The Rainbow Pope?

Recently elected Pope Francis has surprised many observers by saying he has no problem with gay men serving as clergy.  “Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?” said Francis.  “You can’t marginalize these people.”  The comment opens up a number of issues I find interesting regarding sin, how to judge a man and whether people should judge at all.

Take down those rainbow banners

First of all, saying that gay men can serve as clergy is not the same as saying that gay love or making love with someone of the same sex is okay.  Catholic clergy abstain from sex, so in that sense the pope is saying it’s alright to have homosexual thoughts as long as you don’t commit homosexual acts.  Some are cheering this promotion of homosexual love into the same caliber of sins as using drugs, gambling or infidelity as some great accomplishment.  It’s not.  The church should cast aside its ancient bans on homosexuality just as it’s long since thrown away a ban on illegitimate children in the church, the condoning of slavery, violence against women and other biblical pronouncements inconsistent with a message of acceptance and love.

Only god can judge me now

The other interesting part of this whole episode is what it says about judgment in the church.  A silver lining (if you want to call it that) in Pope Francis’ announcement is his implicit judgement of people based on their actions rather than their character or thoughts.  Granted these actions shouldn’t be judged negatively at all, but I guess it’s a tiny bit of progress to hear the church not condemning gay people outright for being born.  The Pope’s question of “Who am I to judge” is also interesting.  I’ve always thought of the Catholic church as very judgmental, but I’ve also heard a lot about “only god can judge.”  Is the Pope’s statement consistent with this non-human judging sentiment, and if so, how can he criticize drug traffickers or Bangladeshi factory owners?  I’m all for judgment based on actions, so maybe some of my Christian brothers and sisters can help me understand this.

In summary then, the Pope elevated homosexuality from a disorder to a sin.  I think that’s hardly something to celebrate when you’re condemning the love of millions of people.  Until the Pope accepts gay people by accepting their actions (i.e. being gay), we should all harshly criticize the archaic views of the church in this area.

Conservatives’ tribalist, anti-Christian response to Trayvon Martin’s death

Right-wing pundits are having a field day now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin.  Many are disgustingly celebrating the verdict, some submitting long-winded defenses of stand your ground laws or the presumption of innocence in the American justice system (looking forward to seeing those rigorous defenses of criminal defendants going forward), and still others are railing against the “racialization” of a (clearly racially charged) case by political officials.  What I find interesting is how many of these right-wing responses display a tribal over individual, and anti-Christian, understanding of the world that belies the self-image of modern conservatives.

Judging someone by the color of their skin and not the content of their character

Racist stop-and-frisk laws have somehow been thrown back into the national conversation after the Zimmerman verdict.  Richard Cohen had an appalling piece this week where he admits that New York’s program “amounts to racial profiling writ large,” but argues that “if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk.”  The National Review’s Rich Lowry also points to the racist program in a Trayvon Martin column this week, arguing that thanks to the stop and frisk “New York City once had 2,200 murders a year and now has 400,” with “many of the thousands of lives saved… those of black men.”  Lowry’s colleague Heather MacDonald says racial profiling of individuals based on group traits is “not only inevitable, it is also rational, based on the evidence.”

The implication of this tribalist thinking is pretty clear – judge a man by the color of this skin and not by his character.  Even though many conservatives are adamant that Zimmerman’s initial stalking of Martin had little to do with race, if it did, it was completely justified because there had been a handful of break-ins by black males at the complex.  Nevermind that Travyon was living at the apartment community with his dad, nevermind that he was just walking home from the store.  Since he was the same race as a few people who had broken into nearby apartments, any armed individual in the complex was justified in following and confronting him.  This logic is the exact opposite of the self-diagnosed “colorblindness” conservatives are said to be afflicted with, revealing the deep tribalist/anti-individual currents in the modern Right.

What you believe and your alleged behavior determine your life’s worth

The other revealing aspect of the Trayvon Martin case is how conservatives use a person’s alleged personal values to lessen the value of their life.  Breitbart editor-at-large and general right-wing nut Ben Shapiro writes in his 2013 screed Bullies that Trayvon Martin “wore a grille in his mouth. He was tattooed. He dressed like a punk.  His Twitter feed was filled with misogynistic, drug-loving garbage.”  Shapiro continues by quoting a number of unflattering tweets before claiming “none of this is to say that Martin should have been shot and killed.”  Other conservative pundits have pointed to Martin’s usage of marijuana and cellphone picture of a gun (oh the fucking irony) to disparage his character.

