Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts

Friday, May 23, 2008

VIDEO: The Future? Now You Know...


WATCH VIDEO HERE:
"Shift Happens"
(Running Time: 6 min.)

-Michael Arnold, ( "Shift Happens", Originally a PowerPoint presentation by Karl Fisch, Director of Technology for Arapahoe High School,Centennial, Colorado, 2007. Image: William Smellie (1697-1763). Library. Engraving shows the gravid uterus when labor is somewhat advanced, A Sett of Anatomical Tables, with Explanations and an Abridgement, of the Practice of Midwifery. London printed: [s.n.], 1754. University of Virginia, Historical Collections: Claude Moore Health Sciences).

Monday, May 12, 2008

John D. Rockefeller: According To The Dictates Of His Conscience...

"On April 30th, reporters flocked to the penthouse suite of a Midtown Manhattan hotel where fifteen representatives of the Rockefeller Dynasty were holding court. There, the Rockefellers chastised oil giant Exxon-Mobil for failing to invest in “alternative energy” sources, invoking their own moral authority as Exxon-Mobil’s longest standing shareholders.

Family spokesperson Neva Rockefeller Goodwin sanctimoniously recalled the memory of her great grandfather, John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil and originator of the family fortune. “Part of John D. Rockefeller’s genius was in recognizing early the need and opportunity for a transition to a better, cheaper and cleaner fuel.”

The corporate media obediently described the Rockefellers as concerned environmentalists. The New York Times ran the headline, “Can Rockefeller Heirs Turn Exxon Greener?” News outlets quoted freely from the Rockefellers’ press release, which described John D. Rockefeller as “one of the first major philanthropists in the U.S. and the World” and the family’s Rockefeller Foundation’s mission as "promoting the well-being of mankind throughout the world.”

The family fable concocted above warrants a rebuttal. Standard Oil was the world’s first oil monopoly, and Rockefeller’s greed was insatiable. Indeed, the Rockefeller family legacy is deeply entangled with the U.S.’ current reliance on oil and automobiles. Moreover, the family’s “philanthropic” pursuits include a peculiar preoccupation with lowering the birth rates of the world’s black and brown populations throughout the twentieth century—highlighting the absurdity of their claim to be promoting the well being of humankind. Mainstream journalists could easily uncover these unsavory aspects of the family history but instead report the Rockefellers’self-sanitized version, with all its glaring omissions.

Indeed, the family’s selective memory of its patriarch, John D. Rockefeller, as a saintly philanthropist stands in sharp contrast to his role as a nineteenth-century robber baron. “God gave me my money,” he said. “Having been endowed with the gift I possess, I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow man according to the dictates of my conscience.”

Rockefeller’s conscience apparently did not dictate paying his employees more than a starvation wage. His admirers praise him for making gasoline affordable to average Americans, and he did indeed aim to produce large amounts of "cheap and good" gasoline for mass consumption, successfully lowering the price of gas from 58 cents to 8 cents a gallon. But he achieved this goal through ruthless union busting, hiring his own private militias to crush workers who dared to go on strike to demand higher wages.

The private armies of the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel & Iron Rockefeller was a cutthroat capitalist who built his oil monopoly in the decades after the Civil War using methods more in keeping with the bribery, blackmail and back stabbing of a mafia family than an honest entrepreneur. As he once proclaimed, "I would rather earn 1 percent off of 100 people's efforts than 100 percent of my own efforts.” This credo made him the richest man in the world.

As he quietly bought up his smaller oil competitors with these methods, Rockefeller entered into secret—and illegal—agreements with railroad magnates that gave discounts as off-the books rebates to his growing oil monopoly, easily driving smaller refiners out of business. By 1879, Standard Oil controlled 90 percent of the oil refining business in the U.S. When the Supreme Court finally forced Rockefeller to formally disband Standard Oil as a monopoly trust in 1911, the damage was done. Indeed, the breakup doubled the value of his stock and gave birth to oil conglomerates Esso and Mobil (now Exxon-Mobil), Arco and Amoco (now BP), Pennzoil (now Shell), Chevron and Conoco. Rockefeller spent his remaining decades playing golf.

John D. Rockefeller’s descendents have happily carried on in the robber baron’s tradition, alongside a public relations machine that routinely airbrushes the family history.

