autonomous alternatives to the statist quo | a collection of Anarchist blogs
This is the global Anarchoblogs. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Anarchoblogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.
racism
Identity politics, born out primarily by the group APOC (Anarchist People of Color, Illvox) to discuss race within the context of the anarchist movement, has been a major part of anarchist discourse since around 2002. Beyond this narrow understanding of identity in terms of the language of “political correctness” is an effective strategy. The strategy [...]
News and views from around the web posted to the Wonderland Wire:
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on the exploitation of xenophobia and tribalism to encourage the violent violation of property rights, liberty and reason itself.
by Ron Paul
23 Aug 2010 | LewRockwell.com
Is the controversy over building a mosque near Ground Zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “Ground Zero.”
Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.
The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.
Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam—the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society – protecting liberty.
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near Ground Zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.
The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque – a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.
This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.
Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.
Ron Paul represents the 14th district of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Frances Simmons and Brynn O’Brien work at the Anti-Slavery Project at the University of Technology Sydney, a specialist legal service for trafficked and exploited people.
Referring to an upcoming episode of Today Tonight, they reckon it’s troubling that abuse of migrant workers is called ”reverse racism” (Asians taking Aussie jobs? No, it’s labour exploitation, Frances Simmons and Brynn O’Brien, The Age, July 22, 2010).
I reckon it’s “good ratings”, based upon a “lowest common denominator” approach, one capitalising upon “widespread anxiety” on the part of “White Australia” that “we are in danger of being swamped by Asians”.
Note that, despite PM Gillard’s protestations to the contrary, slavery has a proud history in Australia, and its rejection — or rather, the forcible ejection of its brown-skinned beneficiaries — helped form the foundations of the Australian state.
In September 2008, in her speech to The National Press Club titled ‘Introducing Australia’s New Workplace Relations System’ Gillard, also took the opportunity to burn her black armband, declaring in her opening remarks that:
The signature values of nations are often defined by the circumstances of their birth… And for us there’s one value above all others that we identify with as truly our own. It’s the value that emerged out of the circumstances of Federation, which coincided with the industrial turbulence of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. That value is fairness. Or as we like to put it: ‘the fair go’.
Which is all rather odd, especially given that — as angry White men across the country know — one of the first Acts of Federal Parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. This Act (together with the Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901) formed the legal cornerstone of the White Australia policy; the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 — which in Labor Party mythology has ensured a ‘fair go’ for ‘working families’ for the bulk of the country’s history — was only assented to by Edward VII in 1904. Further, while 100 years ago the Gub’mint couldn’t get rid of the Pacific Islanders quick enough, they now wanna import them — albeit if only for a coupla years.
As for “the industrial turbulence of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries”…
There’s a side current here which is rarely looked at but which is also quite fascinating. That’s the working class literature of the nineteenth century. They didn’t read Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, but they’re saying the same things. Read journals put out by the people called the “factory girls of Lowell,” young women in the factories, mechanics, and other working people who were running their own newspapers. It’s the same kind of critique. There was a real battle fought by working people in England and the U.S. to defend themselves against what they called the degradation and oppression and violence of the industrial capitalist system, which was not only dehumanizing them but was even radically reducing their intellectual level. So, you go back to the mid-nineteenth century and these so-called “factory girls,” young girls working in the Lowell [Massachusetts] mills, were reading serious contemporary literature. They recognized that the point of the system was to turn them into tools who would be manipulated, degraded, kicked around, and so on. And they fought against it bitterly for a long period. That’s the history of the rise of capitalism.
See also : Leave Tim Noonan alone! (July 21, 2010) | Reverse racism?msicar esreveR (February 21, 2010) | Reverse Racism on Today Tonight (February 18, 2010) | F___ Off I’m On Today Tonight! Or: Reverse racism. (February 16, 2010) | How to Make Trouble… // The Dole Army (November 6, 2009) | Justin Sheridan in Canberra (September 22, 2009) | Justin Sheridan : Australian of the Year (September 15, 2009).
Tacoma cop cars get air-conditioned, and had to be towed away to a safe place… All over the West Coast, from Seattle to the Bay Area and Los Angeles, the message is this: This message is for Uncle Tom (someone who believes they need a master like the police to be subservient to.) Hello Uncle [...]
Lloyd Marcus at Renew America, June 28, 2010:
“Again, I say charges that the movement is racist are absurd. Here are a few of my personal tea party experiences. Keep in mind, I have performed at well over two hundred tea parties across America.
Before singing my “American Tea Party Anthem,” I say, “Hello my [...]
Debate Over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sheldon Richman, Free Association (2010-06-16). I will be participating in an online discussion about the appropriate libertarian position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act as part of the Cato Unbound series. David Bernstein of George Mason University Law School has kicked it off with his essay here. My response will be posted Friday, followed by...
(Linked Wednesday 2010-06-16.)
The earliest known use of the word jaywalker in print was in the Chicago Tribune in 1909. The term’s dissemination was due mostly to a deliberate effort by promoters of the automobile industry, such as local auto clubs and dealers, to redefine streets as places where pedestrians do not belong. The automobile is a commodity [...]
i very much like the current phrase "sovereign debt," which. Captain Capitulation, eye of the storm (2010-05-21). i very much like the current phrase "sovereign debt," which appears simply to mean government debt. but it's hard not to hear it as "the debt which exercises complete, legitimate power over each of us." and hard in turn not to see this as a kind of summary of human...
(Linked Friday 2010-05-28.)
