In creating the myth of Zeus as their supreme deity, ancient Greek male politicians attempted to naturalize misogyny. Misogyny, “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women,” from the Greek root “hatred [of] women,” centuries later found full-throated expression in U.S. politics through the hearings and eventual confirmation of the misogynist Kavanaugh for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In this “Case Study in GOP Misogyny” where a majority of the nation opposed Kavanaugh’s appointment, a majority of Republicans supported Kavanaugh – even if the assault charges were true.
When misogyny is placed within the pervasive culture of patriarchy, the political economy of misogyny, like racism, is revealed as a core principle throughout U.S. history. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the wife of future president John Adams, Abigail Adams, sought incorporation of her full rights as a woman into the revolutionary principles of liberty and freedom. In 1776 Abigail wrote her husband, “I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors.” Abigail may have been recalling the previous two centuries when women could be tortured and murdered by the ruling church leaders in Europe and the British colonies of North America for simply being labeled a “witch.”
Abigail Adams continued in her letter: “Do not put such unlimited power in the hands of the Husbands…Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.” As Jill Lepore explains in her massive new history of the U.S., Abigail was calling on her husband to provide freedom of “representation” to women, in line with the ideals expressed against British rule. And Abigail foresaw a future in which women would be a political force if ignored: “If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.”
Abigail’s patriarchal husband John Adams responded as if his wife’s concerns were just a joke: “As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh…We know better than to repeal our Masculine system.” Contending that “natural law” made women inferior to men, Adams and his elitist cronies made sure that their basis of social order was premised on male superiority and female submission to male authority.
John Adams reaction was the norm of the day and based in a long legacy of women and children viewed as merely property of their fathers and husbands. I draw in part (see 2015 publication) from the work of feminist economist Nancy Folbre and summarized,
“Like slaves, married women could not legally claim a right to the product of their labor. Both slaves and women under patriarchy were unable to make a lawful claim to their own children. With religious approval and a patriarchal rule of law, White men could legally separate children from their mothers under slavery and during marriage. A sexual double standard existed for White married men who raped slave women or sought sex through prostitution whereas a woman adulteress faced punishment. In regards to the care of their slaves and wives, legally ‘slave owners and patriarchs were required only to meet the subsistence needs of their dependents and could administer physical punishment without the close supervision of the law.’”
In this context John Adams’ patriarchal mindset could not conceive of representation and equality for women.
After decades of battles against male dominance in all aspects of government and 144 years after the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution was amended so that women in the U.S. could vote in all elections. Yet, women remained second class citizens in regards to employment and property rights. For example, historian Alice Kessler-Harris notes that in the U.S. from the 1890s into the 1980s “special considerations of all kinds could prevent women from being persons under the law.” Although statutes would use the word person, the legal interpretation was man. Courts deferred to states to determine personhood on the basis of patriarchal custom that could exclude women from serving on juries and qualifying for traditional male careers and jobs.
From 1972-82 an Equal Right Amendment (ERA) for women was never passed by the required number of states. The ERA was simply seeking Constitutional codification of the following: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” It was during this era that second-wave feminism faced extreme resistance from a patriarchal culture, backlashes that continue to this day as evident in the Kavanaugh nomination by an openly misogynist president who relishes in his venom against women.
Trump, Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas – and the list goes on – hold a legacy that dates back to the ancient Greeks. The Founders were fond of harkening back to the Greeks as an example of a democracy – that embedded slavery and misogyny in a Grecian form of “democracy.” With their god Zeus, or Jupiter as the Romans called Zeus, male dominance and violence was divinely ordained. Decades prior to the contemporary #metoo movement, women were organizing to protect women through the development of undisclosed shelters for battered women, shelters and protection that was never available to Greek women, to Abigail Adams’ generation, nor to many women today.
But back when shelters for victims of domestic assault were just beginning, laws and police practices allowed men – just like Zeus – to physically brutalize their wives and children. I was toward the end of graduate school at Michigan State University when feminists in Lansing, the state capital, organized the Council Against Domestic Assault (CADA – today it goes by the acronym EVE, End Violent Encounters). Nearly 40 years ago in 1979 as a “friend of CADA,” I wrote a piece for their newsletter in which I included references to Jupiter aka Zeus:
“Indeed, today’s public and its civil servants, living amidst the problem of domestic violence, often behave as if they were operating under the rule of Jupiter and Juno, mythical Roman deities. As the story goes, the god Jupiter raped a young wood nymph. This ‘nymph,’ a woman, was then not only rejected by her female companions, but also became the object of the terrible rage of Juno, Jupiter’s wife. The young women was transformed into a hunted forest animal. Comfort and support were nowhere in sight. A ‘she-got-what she deserved’ attitude prevailed.”
Through Juno’s example women, too, can enable patriarchy. Today, just think Susan Collins and the 67% of Republican women who supported Kavanaugh.
Nevertheless, women remain our most significant leaders of social movement for liberty and justice for all. In particular, we have the historical and contemporary leadership of Black women, including the founders of the #metoo movement. To this point, in my “Afterword” chapter in a book published this year, I noted,
“Despite a history of discrimination, African American women have been central to the theory and practice of Black resistance and civil rights activism. During the late 1800s and into the 20th century, for example, ‘Colored Women’s Club’ formed in every state in the western U.S. to create supportive environments in hostile societies. These organizations often were specifically created in response to lynchings. The Civil Rights Movement of the Second Reconstruction era was propelled by the nearly invisible but tireless work of African American women in the relative freedom available through Black churches. More recently, it was three Black women who created the Black Lives Matter movement that spurred a movement toward a Third Reconstruction– and a formerly incarcerated 65-year old Black woman has become a leading advocate for incarcerated women.”
In these continuing misogynistic times, it is to women and their leadership against patriarchy that we men and women need to gravitate toward if we ever expect to unravel a system built around male elitist privilege.
I can almost hear centrist Democrats and other mainstream liberals saying how “idealistic” or “unrealistic” broad calls for social justice are. Never mind that numerous progressive goals proposed in the U.S. are common, legislated practices in many European nations and Canada. Without a vision of where we’d like our nation to become, it’s nearly impossible to develop pragmatic political actions to attain a truly vibrant democracy.
The commentary below was in response to a request from our local monthly Works in Progress for a couple of “concise” paragraphs on the state of the Left one year into 45’s presidency. Now that the commentary is in print and online (without the source links inserted here), And, of course, the list offered is incomplete – and needs input of additional progressive perspectives.
The first year of the Trump presidency witnessed a promotion of White nationalism within dominant governing circles and an acceleration in policies to further dispossess the poor and middle classes (the 99%) of resources to benefit bloated arms contractors and the already extravagantly rich (the 1%). Revealed in open view is a family & elite friends plundering the Treasury for personal gain through cutting taxes for the wealthy, slashing basic social services, and paying lip-service to infrastructure rebuilding while along the way denigrating Muslims and nearly every global population of color, all to the delight of Christian evangelicals and racial segregationists. Most immediately, the ascendency of an authoritarian regime represents a political backlash against the highly visible anti-racist Black Lives Matter movement (BLM, 2014-present), the legacy of the anti-capitalist Occupy Movement (2011-12), and the now dormant anti-war/anti-militarism movements. Nevertheless, we are witnesses to both new and enduring social justice movements, such as BLM, #Resist, anti-fascist anarchists, Immigrant Rights, anti-patriarchy #MeToo/Women’s Marches, LGBTQ human rights activists, and Reverend Dr. William Barber II’s “Moral Mondays Marches.”