The gap between conservative rhetoric here and the Right’s alleged Christian roots couldn’t be clearer.  Under Christianity, all men are equal before god – “there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  To imply that Martin’s character flaws – or the alleged cultural flaws many conservatives point to in the black community – devalue the boy’s life is about as anti-Christian as you can get.

This strain of thinking goes beyond the Trayvon Martin case

These tendencies can also be seen in calls for surveillance of U.S. Muslims and the bombing and killing of foreign Muslims.  Anti-Muslim crusader and U.S. Representative Peter King argues “we can’t be bound by political correctness [i.e. respect for individual liberty]. I think we need more police and more surveillance in the [Muslim] communities where the threat is coming from.”  Alleged “libertarian” Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit exemplifies similar thinking applied to foreign Muslim targets, pointing to the “barbaric behavior” emanating from the Middle East to justify attacks on Iraqis and Iranians.

Whether it’s Trayvon Martin, immigrants in Arizona or drone-victims in Yemen, these racial profiling and differential value of life arguments undercut conservative claims that they represent individualism, liberty and Christian values fighting against some godless collectivist Left.  The fact is that many on the Right disregard individual rights and key tenants of Christianity in favor of a crass tribal mentality when it comes to the issue of race.

RIP Trayvon Martin

The media has been intensely focused on the murder trial of George Zimmerman, with numerous commentators pointing out the myriad ways in which race played a large role in the case.  I want to explore some of these, but I also want to look at certain class and power angles that many in the media have overlooked as they focus on race.  Society has to confront all of the injustices laid bare by Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin in order to take positive steps toward stopping this kind of extreme vigilante violence.

Race played a huge role in the killing, police response, media coverage and jury decision

The largest role played by race in the Trayvon Martin killing, the domino that set all of the tragic events into motion, was Zimmerman’s clear racial profiling of Martin.  There’s no way in hell that a white teen dressed in skater clothes, or a preppy shirt or even in a hoodie, gets followed in the same way.  “These assholes always get away” is a reference to criminals, and Zimmerman assumed the worst about Martin solely because he was an unknown young black male in a hoodie.  And to all the right-wing nuts bringing up differential crime rates by age/gender/race – fuck you, this is America, treat people as individuals or gtf out.

The lack of an arrest or proper investigation was also clearly racially driven.  Zimmerman’s ties to police and role as a neighborhood watchman were important, but if that dead kid isn’t a dead black kid, Zimmerman’s at least booked on something.  The police’s readiness to believe Zimmerman (who clearly stalked the boy and was the only one with a gun!) has a tremendous amount to do with Martin being young and black.

Can I also get a quick fuck you for the national media?  The racial sensationalizing of the incident, the doctoring of his audio recordings, the release of inaccurate videos – all of it served perversely to downplay the clear role that racism played in the case in much the same way as the fake Bush National Guard documents ended up clouding the fact that Bush dodged the draft.  Many non-progressive readers saw the media’s sloppy attempts to boost the racial narrative as evidence that race didn’t play a role in the killing.

The final area where race played a leading role was during the trial.  A lot of intelligent commentators have pointed out that based on the evidence, it’s not surprising that Zimmerman was acquitted.  However, there’s just no way that if a white teen were hunted down and killed in the exact same circumstances, Zimmerman gets the jury’s benefit of the doubt.  All of the talking heads speaking soberly about how the prosecutors failed to prove blah blah blah would never have been so emotionless if the victim wasn’t a demonized black kid.  It’s good that courts provide a fair trial for defendants in certain circumstances, but that fairness is extended differently based on the race of the defendant and victim.  I’d also like to point out that the treatment of Rachel Jeantel was just a complete disgrace – such a racist savaging of this young woman by the media, stereotyping the way she looked and talked.

Class, power and violence played a large role as well

Adult son of judge stalks and kills teen son of truck driver, acquitted on all counts.  Judge’s boy with ties to police shoots unarmed teen, never arrested.  Gun-toting extremist follows, kills vacationing teen.  All of these headlines – highlighting class, police authority and vigilantism – could have featured more prominently in explanations of how events played out.

