew nothing about the country his family came to. To him, this was the land of the free where people of any class could walk out of their muddy fields and onto a boat and onto land they could take from others without recrimination. They simply took and closed the door behind them. And not all could come. Europeans kept out the Africans, the Asians, and Hispanics. These people were only accepted as slaves, servants, and laborers. In Christie’s generation, all he knew was that hard work brought reward.
The people in Christie’s family that inform his memories today knew only of Indians from what they might have read somewhere. Indians were distant, fading curiosities. There was never a tinge, a pinprick, a nudge, to tell them they had landed on what had been someone else’s land. It was after all “the land of the free.” All of the conspiratorial tales and songs and banners worked to erase the immigrant’s memories of the blood on their hands.
Christie said, “We are the great grandchildren of men and women who broke their backs in the name of American ingenuity; the grandchildren of the Greatest Generation; the sons and daughters of immigrants…” Christie said his parents were poor but worked hard. “….the brothers and sisters of everyday heroes; the neighbors of entrepreneurs and firefighters, teachers and farmers, veterans and factory workers and everyone in-between who shows up not just on the big days or the good days, but on the bad days and on the hard days.” This is an ideal population—free of crime, health needs, and old age that other communities encounter—the proverbial world where everyone is “above average.” And:Christie should know about American Indian history and the land on which he lives. New Jersey has a Commission on American Indian Affairs. ... So why is Christie so ignorant of history and of the Indians who live in his own state? The answer seems to lie in the unwillingness of the Republican Party to pay the country’s debts to the Indian people. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, and the specifics of categories of aid due to Indian people are not just niceties. They are part of agreements and understanding—land for services, set down in treaties. Wittstock's conclusion:A national Indian policy, if there is one to be stated under a Romney/Ryan administration, will cut into Indian funds as deeply as possible, no question about it. Comment: Chris Christie said, "We are the great grandchildren of men and women who broke their backs in the name of American ingenuity; the grandchildren of the Greatest Generation; the sons and daughters of immigrants…." Note how he excludes the Indians, Latinos, and blacks who have been here much longer than our great-grandparents' generation. This is a dog-whistle to whites who think they've done most of the work while lazy minorities were lollygagging.
Clint Eastwood said, "We own this country." Whom do you think he was talking about? Who is this "we" who owns the country? And who are the ones who don't own the country? The answer to that question is obvious: the women, minorities, gays, and non-Christians who make up the Democratic Party.
Together, their message is that Americans are white. And the GOP is the party of white people. White Americans like them deserve to rule the country.
The Republican appeal to white Americans doesn't get much more blatant than this. Why else would Romney and Christie fail to mention blacks, Latinos, Asians, or Indians? Republicans don't consider minorities "real Americans" like them and their ancestors. Brown people merely reside in America; white people own it.
For more on conservative racism, see Racists Deny Playing Race Card and White Americans Fear a Black President.
Republicans want to build a time machine
But don't be fooled: Republicans aren't just nostalgic for 1950s-style social barriers. They want to rebuild them
By Rebecca Traister
The desire to chronologically reverse our nation’s history has been the undercurrent of the 2012 election cycle and its primary debates; it’s barely been disguised in the agenda of John Boehner’s House or in state legislatures around the country.
The mission to drastically curtail women’s reproductive rights, taking aim not just at abortion but at birth control; the blocking of the Paycheck Fairness Act; objections to expanding the Violence Against Women Act; crazed locutions about rape and sluts: In word and deed, conservatives have been telegraphing their hope to return us to a moment not just before Roe, but before the birth-control pill, before the sexual revolution, before second-wave feminism hammered pesky terms like “harassment” and “equal pay” into our lexicon, to a moment when women’s bodies and sexuality and identities were men’s to define, patrol and violate at will.
The state-by-state assault on voting rights, a dizzying array of propositions designed to keep brown and black people, poor people and young people from the polls? This too is an attempt to turn back time, to return the country to a moment before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 helped ensure safe enfranchisement for African-Americans.
For many months, we have been watching a lengthy, multi-tentacled attempt to shut tight doors that were opened by the social movements of the mid-20th century, to push back those who have apparently gotten their hands on a little too much power, by aiming back toward a time when men were white, women were long-suffering vessels, and black men were definitely not president.
But if time travel has been an understated drumbeat of the past two years of Republican machination, in Tampa, it was conveyed with all the subtlety of an AC/DC riff from Paul Ryan’s iPod.
First there was the swooning over the Greatest Generation, the fetishistic shout-outs to hard-laboring forebears, Welsh coal-mining grandfathers and Breyer’s Plant employee dads. Speakers were presenting us with visions of men who lived in an earlier America and the women who sacrificed their own passions (as Mitt Romney recalled of his mother, who gave up Hollywood) to marry them, move to Detroit and raise their babies while the men embraced success and made money.
None of the stories of ye olde American achievement actually jibed with the convention’s “We Built It” theme. The tales were of white men whose class mobility and moon-walks were boosted by G.I. Bills, state-school educations, government-funded space programs and unions. These guys and their unconditionally loving wives were part of a white American middle class that was able to expand thanks to the kinds of post-Depression financial regulations and government-goosed infrastructure and housing programs that modern Republicans are keen to obliterate.
