Chapter 3: Covert racism

BELL CURVE

Covert Racism

Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force (Martin Luther King, jr.).

Covert racism tended to replace overt racism in the US after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Covert racism has been found to be associated with liberal political attitudes (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996, 2000), whereas overt racism has been found to be associated with conservative political attitudes (Sue et al., 2007a, b). Although simplistic in nature to the point of naiveté, this dichotomization on the racism spectrum can serve to foreground the predominance of covert racism from the mid-20th century onward and provide an initial understanding of its internal workings and external manifestations. Covert racism persists to this day in addition to overt racism, which has returned among the American people in very recent history.

Starting with the Freedom Summer of 1964, three civil rights activists were killed in Mississippi by the KKK (Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC], 2007). Despite the most intense federal investigation being carried out at the time and the successful identification of more than 20 perpetrators, just one perpetrator was prosecuted. The case became known as Mississippi Burning.

Non-therapeutic clinical study. In 1965 the US Army, supported by the Dow Chemical Company, carried out a non-therapeutic clinical study on 70 inmates at the Holmesburg State Prison in Pennsylvania to study the untreated effects of dioxin[1] (Cockburn & St. Chair, 1998-1999; Hornblum, 1997). Dioxin was injected subcutaneously into the selected participants, most of whom were African American males. Biopsies and painful procedures were frequent.  Continue reading “Chapter 3: Covert racism”

Advertisements

Chapter 3: Outlawing overt racism

imrs

Outlawing Overt Racism

What difference if I hail from North or South, or from the East or West? My heart is filled with love for all of these (Don Raye).

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 241) was enacted almost 188 years to the date of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It marked a turning point in US history. This Act, with its 11 statutes, was a landmark piece of legislation that outlawed overt racism and discrimination nationwide in all forms and settings in a permanent and irrevocable manner.

Title I of the Act reaffirmed the right to vote of US citizens irrespective of race and prohibited discriminatory barriers. Title II provided injunctive relief for anyone denied “full and equal enjoyment” (ibid.). of public accomodations due to color, national origin, race, or religion. Title III desegregated public facilities and established the right to equal protection, while Title IV desegregated public education and gave the US Attorney General the right to prosecute discriminatory institutions.

Title V established the Commission on Civil Rights, while Title VI mandated racial nondiscrimination in all federally-assisted programs including those related to education. Title VII established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, together with various affirmative action programs and policies. Title VIII established the need for registration and voting statistics, whereas Title IX established procedures for intervention in civil rights cases. Title X established community relations services, while Title XI addressed miscellaneous related needs at the legislative level.

Outlawing Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation. The 24th Amendment outlawed the Jim Crow poll taxes in 1964, whereas the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973) outlawed the voting literacy tests and broke “the segregationist lock on the ballot box” (The White House, 2006). In the same year, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 (The White House, 1965), which implemented the baseline standard of equal opportunity in employment. The SCOTUS through Loving v. Virginia of 1967 (288 U.S. 1) ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were illegal and overturned the Racial Integrity Act in Virginia, Pace v. Alabama, and similar laws.

Racism had at long last become illegal in the US. However, given its institutionalization in the very heart and mind of the nation, as well as in the individual and collective psyches of the American people, it did not vanish at the strokes of the legislative pens. Racism became repressed and remained ever-present, emerging in more insidious and subtle forms from micro- to macro-levels of society as covert racism.

Chapter 3: Reactions to overt racism

Jimcrow

Reactions to Overt Racism

This land is your land, this land is my land,
From the California to the New York Island,
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters,
This land was made for you and me (Woody Guthrie)
.

Legal revocations of overt racism in the nation started with the intervention of some liberals from the North. These liberals had become allies of the racial and ethnic minorities in question, because they believed that what was happening was inhumane and contradicted the founding ideals of the nation (Jones, 1997).

