national Reviews: Another pictorial attack on Sotomayor

And this time, the image attack is on Latinas, Latinos and East Asians (I'm being kind, if not accurate, by allowing that the artist would distinguish between the various Asian groups. After all, the popular racist notion is that "they all look alike."

Vile.

The Huffington Post headline blares "National Review Perplexingly Depicts Sotomayor As Asian." The articles writer, Jason Linken, says, "It seems that the National Review has confused their ethnic stereotypes, or their religions, or maybe they just wanted some sort of two-fer, because their 'Wise Latina' cover story presents Sotomayor as an Asian, in some sort of Buddhist pose."

A vivirlatino.com blogger writes, "Ah yes, porque a Puerto Rican can’t be wise draped in a Puerto Rican flag, eating a bacalaito, and shaking her big ass. And anyway that would be a Puerto Rican stereotype. Much better to use an East Asian physical stereotype and Asian model minority/smart stereotype, no?"

No, er, I men, yes! :) Better for the National Review to use an East Asian physical and "model minority" stereotype -- or so their editors thought. I don't think those wise white men (heh:) at the National Review are confused at all. I think they're (not so) effortless genius is the product of trying to dodge cries of "racism" by relying on "Asian" stereotypes -- and not stereotypes of Latinas/Latinos, which -- since Sotomayor's nomination for Supreme Court Justice -- a slightly broader audience of people in the U.S. appear to more readily take issue with (Maybe I'm giving non-Latina/Latina folks in the U.S. far too much credit here -- I'd love some feedback on this particular assertion). I mean, you can't represent black presidents as escaped gorilla's that get murdered by white police officers and you can't portray black presidential hopefuls as cartoon figures in traditional Arab dress and their life partners as militants doing the "terrorist fist bump" without a white man's job being threatened:) though not stripped from him. At least, National Review editors appear to think that racial/ethnic stereotypes of East Asians won't ruffle as many feathers. So, why not go with buddhist imagery! Makes total sense. Not. Generally speaking, I don't think most non-East Asian, non-Chinese, non-South Asian, and Central Asian folk living in the U.S. take offense to racist, sexist (etc.,) stereotypes of the aforementioned groups. Whereas, an obviously minstrelized depiction of a popular African American figure would elicit ire and intense criticism, minstrelized imagery of various Asian groups (as well as Middle Eastern, Muslim, Arab, and indigenous/Native American groups) would not lead most folks to bat an eyelid.

(I made up the word "minstrelized" :) Let me define minstrelsy for you -- or rather, I'll let Global Oneness define "minstrelsy" for you:)

"Popular entertainment perpetuated the racist stereotype of the uneducated, ever-cheerful, and highly musical black well into the 1950s....

Minstrel-show characters played a powerful role in shaping assumptions about African Americans. However, unlike vehemently anti-black propaganda from the time, minstrelsy made this attitude palatable to a wide audience by couching it in the guise of well intentioned paternalism.^[64] Black Americans were in turn expected to uphold these stereotypes, or else risk white retaliation. Some were even killed for defying their minstrelsy-defined roles. Louis Wright, himself a black minstrel, died after being lynched and having his tongue cut out for cursing at some whites who had thrown snowballs at him.^[65]"

Allow me to further support my claims:) about the widespread indifference with which racist portrayals of Arab peoples, Muslims, and indigenous/Native American people are met:

1) A popular, crude and staggeringly racist stereotype of indigenous/Native American people:

The Cleveland Indians logo.

I mean -- seriously. I know how pervasive, insidious, and unexamined racism is by most white people -- but I still have a hard time believing that anyone -- even white folks:) -- could successfully convince themselves and then argue that this image is not racist and offensive, mainly to the group it targets. But, then again, the people who defend these types of images don't care about the views, feelings, or history of the groups that call for the abolition of them (this link presents you with an opportunity to sign a petition demanding the removal of the Cleveland Indians logo). And there is PLENTY of money to be made on people's indifference, lack of empathy, and conscious and unconscious and unexamined racism.

2) A MadTV skit -- brought to you by FOX Television! -- mocking Al Jazeera, a major news network, and important news source, owned and operated by Arab people for people in the Arab World:

Wow. This one hurts my heart. And my gut. Arab caricatures chanting "Death to America" and MadTV's actors in blackface! God help us. ("blackface" is defined and discussed here). 