But the incoherence of message didn’t matter, because what all these stories were really flicking at wasn’t the size of the government, but the whiteness and the maleness of those who were helped along with their businesses and wealth and broods of straight-parented families. Just listen to Romney’s assertions about this “nation of immigrants” who came here seeking freedom, a sentiment that is both disingenuous from someone who wants this nation’s current immigrant population to self-deport, and that does not even bother to acknowledge those Americans whose forebears were brought here against their will in an exercise of freedom’s opposite. Romney didn’t include those people because they don’t exist—in a meaningful, threatening way—in the America Romney and his party are trying to bring back.
The keening desire to be back there, to be back then, was responsible for the presence of Clint Eastwood, an actor who came to prominence as a star of the cowboy show “Rawhide,” which aired from 1959 to 1965. People may disagree about whether Eastwood’s vertiginously awful appearance at the RNC on Thursday was intentionally aggressive or just loopy, but there’s no question that his creepy intonation of the phrase “We own this country” came off like a segregationist-era, George Wallace-inspired catchphrase—one the crowd went wild for.
Republicans like to talk about their "humble roots" in order to disguise their true upper-class ideology
By Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg
This is the new Republican playbook. They are running away, as fast as they can, from the upper-class ideology to which they really subscribe. Romney “loves” his Costco shirts; and, his wife says, they began married life in a basement apartment with a “fold-down ironing board for a dining room table.” We are now supposed to believe that theirs is not the party of wealthy businessmen on one end of the scale, and on the other, angry, spellcheck-resistant Tea Party sign wavers who hate the deadbeats that are bilking the government out of hard-earned tax dollars. No, the new Republican Party is the party of self-made men with loving wives and mothers, “real Americans” who embrace educational opportunity and the American dream for all.
The “new” Republicans owe more than they will acknowledge to a federal government that dispensed a long list of subsidies from World War II forward. The GI Bill made higher education possible for millions, just as New Deal legislation before that helped secure federally backed loans for businesses and homeownership for the first time in our history. The growth of suburbia was financed by big government. Businessmen did not accomplish this change in class structure on their own. Not nearly. The federal government created the middle class of the 1950s. Surely, the Republicans can admit this much. But doing so is risky; it might lead them down the slippery slope from “Greed is good” to “Government is good.”
Let’s talk about labor in honest terms. Thomas Jefferson may have designed Monticello, but his slaves mixed the lime and baked the brick and erected the mansion. Slaves built much of early America, long-despised Irishmen dug the Erie Canal, and Chinese peasants were conscripted to lay railroad tracks all the livelong day. Businessmen need a vast array of workers to build any corporate enterprise; employers need employees. White-collar workers, manual laborers, electricians and carpenters make businesses run. Why must Republicans these days take such joy and displaced pride in suggesting that business leaders do it all, building the country brick by brick, by themselves, our precious job creators? A football team needs blockers as well as a quarterback.
Casablanca’s Rick is saying that the pursuit of wealth often gets in the way of virtue as well as justice. If you listen to Chris Christie, public school teachers aren’t accountable enough, and unions are a selfish perk for a coddled generation. Why does the same accountability not extend to big businessmen? No prosecutions on Wall Street? This is where the Republicans’ moralizing platform sinks in quicksand. One standard for ordinary folks, and another for the rich and powerful?
Mitt Romney doesn’t think he should be subject to the same accountability as others. He won’t provide tax returns so that citizens can judge the man and be certain that he puts his country before personal gain. Before the unpropertied were allowed to vote, Jefferson held that those who served in the militia and paid their taxes should be granted that right. It was the Dream Act prequel. The tough stand on undocumented workers taken by Romney and the Republicans reflects the “American value” that Spanish-speaking people can’t be trusted to … love America? Work hard? Pay their taxes? Whose American dream are we focused on?
Why don't Republicans say anything about the Indians killed and the Africans enslaved so their white ancestors could prosper? Because that would contradict their misleading message of self-reliance. A Native columnist hits the message home:
Deconstructing Chris Christie’s Speech at the GOP Convention
By Laura Waterman Wittstock
As he talked, it became clear this was a man who knew nothing about the country his family came to. To him, this was the land of the free where people of any class could walk out of their muddy fields and onto a boat and onto land they could take from others without recrimination. They simply took and closed the door behind them. And not all could come. Europeans kept out the Africans, the Asians, and Hispanics. These people were only accepted as slaves, servants, and laborers. In Christie’s generation, all he knew was that hard work brought reward.
The people in Christie’s family that inform his memories today knew only of Indians from what they might have read somewhere. Indians were distant, fading curiosities. There was never a tinge, a pinprick, a nudge, to tell them they had landed on what had been someone else’s land. It was after all “the land of the free.” All of the conspiratorial tales and songs and banners worked to erase the immigrant’s memories of the blood on their hands.
Christie said, “We are the great grandchildren of men and women who broke their backs in the name of American ingenuity; the grandchildren of the Greatest Generation; the sons and daughters of immigrants…” Christie said his parents were poor but worked hard. “….the brothers and sisters of everyday heroes; the neighbors of entrepreneurs and firefighters, teachers and farmers, veterans and factory workers and everyone in-between who shows up not just on the big days or the good days, but on the bad days and on the hard days.” This is an ideal population—free of crime, health needs, and old age that other communities encounter—the proverbial world where everyone is “above average.”
Clint Eastwood said, "We own this country." Whom do you think he was talking about? Who is this "we" who owns the country? And who are the ones who don't own the country? The answer to that question is obvious: the women, minorities, gays, and non-Christians who make up the Democratic Party.