Zimmerman’s dad is ex-army and a retired judge, and George Zimmerman was clearly seeped in law and order.  He was a wannabe cop with a violent past, channeling his previously erratic violent tendencies (beating his girlfriend, drunkenly scuffling with police etc…) into pro-authority violent tendencies (aggressive bouncer, murderous neighborhood watchman, police aspirant).  Part of the reason the police let Zimmerman go without even arresting him was because his violence was aimed at oppressing “suspicious” people (i.e. young black men) and stopping criminals, rather than the wealthy or powerful.

Class also seeps in when you look at Zimmerman’s self-presentation.  He wears a white polo to police interviews and has an easy time conversing with authority figures.  Zimmerman’s not college-educated, but he clearly comes from a background where he can put on that front.  It doesn’t take a huge leap to imagine a different George Zimmerman, uncomfortable around authority, dressed in a working class style, speaking haltingly, being arrested and charged.

The last angle which has been addressed a bit more but bears repeating, is the insane culture of violence displayed by this incident.  Why the fuck does Zimmerman arm himself when he lives in a suburban Florida apartment complex with little/no violent crime?  Who shoots somebody in the heart during a fistfight?  The wildly violent overreaction of Zimmerman to episodes in his life mirrors a vigilante streak in American domestic (and foreign relations) culture where you’re allowed to use an extreme and disproportionate amount of force to counter an alleged threat (if you’re the right kind of person).

Although race was the preeminent driver of how the Zimmerman killing and acquittal played out, pro-wealthy, pro-authority, pro-vigilante inclinations in parts of American culture also explain how this grown, armed man got away with killing an unarmed teenager.  Until we stop valuing the lives of the rich over the poor, stop giving a free pass to violence by the police and other authority figures, and stop accepting extreme violence as a legitimate reaction to minor threats, this type of tragedy will continue to play out across America.  RIP Trayvon Martin.

Beyond Ethnic Studies

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Wallace Tashima recently found Arizona’s ban on K-12 ethnic studies classes (read: ban on Latino studies classes) largely constitutional.  The ban purports to target courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, advocate ethnic solidarity instead of individualism or are designed primarily for students from a particular ethnic group.  In reality, it was largely aimed at abolishing the Mexican American Studies (MAS) program at Tucson Unified School District (surprisingly AP Latin remained unscathed).

The law was pushed by a group of borderline (if not well over the borderline) racist white officials in Arizona who, in a completely unrelated way, also happened to support Arizona’s anti-Latino SB 1070 legislation.  While this type of right-wing, race-specific ban on progressive educational programs should be fought tooth and nail, the necessity of ethnic studies programs in the first place is in some senses a sign of left-wing weakness.

Latino students in MAS performed better than their peers.  Those who went through the MAS program had better standardized test scores, graduation rates and college prospects than non-participants, standing in contrast to the Tucson school district as a whole, where Latino students lag academically.  A quick look at the college-level curricula and passionate professional teaching for MAS supports this statistical evidence of MAS’ positive impact.

However, there are additional reasons MAS and other ethnic studies programs succeed in inspiring Latino kids where regular classes fail.  A lot of it is that students perform better when they can identify with the protagonists of the history and literature they’re learning in class.  Latino kids like learning about Latino civil rights activists, women enjoy hearing about the feminist movement and young Republicans relate to anything before 1865.  For former MAS teacher Lorenzo Lopez, the MAS program was “a process of consciousness-building” where “he tried to instill in his students a sense of pride in their Latino heritage.”  This identification represents a defensive reaction to mainstream curricula which reflect America’s “powerful white man” national narrative.

The Chicano movement and ethnic nationalist groups like MEChA formed during the 1960’s in response to an even more pro-white national narrative.  They focused on creating a Latino and Mexican-American cultural heritage to empower Latinos.  Ethnic studies programs were a part of this general movement to build a Latino identity to withstand the damaging teachings of a pro-white society.  However, the persistent salience and strength of this race-based identity reflects the failure of the left since the 1960’s to construct new identities that unify people of all races in challenging economic and political power.

The goal for progressives today should not be to create more enclaves of ethnic-based progressive thought, like MAS, to protect kids from mainstream teachings that glorify the powerful.  Getting a progressive education through ethnic studies programs is better than getting a conservative education, but it’s still reactionary.  The goal should instead be to transform mainstream teaching itself so that it highlights all of the fighters and thinkers that have helped America progress from an aristocratic slave state to its present much freer incarnation.