3) Which is not to say that racist stereotypes of blacks and Latinas/Latinos aren't abound in the cultural mainstream -- they are -- and they are also routinely ignored -- by white folks and people of color, including blacks and Latinas/Latinos themselves, who occasionally are the creators of said images.

Tyler Perry's beloved Madea films are a fine example of that which I speak. Here's a clip from Madea Goes to Jail:

There's a lot more I could say about films like these that are made by black artists, do well in the box office with a multi-racial audience, provide opportunities for black actors and other black professionals in a white dominated entertainment industry, while also mobilizing racist stereotypes. The subject is a complex one. For brevity's sake, I will save that discussion for a separate blog post:)

Then there's Hancock:

Racialicious.com's Latoya Peterson entitles her blog critique of this film: "Will Smith: Flip-Flop wearing, Alcoholic, White-Woman Chasing [Black] Superhero?" So, yeah, the films got its problems:)

And Tropic Thunder:

Actually, make that "fuck me." 

Cuz that's what this film does -- it discursively bends black folks over, and forces us to take it in the rear quite non-consensually.

I hate this fucking film. A festival of white racism in blackface packaged as post-racial, hipster cool that excessively wealthy white men used to get even wealthier. Fuck that. 

But this blog started with a discussion of the National Review cover caricaturing Sotomayor and her statement that "I [Sonia Sotomayor] would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."  The white boys really hate that one:) Her words should remind us where this all started for the Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's, and Bill O'Reilly's of the world. She -- this proud, brilliant, successful Latina -- pissed these white boys off. They and their fraternity of followers -- which include white women and a few folks of color -- are, subsequently, using their institutional power in the government and media to heap racist and sexist attacks on her.

As I've said before. She will be nominated. The Supreme Court's politics, and thus, the Court's verdicts and role in making federal policy will change. White supremacy, and it's footsoldiers -- however wealthy they are -- will not and cannot stop that.

Why is it important to identify, critique/discuss, and actively work to purge such imagery from the U.S.'s cultural, social, political and economic spheres?

Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology, provides a useful response to this question in a text he provided the Jim Crow Museum (an online source): "1) during the period of Jim Crow, 1877-1965, racist images of Blacks permeated American society as evidenced by the proliferation of anti-Black everyday items; 2) anti-Black caricatured items were used to support anti-Black prejudice and discrimination; and, 3) Jim Crow-like images are still being created and distributed."

It is useful to substitute Pilgrim's reference to "racist images of blacks" with a more general reference to "racist images of people of color" -- and his racially specific reference to "anti-black" imagery and prejudice with a racially specific reference to "anti-Latino/a" or "anti-Asian" or "anti-Arab" (etc) imagery and prejudice.

Racist images of people of color and prejudice against people of color is ubiquitous in U.S. society as is "evidenced by the proliferation" of everyday racist items that attack East Asians, the Chinese, South Asians, Central Asians, Middle Eastern peoples, indigenous/Native American groups, Latinas/Latinos, and blacks.

Racist images against people of color is used to sustain white supremacy/institutional racism (ex. a U.S. prison system teeming with black bodies -- dependent on the constant influx of black bodies, which is ensured by racial profiling, racist arrests and sentencing; schools legally segregated class -- since the 1960s abolition of Jim Crow laws -- which has created schools segregated by race), discriminatory practices against people of color (ex. racist hiring practices), and violence against people of color (ex. police shootings/legal lynchings of people of color).

Another high-tech lynching: Sonia Sotomayor cartoon

When I first saw this image -- originally published here, at The Oklahoman, about a day ago -- I was pissed. 

Just pissed because, you know, blatant, unapologetic racism is unsurprising. Another white cop shot a black cop last week Thursday night -- my gut and my mind are still meditating on that tragedy.

But then I looked at it again. And you know what -- isn't this exactly what Republican politicians, their supporters, and the neo-conservative media is doing to Sotamayor right now. 

Isn't this exactly what the Republican gang in congress will do to her at her confirmation hearing. 

Won't they rhetorically lynch her -- like FOX News has done constantly since Obama nominated her.

