Three years ago, at a conference in Sweden, I was introduced to a Dutch member of parliament named Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Originally born in Somalia, she had been a refugee in several African countries and eventually a refugee from her own family, which had decided to "give" her in marriage to a distant male relative she had never met. Thinking to escape from such confines by moving to the Netherlands, she was appalled to find that radical Islam had followed her there—or in fact preceded her there—and was proselytizing among Turkish and Moroccan and Indonesian immigrants. In ancient towns like Rotterdam and Amsterdam, where once the refugees from Catholic France and inquisitional Spain had sought refuge, and where Baruch Spinoza had been excommunicated and anathematized for his opposition to Jewish fundamentalism, there were districts where Muslim women were subjected to genital mutilation and where the Dutch police were afraid to set foot.
Entering politics to try to alert the European left to this danger, she was first elected as a deputy for the Labor Party, but after 9/11 she changed her allegiance to the Liberals. This, she explained, was because many Labor spokesmen preferred to think of immigrants as possessing "group rights." They had become so infatuated by their own "multi-culti" style that they had ignored the rights of individuals—especially women and girls—who were imprisoned within their own ghetto. (That, by the way, was precisely Spinoza's problem as well. The Dutch rabbis cursed him and condemned him in their own sectarian "court," of which the Christian authorities approved because it took care of dangerous secularism among Jews.)
At the Swedish event, Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke calmly and rationally about the problem. I never know whether or not it's right to mention, with female public figures, the fact of arresting and hypnotizing beauty, but I notice that I seem to have done so. Shall I just say that she was a charismatic figure in Dutch politics, mainly because of the calm and reason to which I just alluded? She was the ideal choice of collaborator for the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (a distant descendant of the anguished painter) on Submission, a film about the ignored problem of enslaved and oppressed women in Holland. Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote the screenplay and provided the movie's voice-over.
You probably remember what happened next: Van Gogh was bicycling to work one morning in 2004 in the capital city of one of Europe's most peaceful and civilized countries when he was shot down in the street and then mutilated in a ritual fashion by an Islamist fanatic. The murderer (who had expected to become a martyr but who was only wounded in the leg by the gentle Dutch cops) left a long "martyr's letter" pinned to van Gogh's corpse by an equally long knife. In it, he warned Ayaan Hirsi Ali that she was the next target, and he gave a long and detailed account of all the offenses that would condemn her to an eternity in hell. (I noticed, reading this appalling screed when it was first published, that he obsessively referred to her as "Mrs. Hirshi Ali," as if trying to make her sound like a Jew. Other references to Jews in the text were even less tasteful.)
She has had to live under police protection ever since, and when I saw her again last week in Washington, I had to notice that there were several lofty and burly Dutchmen acting in an unaffected but determined way somewhere off to the side. I would urge you all to go out and buy her new book, The Caged Virgin, which is subtitled An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. The three themes of the story are: first, her own gradual emancipation from tribalism and superstition; second, her work as a parliamentarian to call attention to the crimes being committed every day by Islamist thugs in mainland Europe; and third, the dismal silence, or worse, from many feminists and multiculturalists about this state of affairs.
Before being elected to parliament, she worked as a translator and social worker among immigrant women who are treated as sexual chattel—or as the object of "honor killings"—by their menfolk, and she has case histories that will freeze your blood. These, however, are in some ways less depressing than the excuses made by qualified liberals for their continuation. At all costs, it seems, others must be allowed "their culture" and—what is more—must be allowed the freedom not to be offended by the smallest criticism of it. If they do feel offended, their very first resort is to violence and intimidation, sometimes with the support of the embassies of foreign states. (How interesting it is that the two European states most recently attacked in this way—Holland and Denmark—should be the ones that have made the greatest effort to be welcoming to immigrants.) Considering that this book is written by a woman who was circumcised against her will at a young age and then very nearly handed over as a bargain with a stranger, it is written with quite astonishing humor and restraint.
