MEDIA ROOTS – The upcoming G8 and NATO Summits to be held in tandem in Chicago this year between May 19 – 21, will greatly influence the direction the United States is headed in, as well as determine Americans’ democratic fortunes for generations to come.  Chicago will be the first city other than Washington D.C. to host a NATO summit, and it will be the first time in 30 years that any city has hosted the events together.

As socioeconomic pressure mounts and political ineptitude grows, the fate of America hangs in the balance.  The Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWSM) may be at a lull, but its state of hibernation shouldn’t be mistaken for an end to populist activism.  Economic conditions have not improved and U.S. citizens are becoming increasingly fearful, anxious, and desperate.   Come spring, protesters will likely start pouring into cities once again to demonstrate their dissatisfaction.  

The phrase “The Global Crossroads” stands prominently atop the Chicago G8/NATO homepage.   Are the global elite aware of just how significant this theme is for the “99%”?   The world has yet to see the conclusion of last year’s fierce spurt of democratic action when civil unrest and political activism engulfed wide swaths of the globe, and the temporary quiet could be compared as simply a two minute break in between rounds during a champion title fight.  Instead of countries in the Arab Spring having the light shed on their revolutionary processes, the United States could very well find itself on the world’s center stage this year. 

Throughout the Arab Spring phenomenon, President Obama admonished countries like Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and Libya for not protecting the civil rights of their respective citizenry and denounced every foreign leader for unleashing iron fisted tactics of repression on their own people that frequently resulted in bloodshed.  Although the United States purports to uphold these very lofty democratic protections and ideals that legitimate the moral superiority to forcefully export democracy abroad, the world began to see through this façade while observing the heavy handed police state repression against OWS protesters.  

Lt. John Pike, a.k.a. ‘The Pepper Spray Cop,’ became a notorious global icon of excessive police force against dissent in the U.S.  Unfortunately, last year’s events at UC Davis, NYC, and Oakland may have only been pre-game warm ups.  The G8/NATO Summit will put the Americas to the test, as the showdown sets up between the people’s desire to preserve and exercise their Constitutional rights versus the elites’ desire to squash them.  Just as in 1968, the whole world will be watching.

Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago, who branded the 1968 Democratic National Convention a day in infamy for the American psyche, is also responsible for bringing phrases like “storm troopers” and “Gestapo tactics” into the popular vernacular when referencing the police response to large rallies.  Up until 1968, the Chicago DNC riots held the distinction of being arguably the worst acts of police brutality during the 20th century.   For its time, the show of police force that Daley summoned was akin to a tyrannical regime. The book Battleground Chicago details the assembled forces of the Chicago police:

“The usual police contingent of 6,000 officers on the streets grew to 11,900 on twelve-hour shifts, up from the usual eight. The city requested the mobilization of 5,649 Illinois National Guardsmen, with an additional 5,000 on alert, bolstered by up to 1,000 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officers and military intelligence officers. Waiting for signs of trouble in the suburbs would be 6,000 army troops, including members of the elite 101st Airborne Division. The men were to be equipped with bazookas and flamethrowers.”

Although some of the protesters did antagonize the police by swearing and throwing small projectiles at them, the heavy handed police response and irresponsible conduct that resulted was completely unprecedented. Police indiscriminately beat protesters with nightsticks, sprayed them with tear gas, and trampled on people’s civil rights.

On the night of August 28, 1968, the hysteria exploded into a culmination of the infamous Hilton Hotel riots. On orders from Mayor Daley, the police were told “to shoot to kill any arsonist or anyone with a Molotov cocktail in his hand.” They rushed the crowds of protesters and unleashed a brutal onslaught of epic proportions, crushing skulls and leaving pools of blood in their wake. The mayhem unfolded in front of TV cameras as the whole world watched. Curiously, in the wake of the violent standstill, public opinion polls showed that a majority of Americans supported Daley’s tactics.

USA vs. DEMOCRACY – Chicago, Illinois 1968

Despite it being a global beacon of free speech, the United States doesn’t encourage a culture of dissent and protest, and it has a long history of quelling its political activism with violence.  Look no further than the union busting efforts of the Pinkertons in the 19th century.  From the first day we can say the word “flag,” we’re ingrained with nationalistic propaganda that the United States is an infallible and just entity, and the only option given to us as children is to toe the establishment line.

Furthermore, differences exist between the mindsets of populations in the U.S. and Europe.  Europe has a much more mature history of political unrest and revolution.  They have learned the difficult lessons we have yet to learn and as a result, European governments fear their people, whereas in the United States, people fear their government.  How much will the people fear Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago police force come May? 

