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.

Paul R. Lehman, No justice from ‘A jury of one’s peers’ in U. S. court system

July 14, 2017 at 11:33 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, amygdala, Bigotry in America, blacks, criminal activity, Department of Justice, discrimination, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, grand jury, justice, justice system, law, law enforcement agencies, Media and Race, minority, Oklahoma, police force, Prejudice, Race in America, racism, respect, social conditioning, social justice system, The U.S. Constitution, Tulsa, white supremacy, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recently in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a judge declared a mistrial, for the third time, in a case involving a European American former police office, Shannon Kepler. The officer acknowledged shooting Jeremey Lake, a 19-year-old African American male who had been dating Keller’s daughter, Lisa. While Kepler claimed that he was defending himself when he shot Lake, no weapon was found on Lake or anywhere near the scene. An article on abcnews.go.com provided the following information: “Kepler, who retired from the force after he was charged, was a 24-year-police veteran who said he was trying to protect his daughter, who had run away from home and was living in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

Americans in general and African Americans in particular, should not be surprised at the mistrial or even a not guilty decision from this trail and the many others involving African American men and police officers. We should realize by now that the criminal justice system, especially the courts were not meant to serve justice to people of color. We must be constantly reminded of the fact that American is a biased society and that people of color are viewed as objects that cause fear and anxiety to European Americans. Many of our laws, regardless of what they might intend, are meant to keep the concept of two different groups of people separated. That separation is underscored in the court system and especially the jury system in America.

For African Americans as well most Americans in general, the phrase “A jury of one’s peers,” is meaningless, and because it is meaningless, few people ever experience having a member of his or their jury a peer. In an article by Eric Peters (3/23/2012), “A Jury of One’s Peers,” he notes that while this phrase is not found in our Constitution, the concept comes from English Common Law from which our Constitution was based. The phrase was intended to describe a situation where “The men of a community would gather to weigh evidence presented against someone—someone they knew. Unfortunately, what we have today is an altogether different animal. You may find yourself tried in front of a jury—but they will not be your peers.”

Today, in Oklahoma, anyone 18-years-old and older with a valid driver’s license can be randomly selected to serve on a jury. The individuals are not selected from a particular community, but usually from the county in which they live. If members of a jury were selected from specific communities where people of similar social, religious, economic, political, and education tend to live, then individuals facing charges from those communities would have a reasonable chance of being judged by a peer. Unfortunately, that is not the way things work.

In America, three things work against African Americans when they involve European American police officers, and juries—a lack of people of color on the jury, law enforcement bigotry, and systemic cultural bigotry. Most juries will consist of few people of color for any number of reasons, first of which is availability. Fewer people of color are chosen (at random) for jury duty and few are chosen to serve on a jury once reporting for jury duty. The lack of representation of people of color on the jury for an African American can make a difference in the jury’s final decision. Also, the presence of one or two persons of color serving on a jury of predominately European Americans can be intimidating and stressful to them.

In his recently published book (2017), CHOKEHOLD, Paul Butler, a former prosecutor and law professor at Georgetown University, stated that “Cops routinely hurt and humiliate black people because that is what they are paid to do. Virtually every objective investigation of a U.S. law enforcement agency finds that the police, as policy, treat African Americans with contempt.” He further stated that “The most problematic practices of American criminal justice—excessive force by police, harsh sentencing, the erosion of civil liberties, widespread government surveillance, and mass incarceration—are best understood as measures originally intended for African American men.” The many jury verdicts involving the shooting by law enforcement agents have demonstrated that the repercussions for a European American or an officer killing a person of color are little and none, which underscores Butler’s point. The fact that European American law enforcement agents use the aspect of fear in their defense of their actions is one that does not differ from the fear that European Americans experience generally when coming into contact with an African American male.

European Americans are socially conditioned to view African Americans with fear and dismay unless the African Americans are known to the European Americans. This conditioning is a natural and a normal part of everyday life and not viewed as a bias towards people of color. Butler referenced  in his book a study entitled “Transforming Perceptions: Black Men and Boys,” by the American Values Institute (3/2013), that noted the following: “When people [European Americans] see black men they don’t know, they have a physical response that is different from their response to other people. Their blood pressure goes up and they sweat more.” He also noted another study that stated: “When a white person sees an unfamiliar black male face, the amygdala, the part of the brain that processes fear, activates.” So, the reference to the fear experienced by European Americans law enforcement as noted is part of the American experience for them and bad news for African Americans. The challenge for all Americans is to replace that fear with reason and understanding, knowing that we all belong to the same family of mankind. We must all work to replace the present criminal justice system or continue to be victims of it.

Consequently, we need to practice justice and respect towards one another because we realize as Peters noted: “Court proceedings should, of course, be impartial—but not to the extent of being obtuse. And obtuse—even evil—is precisely what we have today. Mindless worship of statutes as opposed to the spirit animating them. No harm done (or intended) no longer matters. Just ‘the law’—as interpreted by twelve random strangers.” While we can no longer practice the concept of “a jury of one’s peers,” we can certainly underscore the humanity we all possess. We must be the change we need.

