Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts

Tuesday

“Completely Racist”: Edwidge Danticat on Trump’s “Shithole Countries” Remark Targeting Africa, Haiti




Transcript:
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

International condemnation of Donald Trump is growing, after reports the president used an expletive during a meeting about immigrants from Africa, Haiti and El Salvador. While meeting with lawmakers, Trump reportedly said, “Why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re s—hole countries … We should have more people from Norway.” Trump also reportedly said, “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.”

Earlier this morning, Trump wrote on twitter, quote, “The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made–a big setback for DACA!”
 
Trump’s remarks come weeks after The New York Times reported Trump had also disparaged Haitians and Nigerians during a closed-door meeting in June, saying Nigerians would never, quote, “go back to their huts” if they came to the U.S. As for Haitians, Trump said, quote, they “all have AIDS.”

Trump’s latest remarks come just after his administration announced it’s ending temporary protected status for up to 250,000 Salvadorans who have been living in U.S. since at least 2001. Last year, the Trump administration announced it also is ending temporary protected status for tens of thousands of Haitians, Nicaraguans and Sudanese immigrants living in the U.S.

Trump’s s—hole remarks Thursday have been condemned across the globe. That’s s—hole. We’re not using the actual expletive that he used, four letters before the word “hole.” United Nations high commissioner for human rights [spokesperson] Rupert Colville decried Trump’s remarks.

RUPERT COLVILLE: These are shocking and shameful comments from the president of the United States. I’m sorry, but there’s no other word one can use but “racist.” You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as [bleep], whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome. … The positive comment on Norway makes the underlying sentiment very clear. And like the earlier comments made vilifying Mexicans and Muslims, the policy proposals targeting entire groups on grounds of nationality or religion, and the reluctance to clearly condemn the anti-Semitic and racist actions of the white supremacists in Charlottesville, all of these go against the universal values the world has been striving so hard to establish since World War II and the Holocaust.

AMY GOODMAN: In South Africa, Jessie Duarte of the African National Congress also criticized Trump.

JESSIE DUARTE: Ours is not a [bleep] country. Neither is Haiti or any other country in distress. Obviously, we are in no position to stop any president from saying anything they wish to say. But all we can say is that developing countries do have difficulties. Those difficulties are not small matters. And it’s not as if the United States doesn’t have difficulties. There are millions of unemployed people in the U.S., millions of people who don’t have healthcare services or access to education. And we would not deign to make comments as derogatory as that about any country that has any kind of social, economic or other difficulties.

AMY GOODMAN: And in Haiti, longtime activist René Civil said Trump should be reminded of Haiti’s history.
 
RENÉ CIVIL: [translated] In the name of the Haitian people, we are part of a patriotic emergency that is fighting for real change in Haiti. We demand that Donald Trump apologize before the entire continent, as well as before Haiti, the country whose blood has been used by ancestors who have served with their minds and bodies to liberate the United States itself from slavery. … Haiti is not a [bleep]. It’s a great country. It’s the mother of liberty.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump’s remarks prompted his hometown paper, the New York Daily News, to publish on its cover an illustration featuring Trump’s likeness superimposed over a cartoonish “poop” emoji, with the headline “S— FOR BRAINS: Trump spews vicious slur against immigrants.”
We go now to Florida, where we’re joined by the acclaimed Haitian-American novelist Edwidge Danticat. She is a novelist, speaking to us from Orlando, Florida, author of a number of books, including The Farming of Bones, which won an American Book Award. She was born in Haiti, came to the United States when she was 12. We are speaking today to Edwidge, and on this day after Trump’s s—hole comments, on the eighth anniversary of the devastating Haitian earthquake that killed as many as 300,000 people.

Edwidge Danticat, welcome to Democracy Now! Your response to President Trump?

