J. Edgar Hoover, Enemy of the People

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
February 28, 2008

The New York Times reported that according to a newly declassified document, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, in 1950, planned to suspend habeas corpus and permanently imprison 12,000 “disloyal” American citizens in military prisons. Under Hoover’s proposal, the mass arrests of “all individuals potentially dangerous to national security” would be carried out under “a master warrant attached to a list of names” provided by the FBI. Hoover saw the arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage.”

Hoover was guilty of projection when he called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “the most dangerous man in America, and a moral degenerate.” With his one-man war on progressive social movements, the civil rights movement and African American leadership, antiwar activists, and radical groups, he had been the greatest threat to democracy until the current occupants of the White House came to power. Under his COINTELPRO program, devised to “prevent the rise of a black messiah,” Dr. King, Malcolm X and other leaders were assassinated or otherwise neutralized, members of leftwing political groups framed and imprisoned, and their causes denigrated and defamed. Even today, the appalling COINTELPRO legacy lives on, as eight former Black Panthers were arrested for the 1971 killing of a San Francisco police officer, trumped up charges based on evidence obtained through torture. Perhaps we will never know how much better America would have been without J. Edgar Hoover.

Clearly, Hoover and his ilk represent the worst in America - an aversion to the rule of law, secret government, spying on citizens, condoning torture, squelching democratic movements and other fascistic tendencies. So, why do we allow a federal building to take the name of such a loathsome individual?

Of course, I speak of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the headquarters of the FBI in Washington, DC. Perhaps it can be argued that it really doesn’t matter, Hoover left us a long time ago and can no longer harm us, and having a building named after him is mere symbolism in any case.

But it does matter, primarily because the U.S. has not learned lessons from its past. Although Hoover died in 1972, he lives on in an antidemocratic mindset that pushes the nation towards fascistic behavior. “Enhanced interrogation techniques,” or torture, is viewed as an acceptable weapon in America’s war on terror. Terror suspects are kidnapped and imprisoned indefinitely, without charges, without evidence and without trial. Citizens are secretly monitored. That we have allowed the Bush administration to engage in these activities is proof that we have not come to terms with the shameful Hoover legacy. Once we erase Hoover’s name from the building, and revoke all posthumous honors bestowed upon him, then we can begin to repair the damage done by this petty American dictator and his ideological heirs.

GOP Jesus Is No Friend of Mine

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
February 21, 2008

“I don’t like the way the Republicans have taken this country. Every time I hear the word ‘conservative’ it makes me sick to my stomach, because they’re really just fake Christians as I call them, that’s all they are…. They want to be judge and jury. I’m for gay marriage. None of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice, and I think these Christians, first of all, they’re not supposed to judge other people, but they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like they’re Christians, and they’re not forgiving at all… They can’t do anything to me, I don’t work for them.”

- Charles Barkley, CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, February 17, 2008

I find the exploitation of religion by conservative politicians to be troubling. The Christian Right - specifically the Republican Party and its standard bearers running for President - offend democratic sensibilities when they proclaim that this is a Christian nation, that all Americans should be Christians, and in Talibanic fashion, insist that their own extreme form of religion should dictate public policy decisions. When a political party decides that it is the party of God, they invite problems. And since they have opened the door, I have decided to walk through it.

Christian conservatives have created a perverse and profane Jesus with warped priorities. Frankly, their invention disturbs me. This GOP Jesus is preoccupied, even obsessed, with two issues: abortion and same-sex marriage.

And GOP Jesus loves his guns, and can’t get enough of them. In fact, he thinks that everyone should have as many weapons as possible.

This GOP Jesus believes free market capitalism will solve all ills, and will not let anything stand in the way of corporate profits, whether environmental regulation, “socialized” medicine or social welfare.

GOP Jesus believes in a strong military so that he may vanquish his enemies in Muslim nations. He favors forms of torture such as waterboarding in order to win the war on terror. GOP Jesus believes in building a wall around America, his favorite country. He wants to drive out the illegal immigrants and torture and imprison the suspected terrorists. He speaks English only, and permits no foreign languages. He supports the waving of the Confederate flag.

Most of all, he takes a careful look at the atrocities occurring in other theocratic regimes, organized crime rings operating under the guise of religious values. Morality police who arrest and whip women for not wearing “proper” clothing. So-called religious authorities who sentence a woman to death for practicing witchcraft or committing adultery. And GOP Jesus is taking notes, because he thinks that perhaps he can learn something from these regimes, and adapt their thuggery and laws of intolerance to the American market.

But I wonder what the Christian Right would say if they actually came face-to-face with Jesus. You know what I mean, that man of color who was born to homeless parents. The guy who hung out with the beggars, lepers and prostitutes. The man who cared for the sick and the children, and said “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24). That Black radical and political prisoner who was tried by a kangaroo court and executed under the unjust and arbitrary laws of a corrupt state.

So, what would they do if they encountered Black Jesus? They wouldn’t let him pass through airport security. They would likely deport him, or brand him a terrorist, or a nutty, unpatriotic antiwar activist, and lock him up in Guantanamo.