Paul R. Lehman, American Democracy: Truth, Falsehood, Falsehoods as truths, and Reality

May 21, 2017 at 11:49 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Bigotry in America, blacks, Constitutional rights, democracy, discrimination, Disrespect, DNA, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, fairness, happiness, justice, justice system, law, liberty, life, Pilgrims, Pledge of Allegiance, Prejudice, promises, protest, Puritans, race, Race in America, racism, respect, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery, social justice system, Supreme Court Chief Justice, The U.S. Constitution, U. S. Census, U.S. Supreme Court, white supremacy, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

PART THREE of three

American history has always been taught with a spin that underscores the importance of the European, Anglo-Saxon male. Starting with the pilgrims and subsequently the Puritan who came from England to tame and develop a strange, wild, land given to them by God. The average American educational system also underscores the inalienable rights granted by the Constitution to European American men. The European Americans know from living in American society, the power, privileges, and supremacy available to them, but not to people of color. In addition, the European Americans also know that the system of supremacy denies the rights they enjoy to the people of color. Chief Justice Taney’s opinions in the Dred Scott Case, 1854, noted that the founding fathers, the framers of the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution that: “They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.”No one offered a disclaimer to that statement until the 13th and 14th Amendment. The laws changed, but the mindset of many European Americans remains as Taney stated.

Nevertheless, many European Americans do not see themselves as the reason and cause of people of color not enjoying their rights. The failure of the people of color not enjoying their inalienable rights European Americans believe is due to their inferiority, some additional personal faults, and/ or maybe it is still God’s will. In any event, the perception of the European Americans of themselves is based on the false premise of a race by color, and an hypocritical view of democracy as presented through American history and public education. In essence, their sense and view of reality are based on falsehoods, however, to them, it is based on truth and facts. Consequently, African Americans face discrimination daily from European Americans who do not realize their actions are biased.

Many social changes continue to occur in America since the founding fathers instituted their system of European American supremacy and African American inferiority. The more significant changes involve the actions of African Americans seeking access to their inalienable rights granted by the Constitution and denied by society. Fortunately, America is a society governed by laws, and it is through these laws that changes in the social structure are available. The laws were written without respect to color, but the enjoyment of those rights was based on the ability for those laws to be enforced. African Americans did not enjoy the support of society in enforcing the laws that discriminated and disenfranchised them. For the African Americans, their reality has been the constant and continuous struggle to obtain and enjoy those inalienable rights. A problem for some European Americans, especially the young European American man in question, is that with each gain for rights made by African Americans, represents a loss to them.

A problem consistent in interviews that involve extreme concepts of ethnic bigotry such as the one in question is the fact that the interviewer never challenges the young European American’s concept of race. In other words, questions like: what does white mean? How can whiteness be determined and who determines it? What is a race? How can a percentage of whiteness be determined? He is allowed to continue embracing his false concept of race and, in fact, becomes emboldened in his belief because it is not challenged or debunked.

As long as the interviewer accepts the concept of race from the young European American’s perspective, the conversation will remain cyclical, and his bigotry will go unchallenged. In order for change to occur in the conversation facts and reality associated with those facts must be introduced and considered. The presence and contributions made to America by African Americans are not fiction, but real and documented facts of significance. The recently opened building, The National Museum of African American History and Culture, as well as the statue of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., situated on the mall, gives proof and evidence to the contributions of Africans Americans to American history and society. The introduction of DNA and its findings are real and important to our understanding of truth and scientific facts. When the DNA scientists reported that their finding indicated that all human being were 99.9 percent alike, we have no reason to doubt them. They concluded that race cannot be discerned from our DNA. While Americans can disagree with the findings that debunk the concept of race by color, they cannot change them. However, if the concept on which the system of ethnic bigotry is based is not challenged, change is not possible.

The young European American who sees himself as white must be presented fact and evidence to replace the falsehoods he has been living with all his life. His acceptance of the facts and evidence relative to race represents the problem as well as the challenge. What rational and logical people view as falsehoods, the young European American views as truth.

Changes in American society are taking place on more rapid basis than in the past because of the many advances in technology and other areas. Many of the changes we are able to witness on a daily base. One of those changes is in the demographics of society. More and more American society is browning because of the mixture of its ethnic population and the union of representatives of different ethnic cultures. The concept of races by color or culture is quickly fading and the significance of race losing its social value. The problem of race has become so confusing that the U.S.Census Bureau simply allows people to identify themselves by providing a space labeled “other.”

However, what is needed is a concerted effort to bring out the factual truth and separate it from the falsehoods. All the lies, myths, deceits, hypocrisy associated with race and American history and society must be confronted and debunked. By doing so, we will be able to see who we are and what we want to be and to start to engage in sound communications. The choice is ours to make; we can be either agent of change or its victims. Either way, change will continue to occur.

The young European American man who sees America as a white society must be given the opportunity to see the falsehood that has been guiding his life as truths. If he is able to recognize and accept those falsehoods for what they are, then a positive change in his perception is possible. If he is unable to discern the truth from the falsehoods then his life will continue to be filled with the disappointments and the loss of his sense of value and self-importance as a European American (white) man in an ethnically diverse society and world. The ideal objective of our future society is for all Americans, especially the young European American, to replace his whiteness with actual truths and facts and be able to state honestly and freely the ending of the Pledge of Allegiance that underscores “liberty and justice for all.”

Paul R. Lehman, Terrence Crutcher and the Tulsa jury,another instance of injustice by reason of being African American

May 19, 2017 at 12:29 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, democracy, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, justice, justice system, Killings in Tulsa, Prejudice, Race in America, social justice system, The Oklahoman, tolerance, Tulsa, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The jury in Tulsa found Betty Shelby not guilty and in doing so told the world that African Americans and other people of color have no rights that a police officer need to respect. Once an African American is stopped by a police officer, his or her life is forfeited to that officer. Facts and evidence play no part in the reason for killing an African American by a police officer if we follow the accounts of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher.