EDWIDGE DANTICAT: Well, thank you, Amy. My response to President Trump is total condemnation. It was a very racist remark, which shed light on earlier decisions that he had—that have been made by the administration—for example, about temporary protected status being eliminated for Haitians and Salvadorans, and his remark, as reported by The New York Times, about all Haitians having AIDS. It seems like, once again, Haiti is being used as a foil, and he is baiting his bait and feeding them—Haiti as red meat.

And it’s extremely sad that it happened also in the shadow of this day. Today was going to be an extraordinarily sad day for many of us, anyway, who lost our family members, who lost our friends, in the devastating earthquake. So this is even more salt on our wounds. Not surprising, because of the nature of this presidency and the way this president conducts himself, but it is a terrible slight. It’s completely racist, especially the way that he paralleled Haiti and Africa, which is a continent, not a country—someone should tell him—and describing them in this manner and contrasting them to Norway.

AMY GOODMAN: Seems to be redefining the term “White House,” where he lives, in Washington, and what he wants to see in this country. Edwidge Danticat, we have been playing the responses of people around the world, from South Africa, one of those, as Donald Trump calls them, s—hole, but he uses the full expletive, though, inexplicably, this morning he’s kind of denying this in a tweet, though yesterday, when the White House was asked about this, they did not deny that he said this. I mean, there were so many congressmembers in the room. What does it mean for Haitian-American families, both the policy, what you’re facing, the loss of—what so many communities are facing, Haitian communities and Salvadoran, the loss of TPS, but also for your kids, when people hear these terms?

EDWIDGE DANTICAT: Well, that’s exactly where I was going to go. Now there are so many Haitian children who will be going to school today, and inevitably it will come up. And then they will have to—their parents, who are going to have to explain to the children why they don’t—you know, what the president has said and what kind of country they actually come from, and a country that—like Haiti, that has had difficulties, but that also the U.S. has played a hand in creating certain types of situations that has led, you know, to the level of poverty that we have, which doesn’t mean that we are not human beings, that we don’t have dreams, that we’re not trying very hard to keep our country going. So, it’s very disparaging.

AMY GOODMAN: Edwidge Danticat, what would you say if you were meeting with President Trump today at the White House?

EDWIDGE DANTICAT: I don’t think I would be meeting with President Trump, but I would use this opportunity that you have given me to tell him to just stop it. Stop it. I mean, he’s spewing white supremacist views that have real consequences in the lives of ordinary people. We already see it online, people who are jumping in and saying, “Of course what he’s saying is true.” And then there are people who will act on it, when they meet people like us. They will—who will exercise certain prejudices that affect the lives of the people he is talking about. But that also can lead to actual violence against our bodies, against our children. So I think he needs to realize that what he’s saying, from the biggest bully pulpit in the whole world, is affecting individual people. I don’t know that he cares, because I think he’s just spewing these things, and I think, in part, this was also—you know, this is what he believes.

But what he’s saying, from this very high position of power, affects the future of nations, affects the lives of individuals, affects how people—how policy is created. And now you have all these white supremacists and racists who feel so empowered, because, basically, the president of the United States has put them on—you know, has put a target on the backs of these people who he has described in this way, for them to be ridiculed, for them to be geared to have prejudices exercised against them and, in some cases, to have violence and, you know, assaults possible on their bodies, because these words are very—these words give permission to certain kinds of people. And we become then hypervisible in our vulnerability, because we have been singled out, not once—once in the policy with the TPS, once with the AIDS, and now with this, and as a group of people, as Haitians, and as people, he was saying, from Africa. And he’s singling out people for and making us targets for all kinds of possible attacks. And—

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Edwidge, on this anniversary, this eighth anniversary of the earthquake in Haiti, that killed up to 300,000 Haitians?

EDWIDGE DANTICAT: Yes. Well, today—this is what we would have been doing today, would be remembering and thinking about our dead and commemorating these losses. But sadly, this has been muddled by this vicious attack by the president against our people at this time. So, it is important. We are still going to remember. We are still going to mourn. But to use a saying that many people of different backgrounds have been saying since the election of the president, “Today, we mourn. Tomorrow, we fight.”