Bush Defends America’s Indefensible Human Rights Record

By David A. Love
Published By The Black Commentator
February 14, 2008

On February 21 and 22, U.S. State Department and Department of Justice are going to Geneva to defend George Bush’s record on human rights and racial discrimination. But what does one say about a record that cannot be defended?

Specifically, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination will take a look at United States compliance - or rather, noncompliance - with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, also known as the Race Convention or ICERD.

The Race Convention defines racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” Notice the emphasis on purpose or effect.

Ratified by the U.S. in 1994, the Race Convention is one of those international treaties that have become part of U.S. law. However, this and other international conventions pose an inconvenience because they are more progressive and inclusive than the Constitution, based on universal standards and are free from the baggage and hangups of America’s sordid and tortured history. And some American politicians and jurists prefer to ignore America’s international obligations and dispose of these conventions like discarded junk mail or yesterday’s newspaper.

In a recent Color of Law commentary, I discussed a shadow report by the over 250-member US Human Rights Network (USHRN), which claims that America is failing to comply with its obligations under the Race Convention. The shadow report was a response to an April 2007 report submitted by the U.S. government on its compliance with ICERD, a report that all signatory nations are required to submit every two years. The U.S. report angered the human rights community, and according to critics it represented a whitewashing of America’s racial problems.

“Our analysis reveals that the Bush Administration is utterly out of touch with the reality of racial discrimination in America,” said Ajamu Baraka, the Executive Director of the USHRN. “From failing to address the chronic persistence of structural racism to even acknowledging the disparate racial impact on people of color of Hurricane Katrina, the State Department reports reads like a fantasy; unfortunately a fantasy that is to often experienced as a nightmare for Americans of color,” Baraka added.

So, exactly how will the Bush administration defend their atrocious record on racial discrimination?

Will they say that the victims of Hurricane Katrina were already poor and had nothing to lose, and that Brownie did a heck of a job?

Will Bush’s yes men and women sugarcoat the problem of race-based police brutality and pretend it doesn’t exist?

What of the school-to-prison pipeline that criminalizes youth, and condemns poor children and children of color to underperforming schools, few opportunities and a life behind bars? Certainly, the Bush regime will claim that these children need to buckle down, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, study hard and play by the rules.

Blacks and Latinos make up 60 percent of the 2.5 million Americans behind bars in the United States. But what will the U.S. government say about the alarming disparities in the criminal justice system? “These people commit more crime,” they will respond.

What of the continued colonialism and racial oppression experienced by America’s indigenous population? “What indigenous population?,” Bush will ask.

And what about the post-9/11 epidemic of hate crimes against Muslims, Arabs and South Asians, perpetrated by law enforcement agencies in the form of round-ups, interrogations and registration programs? “These people are Islamofascist terrorists who hate us for our freedom,” the government will likely say.

So, how do you defend the indefensible? The Bush administration pretends the problem doesn’t exist, and tells the victim to stop playing the victim and show some personal responsibility. On the issue of human rights, this administration never fails to disappoint.

Book Review: Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors, By Bill Cosby & Alvin F. Poussaint, M.D.

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
February 7, 2008

These days, Black youth are not a popular cause. Blamed, vilified and scapegoated, they seem to take the hit for all that is wrong with society. And many in the Black community, it seems, have washed their hands of their children. When I read the new book by Bill Cosby and Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint, M.D., Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors (Thomas Nelson, 288 pp.), I couldn’t help but think of the remarks by Oprah Winfrey in January, 2007. After announcing that she was giving $40 million to start a girls’ school in South Africa, she told Newsweek that she became frustrated with visiting inner-city schools in the U.S. and stopped going, and that these children care more about iPods or sneakers than about learning.

In Come On People, the authors provide a stinging critique of all that is wrong with Black youth and the Black community in general. Their book provides a mix of social-scientific analysis, tough love and up-by-the-bootstraps advice. To be sure, the problems we face are many: poverty, low education, shortage of role models, violence, hyper-incarceration, self-hate, breakdown of community, mental health problems, shorter life expectancies, etc. Many children are being ignored. And those who are in, of and from the Black community become angry over what is taking place. However, anger should not translate into a blame game, and victims should not become the scapegoats. Becoming fodder for conservative think tanks and other enemies of people of color is not a desired goal, and this is something the book comes close to doing, however unintentionally and unwittingly.

Self-help and community-based solutions - for which Cosby and Poussaint advocate in their book - are but one part of the puzzle, albeit an important one. They give sound advice on numerous issues, including the crisis of Black men, addressing violence in the home, ensuring that parents are involved in the education of their children, community-based job creation and entrepreneurship, and improving our neighborhoods, to name a few.

One aspect in which Come On People falls short is in its full acknowledgement of the larger picture, the pernicious economic forces and institutional racism endemic to our society, but perhaps that was not the purpose of the book. For example, Cosby and Poussaint acknowledge the role of racism and the legacy of slavery, but seem to downplay its effect by proclaiming that racism is not as bad today as it was in the 1950s. They say that while Whites once outnumbered Blacks in prison, it is now reversed. Failing to reflect on the racial inequities in the justice system, and the deliberate policies which have created a cradle-to-prison pipeline for poor children of color - placing more and more people in a for-profit prison system for nonviolent drug offenses, no jobs, poorly educated, and victims of a system that has failed them - the authors take a cursory look at the alarming statistics on Black incarceration and conclude that “[t]hese are not ‘political’ criminals. These are people selling drugs, stealing, or shooting their buddies over trivia.”