So, this image, like so many others we've seen since Obama became a serious contender for presidential office, represents something very real -- though much denied -- for Obama's opponents, for Sotomayor's opponents -- for those white folks that believe their rights, their power, is being stripped away by the scurge of Affirmative Action -- by deluded white liberals and deluded liberals of color who have downed too much of that subliminally socialist liberal kool-aid.

This image is another ugly birthchild of white supremacist thinking and behavior.

Lynch the bitch.

Lynch her in print. Lynch her with words. Beat the shit out of her in our racist imagination because we can't do it for real. Not like in the old days. When you could lynch her for real. So lynch her now, in this way, and make her family, her supporters, and everyone that looks like her watch. Make them as uncomfortable -- as sorry, sad, scared, and angry -- as we are. Because we (think we) are losing control.

Well, they -- the wealthy neo-conservative white male oligarchy -- is losing some control.

And I, for one, am not angry or scared (for once:). I do feel sorry and sad.

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed. She will be the first Latina, and third woman, to serve as a Supreme Court judge. Some things are changing.

So, mostly, I am ecstatic. Because her appointment is a big deal:) Sotomayor will be in a position to help make institutional changes as part of a Court that has been predominantly conservative/Republican -- before she occupies a seat on it, that is.

Please contact The Oklahoman or call them at  (405) 475-3311, and tell them what you think about their cartoonist's depiction of Sotomayor's upcoming confirmation hearing.

Ask them, "What's up with white Republican's and their nostalgic urge to throw lynching parties?" 

Thanks to Feministing, I know that the Oklahoma Women's Network Blog has more to say here.

Also: Because of my blog's format, which I can't figure out how to change, the cartoon is partially cut off. The crude and arguably racist representation of Obama (a sombrero for goodness sakes?) is saying,"Now who wants to be first."

Killer cops: racist patterns

This is Officer Omar Edwards, his partner/wife, and two beautiful children.


A few nights ago, Officer Edwards -- off-duty, and therefore, plainclothed -- sprinted down a street in Harlem, NY -- gun in hand. He pursued a man who had just broken into his car.

"'Police, drop the gun!" [Officer Andrew] Dunton yelled. Edwards stopped about 15 feet away from them and - without a word - turned to face the three cops," who were also plainclothed.

That's when Dunton opened fire six times [at Edwards], officials said."

Three of the bullets Dunton fired pierced Edwards' body... he died in a hospital bed the following night.

Dunton and two other officers had pursued Edwards. All three men said that Edwards looked like a criminal.

He was plainclothed.

He was running down the street.

He had a gun in his hand.

He was black.

What else could he be?

And the officer who gunned him down... he is white.

"The [New York Police] [D]epartment was investigating whether the officers had identified themselves or demanded that Officer Edwards drop his weapon before Officer Dunton opened fire."

As a civilian -- I am left wondering a myriad of things. Even if Dunton hadn't said he was an officer -- and he damn well should have. But even if he didn't. Even if Dunton didn't tell Edwards to drop his weapon -- why did Dunton fire his gun six times? Why not five times? 

(Was it the sixth bullet that killed him?)

Why didn't Dunton stop firing after the first bullet hit Edwards? Or the second? I mean... am I supposed to believe -- is the public supposed to believe -- that Edwards did not fall after being shot once? Are we supposed to believe that Edwards, a police officer, would not have lowered his gun or dropped his gun before Dunton shot him? That is -- if Dunton truly did tell Edwards that he was a police officer. 

Or is it possible that Dunton shot Edwards without warning him. Or shot Edwards in the back as he ranaway. I mean -- why else would Dunton have had cause to shoot a person? What could Edwards have possibly done to give a police officer a reason to shoot him -- if he, in fact, knew that the person confronting him was a police officer -- and that confronting officer had a gun... wouldn't Edwards comply with the officers demand to relinquish his weapon?

Critics of those who ask questions like these will say that people like myself can't understand what it's like to be a police officer. A police officer in a life and death situation. A police officer has seconds -- or less than that -- to decide what to do. To save lives. To save themselves.

