@AnnCoulter pic.twitter.com/Ov56bpBfii
— Jerry Saltz (@jerrysaltz) July 29, 2016
Khizr Khan — the father of a fallen U.S. Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan who died saving the lives of his fellow soldiers — appeared on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell on Friday. With his wife at his side, the father of the dead soldier called upon the Republican Party to denounce the poisonous anti-Muslim rhetoric of its presidential nominee, reality TV star and real estate tycoon Donald Trump…. “We are private, ordinary American citizens,” said Mr. Khan, who delivered one of the 2016 Democratic National Convention’s most electrifying speeches when he told the world about his son’s sacrifice on Thursday night. “This political drama has heated up a little too much for us.”…. This was the family’s first-ever political convention, he explained, which they attended in order to “be part of the tribute to our son.”
No one who hasn’t walked in Khizr Khan’s shoes could claim to understand the depth of his pain and loss. He and his wife lost their son, his death denying them the joys they might reasonably have looked forward to as they watched him proceed through life.
Cpt. Khan threw himself on a suicide bomber’s explosive-filled vest in 2014. His selflessness cost him his life while saving more than 20 of his colleagues. It was an act of heroism performed by an American patriot…who also happened to be a Muslim. While Americans should be focused on his selflessness and heroism- and most are- there are those on the Far Right who view Khizr Khan’s speech as mere partisan politics…and thus deserving of a partisan response.
That Khan’s speech was intended as a tribute to his son was clearly missed (or willfully ignored) by those who view politics as a blood sport and believe sentiment and respect to the province of losers and Liberals.
]]>Conservative radio host Sandy Rios questioned the loyalty of the Muslim father of an Army captain who lost his life fighting for the United States military in Iraq….
[I]f you are so concerned, Mr. Khan, if you’re an American first, then distinguish yourself and condemn Islamists, condemn the Muslim Brotherhood, then we will listen to you, and stop waving the Constitution,” she said. “As far as I can tell, Islam, truly, supporters of Islam and the Quran, cannot embrace the Constitution. Now, if you have a different view, then explain that to us and then maybe we can be persuaded, but don’t shame America for having genuine and rightful concerns about Muslims in our midst when we have no idea who they are or what they really believe, and we’re not even sure about you, sir, because we know about taqiyya, which is the practice of lying to the infidel in order to advance the Muslim cause.”
Rios then questioned Khan’s son, even though the 27-year-old made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.
“So I’m sorry, we’ll not be shamed. I’m sorry for the loss of their son and I hope he is a loyal American,” she said. “But I think a loyal American Muslim would be more like Zuhdi Jasser, who is very clear about where he stands, who was very patriotic and loyal and totally distances himself from Islamism, so if that’s the case for this gentleman, then he should’ve said that on the platform rather than shaming us for having concerns about Muslim immigration.”
I find it interesting that Ms. Rios thinks it appropriate to demand that Khan condemn radical Islamic terrorism…while hypocritically ignoring the far more prevalent and immediate threat posed by radical Right-wing Christian terrorists. If Ms. Rios is an American first, she should distinguish herself and condemn radical Christians. She should condemn the sovereign citizen movement and other White Christian terrorist groups (she could start with the Bundy Brigade), and then perhaps we’ll listen to her…if she’ll stop waving the Bible around.
No one gets to assume themselves to be- whether via religious faith, ethnicity, or skin color- to be superior moral beings and that all others must prove their loyalty. Conservative White Christians aren’t “better” Americans than the Khans and their son. Rios has no right to demand that Mr. Khan prove anything to anyone. He says he’s an American first…and that should be good enough. Being non-White and non-Christian doesn’t place a greater burden upon him to prove his “American-ness.”
You know what this convention really needed? An angry Muslim with a thick accent like Fareed Zacaria.
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) July 29, 2016
You know what this tweet really needed? Spellcheck. https://t.co/afQRxFISj7
— Liz Mair (@LizMair) July 29, 2016
What a terrible thing to say about a man whose son died for this country. https://t.co/h9Zp4x3j6v
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) July 29, 2016
I'm ashamed ever to have known you. https://t.co/AkddX4uNa0
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) July 29, 2016
.@AnnCoulter May you find peace for your rotten, evil heart one day, Ann.
