Jackson Coverage Unveils Class and Cultural Divides
Wednesday July 8, 2009
"So, Michael Jackson's dead," said a friend who rang me on Sunday.
Of course, the pop star had been dead for over a week by the time my friend called, but it was one of the first things she wanted to discuss with me. That's because we hadn't spoken since before Jackson's demise, and she was curious to know my feelings about his death.
In some circles, my friend would have been ridiculed for grieving for the King of Pop a full week after his death. The folks likely to lash out at her are the ones who admitted shock over Jackson's passing on the day or so after it was announced but soon complained that the singer's death was garnering too much media coverage. This coverage, they argued, was detracting from "real news" such as Gov. Sanford's clandestine visit to Argentina, election protests in Iran and other matters of global unrest.
What do the people making these arguments have in common? They're almost exclusively white, American, college-educated and upper middle-class, the type Christian Lander lampoons on his website Stuff White People Like. In all fairness, one black blogger I know of also complained about the amount of coverage Jackson's death was getting. She found herself promptly excoriated by her black reader base.
The individuals objecting to the media coverage are a new breed of elitist. They're likely to do volunteer work and campaign for various causes, including many on behalf of America's oppressed. Yet, their failure to see how Michael Jackson's death is "real news" indicates how wide a gap exists between them and those from different racial and class backgrounds.
To understand why Michael Jackson's death is without a doubt real news is to understand that blacks typically view media differently from whites. I grew up being taught that any black person I saw on television, be they a homeless person on the evening news or an actress in a bit role, mattered, as they reflected me. Because of this mindset, many blacks can name black actors and actresses that remain unknown to mainstream America. Not only can we name the films they've been in, but the children they've mothered or fathered, the romantic relationships they've been in and the names of their hometowns. We know that any given black person on the screen is considered to be a representative of the entire race, so we, in essence, view all blacks in the limelight as extended family.
This is why the loss of Michael Jackson has caused such grief in the black community. Before the mainstream embraced him, Michael Jackson belonged to us. To many, he was like a brother, cousin or son; that's why his death looms larger than Iran, Honduras, Gov. Sanford or Gov. Palin's resignation right now. That's why we can celebrate his life and achievements, despite the disturbing allegations lodged against him in recent years. We support him and the news coverage of his death because he's like a family member, even if one with whom we've lost touch.
This is why when my friend called to ask my feelings about Jackson's death, I was happy to oblige. I told her how I'd been listening to Jackson's music daily and how surprised I was to feel as saddened as I have by his passing. It's also why I find the snarky comments made by hipsters about Jackson's memorial service distasteful. Their intent is to appear cool, but they come across as elitist and emotionally disconnected from the masses. You can't have a conversation about democracy or xenophobia or feminism with just anybody. But you can walk into a roomful of people and drop Michael Jackson's name and get an instant response. Where the conversation will lead, I don't know. But it could set the stage to dig into some of the topics considered "real news."ť
Of course, the pop star had been dead for over a week by the time my friend called, but it was one of the first things she wanted to discuss with me. That's because we hadn't spoken since before Jackson's demise, and she was curious to know my feelings about his death.
In some circles, my friend would have been ridiculed for grieving for the King of Pop a full week after his death. The folks likely to lash out at her are the ones who admitted shock over Jackson's passing on the day or so after it was announced but soon complained that the singer's death was garnering too much media coverage. This coverage, they argued, was detracting from "real news" such as Gov. Sanford's clandestine visit to Argentina, election protests in Iran and other matters of global unrest.
What do the people making these arguments have in common? They're almost exclusively white, American, college-educated and upper middle-class, the type Christian Lander lampoons on his website Stuff White People Like. In all fairness, one black blogger I know of also complained about the amount of coverage Jackson's death was getting. She found herself promptly excoriated by her black reader base.