But here is the grave and sad news. After being forced into hiding by fascist killers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali found that the Dutch government and people were slightly embarrassed to have such a prominent "Third World" spokeswoman in their midst. She was first kept as a virtual prisoner, which made it almost impossible for her to do her job as an elected representative. When she complained in the press, she was eventually found an apartment in a protected building. Then the other residents of the block filed suit and complained that her presence exposed them to risk. In spite of testimony from the Dutch police, who assured the court that the building was now one of the safest in all Holland, a court has upheld the demand from her neighbors and fellow citizens that she be evicted from her home. In these circumstances, she is considering resigning from parliament and perhaps leaving her adopted country altogether. This is not the only example that I know of a supposedly liberal society collaborating in its own destruction, but I hope at least that it will shame us all into making The Caged Virgin a best seller.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.
Photograph of Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Ed Oudenaarden/AFP/Getty Images.
Last edited by zsana on Thu 15 Jun 2006 12:54; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 {Posts: 76 } Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Mon 12 Jun 2006 16:27 Post subject:
Quote:
These, however, are in some ways less depressing than the excuses made by qualified liberals for their continuation. At all costs, it seems, others must be allowed "their culture" and—what is more—must be allowed the freedom not to be offended by the smallest criticism of it.
Statements like this never cease to amaze me. Being a life long liberal, I have never met other liberals that defend the dehumanizing and brutal aspects of any culture. Who are these 'liberals' and where do they congregate?
These, however, are in some ways less depressing than the excuses made by qualified liberals for their continuation. At all costs, it seems, others must be allowed "their culture" and—what is more—must be allowed the freedom not to be offended by the smallest criticism of it.
Statements like this never cease to amaze me. Being a life long liberal, I have never met other liberals that defend the dehumanizing and brutal aspects of any culture. Who are these 'liberals' and where do they congregate?
Ohhh, I've met quite a few....Just go to any college campus and look at both some of the faculty and students. Indeed most liberals/leftists I know feel this way.... Generally speaking, they were folks who, influenced by multiculturalism, felt that all (non-western) cultures were of equal value. They would go through all sorts of tortured rationalizations for ignoring or supporting some of the most backward-ass, medieval behavior from "non-whites". To find fault with certain aspects of non-Western cultures was an admission that your own culture was better and that you were, in fact, a racist. Hence, we get in some quarters justification for "honor killings" or female genital mutilation as resistance against "Western cultural imperialism".
In conversations with some of these people I get the impression that they really don't know anything about other cultures, they just celebrate cultural diversity and project qualities they see lacking in their own society onto these cultures.
Further, there is the belief that these people are really inherently beneath them, less civilized, and only worthy of pity (and contempt?).
Leftist Frank Furedi writes some thought-provoking articles about this turn of events. Leftists, liberals,and progressives used to be for so-called "enlightenment values". I prefer to call them modern values. Because they are, like so many of us, unsure about the future, they have fetishized tradition-bound cultures, which, in the real world, has produced some negative consequences in their own societies.
Did you know that the Netherlands are now performing or allowing the performance of, Female genital mutaliation??? All in the name of culture and/or religious tolerance?
WTF!
Yes, it is liberals who allow this in the guise of multi-culturalism.
Did you know that the Netherlands are now performing or allowing the performance of, Female genital mutaliation??? All in the name of culture and/or religious tolerance?
WTF!
Yes, it is liberals who allow this in the guise of multi-culturalism.
Idiots!
Is there official gov't tolerance for this behavior or is the gov't aware that it happens and refuses to comment?
From what I've read Holland is (thankfully) demanding that prospective immigrants be made aware of Holland's tolerance for homosexuality and other behaviors people in many non-western societies find objectionable before migrating there.
I would seem since the murder of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh, some Dutch officials are aware that a culture of liberal tolerance and cultural diversity can't coexist.
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 {Posts: 76 } Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Thu 15 Jun 2006 02:23 Post subject:
Quote:
Yes, it is liberals who allow this in the guise of multi-culturalism.
Idiots!
Quote:
Ohhh, I've met quite a few....Just go to any college campus and look at both some of the faculty and students. Indeed most liberals/leftists I know feel this way....
Hmm. Well this upcoming rant of mine has been held back by me out of respect for most people on this forum.
