Paul R. Lehman, A suggestion of how Rachel Dolezal can resolve her problem of a black/African American identity

May 19, 2018 at 12:26 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, discrimination, DNA, education, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, identity, interpretations, liberty, minority, passing, race, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery, tolerance, white supremacy, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All the criticism, complaints, and negative comments about Rachel Dolezal need to stop because she has the right to live her life as she chooses. However, we need to clarify her position and those of her critics so an understanding of this situation can be fully realized. In a recent article by Clarence Page (The Oklahoman, 5/12/2018), the title asks the question: “Why Rachel Dolezal still tries to bend racial rules” relative to the defense of her black identity. The article is basically a review of the movie, “The Rachel Divide,” which Page describes as a “Netflix documentary on which director Laura Brownson began to work shortly after the scandal broke [and it] peels away more layers of that mystery by giving us a closer look at Dolezal’s troubled family and upbringing.” He added that “It may not answer all of the questions as to why she wanted so desperately to be black, but it offers a more complete picture of the life she was trying to escape, along with the social construct of race as the rest of us know it.”More than likely, the movie adds more confusion to Dolezal’s situation and to that of her critics because of one simple word—race.

The problem of Ms. Dolezal’s critics is that they have fallen victim to accepting the concept of race as valid and accurate and because of this acceptance they view everything through a black and white lens. The problem with Dolezal is that she also has fallen victim to accepting the concept of a black race and a white race. Confusion relative to race exists on both sides– Dolezal’s and her critics because they both accept the concept of race by color as valid. Race as Page mentioned is a social construct; i.e., a myth.

When the captured Africans were brought to America, one of the first orders of business for the masters was to take away any sense or feeling of self-worth or value. That was accomplished by taking away their personal identity and providing them with a new identity. The effect of calling the Africans blacks or negroes, which means black, was to deprive them not only of their cultural and ancestral identity but also of their history. By referring to the African captives as blacks or negroes, their history begins with their experience as slaves.

The constructing of a black and a white race by the founding fathers was the basis of what is known as the system of white (European American) supremacy, a system that has the European Americans view themselves as the most important people on the planet. American society supported the supremacy concept by having all the social institutions comply with that concept. Consequently, many Americans believe the concept of a black and a white race to be true. Two facts about the concept of race remain: one, race by color has never been defined; second, race by color cannot be defined because the colors are not consistent or definite (fixed). Therefore, the system of European American supremacy can only exist by law, or agreement, voluntary or forced. According to recent scientific findings, all human beings belong to the same family or race known as Homo Sapiens; no other race of human beings exist on the planet.

The problem, as well as the confusion regarding Dolezal and her critics, is that both sides accept the black/white race concept as legitimate. Both sides are wrong in their thinking about race. The point that needs to be underscored in this matter is that all human beings have two identities—one cultural, one ancestral. The cultural identity is the one that the individual selects, usually based on the culture and/or geographic location in which they lived or were born into. An example shows the difference as when a person who, for example,  was born and raised in Haiti immigrated to America and became a citizen. That person’s cultural identity would be American with no reference to skin color or any other physical characteristics; that person’s ancestral or ethnic identity would be Haitian. If that Haitian person married an American and a child was born to them, the child’s cultural identity would be American, with no reference to skin color; however, the child’s ancestral or ethnic identity would be Haitian and American to reflect the identities of both parents. The ancestral identity is not usually viewed as a necessary or primary part of a person’s cultural identity. For example, when a person of color comes to America, only their cultural identity is necessary such as German, English, French, Nigerian, Egyptian, and Jamaican etc.

Dolezal’s problem with her identity is based on her reference to an ancestral identity that does not exist for her since both her biological parents are Americans of European heritage. As long as she identifies herself as an American, regardless of the ethnic cultural she chooses, she should have few conflicts. However, because she wants to identify her cultural identity which is American, as an ancestral identity, which to her is black/African American, a problem is created with the critics who realize that that identity would be false.  One way to avoid the problem which Dolezal found herself in is to simply identify herself as an American woman of color. No reference to an ancestral identity is necessary and no feelings will be hurt. After all, all human beings originated in Africa and that is part of our DNA. Besides, all people are brown, just different shades of brown.

The acceptance of race as valid and correct is and has been the problem for centuries. The language we use helps to keep us ignorant of who we are and what we are—all human being belong to one race. The fact that ethnic identity is usually based on geography does not mean that a biological difference exists among people. David Reich, a Harvard University paleogeneticist whose new book called Who We Are and How We Got Here, noted that “There are not fixed traits associated with specific geographic locations, Reich says, because as often as isolation has created differences among populations, migration and mixing have blurred or erased them.”In essence, no separate homogeneous race exists.

What this all means is that no one person or group has a monopoly on race regardless of skin color. So, if Dolezal wants to identify herself as an American woman of color, she has every right to do so, because references to an identity on a cultural basis are purely voluntary. Biologically, skin color is just that, skin color.

Advertisements

Paul R. Lehman, The unexpected results of DNA programs regarding genetics, ancestry, and race

February 23, 2018 at 7:23 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Bigotry, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, discrimination, Disrespect, DNA, DNA programs, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, Genealogy,, Human Genome, identity, justice, Michigan, Prejudice, race, Race in America, racism, respect, skin color, skin complexion, U. S. Census, University of Michigan, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Genealogy has become a popular area of concern for many Americans lately, and many organizations have sprung up to help people needing assistance in building their family tree. Many Americans start out by using research tools available on the internet and in many libraries; much of their early searches involves a paper trail. However, since the advances of science and the introduction of DNA, many successes, as well as many disappointments have resulted in what is discovered. In an article entitled “Unexpected Roots,” (2/12/2018) by The Washington Post writer, Tara Bahrampour, the leading phrase of the article points to the conundrum: “As more people learn of their genetic makeup, African heritages emerge.”

The article focuses on a few people who took advantage of the two currently popular programs for help: “Now, for under $100, it has become increasingly easy to spit into a vial and receive a scientifically accurate assessment of one’s genetic makeup. Companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com provide a list of countries or regions where the predominant genetic traits match those of one’s forebears.” While the test results might seem reassuring to some of the test takers, they can be unsettling to others because the outcome was not what was expected.

