Posted on 05/17/2012 by Juan
The news is going around breathlessly that 50.4% of births in the US in the past 12 months were to families categorized as ethnic minorities, presaging the time when ‘whites will be a minority’ in the US.
The unselfconscious deployment of these categories just takes your breath away. Who gets to decide which ones are ‘white’ and which ones ‘ethnic minorities?’
As historians such as David Roediger have shown, the idea of ‘whiteness’ is a relatively new racial category, and it has changed enormously over time.
Whiteness as it was constructed in the nineteenth century was not about skin color but about being Protestant and propertied. There were even distinctions within the group. WASP or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant did not refer to all Protestants of English heritage, but rather to a northeast elite that tended to marry within themselves and to have a disproportionate hold on political and business office. The Scottish-American elite was another subgroup (Presbyterian as opposed to Episcopalian).
So not all whites were equally white. Moreover, Catholic immigrants such as the Irish, the Poles and the Italians were either not considered white when they first came or were denoted as a lesser category of white. Jews, Arabs, Japanese and Chinese were also not considered white. Indeed, a special law was made to keep Chinese in particular out of the country.
Over time, the Catholic minorities who immigrated into the US in the big 1880-1924 wave, before racist immigration laws were implemented, became accepted as ‘white.’ In the past 30 years, Jews have been accepted as white. It is even possible, I think, to argue that middle class Blacks on the model of Bill Cosby’s the Huxtables have become ‘white.’ You’ll note that Harry Reid said of Obama the candidate that he ‘had no dialect,’ so for older ‘whites,’ blackness was in part cultural, wrought up with an imagined African-American speech pattern. Thus, the Obamas are in some sense ‘white,’ producing that odd argument about whether Obama is ‘black enough,’ which non-Americans must have found baffling.
In 1965 the US was finally too embarrassed to go on with the racist immigration laws and put a ceiling of 25,000 for each country in the world. That change kick-started a whole new big wave of immigration, which may now be ending. About a million a year had been coming, half of them from Latin America.
The Latinos have for the moment been categorized as non-white, but surely everyone can see how arbitrary that is. Many Latinos in Argentina and Brazil are of Italian ancestry. If they come to the US now, they are a ‘minority’ or ‘brown.’ But their cousins who just came straight to Rhode Island are ‘white.’ For that matter, why is there a difference among people who speak Romance languages and practice Catholicism, such that a Colombian is a ‘minority’ but a Calabrian is not? And consider that if a Sephardic Jewish family of Spanish ancestry immigrates from Israel, they are ‘white,’ but Spanish Catholic families who settled in Mexico and then came to the US recently are not (that’s an interesting reversal!)
Arabs are an interesting case. I’d argue that Lebanese Christians became ‘white.’ Arab Muslims were on the verge of becoming white before 9/11 but may have been at least temporarily demoted. (They are white in the census categories, but social acceptance has fallen). My guess is that demotion is a temporary blip, since they are typically well educated and well off, and over time economic eliteness tends to produce racial eliteness in the US.
And, the old prejudices against the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ‘Slavs’ has completely collapsed, so no one thinks Poles or other Eastern Europeans are not ‘white.’
So given the history of ‘whiteness,’ likely the new wave of Latinos will be awarded the category over time. My guess is that Asians will be, as well. Remember, it isn’t about ‘race,’ it is about a weird kind of social status. By the way, Apartheid South Africa declared Japanese to be ‘white.’
Ultimately, the whole idea of whiteness can only be kept going through a set of racial and class exclusions. Working-class African-Americans eternally get the short end of the stick. Recent immigrant groups are often excluded along with them.
The better outcome would be to just stop using the word ‘white.’ As should be clear from the above, it doesn’t actually mean anything. If you really had to categorize citizens of the US by ancestry (why?), use geographical terms. We have African-Americans. Why not have European-Americans or Euros? Since there may not be a currency called that much longer, we can repurpose the term.
We should also stop using the phrase ‘ethnic minority’ to refer to post-1965 immigrant groups if we are not going to apply it to the post-1880 wave. Just be specific. If you mean Latinos, say that. If you mean Asian-Americans, say that. And, you may need a term for the new wave of African immigrants other than “African-American,” since they aren’t exactly the same (Africans have complained to me about this issue).
Me, I don’t want to be called ‘white’ and I hope we can get rid of the whole idea of whiteness. You go back a thousand years and all of us have diverse ancestries. Most Europeans are part Arab and many are part Jewish. In the US, a lot of people have Native and African ancestors that they don’t know about anymore.
Best of all if we can just say that in the US, we are all Americans and stop categorizing people with regard to their adaptation to ultraviolet waves. It is anyway a temporary adaptation. If you took Swedes and left them in the Congo for 13,000 years, the mothers that could shield their embryos from harsh ultraviolet rays better would be selected for, and they would be darker, and eventually the group would be ‘black.’ If you took Congolese to Sweden, the mothers that could provide their embryos vitamin D more reliably in a low UV environment would be selected for, and over time the group would get ‘white.’ (In fact, we’re all from Africa, so that is exactly what happened historically). It is a minor epidermal health issue, not a matter of character or essence. Get rid of it.
