Chauncey DeVega's Open Salon Blog

The Genius of Romney's "Obama is a Lazy Negro" Ad

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:05:30 -0400

Well played Mr. Romney. Very well played indeed.

Mitt Romney's "Barack Obama Isn't Working" campaign is a genius political move. Less clumsy than the infamous Willie Horton ad, it is a more elegant and refined racial appeal for a slightly more civilized "colorblind" age.

As such, Mitt Romney's suggestion that Barack Obama is "not working" deftly draws on a set of stereotypes from the American popular imagination where black people, and black men in particular, are depicted as lazy and not self-sufficient. This is one of the core attributes of what social scientists have termed "symbolic racism."

This stereotype is central to contemporary right-wing political discourse, and can trace its lineage back to the Southern Strategy under Richard Nixon, and through to Ronald Reagan's mobilization of anti-black sentiment with his allusions to "welfare queens" and "strapping young black bucks" who buy steaks with food stamps. As part of this pattern, the 2012 Republican campaign has featured such onerous moments as Rick Santorum's suggesting that black Americans are parasites who live off of white people, as well as Newt Gingrich advising young people of color (because they are especially lazy and pathological) that they should be janitors in order to learn a "work ethic."

The polite and more refined bigotry that drives Romney's "Barack Obama Isn't Working" campaign is more careful than that of his Tea Party GOP brethren. However, it still plays off of the same sentiments and crude racial stereotypes about African Americans. Moreover, Romney's more "polite" racism resonates because it exists in a right-wing imaginary that considers Obama a "Socialist," wallows in birtherism, and has marshaled faux populist zeal in order to mark out clear boundaries of civic belonging where to be a "real" American requires that a person be White.

In all, the right-wing echo chamber is unapologetic in its use of racial stereotypes, mobilization of white racial resentment, and outright race prejudice. Romney can fly above the racist fray, but still benefit from how such attitudes have helped to prep the political battlefield for his success.

Romney's devious narrative about President Obama's lack of success, incompetence, and implied laziness is masterful on a number of levels.

1. The claim that Barack Obama isn't working has a veneer of plausible deniability. Romney claims that the slogan is "historical" in nature, borrowing from Thatcher's anti-Labour campaign in the United Kingdom during the late 1970s. Through this logic, there is no racial animus at work; racism cannot possibly be present in the suggestion that Barack Obama isn't working because the slogan is inspired from events both decades ago, and in another country.

In the United States, and given how the color line has structured American life, operates in the country's collective subconscious, and provides a set of scripts which impact our perceptions of one another, the wellsprings of Romney's slogan are of little importance.

Question: would be an equivalent silence if a politician campaigning for high office suggested that his Jewish rival was cheap? Or that his Asian-American competitor for the same office was devious, sneaky, or untrustworthy? Here, I would suggest that the precarious position of blacks in American society makes them uniquely vulnerable to the use of racial appeals in political discourse.

It is also important to note how language involves both the transmission, reception, and circulation of ideas between a speaker and the audience.The repeated suggestion that a black man "isn't working" signals to deeply held biases that link together the black body, black personhood, and stereotypes about poverty, work ethic, and respectability. A listener, or in this case a voter, does not have to be conscious of how these concepts motivate his or her behavior. As research on racial attitudes and political behavior has repeatedly demonstrated,white voters "get" these racial cues and are quite responsive to them--conservatives and right-leaning independents especially so.

2. Any effort to call out Romney's use of racial stereotypes would play into the politics of white racial resentment and white backlash that came in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement. The associated and invented language of "the race card" and "reverse racism" are based on a premise that white supremacy is a thing of the past. Since the election of Barack Obama, the right-wing media and other elites have been able to push this narrative even further--white people are now oppressed, and despite all available sociological data that suggests otherwise, anti-white racism is now a plague upon the land. To attack Romney's campaign slogan is to fuel the howls of white victimology.

