Déjá vu

Now that the political pundits of the major media outlets have gulped down the teas that were the South Carolina Democratic primary and Super Tuesday, they are busy trying to read the leaves left in their respective cups.

One of the questions they are trying to fathom is: “Why are Black voters splitting between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders?”

Their amazement over this split reveals the ignorance that continues to shroud most of white America when it comes to issues of race.

The obvious fact they miss is that Black America is not homogeneous.  That truth would be abundantly clear if people of color were portrayed more often and more fairly by Hollywood and the television networks.  But the most prevalent themes in which Black folk are visible – Black misery and white heroism – provide little opportunity to accurately depict anyone, Black or white.

Throughout history there have been many political divisions within the Black community.  The most noted of these was the disagreement between W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington in the early 2oth century.

Then, as now, Blacks, and other people of color, were facing a surge of white intolerance.  Jim Crow laws were being passed in the South, and in Northern industrial cities,  Black immigrants – fleeing Southern oppression – were despised and reviled for taking jobs away from whites.

Within this context, DuBois and Washington advocated two different approaches to the problem.  DuBois saw the need for an elite class of Black folk who could lead the rest of us on the path to full citizenship.  He believed that, through the force of scholarship and the power of reasoning, the evils of racism could be overcome.  Washington, on the other hand, wanted us to “cast down [our] buckets” where we were.  He wanted us to work within the then current system, accept that whites believed in racial superiority, but demonstrate through hard work and upright character that we deserved a slice of the American Pie. (But let us not forget that women still were not allowed to vote at the time.)

The struggle then, as it is now, was viewed as one between “elites” and “accommodationists.”  

Today, academics, writers and intellectuals within the African-American community appear to be lining up behind a candidate who often is described as a “socialist dreamer” from Vermont.  But a closer look will reveal that they are not so much in favor of Bernie Sanders as they are opposed to a hostile system that has heaped countless disappointments on us while inflicting immeasurable harm.  

In the other corner are the party faithful who take their cues from the established voices, no matter what.  Their theme has been “we have to work within the system and go with the best that we find there.  These Black voters are staying with the heirs to the machinery that brought them “The War on Poverty,” JFK and FDR.

But in the early 20^th century, as it is today, there was a third movement.  One hundred years ago, this month, a man who was despised and reviled, even by some members of the Black community, stepped forward to give voice to those who were neither among the intellectuals nor working within the established political machinery of the day.  That man was Marcus Garvey.  He eventually was deported to Jamaica.  But before he was, he lifted Black folk with a sense of purpose and self-reliance that endured for more than a half a century.

The third movement today is the Black Lives Matter movement.  And like Garvey’s movement, Black Lives Matter advocates that Black folk educate themselves as to what is in their own best interest.

This is not to say that Democratic Party loyalists rely too much on other people to tell them what to do.  But when a group calling itself the “CBC-PAC,” with the implication that it is the “Congressional Black Caucus’ Political Action Committee,” endorses Hillary Clinton, people need to know that this is not the Congressional Black Caucus, but a group made up primarily of lobbyists.

This is not to say that when intellectuals present valid critiques of Hillary Clinton’s past participation in putting forward policies that decimated Black communities and families they are saying that they think Bernie Sanders is the solution to all Black folks’ problems.  Nor are they agreeing with the tone deaf young Sanders supporters who seem to be telling Black voters that marching with Martin Luther King 50 years ago is the only qualification necessary for selecting a president.  If marching with Dr. King was the only qualification necessary, thousands of Black folks should be in the White House today.

We know some Black folks get it very wrong sometimes.  After all, there were those slaves who, out of a sense of loyalty, followed their Confederate masters into battle during the insurrection of certain Southern states.  And there are those Black supporters of Donald Trump who walk among us today.  But the debate between the Hillary and. Bernie supporters does not fall in that category.  This is a close call within the Black community; one that did not end when the polls closed on Super Tuesday.

One certain outcome of this contest, however, is that Black intellectuals will not be put back into the box.  The broader community now knows that they are here to stay.  Going forward, everyone will know that Black Voices, like Black Lives, Matter.  

Another clear outcome of this contest is that Black politicians who have nothing to offer their constituents, other than loyalty to the leadership of the Democratic Party,  have outlived their usefulness, and a new breed of younger, smarter, more energetic Black activists – soon to be politicians – is on the rise.