Considering the healthcare challenges facing this nation and the Black community in particular, such as prenatal care, the authors seem to shrug their shoulders by concluding that “[w]e can talk all we want about an imperfect health-care system, but that we can’t control. What we can control is what is going on when the child is in the womb.” A more thoughtful and comprehensive analysis would acknowledge that which individuals can do to ensure the health of their children, but also suggest ways in which a broader movement for a truly universal healthcare system would bring about higher health standards for Black people and all Americans.

Cosby and Poussaint rightly criticize gangsta rap, its misogyny and ignorance, its self-hatred and other destructive characteristics. But the book seems to conflate gangsta rap and the rest of hip-hop, which is an important and valuable cultural force, and seems to blame “Black English” for Black people not being able to get out of poverty. Such simplistic explanations for poverty fail to examine the larger forces at play, including regressive economic policies, which have shifted wealth upward, and have created a far less economically mobile country than Canada, and Western Europe. One-sixth of American children are in poverty. Nearly one-half of African Americans born to middle-income families will wind up in poverty. And as a recent Pew study suggests, while only a third of Americans earn more money than their parents, the rest of us are either treading water or sinking. Speaking proper English, not listening to explicit rap lyrics, and putting on a tie and going to church will not resolve these greater issues.

Finally, the book fails to place blame on those members of the Black community who have made it, yet have fled from the scene and have not given back to the neighborhoods that supported them. These are the “Talented Tenth,” those who hold the annual cotillions, fashion shows and chicken dinners, patting themselves on the back for being successful, cute, well-dressed, and educated, presenting awards for inaction and irrelevance. They have proclaimed that they have arrived, that the civil rights movement is over, that all of that racism talk is passé. Their mantra has been personal gain without collective responsibility to the community. They even believe that they are somehow different than, better than, those they left behind. Many of our poor children are in deep trouble, but that is because we abandoned them and put them in their situation.

Come On People is recommended reading, not because it provides solutions to all of Black peoples’ woes. Perhaps no book can accomplish so much. However, the book is important in that it begins the dialogue concerning the crisis plaguing the African American community. The authors have paid their dues - Dr. Poussaint has dedicated his career to issues of child psychiatry and raising Black children, and understanding the links between racism and mental health, while Mr. Cosby has put his money where his mouth is in terms of his support of HBCUs. Although they fall short of addressing solutions that take into account a larger call for racial, economic and social justice, they give their audience much to consider.

The United States has a shameful human rights record

By David A. Love
Published by the Progressive Media Project
February 5, 2008

America does not practice what is preaches when it comes to human rights. Despite its noble stated goal of promoting democratic principles around the world, the United States is actually stifling them.

In the name of the war on terror, the Bush administration has made bedfellows with tyrants, according to an annual report by the group Human Rights Watch.

The report, which is based on research conducted in 75 countries, names abusers throughout the world who claim to give their people basic human rights, yet fail when it comes to guaranteeing civil liberties. Rather, they deny freedom of the press, imprison thousands of political dissidents, shut down political opposition parties and hold sham elections to bolster their legitimacy.

These allies of Washington include Vladimir Putin of Russia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan.

What's worse, it is difficult for the United States to act as an effective cheerleader for human rights when it maintains a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, takes detainees to secret CIA detention centers, and engages in torture of terror suspects.

"The United States has rightly attracted massive international criticism for its appalling and illegal conduct in the `war on terrorism," says Julia Hall, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch who contributed to the report.

U.S. support of antidemocratic regimes is, unfortunately, nothing new.

-In 1953, the United States and Great Britain eliminated a democratic government in Iran by staging a coup, overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and installing a puppet regime under the Shah.

-In 1954, America staged the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, the democratically elected president of Guatemala.

-In 1965, the U.S. Embassy supported Indonesia's strongman General Suharto rise to power, and encouraged him in his massacre of hundreds of thousands of people. A decade later, America gave Suharto military weapons to aid in his invasion of East Timor, which also cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

-In 1966, the CIA was complicit in the overthrow of President Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana through a military coup.

-In 1973, the Chilean military, with the support of the United States, staged a coup against the democratically elected President Salvador Allende.

-In the 1980s, the United States supported death squad leaders in places such as El Salvador and Haiti, and sponsored the Nicaraguan Contras, providing them with assassination manuals in Spanish.

The United States can't have it both ways.

It can't use lofty rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy and then engage in the cold-hearted and cold-blooded policy of supporting tyrants.

It can't criticize the human-rights records of some nations, like Cuba, ignore the records of others, like China, and then turn around and engage in torture, disappearances and indefinite detention without trial.

As Americans, we like to think of ourselves as upholders of democracy and freedom. But our history of support for dictators does not back up that claim. And the Bush administration's actions mock it.

Our next president has a moral obligation to end this hypocrisy.