0 Share 293 StumbleUpon 7 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments
Posted on 05/17/2012 by Juan
Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi addressed Egyptian troops on Wednesday and attempted to raise their morale for praising them as the guarantors of Egypt’s security.
Al-Masrawi reports:
“Field Marshal Tantawi said, “We are heading in the right direction.” He deplored the allegations that sometimes issue from activist organizations “that we are in enmity with this state or that or that we will abrogate a treaty with such-and-such country”… He added, “We do not enter into war save if we are forced to and because we feel there in danger. For that reason, we must always keep our eyes wide…”
Some Egyptians are afraid that the army will attempt to tamper with the elections so as to bring Ahmad Shafiq to power. (He is a man of the old regime and only barely survived politically). He appears to have been attempting to allay those suspicions.
Incredibly, Tantawi’s speech was misinterpreted in Israel as a threat of some sort. The speech was just trying to reassert control over the troops, and to encourage them to pride in country. He implicitly criticized Egypt’s Left and far right, insisting on the foreign policy status quo, and reaffirming that Egypt’s hefty army would never be deployed aggressively.
0 Share 7 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Egypt, Uncategorized | Comment
Posted on 05/17/2012 by Juan
I singlehandedly keep
this bar afloat.
My heart has bled
with repentance
a couple thousand times.
But if I don’t go on sinning,
what would divine mercy do?
He can’t bestow forgiveness
unless I keep falling
off the wagon.
Translated by Juan Cole
from Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat, [pdf] Whinfield 130
0 Share 12 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments
Posted on 05/17/2012 by Juan
Posted on 05/17/2012 by Juan
Angus Stickler writes at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism:
British troops have been banned from transferring suspected Taliban prisoners to the Afghan authorities because of claims of torture by local forces.
The move, which follows a ruling by the British High Court, is a blow to Nato countries that want to formalise their detainee transfer process, and potentially throws the UK’s strategy for leaving Helmand by the end of 2014 into disarray.
It is a breach of international law to transfer prisoners to the custody of another state where they may face a risk of torture. To date, NATO forces have attempted to comply with their human rights obligations by obtaining written assurances from the Afghan government that torture will not take place. These assurances are known as memorandums of understanding, or MOUs.
The High Court banned transfers to the Afghan National Directorate of Security in Kabul following claims of systematic abuse.
Last year a joint investigation by the Bureau and the New Statesman magazine revealed that despite condemnation by the UN that such MOUs are ‘utterly meaningless’, the world’s most powerful military nations were attempting to undermine 60 years of the Geneva Convention and codify the use of MOUs under international law.
Since signing an MOU in 2006 the British government has continued to transfer detainees in Afghanistan despite an overwhelming body of evidence that torture is rife.
But now, the British High Court has ruled that an Afghan detainee who alleges he was subjected to torture can challenge the legality of his transfer. In a highly embarrassing about-turn, the defence secretary Philip Hammond has stopped all transfers of detainees.
Serdar Mohammed, 24, was given leave to seek judicial review by Mr Justice Collins, sitting at the High Court in London. His lawyers told the court he signed a confession stating that he was a member of the Taliban following torture by the National Directorate of Security (NDS), the Afghanistan intelligence service. The ill-treatment including being hung by handcuffs from bars, and beatings with sticks and electric cables when he fell asleep.
The judge ruled that the father of two, who was jailed for six years, had ‘an arguable case’ that should go to a full hearing, but stressed his decision did not guarantee the challenge would succeed.
Serdar Mohammed’s barrister, Ben Jaffey, argued that his situation was particularly relevant because his transfer came in 2010 – immediately after British courts demanded safeguards for detainees following another case brought by peace activist Maya Evans two years ago.
The Evans case exposed the fundamental failings of the British government’s MOU with the Afghan authorities, but was only a partial victory. The High Court banned transfers to the NDS in Kabul following claims of systematic abuse. However it ‘hesitantly’ allowed prisoners to be sent to the Afghan facility in Lashkar Gah, as long as there were safeguards that it would be monitored.
In the new case of Serdar Mohammed, the court heard evidence that the Afghan NDS operated an underground interrogation chamber near the British headquarters in Lashkar Gah and that ‘torture was entrenched’ in the organisation.
The judge said that in part as a result of the case, defence secretary Philip Hammond had now stopped all transfers of detainees from British forces to the Afghan authorities ‘as part of an ongoing review’.
Mr Justice Collins also gave Evans permission to bring a linked legal challenge. Both cases are being brought on legal aid. The judge rejected Ministry of Defence submissions that the twin challenge was too costly for the public purse and that only one case should have been given the go-ahead.
An MoD spokesman said: ‘Detention operations are an important part of our force protection measures protecting our people, our allies and partners, and the Afghan civilian population. They also directly contribute to the success of the NATO ISAF mission in Afghanistan and ultimately to UK national security.