Barber’s Moral Marches offer a grassroots model to bring together seemingly disparate groups fighting elements of inequality and injustice – in what Barber calls fusion politics. Operating solely as separate movements is self-defeating in an age of hyper-White supremacy, xenophobia, and wealth appropriation by the Right. Capitalism’s guard will not hesitate to respond with characteristic violence to attack isolated leftists and their organizations in order to continue a transfer of public wealth for private gain – a pattern Marx recognized in how invasive capitalistic social relations “come dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” A radical fusion of resistance must recognize opportunities within these various movements to advance accessible principles of economic justice through democratic socialism. A way forward is to revitalize the stated aims of the Black Panther's “Ten-Point Program” and the Civil Rights “Freedom Budget,” both released in 1966, some of which were resurrected 50 years later in Bernie Sanders campaign platform. Popular education at all levels can call for (a) significant tax increases on individuals who make more than $200,000 annually and on large corporations and (b) a corresponding redistribution of public funds to provide for:
· full employment that is not exploitative and provides a living wage;
· guaranteed income for all who are unable to attain a living wage;
· housing for all;
· universal healthcare through a single-payer healthcare system;
· free higher education;
· allow all citizens the right to vote, including felons;
· abolish the current penal system supported by a prison-industrial complex, release all non-violent criminals, and shift to community-based supervision and education;
· implement community-based policing to replace the impunity of militarized police brutality;
· drastically reduce the military-industrial complex budget as a step to stop the U.S. from waging terrorism globally and to reallocate funds to actual human needs; and
· recognition of the basic humanity of all people regardless of identities that are politically based on race, ethnicity, national origins, gender, sexuality, and physical and mental ability.
A coherent and consistent program of popular education can move a troubled public looking for solutions to growing inequality and authoritarianism toward these goals.
While many of us bask in the glimmer of hope offered with the defeat of Roy Moore by Doug Jones for an Alabama U.S. Senate seat, we might ask ourselves if a Doug Jones-type candidate could have won if the individual were Black or female, White or Black?
Despite the Black vote that clearly swung the election in favor of Jones, the likely answer to this question is sadly “no.” The answer isn’t simply based on mean-spirited bigoted Trumpites but is fueled by a long history of the lasting power of White racism and patriarchy.
First, let’s consider the possibility of a Black candidate winning in Alabama. A White majority has never admitted that Blacks and other people of color are legitimate members of the U.S. worthy of inclusion in the nation’s social fabric. When freed slaves could have been included within the nation, the White majority – North and South – could not imagine such a multicultural citizenry. Northern politicians at that time who supported emancipation and voting rights for people of African descent imagined that “free labor” would replace slave labor.
The mistaken assumption was that freedmen would now be able to compete equally in the labor market as free labor and that the so-called invisible hand of the market would lead to liberty and freedom for former slaves. Freedmen and their families had other ideas: Just give us some land and let us take care of ourselves and give us the same freedoms that Whites are granted.
Except for a very few exceptions during Reconstruction after the Civil War, the kind of freedom envisioned by freed slaves and Northern “free labor” abolitionists never happened. In fact, the South simply created “colorblind” laws that primarily discriminated against Blacks in nearly all aspects of their lives along with “contracts” that placed many back on plantations or worse well into the 20th century. Meanwhile, in the North and West, Whites constructed real estate, educational, and employment practices that discriminated against equal protection under the law.
As historian Eric Foner put it in his research on the Reconstruction era,
By the end of the Civil War the White governing class’s “inability...to conceive of blacks as anything but plantation labor doomed real economic reform.”
Some may say that was 150 years ago and times have changed. Well, that general statement may be true. Nevertheless, in October of this year research by the Harvard Business Review announced,
Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended legalized job discrimination and increased the racial diversity of workplaces, practices of racial discrimination clearly remains. And by 1980 the “progress for black Americans in the workplace came to an abrupt stop.”
But what about Republican candidate Roy Moore in 2017 who could evoke a neo-Confederate trope that slaves at least had happy families? This is the same kind of mythology circulated by planation owners who were shocked when “their” Blacks revolted against them during and after the Civil War. Our current right-wingers mouth the same rhetoric as their Reconstruction ancestors: Keep government small and most certainly don’t tax White people to support Black education and other social services.
The convenient reasoning is that now that Blacks are “free” to enter contracts, they need to fund their own education and social services and shouldn’t expect government support. This is the kind of ideological orientation that drives Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s thinking: keep education racially separate with privatized public funds with a socialization that advances an intolerant religious conservatism.
Same kind of racist reasoning was used by U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1988 when he stated about conquered Native Americans,
For the record, a U.S. Senate report in 1989 made clear that
“Indians have lost 97% of their land and their population has been decimated by military assaults and fatal disease. These attacks were also designed to rob Indians of their very identity, pushing them to relinquish their language, arts and religion.”
Humored? Now that Indigenous people were “free,” like African Americans, they are blamed for the contemporary inequities that are the result of historical oppression and continuing discrimination.
And this takes us back to the Alabama vote. Jones received just 30% of the White vote, which was twice what Obama received. (Exit polls from the 2012 presidential election indicated that among all White voters nationally, only 39% voted for President Obama.) Whites composed 2/3 of the voters, and of that group, 68% voted for Moore. In contrast, Blacks made up 29% of all voters, and 96% of that group voted for Jones. This statistic alone tells us a lot as to why voter suppression is major goal in White Republican controlled state legislatures and by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority which invalidated oversight of historically discriminatory voting districts in 2013. Meanwhile, 57% of White college graduates voted for Moore along with 80% of voters self-identified as “White born-again Christians.”
And for bigots who have dominated the U.S. political landscape since its inception, the first in line for positions of governing and employment and other opportunities are White men. This patriarchal orientation is quite well and alive as evidenced by the #MeToo movement with the naming of institutional sexism that permeates our culture.
Just like many of us thought women across the board would reject a Trump candidacy for his comment about women – “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything” – we were wrong. In Alabama the sexual predator Moore could evoke God and the majority of female voters could deny the evidence in front of them: 52% of White college educated women voted for Moore while a whopping 73% of White female non-college graduates voted for their sexist candidate. In totality, 63% of White women voters supported Moore. A system of patriarchy doesn’t just reside with men.
If Moore hadn’t been such an overt sexist and racist and a more moderate Republican had run against Jones, it’s very possible that Jones would have lost. This is based on exit polls where a small but significant number of Republicans either voted for Jones or a write-in candidate because they were put off by Moore. Now try to imagine a Black candidate or a White or Black female running successfully against the Republicans for a U.S. Senate seat. I just can’t. In this poisoned political environment, the legacy of the Civil War and male supremacy remains way too entrenched in neo-Confederate rhetoric.
The silver lining in this election – besides the short-term gain of the election of Jones – was the political mobilization of Black voters and young voters. For all voters in age range of 18-29 and 30-44, at least 60% voted for Jones. As the population ages, 45-64 and 65+, a group that composes 64% of all voters, the majority voted for Moore and his slimy politics. (For more on the Alabama data provided in this commentary, see the Washington Post’s exit poll results.)
The challenge in the coming decades will be the extent to which a multicultural coalition that crosses socio-economic classes and gender can come together to forge a more inclusive United States.
Note to readers: In Spring of 2107 the Evergreen State College was rocked with protests originating both on and off campus, including a threat by an individual who stated in a 911 call, “Yes, I am on my way to Evergreen now with a .44 Magnum. … I am going to execute as many people on that campus as I can get a hold of. You have that, what’s going on here, you communist scumbag?”
For additional information about the fallout from last spring, visit the college library’s bibliography of news and opinion articles about the “Evergreen Protests 2017.”
