Friday, 31 July 2009

Boston Cop Gall Prof. Gates "Banana Eating Jungle Monkey", May be Fired

Officer's Ideation, Emotion and Behavior Point
Toward Extreme Color Arousal Disorder

A Boston, MA police officer, Justin L. Barrett, has been fired after writing an e-mail to a Boston Globe columnist in which he called Harvard University' Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a "banana-eating jungle monkey".  Harvard's Professor Gates is also founder of a blog at the Washington Post, called "The Root" that tackles Black and color-associated issues.

Last week, Barrett, the married father of a toddler, sent the e-mail to Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham in response to her July 21 piece about the arrest of Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Barrett criticized the column, which was sympathetic to Gates and said that Gates had behaved like a “banana-eating jungle monkey’’ when Cambridge police Sergeant James Crowley responded to his home for a report of a break-in. Gates was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct, a charge that was quickly dropped.

Barrett copied the e-mail to several friends and colleagues, including members of the National Guard, where he is a captain. On July 23, the National Guard learned of the e-mail and suspended Barrett pending an investigation to see whether he should be disciplined. He does not face military criminal charges, but the e-mail “violated Army values and policies,’’ said Major James Sahady, a spokesman for the National Guard.  The Boston Globe

Officer Barrett's expressed color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior has impaired his ability to function in many areas of his life, including:

  1. Harming his income and ability to support himself and his family;
  2. Harming his standing in the law enforcement field;
  3. Harming his ability to obtain public service work in the future;
  4. Effectively compelling the Massachusetts National Guard and Boston Police to seek his dismissal in order to avoid potential liability for ratifying his expressive behavior and allowing the creation of a hostile work environment for others.
  5. Jeopardizing his family relationships by taking color-aroused actions that harm his ability to support his family,

His behavior, even though only one instance of the behavior has come to light, nevertheless extremely impaired Officer Barrett's life and circumstances in several key areas of his life.  Therefore, it would be in the best self-interest of Officer Barrett to seek screening, diagnosis and treatment, if needed, for Extreme Color Aroused Disorder (ECAD).  Officer Barrett's behavior was inherently "extreme" because it predictably impaired him in various important areas of his life.  However, to be considered extreme and disabling for Social Security Disability purposes, it would have to last six months or more. 

I would not call officer Barrrett a "racist", because:

(a) The US Government's Human Genome Project has proved that "race" does not exist, and it is therefore impossible for Officer Barrett to hate others based on their "race", and

(b) derogatory layman labels without specific diagnosis criteria and treatment options will not help Officer Barrett, his family, his community, or our country.

Moreover, diagnosing a mental disorder requires competent screening and evaluation by a professional, including a review of past medical and psychiatric records, interviews with the patient, discussions with family members, use of standardized psychiatric assessment tools, etc.  Psychiatrists are the professionals who are competent to diagnose mental disorders, not activists, employers, newspaper columnists and members of the public.

And yet all of these laymen have a right to point out behavior that is considered symptomatic of Extreme Color Aroused Disorder and to recommend or require that a person be professionally evaluated before the illness progresses into more serious and even life-threatening behavior.

That said, Officer Barrett's case shows that while one instance of color-aroused behavior may not be sufficient to diagnose a chronic disability for Social Security Disability purposes, which requires six months of disability, still one instance of color-aroused behavior may be sufficient to impair a sufferers life profoundly and in ways that cannnot be undone.

Therefore, it is in the officer's best interest to seek screening, diagnosis and (if indicated) treatment for Extreme Color Aroused Disorder BEFORE the behavior he demonstrated that caused him to lose two jobs simultaneously and to be publicly disavowed by the Boston Police Department escalates into behavior that violates criminal laws, or behavior that might make him liable in civil action, further harming the economic situation of himself and his family.

Yesterday, Boston police held a press conference at headquarters, inviting dozens of black community leaders and members of the police command staff to stand with Commissioner Edward F. Davis as he denounced Barrett’s comments, announced he had moved to fire the officer of two years, and promised a sweeping investigation that would try to uncover whether other officers responded to the e-mail and agreed.  Boston Globe
If such a response by one's employers and members of the community are not enough to warrant a psychaitric evaluation for color-aroused disorder, it would be hard to think of anything (except color-aroused murder) that would be sufficient to show the need for such an evaluation.

Wednesday, 29 July 2009

Cambridge Police Caught "Testilying"in Gates-gate Police Report

The Cambridge Police Department has changed its story twice regarding where they got the information that the two people on Henry Louis Gates, Jr's porch were Blacks. First they said the information came from a 911 call made my Lucia Whalen, a neighbor. But the audio tape of the call proves that the caller never mentioned the skin color of the 2 people on Professor Gates' porch.

When that claim was proved to be false, Office James Crowley changed his story and said that Lucia Whalen had told him in a conversation before Crowley's encounter with Gates that twho Black men were on Gates porch. However, Lucia Whalen says she never told the officer any such thing. Needless to say, if Officer Crowley seeks to rely on Lucia Whalen during his rumored civil suit against Gates for Gates calling Crowley a "racist," it will become apparent in any such trial that Officer Crowley's testimony directly contradicts the 911 tape and the statements of the witness after the fact.

So, who is telling the truth, Crowley or Whalen? The fact that this cannot be determined will make any defamation suit by Crowley an embarrassment to him, his colleagues and the City of Cambridge.

The risk remains that Crowley played fast and lose with the truth in order to implicate two men in association with the color of their skin. If "racist" means "engaging in behavior that's aroused by emotions and ideation associated with the color of someone's skin, it seems apparent that Officer Crowley had some "two Black men" ideation and report writing behavior that he tried to attribute to a witness but that actually came entirely out of Officer Crowley's ideation.

Cambridge police Commissioner Robert Haas acknowledged that the police report contains a reference to race, but said the report is merely a summary of events. The arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, has said his information on the race of the suspects came during a brief encounter with Whalen outside Gates' house; she contradicted that Wednesday, saying she made no such description.