3. In the age of conservative "colorblindess," racism is defined by intent. This is a function of the personalization of race prejudice wherein racist social structures and institutional arrangements of power are conveniently ignored. Racism is universal. It is no longer a sin unique to white people. Consequently, the intent behind a person's words and deeds trump both the context and consequences of their actions. If Romney were to deny that his ad was "racist"--which Romney would most certainly do--one of the evasions would be that "he did not intend it that way." The same deflection would be flipped around on the critic who pointed out the problematic nature of Romney's appeal to Obama's imagined laziness in order to win over white voters. In keeping with the colorblind/reverse racism script, Mitt Romney would now become a victim, as the act of calling someone a "racist" in post-Civil Rights America is a bigger sin than racism itself.

4. Accidents and coincidence. Mitt Romney's choice of a slogan that leverages one of the most pernicious and deeply rooted stereotypes about black men in American society (next to the myth of the black rapist) is carefully designed and painstakingly chosen. Such a choice is far from happenstance. Romney did not personally select the language "Obama Isn't Working." His consultants (a cadre of psychologists, marketing experts, political advisers, and focus groups) perfected the language, visuals, and narrative of Romney's campaign ad. The way that the campaign mines white animus and stereotypes towards the country's first black president, while skillfully playing along the edge of being an overt racial appeal is a delicately choreographed balancing act: this grace does not come without much practice and reflection.

Mitt Romney's "Obama Isn't Working" campaign is a smart bomb aimed at white Independents (and other right-leaning fence-sitters) who can be mobilized to vote against Obama by carefully constructed appeals which simultaneously play on racial anxieties, but carefully avoid naked racism. Ultimately, Mitt Romney is vulnerable on many issues such as his gangster capitalist roots, insincerity, aloofness, religion, the Tea Party GOP's failed economic policies and obstructionist behavior, as well as being the flag carrier for a party on the brink of demographic suicide. Romney's flank is also exposed because he is the nominee for a political party that is possessed by Culture Warriors whose views are outside of the American mainstream. These are weaknesses to be exploited.

However, I would suggest that folks not sally forth and engage Romney regarding the racial invective present in his "Obama Isn't Working" campaign theme. To do so, would be to fight on Romney's chosen terrain. Nor would such an engagement offer up many political gains. The cause would be noble; the battle would still be lost.

Once more Mr. Romney, well played, very well played indeed. You are a worthy foe.

Of Media Framing: What if Trayvon Martin had a "White" Name?

Tue, 22 May 2012 14:05:07 -0400

Last week, the drip, drip, drip, of evidence surrounding the Trayvon Martin case became a deluge. George Zimmerman's hunting and killing of Trayvon Martin has been a national play, onethat I described as a farce and tragedy, which reminds us of how the United States is still in many ways a country that is "separate, hostile, and unequal."

The divides in public opinion about the guilt and respective innocence of Zimmerman and Martin are screens upon which differences in race and life experiences across the colorline have been projected. Interestingly, the most obvious element in this narrative about justice and the color line has gone little commented upon.

Yes, Martin's killing by Zimmerman is "about" race. But, race works in ways that are both subtle and obvious. Trayvon is blessed or cursed--depending on one's own point of view--with a "black" name. Names may not be destiny. But, as social scientists have demonstrated, they do tell us something about class, race, community, neighborhood, social capital, families, aspirations, norms and culture.

Consciously or not, individuals make judgments about one's relative worth or personhood based on their names. These judgments are also implicitly about belonging, national identity and citizenship--for an object lesson in this reality, one does not need to look any farther than President Obama and the conspiranoid Birthers.

For example, researchers at the University of Chicago sent out resumes with "black" sounding names and "white" sounding names to prospective employers. The former were imminently qualified with Ivy League pedigrees and great job experience. The latter were former felons with fewer skills. Not at all surprising to students of race, white privilege, and racial inequality, the white applicants were contacted for job interviews at a far higher rate.

In a complementary example, there is a social psychology experiment in which participants are given a story to read about a young woman with a child who goes shopping at a store for batteries.

There are two versions of the story offered. In one, she is a black woman (as indicated by her name and other clues); in the other story, the protagonist is a white woman. The other facts of the story are identical. When asked identical questions about the narrative(s), respondents envision the black woman as a welfare queen, a thief, and irresponsible. The white woman is noble, a single mother trying to do the right thing by her kids, and a good person.