‘In response to a recent UK inspection there is a temporary hold on transfers while we assure ourselves that UK detainees are not at risk of serious mistreatment or torture.’
Highlighting the dilemma faced by the British military, Mr Justice Collins said: ‘If our troops are attacked by the Taliban insurgents and there is the capture of some rather than being killed, then after 96 hours they have to go free. That is a somewhat worrying situation to say the least.’
However, he added an equally serious issue was that the UK could not be seen to be complicit in torture or mistreatment.
As Nato-led forces plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, the focus on how western armies can hand over detainees without breaching international law will intensify.
______
Mirrored from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
0 Share 8 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Afghanistan, Uncategorized | Comment
Posted on 05/16/2012 by Juan
1. The Department of the Interior has given the green light to a power transmission line that is intended to bring power from Google, Inc.- backed offshore wind farms in the Northeast of the US to the mainland. Environmental impact studies will take 18 months to two years. The US, unlike Germany, so far has no offshore wind farms, and the US electricity grid needs to be re-done so as to bring power from such sources to consumers.
2. Inexpensive natural gas is being preferred to coal in the US, so that coal electricity generation has fallen 19 percent in the past year and now accounts for only 36% of US power. Natural gas is cleaner than coal, though it still pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is sort of like getting the good news that you’re being poisoned, but it isn’t with arsenic but rather something much more slow-acting.
3. Coal burning in the US will likely soon be phased out, since natural gas will likely stay inexpensive and EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions are harder and harder for coal plants to meet. This according to a new Blooomberg Report.
4. The average American is willing to pay a 13% premium for power from wind and solar, over dirty sources such as coal, petroleum and natural gas.
5. A new design for a power-generating buoy powered by ocean waves is showing promise.
6. ReNew Power Ltd. is investing $1.1 billion in wind farms to generate electricity in India. Indian has little petroleum or natural gas so far, but enormous potential for wind and solar power generation.
7. “Big Solar” ran into some problems in the US, but the wave of the near future may anyway be “small solar”.
8. Saudi Arabia is investing $100 billion in solar energy for domestic electricity generation. Since it doesn’t have so much gas or coal, Saudi Arabia uses petroleum to generate electricity, which is relatively rare. But the more its uses its oil for such domestic purposes, the less money it can make from selling its oil abroad. Hence, solar for electricity generation in the kingdom.
9. Eight automakers have agreed on standardized electric vehicle charging.
10. Two geothermal companies have signed contracts worth $700 million to explore geothermal energy in Kenya. Underground steam could bring electricity to many parts of rural Kenya.
0 Share 26 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Energy, Environment, Uncategorized | Comments
Posted on 05/15/2012 by Juan
College students and graduates in the United States have a debt crisis on their hands, owing a trillion dollars.
Some 80% of university students attend public colleges and universities, which were set up to provide inexpensive education.
These public institutions are increasingly expensive, however, in large part because [pdf] state legislatures have systematically cut their contributions to their state universities since 1990, by 26%.
At the same time, states have vastly increased their prison populations and prison costs, primarily because of the so-called ‘war on drugs,’ which everyone throughout the Americas recognizes as a complete failure except Barack Obama, Eric Holder and most other US politicians of both parties. Many of us suspect that the liquor corporations or private prison owners are bribing them through campaign contributions to keep marijuana illegal.
So here is a fix for the student debt crisis and the crisis in public education funding.
1. Legalize marijuana (Belgium, the Netherlands and Peru have not suffered from doing so, and it has been decriminalized in places like Portugal and Argentina with no ill effects; Portugal’s drug addiction rate has actually fallen).
2. Tax marijuana farms and dedicate the tax receipts solely to public higher education and student debt forgiveness
3. Pardon the hundreds of thousands of prisoners in state penitentiaries whose sole crime was using or selling marijuana. Save $40,000 per year per prisoner. Dedicate savings solely to public higher education and student debt relief.
4. Allow multiple sclerosis sufferers to use medical marijuana as a treatment, and let those with cancer, glaucoma and other conditions proven treatable via marijuana by science to use it for that purpose (as even conservative Arizona is now doing).
5. Tax medical marijuana clinics and dedicate their receipts solely to public higher education and student debt relief. (In California alone, pot is a $12 billion a year industry, and a ten percent tax would yield $1.2 billion a year to state coffers, helping save the University of California system).
6. Employ fewer narcotics police, achieve savings, apply those to, you guessed it.
7. Finance the education of new poor but outstanding students with the tax receipts on the marijuana industry, helping restore some of America’s former upward mobility.
These steps would not only solve the student debt crisis and allow universities to lower tuition, but would strengthen higher education in the US and allow us to remain competitive with Europe and rising nations in Asia (we are not keeping up). Our current declining investment in higher education will otherwise cause us to start falling behind in scientific and technological innovation and in cultural contributions, so vital for a dynamic democracy.
0 Share 100 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments