Battle of the Wilderness

…Belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: "It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians."

~ James W. Loewen, Five Myths about why the South seceded 

This year we mark the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War.  I have been reminded of the last major round of observances fifty years ago.  In 1961, the civil rights movement was still fairly new in the national psyche.  As a child in the North, I did not yet connect the events I witnessed on the evening news with those hallowed battles of long ago.  In school, as part of the 100th anniversary of the Civil War, we studied Presidents and strategies and generals.  We did not discuss the causes of the war as in any way related to what was happening in our country now.    

Perhaps this is the proper approach for initiating children to this complex time in our history.  Perhaps it was a recognition that the Detroit suburbs were heavily populated with families who had migrated from the South in search of jobs -- as if silence was the best way to let the children of opposing sides get along in the classroom.

However, I think that something important was missing from our education.  We didn't learn to face the dark realities behind either of the historic struggles – the civil war of long ago or the fight for human rights happening in our streets and neighborhoods.  We were not encouraged to look into our own souls to find the fears and anxieties we might still carry with us. 

Now we are the adults and I look around and see the angry faces of Little Rock and Selma again.  This time they carry posters with distorted images of our first African-American president and argue for states' rights and secession and nullification.  I wonder if these adults had the same edited education I had.  And I wonder how many of those who find joy in these images and these slogans consider themselves good Christians.

Image Information:  Battle of the Wilderness | Desperate fight on the Orange C.H. Plank Road, near Todd's Tavern, May 6th, 1864 (Kurz & Allison, Art Publishers, Chicago, U.S.A, 1887)

Bullies

As the Congress was debating how to "cut spending" the Republicans also spent a lot of time talking about Planned Parenthood and lying about it (see John Kyl, R-AZ)  My response is simple:

Democrats – please stop talking about the issue as "Planned Parenthood" – that just plays into the GOP talking points / makes their base happy.

Title 10 is about Women's Health Care; only a quarter goes to PPFA.  Only 3% of PPFA activities are related to abortions – and those are privately not federally funded.  NO federal dollars are being spent on abortions. Zero.  So, stop talking about abortion and playing the GOP game.

Talk about basic health care for women – that's what Title X is about.  Does the GOP want women to die?  Sorry, too strong – The GOP wants women to die if they are the "wrong" women, poor or old or working but without health insurance.

The GOP controls 1/3 of the political branches. They want 100% of the say. That's not a grown-up approach.  That's not even a childish approach – kids on playgrounds learn how to play by rules and "work with others" better than these guys.

The Hill Republicans – and their Tea Party allies – are bullies.  Stick to your guns.

Photo Source  http://allaboutcareerssite.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/workplace-bullying-2.jpg

Huckabee – Three Strikes??

All this time I thought former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was a fairly level-headed guy – for a Fox News host. But over the period of a few days, he got caught up in the idea that he had to "make news" on his book tour and he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. 

Strike 1, February 28, 2011, Huckabee said the following in response to a question about President Obama's birth certificate:

I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough.. . .

If you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.

Anyone who has read Obama's 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, knows this is false.  Obama was born in Hawaii; his father left when he was two years old and his parents divorced.  He grew up with his mother and her parents – without his father (although Obama Senior did make one visit around the holidays in 1971.)  Later, his mother remarried and he spent some time in Indonesia with his step father's family. He eventually returned to Hawaii and lived with his mother's Kansan parents.  He did not learn about Kenya or the British imperialists or the Mau Mau Revolution at his Kenyan grandfather's knee. The only grandfather Obama ever knew is the one who appears on the cover of Obama's book.

Huckabee compounded this misrepresentation by saying he "misspoke" – he meant Indonesia, not Kenya.  Of course, he didn't address how Obama's grandfather and the Mau Mau's made it all that way from Africa to Indonesia.  Instead Huckabee blamed the New York Times for sensationalizing the story.

Strike 2, March 2nd, while on another radio talk show, Huckabee engaged in this exchange:

Fischer: "You seem to think that there is some validity to the fact that there may be some fundamental anti-Americanism in this president."

Huckabee: "Well, that's exactly the point that I make in the book. And I don't know why these reporters -- maybe they can't read... And I have said many times publicly, that I do think [Obama] has a different worldview and I think it's, in part, molded out of a very different experience. Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas."

This statement is so-o-o-o loaded.  Not only does it imply that Obama has fundamentalist Muslim connections.  It implies that neither Hawaii nor Indonesia has Boy Scouts – or Rotary Clubs.  As of December, 2010, Indonesia has 17.1 million Boy Scouts (7.2% of the nation's population) and the USA has 3.97 million (1.3% of estimated population.)  The Rotary Youth Exchange is one of the primary sponsors of foreign exchange students in the world. Rotary International has chapters in Indonesia and Malaysia, both Muslim nations.  So it's quite likely, whether he spent time in Hawaii or Indonesia, that Obama was exposed to Scouting as well as Rotary International.