Framing has been critically important in how various public(s) have responded to the Martin-Zimmerman saga.

The Right-wing media depicts a black, man-child, giant negro, thug ready to rape and kill at will. Here, Zimmerman is a noble victim. The mainstream and "progressive" media offers a different depiction of events. There, Trayvon Martin is an innocent person walking home with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea who is killed by an overzealous racist vigilante.

These divides are 1) significant because conservatives are motivated in their political worldview by racial animus in ways that others are not and 2) self-fulfilling where these disparate views of reality and political events are self-reinforcing, and self-perpetuating.

The story is the thing. As an experiment in perception and framing, I have removed any overt signals to either the race of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. Moreover, I have renamed Trayvon Martin "Dale Hill." To my eyes and ears this is a very "white" name. I thought about playing around with the genders of Martin and Zimmerman--but parsimony and efficiency ruled out such a counter-factual.

I have also updated the story based on the new information about the investigation that that has been made available these last few weeks. My framing of the story leaves out certain incidental facts, emphasizes other bits of information, and of course has a particular narrative.

How does "Dale Hill's" story change your perception (or not) of events? Are we really so shallow as a country that some would hear "Trayvon Martin" and think "expendable" criminal black male, while others hear "Dale Hill" and this signals valued life and good white person to be protected?

****

With the release of a deluge of new information by the Sanford, Florida police last week, a more complete picture is emerging of the faithful and storied evening when George Zimmerman, self-appointed block captain and one man gang leader of an informal neighborhood watch group, shot and killed Dale Hill, a 17 year old teenage boy who was staying with his father in a gated community.

The story has been the focus of a nationwide discussion about "Stand Your Ground" laws that allow armed citizens to use lethal force if they feel that their lives are threatened. Advocated for by the National Rifle Association and the conservative lobbying group ALEC, "Stand Your Ground" laws are a clear break from existing self-defense statutes which placed a much higher burden of responsibility on those individuals who choose to use lethal force.

On a rainy Sunday evening, Hill was walking home from a local convenience store, having just purchased a bag of candy and a can of ice tea. Wearing a hooded sweatshirt for protection from the weather, he walked back to his father's home. At some point, Mr. Hill noticed a strange man following him. Dale told his girlfriend (who he was talking with on a cell phone at the time) that he was frightened and scared. She urged him to hurry home for his safety.

In a 21st century American version of the classic Japanese story Rashomon, the events of that evening are quite different when told from George Zimmerman's point of view. A self-appointed protector of his gated community, Zimmerman had taken it upon himself to be a one person security force, the eyes and ears of a neighborhood that had been subject to a series of robberies over the last few months.

His protective streak ran deep. Zimmerman was well-known by the police having called them dozens of times for everything from the seemingly minor--potholes--to the exaggerated--children walking down the street that he did not know. He would introduce himself to new arrivals in the neighborhood, handing out personalized business cards that suggested calling Zimmerman if there was trouble (as opposed to the police who may not arrive in enough time to be of immediate assistance).

Zimmerman was also known to hang out with police at local bars and other gathering spots; he participated in "ride along" programs; Zimmerman even tried to join a local police academy but did not graduate or matriculate. The portrait is clear: while Zimmerman was not a police officer he identified with them; Zimmerman also had fantasies of being a police officer even if he did not have the personal skills or temperament for the vocation.

On that evening, George Zimmerman saw Dale Hill, a teenager and a stranger to him walking down the street; subsequently, Zimmerman was immediately suspicious of this young person (and his right to be in the neighborhood). He imagined that Hill was walking "strangely," looking for houses to rob. In reality, Hill was simply walking home, terrified of the strange man in an unknown vehicle who was stalking him.

As was his habit, Zimmerman called the local police. As indicated by the recorded phone conversation, he was clearly agitated and excited. Zimmerman pursued Dale Hill, chasing him for several blocks. When clearly and directly instructed by the police dispatcher to remain in his vehicle and to stop following Mr. Hill, Zimmerman ignored these lawful directives. He exited the vehicle and pursued Dale on foot.

