In Defense of Free Speech

In Defense of Free Speech
© Professor Amechi Okolo, Ph.D.

An article by Stephanie Strom in New York Times of November 14, 2007 is troubling because it concerns the efforts to muzzle free speech in America – a trend that appears to be growing since the Bush regime. According to Ms. Strom:
In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest. At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”
That the women would be sanctioned for expressing their rights to free speech is shameful and must be rigorously condemned. If such had happened in Russia, China, Iran or any other third world country, American press would have pounced on them as anti-democracy and sign of dictatorship. The premise of those who criticized the women for putting up the anti-Bush sign in Shanghai is interesting to read but it is wrong. They are either ignorant, hypocritical or delusional. Their premise that the event was not political is wrong because it was political as many events are political – some are overt, others are covert – but many are. If one reads the paper carefully, it will read that the women said that they were responding to the anti-American views from the crowd for America’s and Bush’s actions in Iraq and around the world. Hence, according to them:

“What we were trying to say, not to Americans but to our friends from other countries, was that we understand that they are questioning and critical of what our country is doing these days, and we want you to know that we, too, are critical,”

Read that paper again and re-read it carefully. I always urged my students to read things over carefully many times to understand them fully as I often do myself. Therefore, it will be obvious that the women were clearly in a political environment and had to defend themselves politically, from their colleagues. They wanted to show the world that many Americans are also hurting and critical about Bush’s actions, which is correct.

I think their action is fundamentally patriotic, necessary and very useful not just for them over there over there in China, but also for America as a whole. How would you like for the whole world to think that the all Americans support and like what Bush is doing in Iraq? Is that better for America? I do not think so. Or do you not know that we have very serious division of opinions about that war in America? Specifically, do you not know that millions of Americans, including myself, are opposed to the war? Opposing views in the US are exactly what the world need to hear now to stem the increasing hatred of Americans overseas. The have certainly done more for America’s diplomacy that Karen Hughes, the Bush propaganda official who resigned because she could not change public opinion about America in the Middle East and overseas.

The percentage of those who oppose the war is now some seventy to eighty percent Americans. The massive vote for the Democrats in 2006 election was a massive anti-Bush vote hence Bush fired his Secretary of Defense, Ronald Rumsfeld, the day after the election. Moreover, the coming 2008 presidential election would also be determined by the contending pro-versus-anti-Bush votes and sentiments in the country, as evidenced by the campaigns of the presidential candidates. To sanction the women means to muzzle opposing views – to deny their free speech rights, and to sow the seeds for fascism and dictatorship in the system. I want you to know that it is dictatorship and fascism to begin to force down one view on the society on any important issue – and it usually starts with any one reason. In Germany, in the 1930s, it started with the hatred of the Jews, praise and adulation and exultation of Hitler; and blossomed into full scale fascism, in an otherwise modern, civilized democratic society, with all its horrors, which the Germans are still ashamed of today. In US, it could start in another way, but the end result will be the same – muzzled opinion and forced monolithic view on the system, which is fundamentally anti-democracy. This is why we must jealously guard our democracy if we enjoy it and want to remain democratic. It is important to stress the above because the seeds for the subversion of German democracy came from the “democratically” elected German leader, Hitler. We must not forget that Hitler was “democratically” elected Chancellor of Germany. This means that “democratically” elected leaders are not necessarily the true guardians of democracy in a society. Some of them subvert the system and erect their own for of dictatorship and fascism as Bush appears to be doing, hence Americans must continuously guard and protect our democracy, if we love and cherish it.

Finally, does anyone really think that the world does not already know that we have very serious division of opinions on the war in America? You see, this is what Tim Wise, Stanley Elkins, myself, and others call mass delusion, mass irrationality, mass self-deceit and entrenched hypocrisy of the American system. To continue to think that the world does not know what is going on inside America or that we can continue to cover it from others is pathetic and deliberate self denial and mass cover-up as I often say. For example, I have stated that the continued denial or refusal of America to properly discuss the crimes of the founding fathers against blacks and the society especially the rape and pedophiles of Thomas Jefferson who raped his slave to produce five children, and many others constitute mass cover-up of those crimes. More importantly, the many mullators of the slave epoch or the children of the white slave masters who were regarded and treated as slaves by both their fathers and the society was a crime against the children and against the society. That people regarded their children, their own blood, as slaves was an abomination and unthinkable.