Once police officers stop African Americans, the African Americans lose the right to speak because anything they say can be interpreted by the officers as disrespectful or threatening, whichever they choose. The African Americans lose the right to move because any movement might be seen as a threat to the officer’s life. So, what can the African Americans do when stopped by a police officer? A frequently used bit of advice is to comply with the officer’s command. The problem with that is if the African American starts the compliance too slowly then the officer is forced to take action. That action might involve the use of a taser. When someone is shot with a taser, he must remain perfectly still or his movement will be seen as resisting arrest and not complying with the officer’s command. In other words, the African Americans are damned by whatever they say or do as far as the police are concerned.

Some people will say that no one loses his or her rights when stopped by a police officer. If that is not the case, then why are the victims of a fatal police shooting always viewed as guilty of a crime when they never had an opportunity to present their side of the event that led to the shooting? The victim’s side is always challenged even with clear and concise video shows what happened. The problem is with the justice system and the non-thinking jury that fails to use common sense or follow facts and evidence in order to clear an officer of any wrongdoing. Shelby’s reason for shooting Crutcher indicates that she is a danger to the public or the African American public. She stated: “…she fired her weapon out of fear because she said he didn’t obey her command to lie on the ground…”One has to wonder as to what caused her fear. The video showed Crutcher walking a distance in front of her with both hands in the air. If this posture created fear in her, then the entire public is suspect. What was she afraid of that caused her to shoot?  She said that it was when he “appeared to reach inside his SUV for what she thought was a gun.” The report noted that Crutcher was unarmed, the window as up, and no weapon was found in his SUV.

In the article, “Jury finds Tulsa officer not guilty,” (The Oklahoman 5/18/2017) stated the following: “Prosecutors told jurors that Shelby overreacted. They noted Crutcher had his hands in the air and wasn’t combative—part of which was confirmed by police video taken from a dashboard camera and helicopter that showed Crutcher walking away from Shelby, hands held above his head.” We should note that Shelby was not alone on the scene; she had a fellow police officer near to her. One wonders what caused the jury to rule the way they did in view of all the visual information available to them.

In addition to being afraid, we learn that “Shelby also said she feared the influence of PCP, a powerful hallucinogenic known as Angel Dust that makes users erratic, unpredictable and combative.” However, as stated earlier, Crutcher manifested none of those characteristics.” After an autopsy was performed, PCP was found in his system and also in his SUV. That information was discovered after the shooting, not before. One concern about this incident is why was Crutcher stopped? Could a force less lethal have been employed to effect Shelby’s purpose? What kind of instructions was the jury given in their deliberation in this case?

Evidently, while the questions posed are important for the victim’s family, they are seemingly meaningless to the jury when a police officer is involved. Our criminal justice system must be changed to one that acknowledges and respect the rights of all citizens, regardless of what they look like. The system also needs to reflect the fact that all police officers are not perfect and that they should experience repercussions for their misdeeds.  As it stands today, an African American’s words have no value against that of a police officer. He is always presumed guilty until proven innocent. The reason for that presumption is due to the system of European American supremacy and African American inferiority, the social conditioning European Americans receive in America from birth—African Americans and people of color are to be feared; they are viewed as dangerous and to be suspect. When a European American becomes a police officer, that social conditioning does not change. So, when Shelby said she was afraid of Crutcher, she was not lying, and the members of the jury identified with her and that fear. So, if that is the case, then where is the justice for the African Americans?

When the statement was made earlier that African Americans lose all their rights when stopped by a police officer was made, it was not based on conjecture, but facts and evidence. All one has to do is look at the litany of cases where an unarmed African American or person of color has been shot and killed when alternative uses of force were available. The fact that the Tulsa jury overlooked justice in this case underscores the need to replace the criminal justice system in America. People need to join in with groups who are working to change the system and do whatever is necessary (protest, petition, run for office, support organizations) to help effect change.

Fear is not a monopoly of European American police officers, because communities, family, friends of African Americans and other people of color experience it also, every time they are stopped by a police officer. Fear should never be the reality because the responsibility of all Americans is to ensure life, liberty, and justice for all. We have a lot of work to do; let us get to it.

 

Paul R. Lehman, American Democracy: Truth, Falsehood, Falsehoods as truths, and Reality (Part two)

May 14, 2017 at 11:50 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Bigotry in America, birther, black inferiority, blacks, democracy, discrimination, Disrespect, Donald Trump, Elizabeth Minnick, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, happiness, Human Genome, justice, justice system, law, liberty, Pledge of Allegiance, Prejudice, racism, respect, segregation, skin color, skin complexion, social justice system, socioeconomics, The U.S. Constitution, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

PART 2

Often time, when we see someone with a missing limb, we think about the disadvantage that missing limb is for the person. However, what we often do not realize is that if the person was born with the limb missing, then it was never considered by that person to be a disadvantage because to him, the missing limb is normal. The young European American man was born into a society that conditioned him to view society as a normal European American along with the social biases towards African Americans and other people of color. His perception was to him natural and normal. With all the freedoms and privileges working in his favor, little wonder the young European American identifies himself as a white man. Despite the numerous civil rights protests of African Americans and other people of color, many European Americans failed to realize that the objectives of the protests were for the protesters, fellow Americans, to share in the same rights, liberties, and privileges enjoyed by the European American citizens. Each protest brought by African Americans was a deliberate effort to enlighten the European American citizens that something was wrong in American society and that American was not living up to its creed and mantra of freedom and justice for all.

The problem, as we can ascertain from the young European American, is that with each social gain by the African Americans and other people of color, he believes some of his privileges are being lost or taken away. For example, when the Supreme of the United States ruled that school segregation was unequal and that integration must be instituted in an effort to remedy the problems it caused, many European Americans believed that they were losing their right to segregate themselves. Although none of the civil rights acts and laws ever mentions African Americans specifically, the fact that they were the citizens being denied their rights, made them appear as the enemy to many European Americans. The facts concerning all the civil rights laws enacted under protest by African Americans underscored the rights of all citizens, not just those of people of color.

