Howard Zinn on Obedience

What The Charleston Church Attack Reveals About White America

Emanuel African Methodist Church was attacked on June 17th by a white supremacist gunman. The shooting was an act of terrorism in South Carolina that the mainstream media refused to address. A State senator Clementa Pinckney was a major target in the massacre. Society continues to ignore the major problem that Dylan Roof, the assailant represents. The vicious pathological hatred of Whites for non-white groups. There were apologists for the criminal, with claims he is mentally ill or that hate group propaganda had brainwashed him. A multitude of excuses for his violence have been made. The most ludicrous claim is that Roof is part of a small minority that hold racist or supremacist  beliefs. That assessment is incorrect, because a majority of Whites despise African Americans. They have never viewed them as equals, friends, or even human. Dylan Roof did what many whites wish they could do on a regular basis: the elimination of the black population in the US. Much of the rhetoric in his manifesto was recycled racist convictions from various white supremacist writings, websites, and literature. This tragedy reveals much about the psyche of White America. It is exclusionary, intolerant, and violent.
        Roof's manifesto seems to be a reflection of various racist convictions whites have. He scapegoats the African American population as ruining the country.Roof's tirade reaches the conclusion that "blacks are taking over." He describes African Americans as inferior, violent, and subhuman. The text does mention other disparaging remarks about other ethnic groups or in the case of Jews, religions. The fixation on African Americans is based on a hierarchy of colorism. Ethnic groups with lighter skin color are viewed as less of a threat, but are still hated. The writing praises Northeast Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean), which seems peculiar. However, this is not an anomaly when examined through the concept of colorism. The closer to a lighter hue in skin will give one more privilege in a white supremacist society. South East Asians, West Asians, and Central Asians are excluded, because of their darker skin. Dylan Roof seems to believe in the notion of the model minority. This concept was developed to denigrate African Americans and South Americans in the US. It also simultaneously was used to conceal racism and discrimination. The argument was that Asians worked hard to assimilate into American society and  as a result were accepted by white society. This is not true and the Vincent Chin murder is a perfect example. Roof ignores the long legacy of anti-Asian sentiment that has been been in America since the first wave of Chinese immigration, the war with Japan in the 1940s, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the fear of a more powerful China currently. Roof's proposed alliance is way to divide ethnic groups against one another and have one that is favored serve white supremacy. Many Asians are still hounded by the perpetual foreigner syndrome. Most Whites never view them as "real" Americans. His rants continue further stating that "Hispanics are a problem." Then Roof contradicts himself in another statement by saying "there are good and bad Hispanics." The "bad" ones in his view are the Amerindian populations of South America. Dylan Roof states that they value "White beauty" in South America and he favors Iberian descended Whites. This exposes his hatred through a hierarchy of skin color. By saying Hispanics are a problem it demonstrates the fear of a growing South American population in the US. Immigration is a major wedge issue that the conservatives use to gain votes. South Americans are viewed by Whites as unable to assimilate or integrate and designated a cultural other.Like African Americans they are constantly scapegoated. The reasons are different which range from taking jobs, depressing the labor market, and even causing a rise in crime. These claims are spurious, but to many Whites it is truth. Roof is opposed to immigration and the melting pot concept, because it is a direct challenge to White control. The manifesto laments the fact that Europe is experiencing large amounts of immigration. Europe to Dylan Roof is a White homeland that must be protected from what he considers the "inferior races." He is not alone in his beliefs. Numerous anti-immigrant groups and political parties have emerged in the UK, US, France, Greece, Germany, and Italy. White racism is becoming more popular in the US and Europe.