Should Whites-Only Lunch Counters Be Allowed? Sheldon Richman, Free Association (2010-05-28). Okay, let's get right down to it. Our side is asked, incredulously, "Do you mean that someone should be allowed to have a whites-only lunch counter?"The standard libertarian answer is, "Yes, although I don't approve of the racist policy."I say, "No. He shouldn't be allowed."What?! Heresy!Chill out.He shouldn't be allowed,...
(Linked Friday 2010-05-28.)
Update on Julian Heicklen’s 2010-05-25 arrest. bile, blog of bile (2010-05-27). http://a072-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/inmateDetailAction.do?bookcasenumber=7001000078 Julian_Heicklen_inmate_details_-_2010-05-27-1232.pdf Inmate Details: Julian Heicklen NYSID: 02569223L Age: 78 Sex: Male Race: White Height: 5 ft 10 inches Weight: 195 lbs Hair Color: White Eye Color: Brown Nativity: Unknown Booking Information: Book & Case Number: 7001000078 Facility: Anna M. Kross Center Arrest Date: 2010-05-25 Arrest Number: WARRANT Next Court...
(Linked Friday 2010-05-28.)
State Backs Off. Roderick, Austro-Athenian Empire (2010-05-29). Good news – as far as it goes – for civil liberties in Malawi, as their president has (reluctantly) pardoned a same-sex couple, Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, who’d been sentenced to 14 years of prison for their role in the country’s “first recorded public activity for homosexuals.” The pressure...
(Linked Saturday 2010-05-29.)
Sustainable Food and Privilege: Why is Green Always White (and Male and Upper-Class) Guest Contributor, Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture (2010-05-20). by Guest Contributor Janani Balasubramanian When asked to name the heroes of food reform and sustainable agriculture, who comes to mind? Michael Pollan, Joel Salatin, Eric Schlosser, Peter Singer, Alice Waters maybe? Notice any patterns? The food reform movement is predicated on rather shaky foundations with regards to how it...
(Linked Saturday 2010-05-29.)
Getting it Backward. Kevin Carson, Center for a Stateless Society (2010-05-27). You can learn a lot about people’s unstated assumptions just by looking at the way they frame their questions. Take the debate over genetically modified foods, for example. It’s generally presented as a controversy over whether the government should “allow” GM foods to be sold without proper labeling. But that’s...
(Linked Saturday 2010-05-29.)
Rand Paul and Positive Law in a Stateless Society. Brad Spangler, BradSpangler.com (2010-05-20). I’ve previously mentioned one of the biggest drawbacks of a reformist approach to implementing libertarian ethics is that politics makes you stupid — because by looking at things in terms of government policy, you tend to lose the ability to explain and advocate something very important. Now Rand Paul is...
(Linked Saturday 2010-05-29.)
Last year I wrote that systematic, e.g., legally entrenched, tacitly endorsed racism is far more of a threat than any overblown interpretations of what a random libertarian might or might not think about blacks, in “Lincoln, Obama, and the Wars on Blacks“:
[T]he practical effects of [Obama's] policies will be disastrous for blacks…One, Obama has expanded the troop involvement in Afghanistan. It is well-known that the poor and minorities, and especially poor minorities, are disproportionately represented in the military. Thus they are the most likely to be sacrificed in this expansion.
Two, Obama has not and probably will not do anything to scale back the War on Drugs. If anything, he will probably step it up. (Ron Paul, in contrast, had vowed to end it.) The War on Drugs disproportionately hurts blacks. It is a huge part of the reason that a quarter of black men have been in jail, which is a tragedy in itself, but also ensures that many black children grow up without fathers, among a number of other social ills. This perpetuates a cycle of poverty, which in turn makes occupations like drug-dealing and the military more attractive, which in turns puts black men in jail or kills them on the battlefield, and the whole damn mess starts over.
After watching Rachel Maddow browbeat Rand Paul, IOZ writes today:
[T]he drug war, the American penal system, and the creation and subdivision of public school districts have proven to be the trifecta for achieving a rigid system of de facto racial segregation even in the absence of a legal Jim Crow regime . . . even in the presence of Civil Rights legislation. I said this during the Ron Paul campaign and I will say it again. A libertarian who hates Black people, thinks they are racially and genetically inferior, and would, given the opportunity, refuse to serve racial minorities at his own business could nevertheless be better for Blacks than any cruise missile liberal. Ending the drug war and closing prisons and not sending poor Black people to die in crazy foreign adventures based on hazy “humanitarian” principles is more important than paying lip service to the Civil Rights office at the DOJ. For realz.
As it happens, we have a cruise missile–or death drone–liberal in power. But the destructiveness of his policies go unchallenged. Instead of confronting the man who daily sends American men of color to kill other men of color abroad, who admits to dabbling in drugs while overseeing a system that jails a disproportionate number of black men for doing the same, Rachel Maddow, like the rest of her kind, prefers to go after a much easier target: a small-scale politician like Rand Paul. Maddow clearly delights in the baiting of Rand, much as Rand’s father was baited with cheap, distracting allegations of personal racism during the 2008 election, while the state and federal government backing of Jim Crow in the past and the Drug War today go completely unremarked upon. (At least it’s a half-step above the liberal hand-wringing over Sarah Palin shooting wolves from planes, while America’s drone strikes on foreign civilians are steadily ignored.)
Basically, by vowing to overturn policies that legally entrench and systematize injustice, the Pauls and their sympathizers must be in favor of…systematic injustice. In the eyes of the liberal commentariat, personal commitment to civil rights has only one legitimate measure: the extent lip service is paid to protecting the government’s right to simultaneously enforce racism and colorblindness.