Many Americans accept the false concept of race by color, and because no standard exists for color, no factual or concrete definition of race has ever been forthcoming. So, many Americans simply do not question the false concept of a race until it directly impacts them. The article noted that “While little data exists comparing people’s perception with the reality of their ethnic makeup, a 2014 study 23andMe customers found that around 5,200, or roughly 3, 5 percent, of 148,789 self-identified European Americans [whites] had 1 percent or more African ancestry, meaning they had a probable black ancestor going back about six generations or less.” How many of the individuals deal with their newfound information varies from one to the other depending on their self-identity.

Much of the blame for many European Americans seeing themselves as white can be traced to our founding fathers who deliberately instituted a two-race society—one black, and one white, with the white being superior to the black and all other people of color. That system had faults from the very beginning because many Americans, whose skin complexion and hair texture was similar to that of the European Americans, simply “passed” or assumed the race of white. An excellent example of “passing” by an African American was in the novel, The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man (1912) by James Weldon Johnson. This novel is mentioned because it fits the actual life experience of Nicole Persley, in the article: “For Persley, 46, the link [to her African ancestry] turned out to be her grandfather, who had moved away from his native Georgia as started a new life passing as white in Michigan. He married a white woman, who bore Persley’s father.” The results of her DNA confirmed that she is nearly 8 percent African. Her reaction was “That was a bombshell revelation for me and my family;” she adds later that “I’m absolutely proud of my genealogy and my heritage, but I think my father would have thought I was dishonoring his father, because it was a secret and I dug it up.”

While the article was interesting and entertaining, it was also informed in the sense that many people still do not know who they are. Many people do not know the difference between race and ethnicity or know the meaning of a cultural identity and an ancestry one. Part of the reason for this ignorance is society’s conditioning towards ethnic biases and away from reality. More precisely, we know any number of things that could help us avoid the problem of identity. Namely, only one race of human beings exists today, Homo sapiens; the Homo sapiens originated in Africa so all Homo sapiens will have a degree of African ancestry in their DNA. While these testing programs like 23andMe and Ancestry.com might be able to show ethnic relations, they cannot indicate race. Why?  Bahrampour noted, “There is no DNA category for race, because a genetic marker for it does not exist.”If some programs inform customers that they belong to a certain race or races then the program is a scam. That information might be difficult for some people to accept because they want to believe something else.

The concept of race by color in America is undergoing a rapid change due to the demographics as the article reported: “In recent years, multiracial Americans have increasingly entered the national consciousness. Between 1970 to 2013, the portion of babies living with two parents of different races rose from 1 percent to 10 percent, the Pew Research Center found.” In addition, “From 2010 to 2016, those who identified as being of two or more races grew by 24 percent, according to census data, a jump that could have had as much to do with the changing way in which Americans identify themselves as an actual increase in the racially mixed population.”

While this Bahrampour article was interesting and informative, it was disappointing in the final analysis because it continued to use the language that keeps the conundrum alive and well. She informed the readers that no DNA marker exists for a category of race. Subsequently, if no category for races exists, then no way to identify that races exists as well. So, why continue to promote the myth and add to the confusion by using the terms race, racist, racial, mixed-race, and multiracial? Of course, she was seeking the responses of other people, not making judgments or pronouncements on her own relative to race and DNA,

In her article, her use of the terms European-American, and African-American indicates the changes taking place in the media moving away from the stereotype of black and white. We know that just simple steps as small as these can help to change the perceptions of many Americans who view themselves through a color.

Paul R. Lehman, Trump’s use of the s—hole word more than a slip of the tongue

January 27, 2018 at 1:46 pm | Posted in Africa, democracy, ethnic stereotypes, European Americans, political tactic, President Trump, racism, respect, The Oklahoman | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

A recent statement published in the “Your Views” section of The Oklahoman (1/24/2018) by Georgia Newton showed how brief statements can reveal more about us than we might think. The title of the statement is “Grow up,” which can suggest a number of interpretations. Although the statement is brief, it provides a considerable amount of food for thought.

The first sentence stated: “President Trump’s alleged question about  ‘s—hole countries’ reminds me of something that happened when I was 12.” We know that Newton is an adult and has an opinion concerning the question allegedly made by Trump concerning countries inhabited primarily by people of color. We also know that she will compare Trump’s use of that “s” word to something remembered from her past. We know, in addition, from the title, that she has an emotional connection to the word.

In her second sentence, we are told about her experience when she was 12: “My cousin and I were playing a game of Monopoly and something didn’t go my way, and I said the same bad word.”  We now know that her experience involved playing a board game with her cousin during which she encountered a bad experience. As a result of that experience, she uttered the same ‘s’ word which she labeled as bad. We learned that sometimes when things did not go her way she reacted by using bad words.

Her third sentence indicated that “My cousin said she was going to tell on me—and she did.” From the actions of her cousin, we learned that the ‘s’ word was not socially acceptable in her family. Had the word been acceptable, telling an adult would serve no purpose. We were not informed of the repercussion she encountered from her cousin telling on her.

Her fourth sentence told us more about Newton: “Our lawmakers are making such a big deal over this!” This sentence indicated a lack of understanding relative to the significance of the ‘s’ word used in a negative context and with direct reference to countries of people of color. The political implications relating to the diplomatic relations that America has with those countries were underscored by the “Lawmakers making a big deal over “ it because they understood the possible repercussions from such a negative characterization.

Newton’s next utterance of “Really?” showed that her attention was simply on the use of a “bad word” as opposed to who used the word, namely, Trump, when and where he used it. Had she been fully aware of the history of Trump and his history with people of color, she might have given it a second thought. The fact that she asked the question indicated that she did not place any diplomatic significance on the lawmakers’ reactions to Trump’s use of the word in conjunction with the negative associations of his biases.