“Rest assured we will find out exactly what happened here and see what we can learn from it so it can never happen again,” said Republican Mayor Bloomberg (and eight richest man in the United States, by the way -- which makes him the richest man in New York City -- a net worth of 16 billion . Why the hell is mayor?! Doesn't he have a software company to run! Damn). "The only thing that can come out of this is to improve procedures so perhaps it doesn't happen again."

We will find out exactly what happened.

And see what we can learn from it.

So it can never happen again.

Well -- let me save you a bit of time, worry and intellectual labor Mr. Bloomberg. The thing that exactly happened -- that "we" can learn from so it never happens again -- is a thing that black parents teach their black boy and girl children about. A thing that black people, like myself, already know -- cuz if we didn't -- we might get shot by a police officer making a routine traffic stop -- and we are the driver or passengers of that car -- and we reach for a drivers license, or car insurance, or registration -- or anything. If we reach for anything under that police officer's gaze without moving carefully and telling that white officer what we are doing every half-inch we move -- we could get shot.

"[U.S. Representative Charles] Rangel [a Democrat and a black man] apologized this week for an earlier comment about President Barack Obama needing to be careful when visiting Harlem, apparently alluding to the shooting. He was answering a reporter's question about what Obama should do when he visited the city Saturday with the first lady.

Good point, Rangel! And damn good advice.

So, most of us black folks have our Ph.D. in how to avoid getting shot, beaten, arrested or harassed by police officers -- Still, in spite of our Ph.D.'s on how to survive living in a white supremacist society that is guarded and defended by gun-toting, baton wielding, predominantly white male police force that is always acquitted for murdering innocent unarmed civilians, since  the 1970s, an unknown number of us unarmed black folks have been murdered by police officers -- and thousands upon thousands of us have been beaten -- millions of us arrested and harassed. (Please note: A 1994 Crime Control Act requires the Attorney General and police departments to publish statistics on police shootings but police departments don't cooperate -- and neither the Attorney General, or the State Department to which the Attorney General belongs, or the federal government that houses it try to force police departments to cooperate.

Historian Fox Butterfield says, "This lack of accurate statistics makes it virtually impossible...to draw meaningful, big-picture conclusions about deadly encounters between the police and the civilian population, including the fatal shooting...of an unarmed black man in Cincinnati [2001], an incident that incited days of violent protests and vandalism. Without a national barometer, there is no conclusive way to determine whether this or other incidents around the country — like those involving Amadou Diallo in New York [1999] and Rodney King in Los Angeles [1991] — represent racially based police misconduct, or any kind of trend at all.")

So, that thing that more white folks should learn about in order for black folks -- the ones with and without badges -- to avoid  being "unjustifiably" murdered -- that thing, that lesson is about unconscious or conscious white racism. Specifically, the way in which conscious and unconscious white racist fantasies or ideas about people of color -- can make a white person a murderer -- and make a black or brown person dead. 

There are scientists who have tried to measure it -- measure that thing that makes white people shoot at innocent black people. They've done studies. They learned that white folks and black folks will shoot at a black person quicker than they will shoot at a white person. Interesting, huh. And get this, when the target was black, more white folks will pull the trigger even quicker  than black folks did. No matter who the shooter is, then, black criminals will die a lot quicker than white criminals. Of course, black innocents will also die a lot quicker than white innocents.  Though, a black/brown person's chances are about 75% better if the person aiming at them is black. Comforting isn't it. I have yet to read or hear about an unarmed white person being gunned down by police officers.

The world is safe!

Well, actually, the white world is safe.

The white world is safe from all black people -- criminal and non-criminal -- because white folks are far more likely to shoot down a negro -- whether they are breaking the law or not -- simply because the person pulling the trigger is white -- and the person who is getting shot at is black.

So, rest easy.

Unless you're black.

Then you fuckin' have to worry about walkin' around -- day or night -- inside the peripheral vision of a white police officer or any white person, for that matter, with a deadly weapon.

Cuz if you're black, you just may not make it home.

This story began with Officer Omar Edwards. A newly married, young father of two children -- one child less than  year old; the other child just over a year old. 

God.

"My son is dead, my son is dead," Edwards' heartbroken mother, Natalia Harding, told a friend while she held her son's babies. "They killed my son."

Officer Edwards isn't the first black officer to be murdered by a fellow officer -- a fellow white officer. The Rev. Al Sharpton said that there was "a growing pattern of black officers being killed with the assumption that they are the criminals.”