AMY GOODMAN: Edwidge Danticat, we want to thank you for being with us, Haitian-American novelist, speaking to us from Florida, author of a number of books, including The Farming of Bones, which won an American Book Award.

"Resurrected From Irrelevance": Arizona Republic Columnist Slams Trump Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio



AMY GOODMAN: As we move now into our last segment, this top news—what would have been top news on Friday, if it weren’t for the storm. Renée?

RENÉE FELTZ: That’s right, Amy. We turn now to the White House pardon announced Friday for longtime Trump supporter and former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The controversial Arizona lawman known for profiling Latinos once bragged that he ran his open-air jail called Tent City in Phoenix like a "concentration camp." Arpaio was first elected in 1992 and voted out of office in November last year, after years of civil rights complaints and corruption allegations.

AMY GOODMAN: In July, a federal judge found Arpaio guilty of contempt of court for defying an order to stop his deputies from detaining people based on their perceived immigration status. He faced up to six months in prison at his sentencing, which was originally set for October 5th. In a two-paragraph statement, President Trump said Arpaio gave "years of admirable service to our nation." Arpaio responded to the news Saturday.
JOE ARPAIO: I’m very happy. I have to thank the president of the United States for his pardon. As I say, he is a big friend, supporter of law enforcement. I think this is a bigger picture than just me.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Tucson, Arizona, where we’re joined by Linda Valdez, an editorial board member and columnist at the Arizona Republic, the state’s largest newspaper. After President Trump pardoned Sheriff Arpaio, she wrote an editorial for the paper headlined, "Donald Trump Just Resurrected Joe Arpaio From Irrelevance”:http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2017/08/25/donald-trump-resurrects-joe-arpaio-irrelevance/604067001/.

Linda Valdez, thanks so much for joining us. In these last few minutes, first respond to what message this sends, and then talk about Sheriff Arpaio’s history and what he did. This whole issue of racial profiling and racial harassment.

LINDA VALDEZ: Well, as far as the message that it sends, it sends a very clear message that Donald Trump is not interested in being the president of all of the people of this country. He is interested in being president of a very small Republican base that put him in office. It’s the same group of people that has been Joe Arpaio’s base of support for many, many years. And it’s is a very troubling message.

It is also a message that says that the President of the United States does not respect the Constitution and the requirement that all people be treated equally under the Constitution. And he does not have much respect for the judicial branch of government, because that process, the process under which Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt of court, that was a judicial process that had been going on for years and years.

It had not reached its conclusion, as you pointed out. He was be sentenced in October. And by short circuiting that process, Trump showed contempt for the judiciary system. He showed contempt for the people that took that case to court and sought redress under the law. And he showed contempt for Latinos in Arizona and elsewhere, saying that it is OK to racially profile certain people. But he also showed contempt for all Americans by saying the Constitution isn’t what it says it is.

RENÉE FELTZ: I want to ask you about a comment by Arizona Senator and former Republican presidential candidate John McCain. He issued this statement that said, "The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions." Meanwhile, Arpaio told your newspaper, the Arizona Republic, in an interview Friday that he would not have handled his immigration sweeps any differently, saying, "My guys did nothing wrong, and I didn’t do anything wrong." Your response?

LINDA VALDEZ: Well, my response is that that’s been Arpaio’s m.o. since the beginning.
He is very much like Donald Trump. He does not admit that he makes mistakes. As far as John McCain’s quote, it’s right on target. I mean, John McCain gets things right. And as far as Trump is concerned, he has been right more than he has been wrong on this issue.

And I just wanted to address the point that the President made in his pardon that Arpaio has given a lot of service. The 20 years that he was Sheriff of Maricopa County were not good years, as far as a law man is concerned. He devoted a great deal of energy to his immigration sweeps which were racially profiling Latinos. In the process, he diverted resources and funding from other important law-enforcement processes.