By design, the Rockefellers have received no blame for their pivotal role in destroying the vast trolley car system that dominated U.S. cities before the 1940s, thereby increasing city dwellers’ dependency on automobiles and gas-fueled bus lines. Yet the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil of California joined General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum to form the National City Lines holding company, which bought out and dismantled more than 100 trolley systems in 45 major cities between 1936 and 1950.

In 1949, these corporate defendants were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize transportation services. Indeed, the corporations behind National City Lines were each fined just $5,000—while each of their directors paid a mere $1 fine—a small price to pay for the windfall in profits they all enjoyed in the decades that followed. Congress offered up tax dollars to build the enormous highway infrastructure that encouraged automobile travel in the 1950s, while federal investment in mass transit and train systems languished. As Noam Chomsky noted, “By the mid-1960s, one out of six business enterprises was directly dependent on the motor vehicle industry.”

No Rockefeller family history would be complete without highlighting their central role in shaping twentieth century population control policy, aimed explicitly at curbing birth rates among the non-Caucasian poor. Beginning in 1910, Rockefeller money flowed into organizations such as the Race Betterment Foundation and the Eugenics Section of the American Breeders Association, which spearheaded the eugenics movement—the “science” of “improving heredity.” These organizations, also funded by the upstanding Carnegie, Harriman and Kellogg families, sponsored academics claiming that those at the top of the social ladder had proven their racial superiority, while those at the bottom were biologically incapable of success.

The eugenics movement encouraged the “superior” races to marry each other and have lots of children, while promoting forced sterilization, racial segregation and deportation of immigrants of those deemed “unfit” to reproduce. The “superior” races so admired by the eugenics movement were “Nordic,” with blond hair and blue eyes, and the movement soon gained an admirer in Adolph Hitler. In 1924’s "Mein Kampf," Hitler noted, "There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

By the 1920s, the Rockefeller Foundation was already providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund eugenics research in Germany; in 1929 alone, $317,000 of Rockefeller money went to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research, according to Edwin Black, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2003. Although the Rockefellers had withdrawn all funding to German research by the onset of the Second World War in 1939, Black argued, “By that time, the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the great institutions they helped found, and the science they helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.”

By the 1930s, the wheels for forced sterilization were also in motion inside the U.S. Laws were enacted in 27 states in 1932, calling for compulsory sterilization of the “feeble-minded, insane, criminal, and physically defective.” In 1939, the Birth Control Federation of America, as historian Dorothy E. Roberts described,“planned a ‘Negro Project’ designed to limit reproduction by blacks ‘who still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly."

1974, an Alabama court found that between 100,000 and 150,000 poor black teenagers had been sterilized in that state alone.

After WWII, population control agencies set their sights overseas. In the 1960s, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, heavily funded by the Rockefellers alongside the U.S. government, played a key role in a coercive sterilization programs targeting Third World populations. By 1968, one-third of women of childbearing age in Puerto Rico—still a U.S. colony—had been permanently sterilized, often without their knowledge or consent. Rockefeller-funded programs sterilized 40,000 women in Colombia between 1963 and 1965

The self-righteous claims of the current generation of Rockefellers must be viewed in this context. They have kept silent since the 1989 Exxon-Valdez Alaskan oil spill, even as Exxon-Mobil has refused to pay court-ordered compensation to the nearly 33,000 Alaskans who won a lawsuit against Exxon in 1994 for the company’s “reckless” behavior. Nor have they uttered a word of protest following news that growing numbers of employed workers across the U.S. are lining up at food pantries due to the skyrocketing price of food and gasoline. As Bill Bolling, founder of the Atlanta Community Food Bank, told CNN, "People are giving up buying groceries so that they can pay rent and put gas in the car."

Today’s Rockefellers praise Exxon-Mobil for its current status as the most profitable corporation in U.S. history, having raked in a record $40.6 billion in profits in 2007. They are merely watching out for their own parasitical futures."

-Sharon Smith ("Rockefeller Family Fables: The Self Righteous Rich", CounterPunch, 5.8.08 Image: American Eugenics Society Poster, 1926).