The connection the criticism and sanctioning the bridge women has with covering the rape and crimes of Jefferson and his epoch by the current society is that America’s attitudes to both involve the deep desire to cover up the truth about our society. We are very hypocritical, we love self-delusion, we lie to ourselves and to others, and are often stuck in our own lies. For example, the lies we told ourselves about Iraq are still haunting us today. Some Americans say that they are not opposed to free speech and do not mind anyone criticizing Bush, but that it should not be done outside the country like the bridge women’ anti-Bush sign in Shanghai because it is like showing “our dirty laundry in public.” The best way to deal with it is not to have “dirty laundry” because you cannot have dirty laundry in a country as large, modern, boisterous, industrial and democratic as the United States and others would not hear it. One would have erected the most draconian fascist dictatorship in the efforts to contain the “dirty laundry” within America, and still fail. So it is an unachievable illusion and delusion to think that we can contain our dirty laundries within the country.

Our historians and academicians gleefully tell us that Jefferson “freed” his slave children upon his death. None of them ever told us how horrible and ridiculous it was for Jefferson to think of his children as slaves in the first place. Or how ridiculous and horrible for Jefferson to think that the mother of his children was a slave. Jefferson and his society did those things that are outrageous and unthinkable in America and any modern society today, and until date, this current society continues to cover-up for Jefferson and his epoch by not discussing it. The truth is that this is the twenty-first century. The Internet, the global satellite systems and other exploding information technologies make it impossible to continue rehearsing our old lies to the world or to hide what we do.

One would have liked to think that this period of the rise of Christian values with their emphasis on family values, preservation of life, our anti-child abuse culture and mode, etc, that someone would have remembered those children (Jefferson’s children and others) who were horribly abused and mistreated (along with their mothers) by their fathers and the white society. The white society including their own fathers, denied their essential humanities simply because their mothers were black. Can anyone imagine leaving a child behind today because his mother or father is black? That was what our founding fathers did. That was what erudite Thomas Jefferson, the author of our declaration of independence, did. – fully supported by the white society of his epoch and fully being supported by the current white America by their continued silence on the topic.

Jefferson’s wife died in 1782 and he lived with Sally Hemings, his slave until he died at the ripe age of eighty-three in 1826 during which he produced five children with her. It is reported that Sally Hemings was at his bedside when he died, which means that Jefferson lived for forty-four years with her as his wife and the mother of five children.

Bush today pushes what he calls, “No Child Left Behind” policy, which is a good slogan but it is a hoax because the system leaves millions of black, Hispanic and other minority children behind. Read these two books by Jonathan Kozol to appreciate my points: Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools; and The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Understanding the crimes of our founding fathers is not just academic, it is important so that we can begin to deal with the malaise of the public school education in current America – as explained by Jonathan Kozol. The truth is that many of the intractable problems we have in America today arise from the institutional and structural racism of the system, which hobbles the enactment and/or implementation of genuine social justice acts and policies in the system as politicians pander and weasel around for votes from their core constituencies.

Therefore, calling Jefferson’s children slaves, thinking of them as slaves and treating them as slaves, was not only a crime against the children, their mothers and blacks, but a horrible and self-debilitating crime against the whites themselves as well. One’s child is his blood, and his incarnation. Therefore calling your child a slave is also calling yourself a slave. You cannot be an honorable whole being if your child is a slave. You and your child are inseparable. If your child was a slave, you were also a slave. You cannot be a full fledged, intelligent and honorable man while your child is a slave. It is not possible. That was the anomaly of the American society that I talk about in class, which we must recognize and redress to be able to move forward. Jefferson could not have been sleeping with a slave and still thought of himself as a worthy man. No. It was not possible.

These are some of the issues we must honestly deal with in modern American society so that we can move forward. Can you think of the many opportunities America has missed because we did not let all the children of America develop maximally.