— Tweets by Collin™ (@TweetsByCollin) July 29, 2016
Then there was Ann Coulter’s contemptible tweet, which was quickly and roundly condemned even by Conservatives. It confirmed what many had long suspected, that Coulter is devoid of anything even faintly redolent of human decency and kindness. Since I long ago resolved not to dignify Fraulein Gasraum by devoting brain cells and/or column inches to her ugliness, I’ll speak of her only in the sense that she gave voice to what too many Republicans think.
This is today’s GOP, the party which turned its soul over to Donald Trump and is now seeing its ugliness and soulless self-superiority laid bare for the world to see. That Republicans- and especially their Presidential nominee- could disrespect the father of a fallen American hero because they’re not White and Christian is beneath contempt.
These are the people who believe themselves to be the rightful heirs to political power in America. Evidently, that birthright requires a distressing degree of mean-spirited soullessness and hatred. That they’d see nothing amiss with disrespecting a fallen American soldier and his father speaks to how morally vacant the American Taliban truly is.
]]>The data and the facts lead to an inescapable conclusion: Every child deserves a married mom and dad. The reality remains that millions of American families do not have the advantages that come with that structure. We honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the burdens of parenting alone and embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with dignity and respect. But respect is not enough. Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states. We oppose government discrimination against businesses or entities which decline to sell items or services to individuals for activities that go again.
If one is looking to understand the definition of “oxymoron,” one need look no further than the term “gay Republican.” What seems understandable as an exercise in, and expression of, profound self-loathing, is something I can’t begin to wrap my head around. The most well-known group- Log Cabin Republicans (LCR)- pledges allegiance to a party determined to destroy them, or, failing that, to relegate them to second-class status.
Even LCR President Gregory T. Angelo describes this year’s GOP platform as “the most anti-LGBT platform in history.” Why, then, would any self-respecting member of the LGBT community belong to a political party which views and defines them as “less than.”
The platform calls for the reversal of the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality. It supports and encourages “gay conversion therapy,” which has been debunked and disavowed even by groups previously involved in it. Despite a preponderance of objective evidence detailing the damage done by “gay conversion therapy,” the GOP continues to stand behind it.
How could anyone with even the barest shred of self-esteem not recognize the GOP platform to be what it is: a prescription for defining the LGBT community as “less than,” and legally classifying them as second-class citizens unworthy of the rights and protections “good” and “decent” heterosexual Americans take as their due?
“Gay Republican” may not be as dramatic as “Jews For Gas Chambers” or “African-Americans For Slavery,” but it makes about as much sense. We’re all free to make our own choices, which I suppose means that some are bound to be nonsensical and difficult to comprehend. Members of the LGBT community who vote Republican are padlocking their own chains…and tossing the key into the high grass.
]]>If Fethullah Gulen is considered a threat to Erdogan & Turkey's gov't doesn't Turkey have a right to drone strike him in Pennsylvania? @CNN
— Col. Morris Davis (@ColMorrisDavis) July 16, 2016
I’ve been ruminating for the past couple days on a question posed by my friend, Sean Paul Kelley. He used an article by Glenn Greenwald as the basis for what really is a very simple question:
What is American Exceptionalism, and why does it make us superior to the rest of the world?
The answer goes straight to the heart of how we Americans define our place and role in the international community.
The advent of drone technology made it easy for the US military to kill “bad guys” from the warmth and safety of an office at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas. It meant American power could be projected into places where ground troops weren’t an option and conventional air power was ineffective. America could kill anyone almost literally anywhere with the push of a few buttons and the maneuvering of a joystick. Because of the easy, risk-free nature of drone warfare, American Presidents have been able to attack “evildoers” anyplace, anytime, anywhere.
Americans uniformly and without question accept this state of affairs as the norm. It’s just what we do. We’re Americans, we’re at war with an unconventional enemy, and therefore we should be able to do what needs to be done whenever, wherever, and however it needs to be done.
This seems the very definition of “American Exceptionalism, the belief that
It’s interesting, but hardly surprising, that those who champion the idea of American Exceptionalism are without fail American.
Manifest Destiny, anyone??
]]> IF you accept the premise of American Exceptionalism, what does that entail? What rights does that confer upon America? What responsibilities do we assume? Or is it merely the belief in Amerika über Alles without any accompanying responsibility or accountability?American Exceptionalism in its purest embodiment: The U.S. is not subject to the same rules and laws as other nations, but instead is entitled to assert power and punishment that is unique to itself, grounded in its superior status. Indeed, so ingrained is this pathology that the mere suggestion that the U.S. should be subject to the same laws and rules as everyone else inevitably provokes indignant accusations that the person is guilty of the greatest sin: comparing the United States of America to the lesser, inferior governments and countries of the world.