The arrest of Gates for disorderly conduct in his own home by a white police officer sparked a national debate over racial profiling and police conduct. The controversy intensified when President Obama said police "acted stupidly" when they arrested Gates, his friend.

Gates has said he was outraged and has demanded an apology from Crowley; Crowley said he followed protocol and responded to Gates' "tumultuous behavior" appropriately. WaPost

Is the skin color of a person suspected of a crime relevant? If so, then how can America ever expect to become a "color-blind society" when skin color is an essential part of defendants' identification and when others' reactions to defendants' that skin color remains central to the results and resolution criminal cases?

The United States of America cannot and will not become a color-blind society until and unless police stop using skin color as a partial means of identifying suspects. And since skin color is one of the most obvious physical features of human beings, we can just forget about "color-blind society" right now. It's an unworkable fantasy.

What we can do is work toward the day when Americans' perception of the skin color of a person's brown skin will not automatically lead to the ideation that the person must be guilty of something. We can work toward the day when the mere perception of anothers' white skin color will not be considered de facto evidence of the white person's innocence. We need to reach that place where perception of brown skin does not lead police officers into an angry determination to arrest and convict that person of something - anything - based on the color of their skin.

Tuesday, 28 July 2009

Can Blacks be "Racist" or Color-Aroused?

Photobucket

Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and President Bill Clinton

First posted at NowPublic.Com.

The afrosphere is very much abuzz with conversation about the arrest and release without charges of Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. by the Cambridge Police Department. But, there are those who this incident will be quickly forgotten and things will go back to the way they were before.

One of the main points that I would hope people would learn from this is that police treatment of Blacks depends on the the color of the "suspect" and NOT on the color of the officer. There is impunity for treating Blacks like "nigras" and that impunity is just as real regardless of the color of the police officer.

Photobucket


I suspect that Black officers face no extra reaction against them from "their community" when they participate in color-aroused abuse of Blacks because Black officer's most immediate "community" is the police department.

At one time, Blacks believed and whites feared that more Black cops would make a police force more understanding of Black people. But I think we (and whites) should have learned by now that, regardless of the skin color of the officer, one significant ROLE and objective of the police officer in society vis a vis Blacks is the same - repression and humiliation.

Meanwhile the risk any officer runs by engaging in this abusive and repressive behavior is the same regardless the skin color of the officer. They act with near absolute impunity. I'll use an economic analogy. When the price of tomatoes goes down, both Black and white people buy more tomatoes, because the impetus to purchase doesn't depend on the skin color of the customer, but on the price of the tomatoes. The "price" of abusing Black people is still nil, and it's still far less than the price of abusing white people under similar circumstances.

Black and white and Latino officers know this and they act accordingly. In fact society rewards them (with continued employment, raises and promotions) for abusing Black people.
The Gates situation is a perfect example. There were Black police and white police on the scene and they all behaved like . . . police, in their role as repressor and humiliator of Blacks.

Some people say that because Black police participated, the situation cannot have occurred because of "race". They make this mistake first because they believe that skin color naturally binds people into a "race" that will all act and think in the same ways, while science has long since discovered that "race" does not exist and it never did.

People also focus on the skin color (what they call "race") of the officer, which is irrelevant to the potential for punishment of the officer.

One of the reasons it is important that we abandon this concept of "race" is that the belief in "race" causes us to make other fundamental intellectual errors, such as the idea that "because they are from the same 'race' " there can be no "racism" in the interaction. However, everyone's treatment of everyone in American society can be color-aroused, color-motivated, color-determined, regardless of the skin color of the parties in question, be they the same or different.

That's what we should learn from Gates-gate; each interaction needs to be studied with no prejudgments to determine the role that skin color plays in the participants' treatment of one another.

Saturday, 25 July 2009

References to "Race" Create Nearly Insurmoutable Barrier to Resolving Isssues of Skin Color

Posted first at NowPublic.Com.

Since the arrest of Harvard Professor John Lewis Gates, Jr., and the discussion of the arrest by President Barack Obama, the entire nation has been discussing matters of skin color. The assumptions that I bring to all discussions about skin color in America are these:

  • "Race" does not exist as a matter of biology and it never did. The concept was invented at a time when DNA had not even been discovered, much less understood. Now, the Federal Government's mapping of the entire human genome under the auspices of the Human Genome Project has shown that:
"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."Human Genome Project

In other words, the Human Genome Project has proven that, as a matter of scientific fact, that which we call "race" does not exist as a matter of biology, and so all references to "race" are references to a fallacy. American Journal of Color Arousal.