Nonetheless, the fact that the changes taking place in the world and especially in America became more noticeable to the young European American due to the advances in cyber technology. His idea of America being a white man’s country was starting to be challenged by all the social changes taking place. The one change that served as a major indicator of change in American for the young European American was the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. All his life he had been conditioned to view the African American as inferiority and lacking social value. Now all of a sudden, an African American is President. For him, too much was being lost too fast.

The young European American has been conditioned all his life to believe the falsehood to be true. We know from the works of people like Edward O. Wilson and Elizabeth Minnick that people can be conditioned to accept falsehoods by way of having heard it over numerous times and/or by trusting in a leader of a group and believing through a blind trust. That is, people can be conditioned to giving serious thought to anything their leader says while continuing strong support to that leader. For example, during the presidential campaign, Donald Trump made the statement that he could shoot someone in the middle of a public street and not loses a single vote. His thinking suggested that his followers did not give thought to what he said; their loyalty was to him, the individual. Unfortunately, that characteristic of the thoughtless American seems to fit many Americans who cannot or refuse to recognize the falsehoods masquerading as truths in American society.

To understand the difference between the European American’s perspective of reality and that of the African American based on both their social conditioning is like they are walking down a street and both see a piece of class in the grass. The European American sees the sun shining on the glass while the African American sees the sun’s reflection from the glass. They both are looking at the same piece of glass, but each sees something different. If we were to ask them what they see, their answers would both be correct. The fact that they focus on different aspects of the same piece of glass represents the problem with their not being able to communicate constructively. If both cannot understand and acknowledge the fact of their two different perspectives, effective communication is impossible.

The reality for the young European American man consists of viewing America as only a European American society. That is when phrases such as “the American people,” or “we the people,” or any references to Americans are used, the mental picture the young man receives does not include people of color. People of color, especially African Americans are not considered real Americans to the young European American; they are simply allowed to live in America. That perception to him is real and true based on his beliefs and social conditioning.

With respect to the truths and falsehood of the young European American, no change is possible unless or until he is able to replace his falsehoods with facts and reality. The difficulty in the European American acknowledging reality, however, is that the European American’s beliefs are based on falsehoods, so everything he says and does reflect that falsehood at its base, however, he cannot accept his reality as being false. The reason for his inability to accept the falsehood goes to his experiences living in a biased America. All his life Americans institutions from segregated schools and churches, to preferential jobs and education, have underscored his sense of privilege. So, to deprive him of what he sees as rights for him, he sees as a form of abuse and punishment. To make matters worse, society tend to point to the African Americans as the source of his distress.

Paul R. Lehman,Ethnic bigotry on the judicial bench—a case in point

May 3, 2017 at 12:10 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, Criticism, democracy, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, fairness, interpretations, justice, justice system, law, Oklahoma, race, Race in America, respect, skin color, social justice system, socioeconomics, the 'n' word, The Oklahoman, white supremacy | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Many Americans believe that as a society we have made tremendous progress in our acceptance of one another as equals regardless of our skin color. Although we would like to believe this, the fact of the matter is that ethnic bigotry permeates the whole of American society in the system of European American (white) supremacy. In many cases, the bigotry is subtle and often passes for ignorance or innocence. At other times, the bigotry is so apparent; it cannot be excused with some form of rationale. One of the features of European American supremacy is expressed in an attitude of superiority over the ideas, opinions, and statements of people of color, especially African Americans. A case in point occurred recently in an article by Randy Ellis, in The Oklahoman, “Black judge: Repeating ‘n’ word in appellate opinion was ‘unnecessary.’(4/29/2017)

According to the article, the only African American judge on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Vice Presiding Judge David Lewis, made the statement regarding his fellow judge’s opinion: “I concur in the decision reached by the court in this matter. However I write separately to point out that the author of this opinion did not have to repeat the repugnant language used by the appellant.” Lewis’ words to his colleague, Judge Gary Lumpkin, were to alert him to the sensitivity of the word to him, and indeed to the public, and that he found its frequent repetition unnecessary. Lewis wrote that “The repeated use of the ‘n’ word in this opinion was unnecessary to the reader’s understanding of the language used by the appellant, and unnecessary to the court’s resolution of this case.”

In many cases like this one, the judge receiving comments of this nature would recognize the lack of sensitivity shown in his or her case and offer an apology for the offense and a “thank you” for the cautionary note from the colleague. One would think that a judge on the bench today would be fully apprised of the sensitive nature of the ‘n’ word. The article noted that: “Judge Lumpkin quoted the racial slur verbatim in his opinion, while Lewis used the euphemistic expression ‘n’ word in his criticism.”

What followed, according to the article, underscored the apparent ethnic bigotry that exists not only in society but also on the bench: “Robert Hudson, another judge on the court, defended Lumpkin’s decision to quote the racial slur.” Rather than accepting Lewis’ words to Lumpkin as a form of “corrective criticism,” and an appeal to his better judgment, Hudson interpreted Lewis’ comments as an affront to Lumpkin’s judgment and continued “Our cases reflect reality and that reality is oftentimes not pretty.” In other words, Hudson seems to imply that one reality trumps another reality; in this case, the reference to an African American slur word, which could have easily been avoided, should be used regardless of its offensiveness to his fellow judge and society. The question is why would a judge continued to use an offensive ethnic slur word when he knows that it can easily be avoided. European American arrogance?