The individuals objecting to the media coverage are a new breed of elitist. They're likely to do volunteer work and campaign for various causes, including many on behalf of America's oppressed. Yet, their failure to see how Michael Jackson's death is "real news" indicates how wide a gap exists between them and those from different racial and class backgrounds.
To understand why Michael Jackson's death is without a doubt real news is to understand that blacks typically view media differently from whites. I grew up being taught that any black person I saw on television, be they a homeless person on the evening news or an actress in a bit role, mattered, as they reflected me. Because of this mindset, many blacks can name black actors and actresses that remain unknown to mainstream America. Not only can we name the films they've been in, but the children they've mothered or fathered, the romantic relationships they've been in and the names of their hometowns. We know that any given black person on the screen is considered to be a representative of the entire race, so we, in essence, view all blacks in the limelight as extended family.
This is why the loss of Michael Jackson has caused such grief in the black community. Before the mainstream embraced him, Michael Jackson belonged to us. To many, he was like a brother, cousin or son; that's why his death looms larger than Iran, Honduras, Gov. Sanford or Gov. Palin's resignation right now. That's why we can celebrate his life and achievements, despite the disturbing allegations lodged against him in recent years. We support him and the news coverage of his death because he's like a family member, even if one with whom we've lost touch.
This is why when my friend called to ask my feelings about Jackson's death, I was happy to oblige. I told her how I'd been listening to Jackson's music daily and how surprised I was to feel as saddened as I have by his passing. It's also why I find the snarky comments made by hipsters about Jackson's memorial service distasteful. Their intent is to appear cool, but they come across as elitist and emotionally disconnected from the masses. You can't have a conversation about democracy or xenophobia or feminism with just anybody. But you can walk into a roomful of people and drop Michael Jackson's name and get an instant response. Where the conversation will lead, I don't know. But it could set the stage to dig into some of the topics considered "real news."ť
Reflecting on Freedom This Fourth of July Weekend
Sunday July 5, 2009
Beer. Barbecue. Fireworks.
Is this how you're celebrating the Fourth of July weekend? Over the years, these items have become staples of the holiday. In 19th century America, however, the political ramifications of independence played a key role in Fourth of July observance.
Nowhere was the meaning of Independence Day stressed more than when abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass reminded the country that millions of Americans remained in bondage on Fourth of July 1852. How could the United States celebrate its freedom when it partook in slavery, Douglass asked during a speech delivered in Rochester, N.Y., on July 5, 1852.
"The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common," he pointed out. "The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. ...This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."ť
Surely, Douglass would be shocked to visit today's America and discover that the country is celebrating its first Fourth of July with a black president in the White House. While Douglass would likely be overwhelmed by such news, there's no disputing that issues of injustice continue to haunt America. For example, 55 years after the landmark Supreme Court case Brown vs. Board of Education mandated that schools integrate, urban schools remain largely populated by low-income black and Latino students. To boot, in the criminal justice system, ethnic minorities continue to be wrongfully convicted at alarming rates and face stiffer sentences than their white counterparts, a point Douglass raised in his speech. Moreover, people of color continue to experience greater rates of unemployment than whites, face housing discrimination and die at higher rates than whites from the same diseases.
As Fourth of July weekend winds down, put down the beer and barbecue, and take some time to reflect on what freedom is and which groups enjoy the most freedoms in America.
Is this how you're celebrating the Fourth of July weekend? Over the years, these items have become staples of the holiday. In 19th century America, however, the political ramifications of independence played a key role in Fourth of July observance.
Nowhere was the meaning of Independence Day stressed more than when abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass reminded the country that millions of Americans remained in bondage on Fourth of July 1852. How could the United States celebrate its freedom when it partook in slavery, Douglass asked during a speech delivered in Rochester, N.Y., on July 5, 1852.