  • Anyone who continues to make references to "race", "racial", "racism" and "racist" is stuck in a mindset that was formed before empirical science could be brought to bear on the topic of skin color, because empirical science has recently proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that, as a matter of biology, "race" does not exist and it never did.
  • The belief that people with white skin and people with brown skin are from different "races" is one of the fundamental building blocks of our color-aroused attitudes.
  • The belief that our skin color makes us fundamentally different, biologically and otherwise, perpetuates and reinforces the arguments, debates and ideological differences between us, if only because the belief in the biological existence of "race" creates an "us" and "them" mentality.
  • We will never, ever get beyond issues of "race" for so long as we believe that our difference in skin color make us fundamentally different, biologically and otherwise.
  • The belief that "race" exists long after science has proved that it does not is a delusional belief, and people who believe in and act upon delusional beliefs, particularly in making important decisions, are to some degree mentally disordered. There are many examples of this mentally disordered delusional belief system being so strong in individuals that they murder others and then commit suicide. Hitler is an example of someone who believed,or at least disseminated the belief, that separate races existed and that they were fundamentally different. Doug Williams, who killed several of his white and brown-skinned co-workers because he opposed "race mixing" is another example.
  • Many people in the United States of America and in many other countries, regardless of skin color, have ideation, emotion and behavior that is aroused by skin color. While this does not always rise to the level of a mental disorder, some people who have have extreme color-aroused thoughts, emotions and behavior suffer from a mental illness called Extreme Color-Aroused Disorder that is defined as "color-aroused ideation, emotions and behavior so extreme that they make a person unable to function in one or more areas of life. Read about Doug Williams (mentioned above) and see if he does not meet this definition. Can you think of other examples of people within your own experience whose color aroused ideation, emotion and behavior has been so extreme as to separate them from family members, co-workers, supervisors, employment, social interaction, business opportunities. For example, do you know of parents who have broken off relationships with their children because their children chose to marry people whose skin color was darker or lighter?
  • Although there are many examples of people who have gotten in trouble with the law because of their color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior (hate crimes, illegally denying others access to a swimming pool based on skin color), there are very few psychiatrists and psychologists who recognize the harm that color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior can cause to individuals and their families. As a result, many people with color-aroused illness as severe as that of Doug Williams never receive the treatment they need, and so they suffer needlessly as a result.
  • As the American Psychiatric Association has observed, "Most studies and other scholarly discourse on the topics of racism, racial intolerance, and xenophobia have focused on the victim, with particular attention given to the impact acts of racial aggression have had on their lives. Contemporaryscholarship in this area has increasinglyfocused on the strengths, growth, and healing of the survivor. The study of perpetrators as individuals or groups who engage in these forms of aggressive experiences have received less, though significant, attention in the literature. Considerably less attention has been devoted to studying the immediate and extended families of the victim, particularly the emotional, psychological and sometimes physiological aftermath that now challenges their lives."
    Page 1
    Justification Statement
    Resolution on Racism and Racial Discrimination:
    A Policy Statement in Support of the goals of
    The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
    Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
  • When we recognize that even the American Psychiatric Association continues to use the words "race", "racism" and "racial" even after their fellow scientists have proved that these terms are scientifically meaningless, we begin to understand the long road America and other nations will have to travel to overcome the misinformed or delusional belief in "race."
  • Because we continue to use the word and concept of "race" ubiquitously even after science has proven that "race" does not exist, our very vocabulary representing our concepts for discussing and understanding issues of skin color poses a potentially insurmountable barrier to overcoming these issues.
  • For psychologists and other mental health workers, a fundamental part of cognitive behavioral therapy is helping the client to identify distorted and unrealistic beliefs of the client, reality-checking them, and helping the client to adopt beliefs that are more in keeping with reality and more likely to lead to successful social, familial and professional interaction. The belief that "race" exists, which is evident in our constant use of the term, is one of the distorted and unrealistic beliefs that prevents us from overcoming acrimony associated with skin color.
  • Believing that skin color equals "race" is an example of "overinterpreting" (exaggerating) the significance of what we perceive when we perceive the skin color of ourselves and others.
Just as we cannot cure cancer until we understand it better, and apply what we have understood, we will not resolve arguments over skin color until we acknowledge the simple fact that we ARE arguing about skin color, which exists, and not "race" which does not exist. Until we APPLY our knowledge that race does not exist by ridding ourselves of false concepts premised upon the existence of "race", it is unlikely that we will simplify the problem of color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior enough to understand it and to resolve our disagreements about it.

Friday, 24 July 2009

President Obama Whacks Beehive While Defending Professor Gates

A couple of days ago, President Barack Obama whacked a beehive of public opinion on which Black and white voters often disagree by twenty points or more: the degree to which skin color of suspects determines the behavior of police in the United Staes of America. As I said over at The Francis L. Holland Blog,

In my opinion, the officer in Cambridge would not have arrested Professor Gates under the circumstances unless he was Black. If Professor Gates were white, the neighbors would have recognized him and would not have called the police, the police would not have assumed that two people trying to open a door were thieves, and once they realized that they were not thieves the police would have apologized profusely, knowing that such a powerful and well-known citizen had it within his power to ruin the policeman's career.

However, Professor Gates is a Black man and each moment of his arrest involved color-aroused thinking by others and perhaps even by Professor Gates himself. Perhaps Professor Gates' anger came from a lifetime of being treated this way in smaller acts of micro-agression, or perhaps his anger came from his unrealistic belief that being "important" would protect him from being treated as Black men are generally treated by police officers.

What many Blacks apparently have been saying in comments at blogs is that Professor Gates should have followed the unwritten law that Blacks are not allowed to ask police officers for the their names or badge numbers, because Blacks have no rights that America's police officers are bound to respect.

If you ask for a police officer's name and badge number you are effectively asserting that you have rights that you intend to vindicate. Since police officers consider that idea unrealistic, unreasonable and absurd when it comes from Black people, police arrest Blacks who make that ridiculous request. Yes, America's police departments are the largest last refuge of Dred Scott, that heinous US ante-bellum Supreme Court decision that said, a "negro has no rights that a white man is bound to respect."

Of course, most people whose skin is white have no personal experience of this because the police don't treat white people the way they treat Black people. But many whites who have Black friends can recount an experience where a police officer stopped a white driver and asked for the identification not of the white driver but of the Black person sitting in the back seat.

As I said at the Francis L.Holland Blog,

If Professor Gates had closed his front door and not asked the police officer for his name and badge number (something Gates had a perfect legal (but not realistic) right to request), than Gates might not have been arrested. But everyone knows that Blacks are supposed to shuck and jive and say "Yes, sir, no sir" to police when whites wouldn't do anything of the sort. The old saying (adapted) goes:

"What do you call a nigra who is an internationally known professor at the world's most emminent university and who is also founder of a blog called The Root at one of the country's foremost newspapers, the Washington Post, and which nigra's lawyer (Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree) is a mentor and close friend of the President of the United States? Why, you call that man a "nigra", of course.
There is nothing that a Black person can achieve, do, own or possess that can change his status as a "nigra" in the eyes of America's police. What this Gates case shows is that no matter how much money a Black person has no matter how many degrees he has from emminent universities, and even if you are a friend of a friend of the President of the United States, nonetheless when the police come to your house they're going to treat you like any other "nigra." And if you expect to be treated differently for any reason whatsoever, then you are just being "uppity" and that's even more reason to give you the "nigra" treatment.

