Showing posts with label Dylann Storm Roof. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dylann Storm Roof. Show all posts

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Today's GOP - The Fear of a Black America

My New Orleans belle grandmother was a woman ahead of her time - she joined the Army nurse corps in World War I, saw service across Europe and then signed on as a nurse with United Fruit Company rather than return to New Orleans - and despite where she was raised, she was not racist.  Indeed, the lowest of the low in her view was "white trash."  She sympathized with blacks and the burdens they faced given the bigotry that existed in the South during her lifetime. "White trash" on the other hand was not held back by skin color and had no excuse, in her view for not bettering them self.    Today, much of the Republican Party base is what she would have considered white trash that by choice embraces ignorance, bigotry and prejudice and clings to white supremacy because it's the only thing they have to make themselves feel superior.   It wasn't always this way, but through the "Southern Strategy" launched by Richard Nixon in the 1960's, the GOP cynically decided embrace racism.  Things have only gotten worse since then.  A piece in Salon looks at how the GOP got to where it is today.  Here are excerpts:
Dylann Roof’s murder of nine people worshipping at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church was not about mental illness; it was not about religious freedom; it was not an “accident;” it does not defy explanation. His attack on nine African Americans in a church was a political attack designed to keep the government in the hands of white men. His bullets were a salvo in the fundamental struggle that we have fought bitterly since 1865: Who owns America?

When the 21-year-old white man killed six women and three men, including pastor and South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney, he reportedly said: “I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.” Roof’s words seem bizarre—not just because black Americans make up less than 15 percent of the population but also because he murdered six women—but they made more sense when they first entered the American vernacular. His statement hails straight from the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War, when white Southern men had to come to grips with the fact that they would no longer control the country.

Men like Roof are staring at that same reality today. 
Before the Civil War, white Southern Democrats controlled American politics. They used the government to prop up the system of racial slavery that brought money, social status, and political power to wealthy white men.
[Southern] State legislators ratified the[Thirteenth] amendment, but then promptly set about recreating antebellum conditions of racial servitude with what were known as “Black Codes.” In most states, black people could not own guns, had to sign year-long work contracts, and could be arrested on charges of “vagrancy,” fined, and then bound to anyone who paid their fine. Nowhere could a black person testify in court against a white person, which meant that no black southerner could claim the protection of the law against theft, rape, or murder.

[W]hen Congress reconvened in December 1865, Northern congressmen refused to return the same African Americans who had fought for the Union to quasi-slavery under the very men who had spent four years trying to destroy the nation. As a condition for readmission to the Union, Congress put forward the Fourteenth Amendment to give black men legal rights. Southern whites promptly retorted that they would rather remain under military rule than submit to black equality. So northern congressmen passed the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, which called for new Southern state constitutional conventions to rewrite state constitutions providing for black civic rights. Crucially, the Military Reconstruction Act permitted African American men to vote.

Before the 1868 elections, members of the Ku Klux Klan murdered at least a thousand African Americans and their white allies. Things were particularly bad in South Carolina, where Klan members killed African American clergyman and state legislator B. F. Randolph at a train depot in broad daylight.

For the next twenty years, white southerners controlled black political voices by finding ways either to work with black voters or to intimidate them into silence. It was imperative to purge black voters from the system, they insisted, for black Americans only wanted social welfare legislation that would enable them to live without working. Those programs would bleed tax dollars from hardworking white men. Black voters were thus “corrupting” the American government and destroying America itself.

By the early twentieth century, white citizens had made the lynching of black men a civic duty.  While the Ku Klux Klan had operated in secret, the vigilantes of the early twentieth century took photographs of themselves with victims. For these citizen-terrorists, only by purging the government of black voices could the nation be made safe.

When Roof said: “I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go,” and then made himself judge and jury, he was echoing both a fear and a crazed solution that grew out of the Civil War, when white Southern men had to face the reality that they were going to have to share control the government. That fact inspired terror—and terrorism—among white men in the late nineteenth century. It did so in the 1960s, when, once again, white Americans tried to silence black political voices with terrorism.

Today, Fox News, talk radio hosts, and Movement Conservative politicians have stoked in their followers that same fear of losing control of the government with constant references to freeloading black voters and the “47 percent… who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” As in the past, the fear of sharing political power with African American voters who, according to right-wing media, are lazy criminals, has led to horrific violence. After a hundred and fifty years, this pattern should come as no surprise.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Why the Right Doesn't Want to Call Charleston an Act of Terrorism


Had the murders in Charleston the night before last been committed by a Muslim, Fox News and other right wing outlets would have been screaming about terrorist attacks to the high heavens.  However, since the apparent shooter was white, there is either silence from these mouth pieces or attempts to dissemble and avoid calling Dylann Storm Roof what he is - a domestic terrorist.  Be he mentally imbalanced or not, his actions were certainly no more insane than that of Islamic suicide bombers.  The real issue is that the right doesn't want to admit that their ideology encourages extremist to commit acts of violence and fans hatred.  A piece in the New York Times looks at this hesitancy to admit that acts of terrorism are committed by right wing Americans.  Another looks at Roof's growing adherence to white supremacy views.   Here are highlights from the former:
The massacre of nine African-Americans in Charleston has been classified as a possible hate crime, apparently carried out by a 21-year-old white man who once wore an apartheid badge and other symbols of white supremacy. But many civil rights advocates are asking why the attack has not officially been called terrorism.