"The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common," he pointed out. "The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. ...This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."ť
Surely, Douglass would be shocked to visit today's America and discover that the country is celebrating its first Fourth of July with a black president in the White House. While Douglass would likely be overwhelmed by such news, there's no disputing that issues of injustice continue to haunt America. For example, 55 years after the landmark Supreme Court case Brown vs. Board of Education mandated that schools integrate, urban schools remain largely populated by low-income black and Latino students. To boot, in the criminal justice system, ethnic minorities continue to be wrongfully convicted at alarming rates and face stiffer sentences than their white counterparts, a point Douglass raised in his speech. Moreover, people of color continue to experience greater rates of unemployment than whites, face housing discrimination and die at higher rates than whites from the same diseases.
As Fourth of July weekend winds down, put down the beer and barbecue, and take some time to reflect on what freedom is and which groups enjoy the most freedoms in America.
Supreme Court Splits on Reverse Discrimination Case
Tuesday June 30, 2009
In one of its most significant rulings on race this decade, the Supreme Court found June 29 that white firefighters denied promotions because their minority colleagues did not also qualify for advancement were discriminated against because of their race.
The case— Ricci v. DeStefano—dates back six years ago when the city of New Haven, Conn., scrapped a test that white firefighters reportedly passed at a 50 percent greater rate than blacks. Because performance on the test was the basis for promotion, none of the blacks in the department would have advanced had the city accepted the results, leaving New Haven vulnerable to a lawsuit. In making its decision, the city cited Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from using tests that have a “disparate impact” or disproportionately exclude applicants of certain races.
In a 5-4 ruling, however, the high court rejected New Haven’s reasoning, arguing that, “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
Legal analysts predict that the decision could generate a bevy of “disparate impact” lawsuits, as the court’s ruling makes it harder for employers to discard tests that adversely affect protected groups such as women and minorities. To prevent such lawsuits, employers will have to consider the impact a test may have on protected groups as it is being developed rather than after it’s been administered.
Not only does the outcome of Ricci v. DeStefano have bearing on employment and civil rights but also on President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Because Sotomayor ruled opposite of the court when the case came to her in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, her critics now have more ammunition to argue against her appointment to the court.
If Sotomayor is selected to sit on the court, she would be the first woman of color to hold that distinction. Sotomayor has Puerto Rican roots but grew up in the Bronx, N.Y.
The case— Ricci v. DeStefano—dates back six years ago when the city of New Haven, Conn., scrapped a test that white firefighters reportedly passed at a 50 percent greater rate than blacks. Because performance on the test was the basis for promotion, none of the blacks in the department would have advanced had the city accepted the results, leaving New Haven vulnerable to a lawsuit. In making its decision, the city cited Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from using tests that have a “disparate impact” or disproportionately exclude applicants of certain races.
In a 5-4 ruling, however, the high court rejected New Haven’s reasoning, arguing that, “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
Legal analysts predict that the decision could generate a bevy of “disparate impact” lawsuits, as the court’s ruling makes it harder for employers to discard tests that adversely affect protected groups such as women and minorities. To prevent such lawsuits, employers will have to consider the impact a test may have on protected groups as it is being developed rather than after it’s been administered.
Not only does the outcome of Ricci v. DeStefano have bearing on employment and civil rights but also on President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Because Sotomayor ruled opposite of the court when the case came to her in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, her critics now have more ammunition to argue against her appointment to the court.
If Sotomayor is selected to sit on the court, she would be the first woman of color to hold that distinction. Sotomayor has Puerto Rican roots but grew up in the Bronx, N.Y.
Michael Jackson: Race Relations Pioneer
Monday June 29, 2009
Michael Jackson’s sudden death at age 50 is no doubt tragic. As the world mourns the loss of the King of Pop, however, discussions are springing up about the singer’s contribution to race relations. To boot, conversations continue to take place about Mr. Jackson’s own feelings about his blackness. Did Jackson suffer from self-hatred, or is making such a blanket statement about the late superstar too simplistic?
