The DISH
Unbossed and unbought
news and information you can use
Vol. 14 No. 3…Dedicated to the Dialogue on
Race…January 17, 2011
A History of Violence
By John Burl Smith
Born of the violence of a
revolution declared by a preamble that proclaimed equality and unalienable
rights that gave all access to 
life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the United States of America retreated
from that pledge as it established a Constitution with laws that defined for
whom and how the promise of that violence would actually play out in the lives
of its citizens. These were violent times and one needed to bear arms not only
to defend the young nation but their individual person; so that right was
preserved by the new constitution. However, all blessings of liberty were not
extended to all who bled in the violent revolution that gave life to the new
nation. The Founding Fathers denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
to what had already become a sizable population of slaves and Native people
whose land had been confiscated.
The Constitution enacted in 1789
was a document dedicated to insuring white supremacy by designating slaves -
so-called 'others' - and their descendants as 3/5 of white men, a status that
drove a violent divide through the hearts of the people and sent the young
nation spiraling toward Civil War just 71 years later. The underpinning of white
supremacy established by the Constitution evolved into a credo of genocide
known as Manifest Destiny. This self-righteous ordination justified the
slaughter of millions of Native people in order to possess their resource rich
land. Unwilling to share so vast a continent with others except as slaves, the
young nation welcomed Europeans to enter its golden door, while offering only
racism, discrimination, lynching and a hostile environment laden with violence
to slave descendants and Native people still languishing as second class
citizens.
The transition from the
nineteenth to the twentieth century was marked by the re-enslavement of African
Americans and the near annihilation of the rightful owners of the land. This
was a time, beginning in the 1890s, of involuntary servitude primarily for
black men and women, who were sold as convict laborers by southern state and
county officials into a life of indefinite hard labor to private factories,
farms, mills, mines and plantation prison camps. Unlike slaves, who had value
as private property, convicts belonged to no one, consequently they were
expendable.
Perpetually chained, starved, ill-clothed, worked and beaten mercilessly with
little to no healthcare, blacks resided in a painful state where hell was a
reprieve. This netherworld, devoid of rights, was created by state law and
sanctioned by the
Whites reclaimed power following
the Civil War and Reconstruction through the unrestricted use of violence
against blacks. Freedom never came for slave descendants and violence never
relented. The decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka (1954) spawned
waves of violence in both the North and South. School integration, sit-in
demonstrations, civil rights’ marches, voter registration drives and lawsuits
by blacks drew violent reactions from state and local governments, as well as
the Ku Klux Klan, White Citizen Councils and white churches. Calls for
restraint and calm deliberation from the white community were drowned out by
the voices of white supremacy and hatred.
Good law-abiding white citizens
burned homes, businesses, churches and crosses to frighten and intimidate
blacks that demanded first class rights promised by the US Constitution. From
1890 through 1950, lynching was a form of entertainment for whites. Attended by
tens of thousands - businessmen, politicians, women and children - these
community murders drew white people from miles around to witness the spectacle
of budging eyes, agonizing screams, and the smell and sight of burning flesh.
Attendees collected, fought over and bought souvenirs of skin, hair, ears,
eyes, fingers and even genitalia of the unfortunate victims. Photographs of
lynched corpuses were made into postcards, and, like elated fans after
attending a rock concert today, these cards were mailed to friends and
relatives as a testimony to having witnessed such a murderous event. Yet, in
2011 the lynching noose remains the ultimate symbol of violence that hangs over
slave descendants.
With such a history of violence,
Americans should not be surprised when individuals perpetrate violence such as
the shooting that occurred in
By the same token, white
Americans refuse to connect the sensitizing effect of the violence committed
against slave descendants and how that violence was glorified in the white
community to justify attacking blacks when their demands for equality upset the
established order of white life. Young white men have been taught for
generations that it is acceptable to commit violence and mayhem against black
people to defend the white way of life. Now that some white people are being
targeted as similar threats to white supremacy in the minds of young white men
-- like the white shooter in
A
In the state of 
the
"all deliberate speed" mandate of the Supreme Court decision in Brown
v Board of Education (1954).
By May 1963, already elevated
racial tensions escalated as the
Many Ku Klux Klan members and
civic leaders did not accept this decision.
When thirteen (13) black children
were slated to enroll in a
In this climate of hate and
violent rhetoric, the
Civil rights activists blamed
Gov. Wallace for the killings. Nicknamed "Bombingham," the city had
had more than 40 bombings since WWI. A week before the bombing Wallace had told
The New York Times that to stop integration
Thousands of mourners of all races attended the funeral service for three of
the little girls. No city officials attended.