Together, their message is that Americans are white. And the GOP is the party of white people. White Americans like them deserve to rule the country.
The Republican appeal to white Americans doesn't get much more blatant than this. Why else would Romney and Christie fail to mention blacks, Latinos, Asians, or Indians? Republicans don't consider minorities "real Americans" like them and their ancestors. Brown people merely reside in America; white people own it.
For more on conservative racism, see Racists Deny Playing Race Card and White Americans Fear a Black President.
May 18, 2012
Racists hate and fear minority babies
Morons Disappointed to Learn Most Babies Born in America Are Not White
By Erin Gloria RyanWhen the US Census bureau announced this morning that for the first time in US history, the majority of babies born in 2011 were not white, naturally my first thought was to see what paranoids and dum dums on the internet were saying about it, because I'm nothing if not a chronic hater. After all, this sort of topic is perfect idiot-bait—it hits all the notes necessary to strike a chord of fear in the hearts of America's racists. And the web, as this country's id's butthole, absolutely did not disappoint.
The data in question shows that more non-white babies were born last year, which means calling non-white babies "minorities" is becoming increasingly stupider, and also that the Duggars are losing. Part of the baby demographic shift was due to a higher birth rate among Hispanics and the fact that the crappy economic picture prompted many white families to forego baby having. Analysts project that by the end of this century, non-white Americans will outnumber white Americans, a thought that strikes fear into octogenarian conservative xenophobes who will be dead long before "their" country is "taken away" from them by the Mexicans.
Anyway, the sort of person who uses the phrase "the white race" non-ironically is pretty upset with this development, another bit of evidence, in their mind, that minority women are unstoppable breeding machines with out of control sexuality and dangerous fecundity that must be kept out of America at all costs.
Readers of Fox Nation, that reliable bastion of whackadoodlery, rated the story of the nonwhite birth rate surpassing the white birth rate as "Scary." And commenters are frightened, but resigned. One said, "It was bound to happen..with anchor babies and pay raises for more chillrin..." Others, who clearly still don't understand the concept of "structural racism" having nothing to do with sheer numbers and everything to do with power, wondered if they'd get special consideration for entering "government school" now. You know, like all those Mexican children of undocumented farm workers who are applying for admission to Harvard, unseating deserving white applicants. Another said, "Not hard to believe. Los Angeles in the 1970's was overwhelmingly white. Now it's overwhelmingly latino. The latinos took over. Just look at the school demographics. That pretty much tells the story. This country is slowly being returned to Mexico with the help of politicians." Hard to argue with that! Top Right-Wing Group: Minority Births Are ‘Not A Good Thing’ Because They ‘Don’t Share American Values’
By Adam PeckYesterday, the New York Times reported on new census data which showed, for the first time, that non-white births made up over 50 percent of all births in the United States last year.
It marked an important milestone, indicative of a changing United States that has long been considered the world’s melting pot. Or, if you’re the conservative, Phyllis Schlafly-backed Eagle Forum, it’s a clarion call that America is in grave danger of being overrun by uneducated, un-American brown people:It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.
[...]
Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps. Setting aside for a minute the offensive way in which the Eagle Forum dismisses all of “the immigrants” as thoughtless criminals, it’s telling that The Eagle Forum views this as simply a political problem. Some commenters put the second posting in perspective:Sigh, again with the "blacks & Hispanics aren't American and only want welfare and food stamps."
FACT: Red States use the most welfare and food stamps.
FACT: a minority baby cries & poops just like a white baby.
FACT: Minorities vote Democrat because the GOP are racists and treats them like they're not people.
Exactly, why would I as a minority want to vote for a politicial party that sees me as: illiterate, less educated, not American (even though I AM) and worst of all less human than they are.
Oh--I thught all babies were BORN with American values--except, of course, those that aren't like Phyllis.
And we stole this land so...I guess American values are steal what you can and call it yours. A shame to see THAT go! Comment: As Tim Wise put it, anyone who reacts negatively to this news is a racist. It's pure racial news--more brown than white babies born--so there's no reason to care unless you're prejudiced against skin color.
For more on conservative racism, see White Privilege Will End Soon and Conservatives Seek Return to 1957.
By Erin Gloria Ryan
The data in question shows that more non-white babies were born last year, which means calling non-white babies "minorities" is becoming increasingly stupider, and also that the Duggars are losing. Part of the baby demographic shift was due to a higher birth rate among Hispanics and the fact that the crappy economic picture prompted many white families to forego baby having. Analysts project that by the end of this century, non-white Americans will outnumber white Americans, a thought that strikes fear into octogenarian conservative xenophobes who will be dead long before "their" country is "taken away" from them by the Mexicans.
Anyway, the sort of person who uses the phrase "the white race" non-ironically is pretty upset with this development, another bit of evidence, in their mind, that minority women are unstoppable breeding machines with out of control sexuality and dangerous fecundity that must be kept out of America at all costs.
Readers of Fox Nation, that reliable bastion of whackadoodlery, rated the story of the nonwhite birth rate surpassing the white birth rate as "Scary." And commenters are frightened, but resigned. One said, "It was bound to happen..with anchor babies and pay raises for more chillrin..." Others, who clearly still don't understand the concept of "structural racism" having nothing to do with sheer numbers and everything to do with power, wondered if they'd get special consideration for entering "government school" now. You know, like all those Mexican children of undocumented farm workers who are applying for admission to Harvard, unseating deserving white applicants. Another said, "Not hard to believe. Los Angeles in the 1970's was overwhelmingly white. Now it's overwhelmingly latino. The latinos took over. Just look at the school demographics. That pretty much tells the story. This country is slowly being returned to Mexico with the help of politicians." Hard to argue with that!