To the degree that middle and upper middle class Blacks are treated differently, it is not because the police show them more respect out of regard for our achievements. It is because we are more willing to behave like obedient nigras in the presence of police than are our "bad nigra" brothers and sisters whose have never attended majority white universities, never worked alongside whites, and have never learned or been willing to treat whites with deference. Some of us are willing to step off of the sidewalk to let white policemen pass and others of us are not.

Barack Obama was wrong to say this policeman acted "stupidly". He should have said, "This police officer seems to have behaved in a manner that was aroused by the skin color of Professor Gates, and that's something that no one should accept in the United States of America or anywhere else."

Now, President Obama is backtracking and giving the white police officer credit for being an intelligent and well-meaning person as well as giving Professor Gates the same credit. While this approach may be a more effective way of bringing white people to the table with Blacks than is saying that a white police "acted stupidly", the truth is that if this officer always arrests Blacks who ask for his name and badge number, then this officer is a color-aroused menace who should not be a member of the Cambridge Police Department.

Monday, 13 July 2009

Anti-Sotomayor Arguments Die in Fires of Reason and Demographics

Photobucket


Republican Arguments Against Sotomayor
Founder on the Shoals of Reason and Demographics,

Says Petition

At present the US Supreme Court is 78% white male while the United States overall is approximately 30% white male. White male Republican senators would have us believe that it is bad and wrong to assert, as Judge Sotomayor has, that an integrated court is better than an all-white-male one. In fact, they would have us believe that since white males can make adequate decisions for everyone, there is therefore no need for integration of the courts or of any other aspect of American life. That is the silly and envidious proposition with which they hope to convince us to dislike Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

I suspect these senators are so accustomed to their status as white males that they don't even begin to grasp how they sound to the 70% of America that does not consist of white males and that historically has been excluded from voting, jobs, promotions and even swimming pools simply on the basis of gender (being female) and/or skin color (having other than white skin)..

Republican arguments against Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the US Supreme Court are inevitably foundering on the shoals of changed demographics and a changed political background as concerns gender, skin color and ethnicity. As I argued on April 25, 2007, "Anger and Disgust at White Male Leadership Fuel[ed] Contributions and Polling of Clinton, Obama." Americans simply are no longer willing to believe in the "The Superhuman White Man Myth", that white men, acting alone, can make decisions for everyone that are in everyone's best interests.

This is particularly so at a time when our economy has been devastated by the decisions of greedy white men. Even white men don't automatically and preferentially trust white men anymore. The white men who held the presidency and the vice presidency from 2001 until 2009 conclusively proved that, in spite of all of the propaganda to the contrary, white men are not, in and of themselves, inherently able to govern effectively by virtue of their white maleness, to the exclusion of others, even though "The Strongest American Myth Historically [was] the Superhuman White Man Myth".

Meanwhile "firsts" do matter in American politics because they are a reflection of the progress that a given group has made politically and a recognition of the contributions the group has made to American society. When Jim Sessions argues effectively that firsts don't matter, and that an integrated court is irrelevant, he argues against the heartfelt aspirations of Latinos, Blacks and women, who are the majority of the nations voters. "Jackie Robinson and the Enduring Importance of Firsts."

When Sonia Sotomayor says that she believes the experience of a wise someone other than a white man can contribute to better decisions than an all-white male court would make, there is a majority of American voters who already came to that conclusion when they compared Senators Barack Obama and John Sydney McCain. White men simply are not capable of acting alone and creating a just and productive world for everyone. The mere fact that they would try (or pretend to try in the face of all evidence to the contrary) is evidence that they are incapable of doing so. "An All White Male Government Cannot and Will Not Represent the Needs of Women and Minorities"

Senator Barack Obama never argued in his campaign for the presidency that they mere fact that he is Black would lead to better decision-making. What he argued was that the particular blend of experiences that he brought to the table would do more for the country than those of his [white] competitors. The majority of the electorate agreed with him, both as between him, Hillary and Edwards, and as between Obama and John McCain. Almost half of the nation did not agree, and the 30% who have no respect for women, Blacks and Latinos, many of whom are white men, are the ones toward whom the Republicans are aiming their arguments right now.

The Republicans are in a losing demographic battle. There is no way they will convince women in the abstract that an all-white-male court (or the present 78% white male court) can make decisions about women's reproductive rights as well as a court with female representation would. How can men who have never been pregnant, never will be pregnant, never risked getting pregnant and never menstruated possibly have sufficient personal experience to make the most intimate decisions about how women will confront and cope with these challenges? E.M. Debates F.L.H: Does a "First" Black or Female President Change the Status Quo? There are times in the life of a court where knowledge of the real world, from various points of view, is crucial to wise decision-making.

Anyone who believes that men can study up on this matter and understand women is someone who has never actually intimately known a woman and tried to understand her point of view, only to mostly grasp it in the abstract but still disagree with it in practice.

Lacking any better arguments to make against Sotomayor, the Republican men are arguing the following: an all white male court could and would make decisions just as well as an integrated court would, and the allwhite-maleness ofCourts past has never affected their decision-making. This flies in the face of all reason. Would slavery have continued until 1865 if the US Supreme Court had a couple of Black members and half of the Court had been women. Would it have taken women until 1922 to gain the right to vote if the US Supreme Court had been half female from the beginning? Could Dred Scott have been decided as it was with even one Black member of the Court?

The Republicans express false outrage at Sotomayor's insistence that the nation's governance is better when Latinos are included. But Republican's silly insistence that white men alone is a viable alternative is only going to make sense to people who never would have voted for a Black or Latino person anyway. Republicans are preaching to an increasingly little choir while alienating the rest of the church.

Republican Arguments Against Sotomayor Founder on the Shoals of Reason and Demographics

Republican arguments against Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the US Supreme Court are inevitably foundering on the shoals of changed demographics and a changed political background as concerns gender, skin color and ethnicity. As I argued on April 25, 2007, "Anger and Disgust at White Male Leadership Fuel[ed] Contributions and Polling of Clinton, Obama." Americans simply are no longer willing to believe in the "The Superhuman White Man Myth", that white men, acting alone, can make decisions for everyone that are in everyone's best interests.