Strike 3, February 28th (again), in another radio exchange – this time about the Oscars (which had taken place the night before):

Medved: . . .However, there was - there was one moment where a very brilliant and admirable actress named Natalie Portman won Best Actress. . . But in any event, she got up, she was very visibly pregnant, and it's really it's a problem because she's about seven months pregnant, it's her first pregnancy, and she and the baby's father aren't married, and before two billion people, Natalie Portman says, 'Oh I want to thank my love and he's given me the most wonderful gift.' He didn't give her the most wonderful gift, which would be a wedding ring! [Huckabee chuckles] And it just seems to me that sending that kind of message is problematic.

Huckabee:  You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock [sic].

You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock. 61 percent of Hispanic kids -- across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering.

Shades of Dan Quayle and "Murphy Brown" with a little tinge of racism thrown in for good measure.  What Huckabee doesn't mention in his discussion of the birth demographics is the finding that over two thirds (67.7%) of births to single mothers are white.  

Or that "Hispanic" is an imprecise number, because there are Hispanic mothers in both the Black and White data.  For example, 35.7% of white births are to single white mothers. If you back out the mothers who are white Hispanics, this rate drops to 28.7%.  The reverse is true for black births (71.8% of all live black births are to single mothers; it's 72.3% for non-Hispanic black births.)  My calculations show that 52.6% of Hispanic live births are to single mothers.  American Indian/Native Alaskan births to single mothers account for 65.8% of that group's newborns; while Asian/Pacific Islanders are only 16.9%. 

Or that if you consider the actual birth rate – births per 1,000 – rather than raw number of births, one finds the number dropping significantly for all groups (14% overall since 1989; 28% among black births) except Cuban/Hispanics (rose about 2%).

Something is going on.  In general, the number of births among single mothers is rising.  But the assumption that this is occurring only for poor, uneducated women surviving on government assistance is a Reagan-era stereotype that doesn't necessarily match the data.  Since none of the many data tables on this topic identify maternal income or education levels, I can only surmise that someone's biases are showing in Huckabee's comments.  "Ain't it awful" is not an intelligent or effective policy statement – unless the policy is to sell books to true believers.

Book Cover Information:
Pictured in left-hand photograph on cover: Habiba Akumu Hussein and Barack Obama, Sr. (President Obama's paternal grandmother and his father as a young boy). Pictured in right-hand photograph on cover: Stanley Dunham and Ann Dunham (President Obama's maternal grandfather and his mother as a young girl).

Dissertation Information

For those interested in reading a preview of my dissertation (or actually purchasing a copy) please go to the UMI ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database.  

The main page for my dissertation can be found here.  After the Abstract, there is a link to a page that allows you to preview or purchase a copy.

I'm very happy with the results and I'd like to hear what you think.

What More Is Required?

Between left and right . . . are those who merely want affirmation that all is right with the world. Most important, they want assurance that the president shares their values. So why won't Obama just deliver the one word that would prompt arias from his doubters?

Until recently, I considered Kathleen Parker to be a more hip version of Peggy Noonan, a thoughtful, literate conservative who had a mind of her own (except when it comes to beatifying  Ronald Reagan) and hadn't succumbed to the Tea Party brand of discourse.

Based on my assumptions of her reasonableness, I have a hard time understanding her apparent amnesia when it comes to the demonization of the current president, Barack Obama. Her essay pleads with President Obama to say the "one word" and concludes:

Perhaps it is best resolved through a presidential address in which Obama takes possession of the word and settles the question once and for all: What does American exceptionalism mean in today's world?

Ms Parker forgets that Obama has consistently spoken of America's unique role in his life and in the world – easily found in speeches dating back to the 2004 Democratic Convention. Others have commented on the inaccuracy of her essay and I won't duplicate their efforts here. I would refer you to Steve Benen or Robert Schlesinger, among others, if you want to delve into the specifics of that debate.

What interests me is that the essay seems premised on the belief that Obama is somehow responsible for this effort to brand him as un-American – or non-American.  Does Parker really believe that incorporating the specific word "exceptionalism" into presidential statements (more than he already has) will somehow dampen the demands of that fringe of citizens who question his legitimacy?  Does she believe that a series of speeches from Obama will stop the vilification from the talk-radio Right?

Each time Obama moves to respond to this rhetoric, the ground shifts and a new excuse not to believe he is really a full-throated patriotic American is presented.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama took a stand on the lazy patriotism of wearing flag lapel pins. It became a distraction, so now he wears one regularly. The pin's ubiquity hasn't convinced the naysayers.

The former GOP governor of Hawaii vouches for the authenticity of his birth certificate and the voices cry louder. They escalate to lawsuits that go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Red State legislators draft laws to require that every candidate for President provide "original" birth documents in order to have his/her name included on each state's ballot. (No one seems to ask how many "originals" one person can produce.)

The invective includes claims as simple as the charge that he doesn't place his hand over his heart for the national anthem or pledge of allegiance and move on to conspiracy theories that the president is a Muslim bent on destroying the country by imposing Sharia law and ushering in a "caliphate."

These bizarre claims started early in the 2007-2008 presidential primary season and could have been dismissed as excessive partisan rhetoric. After all, John Kerry was "too French." Standard stuff.