Due to a volatile campus environment, the Board of Trustees cancelled its June meeting when Emeritus faculty would normally have been recognized. That meeting was subsequently postponed to November 8 at which Emeritus status was officially conferred upon me. Against this background, the following are the comments I made to the Board at their public meeting yesterday – with most points focusing on faculty working conditions and the campus climate toward equity.
Hello. I have 4 points I’d like to share in my allotted time.
First, I have sincerely appreciated working and teaching in the very rich interdisciplinary curriculum that Evergreen provides its students. I know of nowhere else where I could serve as a graduate director of a teacher education program based on a coordinated studies model. Nor do I know of any other college where I could teach in-depth undergraduate programs in history and political economy – and, yes, multiple summers co-teaching “Poetry Camp at Ft. Flagler.” In this interdisciplinary atmosphere I thank my faculty and staff colleagues – some of whom are present this afternoon – who helped to expand my knowledge base and perspectives, which in turn contributed mightily to my own teaching and scholarship.
Related to faculty scholarship, I next want to draw the Board’s attention to the woeful funding for professional development and travel offered by the college. Nearly stagnate in my 22 years at the college, two years of funding for Evergreen faculty to participate in professional conferences is less than, for example, to what neighboring Saint Martin’s University grants in one year. Currently, funding rarely covers all expenses necessary to attend and participate in professional conferences – and expenses have grown exponentially in the past two decades. An expansion of professional development funds is a necessity to recruiting younger, vibrant faulty and to maintaining the vitality of Evergreen’s nationally-recognized approach to the curriculum. Yes, these are tight budget times, but that is same rationale given to the faculty for no funding increases during my tenure here. Hopefully this can be rectified.
Third, we need to recognize the positive contribution of the faculty union – United Faculty of Evergreen or UFE. In its 10 year existence the UFE has been key in advancing equity for faculty working conditions, remunerations, and academic freedom. Prior to the UFE, faculty voices were limited to the uneven playing field and euphemistic consultative model with management on important property rights of faculty. The UFE-Management relations have too often been misrepresented by the college’s top administrators. Hopefully, administrative misrepresentation of the collective bargaining process and agreement will cease – and a more robust and constructive relationship can be developed and maintained. So, I give a shout-out to those UFE members who, as unpaid labor in UFE-Management deliberations, continue to work to bring fairness and justice to faculty working conditions.
Lastly, to use a boxing analogy, in 2017 Evergreen received a body-blow in national publicity that alarmed and saddened many of us. Therefore, Evergreen must resist and counter the subsequent backlash of an anti-democratic narrative that attempts to demonize Evergreen and higher education overall, a delegitimizing process that has been on the rise since my undergraduate days in the late 1960s. Today this anti-democratic narrative of right-wing harassment finds expression through intolerant Trumpism that contends colleges and universities need more voices representing a privileged status quo.
Let us not allow such anti-democratic forces to move Evergreen away from our stated focus to teach and learn across significant differences and to be a beacon for inclusion, diversity, and equity. Let us not fall into mythic colorblindness that erases differences in favor of privileged sameness. Nor, let us not fall prey to a destructive and self-righteous “call out” culture whose intent is to shut down dialog on thorny issues with long histories. Let us not see diversity as deviance but instead as a historical reality of the complexities of the human condition. At this critical juncture the college needs visionary and inspiring leadership who understands and can act on the complexities of the human condition found in the lived experiences of our students, faculty, and staff. So, let there be concerted and forceful efforts that lead to concrete solutions to dismantle the college’s institutional inequities which are barriers for many on this campus.
Thank you – and, of course, Go Geoducks!
Trump and "Charlottesville" have opened yet another history chapter, so to speak, for the education of the public to the racialized foundations of the U.S. Contrary to his campaign promise, Trump didn't "drain the swamp." Instead, Trump and his minions liberated neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates from the muck and shadows of the swamp. Yet we have also witnessed countless progressive demonstrations against these nefarious political groups.
This past spring for a forthcoming book, I wrote an epilogue that seems relevant at our current historical moment. (Texas A&M’s Norvella Carter and I are editing Intersectionality of Race, Ethnicity, Class, and Gender in Teaching and Teacher Education: Movement Toward Equity in Education – coming late 2017/early 2018). The title of the epilogue is “Movement Toward a ‘Third Reconstruction’ and Educational Equity” -- here are the opening paragraphs:
From the August 2014 police killing of an unarmed Black adolescent in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson and the June 2015 murders of 9 African Americans, including a state representative, in Charleston, South Carolina, to the 2016 presidential primaries and the eventual 2017 promotion of White nationalism within the governing circle of the president of the United States, the U.S. witnessed a countervailing rise of a new civil rights movement. As more deaths of unarmed Blacks at the hands of police surfaced, “Black Lives Matter” became a tagline for international protests as an expression of institutional racism experienced globally by historically marginalized populations. In this context Angela Davis reminds us that “the Black radical tradition is related not simply to Black people but to all people who are struggling for freedom.”
Framing these collective actions as a historical movement toward a “Third Reconstruction” facilitates “thinking about moments in the past where there has been a combination of grassroots radicalism and political leadership” (historian Eric Foner). Although grassroots activism was visible during the composition of this book, overt and consistent political leadership for completing the freedom goals of the Civil Rights Movement and self-determination efforts by Indigenous groups has been missing. In fact, the world has witnessed an uptake in xenophobia and nativist nationalism, according to the United Nations: “We still live in a world where we witness politicians and leaders using hateful and divisive rhetoric to divide instead of unite societies.” In light of the damning documentation within this book about inequities a disproportionate number of children and youth of color suffer daily in public schools, we first briefly review previous efforts at reconstruction for social justice and educational equity...
That last sentence is intended to reinforce the perspective that educators in particular need to understand the negative external forces that affect educational equity as well as the possibilities for engagement in a massive social justice movement. That is why I offer the following perspective.
As the 2020s approach, we hear a resonance with former slave Frederick Douglas’s (1881) description of a racialized “color line” of discrimination and Du Bois’s (1903) well-known observation that “the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line.” In 2015 a Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial called for a national “truth and reconciliation commission” because “the color line persists” and “accounting has not occurred.” With little hope for such a national reconciliation, grassroots social justice activist Reverend Dr. William Barber II (2016) contends, “Nothing less than a Third Reconstruction holds the promise of healing our nation’s wounds and birthing a better future for all.” In his home state of North Carolina Barber helped to create a movement that fused various social justice movements: “Within the framework of a Third Reconstruction, we see how our movements are flowing together, recognizing that our intersectionality creates the opportunity to fundamentally redirect America.”
For a movement to a Third Reconstruction to be effective, fusion politics among social justice movements is what is needed to turn the tide against policies that continue to discriminate against people of color, the poor, religious orientations that are not Christian, and those with non-conforming gender and sexual identities.
In A People’s History of the United States, the late Howard Zinn included a chapter that offered his own perspective on how progressive social movements can derail a political status quo. During the first 10 days into Führer Trump’s regime and visible resistance to his Electoral College appointment as U.S. president, I’ve been recalling Zinn’s perspective that
“Most histories understate revolt, overemphasize statesmanship, and thus encourage impotency among citizens.”
This is critical for the ruling class:
“In a highly developed society, the [political] Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going”
Zinn goes on to name those of us he is talking about:
“the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbagemen and firemen. These people – the employed and somewhat privileged – are drawn into an alliance with the elites.”
While trying to work within the established system for the betterment of all people, we can unwittingly enable the continuation of the status quo. We then can
“become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes.”