Newton’s final words were:”Grow up!” We can only assume that her command was directed towards the lawmakers who were making a big deal of the use of the bad word. However, her choice of phrase reflected more on her arrogance and lack of understanding relative to the situation than to the lack of maturity on the part of the lawmakers. The phrase “Grow up” means to progress toward or arrive at the full stature of physical and/or mental maturity, or to develop from childhood towards adulthood. Evidently, that definition is not what Newton had in mind when addressing the lawmakers since the qualifications for officer holders are well-established for adults. Her use of that phrase was probably meant to challenge their intellectual growth.

The fact that Newton would criticize the lawmakers for taking offense at Trump’s use of the ‘s’ words in the context in which it was used indicated that she was not conversant with the diplomatic history of the situation. The command also indicated that she had no problem with the use of “bad words” in general since they represent no big deal. The fact that ethnic bigotry and the social value of people of color was not readily apparent to Newton indicated that she simply viewed the ‘s’ word in isolation. Evidently, she believes that using socially unacceptable language is fine if one is upset or things are not going his or her way. That attitude suggests behavior more akin to a child than an adult.

An indication of the level of maturity questioned in Newton’s statement occurred when she used and compared a childhood incident in which she used the ‘s’ word to the one used by the President of the United States. She, unlike the lawmakers, saw no difference in the use of the word. The fact that she equated the use of the word in both cases as similar speaks volumes about her intellectual maturity. No one questions Newton’s right to speak freely about whatever she wants to address; however, once she has spoken, and publically, the readers have the freedom to comment on what was said, and view it critically.

Newton’s command to “grow up” at the end of her statement suggested that she was a grown up and that she judged the lawmakers, and subsequently, those who believed as did the lawmakers, not to be grown-ups.  Unfortunately, the fact that she did not understand the seriousness of Trump’s use of the ‘s’ word and the political impact it would have on our diplomatic relations with the countries included in his statement showed a lack of knowledge regarding the situation. Her lack of knowledge, nevertheless, did not prevent her from assuming a lack of intellectual maturity on the part of the lawmakers. What we readers discovered from Newton’s statement was the lack of information, knowledge, perception, and maturity from her as an adult.

As she continues to mature our hope is that Newton realizes that words do not exist in a vacuum and depending on how they are used, they have consequences that can range from soft and sweet to dangerous. Words also have histories, and knowledge of that history can be very important when used in a certain context. Really? Really.

 

Paul R. Lehman, President Trump is not a racist, but he seemingly does not mind being called one

January 13, 2018 at 1:10 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, President Trump, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What strikes some Americans as interesting and humorous is the reaction to President Trump’s bigoted remarks in general, but the recent remarks about countries of brown people. Trump has been a bigot all his life, so why would he change at this late date in his life. He would not and possibly could not because this bigotry was part of the normal flavor of his entire social environment.

Many people are asking the question: Is President Trump a racist? The answer is no; he is not a racist. Being called a racist for people with an ethnic bias towards people of color is not a criticism of them, but a compliment. The reason is simple. The term racist represents the view of a large group of people holding the same beliefs of a race by color or white (European American) supremacy and African American (black) inferiority. The term racist actually underscores the belief the group holds, so the label reasserts that bias belief. Since the term racist is a derivative of the word race, and the word race relative to the invention of a so-called black race and a white race is bogus, then the concept of individuals being racist, believing that the European Americans are superior is false regardless of the fact that it is used as a part of the American parlance. So, what is President Trump if he is not a racist?

President Trump is a bigot and has been since his formative years in America. His bigotry was not something that was taught him specifically but was a part of his social environment. What too many Americans fail to realize is that America is a bigoted society and has been since the founding fathers invented the system of European American supremacy. We do not have to guess about the truthfulness of this bigotry, all we need to do is look at the history of the African American experience is American and the challenges of the civil rights activists to verify the existence of bigotry. The problem that exists and notably with Trump is that the bigotry was obtained as a natural characteristic or feature of his social, private and public environment. That being the case, he as well as other Americans do not recognize the abuse, unjust, inhumane, and un-American treatment of African Americans and people of color as abnormal.

The social system under which Trump and many other European Americans grew-up under did not recognize African Americans and people of color as well as poor European American people as having any social value worthy of attention. So, for the most part, people of color, in particular, became invisible to European Americans unless they were in daily contact with them. The contact, however, was more often than not experienced as occurring between superior European Americans and inferior people of color.

The many negative stereotypes of not only African Americans but also people of color in other parts of the world prevailed in the bigoted American psyche. For example, the visual and mental descriptions of Africans as ignorant, barbaric, cannibals with bones in their hair, running around in circles half naked were deliberate and vile examples of ethnic bigotry. Nonetheless, those images and descriptions were taken as facts and incorporated into the mind of many European Americans like Trump. The results of these negative stereotypes of African Americans and people of color served to support the lack of social value afforded them by European Americans. The negative stereotypes were presented to American society in such a way that the European Americans, as well as some of the people of color, did not recognize the pictures that were being painted. One of the major influences of American bigotry was in the motion picture industry in that African Americans were not seen on the big screen except in rolls of servitude or villains.

The point here is that many of the European Americans today who say they are surprised and or offended by Trumps bigoted comments need to take a look at the society in which they live and when and where they have objected to the injustice, abuse, discrimination, and bigotry of African Americans and turned a blind eye, a deaf ear, and a closed mouth at what they observed. Many European Americans are hypocrites if anything about bigotry in society because they know it exists and chose to ignore it.

What is so disheartening about the situation in America today is that many reasonable, intelligent, patriotic Americans recognized the bigotry in Trump years ago but still do nothing but stand by and let the values, positive leadership and integrity of America slip by the wayside. No, Trump is not a racist but many people will try and argue the point when nothing is to be gained from their efforts. Hardly anyone, it seems, is offended by being called a racist because that term identifies a member of a group, not simply an individual. However, when a person is called a bigot, they then must accept direct responsibility and defend themselves or admit to the charge. Either way, the biased mindset is not placed in a group, but the individual in question. That is why Trump is not a racist, but a bigot.