Robert Hudson excused Lumpkin’s use of the ‘n’ word by noting that: “’…if we are willing to erase highly relevant—albeit offensive—facts from our opinions, we will send a terrible message to the bench, bar and public that the truth, when objectionable, should be redacted merely to avoid controversy.” Hudson tried to use aspects of the case to make his point, but it fails on the history of prior court practices. The details of a sexual attack perpetrated on some young female would be not reused time and again verbatim if the judge knew that the language was sensitive to her and the court.

The point relative to this article focuses more on the attitude and actions of the two European American judges rather than the actual case. For example, if the three judges were having lunch together, and one of the European American judges started to tell an offensive ethnic joke and the African American judge stopped him and asked that he not tell the joke in his presence because he found it to be offensive, common sense dedicates that a reasonable person would acquiesce and not tell the joke. However, if the other European American judge wanted to hear the joke and encouraged the teller of the joke to continue, we would realize that he had no regards for the feelings of his African America colleague. In addition, he showed disrespect by his actions, and that his selfish desire was more important than his colleague’s feelings and request. The African American’s request was that the joke not be told in his presence, not that it not be told at all.

The system of European American (white) supremacy has conditioned the European Americans to view African Americans and other people of color as inferior regardless of their social, economic, educational, political and judicial status. That system causes European Americans to view reality through a warped sense of value. For example, when the topic of race is ever brought into a conversation, the European American rarely thinks of him or herself as being part of a race. They have been falsely conditioned to view themselves as representatives of the human race—everyone else belongs to a different race. In addition, they see themselves as being the center of the universe and in control of society.

So, when Lewis, the African American judge said to his colleague that he found the repetition of the ‘n’ word to be excessive and unnecessary to the case, Hudson, a European American judge, and colleague of both Lumpkin and Lewis took exception to Lewis’ comments. Lewis had said previously that the repetition of the ‘n’ word verbatim had no direct bearing on the outcome of the case. Hudson used his sense of superiority to castigate Lewis for speaking the truth to his European colleague. So, Hudson had to put the African American judge in his “place” as an inferior. Hudson, seemingly, believed that his opinion regarding Limpkin’s excessive use of the ‘n’ word over-ruled or trumped the opinion of Lewis for no other reason than he was European American.

Some people might think that these comments are simply making a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting that ethnic bigotry was at the core of Hudson’s criticism of Lewis. When read carefully, the article noted that Lewis agreed with the finding of the case. He just felt the use of the ‘n’ word was excessive. Because of the socially biased conditioning of Hudson’s and European Americans generally, their ability to relate to insensitive words or phrases directed at ethnic Americans of color are rarely perceived and understood. However, even large learning curves can be overcome with effort

Paul R. Lehman, Bill O’Reilly’s comments about Maxine Waters hair underscores social conditioning

April 3, 2017 at 3:22 pm | Posted in African American, African American hair, American Bigotry, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, Criticism, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, freedom of speech, justice, Prejudice, President Trump, race, Race in America, respect, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, social justice system, The Huffington Post, tolerance, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The social conditioning of European Americans generally makes them oblivious to the fact that they are bigots. For many, just the false concept of being white is enough to convince them of their superiority over people of color. They are usually not aware of their ethnic biases because society has constructed all the social institutions to accommodate the European American’s sense of being normal. In addition, “…many European Americans still believe that race is a valid term that protects them from scrutiny, they continue to act as though being European American is sufficient for the display of arrogance. Their ignorance of race allows them to act as though their skin color is a birthright, the power, and privilege they think they deserve.” (The system of European American (white) supremacy and African American (black) Inferiority, p.88) This characteristic of European American arrogance was on display recently by Fox television personality, Bill O’Reilly.

We learn about the incident from Taryn Finley, from Huffington Post: “During a segment of “Fox and Friends,” the show played a clip of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.) speaking out against the discriminatory and bigoted practices of President Donald Trump’s supporters. When asked to give his response, O’Reilly killed two birds with one stone and made a comment that was both racist and sexist.” The statement O’Reilly made was “I didn’t hear a word she said. I was looking at the James Brown wig,” ‘he said.’ “Do we have a picture of James Brown? It’s the same wig.”O’Reilly’s first display of arrogance and ignorance was in the fact that James Brown never wore a wig. So, his statement of “It’s the same one,” shows his lack of knowledge relative to James Brown. His arrogance and ignorance continued.

O’Reilly was on the show to provide some informational input relative to a clip shown of Rep. Waters making a statement. However, he did not pay enough attention to what Waters was said so he was not in a position to make a response concerning it. Because of his ignorance and arrogance, both conditioned in him by American society, O’Reilly gave little thought to not responding to the question but instead chose to make a comment about Rep. Water’s hair. The fact that he did not pay attention to the clip showed his lack of concern and value for what Waters had to say. His actions for not paying attention to what was said showed his lack of respect for a United States Representative. Why? The answer is because O’Reilly grew up in a society that conditioned him to not value people of color, specifically, African Americans.

The lack of value for Rep. Waters by O’Reilly was displayed in his choice of references to James Brown. Brown was an entertainer who had a major impact on the world of music starting in the 1950s. He was known also for his clothes and capes as well as his hair, which was coffered in a costume style. For O’Reilly to compare Waters hair to that of James Brown showed he lacked concrete information about both Brown and Waters, but did not hesitate to speak it as if his assessment was accurate and valid. Neither was the case. But, because of O’Reilly’s social conditioning, he felt at ease speaking his mind with fear of retribution. One can infer that O’Reilly saw nothing wrong in viewing Waters as something of a clown in a wig. He, apparently, would not have stopped with his analogy and comparison of Waters to Brown had not his co-host Brian Kilmeade “laughed and made a tasteless joke about the musician, who died in 2006. “He’s not using it anymore,’ he said—they finally buried him.’” The problem with this incident is the fact that O’Reilly never realized his bigotry in his words and actions. To add insult to injury, O’Reilly did not respond to Waters comments about Donald Trump and his discrimination and bigotry. O’Reilly acknowledged his lack of concern and respect for Waters in his statement:”I didn’t hear a word she said.”