In a piece called “Black Reverence for Jackson is Now Unreserved,” the New York Times explores how African Americans and other racial groups view the star in life and death as well as the possible impetus for Jackson’s series of highly visible cosmetic procedures. Meanwhile, CNN.com examines how Jackson was a race relations pioneer. After all, Jackson is widely credited with singlehandedly integrating MTV. In the early 1980s, videos featuring black recording artists were an anomaly on the music network.
Civil rights leaders the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson are also praising the singer’s role in race relations. Both ministers have asserted that Michael Jackson was such a social force that he paved the way for black luminaries such as Oprah Winfrey and President Barack Obama to win the hearts of mainstream America. That’s because, before Michael Jackson’s rise to superstardom, no African American had infiltrated as many households around the globe. Clearly, in addition to his talent, Jackson’s groundbreaking videos such as “Thriller” and “Billie Jean” are responsible for this.
Many believe that Jackson has no rival in the entertainment industry, but in the aftermath of his death, the media has consistently compared him to Elvis Presley . While there’s no doubt that Presley was a huge star, he didn’t reach audiences of the variety that Jackson did. Baby Boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials are fans of Jackson. What’s more is that Jackson—an African American from Gary, Ind., born just four years after the Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional—managed to win devotees as far as the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom and France.
Jackson didn’t simply cross racial barriers, he crossed national and linguistic barriers as well. He certainly earned the rank of world icon. What stands out about the King of Pop is that he achieved this feat simply by introducing the world to music and dancing that filled them with joy. Not only is that sentiment infectious but it knows no color.
Rest in peace, Michael Jackson.
In a piece called “Black Reverence for Jackson is Now Unreserved,” the New York Times explores how African Americans and other racial groups view the star in life and death as well as the possible impetus for Jackson’s series of highly visible cosmetic procedures. Meanwhile, CNN.com examines how Jackson was a race relations pioneer. After all, Jackson is widely credited with singlehandedly integrating MTV. In the early 1980s, videos featuring black recording artists were an anomaly on the music network.
Civil rights leaders the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson are also praising the singer’s role in race relations. Both ministers have asserted that Michael Jackson was such a social force that he paved the way for black luminaries such as Oprah Winfrey and President Barack Obama to win the hearts of mainstream America. That’s because, before Michael Jackson’s rise to superstardom, no African American had infiltrated as many households around the globe. Clearly, in addition to his talent, Jackson’s groundbreaking videos such as “Thriller” and “Billie Jean” are responsible for this.
Many believe that Jackson has no rival in the entertainment industry, but in the aftermath of his death, the media has consistently compared him to Elvis Presley . While there’s no doubt that Presley was a huge star, he didn’t reach audiences of the variety that Jackson did. Baby Boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials are fans of Jackson. What’s more is that Jackson—an African American from Gary, Ind., born just four years after the Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional—managed to win devotees as far as the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom and France.
Jackson didn’t simply cross racial barriers, he crossed national and linguistic barriers as well. He certainly earned the rank of world icon. What stands out about the King of Pop is that he achieved this feat simply by introducing the world to music and dancing that filled them with joy. Not only is that sentiment infectious but it knows no color.
Rest in peace, Michael Jackson.
New Poll Finds Blacks More Hopeful About Race Relations
Friday May 22, 2009
A new poll has found that during President Obama’s short time in office, he has positively influenced one of America’s thorniest issues—race.
Released April 27, the CBS/New York Times poll revealed that 66% of Americans considered race relations to be generally good, and that the percentage of blacks who agreed had doubled since last July.
“In just over 100 days, Mr. Obama’s presidency seems to have done much to alter the greater American public’s perception of race relations,” wrote Times reporter Susan Saulny in a May 2 article.
In light of the poll’s findings, the paper dispatched reporters in the West, East and Midwest to interview the public about race. They located an elderly black man surprised to be addressed as “sir” after the election, a 33-year-old black man from Florida who’d been invited out by his white colleagues for the first time, as well as whites who reported feeling more comfortable talking to people from other races after the election.
