Godheval

Read More »

It seems to evoke Jim Crow-era symbolism that an African-American appointee would be denied entrance to the Senate, which currently has zero African-American members. But the controversy here isn’t that an African-American wasn’t allowed access to an all-white club, it’s that race was introduced as a factor at all. Burris was not turned away because of his skin color, but because he represents the defiance of Blagojevich.

Now, there is no question that Burris was chosen at least in part because of his ethnicity. Because the Senate is losing its only African-American senator (nevermind that that Senator will go on to become the next President), it was mostly a foregone conclusion that the replacement would also be African-American, in order to maintain the status quo.

But Blagojevich had more in mind than the status quo when he appointed Burris. He anticipated exactly what happened – that any denial of Burris to be seated would evoke the race issue. Not only that, but Burris has the unique distinction of being first African-American elected to statewide office in Illinois – when he became the comptroller in 1979, which puts even more weight behind his appointment.

It may be true that some U.S. Senators have ideas about maintaining Senate exclusivity as an “all-white” club, but at the risk of great political fallout, I cannot imagine that any of them would voice those ideas, let alone act on them. So there is little doubt in my mind that the rejection of Burris has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with pride, the Senate attempting to demonstrate their sovereignty – at least within their own ranks.

I am wary of situations where race is injected into matters where it shouldn’t – and actually doesn’t – belong. Every time this happens, it only strengthens the case made by those who like to use troublesome words like “hypersensitivity” or “race-baiting”, and sets back every attempt to truly identify the significance of race within the American social dynamic. It dilutes all of the very real and quite prevalent instances of racial discrimination.

While many people – mostly social conservatives – are in denial about the role that race continues to play in American society, they are right in condemning those instances were race is used as a political tool, or by the media as a way of drawing more readers and viewers. The Roland Burris situation is one such case.

In the end, Roland Burris will be seated, as a matter of legality. Hopefully at that time, or sooner, this race non-issue will be put to rest. That is, of course, until 2010, when the question of Senate exclusivity will probably be raised again in electing a replacement for Burris, who has already decided not to run.

As much as I believe that the Senate should be an all-inclusive body, at least to the degree that it represents the multicultural demographics of the country, I do not think that Illinois or any other state should be held to the expectation that they elect an official of any particular ethnicity. After all, if it were as simple as maintaining a status quo, then we might as well select someone like Alan Keyes or Larry Elder, who have very little interest or personal stake in the plight of African-Americans, and who for their purported ideology would serve in the same ideological capacity as a white counterpart.

«

Read More »

At one time Obama acknowledged a need for Palestinians to be elevated to the status of regular citizens of their country, rather than a colonized, disenfranchised, and oppressed second-class. During his presidential run, in contrast to his previously stated understanding of the Palestinian situation, Obama made very clear and obvious concessions to Israel, and its American lobby – AIPAC.

This is no small thing. While al-Qaida represent the radical fringe of the global Islamic community (to whatever extent we can say such a thing really exists), al-Zawahri’s comments probably do reflect a fear amongst people in the Middle East that Obama – as the next leader of an “American Empire” – will merely continue the policies of his predecessor.

The Islamic world uses the Israeli-Palestinian situation as a gauge of America’s foreign policy. For every year that we unilaterally support Israel, and completely ignore the Palestinians, our reputation in the Middle East and elsewhere diminishes. Bill Clinton made noteworthy strides in mending our relationship with the Middle East through the Oslo accords, but since then, we have regressed – to the point of negating all the work that was done at the time. The current administration didn’t even make an attempt.

Regardless of how you see the Israel-Palestine conflict, regardless of who you think is right or wrong, you would be misguided to believe that the current way we are handling the crisis will eventually bring about any sort of solution. In as far as Obama stays the course, he could rightfully be seen as a betrayer of the faith that many in the Middle East have placed in him as the new face for America.

The use of the term House Negro implies that as an African-American, Obama has some obligation to people of color, either in the United States or abroad. That is where al-Zawahri makes a mistake, because Obama’s obligations have nothing to do with his ethnicity, and everything to do with those who elected him. Only to the extent that those people – the social liberals, progressives, and moderates – support a shift in foreign policy in the Middle East, is Obama obligated to make such a shift.

However, it is also my opinion that he has an obligation as both a human being, and as the future leader of a country which extols the values of justice and freedom, to at least conduct himself in a way that upholds those values unconditionally, and for all people. This means no longer making concessions only to Israel and AIPAC for political gain, but also working towards restoring the Palestinians to their rightful place as healthy and empowered citizens in their own country.

«

Read More »

They adhere to principles based on a very strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution, as well as Trinitarian Christianity, which put them at odds with the large federal government and an increasing secularism. They seemed equally critical of both Republicans and Democrats, and share in many Americans’ concerns over the government infringing upon citizens’ rights.

They are also committed to preserving what they regard as their “Southern heritage”, which on its own is quite legitimate, except where it is coupled with antagonism towards the multiculturalism taking place throughout the country. Where the League of the South aligns with white nationalist movements is in thinking that multiculturalism somehow translates into the marginalization or even destruction of “white” people or heritage.

As I continued to read, I wondered if it was possible for “southern nationalism” and “white nationalism” to be mutually exclusive. Naturally, I also wondered how they perceived the relationship between racial groups, given that those relationships tend to be particularly contentious in the south. They addressed this issue by stating their position on African-Americans in the south. They state:

The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South. We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups.

They seemed to be stating their position in a way that was not only inclusive, but acknowledged the antagonism between ethnic groups, and would have succeeded if only it weren’t for that last line – “not just to government-sponsored victim groups”.

Wow! A mere seven words, yet powerful enough to completely undermine any pretext of Southern solidarity as distinct from white nationalism. Even were this phrase not contextualized within a paragraph talking specifically about African-Americans, there would be no question as to whom they were referring. In this one phrase, they tie the federal government directly to the interests of African-Americans – a thinly veiled criticism of Affirmative Action – and therefore imply a wish for racial separation as well. Just like white nationalism. Not only that, but with only two words – “victim groups” – they completely disavow any idea that African-Americans have a legitimate struggle for equal status within the United States.

It would be far-fetched to believe that any significant number of African-Americans (or even one person for that matter) – any common political ideology notwithstanding – would support a Southern secessionist movement. Still, in that the League of the South seemed to be making an attempt to be inclusive, they could’ve perhaps earned some respect. Unfortunately, in what has to be one of the most bizarre instances of self-contradiction I’ve ever seen, they manage to simultaneously suggest inclusion while implying exclusion.

It is my interpretation that this paragraph is not paradoxical by accident. By making a superficial attempt at inclusion, they appear to separate themselves from white nationalist movements, which may alienate white Southerners who except for some moral discomfort with racism may otherwise share the ideology of such groups. At the same time, they manage to phrase racialist views in a way that speaks to the underlying fear of many southern whites that they are being marginalized by the federal government on behalf of minority groups. In this way they not only invoke the racism sowed deeply into Southern culture, but legitimize it under a seemingly separate pretext. This places them firmly in step with every other white nationalist movement, and perhaps makes them even more dangerous than the overtly racist organizations, which due to a legitimate movement within the group consciousness of southern whites to move beyond racism, have been cast to the radical fringe.

«