Green is the Color of Equality

Social issues and environmental dilemmas — these two topics seem to be mutually exclusive.  Environmentalists focus on pollution, conservation of land, defending natural resources, and pursuing green initiatives.  Social activists concentrate on the impact of socio-economic inequalities on marginalized people.  More often than not, these are two distinct groups whose members see no overlap in their unique struggles.  I, myself, have been guilty of being a social thinker who gives hefty weight to social justice at the risk of ignoring environmental issues.  However, it is my agtheory that the environmental problems and social strife are intersecting issues with shared solutions.

I read an interesting book in college, Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice by David Pellow.  This book begins by conceptually dividing the world into a “global North” and a “global South,” in terms of power structures, with less emphasis on geographic lines.  Essentially, the author is trying to show how Northern (United States/Europe) practices of colonialization and imperialism were used to dominate the South through subordination of its people and manipulation of its land.  The book develops complex theories using global and domestic examples of these occurrences.

For the purpose of this agtheory, I wanted to focus on an important theme that Pellow touches on throughout the book: environmental racism, an idea that parallels ecological damage to social inequalities.  The idea of environmental racism is attributed to the theory of “treadmill of production” — basically, that market economies are increasingly socially and ecologically damaging, since industrialization and modern societal growth has always involved intense ecological harm and the creation of extensive social hierarchies (based on race, gender, class, nation).

I recommend a deeper reading on some of the aforementioned environmental-sociology theories; but if you accept the basic notion of environmentally damaging practices have an unequal impact on vulnerable populations, then you may be wondering what can be done.  Well, a man named Van Jones offers some forward-thinking ideas and solutions on this matter.  Author of The Green Collar Economy, Jones advocates a dually positive step towards changing America, founded on the belief that neither people nor resources are disposable.  Jones also calls for a shift from green consumers to green workers.  In a ‘practice-what-you-preach’ approach, he makes a compelling case for economic legitimacy that can be beneficial for people and for the environment.

For economic, moral, social, and political reasons, we should be collectively looking forward to real, sustainable solutions to our nation’s problems.  As Van Jones says, let’s move beyond the crisis and towards the opportunity.

One Step Forward…Two Steps Backwards

Last Tuesday, Barack Obama made a clean sweep in the presidential election, winning by over 7.5 million votes.  You can still hear the murmurs of ‘change’ and ‘progress’ all over the country, followed by the quintessential, “Yes we can!”  However, I must ask: What kind of change were the American people voting for?  Now that the buzz from the presidential election has died down, I have been left wondering what was really at stake last Tuesday.  In the shadow of Obama’s victory were disappointing defeats for gay Americans in four states.  It is my agtheory that the success of these bigoted propositions is not only a source of irony in American politics; but the implementation of these propositions also marks a backwards step for this democracy.

[Blue] California, Florida, and [Red] Arizona all voted for propositions banning same-sex marriage; while [Red] Arkansas voted against adoption by single/unmarried people (read: gays).  Most of the spotlight has been on Proposition 8 in California — with an excessive focus on pin-pointing the source of the support for the ban.  Much of the media commentary has included demographic statistics of pro-Prop 8 voters: Latinos and, more heavily, African-Americans.  I have heard several times from various media outlets that as many as 7/10 African-Americans voted for Proposition 8; and while African-Americans make up only a small percentage of the California state electorate, the finger seems to be pointed at this minority segment.

It isn’t so much that African-Americans are the reason that Prop 8 passed — obviously this is not the case.  However, it is seen as somewhat of an anomaly that a record number of Blacks showed up at the polls, voting for Obama and Prop 8 on the same ticket. But, let me turn your attention to an important detail:  Obama does not support gay marriage!  Whether or not he personally favors it or not (the typical excuse for viable presidential candidates), this was something upon which he ran!  So, was the pro-Obama/pro-Prop 8 vote really so ironic?  Or just a vote on Democratic party lines?

Originally, I was going to take this post in the “minorities unite” direction…saying that all oppressed Americans should find some common ground, since the battles that they fight are shared.  I would have said that Blacks should look to their own struggle for civil rights, including the freedom to marry, while deciding on issues of gay rights.  However, I don’t think this is the take-home point for me.