In the next few moments a series of events took place that remain in dispute, largely because one of the primary witnesses is now dead. Witnesses report that there was an argument between Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Hill. At some point a fight ensued. Reports vary here. Some witnesses told police that Mr. Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor, attacking and beating Mr. Hill. Others report that Mr. Hill and Mr. Zimmerman were rolling around on the grass, fighting one another.

A new "mystery" witness reports that Hill struck Mr. Zimmerman first. The former's girlfriend, who heard the altercation on the phone, tells police that Zimmerman struck Hill first. What is not in dispute is that Mr. Zimmerman fired a lethal shot from less than 2 feet away, striking Dale in the chest. He would die moments later.

The coroner's report indicated that Hill had one small injury on his hand. These are marks which are not consistent with Zimmerman's claim that he was beaten ferociously about his head and face. Zimmerman also refused medical care at the scene. However, he would emerge a day or so later and go to his family doctor. There, a report was issued that suggested Zimmerman "likely" had a "broken" nose, although the evidence of the injuries were indeterminate. Zimmerman also looked relatively unscathed and uninjured in the footage taken by a surveillance camera the evening he was interviewed at police headquarters for shooting Hill.

The available audio recordings of the events that evening are a source of further controversy. The police dispatcher's recording clearly indicates that Zimmerman was flustered, angry, and more than a little exasperated. Expert voice analysts were unable to determine exactly what he said in one particularly provocative part of the recorded conversation where many in the public are certain Zimmerman used vicious slurs and other invective to describe Hill--a person he had never met.

The rage Zimmerman felt towards Dale, a stranger, was transparent as he clearly categorized him as one of those "fucking assholes who always get away." This was an allusion to the robberies in the neighborhood, and how Zimmerman took these as personal affronts to his authority and role and captain of the informal block watch.

Likewise, the experts are also split on who is screaming for mercy on the recording of a call made to the police by a neighbor and witness. One expert suggests that it is clearly the voice of an adolescent (as opposed to Zimmerman, an adult, some ten years older) terrified for his life and pleading with his attacker. Other experts suggest that there is too much noise and interference to make a determination either way. Hill's mother is certain that the voice is her son begging for his life. Zimmerman's father believes that the voice on the tape is that of his son.

Professional observers and experts in forensics agree that the investigation by the local police was neither thorough or proper. The local police were not skilled in dealing with homicides. They did not possess the expertise to either gather evidence properly, or to interview witnesses in a professional manner. Hill laid in the morgue for several days. The police neglected to contact his parents or procure a cell phone charger that would enable them to speak with the dead victim's personal contacts or kin. Zimmerman was not tested for drugs or alcohol.

Perhaps most problematically, witnesses reported being bullied by the investigating police officers. Apparently, when witnesses offered facts that were not in keeping with the police department's drive to favorably depict George Zimmerman as a victim, the detectives either ignored these details, or cajoled the witnesses into changing their testimony.

This improper gathering of evidence is further complicated by the fact that the detectives interviewing Zimmerman felt that he was lying, duplicitous, and should be charged with murder. For those watching the events of the investigation from afar, it is also worrisome that the investigating officers were overruled by more senior officials who may have been influenced by George Zimmerman's familial connections with local law enforcement.

Neither George Zimmerman or Dale Hill's lives are portraits of perfection. The latter was a teenager who had gotten into trouble at school on several occasions (but only for being late, and was described by teachers as "creative" and "smart") and was living with his father in an effort to instill some discipline. An adult, Zimmerman had been charged with domestic battery for striking his fiance. Zimmerman had also been in an altercation with a police officer. Perhaps because of his familial connections, he had successfully been able to avoid being formally charged and to take favorable plea deals that would eventually result in these charges being dropped and expunged from his record.

Nevertheless, there are several facts that are quite unfavorable to Zimmerman, and which could have a dire impact on his trial for second degree murder if the jury is made aware of them. He was described by neighbors as a bully and a bit obsessive in his self-appointed role as protector of the neighborhood.

Former coworkers describe Zimmerman as impulsive, angry, and as having anger management issues. One of these former associates (who worked with Zimmerman as a private security guard) paints a picture of an unprofessional person who was drunk with power.

The night he shot and killed Dale Hill, Zimmerman was carrying a gun in violation of block watch rules that forbid carrying a weapon. George Zimmerman was also in clear violation of the rules and procedures governing block watch groups which indicate that members are to observe and report only: pursuing suspects is a task exclusively for the police.

Both Zimmerman and Hill had foreign substances in their blood that evening. The toxicology report on Hill indicates that he had consumed marijuana several days earlier. The residual chemicals would not have influenced his behavior on that evening. Zimmerman was taking Adderall and Temazepam.

These drugs can impair judgment and cause paranoia, hallucinations, aggression, and violent impulses.

Ultimately, the Zimmerman's murder trial may come down to one phrase in the police report:

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Dale Hill was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely, if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the report says. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."

While the public now has more information about what happened the night George Zimmerman shot and killed Dale Hill, one fact remains certain. On that Sunday evening, George Zimmerman only saw a "suspicious" person who he was determined to stop by any means necessary. Dale Hill only saw a strange man, one who had a gun, hunting him down.

It is up to the jury to decide what, if any, laws were broken.

So George Zimmerman Got His Butt Kicked by Trayvon and...

Wed, 16 May 2012 16:05:13 -0400

The medical report released by George Zimmerman's doctor indicates that he suffered injuries to his face and head on the evening in which he shot and murdered Trayvon. The coroner's report regarding Trayvon Martin's body indicates that there was bruising on his knuckles consistent with being in a scuffle. Zimmerman was also on medication which can cause agitation and mood swings.

Predictably, for those who believe that Zimmerman is a martyr and victim, this new information will be taken as "proof" of his innocence. I am more interested in how those who championed Trayvon Martin respond to this newest bit of information. Will they rally? Or has Zimmerman-Trayvon fever already been expended?

I have never been one to leave a battle once it has been joined. My concerns about these types of highly charged symbolic politics and cause celebres have been consistent--what happens when the 24 hour news cycle has exhausted itself? It is typical that folks are on to the next one so to speak; they enjoy being part of a bigger spectacle and "movement;" but, matters still remain unresolved.

Walter Lippman observed decades ago that the "newspaper man" is most interested in selling exciting stories. Editors and publishers frame stories for maximum appeal--as opposed to a deep and compelling pursuit of the truth. This is no less true in the age of new media and cable news.

In all, I would suggest that the deliberations surrounding George Zimmerman's murder trial should be focused on proximate and distal causes, the chain of events which led him to hunt down and kill a person, one guilty of no more than walking down the street.

The immediate cause of Trayvon Martin's shooting by George Zimmerman was a fight and scuffle in which the latter was clearly being bested by a superior pugilist. The second proximate cause, and the one most important here, was George Zimmerman's refusal to follow the police dispatcher's order to remain in his vehicle. The more macro level and prime element of causality in Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin is a society that devalues the lives of young people of color, deems them always suspect (on an almost existential level) of crime and criminality, and empowers honorary whites--and those acting in the name of white authority--to shoot down and kill black men on a whim.

I would hope that the jury is capable of applying a bit of common sense as they work through this chain of events. I would also dream that the members of the jury can practice a bit of empathy, putting themselves in the shoes of an innocent teenager walking home at night, being stalked by a racially obsessed stranger who is intent on (quite likely) doing you harm. You fight for your life, you see that this faux-cop vigilante has a gun, terrified, you try to get control of the weapon lest he kill you. Too slow, there is a noise. You look down. Scared, extremities weakening, getting cold, adrenaline wearing off, you realize that you are going to die.

Your murderer George Zimmerman is shocked that guns apparently really do in fact hurt and kill people, he acted on his fantasy, playing Dirty Harry, but it is you who are dead. Zimmerman will be nauseous in the days to follow as he reflects on that night. Your parents will be scared and then heartbroken as your body lays unclaimed in a morgue on the slab. Zimmerman's defenders will rally, sending him hundreds of thousands of dollars for he is a stand-in for their aggrieved white victimhood in the face of "black crime" and "young hoodie thugs."