The recent derogatory remarks made by Trump regarding Haiti and Africa immigrants underscore the hypocrisy that exists not only in Congress but in society as well. Why was it only two of the six-plus senators had the courage to speak up and call the remarks offensive and biased? A probable answer is because the other senators saw nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about the comments. Even after word of the remarks had been made public the general reaction of some senators was like this was simply business, as usual, no need to get upset about what the President said.

Ethnic bigotry is a common fact in American life and little has affected many European Americans’ view of African Americans and people of color. Fortunately, change continues to force glimmers of light and reality through the darkness of biased ignorance that tries to hold back progress. Time and change are on the side of light.

Paul R. Lehman, Americans and the challenge of the criminal justice system

November 13, 2017 at 4:35 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, criminal activity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, interpretations, justice, justice system, law enforcement agencies, police force, Prejudice, Race in America, racism, respect, skin color, skin complexion, social justice system, The Associated Press, Tulsa, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Americans think of the criminal justice system in America they usually recognize it as a reasonable, rational, and fair agency of society. What we often do not see relative to the criminal justice system is the American society that is represented by the criminal justice system. We focus generally on the law enforcement agencies or courts rather than the people in society that make-up and contribute to the system. The fact that most of the law enforcement agents, police, are set freed or shown as not guilty of killing unarmed African Americans reflect on the people responsible for adjudicating justice. We acknowledge that the culture of the criminal justice system in America is biased against African Americans, but the system actually reflects the biased society.

A case in point is that of Betty Jo Shelby, a European American (white) female and a former Tulsa police officer who was acquitted in the fatal shooting and killing of Terence Crutcher.  According to media reports, Shelby was on duty when she saw an SUV that was stopped in the middle of the street, the vehicle belonged to Crutcher.  We learn that “Shelby testified at trial that she was scared because Crutcher appeared to be under the influence of drugs, didn’t obey her commands and looked liked he was reaching inside his vehicle.”(Justin Juoapavicus, Associated Press, 10/26/2017)

Videos of the incident did not coincide with Shelby’s testimony in that Crutcher was shown to be at least fifteen feet in front of her with both of his hands up in the air; the windows of his SUV were rolled-up. A fellow officer was standing next to Shelby when she fired her weapon killing Crutcher. After Crutcher was shot, no aid or medical attention was given to check on his well-being until after several minutes had passed.

The fact that Shelby shot and killed Crutcher cannot be disputed since the incident was captured on video. However, the reasons for the shooting by Shelby can be brought into scrutiny relative to those adjudicating her case, the jury. For the court to acquit Shelby of the shooting leaves us to question their qualifications to make such a judgment. The primary reason for the shooting according to Shelby was her fear of Crutcher. How can we explain the jury’s actions of a not guilty finding if police officers feel threatened or that their lives are in danger when an unarmed African American walking away from them with his hands in the air? If Shelby is simply afraid of African American men, then she should not be working in law enforcement or any other place where she will encounter African American men.

Since the jury accepted her defense of fear of African American men, we might assume that they consider it a legally accepted defense for European American (white) officers shooting people of color. What happens when officers walk into a supermarket or mall or church and there they see African American men? Do they fear for their lives in these circumstances as well and so would be justified in shooting them? Many of the videos in recent years have shown this to be the case. We must ask where is the reasoning, rationale, and justice for the actions of the jury?

One of the conclusions we must draw from these actions is that of ethnic bias of the jury. Since the majority of the jury make-up in American is European Americans (whites), we must also conclude that they do not represent for the African Americans a ‘jury of their peers’ but more a jury representing the European American (white) officers. Since fear of African Americans and people of color appears to be a problem for many European American (white) law enforcers, why are they hired? And if hired, why are they not educated to treat people of color with the same decency and respect they would give other citizens?

The answer is simply because of their social conditioning which underscores the privilege accorded to them, European Americans (white), for their skin complexion. Simultaneously, European Americans (whites) are conditioned to view people of color as inferior in general, but to view African Americans with fear, anger, and dream because they are dangerous. Many European Americans (whites) do not realize their bigotry because their acquisition was acquired through everyday life at home, school, church etc. As a cognitive scientist, Justin L. Barrett, noted, “What we learn through testimony or through behavioral imitation is importantly influenced by social context biases.” He added that “we model our thought and behaviors on others based upon what we perceive most others think and do (conformity bias), favor prestigious individuals for role models (prestige bias) and prefer to ape those whom we see as similar to ourselves or whom we want to be (similarity bias).” So, to many European Americans (whites) ethnic bigotry is not something that is unusual or viewed as out of the ordinary life experience.

What we find puzzling about the actions of the Americans citizens who serve as part of the criminal justice system is how they equate reason, rationale, and justice with their actions. For example, shortly after being acquitted for the shooting and killing of Terence Crutcher, that portion of Betty Shelby’s record will be removed, and subsequently, will be expunged: “District Judge William LaFortune also ordered all documents involving former Tulsa officer Betty Jo Shelby’s case sealed and kept with the court. The case will only be accessible through a court order and can be destroyed after 10 years, according to the law.” (Justin Juoapavicus)

What we can observe from Shelby’s case is that after shooting and killing an innocent American citizen because she was in fear, not threatened or felt to be in harm’s way, she was acquitted of all charges and walked away from the incident with no repercussions. We have learned that she has been recently employed in a law enforcement position in a nearby town. In 10 years, no one will even know what she did except the family and friends of Terence Crutcher, Shelby, and the jury. After all, it was incumbent on the jury to administer a finding based on reason, rationale, and justice, but they failed in every respect. We, Americans, cannot allow this form of injustice to continue because whether we realize it or not, the mistreatment of any American affects us all. Act–find a way to make a difference.