What about the Black and Brown Kids?

President Obama made a powerful argument for new gun regulations in his State of the Union speech on February 12th by touching on recent tragedies.  Obama’s emotional call for a vote on an assault weapons ban, increased background checks and other gun control measures brought up a number of American towns recently touched by gun violence.  “The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg … they deserve a simple vote.”  Episodes of gun violence against children understandably headline Obama’s passionate plea, but noticeably absent from Obama’s speech was any mention of Chicago, Oakland, Baton Rouge or any of the other major American cities where black and Latino youth comprise a disproportionate share of youth gun deaths.

Source: Salon.com Dataset

The omission of these cities from The State of the Union speech cannot be blamed on President Obama’s indifference.  He clearly cares about kids getting gunned down in cities like Chicago.  Obama finished his State of the Union tour speaking at Hyde Park and specifically addressed problems of gun violence in the black community.  However, these personal concerns did not make it into his nationally televised messaging on the necessity of stricter gun control.

The President’s emphasis on white communities scarred by violence also cannot be wholly attributed to the sensationalism of mass shootings.  The Aurora or Blacksburg perpetrators’ insanity was indeed morbidly fascinating to the public, but no less so than some of the gangland criminals or distraught youth that kill with guns in communities of color.  And even though the body counts for America’s mass shootings make headlines, mainstream newspapers have no shortage of articles about the steady trickle of shooting deaths in cities like Chicago or Oakland.

The fact is that while black and Latino youth have a much higher chance of being subject to gun violence, Obama puts forward white kids as the face of tragedy because American culture (and politics) responds more strongly to the death of white children than children of color.  That’s a sad truth and one that Americans will hopefully recognize and work to change.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008-2009. “Fatal Injury Reports.”

Political Correctness and the Blonde Beast

On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh summarized some of his recent philosophically profound thinking on air:

“We are separating people by class. We are separating people by race… The Obama people are thriving by telling their voters who they ought to hate, who they ought to oppose, who they ought to try to eliminate, wipe out, in a political sense, and it’s all based on race or other forms of ethnicity… We’re in the midst here of designed class and race wars. They’re brewing out there… [Obama] declared war against Republicans and, by extension, anybody who voted for them… There’s a giant deception taking place.”

15 million people listen to Rush Limbaugh every week.  That’s 15 million listeners for a program that is generally ignored by mainstream elites and the mainstream media (although lately less so).  Imagine if a) his views weren’t partially impeded by the cultural dominance of political correctness and b) media and elites outside Fox News felt comfortable giving Rush, and other conservative extremists, a political podium.  Therein lies the importance of political correctness in the US.

People, especially straight white male people, often bitch about the unfairness and restrictiveness of political correctness.  Some point out that everyone is racist – black people make white jokes, whites make black jokes, Latinos make fun of Asians and Asians make fun of Latinos.  Scratch the surface of America, or get together with a mono-gendered or mono-racial group, and racist/sexist speech often comes up in a very un-PC way.  If this is true, why hide it?  Or if everyone does it, why single out whites or males?

The real importance of political correctness, especially in terms of race, is not in promoting individual fairness, paying penance for past injustices, or even serving as a counterweight to structural racism (although these are all important justifications).  No, the true importance of political correctness at this point in American history is to suppress the blonde beast of white racial nationalism.

For hundreds of years, America ran a state-operated system of white terror and oppression, and used a virulent racist ideology to support this effort.  African-Americans were enslaved, tortured, lynched, and murdered by white governmental organizations, police and mobs.  Other people of color suffered incredible injustices and hardships in railroad encampments, immigrant ghettoes, agricultural fields and internment camps.

This deep rooted system of racial oppression and its ideological support formally ended two generations ago.  To expect that virulent a strain of racial ideology to be wiped out in that short a time period is insane.  Every time Rush talks about race war, about people being eliminated, about deceptions, secret plans and the downfall of America, you can hear the rumblings of the blonde beast emerging from the depths of American society.  Political correctness is a weak and sometimes inanely blunt tool to restrain white racial nationalism – but for now, we still need it to keep the beast at bay.