Freedom from slavery. During the third year of the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the US, issued the Emancipation Proclamation (The White House, 1863) that liberated all the slaves held in states external to the Union (the Confederate States; Jones, 1997). Slaves held within the Union itself were not liberated and among the latter one could find those in the possession of Lincoln himself. Slavery was abolished in every state through the 13th Amendment in 1865. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment of 1868 revoked the Constitutional clause whereby a slave had been defined as three-fifths of a person. The 15th Amendment of 1870 guaranteed voting rights for everyone irrespective of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.  Continue reading “Chapter 3: Reactions to overt racism”

Chapter 3: Building the new empire

Image-12_Only-healthy-seed-must-be-sown-950

Building the New Empire

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: In God is our trust.
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave (Francis Scott Key).

Overt racism (1787-1964). Virtue principles were codified in the US Constitution (Library of Congress, 2016) in addition to those found in the Declaration of Independence, to extend and confirm the right to equality, freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all human persons who were to live in the new nation. But in Article 1, Section 2 of the same Constitution, a racialized double standard was instituted from the outset by defining a slave as three-fifths of a whole free person, for the manifest purpose of official representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Slaves had been imported into the US from Africa and the trade had not ceased. Article 1 thus defined African Americans and human persons of African descent as less-than-human, denying them the right to official representation in the new democracy (de Tocqueville, 1835-1840/2000). The latent intent of Article 1 was to legitimize slavery as a way of maintaining a cheap agricultural and mining labor population for those of White colonial stock.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 78) established the diversity jurisdiction of the nation to define foreign citizens and subjects as aliens. The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103) restricted US citizenship to “free White persons” (Ancheta, 1998) – in practice, White males. In theory, therefore, America was a functioning democracy. In practice, however, it was a racialized plutocracy (Thandeka, 1999).

Translocation of the Indians. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 (4 Stat. 411) and multiple removal treaties facilitated the translocation and re-education of Native Americans through the 1950s, ostensibly to protect and ‘civilize’ them into American culture. In reality, the forced translocation of the natives facilitated more governmental land appropriation through the practices of covert genocide and legalized land fractionation for cotton-growing, these actions extending the border-frontier of the nation by millions of acres. Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of the US, had declared these removals necessary for “pecuniary advantages” (Richardson, 1908). He also considered the natives to be childlike, decadent, and rude savages.  Continue reading “Chapter 3: Building the new empire”

Chapter 3: Racism in the United States / The American dilemma

Founding-Fathers

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (Preamble).

Racism has existed in the US since the birth of the nation in 1776, despite having been founded on the egalitarian value principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence (National Archives, 2016), the Preamble to which can be found above. Racism, defined as a “system of cultural, institutional, and personal values, beliefs, and actions in which individuals or groups are . . . [disadvantaged] based on ethnic or racial characteristics” (Tinsley-Jones, 2005), has long been considered the hallmark of US history, because the construct of race[1] both was and still is the fundamental determinant of sociopolitical ordering in the nation (Essandoh, 1996; Omi & Winant, 1994). Racialized sociopolitical ordering affected and continues to affect without abatement the legal, natural, political, psychological, and social rights of human persons in America (Miller & Garran, 2007; Omi & Winant, 1994). It also affects their labor market positioning and personal identity.

Right from the outset as a nation, the US involved itself in the active organization, interpretation, and management of race, and it did this for two reasons. First, to compare, contrast, and control the ‘different’ or ‘unknown’ other in relation to the Anglo-Saxon norm as the ideal of a human person. Second, to attempt to establish a ‘pure’ or ‘real American’ race by reducing or eliminating the ‘undesirable other’ as much as possible and this in a legal manner.  Continue reading “Chapter 3: Racism in the United States / The American dilemma”

Chapter 2: Korematsu revisited

FredK

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one cannot stay silent (Davoine / Gaudilliére).[1]

In 1944, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) ruled by a 6-3 decision in the case of Fred Korematsu v. United States (323 U.S. 214) that the Executive Order 9066 (The White House, 1942) signed two years before by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the nation, was constitutional. The Order had cleared the way for American citizens with dual nationality from countries of concern to be banned from areas deemed critical to national security and to be interned in government-run concentration camps across the US. These countries of concern were Germany, Italy, and Japan; the designated critical areas stretched from Washington to the south of Arizona.