Paul R. Lehman, Ethnic bigotry of some European Americans seen as a characteristic of the Reptilian Brain

October 8, 2017 at 12:21 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, Colin Kaepernick, Constitutional rights, discrimination, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, Football, justice, justice system, NFL, police force, Prejudice, protest, Race in America, racism, The Oklahoman, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

European Americans called racists will generally react defensively because they are familiar with that term; however, if they are called bigots, their reactions will be different. If they are asked to define bigot, chances are they will have to go to a reference book to look it up. More often than not, both words are used as though they were interchangeable; they are not. Racist is the incorrect term because it places no responsibility on the individual for the biased perception. European Americans were socially conditioned to be bigots without them knowing it; the discrimination, prejudice, segregation, injustice, and abuse suffered by African Americans and people of color by European Americans hardly got a notice unless the media called attention to it. The bigotry against African Americans by European Americans always resulted in the African Americans being viewed as the villain regardless of the situation and the facts. An example of how European American bigotry manifest itself today can be seen in the attitudes and comments relative to the protests of professional athletes today.

The reaction of many European Americans to the protest by professional athletes can be associated with what social scientist, Paul D. MacLean, refer to as the “Reptilian Brain” that describes a stage of the human brain development. One of the characteristics of the Reptilian Brain is the defensive behavior that is based on self-preservation with little need for thought, just reaction. The threat of danger is enough to cause a defensive reaction. So, for the bigot, any threat to the concept of European American supremacy has to be dealt with and discouraged immediately. One way to address the threat of danger to the bigots is to change the focus of the threat away from the problem and towards an area or subject that will garner support from other with Reptilian Brains.

An example of how this bigotry works can be seen in the comment of an “Opinion” writer from the Oklahoman (10/7/2017) entitled “Misunderstood?” What the writer does is offer the NFL executives a way to handle the athletes involved in protests. But first, the writer shows a total lack of understanding relative to the subject. The first statement reads: “Some NFL executives have complained that people misunderstood the point the players’ national anthem protest. Perhaps that’s because of quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who started the protests.” The writer never mentions the reason for Kaepernick’s protest, but proceeds to assassinate his character by making reference to the following: “Kaepernick’s foundation recently gave $25,000 to Assata’s Daughters, a Chicago organization that honors Assata Shakur, a former Black Liberation Army member convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper in 1973. Shakur later escaped from prison and fled to Cuba.” The reference to Kaepernick’s donation to the Assata’s Daughters organization is a tactic aimed at having Kaepernick viewed by association with a group the writer believes shares his bigoted views. A brief sketch of Shakur’s life and experiences are presented in an effort to implicate Kaepernick in violence and hatred towards police.

Never once does the writer mention that fact that the NFL players were not disrespecting the flag or national anthem, but criminal and police injustice towards African Americans and people of color because that would indicate that reasonable thought was taking place. Instead, the writer doubles down on Kaepernick’s protest: “So, Kaepernick, who previously wore socks to practice that depicted policemen as cartoon pigs, is a fan of a cop-killer and an organization devoted to the ‘legacy’ of one. How could anyone think his motives are less than pure?” The language and seeming intent of the writer is to convince the reader that the NFL executives, the players, and everyone associated with the protest initiated by Kaepernick are all fans of a cop-killer and therefore are unpatriotic, undemocratic, and even un-American. The writer’s posture is an example of the Reptilian Brain’s effort to defend his bigotry against legitimate protest sanctioned by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with the purpose of the protest, the one thing all Americans should agree on is the right of the Americans to protest. If the writer would stop and give just a little thought to the reason for the protests rather than trying to discover as much negative information about the protester, the writer might realize that protest are used to make corrections in the system to make it a better system for all concerned, not to destroy it or criticize it unjustly. But, his bigoted Reptilian Brain does not support reasonable thought, just acts of self-preservation.

Common sense dictates that it would be foolhardy for anyone to protest by disrespecting the flag and the anthem for no other reason than to disrespect the flag and anthem. That sentiment, however, seems to be the focus of the bigots who criticize the protesters. No place in the Constitution has there listed a reference to the flag and an anthem and how citizens should address them. Too many of the people who claim that others are disrespecting them (flag and anthem) are hypocrites themselves unless the stand with their hats off and their hands over their hearts no matter where they are when they hear the anthem and see the flag. Their criticism is selective and meant to underscore their bigotry by painting themselves in red, white, and blue of patriotism while accusing the people who disagree with them of being un-American and unpatriotic.

Ethnic bigotry manifests itself in many ways in our society but not all people recognize it when they see or experience it. The bigotry aspect of the reptilian brain of many European Americans that view African Americans and people of color as bad and fearful, began in childhood, but was not something deliberately taught. All that was needed was for the children to observe the behavior of their family, neighbors, community, churches, and other European Americans in general. The result as we can detect from the “Opinion” writer is that bigotry is easily recognized and labeled in others, but seldom, implicates them because they do not practice or embrace bigotry in their minds.

Paul R. Lehman, Trump and Goldberg uninformed on Confederacy monument removal

August 24, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Baltimore, Bigotry in America, blacks, Catherine Pugh, criminal activity, Criticism, Democrats, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, extremists, fairness, justice, justice system, language, law, Leftists, Media and Race, political power, politicians, Prejudice, President Trump, protest, Race in America, racism, respect, Slavery, social justice system, The Oklahoman, The U.S. Constitution, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Bernard Goldberg commentary “Where Does current Movement End?  Question posed by Trump is one worth considering,” (The Oklahoman 8/23/17) gave pause for concern. The part of the title is a question that President Trump asked while making comments relative to the Charlottesville protest recently. The second part of the title makes the statement that the question was worth asking. For someone knowledgeable of history both question and statement would seem disingenuous. Nonetheless, we will examine both concerns as best we can.

Goldberg begins his comments by relating an incident from his youth, the 1960s when his family drove South from New Jersey to Florida. He recalls his reaction to his father stopping at a restaurant that feathered a “Whites only” sign by refusing to go in and eat. His family decided not to eat there. From this experience, Goldberg makes the statement that “My parents weren’t bigots. They were appalled at what they saw on TV coming out of places like Mississippi and Alabama.”Goldberg still does not realize that all Americans, European Americans, as well as African Americans, were conditioned to see bigotry as something natural. One wonders why Goldberg chose the South to use as an example of ethnic bigotry when he could have just as easily selected any part of New Jersey with its isolated ethnic populated communities. That is, of course, unless he did not live in a segregated community, attend a segregated school, worship in a segregated church, which he possible could have. But one thing was clear from his story; he and his family saw themselves as white. As a white person in America, viewing people of color as inferior was natural and commonly accepted by whites. That conditioning allows European Americans North and South to see bigotry in others, but not in themselves. That might be why Goldberg could say that his parents were not bigots.