Is the “exceptionalism” in American Exceptionalism limited only to Americans? Can (and/or should) other countries claim the same sort of privilege for themselves? For instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is laying blame for last weekend’s failed coup d’ etat squarely upon Islamic imam and former ally Fethullah Gulen, who’s currently living in Pennsylvania on a green card.
Erdogan is demanding the US extradite Gulen in order that he might face Turkish justice (which, yes, may well be an oxymoron). Secretary of State John Kerry has indicated the US government will entertain any evidence presented by Turkey…but he’s made it clear accusations will not be given the weight of objective evidence.
In light of the presence on U.S. soil of someone the Turkish government regards as a “terrorist” and a direct threat to its national security, would Turkey be justified in dispatching a weaponized drone over Pennsylvania to find and kill Gulen if the U.S. continues to refuse to turn him over, or sending covert operatives to kidnap him? That was the question posed yesterday by Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor of Guantánamo’s military commissions who resigned in protest over the use of torture-obtained evidence[.]
Assuming the State Dept. declines to extradite Gulen, is Turkey then within its rights to claim “Turkish Exceptionalism” and take Gulen out via a drone strike? I know; it sounds silly, but it’s a valid question. If we can do it with impunity, what’s to stop other countries from doing the same on US soil? Are we really so arrogant as to assume that being American allows us carte blanche to do things we’d quickly and decisively condemn other countries for?
As if I need to answer that….
That question, of course, is raised by the fact that the U.S. has spent many years now doing exactly this: employing various means — including but not limited to drones — to abduct and kill people in multiple countries whom it has unilaterally decided (with no legal process) are “terrorists” or who otherwise are alleged to pose a threat to its national security. Since it cannot possibly be the case that the U.S. possesses legal rights that no other country can claim — right? — the question naturally arises whether Turkey would be entitled to abduct or kill someone it regards as a terrorist when the U.S. is harboring him and refuses to turn him over.
The only viable objection to Turkey’s assertion of this authority would be to claim that the U.S. limits its operations to places where lawlessness prevails, something that is not true of Pennsylvania. But this is an inaccurate description of the U.S.’s asserted entitlement.
When President George W. Bush demanded the Taliban turn over Osama bin-Laden, he was rebuffed. The Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, explained that if the US supplied sufficient convincing evidence, then they were prepared to try bin-Laden.
The likelihood of that happening is debatable at best, but it did point out that the rest of the world isn’t bound to respect US demands…on any level. The international community has every right to expect the US to adhere to international treaties and diplomatic norms. Instead, we cut corners, because…well, American Exceptionalism.
We’re Americans. We don’t follow rules, we MAKE rules.
Nor are such U.S. actions against individual terror suspects confined to countries where lawlessness prevails. In 2003, the CIA kidnapped a cleric from the streets of Milan, Italy, and shipped him to Egypt to be tortured (CIA agents involved have been prosecuted in Italy, though the U.S. government has vehemently defended them). In 2004, the U.S. abducted a German citizen in Macedonia, flew him to Afghanistan, tortured and drugged him, then unceremoniously dumped him back on the street when it realized he was innocent; but the U.S. has refused ever since to compensate him or even apologize, leaving his life in complete shambles. The U.S. has repeatedly killed people in Pakistan with drones and other attacks, including strikes when it had no idea who it was killing, and also stormed a compound in Abbottabad — where the Pakistani government has full reign — in order to kill Osama bin Laden in 2010.
As Greenwald stated, US drone killings of suspected terrorists (Due process? WHAT due process?) are enormously popular among Americans. Perhaps most distressingly, even Liberal Democrats are OK with our government engaging in extrajudicial killings (what some might refer to as “murder”)…because “terrorism,” don’tchaknow?
Yet it’s virtually certain that Americans across the ideological spectrum would explode in nationalistic outrage if Turkey actually did the same thing in Pennsylvania; indeed, the consequences for Turkey if it dared to do so are hard to overstate.
It’s the height of hypocritical nationalism for Americans to sanction our government murdering terrorism suspects outside our borders (denying them due process) while we decry other countries considering a similar course of action.