Nevertheless, since the pseudo-democratic election of Trump and his right-wing billionaires, the resistance has been evident, especially during a month when a new president can usually bask in the temporary afterglow of an election. Zinn recognized how resistance can shake the agenda of power elites, especially one such as Führer Trump’s dictatorial and racist orientation:
If we, the “buffers” for the rulers “stop obeying, the system falls.”
So, let’s take an inventory of some of the most recent incidents of resistance.
The Women’s March in the national capital not only surpassed the “alternate facts” of the Führer’s estimates, an estimated 5,000,000 individuals globally participated January 21 in at total of 673 marches in support of women’s rights to live without discrimination and fear, including control over their own bodies.
The mayors of cities whose councils have passed resolutions to serve as sanctuaries that have refused to cooperate with Trump’s draconian executive order that targets undocumented immigrants and Middle East refugees. The resistance is not across the board, but is significant in refusals to federal requests to hold arrestees in jail due to their immigration status. This led mayors in my region, specifically Olympia and Seattle, to respond:
Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby: “I wish that this president would quit making our community so anxious. Our community can trust that our employees will continue to serve all residents regardless of their status as immigrants. We’re standing by it.”
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray: ““We will not be intimidated by federal dollars and we will not be intimidated by the authoritarian message coming from this administration. We will not — as we did in World War II — allow our police to be deputies of the federal government and round up immigrants.”
The Führer’s executive order “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” claims,
“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States [and] have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.”
Wow! Let's be afraid of these scary aliens in our midst who are supposedly "criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails." But, wait, what do federal databases reveal about all of this? Thanks to Dr. Tom Wong, a political science professor at the University of California-San Diego, who crunched some numbers for us, we discover the following:
There are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
Median household annual income is, on average, $4,353 higher in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
The poverty rate is 2.3 percent lower, on average, in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
Unemployment is, on average, 1.1 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
This data makes me feel like my sanctuary city is actually providing all of us a sanctuary from the Führer’s bully politics.
In a Washington Post interview, Dr. Wong concluded,
“The data are clear that sanctuary counties aren't crime-ridden hellholes.”
And then there are police chiefs representing the largest urban areas and who are not known for bucking the status quo. Nevertheless, the long-standing position of the Major Cities Chiefs Association is that
“immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities,” which would “would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.”
One week after the historic Women’s Marches, two days of spontaneous protests erupted at airports and elsewhere over another of the Führer’s executive orders, which temporarily bars entry to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. The administration’s lackeys had to partially back down in face of massive protests and the negative response of many in the political class.
To be clear, this is not about immigration or crime. The Führer wants to flex his executive pen to match his ban-on-Muslims campaign rhetoric intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the electorate. Using the identity politics that the Right supposedly deplores, the Führer made clear his preference for “Christians” over “Muslims,” regardless of their refugee or immigration status.
But the religious “guards,” to return to Zinn’s term, have also denounced this particular executive order. For example, a representative of the Christian-led Church World Service called it a “shameful day” in United States history.
And this just in tonight: the Führer fired the Sally Yates, the Acting U.S. Attorney General over her refusal to enforce his immigration executive order. Yates stated,
“For as long as I am the acting attorney general, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.”
All of this after federal Judge Ann M. Donnelly on Saturday night put a stay on the Führer’s immigration executive order, saying it would cause “irreparable harm.”
These are a few hopeful examples of Zinn’s “guards of the system” who have resisted, actions that will need to continue.
Congressional Democrats need to get over any sense of “compromise” with an uncompromising Führer. Backlashes are developing against Democrats going along with the Führer’s nominees for various cabinet positions. And shame on Elizabeth Warren for voting in support of Ben Carson for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Warren defended her vote because he made “good, detailed promises” on anti-homelessness programs and fair housing law enforcement that encouraged her. Warren obviously could not have missed the ideological idiocy of Carson during the Republican primaries, but her actions represent her role in this instance as an actual guard of the new administration.
The resistance needs to continue with the activism of local citizens. Increased resistance from the Establishment guards in political and economic positions of power is necessary to limit a government based on hate, misogyny, fear, racism, and a neo-Christian Crusade.
As we move forward in this new era of Trumpism, it will be important to keep in mind what the challenges ahead are likely as authoritarianism gains increasing legitimacy at all levels (for example, Trump's demand to force children to salute the flag…and much worse…).
Because many students I’ve had did not understand the authoritarian streak that exists within political conservatism – and to a lesser extent within mainstream liberalism – and what is actually meant by “authoritarianism,” I share this outline of characteristics of authoritarianism with them as posted below:
Authoritarian: “A person who favors obedience to authority as opposed to personal liberty” (source: Oxford English Dictionary)
An authoritarianism political system generally implies different kinds of arbitrary rule and political repression through the use of violence as necessary.
An authoritarianism political system’s major characteristics:
- limited political pluralism or diversity
- restrictions on the activities of interest groups and political parties
- initially popular participation
- a limited or narrow political culture
- usually a strong attachment to a charismatic, appealing personality in the form of political leadership
Authoritarian political party systems are distinguished according to their degree of competitiveness, ranging from one-party states without any competitive elements through semi-competitive single-party systems and restricted multi-party systems.
The scope of control can range from limited control to totalitarianism.
The more that political power is consolidated into a strong executive, the more authoritarian the system becomes. Lack of an independent judicial branch would be an example.
In nearly all cases, the military and police power are privileged under a regime of authoritarianism.
Ideological characteristics of people who are attracted to authoritarianism:
Conventional Values: Rigid adherence to mainstream conformist values
Authoritarian Aggression: the tendency to be on the lookout for, condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values
Authoritarian Submission: Uncritical attitude toward people in authority
In our current era, non-authoritarian people across the political spectrum who are worried about a threat of terrorism tend to respond to a threat by behaving more like authoritarians.
On moving forward: During the coming four years or more, it will be critical to challenge any Trump administration “reform” in relation to how authoritarianism is further advanced.
San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick definitely has the nation’s attention by his decision to not stand during the national anthem. In a Labor Day press conference, even President Obama weighed in on Kaepernick for following the First Amendment by "exercising his constitutional right" to protest police impunity in the use of excessive force on vulnerable populations of Black citizens. And then there are six 5th graders, a teacher reported, who followed Kaepernick’s approach and took a knee during the school’s pledge of allegiance.
Meanwhile, Trump reacts by claiming that, as president, he would promote “pride and patriotism” in schools and require saluting the flag and pledging allegiance to the U.S. in pubic schools. In the spirit of a militaristic nationalism that sounds as if it’s coming from a dictatorial nation, Trump cried out against Kaepernick’s protest:
"That flag deserves respect... And by the way, we want young Americans to recite the pledge of allegiance. Once country under one constitution, saluting one flag...always saluting. In a Trump administration, I plan to work directly with the American Legion to uphold our common values and to help ensure they are taught to America's children."
I guess Trump and thousands of his like-minded followers don’t realize that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 ruled against school officials who required their students to pledge allegiance to the United States. The court cited adverse effects on dissent and how “compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”
And this was at a time when school children saluted “by extending the right arm, palm upward” just like Hitler’s Nazi youth of that era.
Colin Kaepernick’s protest is educational. The public has learned that Frances Scott Key was a supporter of slavery and his third (largely unsung) verse of the national anthem speaks to capturing Black fighting for their freedom against their enslavement under a White supremacy regime:
“No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
Yes, the people of African descent were the “enemy” of the United States as they were fighting for a liberty that “brave” Whites were bragging to the world they had – largely, however, from the exploitation of slave labor that fueled that development of capitalism in the 19th century.