He subsequently, made the comment that a case can be made for Trump asking the question: “Where does it end?” He continued: Is taking down a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson or Jefferson Davis enough?” Goldberg, evidently, does not understand the reasons for removing the statues and monuments in the first place. New Orléans major, Mitch Landrieu,  offered a host of reasons for the removal, for example, he noted that “ New Orleans was America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were brought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture.” He added that “America was the place where nearly 4,000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined ‘separate but equal’; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp.”Speaking specifically regarding the monuments he stated: “So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth.”

In addition to Mayor Landrieu, Baltimore, Maryland, mayor Catherine Pugh, had several statutes removed under the cover of darkness to avoid protesters and possible violence. One statue was “A monument of Taney, the supreme court justice who oversaw the 1857 Dred Scott case declaring that black people could not be American citizens, was to Pugh particularly disgraceful. She remarked: “How does a statue like that, a supreme court judge who oversaw the Dred Scott case, even exist? Why does someone like that even deserve a statue? Why should people have to feel that kind of pain every day?”Many other local and state officials have joined the movement to remove the offensive statues and monuments.

Goldberg shows his bias when he posed the question: “Is that where it ends—with a mob deciding what statues stay and which one go?” Evidently, Goldberg has not been watching or reading the news reports of how the mayors in several Southern cities decided to remove some statues honoring Confederate men. The references to two mayors of two major cities should more than underscore who makes the decisions to remove the statues and monuments. Why would Goldberg think the decisions are made by mobs? If Goldberg and Trump fully understood the reason for the movement of remove the statues and monuments, the question of “where does the movement end” turns rhetorical. The movement has its bases in history, not conjecture or assumed notions of correcting a wrong. The wrongs committed cannot be correct, but a constant reminder wrongs perpetrated against a people can be removed.

Another of Goldberg’s comments seems to go beyond the boundaries of common sense and logic: “Asking who’s next and where does it end doesn’t make you a white supremacist, or even unreasonable.” One would hope that before questions of the nature posed that a working knowledge of the movement in question might be acquired. Asking questions would never make a person anything by seems informed or uninformed about the subject matter. The answer to the question “who’s next” would depend on whose asking the question and what Confederate statue or monument is being considered. The history of the statue or monument relative to the time and place it occupies and why it was erected. A question important to the significance of the statue or monument would be does this monument honor the Confederacy or reflect some aspect of ethnic bigotry? In any case its presence on public property would be of concern.

What Goldberg seems to suggest is that the people who find the monuments the Confederacy offensive and sensitive are somehow taking their 1st Amendment rights too far. He added: “Leftist already shut down speech they don’t like on college campuses, including public universities funded by taxpayers. Is it such a stretch to silence people we detest from the public square?” Identifying but not defining some people as “Leftists,”  Goldberg, apparently, believe these people go about indiscriminately creating and causing problems simply because they do not like something. Also, why would he think these people are not taxpayers? Goldberg totally missed the point of the movement and its proponents and it shows in his uninformed comments and questions. Most people in the movement do not want to silence anyone, but they do want to exercise their rights to protest and seek to remove anything that historically has been shown to be offensive and hurtful to them and other citizens.

Paul R. Lehman, Cal Thomas uses Charles Barkley and his comment to hide his biased view of history

August 23, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, Charles Barkley, Civil Right's Act 1964, democracy, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, extremists, fairness, freedom of speech, identity, interpretations, justice, justice system, language, law, Media and Race, political power, politicians, Prejudice, protest, race, racism, representation, skin complexion, Slavery, social justice system, The Oklahoman | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cal Thomas in his (Oklahoman) column, “Barkley offers some solid advice,” (8/22/17) begins the article with a quote from Friedrich Hegel: “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.” Unfortunately, some people take the quote to have value, others disagree with it. Hegel also stated that “Africa is no historical part of the world.” He added that “blacks had no sense of personality: their spirit sleeps, remain sunk in itself, makes no advance, and thus parallels the compact, undifferentiated mass of the African continent.” Whether one benefits from history or not depends on how one interprets the history being read, and who wrote it.

Thomas made the following statement: “We will learn even less from history if we wipe it clean, as some are trying to do by removing statues of Confederate leaders whose beliefs about slavery and race most, including me, find offensive. Conversation beats censorship.” If the people who want the statues removed also want the history relative to them wiped clean then that would be a tragedy. On the contrary, that is not what is wanted, because the history of the statues and the people and society that erected them and placed them on public property says much more than the traditional history books would tell. The majority of the mayors who have removed these statues maintain that they should be placed in museums or on private property, not destroyed. Most of the protesting people agree.

A misunderstanding has occurred relative to the selection of statues and who they honor in that some people assume that simply because an honoree was a slaveholder his statue should be removed. The fact is that only those statues that underscore and supposedly support the Confederacy (the losers of the Civil War) and supposedly continued slavery after the war are in question.  The majority of the statues that are believed to represent the Confederacy, in fact, only represent a bigoted society that wanted to flaunt its social control and power in the face African Americans. What are missing from Thomas’ comments are knowledge of history and an understanding of the hypocrisy that all Americans have been living under since the Revolutionary War—white supremacy.

Certainly, Thomas remembers the days of segregation when he witnessed the social injustices being visited upon people of color. We would also feel secure in thinking that his education made him aware of the many inhumane experiences African Americas experienced at the hands of a bigoted society. We have no history of how these experiences affected Thomas or if he supported these activities are not. We do know that through the efforts of civil rights activists many positive changes were made in American society, changes that benefited European American (white) females more than anyone else. In all of the civil rights acts, no special treatment was asked for or received by African Americans. The only request was that justice and fairness be served. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for that request to be honored. We are waiting for history to catch up.