           Jews are mentioned in Roof's writing and are the only religious group to be disparaged. Dylan Roof's anger with Askenazi Jews is that they have a different cultural identity. He incorrectly believes that the only "real Jews" are European Jews. One can become a Jew by means of conversion. The paragraph sates that in his view, Jews are Whites. That does not represent demographic reality when counting Mirzrahi  and Maghrebi Jews. They are Arab and African  Jews. Ethiopian Jews are also not White. Being Jewish is not a race, but because they are distinguishable by culture they are   racialized by anti-semites. This reveals that the concept of race is mostly a social construction, which is used to control oppressed groups. He goes on to state that "Jews network."  Much of the diatribe is recycled antisemitic conspiracy theories.White hatred is not solely based on phenotypic characteristics, but culture. The writing exalts what he calls "White civilization" and claims that other races are just imitators. Like most Whites he acknowledges they do have a superiority complex combined with a Eurocentric perspective of the world. Jews do not fit in the White supremacist model, because their culture is too different.
        There is a divide in White America. It is class and culturally based. Dylan Roof criticizes Whites for moving to the suburbs as pusillanimous. He thinks White flight is evidence that some how African Americans have "taken over." The truth is White flight is an example of the desire to preserve segregation. Whites want to only be with other Whites. Most do not favor diversity or other forms of integration.  De jure segregation was eliminated, but de facto segregation is still functional. Whiteness was a concept developed in America to promote unity. This was unity through exclusion of African Americans and other ethnic groups. The hatred of African Americans specifically is a way to make Whites feel equal to other Whites. Throughout US history there has been income disparity that Whites were more class conscious about. Working class Whites had to be controlled so that wealthy elites could maintain power. Redirecting their grievances  at African Americans would provide an excellent distraction. This was done by planters in the antebellum south  and wealthy conservatives presently. Roof mentions that he has a disdain for suburban Whites, which reveals a class conflict.  He claims poor Whites were left behind with "hostile" African American populations. The disdain is that wealthy Whites are not helping poor Whites. It is now known that Roof  was unemployed by the time of the shooting. This is significant due to the fact hate groups target unemployed Whites and US Army veterans. The disillusioned and the frustrated are the perfect candidates for political extremism. Besides this issue there is a major schism in White America. One section advocates white privilege and supremacy. The other which is small in terms of opposition, rejects it. The reader would assume that Dylan Roof would be an extremely patriotic.This is not so and the reasons are clear. He believes in ethnic nationalism and opposes civic nationalism.  Civic nationalism is not based on race, but certain convictions. Anyone doubtless of their race, can become a US citizen. Roof  has disdain for this and believes a real America is completely White. Many Whites do not want other races coming to the US.
         White America has no love for the African American community. Policy brutality, gentrification, right-wing extremism, and a prison industrial complex are results of a legacy of White racial hatred. There are particular reasons for this obsessive hatred. The first could be fear. Whites have feared that if African Americans gained power, they would practice the same cruel acts. The possibility of vengeance has been around in the minds of Whites since the civil rights era. Another reason is that hatred is taught. Young White children are taught to have negative attitudes about other ethnic groups, which they will carry on into adulthood. The most important reason for this hate is that Whites have a strong belief in conformity. Anything different is considered negative. That is why immigrant groups will never have acceptance in the United States. Roof represents the uncontrolled rage of White America. The fact is there will never be peaceful race relations in the United States of America as long as Whites hold racial supremacist views.     

