Category Archives: Race

Headline of the day II: You knew it was coming


From CBS News:

Fake Oprah stars in racist robocall in Georgia in final days of Abrams-Kemp campaign

  • A fake Oprah Winfrey, Aunt Jemima, a “magical negro,” and “Jews who own the media” are featured in a new robocall that is hitting Georgia voters in the final days of the campaign for governor between Democrat Stacey Abrams and Republican Brian Kemp.
Advertisements

Republic bigot of the day: State Rep. Matt Shea


You know it’s bad when the FBI launches a criminal investigation of a lawmaker for threats of violence against folks who look or think differently, but that’s exactly what’s happening to a state legislator in Washington.

Fr0m the Center for Media and Democracy:

Washington State Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane) has found himself in hot water with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for circulating a manual for how to conduct a Christian holy war in the United States.

Rep. Shea is the Washington State Chair for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and has served on its Civil Justice Task Force.

Shea’s outline for holy war, entitled “Biblical Basis for War,” details who would qualify as a holy warrior — mainly “able bodied males” — and under what circumstances peace might be had, including a stop to all abortions, an end to same sex marriage, an end to idolatry, an end to communism, and replacing the current justice system with Biblical law.

And if the country does not yield, Shea’s manifesto says, “Kill all males.”

More from Rolling Stone:

For several years, Shea has proposed the same initiative in the Statehouse: A place named “Liberty” — a 51st state that would sever the rural, arid and deep-red eastern half of Washington from the urban, forested, blue coastal region. A place where God and guns won’t be regulated. A place where Shea says, consequently, there will be more freedom.

snip<

People have been talking about hacking off the eastern part of Washington — from the Cascades to Idaho — since at least 1915. But recently, creating a bastion of God-fearing, gun-toting, canned-food eating whiteness where conservatives can survive the End Times has been embraced by survivalists and dubbed the American Redoubt — an idea that’s gained enough interested parties to demand an actual corner of the real estate market. Though Shea’s Liberty idea hasn’t gained much traction in the Statehouse, it’s red meat for anti-government extremists at a time when some Americans really are viewing this area of the country as the last remaining holdout for the type of America they think can be great again.

Now that Donald Trump has given the greenlight to American extremists, it’s no surprise to see that a lawmaker has taken the hint, advocating  creation of a state designed to exclude folks who are Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and others who decline to embrace Christianity.

And given that the majority of non-Christians have higher levels of melanin in their epidermal cells, it’s also fair to say that Rep. Shea’s proposed new state is inherently racist.

Charts of the day: Electoral hopes and fears


With less than a week to go before folks head to the polls, we thought we’d look at how voters are feel about the day that will decide if Democrats win control of the House of Representatives and, perhaps, even the Senate.

If you doubt that voters are fired up, consider the findings of a new Gallup poll revealing that both parties are motivated, and at the highest levels in recent pre-election surveys:

Next, two charts from a new Pew Research Center survey focus on a dominant fear and attitudes toward the ongoing GOP efforts to block people of color from the voting booth.

First, a look at concerns over possible foreign hacking designed to sway the election outcome:

And then a look at how voters feel about efforts to make registration either automatic or easier:

Finally, from a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll of 924 adults nationwide, just how concerned are voters about the noxious rhetoric, unprecedented since the days of the 1964 Presidential battle between Republican Barry Goldwater and the eventual winner, Democratic incumbent Lyndon Baines Johnson:

And if you’re wondering just how venomous the Goldwater/Johnson battle became, consider two campaign buttons, the first from the Goldwater campaign and the second from the LBJ camp, starting with the official button for the Arizona GOP Senator:

And the response from LBJ’s camp:

But it wasn’t just buttons.

It was the Democrats who came up with the most venomous television spot, one that wouldn’t be surpassed by Republicans until 24 years later:

From the Library of Congress:

Formally titled “Peace, Little Girl,” but more commonly known as the “Daisy” ad, this famous political commercial was produced primarily by Tony Schwartz for President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater. Preserved from a 35mm print in the Tony Schwartz Collection by the Library of Congress Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation.

And here’s the Republican atrocity, designed to inflame racial tensions and targeting Massachusetts Democratic Presidential campaign on behalf of the victorious George H.W. Bush, Dubya’s daddy, via the Museum of the Moving Image:

The ad was not only inflammatory; it was factually wrong, as Wikipedia rightly notes:

The original State inmate furlough program, for which convicted first-degree murderers were ineligible, was actually signed into law by Republican Governor Francis W. Sargent in 1972. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that this right extended to first-degree murderers, the Massachusetts legislature quickly passed a bill prohibiting furloughs for such inmates. However, in 1976, Dukakis vetoed this bill. The program remained in effect through the intervening term of governor Edward J. King and was abolished during Dukakis’ final term of office on April 28, 1988.