By Adam Peck
It marked an important milestone, indicative of a changing United States that has long been considered the world’s melting pot. Or, if you’re the conservative, Phyllis Schlafly-backed Eagle Forum, it’s a clarion call that America is in grave danger of being overrun by uneducated, un-American brown people:
[...]
Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.
FACT: Red States use the most welfare and food stamps.
FACT: a minority baby cries & poops just like a white baby.
FACT: Minorities vote Democrat because the GOP are racists and treats them like they're not people.
Exactly, why would I as a minority want to vote for a politicial party that sees me as: illiterate, less educated, not American (even though I AM) and worst of all less human than they are.
Oh--I thught all babies were BORN with American values--except, of course, those that aren't like Phyllis.
And we stole this land so...I guess American values are steal what you can and call it yours. A shame to see THAT go!
For more on conservative racism, see White Privilege Will End Soon and Conservatives Seek Return to 1957.
September 30, 2011
More Latinos identify as Native
More Latinos identify as Native American, census shows
By Laurie GuthmannWhen Ana María Tekina-eirú Maynard filled out her census form last year, she checked the box for Latino, and for the first time, she also checked the box for Native American.
It had taken her more than 30 years--plus research and genetic testing--to discover her ties to the indigenous Taínos of Puerto Rico, to claim her identity and re-learn what she thought she knew of her history.
She's not the only one. Since 2000, the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Native American grew from 407,073 to 685,150, according to the 2010 census.
Some attribute the increase to immigration from parts of North and South America where there are large indigenous populations. In some cases, it's because of recently discovered ties to native cultures. Comment: This article confirms what I've been saying. Namely, that "who's an Indian?" is a political and cultural question, not a biological one. That Latinos are basically mixed-blood Indians who have chosen, for the most part, not to identify with their Native ancestry.
If the huge mass of Latinos in the US started identifying as Natives, we'd really see the depth and breadth of America's indigenous roots. It would make our history of conquest and colonization that much clearer.
And that's why the white Euro-American mainstream fears and hates immigration. It's a stark reminder of our historical crimes. And a stark reminder that it's not too late to redress those crimes--to establish a more fair and just America where white people don't rule (as much).
For more on the subject, see What's the Difference Between Indian and Latino? and "Most Mexicans Are Indians."
Below: "Ana María Tekina-eirú Maynard, right, dances at the 2010 Taíno Day ceremony in Puerto Rico."
By Laurie Guthmann
It had taken her more than 30 years--plus research and genetic testing--to discover her ties to the indigenous Taínos of Puerto Rico, to claim her identity and re-learn what she thought she knew of her history.
She's not the only one. Since 2000, the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Native American grew from 407,073 to 685,150, according to the 2010 census.
Some attribute the increase to immigration from parts of North and South America where there are large indigenous populations. In some cases, it's because of recently discovered ties to native cultures.
If the huge mass of Latinos in the US started identifying as Natives, we'd really see the depth and breadth of America's indigenous roots. It would make our history of conquest and colonization that much clearer.
And that's why the white Euro-American mainstream fears and hates immigration. It's a stark reminder of our historical crimes. And a stark reminder that it's not too late to redress those crimes--to establish a more fair and just America where white people don't rule (as much).
For more on the subject, see What's the Difference Between Indian and Latino? and "Most Mexicans Are Indians."
Below: "Ana María Tekina-eirú Maynard, right, dances at the 2010 Taíno Day ceremony in Puerto Rico."
August 26, 2011
David Duke speaks to teabaggers
The White Supremacist Roots Of The Tea Party’s Obama HateThe racial bigotry against President Obama began before he was inaugurated and has continued unabated to this day. The hatred against Obama cannot be for his policies because he is a Centrist who has enraged many on the Left for not acquiescing to their demands that he pursue a Progressive agenda. Teabaggers complained from the start of the president’s term in 2009 that he was taxing them too much even though the tax rates were from George W. Bush’s term. The president cut taxes shortly after taking office and the teabags still claimed Obama was overtaxing them. The teabaggers have complained about all of President Obama’s policies regardless that they benefited from his agenda, so the only explanation for their opposition that makes any sense is his race.
David Duke made a video-taped speech for teabaggers that laid out bigoted reasons for the tea party’s desire to return America to the Founding Fathers’ days when African slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person and the predominant race was white. The racial bigot Duke told teabaggers that African Americans, Jews, and other minorities were interlopers trying to change America from a white man’s country into a diverse nation of ethnicities and that it will be the undoing of our country. No-one is surprised that David Duke is still a bigot, but his dysfunctional logic supporting ethnic cleansing gives one pause and informs why teabaggers want America to return to its original European, white roots set at the country’s founding.