Ideally, both parties would be against bans on gay marriage — Democrats for civil liberties and minority rights protection and Republicans for individual liberty and government-out reasons.  Instead, it has become a divisive issue that divides Americans based on bigotry and misunderstandings.  This goes for many of the culture war issues — reproductive freedom, gun control, separation of church & state, etc.  These issues have becoming increasingly polarized and used to create cleavages amongst the American people.

In conclusion, I saw a very impressive Rachel Maddow interview with Cory Booker the other day.  The two Rhodes Scholars discussed the future of politics in America.  Booker made an excellent point when talking about the use of wedge issues in petty politics, those that “excite people’s anger.”  It is important to note that I am not arguing for leaving these important issues in the dust; however, I am entertaining the idea of a re-evaluation of how the American polity treats these issues.  Perhaps if the American electorate could get past these divisions, our nation could finally reach our full democratic (small “d”) potential.

The Socialism of Empathy

We have all heard the “news” that Barack Obama is a Socialist.  I didn’t really want to entertain this idea in conversation, let alone as a post on my blog.  However, I think this accusation has greater implications.  In a sort of philosophical agtheory, I wanted to dig deeper into the notion of communalism as a negative.  Personally, I have spent a lot of time wondering: at what point in human development did individualism and greed begin to replace community and sharing?  And at what point in societal history did capitalism and progress come to equate the selfish view of every man for himself?

Barack Obama has been posed as a liberal politician whose policies are economically based on re-distribution of wealth and socially based on government interference.  Apparently, this makes him a  Socialist.  Rather than find ways to prove that Obama’s platform is not founded on tenants of Socialism, I wanted to share with my belief, in the most basic sense, that the principle on which Obama aims to govern is empathy.  What do I mean by empathy?  On a micro level, this is simply the understanding that everyone has a unique situation — the ability to walk in someone else’s shoes.  On a macro level, this is the ideology that we are all somewhat connected to and responsible for one another. 

In 2006, Senator Barack Obama gave a speech at Northwestern University (shout out!).  I find this speech to be particularly inspiring, especially since it was given before he was a presidential candidate.  The importance of social responsibility and the practice of empathy are themes upon which Obama’s speech was given.

My favorite part of the speech is when Obama says:

As you go on in life, cultivating this quality of empathy will become harder, not easier. There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You’ll be free to live in neighborhoods with people who are exactly like yourself, and send your kids to the same schools, and narrow your concerns to what’s going in your own little circle.

Not only that – we live in a culture that discourages empathy. A culture that too often tells us our principle goal in life is to be rich, thin, young, famous, safe, and entertained. A culture where those in power too often encourage these selfish impulses.

They will tell you that the Americans who sleep in the streets and beg for food got there because they’re all lazy or weak of spirit. That the inner-city children who are trapped in dilapidated schools can’t learn and won’t learn and so we should just give up on them entirely. That the innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes half a world away are somebody else’s problem to take care of.

I hope you don’t listen to this. I hope you choose to broaden, and not contract, your ambit of concern. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all of those who helped you get to where you are, although you do have that debt.

It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. And because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential – and become full-grown.

In conclusion, I think I might be a Socialist, too.

Racial Monopoly

The United States is in the paradoxical position of being a non-egalitarian democracy.  While boasting pluralism, diversity, and equality, the US has a past tainted by acts of genocide, denial of citizenship, slavery, segregation, and racial prejudice.  Since the Civil Rights movement, many Americans believe that racial inequalities of the past have been eradicated.  Landmark cases like Brown v. Board and legislation like the Civil Rights Act seemed to guarantee legal equality for racial minorities.  Despite the strides that have been made to rectify racial injustices of United States history, racial minorities experience an alarming amount of discrimination and are still apart of a disadvantaged class within American society.  For instance, Blacks and Latinos are incarcerated at a disproportionately high rate, encounter unadulterated employment discrimination, and have less opportunity in education, housing, and health care.