Chart of the day: Far Right’s religious murders soar


America’s rising cycle of home-grown Far Right homicidal violence increasingly focuses on members of religious minorities, and a new graphic from The Conversation dramatically illustrates the rising role of faith in the selection of homicidal violence by White Supremacists and other fanatics of the sort empowered by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, with the body count including Muslims, Jews, Christians [specifically, those with darker skins], Unitarians, and Sikhs [click on the image to enlarge]:

Quotes of the day: On FDR’s unfulfilled vision


Franklin Delano Roosevelt, like Donald Trump, was born into wealth and power. While the rump wealth came from , the son of wealthy parents whose fortunes dated back to colonial days [the Roosevelts descended Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam [New York], while his mother’s family, the Delanos, arrived on the Mayflower.

A cousin of President Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, unlike Trump, grew up with a sense of noblesse oblige, the belief that haves bear an obligation toward have-nots.

Educated at all the best schools — Groton, Harvard, and Columbia Law — he abandoned a lucrative law career to enter politics, serving as New York state senator, then as Assistant Secretary f the Navy during World War I, two terms as governor of New York, and finally as the only man elected to serve four terms as President of the United States.

He entered the White House in 1933 as the Great Depression was tearing the nation apart.

Once in office, he introduced seeping reforms, embodied in his New Deal agedna, including the creation of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, asnd the Federal eposit Insurance Corporation.

He lea the nation through the planets second great global conflagration, and played a seminal role in creation of the United Nations.

But his greatest vision would remain unfulfilled,m an agenda he laid out in his 1944 State of the Union Address, given on 11 January 1944.

With the war’s end in sight, he spelled out his agenda in a call for second Bill of Rights, the Economic Bill of Rights:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of “rightist reaction” in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called “normalcy” of the 1920’s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.

After winning  a fourth term in 1944, he returned to his agenda in his final State of the Union address on 6 January 1945:

An enduring peace cannot be achieved without a strong America– strong in the social and economic sense as well as in the military sense.

In the state of the Union message last year I set forth what I considered to be an American economic bill of rights.

I said then, and I say now, that these economic truths represent a second bill of rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all–regardless of station, race or creed.

Of these rights the most fundamental, and one on which the fulfillment of the others in large degree depends, is the “right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation.” In turn, others of the economic rights of American citizenship, such as the right to a decent home, to a good education, to good medical care, to social security, to reasonable farm income, will, if fulfilled, make major contributions to achieving adequate levels of employment.

The Federal Government must see to it that these rights become realities–with the help of States, municipalities, business, labor, and agriculture.

His death and replacement by the much more conservative Harry S Truman spelled the defeat of his agenda.

Our final quotation shws just how much we have failed. It comes from Lelani Farha, the United Nations Special Rapporteur to the Right to Adequate Housing in a new report focusing on one aspect of FDR’s Economic Bill of Rights, revealing just how much the U.S. has failed in the fulfillment of Roosevelt’s agenda laid out 74 years ago:

Attempting to discourage residents from remaining in informal settlements or encampments by denying access to water, sanitation and health services and other basic necessities, as has been witnessed by the Special Rapporteur in San Francisco and Oakland, California, United States of America, constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment and is a violation of multiple human rights, including the rights to life, housing, health and water and sanitation. Such punitive policies must be prohibited in law and immediately ceased. Following expressions of concern from the Human Rights Committee, the United States federal Government introduced funding incentives for municipalities to rescind by-laws that criminalize homelessness. More robust measures, however, are required.

Maps of the day: Where the haters are


From the bodacious British crafty cartographers of Worldmapper, to look at hate groups in the U.S., first, in the larger map, showing the states resized according to population and shaded according to the numbers of hate groups in each state, The lower maps are resized according to memberships of specific types of hate groups [click on the image to enlarge]:

More from Worldmapper:

Hate and extremism have gained wider attention with the rise in populism and populist politics. The election of Donald Trump was also in part attributed to his rhetoric connecting to far-right extremism in the US. In the UK, a spike in hate crime was linked to the Brexit vote, while a considerable increase in anti-Muslim abuse has also been observed in recent years.