America’s First Black First Lady:

In October, 1802, while he was president, the story was published in the newspapers the Thomas Jefferson whose wife had died in 1782, was keeping his wife’s slave half-sister, as a concubine and was producing children from her. Jefferson who lived for 44 years after the death of his wife and who never remarried, never denied the story, but he never accepted it either. Sally Hemings was at his bedside when he died. All five children of Sally Hemings were freed by Thomas Jefferson either before his death or in his will. Thomas Jefferson made provisions for Sally Hemings in his will. These were almost the only slaves which Thomas Jefferson ever freed.[1]

Jefferson was the president from 1801-1809 which means that Sally Hemings, his slave was the First Lady during his presidency. This means that a slave was once the American First Lady. They had five children of which three of them were born in the White House, viz. Harriet Hemings born in 1801; Madison Hemings born in 1805 and Easton Hemings was born in 1808 according to Jefferson’s own records. How ridiculous was it then that America’s First Lady and presidential children were slaves. These are some of the reasons why America is ever scared of discussing slavery, racism and social justice because these are the issues that will come up in any serious discussion of American society. The question is, how would America handle the issue of Sally Hemings as our first black First Lady? Further how would America handle the fact of Sally’s sons as presidential children? These and some others are some of the many sensitive facts about America that we must discuss openly. The genie is now out of the bottle and no one can stuff them back again. Therefore, we must brace up to discussing them. It part of our dirty laundry and discussing it will only make us stronger just as washing our dirty linens will only make them cleaner.

[1] Samuel Sloan, The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson (1998)

Republicans and Race

Republicans and Race
By PAUL KRUGMAN New York Times November 19, 2007

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of commentaries about Ronald Reagan’s legacy, specifically about whether he exploited the white backlash against the civil rights movement. The controversy unfortunately obscures the larger point, which should be undeniable: the central role of this backlash in the rise of the modern conservative movement.
The centrality of race — and, in particular, of the switch of Southern whites from overwhelming support of Democrats to overwhelming support of Republicans — is obvious from voting data. For example, everyone knows that white men have turned away from the Democrats over God, guns, national security and so on. But what everyone knows isn’t true once you exclude the South from the picture. As the political scientist Larry Bartels points out, in the 1952 presidential election 40 percent of non-Southern white men voted Democratic; in 2004, that figure was virtually unchanged, at 39 percent. More than 40 years have passed since the Voting Rights Act, which Reagan described in 1980 as “humiliating to the South.” Yet Southern white voting behavior remains distinctive. Democrats decisively won the popular vote in last year’s House elections, but Southern whites voted Republican by almost two to one.
The G.O.P.’s own leaders admit that the great Southern white shift was the result of a deliberate political strategy. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.” So declared Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in 2005. And Ronald Reagan was among the “some” who tried to benefit from racial polarization. True, he never used explicit racial rhetoric. Neither did Richard Nixon. As Thomas and Mary Edsall put it in their classic 1991 book, “Chain Reaction: The impact of race, rights and taxes on American politics,” “Reagan paralleled Nixon’s success in constructing a politics and a strategy of governing that attacked policies targeted toward blacks and other minorities without reference to race — a conservative politics that had the effect of polarizing the electorate along racial lines.”
Thus, Reagan repeatedly told the bogus story of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen — a gross exaggeration of a minor case of welfare fraud. He never mentioned the woman’s race, but he didn’t have to. There are many other examples of Reagan’s tacit race-baiting in the historical record. My colleague Bob Herbert described some of these examples in a recent column. Here’s one he didn’t mention: During the 1976 campaign Reagan often talked about how upset workers must be to see an able-bodied man using food stamps at the grocery store. In the South — but not in the North — the food-stamp user became a “strapping young buck” buying T-bone steaks. Now, about the Philadelphia story: in December 1979 the Republican national committeeman from Mississippi wrote a letter urging that the party’s nominee speak at the Neshoba Country Fair, just outside the town where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964. It would, he wrote, help win over “George Wallace inclined voters.”
Sure enough, Reagan appeared, and declared his support for states’ rights — which everyone took to be a coded declaration of support for segregationist sentiments. Reagan’s defenders protest furiously that he wasn’t personally bigoted. So what? We’re talking about his political strategy. His personal beliefs are irrelevant.
Why does this history matter now? Because it tells why the vision of a permanent conservative majority, so widely accepted a few years ago, is wrong. The point is that we have become a more diverse and less racist country over time. The “macaca” incident, in which Senator George Allen’s use of a racial insult led to his election defeat, epitomized the way in which America has changed for the better. And because conservative ascendancy has depended so crucially on the racial backlash — a close look at voting data shows that religion and “values” issues have been far less important — I believe that the declining power of that backlash changes everything. Can anti-immigrant rhetoric replace old-fashioned racial politics? No, because it mobilizes the same shrinking pool of whites — and alienates the growing number of Latino voters.
Now, maybe I’m wrong about all of this. But we should be able to discuss the role of race in American politics honestly. We shouldn’t avert our gaze because we’re unwilling to tarnish Ronald Reagan’s image.