For years, observers, such as economist Richard Wolff, have pointed out the stark contrast between the political diversity in European parliaments, with socialist, democratic-socialist, Greens, and other third-parties.  So, when economic meltdown occurs and austerity measures start to kick in to ‘bail out’ the banks, or siphon the people’s resources away, Europeans are more astute and well-informed to mount their resistance.  Whereas, in the US, prior to Wisconsin and Occupy, the two-party system kept everybody praying for the next election or the next saviour candidate.  Perhaps, this election year will be different with the Occupy Movement largely shunning the Wall Street Democrat Party’s overtures.

The anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters, one of the coordinators of OWS, put out a call to action to gather 50,000 protesters to descend on Chicago the weekend of the G8/NATO summit. According to their website:

“This time around we’re not going to put up with the kind of police repression that happened during the Democratic National Convention protests in Chicago, 1968 … nor will we abide by any phony restrictions the City of Chicago may want to impose on our first amendment rights.”

Unfortunately, Emanuel appears to be fervently following the lineage of Richard J. Daley by ‘rahmming through,’ if you will, a slew of draconian measures that will severely put the brakes on First Amendment rights.  Approved by the Chicago City Council in January, the new measures have affectionately come to be known as the “Sit Down and Shut Up” ordinances, already an ominous sign that points to tensions ratcheting up.  Evidently, Emanuel and other Chicago politicians have not learned history’s valuable lessons.

Some of the new “Sit Down and Shut Up” ordinances are: increased fines for civil disobedience (now $200-$1000 up from $25-$500), inclusion of passive resistance as a form of resisting arrest, the power to “deputize officers,” and requirement of $1 million in liability insurance for any large parade or protest, with each contingent needing to register one week in advance with the City.  Perhaps, the City of Chicago hopes that the increased fines will offset the enormous security costs of the event.

The total costs of the summit won’t be known until weeks after its completion.  However, the security cost is coming into focus.  To begin with, the Department of Homeland Security awarded a $54 million grant to Chicago.  The grant might only cover the basics, as there is an expectation that the host committee must additionally raise “between $45 million and $60 million in outside funds for supplemental security costs, delegation social events and related matters.”  The urgency for further financial backing may be fraying Emanuel’s nerves.  He will need sufficient funding to not only cover potential property damage but also to feed and house out-of-town cops.  Emanuel might look to corporate pockets for the extra millions needed, but is there a risk of the tab eventually being picked up by taxpayers?  He would be well-served to not drop the bill on the back of the “99%.”

Perhaps, Emanuel’s moniker of “Mayor 1%,” will be the new historical mark he’ll leave in the wake of the summit.  He’s well on his way, after receiving $4.9 million from the financial services industry for his mayoral campaign war chest.  This financial windfall continues his history as a beneficiary of the FIRE (financial, insurance, real estate) sector.  During his tenure as a member of the House of Representatives he received hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from UBS, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Bank of America, among others.  There will clearly be a conflict of interest between his “99%” constituency and his “1%” vested interests come May, if it’s not already evident.

On the homepage of the G8/NATO summit, Mayor Emanuel states:

“Chicago is a magnet for those that think big.  There’s no better place for leaders to find solutions to the world’s biggest challenges than right here in the President’s hometown.”

Ironically, the real leaders, the ones who aren’t ideologically bankrupt or suffer from a lack of imagination, will be out in the streets and not in convention halls, fancy hotels or behind velvet ropes.  Come spring, the protesters will endeavor to water the seeds of democracy and grow organic ideals of freedom. The powers that be will try to stop this new generation of leaders with their battalions of paramilitary storm troopers, their LRADs, ADSs, and armored vehicles.

Chicago’s broad shoulders will be burdened, not only in terms of the city’s legacy, but in relation to the “global crossroads.”  How can America’s ‘Windy City’ still blow hot air about being exceptional, democratic, and free if those in power are viciously cracking down on its citizens who dare to exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights to free speech?

Democracy is not a right, it’s a privilege, and in order to maintain our rights healthy and strong, to prevent them from atrophying, they must be exercised.  The simultaneous G8 and NATO summits in Chicago will set the stage for what could be a very rambunctious summer and a scalding hot Republican National Convention in Tampa.  Despite whatever ordinances are passed, the people on the streets will not sit down and shut up.  The smallest indignity, like the one that occurred to Mohamed Bouazizi, has proven capable of catalyzing massive, widespread tilling of moribund lands, yearning for democratic change.  On December 17, 2010, Tunisian authorities confiscated Bouazizi’s fruits and vegetables and reportedly slapped him, leading him to commit self-immolation outside the governor’s office.  The first domino of the Arab Spring had fallen.  The American domino wavers, the disgruntled and angry masses will continue to fight for America, as their rights become eradicated, as their unions become busted and their public services privatized.

But will U.S. liberals and progressives line up to rationalise another four years of Obama-style US imperialism and domestic repression?  Without a radical and critical electoral analysis, protest movements render themselves supplicant, enabling an unresponsive Democrat Party to continue to handily take its constituency for granted and leave them organising another four years of protests to bemoan business as usual.