Describing and understanding hate crimes and groups associated with committing (or endorsing and promoting) such crimes is a complex issue and scholarly definitions are still not fully agreed upon. Dr Phyllis Gerstenfeld of CSU Stanislaus describes a hate crime as ‘a criminal act which is motivated, at least in part, by the group affiliation of the victim.’ John van Kesteren of Tilburg University observes that prejudice and hatred of specific social groups ‘characterized by immigrant or ethnic status, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability’ are therefore at the core of hate-related crimes.

Among the organisations monitoring groups that advocate hatred is the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) which was founded by civil rights lawyers in reaction to activities by white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Today its scope includes the activities of a broad range of US hate groups and other extremists, including the Klan, the neo-Nazi movement, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, anti-government militias, Christian Identity adherents and others.

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016 has brought hate groups further into the spotlight. The SPLC attributes this to the divisive and polarising language he is using. A study undertaken in the aftermath of the presidential election indicated evidence for this ‘Trump effect’, with a significant number of hate incidents immediately after the election, and 37 per cent of the 1,094 investigated bias incidents referring directly to the then president-elect or using his campaign slogans.

This cartogram is based on a compilation of a total of 917 hate groups that the SPLC has identified across the mainland 48 states of the USA in the year 2016. It uses ‘hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports’ for its database and monitors activities such as ‘criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.’

The overall distribution of hate groups is shown in the main cartogram at the top of this page. Here each state is resized according to the total number of groups, overlaid by the proportion of hate groups in relation to the population distribution.

The SPLC categorises a total of 18 hate ideologies of which nine are displayed above in more detail as cartograms distorting the states by the distribution of the respective hate ideology. The colours in the smaller cartograms shown throughout the page refer to four main regions within the USA as shown in the reference map.

This series shows that hate ideologies follow some distinct spatial patterns across the USA. The Ku Klux Klan is rarely represented in the western region, while the neo-Confederates appear even more concentrated following their ideological origins in the south. Christian Identity in contrast, an anti-Semitic and racist theology that rose in the 1980s, is in decline. Today’s anti-Muslim hate groups have started emerging in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks – 2016 has seen a 197 per cent increase in numbers. The distribution of anti-Muslim hate groups is widespread, looking similar to the overall population distribution.

This picture is only part of the whole phenomenon of hate groups, which has been on a steady rise in the digital world as well. The maps give an indication of the disparate patterns that underlie these extremist views. The geography of hate in the United States is a reflection of the realities that determine the social tensions within the different parts of the country.

The medium has a message, and it’s inequality


From Walter Benjamin to Marshall McLuhan, cultural critics have focused their attention on the impact of media as machines for the reproduction of cultural products.

It was Benjamin, that brilliant exemplar of Weimar Germany’s greatest thinkers, and a founder of the Frankfurt School, who in 1936 in his most famous essay made a seminal observation about the motion picture:

The characteristics of the film lie not only in the manner in which man presents himself to mechanical equipment but also in the manner in which, by means of this apparatus, man can represent his environment.

Or, as McLuhan titled the first chapter of his most famous book, The Medium is the Message.

And that begin the case, what is the message of today’s film, the medium that introduced mass audiences to the moving image, a medium shaped by corporations in search of profits in an ever-more-complicated mediascape.

Two new studies from the University of California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative reveal sobering new insights about the state of today’s American films, and their message is anything but inclusive, as reflected in two charts, the first from “Inequality in 1,100 Popular Films: Examining Portrayals of Gender, Race/Ethnicity LGBT & Disability from 2007 to 2017,” and the second from “Critic’s Choice? Gender and Race/Ethnicity of Film Reviews Across 100 Top Films of 2017” [click on the images to enlarge]:

Examining the sad state of diversity on the silver screen

First up, the key findings from the report on diversity among those who make movies:

Annually, the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative conducts the most comprehensive and intersectional
investigation into inequality in popular films. We catalogue every independent speaking or named character shown on screen for gender, race/ethnicity, LGBT, and disability as well as a series of contextual variables across an 11-year sample spanning 2007 to 2017. We also assess inclusion behind the camera, examining gender of directors, writers, producers, and composers and the race of directors. In total, 48,757 characters and 1,100 movies have been evaluated for this report.

Key Findings

Gender. A total of 4,454 speaking characters appeared across the 100 top films of 2017, with 68.2% male and 31.8% female. This translates into an on screen gender ratio of 2.15 males to every one female. The percentage of females on screen in 2017 was only 1.9 percentage points higher than the percentage in 2007.

