We Hold The Rock

In November of 1969, a group of Native American students from the Bay Area of San Francisco symbolically claimed the Island of Alcatraz for themselves. They were led by Richard Oakes and made demands for use of the island as a cultural center and and Indian university. The longest occupation lasted 19 months. Eventually people from the hippie and drug culture joined the Indians.

The government refused to give them any of their demands and made it appear that they were negotiating but in all actuality were just waiting, assuming the occupation would die out and the Indians would give up. The government shut off electricity and took the water barge that supplied fresh water to the island.

Originally the press was sympathetic to the Indians but after a year began publishing stories of beatings and assaults occurring on the island.

Finally Nixon gave the okay to remove the Indians from the island. Although the Indians didn't get the land, during their occupation on Alcatraz, Nixon returned Blue Lake and 48,000 acres of land to the Taos Indians. the Bureau of indian Affairs offices lead to the hiring of Native American's to work in the federal agency, and occupied land in California became a Native American University.

*info obtained from nps.org

How much crime is committed by illegal immigrants?

Here is another statement from Utah Representative Stephen Sandstrom:

"Illegal aliens [are] committing a disproportionate amount of murders [and] rapes in our state."

Representative Sandstrom was interviewed by Doug Fabrizio on Radiowest:

KUER: 5/18/10: Immigration and America's Identity (2010-05-18)

So, how much crime is really being committed by illegal immigrants?

Dora the Explorer: Illegal immigrant?

Dora the Explorer, the star of a popular children's show, is becoming a target during this controversy over Arizona's immigration law. In an article on MSNBC, a sociologist at the University of Cincinnati, Erynn Masi de Casanova says that although this above picture seems harmless it is really is a way for people to "project their thoughts and feelings about Latinos," Ironically, Dora is being used by both those who oppose and support the immigration law. She used to simply be a character in a children's show but she has now become a target in a political battle. The article mentions that although Nickelodeon refuses to comment on Dora's background the scenery in the show places Dora everywhere from a tropical land with pyramids, to a park with oak trees and a fox named Swiper. The article states "Many immigrant families, particularly Latinos, see Dora as a symbol of freedom, someone to relate to. She's a young girl with brown skin who lives in a borderless world and can travel anywhere she wants without consequence." Unfortunatley, the ambiguity of Dora's background makes her a target for supporters of Arizona's law. The interesting thing to me is the tactics people use to make a political point. Dora is not the only fictional character to become victim on political propaganda, remember Tinky Winky and Bert and Ernie, or how shocked we all were when J.K. Rowling annouced that Dumbledore is gay? I think this shows how important it is to be smart consumers of media and to not let it tell us how to think.

Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37279132/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001#ixzz0oiOLT7YQ

John Legend: It's OK to see race

This is an interesting video of John Legend talking about race, a colorblind society, and lack of education society.



Do you agree or disagree with his view? Why?

Some Humor

http://www.arcamax.com/speedbump/s-727330-542573

Very interesting statement, that for turtles, we can laugh that they are being silly by assuming he did that to himself. But in America, do we assume the same thing about the homeless around us?

Black and White: Kids and Race

(Brenna Donnelly, May 17, 2010)

I was sitting in the Wilk and I overheard this story on CNN. Anderson Cooper reported on a re-creation of the 1940s doll study where five or so dolls of varying skin color were the subjects of questions asked to children, such as "Which doll is prettiest/most dumb/meanest/most liked/etc?"

I'd like to think that we've changed our racial attitudes since the 40s, especially in the younger generations, but watch as 4-5 and 9-10 year old children reflect racist attitudes, calling the black doll the "one with the skin color that most adults don't like" and adding that they'd most like the white doll "to be my classmate, because he's white."



I'm following up with a few questions I asked myself-- do you think this experiment was leading in anyway? The children also had a camera in their face, do you think that altered what they said at all? And they only had black through white options, I mean what are they going to base their decisions on?
***UPDATE: I watched a few more of the videos and there WAS both a white and a black interviewer. Props to CNN for being fair. Here's the video on the study's accuracy: ***


Also, where do you think these kids got these ideas? Do they know a black child who is dumb and mean? Do their parents make racist comments? Is it from the media? Do they just associate black with bad and thus the black person does more bad things?