Against the backdrop of rising worries about violent Muslim extremism in the United States, advocates see hypocrisy in the way the attack and the man under arrest in the shooting have been described by law enforcement officials and the news media.

Assaults like the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 and the attack on an anti-Islamic gathering in Garland, Tex., last month have been widely portrayed as acts of terrorism carried out by Islamic extremists. Critics say, however, that assaults against African-Americans and Muslim Americans are rarely if ever called terrorism.

Moreover, they argue, assailants who are white are far less likely to be described by the authorities as terrorists.

“We have been conditioned to accept that if the violence is committed by a Muslim, then it is terrorism,” Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights advocacy group in Washington, said Thursday in a telephone interview.

“If the same violence is committed by a white supremacist or apartheid sympathizer and is not a Muslim, we start to look for excuses — he might be insane, maybe he was pushed too hard,” Mr. Awad said.

“We have a man who intentionally went to a black church, had animus toward black people and assassinated an elected official and eight other people,” he said. “It seems he was motivated by a desire to terrorize and kill black people.”

Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines terrorism as “the use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate and subjugate, especially such use as a political weapon or policy.”

Civil rights advocates said the Charleston attack not only fit the dictionary definition of terrorism but reflected a history of attempts by the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups to terrorize African-Americans.

“The first antiterrorism law in U.S. history was the Klan Control Act, so really, this has been the definition of terrorism,” William Jelani Cobb, a writer and director of the Africana Studies Institute at the University of Connecticut, said in a Twitter post.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable civil rights group, said the Charleston massacre looked like terrorism to him.

“While the terrorist label is often applied to attacks, plots and conspiracies carried out on behalf of designated terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, politically motivated violence is not the sole domain of supporters of designated terrorist groups,” Mr. Foxman said in a statement.
Expect more dissembling from the right as it tries to dodge the consequences of its own rhetoric.
 

Thursday, June 18, 2015

New GOP Low: Santorum Calls Charleston Shooting "Assault On Religious Liberty"


Despite the fact that all of the evidence available so far indicates that the massacre at the historic black church in Charleston was motivated by racial hatred and white supremacist views, on the campaign trail today the ever delusional Rick Santorum sought to label the hate crime as an "attack on religious liberty."  Sadly, Santorum was not alone in trying to divert the subject from the real motivation for the crime and pander to the ugliest elements of the GOP party base.  Joining in the disinformation campaign was all to predictably GOP presidential candidate and, of course, Fox News, a/k/a Faux News on this blog.   Talking Points Memo reports on Santorum's disingenuous lies.  Here are highlights:
"It’s obviously a crime of hate. Again, we don’t know the rationale, but what other rationale could there be?" Santorum said on the New York radio station AM 970.

"You’re sort of lost that somebody could walk into a Bible study in a church and indiscriminately kill people,” he added.

Santorum called for a broader pushback against the "assaults" on religious liberty.

"You talk about the importance of prayer in this time and we’re now seeing assaults on our religious liberty we’ve never seen before.
The nastiest, tawdry whore has more integrity and moral decency than Santorum.  As for Fox News' effort to avoid responsibility for inciting people like Dylann Roof, Huffington Post looks at the campaign of lies.  Here are highlights:
Analysts on Fox News floated the theory on Thursday that the shooting at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday night was motivated by religious animosity toward Christians, rather than by racism.

Host Steve Doocy suggested on "Fox & Friends" that religion was the likely motivation for the terrorist attack. 

"Extraordinarily, they called it a hate crime," Doocy said in an interview with a pastor Thursday morning. "And some look at it as, well, it's because it was a white guy, apparently, and a black church. But you made a great point just a moment ago about the hostility toward Christians, and it was in a church, so maybe that's what it was about."

Doocy's co-host, Brian Kilmeade, also tried to cast doubt on the idea that the gunman, whom authorities believe to be 21-year-old Dylann Storm Roof, was motivated by race, asking a guest, "Is it a church that has white congregants as well as black?"

But the gymnastics that Fox commentators engaged in to find some other motive is disconcerting. Why were they so afraid the attack might prove to be racially motivated?