Friday, March 28, 2008

Juanita Johnson-Bailey, Ph.D. Mammy Or Conscious Black Woman?

"I have been called a Mammy so much over these last few weeks as I've voiced 
my support for Senator Clinton that I have started sending out this 
response to my Black girlfriends who call me a race traitor. 

Mammy or Conscious Black Woman? 
 
I do question Black women who think of me as a race traitor for being a 
Clinton supporter, especially those who can’t discuss either candidate’s 
platform. I wonder how they can blindly choose race loyalty over their 
racial and gender interests. Here are my thoughts. I don't feel like a Mammy to Senator Clinton, as Melissa Harris- Lacewell of 
Princeton claimed in her op-ed piece, Mammy Goes to Washington, of Black 
women who support Clinton. What I am is the invisible unheard Black woman 
voter who is trampled in the media dash to simplify racial politics. I 
can't give my loyalty to any person who takes my vote for granted and won’t 
bring me and my issues out in the light of day. Here are my thoughts:


1. Senator Clinton is not new to me or to Blacks. She worked with Marian 
Wright Eldeman back in the 70s for children's rights (esp. Black children). 
She was involved in the inception of One America, The President's 
Commission on Race headed by John Hope Franklin. 



2. Senator Clinton has been in the fight to open the doors for more women 
and Blacks. Senator Clinton has a Black woman campaign manager. She 
campaigned for Obama when he 1st ran for Senate. She still keeps a picture 
of Obama and his family from that campaign on her desk. Her office was the 
1st place that Senator Obama visited when he was newly elected. He thought 
so highly of her that he asked her to be his mentor. She mentored him 
during his first year in the Senate. 



3. Unlike most other First ladies who were just attached, Senator Clinton 
had an office in the West Wing and has actually worked on initiatives for 
people of color and women. She has traveled the world representing the U.S. 
and actually broken bread with international dignitaries like Bhutto. 



4. Clinton has also disagreed with her spouse. She supported gays in the 
military, no questions asked. I’m clear that I’m not electing Bill Clinton. 
I’m clear that Senator Clinton does not get all of my issues. But I’m also 
clear that she is not ignoring them and taking me for granted in an effort 
to appeases the masses. 



5. Senator Clinton has spoken out on race, while Senator Obama said has 
tried to ingratiate himself to those who believe in the power of a 
colorblind society. Obama has said that class was more in play than race in 
the Jena 6 incidents; he has said that Blacks are 90% on the way to 
equality; and Obama has said that the federal government’s incompetence 
during Katrina was colorblind. 
 A Black man who believes such things may share the dailiness of being Black 
in America with me, but he and I have certainly interpreted these 
experiences differently. A Black man who believes such things cannot take 
my support for granted. I cannot give him a pass on these issues because 
of the color of his skin. 



6. Black women colleagues, professors, have given me their singular reasons 
for voting for Obama. They have stated respectively: I’m voting for him 
because he’s Black; I’m voting for him because I want to see Michelle Obama 
as the 1st lady; I’m voting for him because I don’t like the way the 
Clintons have criticized him; I’m voting for Obama because she’s too 
intense, too serious; I’m voting for him because he’s a good speaker and 
excites the crowd; I’m voting against her because she cried, a White 
woman’s tactic to get her way. Surely there are good reasons to vote for 
Obama. The ones listed are not among them. 



7. My White colleagues who serve with me on diversity committees have 
reasoned their Obama vote thusly: he’s the 1st national Black 
leader/politician that doesn’t make me feel guilty; Obama sees beyond race 
and has gone beyond race; voting for Obama absolves me of my last vestiges 
of White guilt. I find these reasons for choosing heartwarming easily 
digestible Blackness offensive. 



8. I ask the question that Tavis Smiley asked Senator Kennedy, "Why is it 
that all these powerful White men have lined up behind Obama and most of 
the Black Caucus is lined up behind Senator Clinton?"



9. I ask further, "Do powerful White men come bearing gifts wanting nothing 
in return?" The Kennedy that I most respect because he has been in the 
trenches is Robert Kennedy's son, who is supporting Senator Clinton and 
worked for her in CA. But that didn't make the news either. 