This is particularly so at a time when our economy has been devastated by the decisions of greedy white men. Even white men don't automatically trust white men more anymore. The white men who held the presidency and the vice presidency from 2001 until 2009 conclusively proved that, in spite of all of the propaganda to the contrary, white men are not, in and of themselves, inherently able to govern effectively by virtue of their white maleness, even though "The Strongest American Myth Historically [was] the Superhuman White Man Myth"

Meanwhile "firsts" do matter in American politics because they are a reflection of the progress that a given group has made politically and a recognition of the contributions the group has made to American society. When Jim Sessions argues effectively that firsts don't matter, and that an integrated court is irrelevant, he argues against the heartfelt aspirations of Latinos, Blacks and women, who are the majority of the nations voters. "Jackie Robinson and the Enduring Importance of Firsts."

When Sonia Sotomayor says that she believes the experience of a wise someone other than a white man can contribute to better decisions than an all-white male court would make, there is a majority of American voters who already came to that conclusion when they compared Senators Barack Obama and John Sydney McCain. White men simply are not capable of acting alone and creating a just and productive world for everyone. The mere fact that they would try (or pretend to try in the face of all evidence to the contrary) is evidence that they are incapable of doing so. "An All White Male Government Cannot and Will Not Represent the Needs of Women and Minorities"

Senator Barack Obama never argued in his campaign for the presidency that they mere fact that he is Black would lead to better decision-making. What he argued was that the particular blend of experiences that he brought to the table would do more for the country than those of his [white] competitors. The majority of the electorate agreed with him, both as between him, Hillary and Edwards, and as between Obama and John McCain. Almost half of the nation did not agree, and the 30% who have no respect for women, Blacks and Latinos, many of whom are white men, are the ones toward whom the Republicans are aiming their arguments right now.

The Republicans are in a losing demographic battle. There is no way they will convince women in the abstract that an all-white-male court (or the present 78% white male court) can make decisions about women's reproductive rights as well as a court with female representation would. How can men who have never been pregnant, never will be pregnant, never risked getting pregnant and never menstruated possibly have sufficient personal experience to make the most intimate decisions about how women will confront and cope with these challenges? E.M. Debates F.L.H: Does a "First" Black or Female President Change the Status Quo? There are times in the life of a court where knowledge of the real world, from various points of view, is crucial to wise decision-making.

Anyone who believes that men can study up on this matter and understand women is someone who has never actually intimately known a woman and tried to understand her point of view, only to mostly grasp it in the abstract but still disagree with it in practice.

Lacking any better arguments to make against Sotomayor, the Republican men are arguing the following: an all white male court could and would make decisions just as well as an integrated court would, and the allwhite-maleness ofCourts past has never affected their decision-making. This flies in the face of all reason. Would slavery have continued until 1865 if the US Supreme Court had a couple of Black members and half of the Court had been women. Would it have taken women until 1922 to gain the right to vote if the US Supreme Court had been half female from the beginning? Could Dred Scott have been decided as it was with even one Black member of the Court?

The Republicans express false outrage at Sotomayor's insistence that the nation's governance is better when Latinos are included. But Republican's silly insistence that white men alone is a viable alternative is only going to make sense to people who never would have voted for a Black or Latino person anyway. Republicans are preaching to an increasingly little choir while alienating the rest of the church.

Boeing Commercial Exemplary of Color and Gender Inclusiveness

Photobucket

This Boeing commercial has more Black models than the US Senate has Black senators.


The above screenshot from a Boeing commercial aired on MSNBC is an excellent example of what corporations do when they want to be inclusive of all of their potential clients and avoid excluding, offending and insulting potential clients. Boeing's ad agency apparently continues to be Foote, Cone, & Belding in Chicago.

Wise corporations understand that their commercials are also seen by voters, members of Congress and the the nation's executive, which are increasingly more likely to minorities who want and demand that members of their groups be included in all levels of corporate life, including their television commercials.


Boeing Connecting - Forever New Frontiers - Click here for the most popular videos

Boeing in this case shows how an inclusive commercial should be made. Other corporations that ignore and insult minorities and the female majority of the nation will increasingly find that gender and color and ethnic apartheid are not accepted or tolerated anymore.

Particularly when compared with the infamous color-aroused Intel advertisement of 2007, this commercial is certainly an advance in the right direction. I don't know who made Intel's deeply offensive advertisement, but Intel should consider going with Foote, Cone, & Belding in Chicago. With a Black president and a female secretary of state, presenting white men as slave drivers of the oppressed is definitely "out" while diversity is "in."

Sunday, 12 July 2009

What is "Color Arousal" and What Treatments are Available?

Cross-posted at Now Public as a response to a request for an explanation of color arousal posted in the comments at my article there entitled, "Malia O., President Obama's Daughter, Frees Her African Hair"

A Mississippi factory employee who had allegedly threatened black co-workers shot and killed five people yesterday at the aircraft parts plant where he worked, wounding eight others before committing suicide, authorities said. WaPost July 9, 2003, via GenocideWatch.Org.

In response to an article I posted today entitled, "Malia O., President Obama's Daughter, Frees Her African Hair", one reader asked me to define and explain the term "color-arousal". Since the definition and examples are longer than the comment format allows, they are posted here as a separate article.

Alvin F. Pouissant, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, says that the condition he refers to as "racism" constitutes a mental illness if it is sufficiently severe.

Most people understand what has been called "racism" as something that his harmful to minorities subjected to "racist" treatment. The American Psychiatric Association says, however,

Most studies and other scholarly discourse on the topics of racism, racial intolerance, and xenophobia have focused on the victim, with particular attention given to the impact acts of racial aggression have had on their lives. Contemporaryscholarship in this area has increasinglyfocused on the strengths, growth, and healing of the survivor. The study of perpetrators as individuals or groups who engage in these forms of aggressive experiences have received less, though significant, attention in the literature. Considerably less attention has been devoted to studying the immediate and extended families of the victim, particularly the emotional, psychological and sometimes physiological aftermath that now challenges their lives
Page 1
Justification Statement
Resolution on Racism and Racial Discrimination:
A Policy Statement in Support of the goals of
The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

To explain color arousal, I will use the analogy of sexual arousal and discuss how the two types of arousal are similar but also fundamentally different. Then we'll take a look at the harmful ways in which Extreme Color-Aroused Disorder (ECAD) can harm or destroy the lives of the lives of those who suffer with ECAD as well as their loved ones and others around them..