There were 400 and plus sexual assault cases that were not investigated by his department. That was brought to light by several media outlets, one of which won a Pulitzer for it. He continued to be reelected, which is something I think [INAUDIBLE], where he and Donald Trump are very similar in the people that they appeal to, their inability to express remorse, and the fact that their supporters really don’t care about what they do. They are supporting people who do not respect all the people equally in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: Clearly, Sheriff Arpaio was a very early supporter of Donald Trump.
I think Donald Trump brought him up to Iowa. Donald Trump was sending a very significant message here, as he sends out this pardon, aside from talking about what kind of law he wants enforced and not enforced. Linda Valdez, do you think there was something strategic about this? A message to people who may be being investigated right now by Mueller and others—subpoenas going out—that there is a pardon out there for those that support him?

LINDA VALDEZ: Well, that has certainly been suggested and it certainly would be logical.
I think that Trump did send a message that he will stand by the people that are loyal to him. And it is a chilling message that even if the judicial system finds someone culpable, the president doesn’t care.

So I think it is—and it’s also a good distraction. Trump is doing a lot of things to distract people from the Russia investigation, and keep his populism going, which is another thing he has in common with Arpaio, is that appeal to the populist base. And basically saying, “My people will support me no matter what.” And both of them have said that, and it seems to be true in both cases.

RENÉE FELTZ: Linda, I want to jump in on that point. In our last 20 seconds, I want to jump in on that point. Since the pardon, Sheriff Joe Arpaio said in an interview with the Associated Press and your newspaper that he may jump back into politics.
Do you think he has a chance?

LINDA VALDEZ: Well, he is 85 years old. He has been talking for years about running for governor. He has never done it. In Arizona, I think he may be a spent force, which was our point in the editorial. He was really past—we had recognized here that he was a destructive force. But one never knows these days in politics. Donald Trump proves the old saying, “Anybody can be president.” Proves it in not a very good way, I would say.

AMY GOODMAN: Linda Valdez, we want to thank you for being with us. Editorial board member and columnist at the Arizona Republic, the state’s largest newspaper.

After President Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, she wrote an editorial. We’ll link to that. "Donald Trump Just Resurrected Joe Arpaio From Irrelevance”:http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2017/08/25/donald-trump-resurrects-joe-arpaio-irrelevance/604067001/. Linda Valdez is a Pulitzer Prize finalist. That does it for our show.

Thursday

FRONTLINE shows the Bannon’s war

The inside story of Trump adviser Stephen Bannon’s war — with radical Islam, Washington and White House rivals.

It is an eyeopening documentary!

Friday

Top Democrats Are Wrong: Trump Supporters Were More Motivated by Racism Than Economic Issues

By Mehdi Hasan


IT ISN’T ONLY Republicans, it seems, who traffic in alternative facts. Since Donald Trump’s shock election victory, leading Democrats have worked hard to convince themselves, and the rest of us, that his triumph had less to do with racism and much more to do with economic anxiety — despite almost all of the available evidence suggesting otherwise.

Consider Bernie Sanders, de facto leader of the #Resistance. “Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks,” he said at a rally in Boston on Friday, alongside fellow progressive senator Elizabeth Warren. “I don’t agree.” Writing in the New York Times three days after the election last November, the senator from Vermont claimed Trump voters were “expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own”.

Warren agrees with him. “There were millions of people across this country who voted for [Trump] not because of his bigotry, but in spite of that bigotry” because the system is “not working for them economically,” the Massachusetts senator told MSNBC last year.