I have mixed feelings about the poll. That’s because it focuses on perception rather than reality. While blacks and whites may perceive an improvement in race relations, the facts suggest gaps that have traditionally existed between racial groups persist in the present. For instance, just a day after it released the poll findings, the Times reported that the achievement gap between white and minority students on federal tests hasn’t narrowed since the 1970s, despite George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind act. Black 17-year-olds scored 29 points lower in reading and 26 points lower in math than their white counterparts, according to the Times. This equals a difference of about two to three grade levels. Meanwhile on April 22, the Los Angeles Times cited a study which found that white boys outperformed ethnic minority groups and girls on California’s high school exit exam, resulting in them graduating in greater percentages.
Unfortunately, education isn’t the only area in which grave disparities remain between whites and people of color. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 8% of whites suffered unemployment in April 2009 compared to 15% of blacks. Such disparities endure even among white and black professionals. Take journalism, for example. On average, newsroom reporters are experiencing a drop in employment of 11.3%, according to a recent survey by the American Society of News Editors. But black and Asian reporters in newsrooms have experienced an employment decline of 13.6% and 13.4%, respectively.
Look up the rates of foreclosures, chronic illness and incarceration, and you’ll find that ethnic minorities fare worse than whites across the board. Accordingly, I’m not too heartened by the CBS/New York Times poll on perceptions of race relations. I’ll know that the nation has progressed in that area once the gaps in all sectors of life vanish between whites and ethnic minorities.
Released April 27, the CBS/New York Times poll revealed that 66% of Americans considered race relations to be generally good, and that the percentage of blacks who agreed had doubled since last July.
“In just over 100 days, Mr. Obama’s presidency seems to have done much to alter the greater American public’s perception of race relations,” wrote Times reporter Susan Saulny in a May 2 article.
In light of the poll’s findings, the paper dispatched reporters in the West, East and Midwest to interview the public about race. They located an elderly black man surprised to be addressed as “sir” after the election, a 33-year-old black man from Florida who’d been invited out by his white colleagues for the first time, as well as whites who reported feeling more comfortable talking to people from other races after the election.
I have mixed feelings about the poll. That’s because it focuses on perception rather than reality. While blacks and whites may perceive an improvement in race relations, the facts suggest gaps that have traditionally existed between racial groups persist in the present. For instance, just a day after it released the poll findings, the Times reported that the achievement gap between white and minority students on federal tests hasn’t narrowed since the 1970s, despite George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind act. Black 17-year-olds scored 29 points lower in reading and 26 points lower in math than their white counterparts, according to the Times. This equals a difference of about two to three grade levels. Meanwhile on April 22, the Los Angeles Times cited a study which found that white boys outperformed ethnic minority groups and girls on California’s high school exit exam, resulting in them graduating in greater percentages.
Unfortunately, education isn’t the only area in which grave disparities remain between whites and people of color. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 8% of whites suffered unemployment in April 2009 compared to 15% of blacks. Such disparities endure even among white and black professionals. Take journalism, for example. On average, newsroom reporters are experiencing a drop in employment of 11.3%, according to a recent survey by the American Society of News Editors. But black and Asian reporters in newsrooms have experienced an employment decline of 13.6% and 13.4%, respectively.
Look up the rates of foreclosures, chronic illness and incarceration, and you’ll find that ethnic minorities fare worse than whites across the board. Accordingly, I’m not too heartened by the CBS/New York Times poll on perceptions of race relations. I’ll know that the nation has progressed in that area once the gaps in all sectors of life vanish between whites and ethnic minorities.
Republicans Must Not Forget Kemp’s Minority Outreach
Friday May 22, 2009
As an undergrad and a graduate student, I had the privilege of studying at Occidental College—a school attended by President Barack Obama and the late congressman Jack Kemp. Obama may be a Democrat and Kemp a Republican, but their education at the Los Angeles liberal arts college no doubt left an indelible mark on their political philosophies.