Duke accused Jews in the media of promoting President Obama, and throughout his speech refers to “real Americans” as European-American people who overwhelmingly did not vote for President Obama and reject him as the country’s leader. Duke claimed the original Boston tea party was a rejection of foreign intervention in America’s government and he goes on to insinuate that the president, Jews, and non-whites are a foreign power who are robbing European Americans of their freedom to rule themselves. To further his argument for white supremacy, he referred to the Founding Fathers’ first immigration policy that limited immigrants to “free white people.” The racial rant quotes Thomas Jefferson and cites his reason for opposing slavery as a “danger to our posterity,” and that Jefferson said “unless African slaves were repatriated to their motherland, he shudders for America’s future.” Duke also said Jefferson’s writings on the slavery issue have been “completely censored in the popular media” and that it is a despicable plot to fool the American people. 
There are many problems with Duke’s supremacist rant, and besides being sickening on many levels, it gives a clue to why teabaggers cite the Founders’ original intent at the nation’s beginning as being a golden age. Teabaggers and Duke have idealized the late 1700s as the model for 21st Century America as if the past two-hundred years of progress did not improve America. Duke’s racial tirade explains the Black voter suppression being supported by teabaggers as well as the attacks on women’s rights. Duke kept referring to the Founders’ and the Constitution, but never acknowledged the multitude of amendments that were necessary to keep pace with the changing landscape in this country.
Teabaggers have opposed the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause as well as the Equal Protection Clause that are part of the so-called “Reconstruction Amendments” that include the 13th and 15th Amendments that abolished slavery and granted voting rights to people of colour respectively. If America was constrained to the original 10 amendments in the Constitution, the country would be no better than a third-world country and anyone who was not white would be little more than property. You can watch the video here:
David Duke Addressing the Tea Party
Comment: Note that Dukes is upfront about saying the Tea Party isn't a political movement, it's a racial movement. He's also upfront about stating it was a response to Obama's election, even though Obama has reduced our taxes even more than Bush did.
Let's reiterate a key point:Teabaggers and Duke have idealized the late 1700s as the model for 21st Century America as if the past two-hundred years of progress did not improve America. Note that teabaggers never say, "Let's go back to 1900--after slavery ended but before the income tax was passed." They never talk about freeing the slaves and guaranteeing their rights as if that were a good thing. Indeed, they never talk about the Founders' bigoted belief that only white male property owners could govern the country.
In short, their talk about returning to the Founders' Constitution and values means eliminating the rights of women and minorities. It means returning to white Christian rule.
For more on the subject, see Teabaggers Seek White Christian Rule and Whites Feel Like a Minority.
Below: He killed Indians and enslaved blacks. That must be why he's the father of our country and so many people revere him.
David Duke made a video-taped speech for teabaggers that laid out bigoted reasons for the tea party’s desire to return America to the Founding Fathers’ days when African slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person and the predominant race was white. The racial bigot Duke told teabaggers that African Americans, Jews, and other minorities were interlopers trying to change America from a white man’s country into a diverse nation of ethnicities and that it will be the undoing of our country. No-one is surprised that David Duke is still a bigot, but his dysfunctional logic supporting ethnic cleansing gives one pause and informs why teabaggers want America to return to its original European, white roots set at the country’s founding.
Duke accused Jews in the media of promoting President Obama, and throughout his speech refers to “real Americans” as European-American people who overwhelmingly did not vote for President Obama and reject him as the country’s leader. Duke claimed the original Boston tea party was a rejection of foreign intervention in America’s government and he goes on to insinuate that the president, Jews, and non-whites are a foreign power who are robbing European Americans of their freedom to rule themselves. To further his argument for white supremacy, he referred to the Founding Fathers’ first immigration policy that limited immigrants to “free white people.” The racial rant quotes Thomas Jefferson and cites his reason for opposing slavery as a “danger to our posterity,” and that Jefferson said “unless African slaves were repatriated to their motherland, he shudders for America’s future.” Duke also said Jefferson’s writings on the slavery issue have been “completely censored in the popular media” and that it is a despicable plot to fool the American people.
Teabaggers have opposed the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause as well as the Equal Protection Clause that are part of the so-called “Reconstruction Amendments” that include the 13th and 15th Amendments that abolished slavery and granted voting rights to people of colour respectively. If America was constrained to the original 10 amendments in the Constitution, the country would be no better than a third-world country and anyone who was not white would be little more than property.
David Duke Addressing the Tea Party
Comment: Note that Dukes is upfront about saying the Tea Party isn't a political movement, it's a racial movement. He's also upfront about stating it was a response to Obama's election, even though Obama has reduced our taxes even more than Bush did.
Let's reiterate a key point:
In short, their talk about returning to the Founders' Constitution and values means eliminating the rights of women and minorities. It means returning to white Christian rule.
For more on the subject, see Teabaggers Seek White Christian Rule and Whites Feel Like a Minority.
Below: He killed Indians and enslaved blacks. That must be why he's the father of our country and so many people revere him.
August 25, 2011
Teabaggers seek white Christian rule
The latest studies on the Tea Party philosophy confirm what previous studies have shown: that the movement is primarily about reinforcing white Christian power at the expense of minorities.
Crashing the Tea Party
By David E. Campbell and Robert D. PutnamOur analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006—opposing abortion, for example—and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government. "A low regard for immigrants and blacks." "Concerned about putting God in government." In other words, racial and religious bigots. That teabaggers have no prejudices and care only about the size of government is a bald-faced lie they've somehow perpetuated. And many naive, gullible voters have bought it.