Basic Definitions of Economics

Economics can be defined as " a social science that deals with the management, distribution, and analysis of factors regarding goods and services." This is a pivotal social science, because many of our decisions function in an economic manner. Economics also influence national and foreign policy . Currently, the world may be seeing the demise of a neoliberal free market economy. To make sense of the current status of the global financial crisis, there are some basic terms that should be known. 

• Theoretical Economics- A branch of economics that draws on facts to produce an explanation for particular behavior. Economists attempt to use laws and principles to formulate economic policy. The idea is to understand how the market place function including the workers, consumers, governments, and businesses. From these theories economic policies are formed. However, these theories lead to a principle that provide a prediction of economic behavior. Theories, laws, and principles are classified as generalizations. The behavior can be so erratic from the market and individuals that deriving facts would be almost impossible.
• Policy Economics--Theories and data can be used to develop certain agendas. The point is to find a solution to a particular economic problem. The problems could include poverty, unemployment, recessions, and depressions. Policy formation just like in politics, requires rigorous attention to detail. Polices have not always been successful and in certain cases caused more damage. The introduction of supply side economics under the Ronald Reagan administration increased the gap between the rich and poor in the US. 

 

• Macroeconomics- This field examines economics as an entire aggregate. The whole range of human and market behavior is studied from governments, to households, and the business sector. Individual behavior is not given much thought. Measures such as total output, total employment, and total income are the major focus areas. This can be limiting, because many separate units form an economic system . Without workers, businesses, and governments there would not be an economy.  
• Microeconomics-  Examines the smaller units that form the economy. An example would be the actions of a firm or an individual consumer.Many activities can overlap between being micro or macro economic. The trading of stock could be both. It can involve individual holders of stock and the entire market.   

• Positive Economics- This type of discipline examines cause and effect relationships. It attempts to be scientific in structure by doing theory testing. It also involves a process of theory development. This branch of economics rejects value judgments as not being realistic. The goal is to describe how the economy functions in action, not on paper. 
• Normative Economics- This school of thought wants to develop policies to form an economy on what it should be. Policies should be developed based on specific value judgments. The foundation is based on ideas, rather than actual praxis. 

Further Reading 

McConnell, Campbell and Bruce, Stanley. Economics Principles, Problems, and Policies. 

                  New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin,2005. 

The ICC Attempts to Arrest Omar Al-Bashir

Omar Al-Bashir president of Sudan was attending the 2015 AU Summit in South Africa. A court order was given that sought to stop his departure from the country. Even though South Africa is a signatory of the ICC, it has no intention of following ICC court orders. The ANC was firm in its decision recognizing the true motives of the International Crimes Court. It deliberately targets African leaders who do not follow western foreign policy designs.  It seeks to undermine national sovereignty globally and simultaneously increase the legal power of the West. It is obvious that during the Bashir presidency, human rights violations have occurred. A court based in the Hague has no right to control or dictate internal matters of African nations. The only people Bashir should be punished by are the Sudanese residing in that country. The ICC is clearly another tool of imperial conquest masked as organization for human rights.   

How Saddam Hussein's Removal Caused Iraq To Be Unstable

Saddam Hussein was deposed by a US invasion in 2003. The case for war was based on false information and ulterior motives. It was claimed by the Bush administration that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction and aiding terrorist networks. As the war progressed these claims were proven fabricated. The repercussions were immense. A country that did not have terrorist activity now found itself confronting radical political Islamists  factions. The country was experiencing higher levels of ethnic and religious conflict. Simultaneously, Iranian power grew. Iraq was now more divided than ever. Saddam Hussein's abuses were well documented, but he did keep the country whole. Without a binding force Iraq descended into chaos. Saddam's authoritarian regime held the state in unison. Once that was dismantled,  disorder did not just spread in Iraq, but the entire region. 

   Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979. His objectives were to expand Iraqi power, while crushing internal dissent. Iraq had the potential to collapse into several different countries. Kurds for most of the twentieth century wanted an independent state. This did not only effect Iraq, but Syria, Turkey, and Iran. During the British mandate it was policy to prevent Kurds their own country. Saddam continued this policy of Kurdish suppression. During the 1980s  Iraq was at war with Iran, which complicated matters even further. Iran was arming Kurdish groups who were resisting Saddam's rule. The Kurds were already a persecuted group in Iraq and this intensified violence directed at them. The climax was the chemical attack on Halabja in 1988. This event was significant in two ways. It demonstrated that the West, particularly America would tolerate human rights abuses when a regime behaves in a manner compatible to foreign policy interests. The US wanted to strike Iran for the embassy hostage crisis, which was a source of major embarrassment. Halabja also reveal how Saddam controlled a state that was an amalgamation of different people. Violent repression and armed force were the two tactics that Saddam Hussein used to keep Iraq as one unit. The establishment of no-fly zones after the Gulf War gave the Kurds more autonomy. Saddam was unable to send forces to the north of the country because he was blocked by UN imposed restrictions. Kurdistan was facing civil war between 1993 and 1997. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and  Kurdistan Democratic Party fought each other for control. This resulted in two regional governments. Currently as the Peshmerga fights ISIS it is inevitable the question of Kurdish independence will be raised. The US will not support it, which might deteriorate relations with Turkey. Turkey has been known to persecute Kurds just like Iraq and would never allow an independent Kurdistan to be recognized. The US and Turkey are experiencing tension over different perspectives in regards to Syria. The movement for Kurdish independence was a harbinger for events to come. 