In this agtheory, I hope to give some insight into the phenomenon of racial monopoly.  I first learned of this sociological concept from at student at Northwestern Law, and I have found the idea particularly compelling in explaining modern racial inequalities.

While whites used to maintain economic and social advantages by prohibiting minorities from accessing various means of upward mobility, these practices are now considered illegal.  For example, whites used to be the only people legally entitled to land, to vote, to be involved in politics, or to receive an education.  Now that anti-discrimination laws exist, this is no longer the case.  However, early institutionalized advantages attained by the white community have reproduced themselves over time.  Regardless of attempts to achieve racial equality in society, whites maintain a significant monopoly in housing, education, employment and political markets. 

To give specific examples, I believe that racial monopoly is especially damaging for minorities in the areas of educational resources and social networks.

The racial monopoly is deeply rooted on the educational level, as so few minorities receive formal, higher education.  Affirmative action initiatives have helped to raise minority admissions in colleges, despite scrutiny from the masses.  However, let us not forget that affirmative action is only new as we now know it; affirmative action used to be white.  Admissions for college has always been a discriminatory process.  Beyond admissions, many minorities are denied higher educations because of costs.  In financing education, a family’s wealth is extremely important; social science evidence documents a vast racial gap in family ability to help with college tuition. 

Racial monopoly theory maintains that the reinforcement of racial inequality is often reproduced in the social context in which individuals develop.  Families, social networks, and neighborhoods play a huge role in what you know and who you know.  Lack of social networks hurt minorities twofold.  First, information is disseminated via social networks (what you know).  Secondly, social networks serve as a means of developing important connections (who you know).  Many minorities are left out of strong and beneficial social networks.  Because of the differing social backgrounds, minorities have less people to look to for information on education and jobs than whites.

The biggest problem with racial monopoly is its tremendous complexity.  It is easy to change the law to protect minorities from encountering discrimination; however, it is extremely difficult to undo the effects of past discrimination.  For me, the most important part of this idea is the recognition of the complexity — knowing that there is always more than meets the eye in understanding why racial inequalities exist and how they are perpetuated over time.

The Social Meaning of Race

In a previous agtheory, I mentioned our country’s inability to “face race.”  As a nation, we have found it extremely difficult to confront our racial cleavages; ironically, however, we have found it exceedingly easy to insert race – both consciously and sub-consciously – into nearly every facet of American life.  Essentially, we utilize racial characteristics as often as possible in defining a group’s behavior, traits, abilities, etc., while simultaneously masking our nation as united, egalitarian, and “colorblind.”

One of my most basic and fundamental agtheories is that race is a social construct.  The underlying notion of this theory is that race is nothing more than a man-made distinction for dividing people based on arbitrary factors.  For me, this idea can go much further.  Personally, I have always found interdisciplinary arguments against race-based distinctions to be particularly compelling.  In conjunction to the sociological idea that race is a social construct, biology and anthropology serve to amplify this view free from personal biased or impassioned opinions.  Jared Diamond, for example, has maintained the capriciousness of “race” by drawing parallels to other species.  [Read this short piece for more information.]  When reduced to mere differences in natural selection traits, race becomes even more meaningless.

In his article, Diamond warns of the detrimental effects race-based distinctions have on human societies:

Such snap judgments didn’t threaten our existence back when people were armed only with spears and surrounded by others who looked mostly like themselves. In the modern world, though, we are armed with guns and plutonium, and we live our lives surrounded by people who are much more varied in appearance. The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification.

Because, despite the superficial and insignificant nature of race, racial divides are omnipresent throughout human history.  From justifications for slavery and genocide to race-based segregation to the modern-day practice of categorization via “check a box below,” race has always been a socially salient issue.  The obsession with race has manifested itself in the form of racial hierarchies, ethnic divisions, stereotypes, prejudices, and so forth.  In theory, our physical differences are more or less inconsequential; we are merely variations on a theme by natural selection.  If only we could be more like animals in practice…

My Affinity for Dennis Kucinich

I have gotten several requests for visuals.  In agfashion, I wanted these visuals to be somewhat relevant to my ideas and beliefs.  So, I am posting these clips from my days as a Dennish Kucinch intern.  These clips were done for fun and to raise money for the grassroots Kucinich for President campaign.  But, I wanted to take this time to say how much I respect and admire Dennis Kucinich, as well as my fellow campaign interns.  [These people out-liberaled any idea of liberal you might have -- true progressives.]  Hope you enjoy these clips! 

