Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts

05 May 2009

Racism, Alive and Well.

May 5, 2009.
by:
admin1
Illustration , "Freedom of Speech" - by: Ben Heine

In the current economic times, how much does truth sell for?

In the recently concluded UN Forum on Racism, the world got a firsthand look at how racism operates. You are welcome to attend if you verbally denounce racism. If, however, you speak directly to current acts of racism, you face the barbed tongues of the media for divisive speech. If you speak of a people who have been dispossessed of their land, those who dispossessed them will walk out of the building. And, if you speak of the history of slavery and the possibility of reparations for the descendants of those people who were forcibly abducted from their homes, then, like the US, you needn't bother to even attend.

At the UN World Forum on Racism in Geneva, The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took advantage of another chance to flummox the feathers of Israel and called frequently for the dis-empowerment of that nation. But less focused on in his speech were a few other points. He spoke of the need to dissolve the veto power of the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, who at last tally, had quashed some 40 resolutions on the subject of Palestine by the veto of the United States. He spoke of the million souls killed in Iraq and the several million who have been forced out of their homes in that country.

He also gave voice to the deathly silence of genuine action from the UN Security Council beginning in December of 2008 to January 09, when the UN spoke sternly but did not act to stop the slaughter of an estimated 1100 civilians in the Gaza Strip. He called these acts by a name, racism.

Speaking of violence in today’s society is often equated with actual violence. The difference between the two is very real though. Consider, since the year 2000, there are around 6000 fewer Palestinian souls on the planet, and around 1000 fewer Israeli. Taking into account the fact that almost every aspect of Palestinian life is under curfew, that family members often begin decomposing before they can be taken across checkpoints to burial, that women often die in childbirth for the same reason and that upwards of 70% of the citizens lack clean drinking water, one can sense that there might be a perception of racism toward the Palestinians by the Israeli government. Israel has been given material support since its inception by the United States to perform acts of dispossession on a native population. In recent times, they have expanded the ’settlements’, tripling their inhabitants in a little over a decade and a half.

But as with America, the push for expansion of lands and displacement of native people has no term other than racism, and such crimes seep in to the consciousness of a country, as much as it wishes to shield itself from it.

That Ahmadinejad spoke so in public is of course anathema to systemic racism, which prefers not to have its name called out in the polls. To be fair to the conference attendees, Ahmadinejad’s statements were in some respects the least eloquent of the conference. The work to address the multiplicity of slave trades between Africa, the Middle East and India is laudable, as is the work to improve human rights and dignity for migrants and modern day slaves. The fact that defamation of religion has for the time being been labeled as a matter of freedom of speech is as well commendable. But Ahmadinejad’s speech still captures something that won’t sit still, even after it has left Durban in 2001 or Geneva in 2009, namely, a striving to create a world which is more just and more humane for the future, starting with an honest admission of the crimes of the past, the crimes of the present and what can be done to best help the future. A good start would be the demanding equity for the Palestinian people, many of whom currently live in isolated camps, are subject to random arrests and are forced further toward hopelessness by a policy that is by now at least two generations old.

Considering that the population that lives in Israeli Settlements in the West Bank has tripled in the last 18 years, with an estimated 40% of the settlements and ‘outposts’ existing extra-legally on Palestinian land, it would seem that now would be an opportune moment for reconciliation.

Also recently, was the Indigenous People’s Global Summit on Climate Change, which captured fewer headlines than Hugo Chavez’s timely gift of a book to Barack Obama. The present, Uruguayan Eduardo Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent”, puts forward the notion that if Latin America had been and was now fully reimbursed for all of the land and natural resources stolen from them, from the past up until the present day, they would be the keepers of the keys of the world economy, instead of its most frequent beggars. Indeed if the human species is to gain a footing that would walk it away from self-imposed annihilation and closer to sustainability, taking Native People’s perspective into account would seem to be a good start. The 400 indigenous people from 80 nations making up the Indigenous People’s Global Summit on Climate Change were in the end divided over whether to call for an immediate moratorium on all new oil and gas drilling on native lands in preference for alternative energy.

Though unresolved in the end, such a call is to date not even conceived of being mentioned in the wider populace of any country. They as well called for a stop to ‘false solutions like forest carbon offsets and other market based mechanisms that will benefit only those who are making money’ as Tom Goldtooth stated. With grain prices having doubled in the last 2 years, with ethanol consuming 25% of the US grain supply and with 18,000 children dying each day from starvation, we are fast approaching the day when it will be more profitable to put gas in a car than to feed people.