Kemp, who died of cancer May 2 at age 73, distinguished himself by reaching out to people of color before and after his involvement in the GOP. As a professional football player in 1965, Kemp helped move the AFL all-star game out of New Orleans when black players encountered discrimination there, the New York Times reported. After he was appointed Housing and Urban Development secretary in 1989, Kemp met with black leaders and initiated the Affordable Housing Act. He continued his minority outreach as a 1996 vice-presidential candidate, helping the Republican Party increase the number of black votes it received in the election by two percent.
The Republican Party of today would be wise to remember Kemp by following his lead. In the 2008 presidential election, it lost 96% of the black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote, the Washington Post reported. Moreover, at last year’s Republican National Convention, just 36 of the estimated 2,000 delegates present were African American. The GOP is mistaken if it believes it can be a serious contender in future elections while alienating ethnic minorities.
Of course, the party has superstars such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and National Chairman Michael Steele. But the rise of two politicians of color in the party isn’t enough to win the minority vote. Republicans must not only visit neighborhoods, churches and schools filled with people of color, they must also advocate on behalf of minority communities.
“The GOP must emphasize by reaching out in a dramatic new way to people of color that it's truly a party of Lincoln—with inclusion, not exclusion, as its predicate,” Kemp told Occidental Magazine after Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.
Should the party choose to uphold Kemp’s legacy, it will make a concerted effort to adopt his philosophies on race and, by default, those of Abraham Lincoln, a personal hero of Obama, too. As an alumna of Occidental College, I’d like to think that studying at the liberal arts institution influenced Kemp’s concern for people of color. There, I received an education with a multicultural agenda which helped me to deconstruct matters of race, class and gender. I’m proud to have attended the college that helped shape the developing minds of two of America’s most memorable politicians.
Kemp, who died of cancer May 2 at age 73, distinguished himself by reaching out to people of color before and after his involvement in the GOP. As a professional football player in 1965, Kemp helped move the AFL all-star game out of New Orleans when black players encountered discrimination there, the New York Times reported. After he was appointed Housing and Urban Development secretary in 1989, Kemp met with black leaders and initiated the Affordable Housing Act. He continued his minority outreach as a 1996 vice-presidential candidate, helping the Republican Party increase the number of black votes it received in the election by two percent.
The Republican Party of today would be wise to remember Kemp by following his lead. In the 2008 presidential election, it lost 96% of the black vote and 67% of the Hispanic vote, the Washington Post reported. Moreover, at last year’s Republican National Convention, just 36 of the estimated 2,000 delegates present were African American. The GOP is mistaken if it believes it can be a serious contender in future elections while alienating ethnic minorities.
Of course, the party has superstars such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and National Chairman Michael Steele. But the rise of two politicians of color in the party isn’t enough to win the minority vote. Republicans must not only visit neighborhoods, churches and schools filled with people of color, they must also advocate on behalf of minority communities.
“The GOP must emphasize by reaching out in a dramatic new way to people of color that it's truly a party of Lincoln—with inclusion, not exclusion, as its predicate,” Kemp told Occidental Magazine after Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.
Should the party choose to uphold Kemp’s legacy, it will make a concerted effort to adopt his philosophies on race and, by default, those of Abraham Lincoln, a personal hero of Obama, too. As an alumna of Occidental College, I’d like to think that studying at the liberal arts institution influenced Kemp’s concern for people of color. There, I received an education with a multicultural agenda which helped me to deconstruct matters of race, class and gender. I’m proud to have attended the college that helped shape the developing minds of two of America’s most memorable politicians.
Swine Flu Commentary Turns Xenophobic
Friday May 22, 2009
Will the swine flu outbreak result in a wave of xenophobia towards Mexican immigrants? Recent remarks from political commentators suggest it might. Although President Obama said that it is unnecessary for the U.S. to seal the Mexican border because of the flu, conservative pundits Michelle Malkin and Michael Savage have argued for such a move. Unfortunately, they have cast Mexican immigrants as disease-carrying menaces in the process.