Undoubtedly, more on Kucinich to come in the near future…but in the meantime, I will leave you with this: Dennis Kucinich has foresight and is bold enough to stand up for his beliefs.  He stood up against the war when no one else did, and he spoke up against the bailout when everyone was afraid to.  This is just a taste of why I support (personally and politically) Dennis Kucinich.

Felony Prohibition of Voting

[P.S.  to "American Blackout"]

In an agtheory tidbit, I wanted to say: I completely disagree with prohibiting convicted felons from voting.  Not only is this tactic another detriment to universal suffrage, but it is also dehabilitating to post-conviction felons* and is a cruel, unusual punishment.  If you have done your time, paid your dues to society, and you get released (in states like Virginia and Kentucky), why should you be unable to play a role in the democratic process?  At the very least, considering drug policies as they stand, should a drug conviction at the age of 18 forever plague your role as an American citizen?  The answer is surely NO!

*Voting denial is just one more way to remove “criminals” from greater society, even after their sentences have been served.*

This is a complicated issue — one which involves sociological implications, and one which I will be forced to revisit. 

For now, if we are going to talk about felony participation in American democracy, we must also take into consideration the demographics of the felony population.  Unfortunately, the criminal population is disproportionately, and alarmingly, made up of racial minorities.  When approximately 1/3 of African-American males are, or will be, behind bars, the micro-issue of felony voter prohibition becomes a macro-issue of the prison system at large…[to be continued].

Conclusively, I ask my readers to “talk me down” (as Rachel Maddow would say) on this issue…tell me what reasons exist to prevent convicted felons from voting?  Or, if you agree with my stance, feel free to talk me up!

American Blackout [continued]

I wanted to write a follow-up post to “American Blackout,” as it has given life to a new subject matter.  The purpose of the original post was to show how voter disenfranchisement is relevant to all Americans, regardless of race, class, gender, or political ideology.  To be sure, as the crux of participatory democracy, voting should not be taken lightly.  Thus, “American Blackout” caused readers to ponder the reasons for which we vote and how this relates to democratic ideals, values, and processes.

The concerns of a voter’s worthiness are also fundamental to American democracy.  The founding fathers had little faith in the average man (or woman, or Black person, or Native America…you get the picture), so they created a moderating system: the electoral college.  The dialogue pertaining to a person’s ability to make a voting decision based on reason and logic has extended beyond the creation of an electoral college.  Owning property was once a prerequisite to voting, as poor workers could not be expected to make reasonable votes.  In a post-slavery America, Blacks were not considered to be capable of rational voting.  And for so long, a husband’s vote was considered to be enough to ’speak for’ his wife. 

At some point or another in history, we have so easily discounted the opinions and beliefs of countless groups of Americans.  That is why I will never agree with the pretense that only a person who votes based on reason is worthy of his or her vote.

For all of you philosophers out there, who assert that reason and rationality are necessary for informed voting, I ask you to take a sociological break from your unreality.  In a vacuum, all Americans would be well-educated, informed, and be driven to vote based on all the ‘right’ reasons.  In the America that we live in, things aren’t so cut and dry.  The resources of education and information are luxuries; these possessions are not easy attained by all Americans.

Voting will always be the veins and arteries of American democracy, with the American people pumping away at the heart.  Regardless of what motivates a person to support a candidate, or why they choose to vote to begin with, American people are a pivotal part of American government.

I’ll leave you with this agthought– if you discount a person’s vote because he or she votes solely based on what a favorite celebrity said…should you, too, discount a person who votes on religious ideals?  Or greed?  Or bigotry?  Or unadulterated idealism?  Or self-righteousness?  And if so, who are you left with?