      Saddam Hussein used religion when it benefited his political objectives. One method he used was inducing fear of Shiites in the Sunni population. The Sunni Muslims were the minority sect, but held the majority of the power in Saddam's Iraq. The Shia majority was viewed as a threat and considered a security risk. Saddam's fear was that Iran would encourage the Shia majority to revolt against his rule. Iran  a large Shia Muslim country had the potential to be a major regional power. The Iranian Revolution induced trepidation in Sunni leaders of the Middle East. 

The ethnic and religious demographics of Iraq continue to produce political and social challenges.

Sunni Muslims thought that Saddam was the solution to the "Shiite threat." This was imagined, but had an element of truth. The threat was not to Sunnis, but Sunni Muslim rulers in states such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. The majority of Gulf monarchies understood that Saddam during the 1980s was a buffer against increasing Iranian power. Even though they were ideologically on different trajectories, Ayatollah Khomeini was perceived to be more of a menace. Saddam Hussien controlled the Sunni Muslim population by scapegoating Shiite Muslims. Doing this allowed him to easily manipulate various ethnic and religious groups. Although he was a secular leader, religion was a method of  control. He promoted a Sunni Muslim nationalism to build a state and regional consensus. Iraq was woven together by a fragile thread. 

        Iraq was held together by armed force. Saddam Hussein valued the army and security services. During  his rule Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world. The regular Iraqi Army fought the majority of Iraq conflicts from the Iran-Iraq War to the Iraq War of 2003. Another armed branch was the Republican Guard, which was a corps of elite Iraqi soldiers. They were considered the most loyal to the Baath Party . However, there was another paramilitary force that was more loyal to Hussein known as the Saddam Fedayeen. They were classified more so as irregular forces. The army and paramilitary groups were critical in crushing various rebellions in the country. After the invasion of Kuwait uprisings of Kurds in the north and Marsh Arabs south were brutally suppressed in 1991. The West saw this as an opportunity to have a permanent military presence in the region and imposed no-fly zones. The claim was that it was to protect civilians fleeing violence, but this was false. The no fly zones were to weaken Iraq and present it as a danger to justify US hegemony in the Middle East. Oil was too important in the view of American foreign policy circles to be managed by Arabs. Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait also was used to justify an increasing US policing role around the globe. The no fly zones created more disunity within Iraq's boundaries and was a precursor to the chaos which would come under the George W. Bush Administration.

            The Bush Administration wanted Saddam deposed as early as 2001. Suddenly, there were myths being presented that Saddam was supporting Al-qaeda. The Bush Administration promoted this mendacious accusation and public opinion shifted in the US. America's European allies were not convinced. France and Germany were unwilling to make military commitments. This was a unilateral war conducted by the US without UN approval. When Saddam was deposed and executed Iraq descended into constant conflict. After the fall of Baghdad Saddam Loyalists continued to resist US occupation. Islamists groups entered the country adding new fighters to the insurgency.Without a powerful central authority, which Saddam constructed over the decades Iraq was disintegrating. Shia Muslim death squads were emerging to exact vengeance on Sunni Muslims. The Kurds were moving closer to the dream of independence, but this complicated matters in relations to Kirkuk. Terrorism and human rights abuses escalated far beyond what was done during the Saddam era. De-Baathification was a policy that removed all Baath Party officials from government and the army. Former generals in Saddam's army joined the insurgency and Sunni Muslim resistance became more organized. The US responded with a troop surge, but this would not be an effective strategy. President Obama never agreed with the Iraq War and wanted a full withdraw. The damaged had already been done before he took office. 

           Gone are days of Saddam Hussein's monoply on political power. Currently ISIS controls a large amount of territory. Saudi Arabia and Iran are in conflict with each other over Yemen through a war of proxy. Israel is unrestrained, because Iraq was a major challenger to its regional power. The power void left by the collapse of the Baathist regime allowed Iran to gain more power. The delicate balance was dismantled in the region. One reason Saddam Hussein was not deposed by the US in 1991 was because of the possibility of mass disorder. George Herbert Walker Bush stated that regime change would be going beyond the original mandate. His son did not share this vision and wanted to impose a political system on a country. Iraq has as the current situation proves, does not want western style parliamentary democracy. While Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant he did provide order and a shield against external threats. The ISIS movement is not just a violent reaction from Sunni Muslims; it is an attempt to establish a radical political Islamist state. Retrospectively the removal of Saddam Hussein was a major foreign policy mistake.                 