If we believe ourselves to be exceptional beings by virtue of our “Americanness,” there’s little to stop other countries from following our lead. As governments look to expand their reach in an effort to stifle dissent and resistance, what’s to inhibit them from projecting their reach beyond their borders? If America claims that right, what’s to prevent other countries from arguing they should be able to do the same?
If American feels no requirement to respect a country’s sovereignty, we have no cause to condemn others for doing the same thing we regularly do.
American Exceptionalism, don’tchaknow?
]]>]]>
College students want free speech on their campuses but want their administrators to intervene when it turns into hate speech, though they disagree on whether college campuses are open environments and on how the media should cover campus protests, according to a new Gallup survey on the First Amendment released Monday. About 78 percent of students surveyed said that colleges should allow “all types of speech and viewpoints,” while 22 percent noted that “colleges should prohibit biased or offensive speech in the furtherance of a positive learning environment.”…. “Students do appear to distinguish controversial views from what they see as hate speech — and they believe colleges should be allowed to establish policies restricting language and certain behavior that are intentionally offensive to certain groups,” the survey’s organizers wrote. Yet about 54 percent of students said that “the climate on campus prevents some people from saying what they believe because others might find it offensive.”
Over the past year or so, we’ve seen numerous controversies erupt on college campuses nationwide relation to free speech and expression. What I’m struggling to understand is the seemingly generalized desire for free speech…except when it’s “hate speech.” The question, in my my at least, is what constitutes “hate speech.” Beyond that, who gets to determine when free speech crosses the line to become “hate speech?” Whose tender sensibilities get to be used as the yardstick employed to vet the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of free speech?
I’m not one to defend “hate speech”…but defining it is no small task. I won’t argue with the contention that some speech is so offensive and hurtful that it serves no useful collective purpose. My concern is with where that line is drawn and who gets to draw it.
And when does drawing that line become the abrogation of free speech?
One of the disturbing trends on college campuses is the idea that students deserve a “safe space.” As I understand it, students expect to have access to a space in which they’re exposed to no words or ideas that might offend them- a bubble in which they experience only affirming and uplifting speech. They seem to feel as if they deserve to be insulated from anything that might cause them distress. To this, I can only say: “WTF???”
Perhaps this will sound sarcastic, and to a certain degree it’s meant to: Come on, Cupcake; there are no “safe spaces” in life. You can’t expect to be shielded and protected from words and ideas you might find offensive. The real world, the one you’re preparing yourself to go out into, doesn’t work like that. It’s time to put on your big boy (or girl) pants and accept that no one is responsible for protecting your tender sensibilities.
]]>The survey indicated that students are also concerned about the use of social media, with many noting that they feel that it can lead to uncivil and hateful discussions and that it can be easy to express opinions anonymously. For example, Yik Yak, a popular social network on college campuses, allows anonymous postings. Many college students have reported seeing hateful Yik Yak posts, increasing pressure on the company to crack down on people who use the app to harass others.
Certainly, “uncivil and hateful discussions” can be and very often are exceedingly unpleasant. This sort of thing is distressingly prevalent on social media. Those who use social media can attempt to organize and exert pressure on companies to reduce harrassment…or they can find another app to use. The ignorant and the hateful will always be among us…and most of those folks can be found on some sort of social media. The question becomes how one deals with unpleasant people- do you ignore and/or block them, do you work to convince a social media company to create a friendlier and more collegial environment, or do you whine and complain about your feelings being hurt?
The real world doesn’t come with safe spaces, and free speech can be and very often is hateful and offensive speech. You can accept and work to rise above it…or you can piss and moan about the hurtfulness and unfairness of it all.
Life is hard. Wear a helmet, eh?
]]>Tens of thousands of workers at America’s third-largest hardware chain are trained in more than customer service. They are trained in the conservative trickle-down economic zealotry that animates their billionaire boss. Menards is the largest privately owned home improvement chain in America. Its owner is John Menard, Jr., famous for keeping “a tight rein” on the smallest details of his company’s operations. His net worth of more than $10 billion makes him the richest man in Wisconsin, and one of the 50 richest people in America…. After Menard was forced to pay a $1.7 million fine in the 1990s for illegal dumping of hazardous waste, one state official says Menard told him he “just didn’t believe in environmental regulations.” More recently, a Menards spokesperson announced that the company did not plan to open a new store until Obama was no longer president.