Tens of thousands of dual-nationality American citizens and LPRs were interned as a result of the implementation of Executive Order 9066. Some people were held for brief time periods; others were held for several years after the end of World War II (WWII). Fred Korematsu, an American of Japanese ancestry, had been convicted for refusing to obey the military order to leave his home and report to the ‘relocation camp’ upon implementation of the order. This conviction was upheld at the time.  Continue reading “Chapter 2: Korematsu revisited”

Chapter 1: In the name of God / The imperial presidency

donald-trump
(Credit: Getty Images)

In the Name of God

Look how they love one another (Tertullian).

Christians of all denominations across the US acted no different than their non-Christian counterparts throughout the entire process that was both unfolding and continues to unfold in relation to Protecting the Nation. They have done this despite their calling to manifest a very different kind of behavior by virtue of their professed faith and belief in God.

On the one hand, conservative Christians, in particular those on the extreme right, Catholics included, who had considered President Trump to be a postmodern-day King Cyrus II (the Great;[1] e.g., G. L., personal communication at A House of Prayer) or King Constantine I[2] (e.g., ChurchMilitant.com, 2016; Voris, 2016) upon his election – namely, that he was ‘sent by God’ to save both the nation and the world from its ever-increasing descent into postmodern-era paganism and violence, including the barbaric terroristic violence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) – stomped and hurled insults at their more moderate and liberal brethren on social media and elsewhere, with a fervor and zeal that would have put the Old Testament high priest, Phinehas, to shame. More often than not, these insults tended to end with the yelled exhortations to “PRAY!” and “STAY STRONG, Christians!” – combined with several requests to the administrators of the relevant social media platforms to censor or block those who disagreed with them in a manner quite different from that of a snowflake.[3]

On the other hand, liberal Christians, in particular those on the extreme left, hurled verbal abuse online, and at times even physical abuse in offline venues, at their more moderate and conservative counterparts with no less fervor, zeal, and versatility. Strings of profanities and vulgarities in the name of God abounded, even though some in the conservative camp engaged in the same behaviors. Civil resistance protests grew in urban areas across the nation and in more than a few cases, riots were incited on purpose to attempt to create a state of anarchy, with multiple instances of physical violence being the result.  Continue reading “Chapter 1: In the name of God / The imperial presidency”

Chapter 1: Who are you? What is your faith?

US President Trump swears in General Mattis as US Defense Secretary . DC
(Credit: Getty Images)

Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door (Emma Lazarus).

January 20, 2017, brought with it the swearing in of a new president in the United States of America (US): the 45th holder of the highest political office in the land, Donald John Trump. Seven days later, the President signed Executive Order 13769 titled Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (The White House, 2017a). Chaos ensued.

One of a trio of executive orders[1] that have been called “the blueprints for the most significant shift in American foreign policy since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941” (Suri, 2017), Protecting the Nation was intended to ban citizens of seven countries from entering the US for 90 days (The White House, 2017a). These countries were Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen; all Muslim-majority countries designated ‘of particular concern’ under the legislation H. R. 158 – Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. Protecting the Nation was also intended to suspend admission into the US of all refugees from any country in the world for 120 days and ban the “detrimental” admission of refugees from Syria for an indefinite time. Upon the resumption of refugee admissions subsequent to the 120-day ban, Executive Order 13769 was furthermore intended to prioritize admissions to the US “on the basis of religious-based persecution, if the religion of the refugees seeking admission was a minority in their country of nationality” (ibid.).  Continue reading “Chapter 1: Who are you? What is your faith?”