A pattern of murders.

In January 2008, a [black] Mount Vernon officer, Christopher A. Ridley, 23, was killed by [a white] Westchester County...[Officer Frank Oliveri] in downtown White Plains as he tried to restrain a homeless man whom he had seen assault another person." According to a lawsuit filed against Oliveri, the Westchester D.A. and other Westchester officials, Oliveri shot Ridley in the head at point-blank range, and then subsequently, hid Ridley's badge in his car.

And in February 2006, a New York City officer, Eric Hernandez [Latino], 24, was fatally shot by...[white] fellow officer, Daryl Massey, 26,] while responding to a 911 call about a fight at a White Castle restaurant in the Bronx."

A pattern of white police officers subconscious? unconscious? conscious? racism manifesting as lethal violence against black police officers.

So, even if -- technically -- you are on the "right" side of the law -- the "white" side of the law -- you're still a target for racist police violence. 

You know... if it's dark. 

Or if it's light. 

And if your gun's unholstered.

 Or if your gun is holstered.

And if you're running down the street. 

Or if you're walking down the street. 

If you're black. 

If you're brown.

Then you just might be fucking dead.

Because sometimes.

White cops can't distinguish between black cops, brown cops --

And criminals.

If you're one of these un-fuckin' lucky black cops. Or brown cops. Then your  family is stripped -- suddenly -- of a father. A brother. A son...

You're gone. And they are grieving. Forever.

Stinkfist

On my way back to you... :)

Police murders. Don't stop.

Why Tool? Cuz I felt like it:)

"Tell me that you love me and that we belong together"

More Than a Turkey: U.S. American holocaust denial & "Thanksgiving" day

As you well know yesterday was "Thanksgiving Day."

Yet another way in which -- another day on which -- U.S. Americans do not acknowledge the present-day existance as well as the historical resistance and inordinate suffering of people indigenous to the "Americas."

Since college, on every "Thanksgiving Day," (and Columbus Day), I remember the historical genocidal campaign against people indigenous to "the Americas."

When a well-meaning person wishes me a "Happy Thanksgiving" -- the massacre the mass murder, mass rape, and wholesale land theft committed against indigenous people by so called European "settlers" between the late 1400s and late 1700s -- a genocidal campaign continued by the U.S. government after the "American Revolution" (or "American War of Independence") established it in 1783 -- a genocidal project that culminated in the murder of unarmed Lakota in 1890 at Wounded Knee.

(**I place the term "American War of Independence" in quotes because that war DID NOT translate into independence for everyone -- that was never the war's aim (so why not give it a more honest title... like the "American War to Become the Leaders of Genocide and Slavery," for example). The so called "American War of Independence" did not stop the U.S. government's efforts to supress/repress/entirely strip formal recognition of indigenous people's freedoms and land claims. The so called "American War of Independence" also left slavery intact -- and, in fact, put more concrete, legal protections in place to ensure its continuance in the U.S. Constitution, for example. The so called vision of independence driving this U.S. War did not include extending the francise (voting rights) to white women and poor white & European immigrant men (until president Andrew Jackson recognized their voting rights in the early decades of the 1800s. Granting poor white & Euro. immigrant men a measure of white privilege must be why Jackson's face is on the U.S.'s $20 dollar bill -- and himself was a merciless and vigorous leader of the holocaust against people indigenous to "the Americas"). Nor did the so called "American War of Independence recognize the voting rights and civil rights of "free"(not enslaved) women and men of color. In short, the "American War of Independence" was a military campaign to wrest power from British coloniasts over white U.S. American men -- so that wealthy white U.S. American men could take the place of British imperialists.)

Returning to the subject of Wounded Knee as part and parcel of the U.S. American genocide project:

At Wounded Knee, writes Tim Giago, "...nearly 300 of...[Lakota] relatives were shot to death in cold blood by the enlisted men and officers of the 7th Cavalry. Ironically, 21 members of the 7th Cavalry were awarded Medals of Honor for this horrific slaughter of women and children....