Both Sanders and Warren seem much keener to lay the blame at the door of the dysfunctional Democratic Party and an ailing economy than at the feet of racist Republican voters. Their deflection isn’t surprising. Nor is their coddling of those who happily embraced an openly xenophobic candidate. Look, I get it. It’s difficult to accept that millions of your fellow citizens harbor what political scientists have identified as “racial resentment.” The reluctance to acknowledge that bigotry, and tolerance of bigotry, is still so widespread in society is understandable. From an electoral perspective too, why would senior members of the Democratic leadership want to alienate millions of voters by dismissing them as racist bigots?

Facts, however, as a rather more illustrious predecessor of President Trump once remarked, “are stubborn things.” Interestingly, on the very same day that Sanders offered his evidence-free defense of Trump voters in Boston, the latest data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) was released.

Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College and an expert on race relations, has pored over this ANES data and tells me that “whether it’s good politics to say so or not, the evidence from the 2016 election is very clear that attitudes about blacks, immigrants, and Muslims were a key component of Trump’s appeal.” For example, he says, “in 2016 Trump did worse than Mitt Romney among voters with low and moderate levels of racial resentment, but much better among those with high levels of resentment.”

The new ANES data only confirms what a plethora of studies have told us since the start of the presidential campaign: the race was about race. Klinkner himself grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter in the U.S. was to ask “just one simple question: is Barack Obama a Muslim?” Because, he said, “if they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.” This is economic anxiety? Really?

Other surveys and polls of Trump voters found “a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump”; Trump supporters being “more likely to describe African Americans as ‘criminal,’ ‘unintelligent,’ ‘lazy’ and ‘violent’”; more likely to believe “people of color are taking white jobs”; and a “majority” of them rating blacks “as less evolved than whites.” Sorry, but how can any of these prejudices be blamed on free trade or low wages?

For Sanders, Warren and others on the left, the economy is what matters most and class is everything. Yet the empirical evidence just isn’t there to support them. Yes Trump won a (big) majority of non-college-educated whites, but he also won a majority of college-educated whites, too. He won more young white voters than Clinton did and also a majority of white women; he managed to win white votes regardless of age, gender, income or education. Class wasn’t everything in 2016. In a recent essay in The Nation, analysts Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel point out that “income predicted support for McCain and Romney, but not Trump.” Their conclusion? “Racial identity and attitudes have further displaced class as the central battleground of American politics.”

Their view is backed by a detailed Gallup analysis of interviews with a whopping 125,000 Americans, which found that Trump supporters, far from being the “left behind” or the losers of globalization, “earn relatively high household incomes and are no less likely to be unemployed or exposed to competition through trade or immigration.” The “bottom line” for Gallup’s senior economist Jonathan Rothwell? “Trump’s popularity cannot be neatly linked to economic hardship.”

Look, if you still believe that Trump’s appeal was rooted in economic, and not racial, anxiety, ask yourself the following questions: Why did a majority of Americans earning less than $50,000 a year vote for Clinton, not Trump, according to the exit polls? Why, in the key Rust Belt swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, did most voters who cited the economy as “the most important issue facing the country” opt for Hillary over the Donald? And why didn’t black or Latino working class voters flock to Trump with the same fervor as white working class voters? Or does their economic insecurity not count?

To be clear, no one is saying there weren’t any legitimate economic grievances in Trumpland, nor is anyone claiming that the economy played no role whatsoever. The point, however, is that it wasn’t the major motivating factor for most Trump voters — or, at least, that’s what we learn when we bother to study those voters. Race trumped economics.

Defenders of the economy narrative have a “gotcha” question of their own: how can racial resentment have motivated Trump supporters when so many of them voted for Barack Obama, across the Rust Belt, in 2008 and 2012? “They’re not racists,” filmmaker Michael Moore passionately argued last November.  “They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein.”

Klinkner, though, gives short shrift to this argument. First, he tells me, “most of them didn’t vote for Obama. There weren’t many vote switchers between 2012 and 2016.” Second, “working class whites shifted to Trump less because they were working class than because they were white.” Klinkner points out that in 2016, Clinton, unlike Obama, faced a Republican candidate who “pushed the buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways that John McCain and Mitt Romney were unwilling or unable to do.”