===============================================================

Brief Comments by Prof. Amechi Okolo

Paul Krugman is correct, “that we have become a more diverse and less racist country over time,” as shown by the ‘macaca’ incident. I believe that that there are essentially two types of white Americans – the racist white Americans and non-racist white Americans. I also completely agree with Paul that the pool of the white racists in America is shrinking, which is a good and encouraging thing.
It is however, not shrinking fast enough. Moreover, unfortunately, the shrinking pool of white racists does not mean that their power is shrinking too. In fact, their power has not and is not shrinking proportionately because of the institutional and structural nature of racism of the system. Thus, it does not require a large pool to operate racism in America because racism is now fully built into the system. It has been institutionalized as part of the integral structures of the American system. In current parlance, we can say that racism has been embedded in our structures where it operates seamlessly without exogenous efforts. Hence, the problem with many people, and I find it in my class where some students tell me that they are not racists because they have blacks friends, etc. Most of them are probably correct that they are not racist, and I applaud them because it is horrible to be racist. The fundamental problem with racism in America is that the personal beliefs and actions of individuals are largely irrelevant as Paul Krugman said because it is institutionalized and embedded in our structural main frames. Racism thus remains in our institutions and structures, controls systems’ behaviors and outputs; and determines how we discuss it. More importantly, it ensures that our discussions of racism, “are discussions designed to cause the least amount of discomfort to the smallest possible number of white people,” according to Anna Quindlen.
Thus, Reagan was clearly racist without using the “race” word when he went to appeal to George Wallace supporters. Remember Wallace’s famous speech that garnered him support as the racist Governor of Alabama, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” So Reagan was an out and out racist. Equally, when Bush challenges Michigan University affirmation admission policies in the Supreme Court, he was a racist playing his racist card to ensure the support of his white racist supporters.
Therefore, Krugman’s call that “we should be able to discuss the role of race in American politics honestly,” is apt and fully supported. Anna Quindlen and many others have called for such open honest discussions as I urge in class.
· Your comments, observations and reactions to Krugman’s article and my brief comments are welcomed! Thanks!