All of this, and Javed Iqbal, a Staten Island resident originally from Pakistan, was sentenced last week to six years in prison for airing an Arabic television channel and Dov Zakheiv, the rabbi who somehow lost 2.6 trillion dollars while working for the Pentagon from ‘01 to ‘04, is writing columns for ’shadowgovernment’ of foreignpolicy.com. Yes, Virginia, there is still racism in the world.


LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live
your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

22 April 2009

Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere.

White Man, White Justice?

April 22, 2009

by: admin1

To an outsider, it seems almost unbelievable. A man with 3 prior DUIs kills two pedestrians while blacked-out and faces 51 months for two crimes that each could carry a maximum sentence of 20 years, had they happened 400 yards south, across the tribal boundary. To natives, this is just the latest in a series of injustices visited unceasingly upon them by a system of laws that purports equality while bearing its teeth of systemic racism.

On August 27th, 2008, Robert Whirlwind Horse, 23 of Manderson and Calonnie Randall, 26 of Wanblee were struck by Timothy Hotz’s vehicle with such force that their bodies were literally thrown straight out of their shoes. After the accident, Hotz, 61, continued driving south towards his home in Rushville, Nebraska. In the morning, not having remembered what had occurred the night before, but only that something dreadful had happened, he found Whirlwind Horse and Randall’s hair on his bumper and turned himself in to authorities. Only one year prior, Hotz was found guilty of his third DUI conviction. The conviction carried the possibility for Hotz of up to 2 years of prison, 18-36 months of alcohol treatment as well as a mandatory suspension of one year of his driver’s licence. At the time of the accident, Hoyt had served 5 days in prison and had his licence suspended for a total of 60 days. For some reason, Bennett County officials pled Hoyt’s third DUI down to a misdemeanor, had not seen reason for more strict discipline than a one day course on substance abuse and a token 30 day suspension of his license.

In the past, Hoyt had run a store in Whiteclay for many years where he refused to sell liquor to Natives, but in 2001 he sold the business and afterwards became more erratic in his actions.
In 2004 he was convicted for Driving Under the Influence for the second time, after he swerved into oncoming traffic at 65 MPH and forced motorists in the oncoming direction onto the shoulder.

Again, it seems almost too difficult to believe. Had Hotz continued south on his journey and killed two individuals due south of Whiteclay, Nebraska instead of due north, he would have faced the charge of ‘Vehicular Homicide’, subject to a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 20 years in prison. However ‘Vehicular Manslaughter’ does not exist as a statute in Federal Court, where matters of Indian Nations are decided. There, the driving charge leveled against a person for the same crime is ‘Involuntary Manslaughter’ and is subject to a maximum sentence of 8 years in Federal prison.

So, when a plea for 51 months was entered by Timothy Hotz in Federal Court and accepted, Native people again felt the bitter sting of injustice. Though Hotz has said that he has given his life over to God, Native people have to wonder, how many dead 20 year olds must be struck for their lives to be given equal treatment under the law? How many warning signs are white people allowed to exhibit that natives, who are nearly 3 times as likely to be sent to South Dakota state prison, are not? We all wish compassion upon Mr. Hotz, however we must also be honest about what the current value of our legal convictions truly are when we allow a fellow human being who needs help to suffer, as Mr Hotz had suffered, publicly and privately, for so many years. And we must be demand inequities be addressed toward those who would seek to pronounce judgement on one group of people, without first assessing the moral need for equal justice toward themselves.


LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live
your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

28 February 2009

Racist Comments on Cops' Facebook Pages Alarm Town

U-P-D-A-T-E-!

Officials in a suburban New York town are consulting outside lawyers to determine what they can do about racist and sexist comments appearing on police officers' Facebook pages.

One Harrison detective reportedly made watermelon and fried chicken jokes about President Obama. He and others reportedly ridiculed the town mayor, Joan Walsh, with sexual comments.

Calls to Walsh were referred Thursday to town attorney Bob Palladino. She told The Journal News, “I am appalled with their juvenile behavior.”

Palladino said town board members will meet Thursday night with lawyers hired to advise them about what if any discipline is appropriate. He said the town has to be sure it can differentiate between what the officers themselves posted and what might have been posted by others on the officers' pages.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

26 February 2009

Voter, Beware: The Voting Rights Act is Under Fire.






Published: The New Yorker, March 2, 2009
THE TALK OF THE TOWN
Comment

by Jeffrey Toobin
photo:
Bob Golden, c. 1972
ILLUSTRATION:
Tom Bachtell

The Voting Rights Act, which passed in 1965, stands as one of the great monuments to civil rights in American history. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, purported to give Americans the right to vote regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” but it was not until a century later, with the passage of the act, that the right was enforced, and Southern blacks were finally free to cast a ballot. Over the years, an ideologically diverse group of Supreme Court Justices has reviewed and approved the constitutionality of the act many times. But, in a case to be argued before the Court this spring, the current conservative majority has a chance to undo this signal achievement of American democracy.