If Democrats are going to have any chance of winning back the White House in 2020, they have to understand why they lost in 2016, and that understanding has to be based on facts and figures, however inconvenient or awkward. The Sanders/Warren/Moore wing of the party is right to focus on fair trade and income equality; the calls for higher wages and better regulation are morally and economically correct. What they are not, however, is some sort of silver bullet to solve the issue of racism. As the University of California’s Michael Tesler, author of “Post-Racial or Most-Racial?

Race and Politics in the Obama Era,” has pointed out, the “evidence suggests that racial resentment is driving economic anxiety, not the other way around.”

Always remember: You have to identify the disease before you can begin work on a cure. In the case of support for Donald Trump, the results are in: It isn’t the economy. It’s the racism, stupid.


Bernie Sanders Calls for Trump to Ax Bannon; Urges New Admin to Reject Racism, Sexism & Homophobia


AMY GOODMAN: Across town at George Washington University, Senator Bernie Sanders also gave his first major address since the election. Sanders, who challenged Clinton in the Democratic primary, has emerged as one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington. On Wednesday, he was named to a leadership post in the Senate—chair of outreach, a new position—and was reappointed ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. During his speech, Senator Sanders called on Trump to rescind his decision to make Steve Bannon his chief strategist. Bannon is the former head of Breitbart News.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: This country, as you all know, since our inception, has struggled to overcome discrimination of all forms. And that is racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. For hundreds of years, extraordinarily brave people have stood up, and some of them have died in the struggle, to end discrimination in America. And I say to Mr. Trump, from the bottom of my heart, and I know I speak for millions of fellow Americans: Mr. Trump, we are not going backwards in terms of bigotry; we’re going to go forward in creating a nondiscriminatory society. And in that regard, I call upon Mr. Trump to rescind the appointment that he made of Mr. Bannon. A president of the United States should not have a racist at his side. Unacceptable.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Senator Bernie Sanders speaking Wednesday. But his speech was not solely an attack on Donald Trump. The Vermont senator said he hopes to work with the president-elect on a number of issues.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Mr. Trump said, unlike many Republicans, the vast majority of the Republicans, he said we—he will not cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Now, I believe we should expand Social Security. I believe in a Medicare-for-all program. But that is what he said. And pay attention to see what he now does. The question that will be resolved, pretty quickly, is whether or not everything that he was saying to the working families of this country was hypocrisy, was dishonest, or whether he was sincere. And we will find that out soon enough. But, number one, no cuts, says Mr. Trump, to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Mr. Trump says he wants to invest a trillion dollars in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. That is a good sum of money. That is exactly what we should be doing. And we could create millions of good-paying jobs if we do that. Mr. Trump, that’s what you said on the campaign trail. That’s what we look forward to seeing from you.
Now, I happen to believe that the federal minimum wage of seven and a quarter today is a starvation wage, that it should be raised to $15 an hour, a living wage. Mr. Trump did not say that, but what he did say is we should raise the minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour. Not enough, but a start. And we will hold him to those words.
Mr. Trump said that Wall Street, dangerous, doing bad things. He wants to re-establish Glass-Steagall legislation. I look forward to working with him.
Mr. Trump said he wants six weeks of paid maternity leave. Well, every other major country on Earth has, I think, at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, but this is a start. This is a start. We look forward to working with him, if he is honest about that.
Mr. Trump said throughout his campaign, a cornerstone of his campaign, he wants to change our disastrous trade policies. As somebody who voted against every one of these trade policies, I look forward to working with him to make that happen.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s independent Senator Bernie Sanders speaking Wednesday night in Washington. Though he’s being referred to as one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, he caucuses with the Democrats. When we come back from break, we’ll look at how Sanders and the Democratic Party plan to deal with a Trump presidency. Stay with us.