###

http://richmondfreepress.com/news/2016/mar/04/deja-vu/

Revenge of the Nerds

How tone deaf can MSNBC possibly be?

Twitter “blew up” Friday night with the hashtag #Nerdland after word got around that Melissa Harris Perry was being “dogged out” by MSNBC, the network that tries to position itself as the antidote to Fox News.

In an email to her staff at the MHP show that afternoon, the talented scholar described the abusive snubbing she received and how her abilities and value were being disrespected by a gang of “good ol’ boys” in the top echelons of the network.

Perry, who is eminently qualified to comment on the American political scene, has been sidelined by MSNBC during the coverage of the presidential primaries to make room for less qualified pundits and some who are arguably less truthful in their presentation of the facts.  Her show aired on weekend mornings from 10 to 12, but for the past few weeks, it has been pre-empted by other hosts covering the primaries.

Many of Perry’s fans are puzzled by MSNBC’s bizarre move to quiet a voice so compelling that it raises large numbers of viewers from their beds on weekend mornings.  But it does not take long to realize what is going on.

As an African American intellectual, Melissa Harris Perry is scary.  Or, at least, she scares some people.  She is a woman of color who is intelligent, articulate and intellectually and politically courageous.  Her very existence shatters so many stereotypes about women of color – and Black women in particular – that hubristic white men find themselves disoriented and adrift in profound and unknown waters.  Their safe harbors of white male entitlement, grounded in fictitious white male meritocracy, are nowhere in sight when she leads discussions about race and gender that are thoughtfully balanced and factually accurate.

She is feared by people who do not know what she is talking about.  Her very language – with words like “intersectionality” and “changing definitions of womanhood and women's identity” – terrify and anger them.  No one at the network thought that she would allow herself to be portrayed as a Jezebel, a Mammy or a Sapphire.  But what they did not understand was that she would never allow them to portray any woman of color in such a way.  And, she was not going to be a token or little brown bobble-head either, as she explained to the nerdland crew in her scathing reproach to MSNBC.

In that message, she said:

“... I have been shut out from coverage. I have a PhD in political science and have taught American voting and elections at some of the nation’s top universities for nearly two decades, yet I have been deemed less worthy to weigh in than relative novices and certified liars.”

The later reference is directed at Brian Williams, of MSNBC, who was discovered to have lied publicly lied about accompanying Seal Team 6 on a mission into Baghdad.

It is clear that MSNBC’s leadership was frightened by Melissa Harris Perry.  They could not hear what she tried to tell them. They did not want to hear what she has to say.  They wanted to find a way to quiet her.  But their efforts have backfired.  And now they are facing a furious fan base that is tweeting #BoycottMSNBC.  Maybe they can hear that.

###

CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS AND THE MARK OF CAINE

Not all Christians are bigots and not all bigots are Christians, but the nonsense that is spewing from the mouths of many Christians in recent months has more than a few thoughtful people scratching their heads.

A white man walked into a Colorado Planned Parenthood health facility on Nov. 27 and began firing an automatic rifle.  He killed three people and wounded nine. He did not know any of his victims personally.  After being apprehended, the shooter, Robert Dear, said to the police, “No more baby parts.”

The next day, a debate began to rage over whether the killer should be called a “domestic terrorist.” Those who argued against labeling the shooter a “terrorist” said that because his motives were “unknown” at this time, the terrorist label should not be applied.

Let us step back and reflect for a moment.  Would this argument be taking place if the shooter had been a Muslim?

Why do Christians get a pass when one of their number commits an atrocity?

There are those who would argue that Robert Dear does not represent the many millions of Christians in the world.  This would be a satisfactory answer if it were not for the fact that many of the Christians who make that argument do not hesitate to tie all Muslims to the acts of a few violent extremists who claim affiliation with that religion.

Many white Christians see Christians generally as the “Good Guys,” while they see Muslims generally as the “Bad Guys.”  And this is true, to a lesser extent, in the Black community.  It is to a lesser extent among Blacks because many Black Christians are painfully aware that members of the KKK proclaim adherence to Christianity, and that Christianity was used to justify slavery in America. One would be hard pressed to find a Black Christian who would argue that all Christians are without lapse in their regard for humankind.  The Black Christian community, however, often will try to insulate its religion from terrorism and hate-inspired violence by claiming that the perpetrators were not “True Christians.”