On December 29, 1890, my grandmother, Sophie, was a 17-year-old student at the Holy Rosary Indian Mission, a Jesuit boarding school just a few miles from Wounded Knee. She was called out with the rest of the students to feed and water the horses of the soldiers of the 7th Cavalry that had just rode on to the mission grounds chasing down survivors that had escaped the slaughter. My grandmother recalled seeing blood on their uniforms and she overheard them bragging about the mighty victory they had just scored at Wounded Knee."

I offer this perspective on "Thanksgiving Day" to my students -- they almost always respond with silence. I always wonder what they are thinking. How many of them, I wonder, think I'm crazy and/or an asshole for suggesting that they reject observance of this national holiday. How many of them don't know what to think, but in the end, settle on denial as the most favorable choice. I know that at least a few of them embrace the view -- and at least one of them told me recently that he read a blog that said words like "settlement," "expansion" and "removal" (as in "Indian Removal," for example) mask/conceal the true nature -- the essential reallity -- of the events to which they refer: centuries of genocide -- a holocaust of indigenous people in which ordinary people of all races and national origins -- that is, our ancestors -- directly and indirectly participated in/ carried out and/or directly and indirectly benefited from.

A holocaust that you and I continue to benefit from in the present day.

As the homes in which we sleep, the shopping malls we visit, the schools we attend, the churches in which we worship, the parks in which we picnic rests on stolen land...

Land soaked in the blood of indigenous people that resisted genocide --- a land on which a fraction of that population continue to unconsciously resist just by surviving and consciously resist through the unrelenting pursuit of social, political and economic justice (-- an estimated 90% of the indigenous population depleted as a result of European/U.S. American genocide).

So, most of the time -- I tell the person who wishes me "Happy Thanksgiving" that I'm not into the "Thanksgiving" thing and I offer a quick explanation of why that is -- I can't celebrate national denial of mass murder, mass rape and land theft in the form of a holiday and a family meal -- I mean think about that...

WTF??

A celebration of food and family where one gives thanks for benefits reaped from mass murder, mass rape and land theft??

Another blogger declared, "Happy Thanksgiving! Pass the genocide gravy."
(I'm not feeling the representation of indigenous people in this cartoon but I appreciate the point of the blog post)

Most of the time, the person will reply to me by saying something to the effect of "yeah, I know, that's why I just 'give thanks' for family (etc etc)"

For many years the aforementioned response from these good people sat well with me. For a few years I may have even uttered a version of those words mySelf.

This year, though.. I finally got it (or came close to getting it).

The very act of asserting one's ability to ignore or overlook or attempt to overcome. the centuries of atrocities the "Thanksgiving Holiday" commemorates and denies and commercializes -- is the very manifestation of the privileges wrought by the near annihilation of indigenous people.

Fuck that -- you can keep that Kool-Aid.

Yesterday, I wondered (just as I have many times before) -- what do indigenous people living on and off reservations do on "Thanksgiving Day"... do they give thanks? If yes, what do they give thanks for?

Tim Wise's superb blog post addresses the subject of U.S. American holocaust denial from another angle here.

Israeli high school students imprisoned for refusing to join Israeli army

SIGN A PETITION TO FREE THEM

& Read more here:

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

The imprisoned youth are refusing to join Israel's army -- the military force used to occupy Palestine (unofficially since the post-WWI era/1918 and officially since 1948, the year the state of Israel was established), and thus, continue the history of depriving Palestinians of their rightful claim to their ancestral lands; supress its independence movement by depriving innocent civilian children, women and men of food, water, and fuel (more on this issue); and to commit other horrific acts of violence against Palestinians.
(After World War I, the British government/British imperialists literally gave Palestine to European Jews -- a clearly unjust political act that is the source of the violence in the region to this day).

****

****
A quote from one of the jailed Israeli youth:

[unable to upload pic]

Name: Omer Goldman

Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel

Age: 19

“I believe in service to the society I am part of, and that is precisely why I refuse to take part in the war crimes committed by my country. Violence will not bring any kind of solution, and I shall not commit violence, come what may.”

If you believe these young people should not be jailed for refusing to fight in an imperial war -- a war that perpetuates the Israeli government's history of depriving Palestinians of rights to their ancestral lands, full citizenship rights, and the right to live free of armed government aggression

SIGN A PETITION TO FREE THEM & Read more here:
http://december18th.org/

Name: Raz Bar-David Varon

Location: not given

Age: 18

"I wasn’t born to serve as a soldier who occupies another, and the struggle against the occupation is mine too. It is a struggle for hope, for a reality that sometimes feels so far away. I have a responsibility for this society. My responsibility is to refuse.”