Some people might say that what O’Reilly said about Waters was not that bad; he meant her no harm or disrespect. Wrong. The fact that he did not pay attention to what she was saying was disrespectful, and the excuse for his not paying attention was, even more, condemning of his bigotry and arrogance. But these things never registered to him as being “over the line” of decency and respect because of his social conditioning.

Once O’Reilly was confronted with the fact that what he said about Waters was considered in poor taste, he offered something of an apology in order to maintain his sense of superiority. The fact that he apologized is irrelevant because we do not know what he apologized for since all he said was:”Unfortunately, I also made a jest about her hair which was dumb. I apologize.” What we need to understand about O’Reilly and many European Americans is that they are ignorant as to their perceptions of people of color bring biased. They cannot see a problem is denigrating someone of color because they do not see that denigration as something wrong and unacceptable in our democratic society. They have been conditioned to see themselves as normal human beings, and their perception of everything is normal as long as they are at the center and in control.

While America has made progress on many levels, one of the levels that need to be addressed is the fact of race as a myth. For too many years Americans have been conditioned to see each other by focusing on our differences, especially in skin complexions. We have been led to believe that the fairness of the skin reflects a higher order of human biological development. We know today that all human being are alike and belong to only one race, the human race. However, because of the continuous social conditioning that underscores the myth of European American supremacy, people like Bill O’Reilly cannot see himself as a bigot. The challenge for America is to change the bigoted norm to one that reflects the value and worth of all human beings. That way we can begin to remove the ignorance, innocence, and arrogance that underscore the mindset of too many Americans.

 

Paul R. Lehman, Good community relationships with the police requires clear, realistic perception

January 29, 2017 at 6:02 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, Constitutional rights, criminal activity, democracy, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, freedom of speech, justice, law enforcement agencies, Oklahoma, police force, Prejudice, President, President Obama, protest, race, segregation, skin complexion, social justice system, The Oklahoman, tolerance, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an article by Mark A. Yancey, “Police and community relationship goes 2 ways,” (The Oklahoman 1/28/2017) his first two sentences underscore the reasons why community relationships are in need of a lot of work. He stated that: “In the wake of recent police-involved shootings around the country, I often hear that police need to rebuild trust with the communities they serve. While I agree trust needs to be re-established, we should not place the entire burden of restoring trust, promoting respect and tolerance and following the law solely on the police.”Two words are used in these sentences that demonstrate Yancey’s lack of understanding of the problems involved with building a relationship with the communities; those two words are rebuild and restoring.

While we can applaud Yancey’s desire to seek a good relationship with communities, we must recognize that he is a citizen of a society with a natural bias against people of color. Chances are, he does not realize his bias because it is not something he consciously acquired but was conditioned to be society—his home, neighborhood, school, church, city, state, and nation. One example should suffice to show how the bias works. If an officer observes a nice-looking late-model car driven by a young African American male, chances are two thoughts will cross the officer’s mind—the car is stolen, or the driver is a drug dealer. However, if the drive of the car is a young European American male, the two thoughts might be that he is a spoiled kid or it is the family’s car. The thoughts relative to the African American male were not made out of malice or anger; they are conditioned responses. If the officer does not recognize the negative thoughts relative to the African American, then they cannot be replaced.

One cannot rebuild or restore relationships that never existed in the first place. The relationship the officer has with the communities is the one conditioned by a society which sees people of color in a negative context. The relationship should be for the officer to serve and protect all the citizens without bias, but when the bias is hidden by social convention, the lines get blurred.

Yancey’s next sentence also underscored a problem of a lack of understanding in the police-community relationship: “Relationship-building, after all, is a two-way street and requires mutual trust, respect, and tolerance.” When we stop and take a look at some of the recent videos of police treatment of young African American men, we recognize that all three of these elements are missing from the behavior of the officers. Officers are paid by the citizens to do their jobs; the citizens are not, so it is incumbent on the officers to serve as examples in these areas. History shows us that the law enforcement agency has been wanting in these three areas relative to their relationship with the African American community. For example, shortly after former President Obama had taken office, a noted scholar a professor from a prestigious university was arrested for entering his own home. He identified himself to the officer, told the officer that the home was his, and showed him the key to the door. The officer disregarded all the professor said and arrested him. What happened to trust, respect and tolerance during this experience?

Another recent example of where the police disregard these areas of trust, respect, and tolerance involved a young African American man who had used a tool to do some work on the sunroof of his car. Someone from the neighborhood called 911 and reported someone breaking into an auto. When the young man’s car was pulled over, he got out with both hands in the air. The video showed the officers issuing orders and simultaneously charging the young man, not giving him any time to obey the commands. To add insult to injury, the officers kept telling the young man to stop resisting when there were three or four officers on him, pushing his face into the concrete, punching him and holding his hand behind his back with an officer’s knee. Yet, they kept yelling at him to stop resisting—he was not resisting. How could he when he was face down on the pavement with three or four officers on him? Where were the respect and tolerance? Videos of both these incidents exist and the behavior of the officer/officers can be observed on YouTube.