Trayvon Martin had every right to stand his ground in self defense. George Zimmerman instigated this whole deadly scenario. But history teaches us that in the United States black people do not have such a right to self-defense. From the Black Codes, Jim and Jane Crow, slave passes, racial profiling, and now to "stop and frisk," standing order number one is that African Americans must submit to white authority until given permission otherwise. The most basic rights of political belonging and citizenship, freedom of movement and safety in one's person, are contingent and circumstantial for black Americans.

George Zimmerman will walk free--do not be confused, he is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination. I hold little hope that the jury is capable of thinking through the steps which led a vigilante to kill an innocent person beyond the most immediate and final act, where self-defense by Trayvon Martin is interpreted as violent, unwarranted assault by the George Zimmerman faction, those who idolize him, and wish they could have acted as he did that faithful evening.

The question remains: what will the defenders of Trayvon Martin do now?

Empathy Wars: Mitt Romney and the GOP's Bully Politics

Tue, 15 May 2012 13:05:34 -0400

This is not rocket science.

Mitt Romney likes firing people. Mitt Romney drives with terrified family pets on the roof of his car. Mitt Romney assaulted a gay student while in prep school. Mitt Romney tricked a blind teacher, apparently one he "liked," letting the man walk into a glass door. He is a bully. Mitt Romney is also the presumed Presidential nominee for a political party of unapologetic bullies. Ergo he is a near perfect leader for the Tea Party GOP.

American politics in the Age of Obama is beset by deep divides in partisanship, ideology, and political values. These debates are about more than policy. They have devolved into disagreements about the very nature of empirical reality, facts, and science. For example, is global warming real? Do tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves as they trickle down to the rest of us? Can one cut a country's budget in a time of deep economic crisis and somehow miraculously produce economic growth? Is Barack Obama a United States citizen? Is the President a closet, Muslim, Manchurian candidate Socialist? Are white people "oppressed" in America?

As cultivated by the Right-wing media echo chamber, Democrats (and those "evil" progressives) are not just wrong on almost every major political and social issue. No, they are treasonous, deserving of death and extermination, and want to destroy the country.

The diametrically opposed worldviews of conservatives and liberals are also a function of differences in biology, brain structure, and political personality types. For example, researchers have discovered that the fear centers of conservatives' brains are over-developed. This in turn makes them highly susceptible to anxieties about social change, threat, and creates a hostility towards those people who conservatives perceive to be the Other.

Moreover, conservatives tend to be deferent to authority and hierarchy, fearful of change, closed off to new experiences, possessed of a binary world view, attracted to simple moral appeals ("right and wrong"; "good guys and bad guys") and highly intolerant of ambiguity.

These traits are a formula for authoritarian thinking, which as the book Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics demonstrates, has a broad impact on public opinion regarding such topics as immigration, privacy, women's reproductive rights, national security, gay marriage, and matters of race and racial inequality.

In all, these differences in political worldviews can be crystallized down into one key divide: conservatives and liberals are radically different in how human empathy impacts their political decision-making.

The University of Southern California's Ravi Iyer incisively demonstrates this divide with the following chart:

The more empathetic a liberal is, the more likely they are to be interested in politics. The opposite holds true for conservatives: the less empathetic they are, the more likely a given conservative is to show interest in political matters. This is a damning reveal; it explains much of the Ayn Rand, dystopian, destroy the social safety net, one against many, politics of the Republican Party. By implication, those who show little empathy are rendered grossly incapable of even working through how either the Common Good or the Good Society should be values in the political calculus of governance, citizenship, and leadership.

The Republican Presidential primary season has provided ample evidence of how the GOP, a group I have described as a death cult, has become a party possessed by a deep lack of empathy.

For example, during the debates audience members laughed at the prospect of uninsured people dying. They mocked a gay soldier who was serving his country abroad. It was also suggested during their debates that Muslim Americans should be openly harassed and racially profiled (not one candidate intervened or suggested this was unconstitutional) and that undocumented citizens should be deported and/or the United States surrounded by electric fences.