The problem with separating “True Christians” from any other type of Christian is that no one can see into the heart or the mind of a believer.  The acts of a terrorist may be contrary to the majority’s interpretation of the tenants of a belief system, but that does not mean that a terrorist has not acted in accordance with his own interpretation of that belief system.  And it does not work to say that there is only one correct interpretation of the “Word of God.”

Catholics profess in the Nicene Creed – a pronouncement of their faith – to believe in the “resurrection of the dead.”  And this is not just a metaphor.  Article 11 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that upon the resurrection, the “‘mortal body’ will come to life again.”  Many Christians who are not Catholic, and quite a few who are – all of whom profess the Nicene Creed – do not believe that the flesh of the faithful dead will arise from their tombs and be made whole again.

With the belief in the resurrection of the flesh, which is one of the essential doctrines of Christianity, being accepted or rejected on an individual basis, how can there be any strict uniformity in who is or who is not a Christian?  And belief in the resurrection is only one doctrine in the very intricate Christian belief system that is rejected or accepted by self-identified adherents.

So, we have a myriad of self-described believers who perceive their religion to reflect their own personal beliefs, and anyone who strays too far afield risks losing the identification of a true believer.  This allows self-described (and usually self-righteous) Christians to disassociate themselves from people like Robert Dear; Dylann Roof, who murdered nine Black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C.; or even Officer Michael Slager of the North Charleston police who is charged with murder after shooting a Black man in the back eight times; because “good” Christians do not do things like this.

Thinking like this makes it impossible to include the term “Christian Terrorist” in the dialogue on American violence.  In fact, it makes it impossible to apply the term on a global scale.

The Conquistadors who came to the Western Hemisphere in the 15th century and terrorized and eradicated whole civilizations of indigenous people carried the Christian cross with them and were led in prayer by their Christian priests.

Fifty years after its founding, the Ku Klux Klan began to conduct cross burnings not only to intimidate their targets, but also to show their reverence for Jesus Christ while they sang hymns and said prayers.

In 1934, Adolph Hitler stated in a speech: "The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity."  And in case you have forgotten, German National Socialism was more commonly known as Nazism.

Christians all.  Or at least self-professed Christians – and every one a terrorist.

The absence of language with which to identify Christian terrorists is not merely the ignorance of those political leaders and media personalities whose voices we hear and read every day.  There is a conscious effort to omit Christian terrorists from the dialogue about criminal violence in America and around the world.  And it will take an effort by those people who believe in justice and fairness to bring about an honest discussion about who is responsible for violent terrorism and why.

We must be a counterbalance to people like State Representative Gordon Klingenschmitt of Colorado Springs, Colo., who, when speaking of Robert Dear, said, “You cannot call him a pro-life activist, or a Colorado Springs conservative, because he is not one of us. That is not how we act.”

When pressed to explain the difference between conservative Christians not wanting to be associated with violent extremists who share their faith and moderate Muslims who likewise do not want to be associated with violent extremists who share their religion, Klingenschmitt complained that the question was not fair.  “We as Christians are almost universally willing to renounce violence,” he said.

Tell that to the victims of the Conquistadors, the Klan and the Nazis. Or tell it to the victims of Robert Dear, Dylann Roof and Officer Michael Slager.

The International Criminal Court Looks to “Bag The Big Ones”

Reposted from Lawfare Tyranny June 22, 2015

Oscar H. Blayton

In decades past, African tour operators would help European and American clients to bag what they termed “The Big Five”: the African elephant, Black rhinoceros, Cape buffalo, Lion and Leopard — the most dangerous and difficult animals in Africa to hunt on foot.

Today, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is engaged in a similar enterprise, trying to “bag” African heads of state and political figures in high places.

The hunt for Africans was spotlighted again in the week of June 14, 2015 after the High Court in Pretoria issued a provisional court order Sunday meant to block Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir from leaving South Africa where he had travelled to attend the Summit of the African Union (AU). The ruling by the South African court was predicated upon a 2009 arrest warrant issued for President Bashir by the ICC which has accused him of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Despite the High Court’s ruling, President Bashir left South Africa the following day, giving no credence to the ICC warrant, or any attempts by the South African courts to enforce it.