A witness identified Robert Chambliss, a Ku Klux Klan member, as the man who
placed the bomb under the church steps. Arrested and charged with murder and
possession of dynamite without a permit, Chambliss was found not guilty of
murder on October 8, 1963; he received a hundred-dollar fine and a six-month
jail sentence for possession of dynamite.
On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
ensuring equal rights of black Americans before the law.
After taking office in 1971, Alabama Attorney General William Baxley reopened
the
On May 17, 2000, the FBI announced it had identified a Ku Klux Klan splinter
group as responsible for the
By Richard Farina
Come round by my side and I'll sing you a song.
I'll sing it so softly; it'll do no one wrong.
On
And the choirs kept
singing of Freedom.
That cold autumn morning no eyes saw the sun,
And Addie Mae Collins, her number was one.
At an old Baptist church there was no need to run.
And the choirs kept
singing of Freedom.
The clouds they were grey and the autumn winds blew,
And Denise McNair brought the number to two.
The falcon of death was a creature they knew,
And the choirs kept
singing of Freedom.
The church it was crowded, but no one could see
That Cynthia Wesley's dark number was three.
Her prayers and her feelings would shame you and me.
And the choirs kept singing
of Freedom.
Young Carol Robertson entered the door
And the number her killers had given was four.
She asked for a blessing but asked for no more,
And the choirs kept
singing of Freedom.
On
And people all over the earth turned around.
For no one recalled a more cowardly sound.
And the choirs kept
singing of Freedom.
The men in the forest they once asked of me,
How many black
berries grew in the
And I asked them right with a tear in my eye.
How many dark ships
in the forest?
The Sunday has come and the Sunday has gone.
And I can't do much more than to sing you a song.
I'll sing it so softly; it'll do no one wrong.
And the choirs keep
singing of Freedom.
The New Jim Crow (Excerpts)
By Michelle Alexander
What has changed since the
collapse of Jim Crow has less to do with the basic structure of our society
than with the language we 
use
to justify severe inequality. In the era of colorblindness, it is no longer
socially permissible to use race, explicitly, as justification for
discrimination, exclusion, or social contempt. We use our criminal-justice
system to associate criminality with people of color and engage in the
prejudiced practices we supposedly left behind. Today, it is legal to
discriminate against ex-offenders in ways it was once legal to discriminate
against African Americans. Once you're labeled a felon, depending on the state
you're in, the old forms of discrimination -- employment discrimination,
housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, and exclusion from jury
service -- are suddenly legal. As a criminal, you have scarcely more rights and
arguably less respect than a black man living in
More than two million African
Americans are currently under the control of the criminal-justice system -- in
prison or jail, on probation or parole. Most people appreciate that millions of
African Americans were locked into a second-class status during slavery and Jim
Crow, and that these earlier systems of racial control created a legacy of
political, social, and economic inequality that our nation is still struggling
to overcome. Relatively few, however, seem to appreciate that millions of
African Americans are subject to a new system of control -- mass incarceration
-- which also has a devastating effect on families and communities. The harm is
greatly intensified when prisoners are released. As criminologist Jeremy Travis
has observed, "In this brave new world, punishment for the original
offense is no longer enough; one's debt to society is never paid."
The scale of
incarceration-related discrimination is astonishing. Ex-offenders are routinely
stripped of essential rights. Current felon-disenfranchisement laws bar 13
percent of African American men from casting a vote, thus making mass
incarceration an effective tool of voter suppression -- one reminiscent of the
poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow era. Employers routinely
discriminate against an applicant based on criminal history. In most states, it
is also legal to make ex-drug offenders ineligible for food stamps. In some
major urban areas, if you take into account prisoners -- who are excluded from
poverty and unemployment statistics, thus masking the severity of black
disadvantage -- more than half of working-age African American men have
criminal records and are thus subject to legalized discrimination for the rest
of their lives.
The "war on drugs" is
the single greatest contributor to mass incarceration in the
The extraordinary racial
disparities in our criminal-justice system would not exist today but for the
complicity of the United States Supreme Court. In the failed war on drugs, our
Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures have
been eviscerated. Stop-and-frisk operations in poor communities of color are
now routine; the arbitrary and discriminatory police practices the framers
aimed to prevent are now commonplace. The Supreme Court had begun steadily unraveling
Fourth Amendment protections against stops, interrogations, and seizures in bus
stops, train stations, schools, workplaces, airports, and on sidewalks in a
series of cases starting in the early 1980s. These aggressive sweep tactics in
poor communities of color are now as accepted as separate water fountains were
several decades ago.