Back in the day, workers were paid in company script, lived in company housing, and shopped at company stores. The company instructed workers as to whom they were to cast their vote for…and they did as they were told. Today workers may not be so directly and cynically under the complete control of their employer, but modern technology has made it easier for an employer to more completely control something previously beyond their reach: their employee’s brains.
This is not to tar all large corporations with the same brush, of course, but neither are companies like Menard’s particularly unusual in their attempts to indoctrinate employees with a right-wing political agenda. A few years ago, I worked at a local Target store over the Christmas holidays, and part of the initial training was watching what could only be described as an anti-union propaganda film. Stressing that a union would only disrupt the glorious collaborative culture that characterized Target stores, unions were portrayed as wishing for nothing more than to destroy what Target has worked so long and hard to create. The film was completely lacking in subtlety, not that it kept most of my fellow workers from nodding sagaciously while watching.
A couple generations ago, unions were what stood between greedy, rapacious moguls and the employees they wished to treat as chattel, disposable parts useful only for the value they created. Workers were exploited for their labor and tossed aside when they were no longer of value. Unions helped to prevent workplaces built on the cynical and exhaustively exploitation of workers. Most of all, they helped ensure that tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire could never happen again.
]]>No one suffers the brunt of John Menard, Jr.’s conservative beliefs more directly than his own employees. Menards’ virulently anti-union policies stand out even in an industry full of anti-union corporations. The company was recently sanctioned by the National Labor Relations Board for violating labor laws after it was revealed that the company had required managers to sign contracts stating that they would forfeit more than half of their pay if employees formed a union on their watch.
But Menards is not satisfied with merely having a non-union work force. Documents provided to us by a Menards employee show that the company conducts what can only be describe a systematic indoctrination into conservative political beliefs, under the guise of its “In-Home Training Program” (IHT).
In some respects, the only difference between John Menard, Jr. and robber barons is the passage of time and the availability of modern technology making it easier to control employees. Where employers previously relied on intimidation and the knowledge that jobs were few and far between to control employees, now the Internet makes indoctrination easier.
We take for granted that an employer’s control and influence over workers ceases at the end of the workday…which is true in most workplaces. Unfortunately, there are still modern day robber barons like John Menard, Jr., who hold views reminiscent of the 19th century, when being a “company man” meant ceding control over virtually all aspects of one’s life to their employer. There are still far too many captains of industry who view themselves as superior beings whose role is to not only make a profit but to show their employees the “right” way to think.
When employees are allowed to think for themselves, they become more difficult to control. They start wanting things- like safe workplaces, reasonable workloads, and the right to organize and advocate for what they childishly view as their “rights.”
How can a CEO count on making millions if the natives are allowed to be restless and engage in activities that don’t contribute to the bottom line?
]]>Beginning this fall at all public Texas universities, it will be legal to open carry firearms, like it or not. But don’t worry, it will still be against the law to openly carry a dildo. Those Texans Republicans have their priorities straight.
Imagine if you will, a place that more closely resembles Bizarro World than any earthly realm, a place where little makes sense, and where “WTF??” is a frequent and understandable reaction. It’s a place where it’s more difficult to buy a sex toy than a firearm. It’s a place in which radical Conservative Christians write textbooks that children are taught from. Yes, it’s place that makes the normal, the rational, and the sensible seem like unattainable qualities only found on a planet in a galaxy far, far away.
I’m talking, of course, about Texas- a place where good, God-fearing Christian patriots spend millions erecting 500’ metal crosses…but object to social service programs that address the needs of those down on their luck (SOCIALISM!!!). It’s a place where people profess to love them some Jesus…even as they completely ignoring His teachings about love, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion. It’s a place where a megachurch can turn a former NBA basketball arena into a glittering, shiny house of worship, and where the pastor of that church can live in a multi-million-dollar mansion…with no sense of irony, guilt, or remorse.
Because the Lord PROVIDES, y’all….
Where else could you openly carry a firearm on a college campus…but get arrested for openly carrying a vibrator? And you have to love a state that largely despises Hispanic immigrants…but depends on them to build their houses and roads, pick up their garbage, mow their lawns, tend their gardens, yadayadayada, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
You can see that cross for miles, though. Isn’t that AWESOME?? Ain’t God great??