Responding to Bashir’s disregard for the ICC’s warrant and leaving South Africa, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters that the authority of the ICC must be respected and its decision implemented — a breathtakingly absurd statement given the fact that three permanent Security Council members (the United States, Russia and China) have yet to sign on to, or ratify, the Rome Statute.

This lopsided approach to international justice has given the AU member states a pretext to refuse to cooperate with the ICC. At an AU summit held in October of 2013 the organization decided that it would fight the ICC and called upon its members to withdraw from the Rome Statute.

Even non-African observers have criticized the case brought by the former chief prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo.

As Tufts University professor and World Peace Foundation Executive Director Alex de Waal wrote in 2009:

The flaws in the Prosecutor’s case are such that it is necessary to ask whether he ever expects it to come to court, or whether he prefers a contest in the court of international public opinion. The flaws are such that the Pre-Trial Chamber should send it back to the Office of the Prosecutor for comprehensive reconsideration.

De Waal goes on to add:

There are strong reasons to suppose that pursuing a case against President Bashir is not in the interests of justice.

De Wall does not argue that Bashir has committed no crimes, but sees problems inherent in Ocampo’s approach to the matter and concludes:

It is remarkable that, given the wealth of evidence available and number of accessible and attractive options for prosecuting those suspected of responsibility for crimes in Darfur, including President Bashir, the Prosecutor should seek the most controversial and hardest-to-substantiate charges. The principal benefit of this approach is that it gains the maximum publicity for the Prosecutor and places him at the centre of a major international controversy. On the international stage, Moreno Ocampo appears as the champion of justice while his opponent, the head of a widely-reviled state, has few credible advocates ready to speak out on his behalf. A trial of sorts is already being conducted in the court of international public opinion. This perhaps is where the Prosecutor feels most comfortable.

So the West wags its collective finger at Africa as it attempts to haul African heads of state into a global criminal court they would never allow themselves or their allies to be dragged before.

This state of affairs begs the question: Does the ICC deem only the leaders of Africa to be a danger to world peace and human dignity?

That is certainly the impression with which influential nations both in and outside of the ICC leave us — and this serves to reinforce the belief by the rest of the world that these hegemonic nation-states are incapable of fairness and devoid of any sense of justice.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn stated it very clearly when he said the ICC system is flawed and unequal and is conducting itself in such a manner that the process has now “degenerated to some kind of race hunting.”

###

Lawfare Tyranny

Where are the good cops?

In mid-1980 my brother answered his telephone and heard a voice that he believed belonged to an unknown elderly white woman.

“You’re trying to DESTROY the white race!” she screamed at him over the phone and immediately hung up.  The woman had mistakenly dialed my brother’s phone because it was the only telephone number listed under our last name in the book.  The call was meant for me because I was litigating a desegregation case of a local school district at the time.

It has always been villainy, in the eyes of some, to demand equality for all people.  Assertions of the rights of people of color have always been deemed by racial bigots to be declarations of war.

For several months now, conservative pundits have been howling about a “War on the police” that they believe has been precipitated by the Black Lives Matter Movement and progressive politicians.

The villains, as they see it, are the visible spokespersons who articulate on behalf of the Movement, as well as public officials, like the former Attorney General, Eric Holder and President Obama, who voice opposition to police brutality and the denial of constitutional rights to persons of color.  Never mind that these are rights most white people take for granted).

The ugliness of white supremacist trolls who spew their hatred over social media give evidence to the outrageous bigotry that blindly endorses every violent act of a law enforcement officer, whether legal or not.

To be clear, it should be acknowledged that there are differing levels of opposition to the Black Lives Matter Movement, just as there are differing levels of support.  But this is nothing new in the history of the evolution of social justice.  In the 1960s, there were those - Black and white - who cautioned that Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were trying to move too fast and too far.

But putting all desire to nestle in our comfort zones aside; we must acknowledge the fact that we are in a war.  And we have been at war in America for almost four centuries.

This is not a war of bullets and bombs.

This is not a war between Black and White.

We are, and have been for almost 400 years in America, in a war of Ideas, notions, beliefs and prejudices.