If the system is as rife with
conscious and unconscious bias, why aren't more lawsuits filed? Why not file
class-action lawsuits challenging bias by the police or prosecutors? Doesn't
the 14th Amendment guarantee equal protection of the law?
What many don't realize is that
the Supreme Court has ruled that in the absence of conscious, intentional bias
-- tantamount to an admission or a racial slur -- you can't present allegations
of race discrimination in the criminal-justice system. These rulings have
created a nearly insurmountable hurdle, as law-enforcement officials know
better than to admit racial bias out loud, and much of the discrimination that
pervades this system is rooted in unconscious racial stereotypes, or
"hunches" about certain types of people that come down to race.
Because these biases operate unconsciously, the only proof of bias is in the
outcomes: how people of different races are treated. The Supreme Court,
however, has ruled that no matter how severe the racial disparities, and no
matter how overwhelming or compelling the statistical evidence may be, you must
have proof of conscious, intentional bias to present a credible case of
discrimination. In this way, the system of mass incarceration is now immunized
from judicial scrutiny for racial bias, much as slavery and Jim Crow laws were
once protected from constitutional challenge.
As a nation, we have managed to create a massive system of control that locks a
significant percentage of our population -- a group defined largely by race --
into a permanent, second-class status. In the so-called era of colorblindness,
we have become blind not so much to race as to the re-emergence of caste in
About Me: Alexander is an
associate professor at the Moritz College of Law at
Climate of Hate
By Paul Krugman
When you heard the terrible news
from
Put me in the latter category.
I've had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of
the 2008campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill
Clinton's election in 1992 -- an upsurge that culminated in the
Conservatives denounced that
report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism
aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed
Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was
bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.
It's true that the shooter in
Last spring Politico.com reported
on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300
percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental
illness -- but something about the current state of America has been causing
far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening,
or actually engaging in, political violence.
And there's not much question
what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with
the
It's important to be clear here
about the nature of our sickness. It's not a general lack of
"civility," the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away
fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there's a big
difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence;
insults aren't the same as incitement.
The point is that there's room in a democracy for people who ridicule and
denounce those who disagree with them; there isn't any place for eliminationist
rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be
removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it's the saturation of our political discourse -- and especially our
airwaves -- with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of
violence.
Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of
balance: it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It's hard to imagine a
Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be "armed and
dangerous" without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann,
who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there's a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith
Olbermann, and you'll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at
Republicans. But you won't hear jokes about shooting government officials or
beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill
O'Reilly, and you will.
Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O'Reilly are responding to popular
demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the
way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with
cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that's what happens
whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there's a market for anyone
willing to stoke that anger.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn't excuse those who
pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn't been happening: the purveyors of hate have been
treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David
Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, "Republicans originally
thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox."
So will the
If
'Kiss My Butt'
By Clarke Canfield
Day
celebrations over the holiday weekend.
Gov. Paul LePage declined the organization's invitations to a dinner in
The NAACP's state director said
the group felt it was being neglected by the new governor, who was elected in
November. The head of a
When asked by a reporter Friday
to respond, LePage said: "Tell them to kiss my butt."
"If they want to play the
race card, come to dinner and my son will talk to them," LePage said,
referring to Devon Richard, a 25-year-old Jamaican whom LePage took into his
home at the age of 17.
After LePage declined the
invitations, NAACP state director Rachel Talbot Ross told the Portland Press
Herald the group was beginning to feel "we're not welcome, we're not part
of the
Beth Stickney, executive director
of the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project in
"It's unfortunate Gov.
LePage seems to be throwing down a gauntlet when this was just an invitation to
come together," she said.
NAACP national President and CEO
Benjamin Todd Jealous called LePage's comments inflammatory. "Gov.
LePage's decision to inflame racial tension on the eve of the King holiday
denigrates his office," Jealous said. "His words are a reminder of
the worst aspects of
LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt
said the governor's comments were spoken in a "direct manner" that
people have come to expect from him. During last fall's campaign, LePage - a
Republican who had tea party support - told a group of fishermen that if he
were elected, "you're going to be seeing a lot of me on the front page,
saying 'Governor LePage tells Obama to go to hell.'"