After 9/11/01 public schools joined in violating the First Amendment and that 1943 Supreme Court decision by forcing patriotism upon children. At the time University of Wisconsin professor Michael Apple observed how
“the tropes of patriotism and vengeance all work together to create a mighty call not for justice but for vengeance.”
A September 2001 New York Times article under the headline “School Colors Become Red, White and Blue” reported,
“As a surge of patriotism has washed over the country in the wake of the terrorist attacks, nowhere has the revival been more omnipresent than in schools.”
Representative of this moment 10 years after 9/11, one woman recalled that as a 15-year-old at the time of 9/11,
she “had no concept of what it meant except that suddenly we were saying the Pledge of Allegiance again every day and having assemblies about patriotism, and everyone was flying their flags again out of nowhere.”
And we know how that round of patriotism has resulted in U.S.-led endless war in the Middle East that continues 15 years later...
Somehow many Americans find repulsive images of Nazi Youth and what they represented under Hitler. Yet we have a significant proportion of our citizenry desiring compulsory patriotism. Soon they’ll want to require children to wear brown uniforms and black boots while demanding the right hand salute that has happened at numerous Trump rallies. Kaepernick’s protest and the conversation it set off, however, serves as an important counter balance to this rightwing march to fascism in and out of our schools.
By now it’s no secret that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s appeal is to White voters who heed his racist dog-whistle. Only this week did Trump make any gesture toward Black voters, and that was in room that was 99% White and just 40 miles north of Milwaukee, where rioting recently took place over continuing police abuse of power.
Trump continues to voice support for a police state over the real grievances of impoverished communities of color that daily face racial profiling and violence, as consistently documented repeatedly by the United Nations. Never mind that researchers have documented that historically urban riots in Black neighborhoods were in a direct reaction to police use of excessive force with impunity.
Trump’s nasty appeal to the NRA and so-called “Second Amendment People” for extralegal actions is based in a history of fear of the Other, especially those of African descent. This is a distorted history worthy of untangling for our current moment.
The contemporary interpretation of the Second Amendment is inseparable from the history of policing in the U.S. As noted by social scientists Hahn & Jefferies,
During the latter quarter of the 19th century the “white ruling class sought to avoid reliance on military, to avert the hostility of the masses, and to legitimize oppression by creating a public police force.”
This all fits neatly with the creation of the Second Amendment, which reads
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The reference to a “militia” was for collective action, predates the existence of public police forces, and was directed toward enemies of the new nation. But why did the slave-holding Founders refer to “a free State” rather than the federal government? And who were these enemies that required a state militia rather than a national military response?
With slave rebellions, White owners of this human “property” sought to protect themselves and secure their investments without federal interference – and constantly saw people of African descent as the enemy within, but never as part of the new nation. It was the local White night watch guards and patrols or militias that “became the foundation of American policing.”
Compounding the intersection of the Second Amendment with the rise of police forces as we know them today is that the Second Amendment was historically interpreted a “collective right.” In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against an individual invoking a states-rights argument under the Second Amendment for a purchasing and transporting a weapon that was federally-banned at that time. The Court in United States v. Miller provided a short colonial and founding history of the possession of individual weapons by emphasizing that the Second Amendment was only intended for collective military action.
Additionally, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power…
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections repel invasions...
Nothing at the time of the Founding suggests that someday an individual should have the right to bring an assault weapon into restaurants and other stores as gun-toting bullies wish to do today. The "Insurrections" the slave-owning Founders worried about were those coming from their human "property."
Yet, through lobbying of the National Rifle Association – originally an organization for hunters – and an odd law journal article here and there in the 1960s, the Second Amendment was given an individual rights spin that we live under today. Using twisted logic, the conservative majority in 2008 under racial segregationist Chief Justice Roberts narrowly ruled 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment was somehow originally intended for individual rights.
Back to Trump and his “Second Amendment People.” Their march for fascism is for making and keeping America as White privileged as possible by any means necessary – because Black lives to Trump and his White followers simple do not matter, especially when people of color are perceived as the enemy within the nation to be controlled.
As horrific and unjustifiable as the lone sniper’s killing of Dallas Police Officers last night are, this ought not be surprising in light of the growing frustration at police impunity to use excessive force on civilians, especially on populations of color. The sniper was not part of any organized group, including Black Lives Matter, yet this individual had reached a boiling point of taking some kind of action.
Nevertheless, the right-wing hate machine went into action. For example, Joe Walsh, a former U.S. Congressmen and now a conservative talk show host, decided to pour fuel on the fire with this tweet last night:
What does Walsh mean by “Real America” is “coming after” the President of the United States and peaceful protesters appalled and feeling helpless against centuries of police violence on Black and Brown populations?
“Real America” is clearly a White America for White supremacist nationalism. This is what Trump’s nostalgic slogan of “Make America Great Again” is clearly all about.
Now, should Walsh be arrested for threatening the President? You and I would likely be “detained” and interrogated by the FBI if we made any such public comment that appeared to threaten physical harm to a President – but prominent public figures on the Right are allowed to provoke without consequences.
Only Walsh’s ideological anti-Black racism can possibly connect Obama to having anything to do with the police shooting in Dallas or elsewhere. For the record, as the Daily Kos reported,
“The fact is that fewer police officers have been killed during the six-plus years of [Obama’s] presidency than during the first six years of any modern presidency.”
Never mind facts. As the Southern Poverty Law Center documents, Trump and his armed, anti-democratic racist ilk are just itching to open fire on a Black president and supporters of Black Lives Matter. This, too, should not be surprising. The U.S. has been in “race war” since its colonial founding with laws and extralegal means to terrorize Indigenous, Black, and Latino populations (now add in Arab and Muslim populations). Since the era of slavery, people of African descent have been fighting for their freedom and liberty against a political and civic culture of White supremacy.
In The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America, Gerald Horne documents in great detail the pervasive White fear over “free” Blacks living in the midst of Whites. A line in this important book reminded me of the millions of White anti-Obama folks who have armed themselves out of some kind of fear of having a Black president as well as witnessing an interracial Black Lives Matter social justice movement. Horne writes that
“militarizing of the settler class was another remedy [against Black insurrections] pursued with little consideration as to what this might mean for the culture created.”
That armed culture that was created is most certainly with us 250 years later – in the form of White militias and police regimes that appear to operate with an unacknowledged psychic fear of Black retaliation for a history of White terrorism.
Last night before learning about the sniper killings of Dallas police officers, a friend of mine laid out his argument that we are witnessing the slow unfolding of a civil war. He might be correct. As long as racist issues remain unresolved from Reconstruction after the Civil War and from what some call the Second Reconstruction of the Civil Rights Movement of the last century, it will likely take a movement toward a 21st century Third Reconstruction along with a full-blown period of Truth and Reconciliation for the nation to face the root causes that create conditions for both cops and people of color to be killed and for the rise of Trump’s right-wing racist crusade.
As we approach Muhammad Ali’s funeral this Friday, the political class and the newly-conscious sports reporters are now clamoring to express their love of Ali – despite decades of demonizing a man who stood for his principles against the U.S. war machine. Sentenced to prison for refusing to enter the military in 1967 and then having revoked his heavy-weight boxing title, the “Champion of the World” became for many of my generation a heroic Champion of War Resisters for Ali’s widely-covered public stance:
"I strongly object to the fact that so many newspapers have given the American public and the world the impression that I have only two alternatives in taking this stand: either I go to jail or go to the Army. There is another alternative and that alternative is justice.”