Yancey mentioned that “citizens need to do their part in the rebuilding process by avoiding unnecessary, violent confrontations with officers.” Officer Yancey would do well to review many of the videos that show no violence on the part of the citizens unless or until it is initiated by officers who are in a rush to subdue a citizen. The fact is that when an officer stops a citizen, the citizen loses all his or her rights because if a video and audio history of the event is not available, the law enforcement community will disregard anything the citizen has to say but accepts everything the officer has to say.

Time and again, videos have shown that citizens can observe the laws, and follow police orders and still get beaten, or shot, and then arrested. We are not saying that the citizens are never at fault; many times they are, and many times mental illness has some part to play in the events. Yancey stated that “The law requires officers to respect the citizens they serve. Citizens should show police the same respect they rightfully demand by cooperating with officers’ instructing and letting our judicial system resolve peacefully and disagreements about the lawfulness of their actions.” In an ideal world Yancey’s statement might be acceptable, but in reality, if the citizen cannot present evidence to prove his or her case, it is an automatic win for the officer. All we need to do is check the record of police cases of misconduct and see how many convictions have been placed on the officers.

The first order of business in trying to establish good community relationships is for the police departments to understand their history with the community. If the elements of trust, respect, and tolerance are missing, then the first question should be why? Chances are the problems start with the biased perception of the citizens conditioned in the law enforcers by society. That is the first thing that needs to change—all citizens should be viewed as citizens, no differences. We can admire Yancey’s efforts in wanting to address this problem, but he needs to better understand the role of the police officers and their relationship to the community before asking the community to give what must be earned—trust, respect, and tolerance

Paul R. Lehman, Racism is kept alive and protected through America’s ignorance

November 22, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, black inferiority, blacks, discrimination, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, justice, lower class, Media and Race, minority, Prejudice, race, Race in America, racism, reverse discrimination, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery, social justice system, Supreme Court Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, white supremacy, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The subject of racism has been at the top of the list of topics in America before the recent presidential election. A good assumption regarding racism is that the majority of Americans think that they have a good grasp of what is racism. From observations of and listening to many Americans, what they think they know about racism is incorrect. The Encarta Dictionary offered the following definition of racism: “the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior.”Another definition is also offered: “prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races.” While the first definition mentions nothing about hatred, the second definition juxtapose prejudice and animosity as if they were the same; they are not. Hatred does not have to be an element of racism unless it is focused on something specific regarding the biased race in question. Otherwise, bias against someone simply because he or she looks or acts differently from one’s self is irrational; as is racism itself. Nonetheless, we are told that racism exists in America and we are shown evidence of it via media. What we do not see concerning racism, however, is the lack of understanding in what we see, and what we think we know.

In American, the concept of races is generally accepted by many who ignore history, science, and reality in favor of the illusion given them by society. The concept of a black race and a white race is bogus, untrue, false, has no basis except as an illusion. The social conditioning of Americans by society to accept the concept of races has never lessened or suffered a weakness from the truth. The system of European American (white) supremacy and African American (black) inferiority was built on the concept of races with the objective of controlling the poor European Americans and African Americans. Today the system is still alive and doing well. Unfortunately, many European Americans do not see themselves as part of the system because they were conditioned to see bigotry on their outside, not their inside. Many European Americans associate racism with something that an individual projects such as hatred and fear for a person of an ethnic group different from theirs. Therefore, if they, individually, do not hate or fear another person because of that person’s ethnicity, then for them, racism does not enter into the mix.

When the statement is made concerning racism being a part of the American social fabric, the reference is directed at the entire society, no exceptions. All of America’s institutions are tainted with the element of racism as is all Americans, whether or not it is understood by them. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not know that the concept of racism as well as “race” itself is false, not true. If the reality regarding race is that it is a bogus concept, then so is the concept of racism. Since the term racism is inaccurate, the correct term to use is bigotry. Bigotry against people of other ethnic groups (not races) is ethnic bigotry.

American society has been persuaded and encouraged to accept things that are irrational, misleading, and illogical for so long because they hide the truth of bigotry from us and keep the system of bigotry protected. For example, when we hear terms like equal justice, equal rights, equal privileges or even equal opportunity, we tend not to question them believing that they are positive and all-inclusive. The fact is these words serve to protect the system of bigotry in that the term “equal” relates primarily to mathematics, not social or human endeavors. If no two people are equal, how then can there be an equal opportunity? In order to make two people equal, one person has to stop developing in order for the other person to catch up, so even if the other person catches up they would still not be equal. The problem comes from trying to define the term which is relative– even identical twins are not equal. So, using the term equal instead of “fair” or  “fairness” conceals the fact that equal can mean anything the user chooses.

Society even accepts the oxymoron phrase “reverse discrimination “as  legitimate when common sense tells us that discrimination exists or it does not exist, like pregnancy either is or is not. The fact is discrimination cannot be reversed. Little wonder how our Supreme Court failed to see the defect in their finding in the Alan Bakke case. The problem is in the language that is used by law and society that keeps the system of bigotry in place because no useful definitions are ever offered to make clear the meaning or intent of what is being said. In many cases, some things that are meant to be condemned are in fact legitimized in the very language used to condemn it. For example, when the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was passed, instead of saying that discrimination will not be permitted, the law included qualifiers such as race or color. The fact that the terms race and color are not defined, but are mentioned in the law indicates that they are in existence and accepted by society, but just not to be considered in acquiring housing. We too often make the mistake of interchanging fairness with equal; they are not the same. African Americans, as well as all people, want to be treated fairly because they know that “equal” is relative and elusive.