But the issue has nothing do with
race, Demeritt said. Rather, he said, it's about a "special interest
group" expressing frustration at the governor not yet making time to meet.
"It's nothing more than a scheduling conflict and to suggest otherwise is
ridiculous," Demeritt said. While mayor of
Disgruntled says: According to Pima
County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik in describing the 
climate
of hate that exists in the United States, "The anger, the hatred, the
bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and
unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca
for prejudice and bigotry. The fiery rhetoric that has taken hold in politics
may be free speech, but it's not without consequences. To try to inflame the
public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, has impact on
people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with." In
response to Dupnik's description and calls from a wide political spectrum to
tone down the heated political rhetoric, some on the political right have gone
ballistic. Rather than show her diplomatic prowess and credentials for higher
office, Sarah Palin, queen of the tea party movement and GOP darling, threw
another log on the pyre in calling criticism of her incendiary political
rhetoric a 'blood libel,' an archaic term that refers to the shedding of
Christian blood in Jewish rituals. It appears to me that Dupnik called it right
and Palin and those on the political right crying foul are merely hit dogs
hollering.
Disgruntled
feels: Civility! I am all for civility and responsibility, since neither
forecloses truth telling. In response to all the calls for civility and unity
in the wake of the Arizona terrorism, I was reminded of this unity poem I
received after the 2004 coronation of George W. Bush when Democrats were
smarting over another painful loss and the GOP was gloating over an improbable
election victory, given the 2000 debacle and Bush's unpopular foreign and
domestic policies. "The election is over, the results are now known. The
will of the people has clearly been shown. Let's all get together. Let
bitterness pass. I'll hug your elephant. You kiss my ass." I do not know
the author, perhaps you do and will give him/her kudos for succinctly
expressing my heartfelt sentiments regarding current calls for civility,
especially given the fact that history has shown, if it comes to pass at all,
it will only last as long as the next news cycle.
Disgruntled
wants to know: Another senseless act! We dare not call him a terrorist,
because the alleged perpetrator, Jared Loughner, was neither an Arab, Muslim nor
black. Yet, he killed and maimed 
with
the same efficiency and precision as those we pejoratively label terrorists, a
fact underscored by all the pain and suffering left in his wake. When angry
white men armed with weapons open fire on a crowd of fellow Americans or plant bombs
that kill the innocent, we search for answers and invariably conclude we missed
their cries for help; they are unbalanced, an aberration that does not reflect
the larger society. Yet, we are the only nation to have dropped an atomic bomb.
We send drones on missions to conduct assassinations and engage in torture on
our far-flung military bases. We collectively dismiss the misery caused as
collateral damage, an aberration relative to the good we do as the world's sole
super power, the purveyor of democracy, liberty and justice for all. Those on
the receiving end of our spear would label US a bully and what we do terrorism.
Isn't it time we walked in their shoes and honestly assess what we do?
Mailbox: E-Mails, Faxes and
Telephone Calls
Email www.omaha.com...E-mail to lawmakers
investigated...By Paul Hammel....The State Patrol was asked Monday to
investigate an e-mail sent to a group of state senators by a man who supports
getting tougher on illegal immigrants. The e-mail states that "we will shed
blood again" to accomplish such a goal. It was sent Sunday night to
members of the State Legislature's Judiciary Committee, which will hold a
hearing this session on an Arizona-style immigration law proposed by Fremont
Sen. Charlie Janssen. The e-mail appeared to be sent from a
Email http://thinkprogress.org...Tucson Tea Party Founder Blames Giffords For Getting Shot: `The Real Case Is That She Had No Security'...In March 2010, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) warned that the rhetoric from the tea parties and Sarah Palin was potentially dangerous. "I can say that in the years that some of my colleagues have served -- 20, 30 years -- they've never seen it like this…when people do that, they've gotta realize there's consequences to that action," she said on MSNBC. Tuscon Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries called Giffords' previous concerns about violent rhetoric "political gamesmenship," claiming that if Giffords was so concerned, then she is to blame for Saturday's shootings because she "had no security whatsoever": "It's political gamesmanship. The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?" he said. "For all the stuff they accuse her [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what we're hearing right now." Humphries also told the Guardian that Saturday's shootings in Tuscon are "evolving into a conspiracy to destroy his organisation and silence criticism of the government." Watch excerpts of interview here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjjv59RX2Cw3:25