It may be hard for some to imagine a U.S.-born Muslim in the mid-1960s who was Black defying White Christian America, especially given the continuing rise in 21st century “anti-Muslim racism.” As a young college student who eventually received the military draft status of “conscientious objector,” I and many of others found inspiration to resist cooperating with U.S foreign policy because of Ali’s very public defiance of U.S. imperialism and his naming of racism at home and abroad.
Was Muhammad Ali part of the so-called “Vietnam syndrome” that President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993), a former CIA Director, claimed the U.S. had “kicked” in order to begin waging war in the Persian Gulf region that continues to this day? Although President Obama stated, “Muhammad Ali shook up the world,” Obama’s public statement conveniently ignores Ali’s pacifism over how Ali actually “shook up the world.”
Admired globally for his stance against racism, Ali was more than his boxing persona and lively poetry – he was a war-resisting anti-imperialist whose words 50 years later echo in the Black Lives Matter social justice movement:
“Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?”
This is an inconvenient truth for the Obama administration – contrary to an era of promised “Hope” – that has continued to pursue and expand unconstitutional wars just like his presidential predecessors, but now with imprecise drones that have killed thousands of civilians, including the targeting of a U.S. citizen never charged with a crime but justified as only an imperial power can do when it poses as a democracy with a façade of judicial due process. Obama as president would have distanced himself from Muhammad Ali much the same way that President Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) did over Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s anti-war position.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was also demonized for daring to make connections among domestic racism, economic inequities, and imperialistic wars, a position that many say cost King his life in 1968. Liberals – White & Black – turned on King. President Johnson never forgave Dr. King
“for breaking ranks; pro-war liberal Democrats afterward often dissociated themselves from his actions; and a large part of the civil rights movement deplored his stance as a violation of an unspoken contract. Civil rights, they thought, was about black Americans, and the cause of black Americans was civil rights. The violence of the cities had nothing to do with the violence of the war.”
So why should we expect that any imperial president, including Obama, would celebrate prominent dissent against costly U.S. military ventures?
The connection between Ali and King is not an imagined one. As the research of progressive sports writer Dave Zirin points out,
“The press was hounding King about why he wasn’t just focusing on the ‘domestic issue’ of civil rights, and King took that moment to draw upon thoughts of his private friend and said, ‘Like Muhammad Ali puts it, we are all—black and brown and poor—victims of the same system of oppression.’”
Eventually, in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the position of the U.S. Department of Justice to imprison Muhammad Ali for his refusal to participate in the military and conceded,
“The Government in this Court has also made clear that it no longer questions the sincerity of the petitioner's beliefs.”
In a visit to the Muhammad Ali Center in Louisville last year, I was taken by not only Ali’s biography but by how the museum has placed Ali’s life in the context of the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War Movement. The museum is unflinching in presenting this important perspective, an important aspect of U.S. history that many unfortunately would prefer go the way of Orwell’s memory hole.
Last week we saw the passing of Lester Thurow, a prominent MIT economist and dean, who called attention in the 1990s to the growing inequality in wealth and income that is now the new normal. Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, states that Thurow
“was one of the first important economists to suggest that too much inequality is bad for society. And he was writing this just as the inequality trend that is so historically high right now was taking off.”
To be sure, Thurow was no leftist: He unfortunately believed in the late 1990s mantra that the tech industry would solve the problems of inequality inherent in capitalism.
Nevertheless, my attachment to aspects of Thurow’s work developed in the late 1990s/early 2000s when I was working on my book Transforming the Multicultural Education of Teachers (2002). In the chapter “Globalization and Multicultural Education,” I grappled with how to portray the nefarious effects of a narrative that constructed public school children as “human capital” necessary to meet global economic expectations. Thurow stood out as an economist from a prominent university who questioned the logic of the so-called global economy for reducing inequality.
I pointed out how K-12 students were simply being economically objectified and then turned to Thurow. His basic questioning was not the accepted feel-good narrative at the end of the 20th century – which I used to explain that the students-as-human-capital model was not intended to increase economic equality:
“Economist Lester Thurow (1999) wonders, ‘How does one put together a democracy based on the concept of equality while running an economy with ever-increasing degrees of economic inequality?’ Thurow’s question highlights that a model of students as human capital is not intended to produce an equitable society.”
Nevertheless, Thurow did believe that more investment in public education was needed to make the U.S. economically competitive.
It would take the international Occupy Movement of 2011-2012 to shout out a point that Thurow was trying to draw attention to as a public intellectual: Growing inequality is here with benefits flowing to the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Thurow, however, believed that capitalism itself was capable of reform whereas the Occupy Movement understood that the capitalism itself was bankrupt for most of the planet’s population.
The ignoring of the Sanders campaign by mainstream media is symptomatic of an aversion to anything but making the wealthy wealthier. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting observed, for example, how the Washington Post on March 6-7 ran an astounding 16 negative articles on Sanders!
The U.S. has a long history of suppressing activists on the Left who question and challenge the supposed benefits of capitalism when so few share in the profits generated – and Bernie Sanders is now facing those same forces for having dared to make socialism a respectable alternative to the survival-of-the-wealthiest model of capitalism. Although Thurow may have been uneasy with some of the proposals by Sanders, Sanders would likely agree with Thurow’s statement on capitalism and democracy:
“To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not."
At a recent South Carolina fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton, “Black Lives Matter” activist Ashley Williams called on Clinton to explain her 1996 statement that
there are certain “kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators.' No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
Clinton advanced this view as a school-to-prison pipeline was fueling a skyrocketing incarceration rate in the U.S., which remains unmatched internationally today.
Although after the encounter with Ashley Williams, Clinton later stated that the descriptor “super-predatory” was a poor choice of words. Clinton in fact was actually repeating a trope that lacked evidence and was circulated by a conservative, Christian fundamentalist political science professor. Diversity and Education: A Critical Multicultural Approach offered this background:
Political science professor John Dilulio (1995), a driving force behind this assertion, proudly announced, “No one in academia is a bigger fan of incarceration than I am. Between 1985 and 1991 the number of juveniles in custody increased from 49,000 to nearly 58,000. By my estimate, we will probably need to incarcerate at least 150,000 juvenile criminals in the years just ahead. In deference to public safety, we will have little choice but to pursue genuine get-tough law-enforcement strategies against the super-predators .”
What was Professor Dilulio’s arm-chair assessment for the supposed existence of “super-predators”? Dilulio concluded that the basic cause of juvenile crime was due to “moral poverty” and that the solution was the Judeo-Christian tradition because “churches can help cure or curtail many severe socioeconomic ills.” A 2014 analysis revealed, however, that from 1994 to 2011, murders committed by young people actually declined by two-thirds during Dilulio’s predicted rise.
Unfortunately for the lives of millions of young people, due to this 1990s mainstream narrative of youthful criminals as “super-predators,” nearly every state passed laws that permitted a child arrested for certain crimes to be tried as an adult. The repercussions continue to be felt today by young people of color in their schools and neighborhoods.
The real “moral poverty” Dilulio identified actually existed within himself and within the political class that used such anti-Black dog-whistling rhetoric to garner votes by creating a false enemy at the expense of young people. “Moral poverty” does exist, though; it just happens it’s on Wall Street and within the refusal of the governing class to rein in the 1% while throwing crumbs to the poor, struggling middle-class families, and public schools and universities.
In case any of us missed it, four White people continue to “occupy” Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon. This so-called “occupation” should not be confused with the Occupy Movement, which drew attention to economic inequality for 99% of population and is now connected to the rise in popularity of Bernie Sanders.