Display of Anti-Bush Sign

Display of Anti-Bush Sign Has Competitive Bridge World in an Uproar

By STEPHANIE STROM New York Times November 14, 2007

In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest. At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”
By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.” “This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the United States Bridge Federation, the nonprofit group that selects teams for international tournaments. “There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.” Not so, said Danny Kleinman, a professional bridge player, teacher and columnist. “If the U.S.B.F. wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition,” he said by e-mail. Ms. Martel said the action by the team, which had won the Venice Cup, the women’s title, at the Shanghai event, could cost the federation corporate sponsors. The players have been stunned by the reaction to what they saw as a spontaneous gesture, “a moment of levity,” said Gail Greenberg, the team’s nonplaying captain and winner of 11 world championships. “What we were trying to say, not to Americans but to our friends from other countries, was that we understand that they are questioning and critical of what our country is doing these days, and we want you to know that we, too, are critical,” Ms. Greenberg said, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not her six teammates. The controversy has gone global, with the French team offering support for its American counterparts. “By trying to address these issues in a nonviolent, nonthreatening and lighthearted manner,” the French team wrote in by e-mail to the federation’s board and others, “you were doing only what women of the world have always tried to do when opposing the folly of men who have lost their perspective of reality.”
The proposed sanctions would hurt the team’s playing members financially. “I earn my living from bridge, and a substantial part of that from being hired to compete in high-level competitions,” Debbie Rosenberg, a team member, said. “So being barred would directly affect much of my ability to earn a living.” A hearing is scheduled this month in San Francisco, where thousands of players will be gathered for the Fall North American Bridge Championships. It will determine whether displaying the sign constitutes conduct unbecoming a federation member. Three players— Hansa Narasimhan, JoAnna Stansby and Jill Meyers — have expressed regret that the action offended some people. The federation has proposed a settlement to Ms. Greenberg and the three other players, Jill Levin, Irina Levitina and Ms. Rosenberg, who have not made any mollifying statements. It calls for a one-year suspension from federation events, including the World Bridge Olympiad next year in Beijing; a one-year probation after that suspension; 200 hours of community service “that furthers the interests of organized bridge”; and an apology drafted by the federation’s lawyer. It would also require them to write a statement telling “who broached the idea of displaying the sign, when the idea was adopted, etc.” Alan Falk, a lawyer for the federation, wrote the four team members on Nov. 6, “I am instructed to press for greater sanction against anyone who rejects this compromise offer.” Ms. Greenberg said she decided to put up the sign in response to questions from players from other countries about American interrogation techniques, the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues. “There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” Ms. Greenberg said. “I can’t tell you it was an overwhelming amount, but there were several specific comments, and there wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events.” Ms. Rosenberg said the team members intended the sign as a personal statement that demonstrated American values and noted that it was held up at the same time some team members were singing along to “The Star-Spangled Banner” and waving small American flags.
“Freedom to express dissent against our leaders has traditionally been a core American value,” she wrote by e-mail. “Unfortunately, the Bush brand of patriotism, where criticizing Bush means you are a traitor, seems to have penetrated a significant minority of U.S. bridge players.” Through a spokesman, the other team members declined to discuss the matter. Ms. Narasimhan, Ms. Stansby and Ms. Meyers have been offered a different settlement agreement, but Ms. Martel declined to discuss it in detail. Many of those offended by the sign do not consider the expressions of regret sufficient. “I think an apology is kind of specious,” said Jim Kirkham, who has played in several bridge championships. “It’s not that I don’t forgive them, but I still think they should be punished.” Mr. Kirkham sits on the board of the American Contract Bridge League, which accounts for a substantial portion of the federation’s financing, Ms. Martel said, and has submitted a proposal that would cut the league’s support for the federation, one of two such proposals pending. Robert S. Wolff, one of the country’s pre-eminent bridge players, who has served as an executive and board member of several bridge organizations, said that he understood that the women might have had a legal right to do what they did but that they had offended many people. “While I believe in the right to free speech, to me that doesn’t give anyone the right to criticize one’s leader at a foreign venue in a totally nonpolitical event,” he wrote by e-mail. David L. Anderson, a bridge player who supports the team, said it was common to see players at international tournaments sporting buttons bearing the date “1-20-09,” when George W. Bush will hand off to a new president, as well as buttons reading “Support Our Troops.” “They don’t go after those people,” Mr. Anderson said.
============================================================================
Okolo: Some Critical Questions

1. What does this say about democracy and free speech in America?
2. How do you think America and America’s press would react if this had occurred in China, Russia, Iran or other places?
3. Hitler and Nazism thrived in Germany by muzzling criticism. Do you see similar patterns here? Explain. Be detailed, specific and critical.
4. When and how did Bush become America?
   Was President Bill Clinton America? I remember the tons of criticisms against him then.
5. Would critiquing the next president also be considered anti-America?
6. Or Would we regain our rights to critique our presidents after Bush?
7. These and other serious questions need urgent attention because our nation is in serious peril now. Do you agree or not? Explain. Be detailed, specific and critical.