I understand there is a strong moderate to conservative bent here. Now I have had many bad run-ins with certain conservatives but this does not and has not colored my opinion of any other conservatives I meet. I judge people as individuals regardless of how they identify. These same conservatives are the other side of the coin to what G-Man and Melani23 erroneous attribute only to "liberals". Where your "liberals" allow human atrocities to occur, some conservatives look the other way and when forced to address the issue often resort to an us/them dichotomy.
Most of my liberal views were shaped by my years at the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) by the faculty and students. So, yes, I have been on college campuses. In no way, shape or form did the faculty ever say, "Why yes. Cutting off a woman's clitoris is perfectly fine! It's their culture!" No. Instead I heard, "That's a violation of human rights. Culture be damned."
On the other hand conservative opinions on said subject ranged between "What's a clitoris?" to "Well that thing only gives pleasure which is not what the point of sex is!" and finally, "Those people are barbaric. You see why we need to show them our way?" Is the fact that the mainstream culture doesn't perform clitoridectomies on girls here mean we honor a woman's sexuality? Not in the least. Most women still, unfortunately, can't find their clitoris with a GPS and a mirror and even more don't know what its function is. Heaven knows it's not taught in our "Sex Ed" classes and most adults get their sexual information from sources like Maxim or Cosmopolitan or from a religious figure who probably doesn't know what they are talking about. Women that are 'too' sexual are still seen as deserving of some kind of punishment or ridicule. Women who aren't sexual enough or obsessed with dating/trying to find a husband are similarly ridiculed, seen as defective and too often given the label (in the most demeaning way possible) of lesbian. Where pain is horrible, hurtful words are not any better. Six in one, half dozen the other.
What you are describing G-Man and Melani23 is plain ignorance and idiotcy, political philosophy be damned. My goodness, I would think people here at this forum would be the first to know the difference between stupidity in all its forms and not to make such broad generaliztions.
Quote:
From what I've read Holland is (thankfully) demanding that prospective immigrants be made aware of Holland's tolerance for homosexuality and other behaviors people in many non-western societies find objectionable before migrating there.
Yes that is a very good thing. Not only would many non-Westerners be rejected but so would a lot of Westerners, including Americans considering our current dialogue on such topics.
I would think people here at this forum would be the first to know the difference between stupidity in all its forms and not to make such broad generaliztions.
I, too, am uncomfortable with the dichotomous labels liberal versus conservative.
I agree that many (if not most) professors of my experience are extreme in their beliefs. I know one (history) who teaches that 9/11 was a Zionist action and that the Muslims were framed. Another (sociology) teaches that the reason Seminole children do poorly in school is because of their poverty. (In fact, they do well above average and they receive an average household income of $120K/yr from casino ownership dividends alone.) Another (anthropology) teaches that hundreds of thousands of African Americans fought for the Confederacy but that anyone who supports the war in Iraq is a racist. These people are fools at best and deliberate liars at worst.
And yet, I consider myself a liberal in that I oppose Christian religious intolerance, accept the findings of biology regarding natural selection, consider financial inequality to be America's most serious threat today, and see global warming as the planet's most serious threat. On the other hand, I think it dangerous that that Western cultural values are threatened by a resurgent Islam. And, of course, my stance vis-a-vis the bizarre U.S. color line is well known. In short, for what it is worth, I too am uncomfortable with dichotomous labels whether applied to me or to anyone else.
I understand there is a strong moderate to conservative bent here. Now I have had many bad run-ins with certain conservatives but this does not and has not colored my opinion of any other conservatives I meet. I judge people as individuals regardless of how they identify. These same conservatives are the other side of the coin to what G-Man and Melani23 erroneous attribute only to "liberals". Where your "liberals" allow human atrocities to occur, some conservatives look the other way and when forced to address the issue often resort to an us/them dichotomy.