Here's a girls mom reacting to her daughter's test: Maybe I'm skeptical of the experiment because I don't want to think that my kids might one day look at a paper of pictures and say they don't like the dark one because that one looks mean.

What do you think?

Interest Convergence - Here and Abroad

Professor Derrick Bell of New York University Law School is famous for, among other work, the “interest convergence” theory: that white people will support racial justice only to the extent that there is something in it for them. That is, only to the extent that there is a “convergence” between the interests of the white people and racial justice. Perhaps the best-known application of this thesis involves the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education: the idea is that the Supreme Court supported Brown because it served the United States’ cold war agenda of supporting human rights. Moreover, it was a decision that was largely imposed (in Bell’s picture) on the south by people in the north. Thus, the interests of those who were devising the decision converged with the interests of the black plaintiffs ( Alfred Bophry , 2008 ) .

The application of this theory remains very much a part of the political landscape in New Zealand; my motherland and my standing place. The "Crown" or the British Empire have for many years oppressed portions of my people in certain tribal lands. For example, my grandmother was uprooted from our native tribal lands to the more urban areas of New Zealand because the Government said that the land they were living on was prone to floods and out of safety they needed to move into the city. Those who refused to leave the tribal lands, were murdered, burnt or taken as prisoners. The land however was used as retirement estates for English colonizers coming from Great Britain, and now they are worth millions as diary production farms. My grandmother was asked to leave under a false premise that the "crown" were in fact looking out for their best interests when in all reality they served only their selfish interests for development and further expansion of the British Empire. The intention of this post is not in any way a stab at the colonizers but more an example of the application of the "interest Convergence" theory developed by an American , Derrick Bell.

I have attached a short Youtube clip that may aid in giving context and a visual representation of what my people are experiencing this very moment in New Zealand. This video contains representatives from her Majesty the Queen, the Governor General and Prime Minister as well as other tribunal officials who have come to my family lands to settle grievances with the "Crown".

I apologize if for any reason this video disturbs you, this is not my intention

Please note: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS INDIGENOUS NUDITY

Ron Takaki

I found an excellent Youtube video of an address by Ron Takaki at Sonoma State University. It talks about he became a scholar of "Ethnic Studies." The sound is strange, but it is good. Take a look!

Why Arizona Has it Wrong

I found this interesting article the Arizona Immigration Law and why one person thinks it is morally wrong, regardless of whether it is legal or not.

Dear All:

I recently posted this as a blog and have submitted it as a letter to the editor for some papers. Thought I would share it.

I retired from the U.S. government in 2001. I am a former FBI agent and a former U.S. Customs Agent, including time spent investigating narcotics smuggling on the Mexican Border. Since 2001 I have operated an Immigration law Practice in Roswell, Georgia. I am an Adjunct Professor of Law at John Marshall Law School and a Past President of the North Fulton Bar Association.

WHY ARIZONA HAS IT WRONG

I have gotten a lot of calls recently about the new Immigration related law in Arizona. The calls range from outraged to interested. I received a very thoughtful call from a friend. He was scheduled to attend the ABA conference in Arizona and was torn as to whether he should go. He called me and asked what I thought of the legal issues and the situation. Let me share what I told him.

You have to search your heart on an issue like this, not the law. How will this be looked at fifty years from now? Lawyers, Judges and politicians have made defensible arguments about many things, some of them morally reprehensible. The U.S. defended not allowing Jews into the U.S. from Germany in the early Nazi years. The Supreme Court held that slaves were property, not persons. Lawyers defended internment of Japanese citizens in World War Two. The Courts upheld barring Chinese from the U.S. in the late 1800's. In the 1890's the government argued that Native Americans were not persons under the constitution and could be simply taken onto custody and required to remain on reservations.

In 2007 I attended a conference in Budapest, Hungary. The head of the Budapest Bar Association spoke. He told the attendees that he had gone back and reviewed Bar Association articles and statements during the time that the Hungarian government was disbarring all Jews as lawyers and judges and handing their practices and positions to Christians. What struck him was that there was nothing in a Bar Journal or an article simply saying that what was being done was wrong. He cautioned all of us as lawyers to make sure that we don't get sidetracked in looking at things legally. Sometimes you just have to say that something is morally wrong.