And most recently, black people have been described as parasites on white America. And "inner city" children, what is code for black and brown youth, should follow through on a Dickensonian fantasy as they pick up mops and serve as school janitors, in order to learn the value of hard work

The policies of the Republican Party are demonstrative of a deep deficit in empathy. The poor are surplus people who are "unproductive," a "drain" on American society, and who leech off of the rich and "normal" Americans. The social safety net should be destroyed as "entitlements" like Social Security and unemployment insurance, encourage laziness and sloth. Support for hungry children, public education, the unemployed, and the poor should be cut to ensure tax cuts for the rich.

While income and wealth inequality is at record highs, inter-generational mobility is stifled, and the middle and working classes are being eviscerated, it is in fact the wealthy who are being held under siege by "class warfare."

The Republican Party has been practicing "bully politics" at its best since the election of President Obama.

The Republican leadership has proudly vowed to destroy his presidency at any cost--even if the country suffers because of it. The Republican Party has worked to obstruct legislationat every turn--even popular bills supported by the public. There is a concerted effort to destroy the public's confidence in government with the hope that anger and rage will be distributed equally at both parties--as opposed to those in the Republican Party who are most responsible for these impasses in procedure and voting (even opposing legislation they previously supported in order to spite President Obama).

The foot soldiers of the radical political faction otherwise known as the Tea Party have prided themselves on holding the country hostage (as they did during the debt ceiling crisis), repeatedly demonstrating that zealotry holds precedence over good government and the public interest.

Richard Mardouk, who defeated Senator Dick Lugar in Indiana last week, summed up the bully politics of the Tea Party GOP perfectly when he stated that a lack of compromise "...is the definition of political effectiveness. The fact is you never compromise on principles. If people on the far left have a principle they want to stand by, they should never compromise. Those of us on the right should not either. Compromise may come in the finer details of a plan or a budget. We are at the point where one side of the other will win this argument. One side or the other will dominate."

Ultimately Mardouk notes, "what I've said about compromise and bipartisanship is I hope to build a conservative majority in the United States Senate so that bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, lower taxes and get American moving again."

Compromise is their enemy. They must bend others to their will not through negotiation, moral and ethical clarity, or persuasion, but through hardheadedness and intimidation. Compromise is not give and take, or political horse trading: it is forcing Democrats to always agree with Republicans

Mitt Romney, bully, is a perfect candidate for a political party of bullies, a collective both refined and gross. The policies offered by the Republican Party are a one against all, state of nature mix of Ayn Rand's love of personal selfishness and unbridled corporate greed. Here, the government should be drowned in the bathtub and the social safety destroyed in order to transfer more resources to the rich.

Radical libertarianism, deregulation, and a free market unmoored by any restrictions of common sense, humanity, or reason will separate the weak from the strong. The rest of society be damned in this Mad Max view of Americans' obligations to one another and the social compact. We are all just individual agents, lacking any rights of citizenship which cannot be secured and protected by radical free market capitalism, the bankers, financiers, and plutocrats.

This America, the one of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party's dreams, is a bully's paradise.

Mitt Romney, prep school bully of the weak and vulnerable, corporate raider bully who takes pleasure in terminating employees, nominee of a political party of bullies and "real Americans," and he who wants to be President of the United States, has made it abundantly clear that empathy is not a public virtue to be cultivated or encouraged.

What does that mean for the rest of us who don't get to sit at the cool kids table or have enough money to hang out with Mitt Romney and his exclusive clique?

Let's Liberate the Slavery Artifacts for Sale on Ebay

Fri, 11 May 2012 12:05:44 -0400

Extremely Rare Mated Set of Two Small Child's Size Slave Hand-Forged Rattle Shackles & Made for the Slave Trade c. 1800 19th Century, Set of Two, Small Child's Size Slave Shackles, Hand-forged Iron, With Internal "Rattles," Choice Very Fine.
This impressive set of child size slave shackles are African made for the Slave Trade, although also found located in the United States from time to time. These are described as being, "crab-shaped rattler leg shackles," on page 20-21, in the book, "THE ART AND HISTORY OF BLACK MEMORABILIA" by Larry Vincent Buster. They measures 6" x 5.25" with an opening of 4.75" x 2.75" and 8" x 5.25" with an opening of 4.75" x 2.5".