Perhaps you should read my posts again. Whereas Melani23’s opinions are colored by an anti-liberal bias, which is her right, my objections are to the corrosive influence of post-modernism and multiculturalism on many if not most left liberals today. Personally, it is inconceivable that someone can call themselves a progressive and “tolerate” anti-modern, illiberal behavior in the name of tolerance and diversity. The fact that the primary promoters of moral and cultural relativism are on the left side of the political spectrum is obvious.
In the case of Hirsi Ali, for example, the people outside of the Muslim communities who denounce her and are cheering her leaving Holland are people on the left. It was the European left in general that labeled iconoclastic Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn a racist xenophobe and fascist for stating the truth that unassimilated Muslim immigrants bring with them cultural attitudes that threaten Holland’s atmosphere of tolerance.
Quote:
Most of my liberal views were shaped by my years at the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) by the faculty and students. So, yes, I have been on college campuses. In no way, shape or form did the faculty ever say, "Why yes. Cutting off a woman's clitoris is perfectly fine! It's their culture!" No. Instead I heard, "That's a violation of human rights. Culture be damned."
And I have been on college campuses as well and have had different experiences. There are many people who are liberal who argue that it is essentially racist and judgmental to declare practices from other cultures that are truly harmful just that.
Quote:
On the other hand conservative opinions on said subject ranged between "What's a clitoris?" to "Well that thing only gives pleasure which is not what the point of sex is!" and finally, "Those people are barbaric. You see why we need to show them our way?"
And this is not a generalization? Oh and a traditional conservative (just like any sensible left liberal) would gladly call people barbaric if they are deserving of the title. Showing them “our way” though was something progressives (the ancestors of today’s left liberals) were supportive of in the old days.
Quote:
Is the fact that the mainstream culture doesn't perform clitoridectomies on girls here mean we honor a woman's sexuality? Not in the least. Most women still, unfortunately, can't find their clitoris with a GPS and a mirror and even more don't know what its function is.
Heaven knows it's not taught in our "Sex Ed" classes and most adults get their sexual information from sources like Maxim or Cosmopolitan or from a religious figure who probably doesn't know what they are talking about.
Firstly, what is honoring a woman’s sexuality?
Secondly, I don’t have a clitoris and I’m aware of its function. I believe it is presumptuous to assume that most women in the U.S. can’t find theirs and have no idea what it is for.
Thirdly, even in my Catholic high school, where any discussion of birth control was forbidden, we learned in biology about the clitoris, its location, and its function.
Despite the possibility that some people get their information on sexual education from Maxim and Cosmopolitan (the latter isn’t a bad source), people do have access to useful information. I can’t comment on Maxim’s readable content, though. I only look at the pictures.
Even when I was in high school in the 80s I knew where to get information on sexual education; one was informed about those things at that time to the extent that one wanted to be informed. Today, with web access, it is much easier and less embarrassing to procure this information.
Quote:
Women that are 'too' sexual are still seen as deserving of some kind of punishment or ridicule. Women who aren't sexual enough or obsessed with dating/trying to find a husband are similarly ridiculed, seen as defective and too often given the label (in the most demeaning way possible) of lesbian. Where pain is horrible, hurtful words are not any better. Six in one, half dozen the other.
These are not general experiences of all women in the U.S. Today, women enjoy much more freedom (with all the costs and benefits to themselves as society) than they did in the past.
Quote:
What you are describing G-Man and Melani23 is plain ignorance and idiotcy, political philosophy be damned. My goodness, I would think people here at this forum would be the first to know the difference between stupidity in all its forms and not to make such broad generaliztions.
No what I was describing was a feature of modern left liberal thinking today, which was buttressed by links to writers of a liberal or leftist bent attesting to this change amongst their ideological compatriots.
For the record, I can’t speak about Melani23’s ideology, but I am more or less classically liberal. But my views on things are so heterodox, that I am outside of most ideological camps.
Last edited by G-Man on Thu 15 Jun 2006 14:37; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Thu 15 Jun 2006 14:05 Post subject:
Quote:
I understand there is a strong moderate to conservative bent here.
I have found no conservative or liberal bend here. If there is any bend, it is an intellectual bend. All opinions are respected as long as they can be logically explained and backed up by hard facts.
Quote:
I, too, am uncomfortable with the dichotomous labels liberal versus conservative.