According to his comments, Thomas seemed to believe that the protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, both sides, wanted to create chaos in society and that some of them confronted each other “causing death and destruction, not only to individuals and property but to the links that have traditionally held us together as a nation, in spite of our differences.”Evidently, Thomas was not able to discern one group as wanting to disrupt and destroy the progress the nation has made over the years to correct history. One side of the protestors wanted to help deconstruct the things that have kept us from being one nation, to remove the superficial link that has kept us apart.

Rather than addressing the issue of European American supremacy, Thomas turns to the media as one of the dividing elements in society: “As usual, the media have contributed to the cultural fracturing by elevating tiny groups of bigots and leftists to center stage.” He then moves over to the blame the government: “Part of this chaos comes from government’s inability, or unwillingness, to solve, or even address, major challenges.”His comments indicate an unwillingness to stick with the subject and gain some clarification. Instead, he plays” the blame game” that does nothing but takes up print space and distracts from the problem.

Finally, Thomas gets to where he always intended to go in the first place—someone to use as an escape hatch—Charles Barkley. He tries to denigrate those people who have concerns about the Confederate statues by questioning their level of education and said they are a “distraction designed to keep our minds on things other than solving real problems and pit us against each other for the cultural, political and fundraising benefit and goal of various groups on the left and right.” Thomas, it seems, does not regard the years of injustice, abuse, bigotry in the social, educational, economic, political, judicial institutions of America as real problems. He does not understand that he is a bigot and that as long as he sees himself as a white man, he will be a bigot. To excuse himself from being a bigot, he uses Barkley’s comments to hide behind. But, instead of hiding them, Barkley’s words expose Thomas.

When the founding fathers invented European American (white) supremacy, they took away the history of the Africans and called them negro or black.  Although the African had cultural and ancestral identities, they were deprived of them. The early European Americans called themselves white rather than using their cultural and ancestral identities because they had already made white represent power, privilege, and control of society. The language they employed was used to ensure the continuation of their power and control. Subsequently, the Africans and African Americans were forced to learn that language, not realizing that it supported their enslavement. What Thomas does not understand is that he and Barkley do not speak the same language. Yes, they use the same words, but the meanings are different. Barkley is not a historian or a scholar, but a sports figure who expresses himself freely on a variety of subjects; he does not purport to represent anyone but himself, certainly not all African Americans.  What Thomas did not realize from Barkley’s statement is that he is not satisfied with society and history the as it is. So, he will work to change it for African Americans and the world, for the better. That is precisely the message the protesters were making in supporting the removal of the statues.  What was that thing about history again?

Paul R. Lehman, Steve Bannon accidently reveals secret of extremists use of language for control

August 18, 2017 at 4:27 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, extremists, justice, Kevin Drum American Prospect, Mother Jones, politicians, Prejudice, President, Race in America, racism, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The two most important elements of the system of white supremacy are race and racism; they are like wet and water. Without these two elements, the system would fall apart. The system was constructed in a way that keeps it running smoothly by the people it promotes and those it oppresses. For example, when a right-wing extremist is referred to as a racist rather than serving as an insult, it, in fact, serves to underscore his self-concept, working the same as a compliment. The system is supported and promoted every time the words race and racism are used because they underscore its existence. The fact that many Americans have tried to combat racism for several hundred years without any success is an indication of how clever the system was constructed. The key to the system’s strength and longevity is in the language it uses. By everyone using the system’s language without knowing its effect guarantees its uninterrupted continuance.

Today, like several hundred years ago, people speak about race and racism as if they have full knowledge of their impact. The fact of the matter is that what many users of those words do not realize is that by the very use of the words, the system of white supremacy is being validated. The system and how it works was detailed in my book: The system of European American (white) Supremacy and African American (black) Inferiority (2016). In that book the statement was made that racism cannot be defeated; it must be replaced. One reason it cannot be defeated is that one would be forced to reconcile the system by using the system’s language and that is always a losing proposition. Regardless of what anyone says about race and racism both remain undisturbed in the system they support. For that reason, people, especially politicians, can rant and rave about the negative effects and consequences of racism with impunity.

Americans have become accustomed to the parade of televised panels of race experts and scholars giving their assessment of the latest incident of social unrest or print media articles touting the ills of racism and its effect on society. In some instances, some good has come from some of those experiences relative to social and human relations in the national community. However, when the next incident of civil and social unrest occur involving race and racism, it seems that everything must go back to the beginning of a conversation relative to race.

A number of prominent individuals travel the country speaking and teaching about the ills of racism and attempting to show audiences what it feels like to be discriminated against because of one’s skin color. In addition to the good that comes from these experiences, little to nothing is done to replace racism. What these individuals do not realize is that they are using the system’s language, so while the knowledge of a system of white supremacy might be communicated, any opportunity to replace that system is lost.

An article appeared recently (8/16/2017) in Mother Jones by Kevin Drum, that read “Steve Bannon: Fighting Racism is for Losers.”  The article recounted an incident where Steve Bannon called the  American Prospect to “chew the fat.” During the conversation, Bannon was asked what he thought about combating racism and white supremacy. Bannon responded: “The Democrats,” he said, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”Here we have the words right from the mouth of one of the people associated with an alleged extremist group, a person who works in the White House as an advisor to the President.

So, why would Bannon state that he wants the Democrats, and one suspects, everybody else, to talk about racism. He knows that any talk about race and racism will lead to a dead-end and in so doing waste time and energy in a foolhardy enterprise. What Bannon knows is that race used as identity, black and white, is a lie, but Americans have been conditioned to accept it as fact. Once race has been accepted then additional aspects of it can be added to it, like racism, racial, mixed –race, biracial etc. While these words all look legitimate, they are just as bogus as race. Bannon knows this and enjoys the game because as long as he manipulates the language, he wins. The irony of it all is that as long as Americans identify with either black or white, they lose because race separates and unites simultaneously.