The wildlife refuge “occupiers,” however, are very unlikely supporters of Sanders’ presidential aspirations. Instead, these self-proclaimed “patriots” are more closely aligned with the 1% in their self-interested private goal to open up protected public lands for ranchers to graze their livestock wherever desired. Not totally surprising, the anti-government rhetoric of the militias at Malheur can be traced to the long reach of the billionaire Koch brothers.
For a moment, let’s consider the label “patriots” that Malheur invaders gave themselves. Stepping back in history – way back – maybe they are patriots in the sense that they are continuing a colonial project to remove any Native American indigenous claims to their ancestral lands. The ideology of patriotism has its origins in patriarchy and signals to male citizens to unite for the patria, or fatherland. As one of the “occupiers” put it, “The only way to win a war is to kill enough of the enemy that they do not want to fight anymore.” The colonial war continues for these patriots.
As nearly anyone living in the settler colonies of the United States and Canada knows by simply looking around and noticing the near absence of any large pockets of indigenous populations, the “patriotic” colonial wars were quite effective. Even the U.S. Senate has acknowledged this:
“Since the first European settlers arrived on this continent, Indians have lost 97 percent of their land and their population has been decimated by military assaults and fatal disease. These attacks were also designed to rob Indians of their very identity, pushing them to relinquish their language, arts and religion.”
Canada for its part admitted last year through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that government and religious boarding schools for Indigenous children resulted in “cultural genocide.”
One aspect of patriotism involves asserting imperial authority and status over other people and their lands. Living in an empire, we can find plenty of modern examples of this kind of patriotism: military excursions into Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and a very long list of covertly overthrown elected governments who disagree with U.S. foreign policy and the interests of the 1%. For the armed militias at Malheur, patriotism serves as a settler-colony “just war” to defend their families from a federal government they consider illegitimate and to secure lands they believe belong to them.
For more than 800 years Christian doctrine proclaimed, according to British scholar Andrew Vincent, “the religious duty of citizens was to render themselves vulnerable to death for their patria.” Maybe that is how these patriots religiously understand themselves. As of today, the remaining four militias members have spent 40 days and 40 nights at Malheur, a figure that appears frequently in the Christian Bible to signify troubling times of hardship.
Rather than writing off the Malheur militias as crazies, best to see them in a context of history and current anti-federal government politics. For now, though, I’ll hold off to another day to further place this event within what the Europeans originally meant when they “discovered” a geographic location new to them, such as what is today the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
As you may recall, last July a White Texas state trooper pulled over Sandra Bland, a Black woman, on bogus grounds and became enraged when she refused to stop smoking a cigarette (“Sandra Bland and Smoking While Black”). Based on video evidence of the encounter, the trooper was indicted this week on charges of perjury, a misdemeanor. The county judge still needs to issue a warrant for the officer’s arrest so the case can proceed through the judicial system.
Within three days of her arrest, Sandra Bland sadly and unnecessarily died on July 13 in her Texas jail cell from a reported “suicide.” A grand jury investigating her jailhouse death failed to bring indictments against any of the jailers. This was despite evidence that the jailers clearly did not follow required basic protocol for a detainee about whom they had health concerns.
During just the past decade an estimated 4,200 people in Texas have died while in police custody or incarcerated. At the national level no accurate governmental database currently exists to document how many people of color die in police custody. This stems in part by lack of enforcement of iterations of the ‘‘Death in Custody Reporting Act.” This Congressional bill has seen a number of revisions over the years but essentially depends on the states to accurately collect data and report it to the Feds. This somewhat voluntary system has yet to yield valid information.
The U.S. Department of Justice attempts to compile data just on numbers of people who die while in the custody of local jails or state prisons, not necessarily those who die due to the actions of police. In 2012, for example, the DOJ reported that 4,309 inmates died across the U.S. while imprisoned. Between 2000 & 2012 local jails alone averaged 900-1,000 inmate deaths annually.
The Black Lives Matter social justice movement and continuing national attention to racial injustices has put the spotlight on the cozy relationship between county prosecutors and local police. Without this movement’s pressure it is unlikely that this rural county in Texas with a known history of racism would have bothered to investigate any aspect of Bland’s arrest and death. Only now is the nation attending to its colonial legacy: According to the 1705 Virginia Slave code, the death of a Black person by a White would be as if it “had never happened.” In the end, these charges against the state trooper in the case of Sandra Bland are a relative judicial slap on the hand if carried out to the maximum in comparison to the actual criminality of the officer in arresting Bland in the first place.
[Note: Look forward to learning how other colleges, governing bodies, and community groups are responding...MV]
A voice vote was taken on the statement below at the December 9, 2015, meeting of the Evergreen State College Faculty and passed by overwhelming yes vote with one abstention.
We, members of the faculty at The Evergreen State College, are deeply troubled by the extreme intolerance of the present political scene in the United States. Particularly worrisome are some of the demagogic, hateful and openly racist statements emerging from the field of Presidential candidates, echoed by members of Congress, governors, and other officials. In recent months we have seen rhetorical slanders against Mexican immigrants, Muslims, refugees, Black Lives Matter activists, women, and even people with disabilities.
Recent attacks in Paris prompted discussion of closing mosques, mass surveillance, the creation of databases of refugees--and even a ban on all Muslim immigration to the US. Many governors demanded a ban on all immigration of Syrian refugees to the United States. One presidential candidate compared them to “rabid dogs.” Another has proposed that we kill the families of terrorists. Such inflammatory comments, appealing to deep-seated prejudice and fear, can only serve to degrade public discourse, weaken the defense of cherished civil liberties, and prepare the ground for authoritarianism and violence.
To combat these troubling developments, as part of our stated mission to further social justice, we at The Evergreen State College:
- Applaud the statement by Governor Jay Inslee welcoming Syrian refugees to the State of Washington. We further encourage an increase in the proposed number of those refugees allowed into the United States during this period of humanitarian crisis.
- Encourage, to the extent possible, our own Evergreen State College to be a part of the process of resettlement of these immigrants. We also endorse tuition support and an expedited admissions process to allow Syrian students to attend Evergreen.
- Condemn the wholesale scapegoating of members of the Islamic faith, and those of Middle Eastern ethnicity, because of the reprehensible acts of a few. We denounce the exploitation of public fears by political figures seeking to build support at the expense of whole groups of innocent people.
- Condemn the abusive political rhetoric against African Americans, Black Lives Matter activists, undocumented Mexican and other immigrants, people with disabilities, women, and others. We deplore this uncivil and intolerant discourse, and encourage our community members to publicly defend the rights and liberties of those under attack.
- Promote an ethics of welcome towards all refugees, recognizing their right to human dignity. We are also mindful that climate change, war, and economic crises will continue to produce migrations for a long time to come.
We welcome and echo this November 21 statement issued by the American Academy of Religion, the world’s largest scholarly society devoted to the critical study of religion:
The American Academy of Religion is deeply troubled by the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric in the United States and around the world. Hate speech and intemperate political discourse aimed at Muslims and other religious groups are opposed to the values of our learned society and to the most cherished commitments of American civic culture. We call on our members, other scholars of religion, and all Americans, to reject that divisive and dangerous speech and to reaffirm our shared commitment to a free and open society where all residents’ rights are recognized and protected.
Last week an Oklahoma City police officer was found guilty of sexually assaulting 13 Black women while he was on the job. The officer was finally brought to tears when the jury recommended 263 years in prison. Outside the courtroom, supporters of the women, as the New York Times put it, “updated an evocative phrase by emphasizing ‘Black women matter’.” Nevertheless, the all-White jury – yes, ALL, in a county that is 20% Black – acquitted the officer on 18 counts due to the questioning of the credibility of some of this rapist’s victims.