I agree. I consider myself a realist, neither liberal nor conservative.
Posted: Thu 22 Jun 2006 06:52 Post subject: Liberal versus Conservative
fwsweet wrote:
Emperor Cupcake wrote:
I would think people here at this forum would be the first to know the difference between stupidity in all its forms and not to make such broad generaliztions.
I, too, am uncomfortable with the dichotomous labels liberal versus conservative.
I think for our purposes the liberal-conservative axis turns mostly on the police power implied in the U.S. Constitution.
As I recall, the "necessary and proper" clause of Section 8 in article I authorizes federal police power. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states' own constitutions similar police power authorization. Whatever its source ("police" nowhere is mentioned in the Constitution), police power is recognized as necessary and proper for carrying out state interest in protecting society's health, safety, morals, and welfare.
I think maybe I see the same roots of today's culture war (so called), Left-versus-Right, in the late 18th-Century historical conflict over whether the Constitution would be ratified at all, unless it included a Bill of Rights. Opposing the demanded Bill of Rights were Federalists, who viewed the 1787 Constitution, as drafted, as being a carefully crafted charter for strictly limited government. To the Federalists, the People already had -- they retained -- all their rights not necessarily and properly surrendered for operation of minimal government. Federalists feared that a Bill of Rights would reduce to a laundry-list of rights -- and be the only ones. People would end up with no rights but those listed. Both Federalists and their opponents, the Anti-Federalists, feared, opposed the growth of big government. The Anti-Federalists foresaw that power-hungry Government would swiftly swallow all unwritten (implied, retained) rights unless the essential ones were nailed down in a Bill of Rights.
As we know, the Anti-Federalists won at least a Bill of Rights, made of the first ten amendments to our U.S. Constitution, adopted 1791. (And arguably augmented by 13th, 14th, & 15th Amends. in aftermath of Civil War.)
As Federalists had feared, we also can see the very restrictive reading of the laundry-list of our constitutional rights that has developed since 1791. For example, the Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), abortion rights decision continues to face stiff opposition, protesting that "a right to privacy" is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. (It's not in exactly those words, but see 4th Amend. search warrant requirement.)
Also, we have all observed of late that liberal reading of constitutional rights has a backfiring effect of empowering courts -- small panels of un-elected judges, untouchable, with lifetime appointments to the Bench -- activist judges, threatening to hijack our democracy. Could activist judges rule by fiat, simply by decreeing that our Constitution implicitly says thus-and-so? Has there arisen a reasonable appearance that funded advocacy organizations are unequally having the ear of the Court for pushing agendas on society through activist judicial construction of constitutional rights? Does it not seem advisable to some that we reestablish the primacy of democracy, our elected self-government, instead of accepting virtually a coup d'état by nine aging high priests (who may be blindsided by single-issue activists)?
The power of the Supreme Court to overrule our democracy is well illustrated by civil rights history, the struggle to legislate racial equality. The following is not a complete essay. It is only my quick list of illustrative decisions:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856). U.S. Supreme Court threw out a presumption accepted in many states that a slave was freed by operation of law if his master took him to a free state or jurisdiction. This Court went on and invalidated the Missouri Compromise, ruling (by obiter dicta) it was no concern of Congress whether states or territories were save or free.
The Scott v. Sandford Court examined the 1787 circumstances at time of adopting the original U.S. Constitution and found (a) two different human races exist(ed) one white one black; (b) the black race was subhuman and so unequal as to have no rights whatsoever, and it was fit only for chattel slavery to whites. (Id., at 407. That was only 150 yrs. ago!) This essential Scott v. Sandford finding of different human races has never been doubted. Subsequent constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings have never questioned the essential "difference" necessary for having two human races. The High Court has always read Fourteenth Amendment equal protection as guaranteeing equal "group rights" in the multicultural /cultural relativity sense of externally equalizeable, yet immutably "different," endogamous populations. As we will see, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), eventually came along and began ordering a salt-and-pepper spot-scrambling method of group-equality through school and workplace desegregation. We still live this "races" quota-tallying situation today, and perhaps for the next 25 years.