Only 19 stories were gender balanced across the 100 top movies of 2017. A gender-balanced cast refers to a story that fills 45% to 54.9% of the speaking roles with girls/women. The percentage of gender-balanced movies was higher in 2017 than in 2016 and 2007.

Thirty-three films in 2017 depicted a female lead/co lead. The percentage of female leads in 2017 was nearly identical to 2016 [34%] and 2015 [32%] but represents a notable increase from 2007 [20%].

Only 4 movies were driven by a woman of color. All four of these women were from mixed racial/ethnic backgrounds. This number deviates little from 2016 [3] or 2015 [3]. Thirty movies featured a male 45 years of age or older at the time of theatrical release whereas only 5 films depicted a female in the same age bracket. Only one movie was led by a woman of color 45 years of age or older across the 100 top films of 2017.

Female characters [28.4%] were far more likely than male characters [7.5%] to be shown in tight or alluring apparel, and with some nudity [M=9.6%, F=25.4%]. Females 13-20 years old were just as likely as females 21-39 years old to appear in sexy attire or with some nudity.

A total of 1,584 individuals worked above the line as directors, writers, and producers. 81.7% were male and 18.2% were female. Of 109 directors, only 7.3% were female. Only 10.1% of writers were female and 18.2% of producers.

Only 4.3% of all directors across 1,100 movies were women, with 2008 the 11-year high mark during the sample time frame. Assessing the total number of unique female directors, a full 43 women have helmed one or more top-grossing films in 11 years.

Out of 111 composers across the 100 top movies of 2017, only 1 female worked. No more than two female composers have ever been employed per year during the 11 years studied. Only 1.3% of all composers across 1,100 movies were women.

A full 43% of all speaking characters on screen were girls/women in female-directed content [8 movies]. In comparison, only 30.9% of all on screen roles were filled with girls/women under male direction.

Race/Ethnicity. Of characters with an ascertainable race/ethnicity, 70.7% were white, 12.1% Black, 4.8% Asian, 6.2% Hispanic/Latino, 1.7% Middle Eastern, <1% American Indian/Alaskan Native, <1% Native Hawaiian, and 3.9% Mixed Race or Other. Overall, 29.3% of all speaking characters were from an underrepresented racial/ethnic group. In comparison to the U.S. population [38.7% underrepresented] and underrepresented movie ticket buyers [45%], film still lags behind.

Forty-three films were missing Black female characters, 64 did not include any Latinas, and 65 did not include one Asian female speaking character. In contrast, only 7 films were missing white females.

Underrepresented characters in movies from 2017 were least likely to be shown in action/adventure films [28.1%] compared to animated [34%] and comedy [35.6%] films.

Of the 109 directors in 2017, 5.5% were Black or African American. Only one of the Black or African American directors working last year was female. Of the 1,100 movies studied, only 5.2% have been helmed by a Black/African American director. Only 4 Black or AfricanAmerican women have worked in the top 100 movies in the years examined, representing less than 1% of all directors.

The percentage of Black characters in 2017 films increased by 41.8 percentage points when a Black director was behind the camera then when the film did not have a Black director. Of the speaking characters in movies from 2017 with a Black director, 18.5% were Black females, compared to just 2.5% of the speaking characters in movies without a Black director.

In 2017, 4 Asian directors helmed one of the 100 most popular movies—all of these individuals were male. This translates to 3.7% of the 109 directors working in 2017. A mere 3.1% of all directors were Asian or Asian American across 1,100 films and 11 years. Asian female directors are nearly invisible in the sample—of the three slots held by Asian women, two represent the work of Jennifer Yuh Nelson on the Kung Fu Panda films.

LGBT. A total of 4,403 characters were evaluated for apparent sexuality. Of those, 0.7% [n=31] were Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual. Over half of the LGB characters were Gay [51.6%], while 29% were Lesbian and 19.4% were Bisexual. In addition, there was not one transgender character who appeared across the 100 top movies of 2017.

There has been no change over time in the depiction of LGBT characters on screen since 2014. Out of 400 popular films from 2014 to 2017, only one transgender character has appeared.

A total of 81 films did not include one LGBT speaking character. Examining films missing LGBT females reveals that 94 movies were devoid of these characters.

Over half [58.1%] of LGB characters were male and 41.9% were female. LGB characters were
predominantly white [67.7%], while 32.3% were underrepresented. Only 8 characters of the 4,403 examined were LGB teens.

Continue reading