When we look at a person of the opposite sex (or the same sex, depending on our orientation) and feel attraction and sexual stimulation, a number of ideational, emotional and physiological events occur within us of which we are hardly aware or sometimes completely unaware. We match that person with our idea of what an attractive person looks like, and we think positively or negatively depending on our outlook and depending on what we see.

If we feel a strong attraction, our heart rates may increase, blood may rush to our nipples or penises, and we may feel tempted to make an effort to sexually interact with the object of our desire (or flee from the object of our repulsion).

Some of what happens when human beings become sexually aroused is hardwired in us, occurring in the most ancient parts of our lymbic systems, while other parts of our reactions are the result of our cultural conditioning, e.g. "What will people think if a date a person who is from a lower economic class than myself?" "That car is expensive and sexy, and my friends will envy me if they see me with him/her"

With color arousal, there is one component that is hardwired in us, which is our ability to distinguish one color from another. If we could not distinguish color, we might not be able to distinguish a ripe orange from a small and unripe grapefruit. Even people who are color-blind are able to distinguish the color "black" from the color "white". If they couldn't see hues and also could not distinguish black from white, then their eyes would not "see" anything at all. They would literally be blind.

Perceiving colors is a natural and useful ability with which we are born. This is the “nature” part of color arousal, as between “nature and nurture” However, the thoughts (or ideation) that are aroused in our brains simply upon the perception of the skin color of ourselves and others are entirely the result of societal training, “nurture”, not "nature.".

A simple empirical experiment proves that our reactions to skin color are not hardwired but are learned. If you go to a supermarket or mall and observe toddlers, you will notice that once they see each other they are intensely interested in each other, regardless of skin color. Given time, they will often approach each other and engage in games. Even hiding behind daddy’s leg and peeking out at the other is a game, called “Peekaboo”. At this age, they are unaware of the many meanings which will be ascribed to skin color as their cultural training “progresses”.

By the time children are ten years old, they have learned have ingrained ideation about others that is aroused simply by perceiving the skin color of others. They learn this ideation from their families, from television, from the fact that the schools they attend are mostly segregated, and even from newspapers that capitalize the word “Jew” but have a hard and fast policy against capitalizing the group name “Black”. This intense and complicated group of thoughts and ideas is the ideational component of color-arousal.

However, anyone who has ever imagined that their mate is cheating on them, or that mommy has given someone else the larger piece of cake, knows that thoughts often lead directly to emotions. It is virtually impossible to believe that someone has harmed you or might harm you without at least initially feeling anger or fear. What we believe determines, at least to initially and to a large degree, what we will subsequently feel. Virtually everyone in America has at least some ideation aroused by the perception of skin color of themselves and others which, to one degree or another, leads to emotions.

Just as we are tempted by sexual attraction to act on our emotions and thoughts, even when it would be inappropriate to do so according to the dominant rules of our culture, (e.g. endeavoring to have sex with a niece or to our best friend’s fiancée), many of us also have strong ideation that leads to strong emotion aroused simply by perceiving the skin color of another person. (E.g., “He has white skin (perception of skin color) and so he will not accept my job application (color-aroused ideation), that MF (color-aroused emotion), I’ll punch him in his mouth!” (temptation to illegal color-aroused behavior).

And yet, we know by the number of hate crime complaints recorded by state and federal governments each year that this pattern of ideation, emotion and then behavior plays itself out all over America, every day of the week. (We must also keep in mind that hate crime complaints are usually filed only when illegal aggression is coupled with words expressing hate or animosity toward a particular group. Most people who feel animosity toward others based on their skin color are able to control themselves sufficiently so as not to express color-aroused animosity while simultaneously engaging in an otherwise illegal act, and so it is likely that most hate crimes are not prosecuted as such.)

Not all color arousal constitutes a serious mental disorder, but some does. Take for example the case of Doug Williams, a Lockheed employee who constantly and angrily confronted white and Black co-workers who showed friendship for one another; was physically aggressive at work even after being warned by his supervisors; and failed to change his behavior even after several official interventions.

A Mississippi factory employee who had allegedly threatened black co-workers shot and killed five people yesterday at the aircraft parts plant where he worked, wounding eight others before committing suicide, authorities said.

Workers ran for the exits as the gunman, identified as Doug Williams, walked through the Lockheed Martin plant firing a 12-gauge shotgun at them shortly before 10 a.m., Lauderdale County Sheriff Billy Sollie said. Williams had stepped away from a workplace ethics training session only minutes before. He returned with a semiautomatic rifle, which he did not fire, and the shotgun that he turned on employees at their work stations, authorities said.

The death toll at the military aircraft parts plant outside Meridian, Miss., was the largest in a U.S. workplace rampage since late 2000, and it chilled this city of 40,000, which bills itself as the safest in the state. Washington Post via GenocideWatch.Org.

One morning, when Doug Williams arrived at a sensitivity training that was mandated because of his behavior, he went out to his vehicle, returned with a gun, and shot and killed several of his co-workers while leaving others critically wounded.

Doug Williams had color-aroused ideation (Blacks and whites ought not associate with one another and should be severely rebuked if they violate this rule) and he constantly showed color-aroused anger at work, as well as explicitly color-aroused behavior, and finally he engaged in a color-aroused murder-suicide.

If anyone ever had an extreme mental disorder, it was Doug Williams. His mental disorder harmed not merely others, but also threatened his job, his income, his reputation, and finally led to him ending his own life. His mental disorder was “extreme color-aroused disorder” (ECAD). Had he been referred to a psychiatrist competent in diagnosing and treating ECAD, the psychiatrist might have recommended that Mr. Williams take a different job in the plant, where he would spend more time alone and less time in bichromatic interactions that set him off.