10. I think we, as Black people are too uncritical of our own. We are so 
desperate to see a good Black man we can believe in after the likes of O J, 
Uncle Clarence, and Marion Barry. Yes Obama is squeaky clean, but only a 
few years on the national scene and he's ready to go? 



11. I don't buy the Kennedy comparison. Obama is no President Kennedy -- 
who by the way had many more years on the national scene when he decided to 
run. And I remember the real Kennedy who was pulled kicking and screaming 
into Civil Rights by Martin Luther King, Jr., not the Kennedy of the myth. 
I also remember the Southern, flawed, Johnson who had the political clout 
to twist arms to make Civil Rights a reality. But Johnson only did so 
because he had no choice, because King was a master strategist, and because 
even Johnson believed the time had come. I lived this history and won’t 
have it reinterpreted for me. 



In closing, I feel like a woman who has been where Clinton has been, 
abandoned by women who in their heart of hearts, can't quite live their 
self-love because they were so socialized into loving and caring for 
everyone else before themselves, especially men. And I’ve been someplace 
that Senator Clinton has not been. I’ve been called names, especially by my 
Sistahs, who feel like I’m choosing a White woman over a Black man. I love 
Black men. I have loved the same one for 37 years. And I'm not afraid of 
Black men with power. I also live with this same Black man who has power, a 
CEO. If this were not a time of crisis and 10 years down the road, I might 
consider the Obama bandwagon, but not today. I don’t feel like a Black woman who is choosing gender over race. I feel 
like a Black woman with an awareness of just how much gender matters. I 
still know that women make 71 cents to the $1.00 that men make when we have 
the same education and experience and that we make even less if we’re Black 
women. I know that it is women who are raped, assaulted, and not equally 
protected by the courts in the workplace and regarding domestic matters. I 
know that it is women’s pain that the press exploits and it is women who 
the press derides if we are too powerful and out of our place. 



No debate, the Clinton camp has made steps that have been scrutinized and 
over-analyzed and interpreted and they have not been given the benefit of 
the doubt-- something they mistakenly believed that they had earned from 
the Black community. Yes I see the racism, unintentional or not, in some of 
the things said by Clinton supporters during this primary season. But I can 
also see the hidden codes coming from the other side too. I see codes that 
play on my Black pain and oppression. Oprah used hidden codes to play on 
our pain when she asked, "Where would I be if I had listened to people 
(Whites) when they told me that it was not my time/turn?” I won’t apply TV 
mis/standards or Oprah’s life experience to mine. I like to compare apples 
with apples. If I remember correctly people said the same of John Edwards 
his first time out -- that he was not ready and that it was not his time 
and it was not considered racist, just a critique. 



In these times of crisis, I choose experience over inspiration. Nobody 
wants red states and blue states; everybody wants hope; but I want that and 
more. It's like a choice between the high school girl who is the class good 
girl, the valedictorian, the person who has worked so hard for the class 
over four years of high school. She's done most things right. And then a 
new boy moves to town. He looks good, he's popular, he has less baggage, 
and he speaks better. He says appealing things. She gives too much detail 
and she is sort of boring. What the heck? Let's vote for him. 



Well I've been in this situation in the workplace -- passed over by less 
qualified men, Black and White, perceived as more personable. And there 
were so many good reasons -- she seems radical, she talks too much, she 
seems mean, people don't really like her, she’s probably a feminist, and 
she's a “B”. Sound familiar? And even though it is now packaged 
differently, I still recognize it and it hurts me as a woman. 



I don't feel like a Mammy to Senator Clinton. If you want to talk female 
stereotypes, I don’t want be a mistress to Obama -- never mentioned, but 
taken for granted. I feel that I am making an informed choice. I choose the 
mentor over the protégé. I choose to be an empowered, conscious, and 
informed modern Black woman, not one who is having her pain played on by 
people who have not demonstrated that they hear me or value me – just 
people who want my vote and expect it or else."



-Juanita Johnson-Bailey, Ph.D (Professor of Lifelong Education, Administration Policy and Women's Studies, Princeton University, March 2008)

Sunday, March 23, 2008

On Susan Sontag: What We've Wrought Upon Our World

"In her rage and gloom and growing despair, she concluded that "the truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself."
- Steve Wasserman, Los Angeles Times, 2004 Obit for Susan Sontag