Based on the circumference of the openings these were of size to be used on children. The oddly-shaped hand-wrought devices contain lateral "pockets" that contain pieces of metal that rattle as the wearer moves about so that his or her location could easily be determined by the sound of the rattle being made. Each has a pair of small chain links attached at the top. One shackle was placed on each leg and a chain threaded through the attached rings, secured with a lock. A museum quality, important historical pair of Child's Size Slave Shackles, having a natural patina that would be excellent for display. (2 items).

One of my favorite episodes in the history of genre television was an installment of the much beloved Alien Nation series which ran for a few years in the early 1990s. Alien Nation, a not so subtle play on the phrase "alienation" focused on how a race of extraterrestrials struggled to assimilate into Earth society after their slave ship was stranded here. Upon arrival, the Newcomers became a metaphor through which to explore racism, ethnocentrism, and prejudice. Yes, it could be overwrought and hackneyed. Alien Nation was also wonderfully sharp and incisive.

To point, there was an episode of Alien Nation which was centered on how one of the Newcomers' high elders was disgusted by the ways that the artifacts of his people were sold to human collectors. Ultimately, the material culture of his civilization was reduced to a fetish object, one utterly disconnected from the legacy of blood, struggle, loss, and triumph which produced it. Their chains, shackles, restraints, religious icons, and other artifacts were reduced to kitsch. No historical weight or context was present beyond that which could accrue novelty, and points for uniqueness, for those who owned such intimately personal objects.

In all, popular culture is oftentimes a stand-in for sociopolitical struggles in the "real world" (as opposed to the pure imaginaries through which we pursue the politics of pleasure and fantasy). But, what to do when history becomes quite literally the playful, curious, and "interesting" objects of collectors and curators who may (or may not) have any deeply personal connection to those things they covet?

We all "own" history. However, some of us are more connected to particular histories than others may be. Black Americans are part of a diaspora. Much of our shared historical and cultural experience is framed by a narrative of disruption caused by the Middle Passage, and the many moments of destruction it entailed, and necessitated. Ironically, blacks in the New World are also an example of generation and creation--where modernity and new civilizations were created by the movements of millions of people from one hemisphere to another.

Whole cultures and peoples were made by the Black Atlantic. Peoples were also destroyed. Peoples were (re)invented. As such, material objects and artifacts were both lost and found. While it should be no surprise, I am nonetheless moved that some of them would turn up for sale on Ebay.

A slave manacle collected in Marrakesh, Morocco, possibly 18th century.Weight about 4 lbs, larger ring about 5" x 3-3/8"inside diameter, smaller ring about 3" x 3".The keyed lock is functional.
We are listing new selections of rare and hard to find ethnographica, please see our other eBay auctions.

We have operated Coyote's Paw Gallery online for many years and have owned brick-and mortar galleries since 1984. We sell at The Traditional Flea in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on weekends- come see us if you're around. We are experienced packers and can ship worldwide- overseas customers, please contact us before bidding with any questions about costs or customs.

We guarantee the descriptions of our items to be accurate.We work for the best possible ratings as eBay sellers, if there are any concerns about items purchased, we'll do as much as possible to make sure the transaction is mutually satisfactory- this does NOT include buyer's remorse!

If anything is not 100%, contact us before leaving feedback. Thank you for viewing our auctions-

To my eyes, there is something horribly amiss when slave manacles, chains, and other objects of torture are reduced to "collectibles" on Ebay (and other sites), where they will become the property of the highest bidder.

To me, the personal is, and will always remain, the political. Because this is a first principle, I have a proposition to offer. I think we can do something important in regards to owning a small part of history, and seeing that a few material objects find a proper home.

If a few folks who read this piece here on Daily Kos, Salon, or at my own website We Are Respectable Negroes, offered up a quarter, or perhaps even a dollar, this could be accomplished in a day or so. A few kind folks have already thrown some money into the collective pot (in the interest of transparency all the details are here).

Can we buy back some history and donate it to a worthy museum or collection? I would like to believe that we can.