Let us discuss “dangerousness” in the context of color-arousal, using Doug Williams' color-aroused ideation in response to bi-chromatic couples as an example along the spectrum of dangerousness in color-arousal. In Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults, the American Psychiatric Association says, in a paragraph entitled “MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION,”

The purpose of the mental status examination is to obtain evidence of symptoms and signs of mental disorders, including dangerousness to self and others, that are present at the time of the interview. Further, evidence is obtained regarding the patient’s insight, judgment, and capacity for abstract reasoning to inform decisions about treatment strategy and the choice of an appropriate treatment setting. Thus, the mental status examination is a systematic collection of data based on observation of the patient’s behavior while the patient is in the psychiatrist’s view during, before, and after the interview. During the mental status examination, the patient might also mention past symptoms and signs, but these should be recorded under the history of the present illness.

Responses to specific questions are an important part of the mental status examination (71, 72), particularly in the assessment of cognition. Consequently, in recording the findings of the mental status examination, it is useful to include examples that illustrate the clinical observations. For example, it would be preferable to note that the patient exhibited poor judgment in precipitously attempting to remove his intravenous line rather than simply describing the patient’s judgment as impaired. Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults.

Certainly, had Doug Williams seen a psychiatrist, and had the psychiatrist known that Mr. Williams had a gun and an intention to use it, the psychiatrist would NEVER have imagined that a one-morning “sensitivity training” would be an appropriate, sufficient or safe intervention for Doug Williams and his co-workers.

Unfortunately, too many of us are still in denial that color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior, when it is extreme, constitutes a mental disorder. Although the American Psychiatric Association has acknowledged that extreme color aroused ideation, emotion and behavior harms others and society, the APA has not focused on the dangers that ECAD presents to the persons who are color-aroused, like Doug Williams.

Extremely color-aroused persons often end up in trouble with the law, because they are unable to control color-aroused aggressive behavior. These criminal processes prevent them from working, limit their ability to find future employment, and lead to civil liability for themselves and their employers.

They often engage in behavior that makes their employers liable in discrimination cases that distract corporations from their core business, lower share values in expectation of civil awards, and distract workers and management from their duties.

Extremely color-aroused people miss opportunities for promotion and higher pay because their employers cannot risk the civil liability they risk by putting such people in management positions.

Color-aroused people may sell their homes quickly and for less than their market value because people of another skin color have moved into the neighborhood. If this behavior becomes generalized within a neighborhood, then many people in the neighborhood may find themselves selling their homes out of color-aroused fear, with each seller receiving a lower return on investment than the last. Color-aroused fear can cause people to make unwise and costly business decisions.

Extreme color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior can even break up otherwise loving families. A friend in Brazil recounted to me something that occurred with one of her childhood friends: A girl with white colored skin and a boy with brown skin were attracted to one another throughout grade school, but never acted upon their mutual attraction because the girl's father had forbidden her to date boys with brown skin.

When they went away to college, however, they went to the same college and began dating. When the girl's father was informed by friends of the bichromatic relationship, he had a violent argument with his daughter in which he told her never to come home again.

Several years later, when his wife had died and he was living completly alone, his daughter and her husband were living across town, with three grandchildren whohad never met their grandfather. When the man became too ill to care for himself, the daughter sought him out again, offering the love which he had rejected for so long. Her husband had become a successful engineer and now they were able to help shoulder some of the costs of the father's medical care.

The grandfather met his grandchildren and played with them for the first time. He needed and accepted the help and care of his brown-skinned son-in-law, but they never discussed skin color, preferring so sit together and watch soccer matches. Had the father been able to seek psychiatric help for his aversion to others aroused by their skin color, he might not have missed the ten years of his daughter's life, and of his grandchildren's life, that he spent with color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior as his only companions.

Another example has yet to see a happy ending. One reader of my blog, a Black woman, reports that she believes Black men should date and marry Black women. This is her color-aroused ideation. As a result, whenever she sees a Black man with a white woman she feels humiliated, jealous and angry. This is her strong color-aroused emotion. Her ideation and emotion are so extreme that sometimes at clubs she angrily and physically confronts white women who are with Black men, and gets into arguments with them.

This behavior obviously has the potential to result in fights, criminal charges of assault and battery and even hate crimes, since her motivation is the skin color of the man and the skin color of the woman. Worse still, even when she is not in the presence of a bichromatic couple, her self-esteem and self-image suffer. She has a problem that she cannot control by separating other people. She needs a psychiatric evaluation and cognitive behavioral counseling if she is to overcome the Extreme Color-Aroused Disorder that is making her life unliveable.

Has any doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker or other professional ever asked you how you feel about your own skin color and how you feel around people of your own or different skin colors? Has anyone else whom you know ever been asked these questions by a professional caregiver? If not, then in spite of all of the color aroused ideation, emotion and behavior, in our society, you have never been screened to determine whether color aroused symptoms are making you less effective than you could be.

Malia O., President Obama's Daughter, Frees Her African Hair

Cross-posted at the Francis L.Holland Blog and the Now Public.

malia,obama,hair,Rasta Locks

Must Blacks Try to Look Like Michael Jackson to be Accepted
by Whites and by Ourselves?

The Vancouver Sun is reporting that extremely color-aroused whitosphere blogs aer up in arms over Malia Obama, the president's daughter, has appearing in public without first chemically straighten her hair to make it look more like white people's hair.

The thread was accompanied by a photo of Michelle Obama speaking to Malia that featured the caption, "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds." Vancouver Sun

I think we all have been consciously or subconsciously watching the hair of the Obama daughters as well as Michelle Obama, to see what political statements they would make, and how they would be received. Malia Obama could have disavowed an obvious part of her particular genetic code and straightened her hair as Michael Jackson did. America has never complained when Blacks straighten our hair -- only when we don't so.

It's worth noting that one of Michael Jackson's heroes, also straightened his hair, beginning in an era when it was almost as "stylish" (obligatory in a color aroused society) for Black men as for Black women.