Study: Tea Party Members Cultural Dispositions ‘Authoritarianism, Fear of Change, Libertarianism and Nativism’
By Kyle LeightonWhat are the four primary characteristics most associated with those Americans sympathetic to the Tea Party? "Authoritarianism, ontological insecurity (fear of change), libertarianism and nativism." So says one of the many findings in a study presented to the American Sociological Association on Monday.In our follow-up poll, 84% of those positive towards the TPM [Tea Party members] said the Constitution should be interpreted "as the Founders intended," compared to only 34% of other respondents. Other respondents were also three times more likely not to have an opinion on the issue, highlighting the salience of the question for TPM supporters. Support for Constitutional principles is not absolute. TPM supporters were twice as likely than others to favor a constitutional amendment banning flag burning; many also support efforts to overturn citizenship as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. That TPM supporters simultaneously want to honor the founders' Constitution and alter that same document highlights the political flexibility of the cultural symbols they draw on. Nativism translates to hatred of brown-skinned "foreigners" such as Latinos and Muslims. As does "original intent," which means restoring power to white property owners at the expense of women and minorities.
And "political flexibility" is a euphemism for hypocrisy. You can be sure teabaggers are hypocritical on their so-called libertarianism too. They want a strong defense, Social Security and Medicare benefits, bans on abortion and gay marriage, and government promotion of Christianity.
The fact that teabaggers even mention Christian is proof of their hypocrisy. True libertarians should be absolutely opposed to any religion in government. They shouldn't care whether America's leaders and principles are Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist as long as the government is small and weak. But teabaggers care very much about which religion governs America. They strongly prefer a white Christian government (George W. Bush) to a brown "Muslim" government (Barack Obama).
What teabaggers really want
What I Learned in Two Years at the Tea Party
By Abe SauerThe Tea Party is no longer about economics, not that it ever solely was. At the larger rallies and for the cameras (CNN or laptop), they hold forth about founding fathers, liberty, spending, deficits, TARP, kicking cans down roads, taxes, living within means and fiscal responsibility. But when the lights are off, it's all about Jesus, with "God" thrown in, on occasion for Israel.
Back in 2009, the movement appeared genuinely stumped with a conundrum of its key documents. Subservience to the Constitution of the United States of America was paramount, but then what to do about the Bible?
So they've engineered a backstory that essentially proves the nation's founders were just conduits for God. Essentially, the Constitution is just the word of God passed down through guys who wore wigs and snazzy cuffed jackets.
That the Tea Party is just a way to repackage the religious right has no better proof than Ralph Reed. In 2009, Reed took the tenets of his 90s-era Christian Coalition for his "Faith and Freedom Coalition," which is now a major player at Tea Party events.
In April, in the high din of the Wisconsin budget debate, I attended a full day's meeting of the northeast Wisconsin Manitowoc Tea Party (now officially called the "Manitowoc County TEA-Movement"). It began with a prayer that included the statement that "we have neglected...the only nation founded on Christian principles."
Held in a local hotel ballroom, the meeting consisted of info sessions and speakers. The "training" sessions were largely civic and cartographical—who's your rep, where to vote, that kind of thing. The day's speakers were a mix of community organizers and preachers. American Majority operatives did sessions on "The System" (smaller-government, term-limit doctrine) and "Social Media" ("How many here have a Twitter account?"). These info sessions were balanced by Jake Jacobs and Kyle Desjarlais.
Jake Jacobs (Ph.D!) is the head of FreedomProject Education, which, not to get too into it, provides “a classical education in the tradition of America’s Founders." It is, essentially, as Jacobs out it in his exhaustive address, a curriculum about America's Judeo-Christian founding. (They are an arm of the American Opinion Foundation.) Jacobs' hour-long rant mixed historical evidence of the founding father's Christian intentions for America with conspiracy theories about Barack Obama and Columbia University, Bill Ayers, Sharia, Hitler, the Kentucky and Virginia acts of 1789, Sean Penn, his former students' persecution in college "for their Christian conservatism" and "how to refute the argument that Jesus was a socialist." (Which, by the way, is to note that "thou shall not steal" is a direct rebuttal to how "socialists despise private property." Jacobs' lessons (available online) are set up especially for home-schoolers. 
"Let's emulate our pioneering forefathers who cheated and killed the Indians because God told them to."
Minuteman to Tea Party: A Grassroots Rebranding
By David HolthouseGrinning on the sidelines behind mirrored sunglasses was Glenn Spencer, the leader of the border vigilante group American Border Patrol and the owner of the Tea Party Nation rally site.
Spencer informed Media Matters that he travels almost weekly to speak at Tea Party events, and that his ranch, the onetime vigilante outpost where Forde took shelter, is now a Tea Party rallying point. "Plans are for Tea Party groups to come to the ranch every week from now on," he said. "They are really fired up over the border issue."
Despite his association with Forde and his well-documented history of bigoted ranting and "reconquista" conspiracy mongering, Spencer is a rising star in the Tea Party movement.
He's not alone.
Over the past two years, more than a dozen former border vigilante leaders have taken on key roles in the Tea Party movement. Some, like Spencer, continue to maintain their hard-core nativist personas. Others have sought to separate themselves from their Minuteman identities in pursuit of mainstream political legitmacy. Comment: Minutemen want to stop immigration by any means necessary. They're one step away from militia men who talk about armed revolution and "joke" about killing Obama. These Klansmen, Neo-Nazis, and Christian "patriots" form the core of the Tea Party movement. Their goal is a Christian theocracy where white men rule.