“I’ve blogged for years about the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the U.S. as a result of uncontrolled immigration,” wrote Fox News commentator Malkin in a blog post. “We’ve heard for years from reckless open-borders ideologues who continue to insist there’s nothing to worry about.”
Syndicated radio host Savage beat Malkin to the punch, announcing on the April 24 edition of his show, “I’m going to talk about the horrible, horrible story of illegal aliens bringing a deadly new flu strain into the United States of America. Make no mistake; illegal aliens are the carriers of the new strain of human-swine avian flu from Mexico."
The only mistake I see is the decision of Malkin and Savage to turn the swine flu crisis into a platform for xenophobia. Yes, the federal government has asked Americans to halt travel to Mexico, but not one public health official has linked the swine flu to immigration, legal or otherwise. On the contrary, U.S. meat company Smithfield has been implicated in the outbreak, which has infected 91 in the States and killed a toddler here. That’s because Smithfield operates a hog farm in Veracruz, Mexico, near the pandemic’s epicenter. Thus far, Smithfield has denied any involvement in spreading the virus.
Blaming undocumented immigrants for the pandemic smacks not only of xenophobia but of triteness as well. In the 14th century, Europeans blamed Jews—the newcomers among them—for the spread of the plague. Jews were again blamed for spreading disease in 1930s France. Much more recently, political conservatives drew links between undocumented immigrants and illnesses such as tuberculosis and leprosy in 2007, an unfounded claim.
Because immigrants have historically served as scapegoats for disease outbreaks, the swine flu shouldn’t be used as a vehicle to attack them now. Small pox, however, is one disease we know for sure that immigrants spread. Untold numbers of Native Americans perished after encountering settlers from Europe who gave them the disease, sometimes intentionally. Isn’t it convenient that Malkin and Savage neglect to reflect on this piece of history when discussing the perils of immigration to the U.S.?
“I’ve blogged for years about the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the U.S. as a result of uncontrolled immigration,” wrote Fox News commentator Malkin in a blog post. “We’ve heard for years from reckless open-borders ideologues who continue to insist there’s nothing to worry about.”
Syndicated radio host Savage beat Malkin to the punch, announcing on the April 24 edition of his show, “I’m going to talk about the horrible, horrible story of illegal aliens bringing a deadly new flu strain into the United States of America. Make no mistake; illegal aliens are the carriers of the new strain of human-swine avian flu from Mexico."
The only mistake I see is the decision of Malkin and Savage to turn the swine flu crisis into a platform for xenophobia. Yes, the federal government has asked Americans to halt travel to Mexico, but not one public health official has linked the swine flu to immigration, legal or otherwise. On the contrary, U.S. meat company Smithfield has been implicated in the outbreak, which has infected 91 in the States and killed a toddler here. That’s because Smithfield operates a hog farm in Veracruz, Mexico, near the pandemic’s epicenter. Thus far, Smithfield has denied any involvement in spreading the virus.
Blaming undocumented immigrants for the pandemic smacks not only of xenophobia but of triteness as well. In the 14th century, Europeans blamed Jews—the newcomers among them—for the spread of the plague. Jews were again blamed for spreading disease in 1930s France. Much more recently, political conservatives drew links between undocumented immigrants and illnesses such as tuberculosis and leprosy in 2007, an unfounded claim.
Because immigrants have historically served as scapegoats for disease outbreaks, the swine flu shouldn’t be used as a vehicle to attack them now. Small pox, however, is one disease we know for sure that immigrants spread. Untold numbers of Native Americans perished after encountering settlers from Europe who gave them the disease, sometimes intentionally. Isn’t it convenient that Malkin and Savage neglect to reflect on this piece of history when discussing the perils of immigration to the U.S.?
About
Thursday March 30, 2006
This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.