What the extremists know is that whenever the word black is used or the word white is used they both are followed by the word race whether stated or not. The use of each word serves the same purpose –to divide and unify since they are both followed by the word race. If society would stop using words black and white in favor of African American and European American respectfully, the divide would no longer exist. Using the words ethnic group or ethnicity instead of race would remove the divide caused by the language. However, because we have been socially conditioned, we are implicitly biased, and the bigotry comes naturally and therefore is difficult to replace.

Only when we as a society come to understand how the system of ethnic bigotry dominates our lives can we start to see reality. Bannon and his followers in the extremist movement do not want us to know that we have been and continue to be manipulated into believing that race by color and racism are legitimate. They do not want us to stop and think about the language we use which support and underscore their bigoted ideology. That is why they provoke and encourage the constant use of the words race and racism because all the effort and energy exerted to try to destroy them only serve to support and promote them. Once we come to our understanding about the system of European American supremacy and its language, we will be able to agree with Bannon that fighting racism is for losers and we know better than to continue down that path.

Paul R. Lehman,Trump’s statement to police underscores ethnic bias in criminal justice system

August 6, 2017 at 1:27 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Indian, Bigotry in America, blacks, Civil War, criminal activity, democracy, Department of Justice, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, Freddie Gray, justice, justice system, Oklahoma, police force, Prejudice, President Trump, protest, race, Race in America, racism, respect, skin color, social justice system, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What are Americans to think when their President tells law enforcement members to break the law and abuse citizens who have been arrested and when questioned about his statements, they are passed off as if they were jokes? Why would the President want to joke about asking or telling the police to break the laws they are hired to enforce and follow and to abuse the citizens while doing so? To make matters worse, the President aimed his words for the unjust, unlawful, and abusive treatment of people of color. Through his comments, he gave permission to police officers to express their ethnic biases with physical violence and abuse of the people of color.

European Americans have been conditioned to view African Americans as criminals and less than first-class human beings. The media since before the Civil War have pictured and described African American in a negative and unflattering context. That practice still exists today, to a great extent. So, when the President made the statement about police officers throwing thugs in the back of a “Paddy wagon” (his words which are considered a pejorative phrase regarding the Irish) the immediate reference goes to Freddie Gray, the young African American man who died from injuries incurred from being put in a police van without proper restraints. None of the police officers were held responsible for Gray’s death. So the President, evidently, saw nothing wrong with the way citizens, especially African American citizens, are treated by the police.

A point of interest relative to the President’s statement is the fact that he used the term “those thugs” rather than citizen or person. The term “thug” when used in a certain context and by certain people like the President, is a direct reference to African Americans. In his recently released book, CHOKEHOLD [Policing Black Men] Paul Butler, a former prosecutor and presently a Georgetown University Professor, devoted a chapter of his book on “Constructing the Thug.” In that chapter, he explained that “the construction of the thug [is] based on the presumption that every African American man is a criminal. It is important to remember that this is a rebuttable presumption: African American men can do things to communicate that we are not dangerous.” In addition, he added that “It would not be an understatement to say that the vast majority of black men engage in those kinds of performances every time we step out of the house. It’s also true that many people can and do treat individual African American men with respect and kindness.”The overwhelming sentiment relative to police behavior towards African Americans is based on fear, anxiety, and the presumption of them as criminals. Those feelings are enough to clear the bar and justify the unjust, unlawful, violent, and abusive treatment of African Americans.

When the President made his statements relative to how the police officer should treat ‘thug’s he was standing in front of a large number of police officers. To the surprise of many top law enforcement agents, police chiefs, and others in authority, many of the officers in the President’s background smiled and applauded their approval of his comments. Why? Many applauded because they felt relieved that the President agreed with the way some police officers treat African American citizens. The comments served as encouragement to officers to continue their unlawful and abusive treatment of citizens of color. One wonders if some of those officers joined the force, not to protect and serve, but to harass and punish African Americans for being African Americans.

Many of the police chiefs and enforcement leaders were quick to call the Presidents statements, not in keeping with the law and practices of law enforcement, and issued statements to the effect that their departments will not tolerate the rough treatment of prisoners nor will violations be taken lightly. Some others police leaders underscored the fact that training focused on treating all citizens with respect and dignity.

Not all police officials felt the President’s statements were out of order: “For example, Detective Stephen Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, excused Trump’s comments in a statement to CNN as ‘completely taken out of context by the racially exclusive and divisive profiteers’ seeking to question Trump’s support of all law-abiding citizens…”  Loomis included “the law enforcement officers that live and work among [law abiding citizens] them.” In other words, as far as Loomis is concerned all law enforcement officers are perfect; they make no mistakes or break laws and arrest only citizens who break the law. Everyone, according to Loomis, should realize that the President was simply joking when he made those comments. The concept of innocent before proven guilty for those arrested seems to have lost its value among some police union representatives.

The President’s comments, whether serious or not, makes the assumption that when police officers arrest African Americans and people of color that official protocol can be dispensed with in favor of officers acting as judge, jury, and executioner. In many of the recent video showing police abuse of African Americans and other people of color, male and female, law-abiding citizens see for themselves how some citizens of color are treated by some law enforcement officers. If the trend continues, one will have to ask where the law-abiding officers are hiding. Many American citizens turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to these unlawful and abusive happenings simply because they think they are not directly implicated in them. However, nothing could be further from the truth because when an officer is caught breaking the law and he or she is exonerated from a criminal quilt, many are sued and found guilty in civil court. The involvement of the law-abiding citizen comes into play when an officer and his or her department are sued in civil court.

The cost to the uninvolved law-abiding citizens for not holding the criminal justice system responsible for the abuses committed by its officers is large and growing. Unfortunately, many African Americans and other people of color have suffered abuse and often death at the hands of police officers and in return sued the police in civil court. Recently, in Oklahoma City, two African American men who had their murder convictions overturned have both sued the state for $32 million each. One former inmate has already settled his case; the other is yet to be adjudicated.

When the unlawful, unjust, and abusive treatment of citizens start to make a greater impact on the uninvolved law-abiding citizens, then they will join with citizens working to change the criminal justice system and make it serve all citizens fairly, justly, and lawfully. Living in a democracy requires all to learn that injustice for some is an injustice for all.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.