Instead, Malia did something that very few Black women have the audacity to do: she appeared in public with unstraightened hair. That's when all hell broke loose on the extremely color-aroused whitosphere blogs, where whites were apoplectic. 'Everyone knows that straight white hair is the only acceptable way for Black girls and women to wear their hair,' so why is Malia Obama throwing gasoline into the furnace of America's color-arousal illness by wearing her hair in a natural black style? Doesn't she know that curly hair is a color-associated physical characteristic of which she must try to rid herself? We can't help it if our skin is not white, but the LEAST we can do is to try to make our hair straight, right?

We all agree that Michael Jackson was progressively more freakish as he tried ever more determinedly to make himself look like a white person. And yet we show our (often unconsious) hypocrisy when we criticize Malio Obama for NOT making her hair look like that of a white person.



Judging from the reaction reported by the Vancouver Times, you would think this was the political equivalent of giving the Black Power salute during the medals ceremony at the 1968 Olympic Games. (See photo above) And maybe it is.

We Blacks have Black people's hair and yet most of our women folk and some of our men are compelled by employers, family members and even members of our churches to do the Michael Jackson thing to our hair.

Perhaps what happened to Michael Jackson is akin to what happens with anorexia: a suggestion by mother, father or friends that we might be slightly overweight leads to a (short) lifetime of trying to rid the human body of all signs of weight.

The color-aroused illness is profound and is not found only among people whose skin is white. A Black man here in Brazil told me that when a Black woman goes for a job interview, the least she can do to make herself look presentable, acceptable and beautiful is to straighten her hair.

Even the name given to Rastafarian Locks (Dreadlocks) is said to have originated with British people who called Jamaican style hair was "dreadful".

In other words, Malia's hair triggers responses of revulsion from some Blacks as well as whites. If nothing else comes of the Obama presidency than the understanding among Blacks and whites that curly hair is just as acceptable and natural as straight hair, then we may even save the life of the next Michael/Michelle Jackson of the Malia generation - a generation apparently not equally willing to do to itself what Michael Jackson did.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Teresa Holland with beautiful wavy Locks.

My wife, who, (wears Rasta Locks), and I were wondering when the First Lady will be seen in public with a traditionally Black hairstyle, such as braids, Rasta Locks or an Afro. By looking at her children's hair, we know where her sympathies lie. And yet we also know that Michelle Obama may not want to make the equivalent of hairstyle Black power sallute at this partcular time.

Nonetheless, I am hoping to see the First Lady in Braids, perhaps after Obama wins reelection. Some people believe, and perhaps correctly, that merely leaving one's hair alone is a revolutionary statement if one has brown skin.

Meanwhile, "Free Your African Hair," as Malia has done, if you have the courage and the socio-political and cultural space to do so.

Saturday, 11 July 2009

The USA is Decidedly Not "Post Racial" Because It's not Post-"Race"

Just the fact that we and whites continue to use the word "racial" ubiquitously is proof that America is not "post-racial". Post-racial isn't "when you stop talking about skin color". "Post racial" begins when you realize and internalze that the fact that "race" does not and never did exist as a biological fact at all. In fact, "race" is the most-used biological term that has no basis in biology. It's actually a white supremacist fantasy.

And so for at least as long as we and white people continue to use the word "race" ubiquitously, it will be obvious that we haven't gotten over the fantasy of "race".

When people stop using the phrase "tooth fairy" you will know they have gotten beyond their peurile belief in the tooth fairy as an important factor in their daily lives. For as long as the phrase "tooth fairy" is ubiquitous in our language, you'll know that the "tooth fairy" myth still has a hold on us, one way or another. The same goes for the word "race".

Thursday, 9 July 2009

Color of Change Calls for Protest of "Whites Only" Pool in Pennsylvania

Dear friends,

Two weeks ago outside Philadelphia, sixty-five children from a summer camp tried to go swimming at a club their camp had a contract to use. Evidently, the club didn't know the kids were largely Black.

When the campers entered the pool, White parents took their kids out of the water, and the swimming club's staff asked the campers to leave. The next day, the club told the summer camp that their membership would be canceled and that they would refund their money. When asked why, the club's leader said the "kids would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."

A "Whites only" pool in 2009 should not be tolerated. The club's actions appear to be a violation of section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. Whether or not any laws were violated, a "Whites only" pool should be something every American condemns.

I've just joined ColorOfChange.org in doing exactly that -- will you join me, and email your friends and family asking them to do the same? We're also calling on the Department of Justice to evaluate suing the facility under federal law. It takes just a moment to do both, here:

http://www.colorofchange.org/swim/?id=1990-898983

Obama is President but that doesn't mean that suddenly all is fine when it comes to race in America. This is a vivid reminder of what we know still lies beneath the surface.

We all know stories like this one -- similar incidents play out quietly every day in different communities across the country. The difference in this case is that folks got caught and there was a contract in place that makes for a potentially illegal act.

Standing up now isn't just about making things right for these kids in Philadelphia or bringing consequences to this swim club (called the Valley Swim Club). It's about creating a climate of accountability everywhere. If we can publicly shame the Valley Swim Club and hold them accountable for this incident, it will make others think twice before engaging in this kind of discrimination.

Please join me in condemning the Valley Swim Club's blatant discrimination and calling on the Justice Department to investigate whether they violated civil rights laws. And please ask your friends and family to do the same.

http://www.colorofchange.org/swim/?id=1990-898983

Thanks.

Here are some links to more info:

"Pool Boots Kids Who Might 'Change the Complexion,'" NBC Philadelphia, 07-08-09
http://bit.ly/90Zyr

"60 Black Kids Booted from Philly Pool For Being Black -- Speak Out," Jill Tubman at Jack and Jill Politics, 07-08-09
http://bit.ly/GkJTs

"Valley Swim Club: Day Two," Adam B at Daily Kos, 07-08-09
http://bit.ly/qbpSA

"Section 1981 Summary," Employment Law Information Network
http://www.elinfonet.com/1981sum.php