Even if the Arizona laws are legally defensible, they are simply wrong. They are wrong in the same way that the refusal to admit Jews from Nazi Germany was wrong, that Dred Scott was wrong, that Chinese Exclusion laws were wrong, and that federal decisions to not consider Native Americans persons under the law were wrong. They should be condemned as such.

Joseph H. Rosen

Immigration Law Offices
Adjunct Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School
Past President, North Fulton Bar Association

What do you think? Does this law compare to the other laws he lists? How do we judge the morality of such an issue if it is technically legal

ESPN Radio - Too much attention on Tim Tebow?

http://search.espn.go.com/the-herd/
The Audio Podcast is available from May 6, 2010 about Tim Tebow

I'm sorry I cannot get the story in text so that it can be posted, but you can listen to the section of the radio show with Colin Cowherd. Basically, he started out by talking about the NFL jersey sales for today. Quarterback Tim Tebow, who was drafted by the Denver Broncos, was the most popular of all NFL players. The following link is to the article about the jersey sales. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5165547

On the radio show, Cowherd spoke with Ray Lewis, Linebacker for the Ravens. Some of the controversy about Tebow was that although he was a good college football player, he would not have success in the NFL. Lewis wanted to know why so many people wanted to help Tebow to prepare for the NFL. Coaches gave up personal time to train with this player. The Denver Broncos then gave up three draft picks in order to secure Tim Tebow in the first round. Before the draft began, many questioned whether he would be drafted at all.

Colin Cowherd then went on to discuss these events, and if they would have happened had this been a black player. Usually, draft picks are traded in order to get NFL players, or other draft picks, but very rarely would a team give up three picks for another draft pick. Cowherd claimed that this attention was given to Tebow because he is a southern, white, Christian player and has been labeled a "nice guy". There were other very nice players in the draft who would have benefited from such treatment, but they were not even drafted in the first round.

I agree, that he was definitely getting special treatment. No one else received such publicity and training, and although it may not have been just because it was white, I think the stereotypes from his master status all played a role.

Discrimination Is Associated With Depression Among Minority Children

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100502080240.htm
or Google Title to find full article.

Discrimination Is Associated With Depression Among Minority Children

ScienceDaily (May 3, 2010) — Minority children often encounter racism in their daily lives, and those who experience discrimination more often have more symptoms of depression, according to a study presented May 2 at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada..

...Results showed that 88 percent had at least one experience with racism, and nearly 12 percent had experienced racial discrimination in at least half of the situations described in the survey. The most common forms of discrimination were racial remarks, being called insulting names and being followed by security guards in stores. Experiences were similar for Latinos and African Americans, boys and girls, and younger and older children...

"Not only do most minority children experience discrimination, but they experience it in multiple contexts: in schools, in the community, with adults and with peers." Dr. Pachter said. "It's kind of like the elephant in the corner of the room. It's there, but nobody really talks about it. And it may have significant mental and physical health consequences in these children's lives."


My opinion: I found this article refreshing. We don't have to be aware of the disadvantages facing those in the racial minority for those disadvantages to be present and real. I would love to read over the study which produced these statistics, but I do not doubt the general accuracy of the conclusion achieved. I echo that, "It's kind of like the elephant in the corner of the room. It's there, but nobody really talks about it". We need to raise personal awareness and, if nothing else, begin to talk about racial differences rather than ignore them or expect them to dissolve without efforts on our parts to adopt or respect some of the cultural differences which are evident and often regarded as frightening by many of us and our peers. This is ignorant and we must strive to become more aware and accepting as a whole. I do not exclude myself. It is so easy for us to get caught up in ourselves and our own lives, and it can be so difficult to understand those who are different than us or to put ourselves in their shoes. I love Arthur Schopenhauer's statement that, "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world". Lets try to decrease the validity of this quote and strive to imagine the world as somebody else experiences it.

Does anyone have something to add, or wish to disagree?!
If this interested you, also read..

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/05/02/minority-children-feel-psycological-stress-of-racism/13416.html

Controversial Arizona Immigration

Here are a couple of interesting discussion about the new Arizona Immigration law...everything you wanted to know about this controversial new law in around 45 minutes.  The first piece covers the ins and outs of the bill, while the second piece defends the law.