American Blackout

The title of this agtheory post pays homage to the 2006 Ian Ibana film, American Blackout, which uncovers many of the controversies surrounding voter disenfranchisement during the 2000 and 2004 elections (save the large emphasis on Cynthia McKinney).  Unfortunately, this topic will probably not be surprising or new to you as a reader.  You have heard stories about voting problems for years; thus, you might presume this post to be obsolete.  Regardless, I urge you to read on — especially in light of the upcoming presidential election.

Disenfranchising voters, prima facie, is wrong in a democratic society.  When a nation is founded on principles of pluralism and participation, it is obviously wrong to dis-include segments of the voting population.  This argument should be obvious.  Alas, we are all – to some extent – aware of the disenfranchising efforts that have taken place in historical and contemporary America.  From grandfather clauses to felony prohibition of voting rights, Americans have seen many systematic ways to disenfranchise populations based on race, class, gender, political beliefs, and so on.

Perhaps these undemocratic tactics have never directly impacted you.  Maybe you aren’t a racial minority; maybe you aren’t poor; maybe you can’t fathom being illiterate or uneducated; and maybe you have never had a criminal record plague your day to day life.  In spite of this, this is relevant to you and the legitimacy of our democratic process!

And, even if you aren’t convinced, I urge you to watch this Rachel Maddow clip on voter purging.  [This article is mentioned on her show.]

Incidentally, this disenfranchisement trend now pertains to you — no matter how you categorize yourself. And even so, this is a NON-PARTISAN issue and a democratic imperative, lest we submit to the hypocrisy of illiberal democracy.

Colorblindness

I have always agtheorized that America has a problem with confronting race; this belief was strengthened after a class with Professor John Marquez of Northwestern University, who likened America’s inability to deal with racial problems to a cancer patient taking drugs to numb the pain, rather than getting to the root of the disease.  For this agtheory, I will delve into the phenomenon of colorblindness.

This election, no matter what happens, Barack Obama has made history.  He is the first Black major party nominee.  Along the way, primary and election news coverage has suggested that America had come a long way since slavery, segregation, and racism, towards a society in which anything is possible for racial minorities.  Political correspondents have suggested that America, as a whole, can finally move beyond race and focus the campaign on issues that “really matter.”  The superficial focus of the election coverage on race seemed to bother the American people; the voters were asked to transcend race when looking at and talking about Barack Obama.  While these sentiments seem to be in the best interest of the integrity of the presidential race, the idea of putting race outside of American politics speaks volumes about America’s inability to face race.  In an ideal America, Barack Obama would be judged by the “content of his character,” rather than the color of his skin; however, we do not live in this America.  Is it problematic to assume that we can talk about social and political issues without bringing race into the picture?  What are we risking by pretending we are a colorblind society?

To pose race as a non-influential factor in American life is to embrace the old ‘ignorance is bliss’ mentality.  Perhaps the “racial fatigue” that Professor Marquez has discussed is making this practice of “colorblindness” seem like a quick fix that Americans opt for over a real panacea to racial inequality.  This tactic seems like placing a small Band-Aid on a deep and open wound.  Contemporary societal relations of power in the United States cannot be seen through a colorblind lens.  Racism is deeply woven into the fabric of American history.  The United States, as a nation, is physically and metaphorically built upon racist institutions, ideologies, and practices.  From colonial tactics of genocide and slavery to mechanisms of legalized discrimination and prejudice, American history is clearly defined by a racial hierarchy.  While it would be a nice thought to see American society today through a veil of racial ignorance, to do so would be to conveniently erase hundreds of years of history.

The very notion of race being a non-issue in a discourse about societal issues within the United States worsens the status of racial tensions and inequality.  In doing so, the United States only attempts to ignore its past.  The United States’ inability to recall its own dark past is much like the scenario depicted by Toni Morrison when she coined the phrase “rememory” in her novel Beloved.  The painful memories associated with slavery often caused enslaved Blacks to selectively remember their pasts.  Throughout the book, Morrison articulates the importance of facing your past for the purpose of moving forward in your future.  For the United States, selective rememory is wholly damaging to the goal of progressing towards racial equality.  The US must face the realities of its unfortunate past before racial equality can be wholly achieved, and well before a colorblind dialogue could be made a reality.