The notion that the inhabitant of a Black body is less valuable, less worthy and less human than the inhabitant of a white body was ginned up in order to morally justify the theft of those black bodies and the labor that they could produce.  Economic necessity in the agrarian south required that this notion become dogma so as to remain the unquestioned engine that created Southern wealth.

For over two and one half centuries that dogma of white supremacy was enforced by slave codes in the South and by many codes of conduct in other parts of the country.  And the validity of those codes had to be upheld through the enforcement of the law.

To borrow from one of my former professors:

“Law is a process of authoritative control, whereby certain elites establish and maintain a particular public order.”

The Southern planters and Northern industrialists have always realized that the “particular public order” that they wanted required cheap labor.  And in the antebellum South, that meant free labor. 

Cheap labor was assured through the maintenance of an American underclass.  And by virtue of the American dogma of white supremacy, Blacks were relegated to this role.  The Black American underclass was established in the infancy of this nation, and the maintenance of Blacks in that status, through authoritative control, was the job of law enforcement.  Hence, the whips, the chains, the guns and the nooses.

The elites of America needed cheap labor, and for centuries law enforcement used violence to see to it that there was an ample supply.  In many instances, law enforcement officers were merely thugs employed to keep Black people “in line;” not unlike anti-union goons.  There was little difference in the behavior of the police at the Pettus Bridge in Selma Alabama and the behavior of bat wielding thugs at factory gates; because thugs in blue uniforms are still Thugs.

But, while the historical culture of law enforcement in America has changed considerably in the last fifty years, remnants of that old culture linger.

Angered by the film maker Quinten Tarantino’s support for the Black Lives Matter Movement, Jim Pasco, the Executive Director of the Fraternal Order of Police, has threatened Tarantino with an unpleasant “surprise” related to his upcoming motion picture.  It is a sad commentary on America that law enforcement officials will threaten someone for exercising his or her right to free speech.

Pasco’s words and tone are reminiscent of the threats and Intimidation by swaggering, uniformed bigots who ushered in fascist regimes in Germany and Italy over a half a century ago, resulting in catastrophic chaos and slaughter.

The American public is constantly told that the majority of police officers are “Good Cops” who work for the benefit of all citizens.  But where are the "Good Cops" that so many of the pundits and politicians keep assuring us are out there?  Can anyone be called a "Good Cop" if he or she stands by and lets the swaggering bullies threaten people for exercising their rights to free speech?  Do good cops stand by and allow unreasonable searches and seizures?  Do they say nothing when a 12 year-old is slaughtered for playing with a toy gun in a park?  Do they support their brothers in blue who execute a man whose only crime is walking around a Wal-Mart with a newly purchased air rifle?  Are they silent when a man is falsely arrested and then driven to his death by a "rough ride" in a police van?

Where are the “Good Cops” when the leader of the Fraternal Order of Police equates anti-police abuse with anti-police?

Until the "Good Cops" stand up and identify themselves by their actions in support of our Constitution, human dignity, and the value of Black Lives along with the lives of everyone else, we can safely assume that those who have not stood up for justice can not to be counted among their number.

###

America’s Cherished ‘White Space’

Oscar H. Blayton

October 23, 2015

One weekend, back in 1966, I was traveling with some Marine buddies from Eastern North Carolina to Myrtle Beach.  After night fell, we began to see roadside signs advertising a “Fish Fry” taking place that evening near the South Carolina border.  It was late, we had not eaten dinner; and fried fish sounded like a pretty good idea.  We followed the signs that led down a dark country road to a point where cars were turning into an open field.

We fell into the long line of cars and pickup trucks and inched forward until we could see a man directing the vehicles where to park.  Then we realized that we had a big problem.  The man was wearing a white Klu Klux KIan robe and conical headgear.  My three traveling companions were white and I was in the back seat of the car; so we were able to pull out of line and head back to the main road without me being noticed.

No one in the car had said a word when we saw the Klansman directing the parking.  No one needed to say anything.  We all knew that we had come very close to entering a particular type of “White Space,” where my presence would not have been appreciated.  No one had to tell us that the best thing to do was to get out of there.

We joked about it later; after we had put several miles between us and the fish fry, and were certain that no one had followed us.  And we continued our trip to Myrtle Beach without any more problems.