The Civil Rights Acts (1866, 1870, 1875). U.S. Congress tried to legislate equal protection for former slaves, who then were called freedmen. (Remembered now as "black" Negro, African-Americans, etc. )
Fourteenth Amendment (1868) bound the states to equal protection of laws. This post Civil War amendment was adopted for the purpose of equal citizenship of newly freed former slaves, freedmen.
Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485 (1877). Louisiana enacted a law in 1869 enforcing fully equal racially integrated passenger services aboard steamboats transporting passengers in state waters. But the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this desegregation act, finding it trenched on Congress's exclusive control of interstate commerce on navigable waters.
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883). The Supreme Court overturned the 1875 Civil Rights Act, finding it was not authorized congressional enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment as provided for therein. The Court found the private discrimination by white innkeepers and the other discriminations perpetrated against Negroes in these cases was not state action subject to Congress's federal equal protection enforcement.
Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883). U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not help a Negro man /white woman couple convicted of fornication under Alabama's statute punishing interracial fornication more severely. (The lovers each suffered 2 yr. prison sentences.) The High Court found no denial of equal protection, because each "different race" received exactly the same punishment.
Later High Court decisions disapproved Pace's rigidly structured view of equal protection. It was replaced with a more liberal equal protection standard for similarly situated parties. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Court granted equal protection to interracial marriage by finding these couples were similarly situated as other newlyweds. Massachusetts's highest court only lately found homosexuals have the right to same-sex "marriage," too, by analogy to Loving's similarly situated interracial couples. In order to reach this result the court needed to find sex is merely a social construct, like "races." Because our species, one human race of two sexes, is undefined in the Constitution, the danger looms that we may face a future when Law is totally "sex blind"; as "races" are locked in struggle for survival of the fittest in the jungle of Social Darwinism.
Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Ry. Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U.S. 587 (1890). A railroad conductor apparently risked jail for misdemeanor, his railroad Co. deliberately violated a 1888 Mississippi state law ordering all train passengers to be segregated by their "races" (apparently at the state line). The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the R.R. Co.'s conviction, finding that the Mississippi State Supreme Court's determination that the regulated rail traffic was solely intra-state controlled in that case.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). The U.S. Supreme Court authorized state laws segregating intrastate rail transportation into separate, supposedly "equal," passenger cars for "white" and "black" passengers. Homer Plessy, the petitioning "Negro," was only one-eighth African. He barely squeaked by under Louisiana's definition of "black," for its segregation law, and the Court read that Plessy's African ancestry was invisible. The Court wondered why issues had not been properly briefed whether Plessy even was a Negro, or challenged the reasonableness of Louisiana's "invisible blood" formulation? (This may be the closest our American Law ever came to actually looking "race difference" in the eye.)
Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, launched the rapid spread of Jim Crow state segregation laws. These expanded far beyond racially segregating trains, busses, and the public schools. Starting in 1910, states began legislating the "One-Drop rule" for the first time ever. By the time of the Second World War, even blood donations were maintained segregated into "races," "white" and "black." Some northern states even racially segregated human mother's milk (to the amusement of Southerners with cows). The famous Plessy v. Ferguson dissent, written by Justice Harlan, became authority for overturning several state segregation laws many years later, after Brown v. Board of Education, supra, disapproved the "separate but equal" doctrine.
Justice Harlan, dissenting, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) wrote:
"State enactments regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race, and cunningly devised to defeat legitimate results of the war [Civil War] under the pretence of recognizing equality of rights, can have no other result than to render permanent peace impossible and to keep alive a conflict of races the continuance of which must do harm to all concerned." (Id., at 560-561.)
Unfortunately, Justice Harlan's warning against "races" preservation still goes unheeded.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The High Court found that that segregated school facilities were inherently unequal, and the Court reviewed psychological studies which indicated that "black" children do better in school sharing a classroom with "white" children. Conversely, the Court read psychological reports of "black" children doing less well after being banished to dilapidated "black" schools. What the Brown v. Board Court did not do was engage with any of Plessy v. Ferguson's supra, deprecatory ruminations about "different races," or its reliance on state "anti-miscegenation" laws to prove the need for drastic measures to prevent "amalgamation" of the "different bloods." The Brown Court did not confront Plessy's euphemistic "separate but equal" -- cynically veiling its set-up conundrum trying to pass different and equal off as meaning each other.