Varon calls the Israeli soldiers terrorists because they:

-- dro[p] bombs on people in Gaza or on the West Bank from his fighter plane;
-- demolishes homes;
-- shoo[t] at people and sows fear and enmity;
-- enforc[e] a tyrannical, undemocratic military regime;
-- rul[e] over (nearly) all aspects of the lives of three and a half million Palestinian men and women;
-- stan[d] guard at the army checkpoints which seriously limit Palestinians’ freedom of movement;
-- ente[r] people’s homes (with state permission) in order to conduct searches at any hour of the day or night;

-- humiliat[e], at a whim and unsupervised, old people, children, men and women...

p.s. :) Varon's gender is not given -- I'm guessin' this person is "family;" if not, this person does gender-nonconformity very well.

p.s.s. My teaching related workload has has had me singularly occupied since my last blog -- I won't be able to blog much (or perhaps, at all) until mid-December. will blog regularly after this date -- so visit again soon!

1st Black president kills racism dead?

From Michael Eric Dyson's "Race, post race

Barack Obama's historic victory represents a quantum leap in the racial progress of the United States." 

Please read the full text here.

"Contrary to many critics, his [Obama's] election does not, nor should it, herald a post-racial future. But it may help usher in a post-racist future. A post-racial outlook seeks to delete crucial strands of our identity; a post-racist outlook seeks to delete oppression that rests on hate and fear, that exploits cultural and political vulnerability. Obama need not cease being a black man to effectively govern, but America must overcome its brutal racist past to permit his gifts, and those of other blacks, to shine.

Our belief in Obama must become contagious; it must spread and become a belief in other blacks who have been quarantined in racial stereotype. Regarding Obama as an exceptional black man -- when he is in fact an exceptional American -- hampers our whole nation's desire to clear the path to success for more like him. Obama is not the first black American capable of being president; he's the first black American who got the chance to prove it.

We should not be seduced by the notion that Obama's presidency signals the end of racism, the civil rights movement, the struggle for black equality or the careers of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. A President Obama would not have come to be without the groundbreaking efforts of Shirley Chisholm, [black woman who sought the Democratic nomination in 1972, first black woman elected to Congress] and especially Jackson. Obama is able to be cool and calm because leaders like Sharpton, at least in the past, got angry.

Obama is likewise the beneficiary of Frederick Douglass' eloquence and sense of struggle, Booker T. Washington's self-reliant uplift, W.E.B. Du Bois' brilliant unmasking of racial hierarchy, Mary McLeod Bethune's imperishable desire for education, Ella Baker's tactical and strategic energy, Malcolm X's will to literary reinvention and Martin Luther King Jr.'s soaring oratory and ultimate sacrifice.

Obama is the latest link in the chain of progress they all forged in the struggle to improve the U.S. by improving the condition of black folk. Obama will move in exactly the opposite direction: As president, he will improve the condition of black folk because he improves the nation. That is a sign of his calling as a national leader, not a black leader. Or, in the adjectival way we measure racial progress, Obama is not a black president, but a president who's black.

As a black man, I feel indescribable elation and pride to be an American on this day. Black folk have told our children a useful lie in the past: They could be anything their minds and talents permitted them to be, even president. Now we can stop lying and start working to make sure that Obama is only the first of many more -- presidents, astronauts, governors, senators, theoretical physicists, baseball commissioners, NASCAR drivers, Olympic swimmers or whatever other pursuit we can dare to imagine.

One of the greatest effects of Obama's becoming the most powerful man in the world is the incalculable psychic boost it gives young black egos that take shape in the glare of TV screens that project his face and words around the globe. But the real miracle may be that Obama's presidency persuades Americans to take for granted that a talented black person, if trusted, can do a great deal of good for the country. Even before he swears his oath of office, Obama has served the nation in heroic fashion."

Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of sociology at Georgetown University, is the author of many books, including "Holler If You Hear Me," "Is Bill Cosby Right?" and "I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King Jr."