With the demographic changes taking place in America the need to use words and phrases that support the concept of ethnic supremacy is rapidly diminishing. Terms like racism are used so often until they have little impact even though they are often misunderstood by the users. To be clear, racism is not about hating others; it is about controlling and feeling superior to them. The element of fear plays an important role in the control aspect of the system, in that it is used to control the European Americans, not the African Americans. Fear of African Americas is part of the social conditioning received by European Americans. Fear, however, should not be confused with hate. The opposite of hate is not “love,” but ignorance. America has not been able to solve the problem of racism because of its ignorance in not realizing that we keep the system of ethnic bigotry alive and protected without knowing it.

If you liked this blog, please share it with others. Thank you.

Paul R. Lehman, The problem with an assumed colorblind society and social justice

November 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, blacks, Chief Justice John Roberts, discrimination, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, John Roberts, justice, justice system, Mother Jones, Prejudice, race, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, social justice system, Stephanie Mencimer, U.S. Supreme Court, voting rights act, white supremacy | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For a number of years now, this blog has been trying to make clear the misconception and lack of understanding relative to why any effort to fight racism is wasted time and energy. The reason racism cannot be fought or manipulated is because it is not a thing, but a concept. When the founding fathers invented and instituted the concept of race by identifying two races, one white and the other black. The reasons for the concept of race were to maintain the power and control of American society. That power and control were represented in a system known as white supremacy with whites being the normal and natural human beings, superior to all non-white people, and blacks being inferior to all people, especially whites. As instituted, it was a system of ethnic bigotry constructed to promote and protect itself. One of the primary features of this system was the belief in the naturalness and normalcy of the supremacy by whites. The question regarding the validity of the term race and races as used by the founding fathers was seldom raised. So, everyone assumed that the term race used as social identity was legitimate and based in fact. So, many Americans never realize that their conception and perception of reality was false and biased towards people of color.

When the subject of racism or white supremacy is brought to public scrutiny, it is often described as being a fabric of American society. An example of how the system of bigotry works can be seen in the words and works of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts Jr. In an article by Stephanie Mencimer, “Colorblind Justice,” (Nov/Dec 2016 Mother Jones) we learn how Justice Brown’s conception of race influences his work. She noted Robert’s effort in “gutting a civil right law he has been fighting his entire career.” She continues her claim by stating that “Roberts has argued that the United States has become colorblind to the point where aggressive federal intervention on behalf of voters of color is no longer necessary—and this case, Shelby County v. Holder, was the pinnacle of that crusade.” One wonders how a society that has and still uses the terms black race and white race as social identities can be considered a colorblind society.

The invention of races by color is the glue that continues to challenge the well-being of American democracy by preventing society from moving forward without regard to skin color. The concept of whiteness and blackness forms the core of many European Americans identities. So, how can America be colorblind? What justice Roberts does not realize is the fact that he has viewed America through biased eyes for all his life as something normal. In essence, because he is biased and does not realize it, his words show a lack of understanding of reality. Perhaps a little more information about Roberts’ background will help us to better understand his words and actions.

Mencimer noted that “Roberts honed his views on race and voting as a clerk for Justice William Rehnquist, a man who as a court clerk himself had written a memo endorsing Plessey v. Ferguson, the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine upholding segregated schools.” So for Roberts, the concept of separate races was valid and correct for American society. Because of his views in opposition to civil rights laws, Rehnquist used his “commitment to color-blindness, and he used this theory to undermine the 1965 Voting Rights Act.” Roberts shared this view with Rehnquist. The problem with Roberts’ shared views with Rehnquist is the contradiction of identifying people as black and white and then saying that we live in a colorblind society where skin color does not matter.

To underscore the point of this blog in pointing out the lack of awareness of a biased perception by many Americans, including Justice Roberts we reference his actions relative to voting rights: “Echoing Rehnquist, Roberts has long insisted the United States has achieved a postracial, colorblind society, a point he emphasized in his 2013 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. For Roberts to refer to America as a postracial society is to admit that prior to becoming a postracial society, it was a racial one. What evidence does he provide to mark or note society’s transition from racial to postracial or from color to color blindness? None whatsoever. Roberts does not recognize or understand the system of European American (white) supremacy and African American (black) inferiority of which he is and has been a part of for all his life.

One way to try to understand the delusion and hypocrisy relative to race in America is the see how the system of supremacy was invented and how it continues today. Picture a tree with its parts represents American society: roots, trunk, branches, and leaves. The roots of the tree represent race; the trunk of the tree racism, the branches of the tree represent all the area of American society: government, education, science, education, law etc. Looking at that picture of the tree and its parts, what becomes apparent is the fact that the false concept of race has been the root of America’s problem since the beginning. Therefore, trying to fight racism is impossible in America without recognizing that the tree is not and has never been real, just assumed so. As Americans, we have been socially conditioned to see that tree as real, but to ignore the fact that the term race is not valid or factual relative to mankind and skin color. For America to overcome its problem of ethnic bias, the false tree must be replaced with a tree that reflects the reality that does not begin by identifying people of color as inferior or of a different race.

Justice Roberts’ view of America retains and promotes the system of ethnic bigotry because he refuses to recognize its existence. Roberts ‘ actions and words regarding voting right laws, for example, indicates that he is not blind to color, but justice. He does not see the whole picture of the American experience.  “He probably still believes he is right, because he likely sees what is going on as simple partisan politics,” says Hasen (Richard Hassen, a University of California-Irvine law professor who specializes in election law). “But for many of us, we see a world in which it is once again getting harder, not easier, for people—especially people of color—to cast a ballot which will count.”How’s that for a colorblind society and social justice.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.