In our so-called public discourse, it's common to call the opposition Fascists and Nazis; so common, in fact, that there is an internet "law" that says, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." That is to say, it becomes close to inevitable. Those who disagreed with Bush-Cheney on the Iraq war and torture called them Nazis. Those who disagree with Health Reform liken parts of the law to the Holocaust. These attacks are within the expected range of  silly commentary. Disappointing, but not surprising.

What has been surprising are the continuing attacks on Obama's personal story, starting with his birth and continuing to the present. These attacks include:

·         He was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

·         He was born in Hawaii, but since his father was a Kenyan he's either Kenyan or British.

·         He became a Muslim while a child in Indonesia.

·         "People aren't recognizing [Obama's] version of Christianity," Glenn Beck, 2010.

·         "He pals around with terrorists, " Sarah Palin, 2008.

·         Living wills and health directives are "death panels" that will require us to "pull the plug on grandma," Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley, 2009.

Yes, I know the last one could be a "policy difference" not a personal attack – if there had not also been a claim during the 2008 campaign that Obama favored infanticide. [18] To me, the two false claims seem related.

So what is all this leading up to? Simply stated, I believe there is an attempt by "main stream" actors to paint Obama as an alien, not 100% American, who does not share or understand or care for the concerns of the American people he was elected to serve.

An almost-humorous example of this can be found in Bill O'Reilly's "interview" on Super Bowl Sunday.  O'Reilly asked more than once whether the president would actually watch the game and then came this question:

O'REILLY: You know, like, football, you know, like, blitzes and coverage and all that?

OBAMA: Oh, I know football, man.

O'REILLY: You do?

OBAMA: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: I know you're a basketball guy.

OBAMA: I know football.

O'REILLY: Yes?

Well, I know Dubyah was a "baseball guy" and I also assume that he knows the basics of football. Having a favorite game does not preclude familiarity with other sports. I'd bet that Bill O'Reilly believes this too.

Why would O'Reilly wonder whether Obama really understood football? Was this O'Reilly's personal curiosity or was this a planned question? And why would one be surprised that the answer was "yes" – unless at some level (intentional or not) there is a doubt that the President is simply a bona fide American man who follows sports.

For all the Right's claims that they are "color-blind" and it's the Left that is "racist" I believe much of the confusion over Obama stems from our unwillingness to face our discomfort with a younger man of color as President.

Some of this is generational – I am disoriented by the idea that someone young enough to be my baby brother is Leader of the Free World. Just as I am perturbed that I don't know who any of the musical guests are on SNL (or about half the hosts either.) 

Some of it is cultural – I don't have that many friends with names not found in Western history and literature.

Some of it is racial – and some of it just might be racist, that is, an institutional attempt to maintain a separation of the races so that power games between them can divert us from the achievement of common goals.

I grew up in the 1950s, in a society in which races did not mix socially; they barely mixed at work. Those of us from the early days of the Baby Boom traveled in a monochromatic world, black or white, red or yellow. In 1961, the year Obama was born, we inaugurated our first Roman Catholic President. Mixed-race marriages were rare or illegal (depending on your state.) The simple idea that the child of such a couple would be President in my lifetime didn't even enter my imagination. So as an individual who grew up in the 20th century, I can understand the disorientation that many of us may feel when confronting the idea of Barack Obama's name and face among those of previous American Presidents.

What I don't understand is the acceptance of racist images, concepts and language into our civil discourse. I don't understand the continuing use of the mechanisms of the media or government to deny legal rights to Americans because there are some who don't yet accept their claims to full citizenship.

There is a saying that goes, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."  The psychotherapist M. Scott Peck wrote a book in which he struggled with the nature of evil. The book was titled "People of the Lie."  I'm not saying those who condone these lies about the President are evil; frankly I don't know what lies in their hearts. I believe, however, that (intentionally or not) they are condoning bigotry and are adding nothing positive to our common discourse.

photo credits:

Flag Pin:  http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/10/03/giving-new-meaning-to-the-term-pinheads/

Button: 1920s Klan pin; http://nsm88records.com/theshop/popup_image.php?pID=2141&image=0

What is Pentimento ?

In my doctoral dissertation, I used the concept of pentimento to help organize and understand my data.  It is an image adapted from Lillian Hellman's memoir of that name, best conveyed in this opening passage:

Old paint on canvas, as it ages, sometimes becomes transparent. When that happens it is possible, in some pictures, to see the original lines: a tree will show through a woman's dress, a child makes way for a dog, a large boat is no longer on an open sea. That is called pentimento because the painter "repented," changed his mind. Perhaps it would be as well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again.

This blog proposes a metaphor in which the primary under-layer of our social "canvas" consists of unresolved American biases (such as racism and anti-Semitism). Since the 1960s, this layer has been slowly covered over by images and institutions identified as either "color blind" at best  or "incompetent" at worst. In either case, they prevent us seeing the layer below. However, over time and under constant irritation this top layer has been flaking away, revealing the old unaddressed problems. This image provides the basis for many of the ideas that will be presented in this blog.

[citation:  Hellman, L. (1974). Pentimento. New York, NY: Signet; page 1.]

[images: Caravaggio, Lute Player: Foreground, 1596, The Metropolitan Museum, New York

Background, 1595, The Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia.]