This case reflects a deep, racist history from the colonial era to the U.S. founding. For example, Thomas Jefferson made clear the value of slave women as wealth. In regards to how he valued his Black female slaves, he wrote, “I consider the labor of a breeding woman as no object” – that is, what her work or labor produced was not all that important. Then Jefferson goes on to state what he did find important: “that a child raised every 2 years of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man.” A prominent author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson clearly saw how economically valuable slaves and their offspring were to White property expansion.
Black women during the colonial era through much of the 20th century were cast by White dominant narratives as promiscuous and inviting rape, when in fact it is the legacy of White male slave owners who raped Black women with impunity. And, of course, such violations of Black women would never have had a day in court, especially with a White jury – which in the Oklahoma City case is a noteworthy shift in an all-White jury convicting a White police officer of any crime against people of color at all, let alone against Black women.
Into the 20th century we find President Woodrow Wilson praising the Ku Klux Klan, a historical lesson that became publicly debated last month in protests at Princeton University where Wilson had served as president. Wilson was enthusiastic about his old college buddy Thomas Dixon having his 1905 novel The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan made into the 1915 silent film The Birth of a Nation. Basically the book and movie as works of fiction presented freed male slaves as criminals who preyed on White women. This narrative contrasts with the actual historical actions of White males, especially those associated with the planter class, who raped and impregnated Black women and murdered Black males as if it had never happened.
Quoted in The Birth of a Nation is President Wilson who rationalized that KKK “began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action.” Projected in this film was the president’s quote that “white men were roused by the mere instinct of self-preservation…until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.” Wilson arranged for The Birth of a Nation to be the first film shown in the White House. In that film the KKK marches proudly past the White House.
At the height of the mid-1960s “War on Poverty,” Daniel Moynihan, as a U.S. Labor Department employee – and eventual Harvard professor, member of Congress, and U.S. ambassador – penned The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. According to Moynihan, the problem of poverty for millions of African Americans was not White racism that led to discrimination in housing and jobs – but Black women! Using a disease metaphor, Moynihan contended that a cultural feature, a “family pathology,” was a primary cause of intergenerational poverty. The identified source of the continuing culture of poverty was the Black female as head of household because “a matriarchal structure…seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole, and imposes a crushing burden on the Negro male.”
The trope of the Black female parent as a cause of social problems would later become prominent in President Reagan’s 1980s racializing discourse of mythic welfare queens. By our current decade this skewed narrative would expand into a “cultural commonsense created by rightwing race-baiting: lazy nonwhites abuse welfare, while hardworking whites pay for it,” according to Ian Haney López in his brilliant book Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class.
Meanwhile, the incarceration rate of Black women has been rising significantly during the past 20 years. Women are currently incarcerated at a rate of 1 out of every 56 women, but for Black women chances of incarceration are 1 in 19 in their lifetime, a ratio nearly 3 times that of white women. Added to all of this, incarceration is where women experience higher rates of sexual violence than men.
Law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw and her colleagues note that historically “Black female narratives were rendered partial, unrecognizable, something apart from the standard claims of race discrimination or gender discrimination” – a critically important point in calling continued attention to “Black Women Matter.”
It’s been 15 months since unarmed African American adolescent Michael Brown was killed by White Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson and the Lost Voices of Ferguson and the Black Lives Matter social justice movement forced national attention on America’s broken criminal justice system. Black Lives Matter continues to inspire numerous long-overdue social justice debates over public safety and criminal justice. In Are Prisons Obsolete? (2003), Angela Davis cautioned about the rhetoric of “reform”:
“Debates about strategies of decarceration, which should be the focal point of our conversations on the prison crisis, tend to be marginalized when reform takes the center stage.”
Professor Davis goes on to ask,
“How can we take seriously strategies of restorative rather than exclusively punitive justice?”
In light of Davis’s comments, the October 20th announcement by the police chiefs of major urban cities urging a reduction in incarcerations and arrests definitely got my attention. Historically, police organizations have vehemently opposed such policies. Speaking as co-chair of the national Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration, Chicago Police Chief Garry F. McCarthy reflectively shared,
“After all the years I’ve been doing this work, I ask myself, ‘What is a crime, and what does the community want?’ When we’re arresting people for low-level offenses — narcotics — I’m not sure we’re achieving what we’ve set out to do. The system of criminal justice is not supporting what the community wants.”
Like a post-structuralist, McCarthy found himself deconstructing the concept of crime and public safety. McCarthy’s reflection on “what is a crime?” captures what is understated in Diversity and Education:
“Worldviews differ on interpretations of what constitutes a crime and a just punishment.”
In their statement the police chiefs acknowledged the problem of arrests and incarceration of people who clearly need access to mental health services – rather than simply being thrown into jails and prisons. Yet, these police leaders left unanswered as to how funding would shift from incarceration to mental health services. Since the era of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, the U.S. has continued to reduce social services for the mentally ill. Instead, we’ve witnessed a growth of mentally-challenged individuals being homeless or incarcerated.
Besides the lack of publicly-funded mental health services to meet the reform aim of McCarthy and his organization, the growth of what Davis named as the prison-industrial complex must be addressed politically. In essence, the prison-industrial complex is where individuals profit off of incarceration. While McCarthy and the other police chiefs addressed the exorbitant cost to the public of incarceration, they are silent on the huge political clout that the for-profit prison industry holds over politicians in state and federal legislatures. That debate is yet to happen in a conservative political climate where mainstream economic policies continue to privilege profit over publicly-funded social services.
The recent student-recorded video of a White male police officer slamming a Black female adolescent sitting in her school desk to the floor while her classmates and teachers looked on grabbed the nation’s attention about the unproductive presence of police in schools. This past July Mother Jones magazine documented how police in schools (or by their Orwellian title, “School Resource Officers”) inflict horrendous and unnecessary injuries on young people.
This is not a new problem. Ten years ago the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) issued a comprehensive report about this problem (“Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline”). Similar to police violence dished out to unarmed civilians, cops in schools punish and arrest students of color at a disturbingly disproportionate rate –about which the American Civil Liberties Union issued warnings seven years ago. Students of color on the average are disproportionately criminalized for the same behavior exhibited by their White peers.
The rise of the carceral state since the Reagan and Clinton administrations mirrors the rise in the criminalization of normal youthful behavior/misbehavior – with lasting negative effects on life opportunities for arrested and incarcerated youth.
The numbers help tell the story. In the past 40 years the rate of school suspensions and expulsions have doubled. Diversity and Education documents that
“suspended or expelled students have 300% higher likelihood than their peers of having a direct experience with the juvenile justice system within 1 year… During the 2009–2010 academic year, California school administrators alone suspended 400,000 students.”
A 2013 New York Times article – “With Police in Schools, More Children in Court” – observed how the presence of police in schools is associated with
“a surge in arrests or misdemeanor charges for essentially non-violent behavior ... that sends children into criminal courts.”
Once in the juvenile criminal justice system, as noted in an earlier commentary (“‘Cruel and Unusual Punishment’ of Incarcerated Youth”), young people often suffer human rights violations.
Over the past four decades too many schools abandoned a focus on providing young people with counseling and on using other non-punitive methods to handle disciplinary complaints. Instead, public schools adopted a police-state strategy of law-and-order, a practice mirrored in the larger society that has resulted in the U.S. globally having the highest percentage of its population incarcerated.
With this most recent nationally circulated video and the growing research on the unproductive presence in of police in schools, we may begin to see policies that lead to the removal of all police from schools except under exceptional circumstances.