]]>Oregon man is facing criminal charges for allegedly threatening an African-American man to the point the victim no longer feels safe living in his neighborhood, KEZI reports. Police told the station that Rodney Blomberg was among four men that approached the victim in a truck with a Confederate flag attached to it…. Blomberg is currently free after posting his $2,000 bond and has been charged with second-degree intimidation….[he’s] accused of directing racial slurs at the victim and telling him to leave. The victim said he no longer feels safe in Creswell, a rural community south of Eugene. The victim told police Blomberg told him that black people “get hung in these parts.”
I know; another example of an ignorant, knuckle-dragging Bubba and self-anointed avatar for the Master Race. Yawn…. This sort of thing is hardly newsworthy anymore; it’s just another day in Louisiana…or Alabama…or Floriduh…or Mississippi…or somewhere in the South, right?
Except that this incident didn’t happen south of the Mason-Dixon Line, the region most closely associated with ignorance, rednecks, and racism. This disturbing episode occurred right here in Oregon, which unbeknownst to most Americans (and most Oregonians) has a long and not-so-very distinguished history of virulent racism.
Having lived in Portland for most of the past 30+ years (I’ve left and returned on four occasions), I can attest to the reality that Portland’s reputation for being not exactly on the cutting edge of diversity to be well-deserved (The Atlantic calls Portland “The Whitest City in America.”) Stumptown is noted for leaning well to the left of the ideological center, but most of us don’t quite know what to do when a black face comes into view. Calling Portland “racist” would be inaccurate and unfair…but neither are we comfortable around African-Americans.
I live in north Portland, which has a much higher (though still small) African-American population, but it can still be jarring to see a black face in our neighborhood. With the crime rate in this part of town feeling as if it’s higher than other areas, that trepidation is also based to no small degree on self-preservation. I’m not proud of that, but it would be dishonest to sugar-coat the truth.
We denizens of Puddletown live in a lily-White bubble, secure in our privilege and blissfully unaware of how the other half lives…which is pretty consistent across the city. Let’s face it, while Portlanders believe in diversity in theory, we live in a place whose unofficial nickname could (and probably should) be Vanillatown.
In fact, and here’s something most long-term residents and even natives don’t know: Oregon was founded to be a racist utopia:
]]>When Oregon was granted statehood in 1859, it was the only state in the Union admitted with a constitution that forbade black people from living, working, or owning property there [Ed. note: Emphasis mine]. It was illegal for black people even to move to the state until 1926. Oregon’s founding is part of the forgotten history of racism in the American west.
Waddles Coffee Shop in Portland, Oregon was a popular restaurant in the 1950s for both locals and travelers alike. The drive-in catered to America’s postwar obsession with car culture, allowing people to get coffee and a slice of pie without even leaving their vehicle. But if you happened to be black, the owners of Waddles implored you to keep on driving. The restaurant had a sign outside with a very clear message: “White Trade Only — Please.”….
Even before it was a state, those in power in Oregon were trying to keep out non-white people. In the summer of 1844, for example, the Legislative Committee passed a provision that said any free black people who were in the state would be subject to flogging if they didn’t leave within two years. The floggings were supposed to continue every six months until they left the territory. That provision was revised in December of 1845 to remove the flogging part. Instead, free black people who remained would be offered up “publicly for hire” to any white person who would remove them from the territory.
This part of my adopted home state’s history is seldom discussed in polite company, and if it’s taught in Oregon schools at all, it’s glossed over. No one really wants to acknowledge the unfortunate and inconvenient historical truth: racism in Oregon has deep roots. It’s not at all unusual to see Confederate battle flags flying in rural parts of the state and even in some places in the Willamette Valley. “Bubbas” like Rodney Blomberg aren’t rare birds.
Oregon’s racism and racist history traces back to the state’s original Constitution:
No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws, for the removal, by public officers, of all such negroes, and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ, or harbor them.
It’s not exactly breaking news that the demographic composition of a population is a product of its history…which explains why Portland (and Oregon) is so overwhelmingly White. I could go into greater detail about our racial history, but instead of duplicating labor, I’d highly recommend perusing Matt Novak’s excellent piece on the subject. You might also want to take a look at Walidah Imarisha’s take on Why Aren’t There More Black People in Oregon? A Hidden History.
The truth is that most Oregonians are completely unaware of this unsavory aspect of our history. It certainly doesn’t mesh with the Portlandia vision of a quirky hamlet with decidedly Liberal sensitivities and a collectively oddball take on life.
Sometimes history can be SO inconvenient, knowhutimean??
]]>