For more proof of the Tea Party's racism, see:
Another poll proves teabaggers are racists
Poll proves teabaggers are racists
The evidence for teabagger racism
For examples of this racism, see:
Rick Perry promotes Christian bigotry
Stossel: Indians are biggest moochers
White supremacists outnumber Muslim extremists
Whites feel like a minority
Fischer defends pro-genocide column
Bachmann fibs about America's founding
Obama's UN "coup" is "chilling"
Crashing the Tea Party
By David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006—opposing abortion, for example—and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
Study: Tea Party Members Cultural Dispositions ‘Authoritarianism, Fear of Change, Libertarianism and Nativism’
By Kyle Leighton
And "political flexibility" is a euphemism for hypocrisy. You can be sure teabaggers are hypocritical on their so-called libertarianism too. They want a strong defense, Social Security and Medicare benefits, bans on abortion and gay marriage, and government promotion of Christianity.
The fact that teabaggers even mention Christian is proof of their hypocrisy. True libertarians should be absolutely opposed to any religion in government. They shouldn't care whether America's leaders and principles are Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist as long as the government is small and weak. But teabaggers care very much about which religion governs America. They strongly prefer a white Christian government (George W. Bush) to a brown "Muslim" government (Barack Obama).
What teabaggers really want
What I Learned in Two Years at the Tea Party
By Abe Sauer
Back in 2009, the movement appeared genuinely stumped with a conundrum of its key documents. Subservience to the Constitution of the United States of America was paramount, but then what to do about the Bible?
So they've engineered a backstory that essentially proves the nation's founders were just conduits for God. Essentially, the Constitution is just the word of God passed down through guys who wore wigs and snazzy cuffed jackets.
That the Tea Party is just a way to repackage the religious right has no better proof than Ralph Reed. In 2009, Reed took the tenets of his 90s-era Christian Coalition for his "Faith and Freedom Coalition," which is now a major player at Tea Party events.
In April, in the high din of the Wisconsin budget debate, I attended a full day's meeting of the northeast Wisconsin Manitowoc Tea Party (now officially called the "Manitowoc County TEA-Movement"). It began with a prayer that included the statement that "we have neglected...the only nation founded on Christian principles."
Held in a local hotel ballroom, the meeting consisted of info sessions and speakers. The "training" sessions were largely civic and cartographical—who's your rep, where to vote, that kind of thing. The day's speakers were a mix of community organizers and preachers. American Majority operatives did sessions on "The System" (smaller-government, term-limit doctrine) and "Social Media" ("How many here have a Twitter account?"). These info sessions were balanced by Jake Jacobs and Kyle Desjarlais.
Jake Jacobs (Ph.D!) is the head of FreedomProject Education, which, not to get too into it, provides “a classical education in the tradition of America’s Founders." It is, essentially, as Jacobs out it in his exhaustive address, a curriculum about America's Judeo-Christian founding. (They are an arm of the American Opinion Foundation.) Jacobs' hour-long rant mixed historical evidence of the founding father's Christian intentions for America with conspiracy theories about Barack Obama and Columbia University, Bill Ayers, Sharia, Hitler, the Kentucky and Virginia acts of 1789, Sean Penn, his former students' persecution in college "for their Christian conservatism" and "how to refute the argument that Jesus was a socialist." (Which, by the way, is to note that "thou shall not steal" is a direct rebuttal to how "socialists despise private property." Jacobs' lessons (available online) are set up especially for home-schoolers.
"Let's emulate our pioneering forefathers who cheated and killed the Indians because God told them to."
Minuteman to Tea Party: A Grassroots Rebranding
By David Holthouse
Spencer informed Media Matters that he travels almost weekly to speak at Tea Party events, and that his ranch, the onetime vigilante outpost where Forde took shelter, is now a Tea Party rallying point. "Plans are for Tea Party groups to come to the ranch every week from now on," he said. "They are really fired up over the border issue."
Despite his association with Forde and his well-documented history of bigoted ranting and "reconquista" conspiracy mongering, Spencer is a rising star in the Tea Party movement.
He's not alone.
Over the past two years, more than a dozen former border vigilante leaders have taken on key roles in the Tea Party movement. Some, like Spencer, continue to maintain their hard-core nativist personas. Others have sought to separate themselves from their Minuteman identities in pursuit of mainstream political legitmacy.
For more proof of the Tea Party's racism, see:
Another poll proves teabaggers are racists
Poll proves teabaggers are racists
The evidence for teabagger racism
For examples of this racism, see:
Rick Perry promotes Christian bigotry
Stossel: Indians are biggest moochers
White supremacists outnumber Muslim extremists
Whites feel like a minority
Fischer defends pro-genocide column
Bachmann fibs about America's founding
Obama's UN "coup" is "chilling"
July 24, 2011
Norwegian killer hates multiculturalism
Another day, another conservative Christian killer:
Norway attacks: Utøya gunman boasted of links to UK far right
Anders Brehing Breivik took part in online discussions with members of the EDL and other anti-Islamic groups
By Mark Townsend, Peter Beaumont, and Tracy McVeighThe disclosure of Breivik's claimed links with far-right organisations came as details continued to emerge about the rightwing Christian fundamentalist and Freemason behind Norway's worst postwar act of violence.