Once we got to Myrtle Beach, my friends and I split up, thinking that we could each do better meeting girls on our own, rather than in a “pack.”  But it did not take long for me to realize that I had entered another white space.  There was no one walking along the shore in Klan regalia; but in 1966, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina was resistant to accommodating Black Folk; no matter what the recently enacted Civil Rights Act said.

White spaces are those places where Blacks are not expected to show up.  They are places where white people exercise their white privilege that they pretend doesn’t exist.

A classic white space was Levittown, New York in the 1950s.  It was a community where Blacks were not allowed to live; even though it was subsidized by G.I. Bill loans and other federal programs.  Conservative talk show host, Bill O’Reilly OF Fox News, grew up in Levittown; and when he was confronted by liberal talk show host, Jon Stewart, about the white privilege of being able to live there, O’Reilly conceded that Levittown was segregated in the 1950s, but tried to gloss over the existence of white privilege that such white spaces provide.

In years past, white spaces were the front seats of Southern city busses.  They were those movie theatres and railroad cars reserved for whites only.  And while those vestiges of a meaner time have faded away, the stench of white spaces and white privilege still linger over America.  That stench wafted into our nostrils a few weeks ago when a group of mostly Black women were removed from the Napa Valley Wine train because of unfounded allegations of improper conduct.  The wine train has since offered an apology to those women, but that does not address the problem of why they were put off the train in the first place.  It is clear to all but the most confused among us that white privilege does exist.  And the existence of white spaces is one of the many forms in which white privilege often manifests itself.

All denials aside, the Napa Valley Wine Train is one such space.  I recognize the smell.  I’ve encountered it many times.

In the early 1950s I was seven years old and my parents sent me away to a very nice summer camp in Vermont.  They chose Vermont because they believed that there would be no danger of racism there.  The next summer the camp did not allow me to return.  The explanation given to my parents was that I had gotten into too many fights.  The truth was that I had not gotten into even one fight.  The camp also instituted a new policy of requiring prospective campers to submit a photograph along with their applications.

Four years after my Vermont camping experience, a progressive Episcopal priest invited my family to join Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg, Virginia.  Prior to our becoming members, the church had been all white for centuries.  There were no crosses burned in the church yard, but several individuals among the congregation made it abundantly clear that they were not happy with our presence.  One prominent member of the congregation who opposed our membership based his argument on his certainty that Blacks and whites did not go to the same heaven.  He must have felt that if we could not share the same bus seat, we certainly could not share the same cloud.  In his mind, Heaven and certain churches were clearly white spaced.  To this day, many American churches are white spaces.

There are many manifestations of white privilege today, and white space is just one of them.  And a Black presence in a white space is unwelcome because it contradicts the notions of white meritocracy upon which white privilege is ultimately justified. 

When African American students complain of not being made to feel welcome at Ivy League schools, it is because they are perceived by some whites to have trespassed into white space.  When Black professionals occupying corporate suites get the “stink eye” from their white counterparts, it’s because executive proficiency and expertise is believed to be the domain of white people.  In the minds of many whites the only space available to Black Folk is at the back of the bus, on the bottom rung of the economic ladder or in those human warehouses, called “prisons.”  To some whites, all of America is white space, and people of color are intruders or mere inconveniences whose presence are only allowed with permission.

White space is where white Americans expect to enjoy “The Good Life” and the bounty of this country.  But as with an exclusive country club, most people of color need not apply.

The tragic death of Travon Martin can be explained in these terms.  George Zimmerman saw Travon as a person of color who did not have permission to be in his gated community, and took it upon himself to enforce that white space.

As long as “The Good Life” that America promises has a label that reads “For Whites Only,” this country will be mired in its own hatred and bigotry.  And for those who refuse to acknowledge the wretched smell of this facet of white privilege, I suggest that they talk to those Black women who tried to enjoy some wine and a few laughs on a train in Napa Valley.

###

America's Cherished 'White Space published in the 'Afro'

A New Breed of Bigoted Politicians

Oscar H. Blayton

September 28, 2015

Among the many windswept cliffs that stand guard on the shores of the island of Okinawa, one is known for its particularly gruesome history.

“Suicide Cliff” is located on the southern portion of Okinawa.  It is so named because thousands of Okinawans took their own lives at the site as American forces advanced across the island during the last months of World War II.