   

Knowing Yourself and Your History

US Presidential Contenders For 2016

So far Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, and Ted Cruz are now running for president. The Republican and Democratic candidates are now struggling to secure the nomination from their parties. The United States faces a number of economic and foreign policy challenges. These potential presidential contenders have limited understanding of a rapidly evolving world. They all believe in some form of  American Exceptionalism combined with jingoistic patriotism. This unrealistic perspective will not address the issues surrounding America's societal collapse. What is even more disturbing is the record of the candidates themselves.   

Lindsey Graham (R)

• Lindsey Graham along with John Mccain  wanted to arm Syrian rebels and have direct US involvement in the removal of Bashir Al-Assad. 
• He has the desire to dismantle the nuclear agreements with Iran.
• Senator Graham is a supporter of Israel. 
• Advocates the same neoconservative foreign policy that weakened US credibility internationally.

Hillary Clinton (D)

• Hillary Clinton was a staunch supporter of the NATO invasion of Libya and actively promoted this failed policy.
• She refused to acknowledge her failure during the Benghazi embassy attack while serving as Secretary of State. 
• While she served as a senator she voted in favor of the 2003 Iraq war resolution. 
• She claims to be in favor of social justice causes, but rarely does anything to support women's rights or anti-racist causes.  

Rick Perry (R)

• Rick Perry supports the Voter ID Law, which is designed to disenfranchise African American, Latino, and other non-white voters. 
• During his service as governor of Texas the sate has not seen vast improvement. 
• He is anti-immigrant and is convinced the border needs to be militarized. 
• Rick Perry's nationalism is borderline aggressive nationalism.  

                                                                      

Ted Cruz (R)

• Ted Cruz a senator from Texas promotes a values voter agenda. This lack of intellectual sophistication appeals to a simplistic white voter population that despises change. 
• He does not favor women's reproductive rights. Abortion is not compatible with his ideological views. 
• Ted Cruz wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Many citizens would not have adequate health insurance if this were to happen. 
• Clearly he does not believe in the separation of church and state. 

These are only a few presidential hopefuls. It is pivotal to know the background and actions of the people administrating government. The US republic is flawed in many ways. The obvious defect is that it presents the illusion of choice. These potential presidential candidates are financed by numerous corporate interests, who have more influence than the average citizen. The "freedom" in the US is not freedom at all, but just a luxury prison cell. Behind the speeches and campaign advertisements are individuals seeking power. Not just some power, but all of it  

Five Things You Don't Know About the Tiananmen Square Massacre | China Uncensored

The West has a distorted view of what happened in  Tiananmen Square. The protests did not just involve students, but people from all walks of life. Even party member officials joined in to share their frustration with Deng Xiaoping. Another myth that is constantly perpetuated is that the protests were an attempt to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party. That was an incorrect assessment based on the uprisings in Eastern Europe. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia needed Soviet aid  for the Communist Parties  to remain in power and by the 1980s the U.S.S.R was no longer willing to provide assistance. The Chinese people still viewed their government as legitimate, but viewed General Secretary Xiaoping in a negative light. His rule saw the abandonment of Maoism in favor of market reforms, which had severe consequences on people of lower socioeconomic status. The Xiaoping government reacted to the protest with violence out of fear this was the beginning of another Cultural Revolution. Deng Xiaoping was arrested during that period and the psychological scars never left. American media distorted reports attempting to show China as  the embodiment of evil. The decline of the U.S.S.R meant that the US needed another existential threat to justify global hegemony. China from 1989  to present was gradually being presented as an enemy in certain American foreign policy circles. China's censorship of the massacre does not help its situation. It is only used to demonize China and make the argument for regime change. Only when the CCP meets the needs of the Chinese people, then it can be secure and stable.