Section 5 of the act, which is at issue in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, is what gave the legislation teeth. That provision singles out by name those states and counties with especially notorious histories of discriminating against African-Americans, through such mechanisms as literacy tests, character tests, and poll taxes. The law not only eradicated these obstacles; it went a crucial step further. It decreed that if the “covered jurisdictions” wanted to change their voting procedures in any way—from redrawing district lines in the state legislature to moving the location of a solitary polling place—they first had to obtain permission from the Justice Department. (Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006, and in the process expanded its coverage to include several Western states with histories of discriminating against Hispanic and Native American voters.) The process of review by the Justice Department, which is known as “preclearance,” has been remarkably effective.

And that is the point of the lawsuit. Some of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 now want to be released from this form of federal receivership. As the lower court in the case put it, the plaintiffs argue that the preclearance provision should be found unconstitutional “because Congress ‘irrationally and incongruously’ chose to continue imposing ‘disproportionate’ burdens and a ‘badge of shame’ on covered jurisdictions on the basis of an ‘ancient formula’ and ‘conditions that existed thirty or more years ago but have long since been remedied.’ ” What is the proof? The plaintiffs stated it in the first line of their brief: “The America that has elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when Section Five was first enacted in 1965.”

To paraphrase the President: Yes it is. The formula for determining which jurisdictions are covered is largely based on election results from 1964, a time that is nearly a half century, and a world, away from our own. Almost all of Virginia and much of North Carolina are covered jurisdictions under Section 5, and Obama won both states. Moreover, the Justice Department has for some time been approving ninety-nine per cent of the electoral changes submitted by covered jurisdictions. As Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican, put it in arguing against the most recent reauthorization of the law, “Congress is declaring from on high that states with voting problems forty years ago can simply never be forgiven—that Georgians must eternally wear the scarlet letter because of the actions of their grandparents and great-grandparents. We have repented and we have reformed, and now, as Fannie Lou Hamer famously said, ‘I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.’ ” There is something unseemly, to say the least, about conservatives who have opposed the Voting Rights Act now toasting its success, particularly as that success is incomplete.

Barack Obama won the Presidency, but voting patterns in the Deep South suggest that race remains a major factor in American political life. As part of a brief in the Northwest Austin case, Professor Nathaniel Persily, of Columbia Law School, shows how poorly Obama did with white Democrats in those states. According to Persily’s analysis of the 2008 returns, Obama received forty-seven per cent of the white vote in states that are not covered under Section 5 but won only twenty-six per cent of the white vote in covered states. “Barack Obama actually did worse among whites than John Kerry in several of the covered jurisdictions, despite the nationwide Democratic swing,” Persily writes. Race seems like the best explanation for this difference. The fact that other African-American candidates have failed so often and for so long with white voters in the South indicates that no one should be in a hurry to declare the United States a “post-racial” society.

What recent electoral history shows is that voting requires broader, not narrower, protection. In many parts of the country, the voting rights of poor and minority citizens are treated with not so benign neglect. In the 2000 election, African-American voters in Florida suffered disproportionately from that state’s shoddy practices, such as inadequately maintained registration lists and inferior technology; in 2004, many minority voters in Ohio endured long lines waiting for balky, and too few, voting machines. Across the nation, laws that remove the franchise from those with criminal convictions hit minorities especially hard. More directly, the Republican Party has made an institutional commitment to eradicate the nonexistent problem of voter fraud by imposing identification requirements that are obviously aimed at limiting the numbers of voters from demographic groups that favor Democrats. But neither Florida nor Ohio is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5, and the act is not written to address new techniques of suppression. Three years ago, Congress ducked the problem by simply reauthorizing the old law and giving it a fatuous new name, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. For the legislators, this was heroism by association, not heroism in fact.

Viewing Obama’s election as an opportunity to tidy up the nation’s historical accounts is tempting but ultimately wrong. Yet even if the Court’s conservatives succeed in taking out Section 5 they cannot reverse the course of a changed and changing nation. In the Court’s great affirmative-action case of 2003, in which it upheld racial preference in admissions at the University of Michigan Law School, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion suggested that by 2028 such measures should no longer be necessary. The Voting Rights Act expires in 2031. Thanks in part to the election of Barack Obama, it is now plausible to believe that the day will come when the act, too, will no longer be necessary.



LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.