Twenty five years later, flying low over cliffside memorials honoring the dead of various towns and villages who perished there, I was struck by the fact that so many people felt compelled to rush to their own destruction. I soon learned that for tactical reasons, and to further their own doomed war effort, the Japanese army had terrified Okinawan civilians with tales of extreme cruelties they should expect at the hands of the approaching Americans. The island's people had their minds manipulated to the point that many chose to kill themselves rather than fall into the hands of a ruthless enemy.

The propaganda campaign worked so well that stories began filtering out through the news media of mothers flinging their infants and then themselves over the cliff as the battle for Okinawa raged on in June 1945. It was reported that “[f]ear and madness overwhelmed village communities,” leading to mass suicides and the killing of close relatives.

Eventually, the people of Okinawa came to realize that these were “useless deaths” as the Americans turned out not to be the monsters portrayed by the Japanese army.

In the years since viewing this tragic site, I learned it is not unusual for people to be manipulated into a mass hysteria that makes them act against their own self-interest, or even to rush toward their own self-destruction.  In this cycle of the U.S. presidential election, we have extraordinarily clear examples of the type of propaganda and demagoguery that leads to this type of madness.

Donald Trump is the poster child for destructive demagoguery. This bloviating bigot has pulled the Republican Party down to new lows and, in the process, dumbed down the national political discourse to a point where America is gnawing at its own flesh in an attempt to expel nonexistent horrors.

Echoing the likes of Gov. George Wallace of Alabama and the two Virginia senators, Harry F. Byrd Sr. and Harry F. Byrd Jr., Trump feeds his followers platters of noxious vitriol that are devoid of facts. In addition to demonizing Latinos and "Black Lives Matter" activists, Trump, a privileged white person, once declared that the Pequot Indians “don’t look like Indians to me.” This is a person who feels so entitled that he can determine what America is and who Americans are.

Like the thousands who followed a manipulative Japanese army to their hurried end on Okinawa, individuals who flock to Trump’s banner of bigotry and foolishness –eventually will see the senselessness of championing someone who makes extremely ill-considered pronouncements and whose campaign completely lacks sound policy ideas.

Fortunately for them, however, Trump will not be president of the United States. Unfortunately, however, other Republican presidential hopefuls are mimicking his audacious and bigoted posturing because his followers are giving so much credence to this cartoon of an ugly American.

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Huckabee may not be stoking the fires of the exact same bigoted causes, they are ramping up their rhetoric to approximate Trump’s level of demagoguery. Just as George Wallace and both Senators Byrd relied on a strategy of saying the “N-word” louder than anyone else, this new breed of bigoted politicians base their strategies on attacking liberal targets of opportunity with more vigor than anyone else. And while there are varying degrees of bigotry among the Republican field of presidential candidates, they all seem to be willing to have the country self- destruct rather than give in to its liberalization.

“This way to the cliffs,” they urge their followers, “or the liberals will ruin your lives.”

During the past seven years, they have urged their followers to reject the Affordable Care Act, with little regard for the fact that many of them cannot pay for basic medical needs. These Republican candidates have called upon their followers to oppose an increase in the minimum wage, despite the fact that many of those supporters are low-wage earners. They ask conservatives to join them in opposing the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, even though the sons and daughters of those conservatives might bleed on the battlefields of any ensuing war. And, of course, they oppose extending equal rights to the LBGT community, while many of their backers have family members and loved ones who are in the LBGT community.

They are urging their followers to go over the cliff and pull the rest of America over behind them.

For those of us who refuse to swallow the venom of the likes of Trump, Cruz, Huckabee and Paul, we have a pressing obligation. We must do all that is necessary to prevent the forces of self-destruction from taking hold. We must not allow a group of hysterical bigots to determine the future of America. We must stand against those who are taken by a type of self-destructive madness and would throw America over a political cliff to drown in a sea of hatred and despair. We must choose our candidates wisely and then do all that we can to support them. Good candidates not only deserve and need our votes, they deserve and need our contributions and volunteer efforts as well.

In the coming months, we must seriously work to ensure that America takes the path to progress and peace and not the one to self-destruction.

###

http://www.blackpressusa.com/a-new-breed-of-bigoted-politicians/#sthash.eljyF19l.wE815Prd.dpbs