It was revealed that the 32-year-old former member of the country's conservative Progress party–who had become ever more extreme in his hatred of Muslims, leftwingers and the country's political establishment–had ordered six tonnes of fertiliser in May to be used in the bombing. While police continued to interrogate Breivik, who was charged with the mass killings, evidence of his increasingly far-right world-view emerged from an article he had posted on several Scandinavian websites, including Nordisk, a site frequented by neo-Nazis, far-right radicals and Islamophobes since 2009.
The Norwegian daily VG quoted one of Breivik's friends, saying that he had become a rightwing extremist in his late 20s and was now a strong opponent of multiculturalism, expressing strong nationalistic views in online debates. And:Breivik's Facebook page was blocked, but a cached version describes a conservative Christian from Oslo. The profile veers between references to lofty political philosophers and gory popular films, television shows and video games. The Nightmare in Norway and the Threat of Fundamentalist Christian, Blonde, Blue-eyed Terrorists in Our Midst
By Bill Berkowitz'He describes himself as a Christian, leaning toward right-wing Christianity, on his Facebook page,' Mr. Andresen said."
Sources in Norway told the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR), "that Breivik has been known to write posts in right-wing internet forums in Norway, where he has described himself as a 'nationalist' and has also written numerous screeds critical of Muslims."
IREHR reported late Friday evening that "New evidence has surfaced indicating that Breivik appears to be a fan of the Tea Party's favorite Islamophobe, Pamela Geller. The website Little Green Footballs reports that he's been posting links to Geller's website Atlas Shrugged since at least 2009." Norway treatise says 'indigenous Europeans' must be punished for 'cultural suicide'
The writings apparently by Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in the twin terrorist attacks, highlight a trend of rising right-wing extremism that has been intensified by demographic changes in Northern Europe.
By Henry ChuInvestigators here in the Norwegian capital continued to pore over a 1,500-page treatise that was apparently posted on the Internet by suspect Anders Behring Breivik shortly before a massive bomb exploded Friday in downtown Oslo, followed by a shooting spree at a youth camp tied to the ruling Labor Party, which is relatively more tolerant toward immigration.
The chilling manifesto advocates an armed campaign against the Muslims it says are overrunning Europe. A hate-filled brew of political, ideological and militaristic cant, the treatise denounces Europeans who support multiculturalism and argues for spectacular violence using tactics similar to those seen Friday, such as adopting a police disguise to fool victims before killing them. Comment: So Pam Geller fanned the flames of hatred here (opposition to NYC "mosque") and in Norway. With all the right-wing hate speech, the only surprise is that there aren't more right-wing hate crimes.
This case is a perfect example of what happens when you take right-wing hatred of blacks, Latinos, Indians, Muslims, and gays to its logical extreme. You get terrorists who would rather kill people who disagree with them than live in peace with them. These fanatics are a danger to democracy and we should oppose them whenever and wherever we can.
For more on the subject, see:
Tim Wise on Loughner's paranoia
A history of conservative hate speech
Racist rhetoric fuels hate crimes
Stephen's bigotry against Muslims
All bigotries are similar
"Knives are flying" at immigrants
Teabaggers = hatemongers
Right-wingers foment hate
Norway attacks: Utøya gunman boasted of links to UK far right
Anders Brehing Breivik took part in online discussions with members of the EDL and other anti-Islamic groups
By Mark Townsend, Peter Beaumont, and Tracy McVeigh
It was revealed that the 32-year-old former member of the country's conservative Progress party–who had become ever more extreme in his hatred of Muslims, leftwingers and the country's political establishment–had ordered six tonnes of fertiliser in May to be used in the bombing. While police continued to interrogate Breivik, who was charged with the mass killings, evidence of his increasingly far-right world-view emerged from an article he had posted on several Scandinavian websites, including Nordisk, a site frequented by neo-Nazis, far-right radicals and Islamophobes since 2009.
The Norwegian daily VG quoted one of Breivik's friends, saying that he had become a rightwing extremist in his late 20s and was now a strong opponent of multiculturalism, expressing strong nationalistic views in online debates.
By Bill Berkowitz
Sources in Norway told the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR), "that Breivik has been known to write posts in right-wing internet forums in Norway, where he has described himself as a 'nationalist' and has also written numerous screeds critical of Muslims."
IREHR reported late Friday evening that "New evidence has surfaced indicating that Breivik appears to be a fan of the Tea Party's favorite Islamophobe, Pamela Geller. The website Little Green Footballs reports that he's been posting links to Geller's website Atlas Shrugged since at least 2009."
The writings apparently by Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in the twin terrorist attacks, highlight a trend of rising right-wing extremism that has been intensified by demographic changes in Northern Europe.
By Henry Chu
The chilling manifesto advocates an armed campaign against the Muslims it says are overrunning Europe. A hate-filled brew of political, ideological and militaristic cant, the treatise denounces Europeans who support multiculturalism and argues for spectacular violence using tactics similar to those seen Friday, such as adopting a police disguise to fool victims before killing them.
This case is a perfect example of what happens when you take right-wing hatred of blacks, Latinos, Indians, Muslims, and gays to its logical extreme. You get terrorists who would rather kill people who disagree with them than live in peace with them. These fanatics are a danger to democracy and we should oppose them whenever and wherever we can.
For more on the subject, see:
Tim Wise on Loughner's paranoia
A history of conservative hate speech
Racist rhetoric fuels hate crimes
Stephen's bigotry against Muslims
All bigotries are similar
"Knives are flying" at immigrants
Teabaggers = hatemongers
Right-wingers foment hate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)