In plain language, marking people "different," making them thereby unequal, is what classifying "races" actually is about. It has been this from the start. A long history of American legislation has stigmatized people "different" based on inherited racial cues (e.g., features consistent with certain continental regions); features which do not need to denote social "difference" regardless of how visually striking or distinctive someone's racial features are.
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960). The Court banned all voting redistricting gerrymandering of "white" communities. The Court found that for many years Alabama "white" citizens had distorted the shape of voting districts using census "race"-data (it's called gerrymandering) to weaken the voting, representational influence of Negro voters (i.e., censused by their "race"). This case is very important today! Its outlawing all "white race" use of census data was seen as a green light for "majority minority" voting district "race"-count gerrymandering. In fact, for years afterward federal agencies pressured "blacks" and other "minorities" to self-organize along census "black race" lines by gerrymandering. One fruit of this organizing is the Congressional Black Caucus and other, similar voting bloc "race caucuses." The funneling effect of this government sponsored "races"-identity power-politicking sucked "blacks" into inner cities. The political spoils design of it concentrated "black" ghettoes. A. Thernstrom, the Vice Chairperson of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights, examining the racial categorization on the 2010 census meeting April 7, 2006, in Washington D.C., described witnessing census-gerrymandered district lines snaking out after a "black" family who had fled the central Dallas ghetto. The "black tentacle" caught up with them; it re-swallowed them in a "white" neighborhood where they had sought refuge.
http://backintyme.com/forum/CensusBriefingTranscript.doc
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). The U.S. Supreme Court recently restored an aspect of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra -- namely review of "races" discrimination by less than strict scrutiny. For "race"-based college and university affirmative action, the Court waived the suspect category standard, allowing "races" to be "a basis" for admission preferences used to achieve campus "diversity." Justice O'Connor, writing the opinion, allowed affirmative action's "races" preferences to go on for 25 more years.
I agree with Justice Harlan's warning (ante.). I think government classifying individuals in "races," censusing these artificial categories and using the collected data for programs purporting to make different mean equal, is much worse than government abandoning the field of racial matters; leaving this biological plane of social identification entirely to Society -- the people -- the same as the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution reserves un-enumerated "other rights" to the people. I think the risk of Jim Crow discrimination returning (or something as bad coming along) is greater if government continues projecting with race classifications, as it does (as it has done since the 17th Century), than if government abandons all thought of human racial categories existing.
The Court opinions I have cited here may be read at FindLaw.Com. Simply enter each case's citation numbers in the two boxes FindLaw provides.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
George
I read somewhere else she has been fired and discredited for making false claims. I wonder how this will affect her past claims and their credibility.
Apparently she lied about her past to gain asylum in Holland. From what I've read, she was already married to a man she was not forced to marry. She simply left him, changed her name, contrived a story about her past, and the rest is history.
Her zeal made her a Dutch MP, international talk-show darling and one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people. But it also made her many enemies. After a recent documentary accused Somali-born Ali of lying to gain asylum in Holland in 1992, the Dutch home secretary sent her a letter informing her she “never has been a Dutch citizen”. A refugee for the second time in her 36 years, she is resigning from the Dutch parliament and moving to America.
[...]
This from one intimately acquainted with pain: as a child she suffered clitoral circumcision; aged 23 she absconded to Holland to avoid an arranged marriage. She has not seen her family since reaching Holland, where she worked as a cleaner before attending university and crawling through the political snake-pit.
[...]
It was an interview with her brother in the recent documentary, claiming Ali had not fled persecution in 1992, that led to the investigation into her background.
[...]
She admits she lied to gain asylum — claiming she was fleeing Somalia, when she had spent the previous decade in relative comfort in Kenya — but insists she had already admitted this elsewhere.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