Polish activist Rosa Luxemburg once wisely said “those who do not move do not notice their chains.” So, will the chains come off or will Chicago succumb to the second pity? The stakes are high. So high that Chicago, and the fabled “city on a hill” might just come tumbling down.

Written by Adam Miezio

Photo by flickr user cikaga jamie

MEDIA ROOTS — You’ve likely heard of Scott Olsen, the Iraq War veteran shot in the head by a police tear gas canister at point blank range during the nationwide crackdown on the Occupy Movement.  The tragic event transformed him into an international symbol of police brutality, and it continues to be an important story signifying state repression. 

Yet, you probably haven’t heard of Kenneth Harding.  His story wasn’t featured on Democracy Now! and was scarcely covered in the progressive press.  However, the story of Kenneth Harding is as tragic and damning as that of Scott Olsen, Oscar Grant, Rodney King, or any number of people who have experienced the raw fist and boot of the US police state.

Kenneth Harding is another U.S. citizen dishonoured by his nation who was gunned down in cold blood by S.F. police this past summer.  S.F. police then blocked anyone from offering the gasping and dying Harding first aid as he bled to death before a crowd of hundreds left in aghast. 

Harding’s mother spoke with “The Morning Mix with JR” on KPFA last week to talk about an event she was organising to raise awareness around the murder of her son and push for an investigation to bring the killer cops to justice.  (See transcript below.) 

In another related story of unwarranted police killing, another man was recently brutally gunned down in Monterey Park, CA outside of a restaurant by one of a swarm of cops apprehending the man who had broken some windows with a metal bar.  Instead of collectively overpowering the man with their bare hands or waiting for back-up, one murderous cop lunges forward and shoots him, point blank, almost ten times, completely unprovoked, leaving Steven Rodriguez dead. 

In story after story, cops seems to be malfunctioning, losing their cool with their weapons, degenerating into wanton murder.  Unwarranted police aggression and their use of deadly force over the decades, poorly covered by corporate media, has conditioned many in the U.S. to seemingly accept and condone such lawlessness from police forces.

As the corporate media parroted police disinformation surrounding the Kenneth Harding story, the San Francisco Bayview National Black Newspaper documented the events from a grassroots perspective:

“When police stopped a teenager stepping off the T-train yesterday [16 Jul 2011] to show his transfer as proof he’d paid his fare – $2 at most – he ran from them. They shot him as many as 10 times in the back and neck, according to witnesses. For many long minutes, as a crowd watched in horror, the boy, who had fallen to the sidewalk a block away, lay in a quickly growing pool of blood writhing in pain and trying to lift himself up as the cops trained their guns on him and threatened bystanders.”

One M.D.s Letter to the SF Examiner Editor wrote: 

“I take exception to reports describing Kenneth Harding lying dead on the Bayview sidewalk. I have reviewed at least five videos which document him laying face down in a pool of blood and arching his neck in an attempt to breathe.

San Francisco police officers are trained in CPR, emergency airway management and first aid. A simple and humane maneuver might have been to simply roll him over on his back and apply a compression dressing to the wound in his neck.”

—Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, M.D. San Francisco

Kenneth Harding “laying face down in a pool of blood and arching his neck in an attempt to breathe.”

Attorney for Harding’s family, Adante Pointer, discussed the glaring contradictions between “police department’s shifting stories” about the murder of Kenneth Harding by police and the accounts of hundreds of witnesses, many of which tried to administer first aid or get help, but were kept at bay by silent, cocked-and-loaded, cops brandishing firepower.  No one wanted to be next in some of the most dramatic minutes of U.S. history since Oscar Grant was gunned down in cold blood by BART police. 

As expected, the murderer cop in that case, Johannes Mehserle, was not administered a punishment commensurate with the crime of murder.  Instead, he was given a slap on the wrist and a mere one year jail sentence.  In the case of Kenneth Harding’s murder, we haven’t even seen the names of the guilty cops.  But Kenneth Harding’s mother continues to seek justice with the help of the SF Bayview community and independent, grassroots media to illuminate the struggle for justice around police terorrism.

***

THE MORNING MIX WITH JR — “You are listening to The Morning Mix.  Good morning ladies and gentleman.  I am your host, The Minister of Information, JR.  Today, we will be talking about the unjustified murder of unarmed young Black man, Kenneth Harding in San Francisco and the upcoming protest to shut down 3^rd Street in San Francisco this Sunday [22 Jan 2012].

“We’ll talk about the plight of the Black Farmers in California as well as the Black International Film Festival and the upcoming Carter G. Woodson Bowl, a.k.a. Black Jeopardy.  All of this after the news.”

JR (c. 7:05):  “We are back.  I am your host, the Minister of Information JR, for The Morning Mix.  Today, we will talk about the Carter G. Woodson Black History Bowl, a.k.a. Black Jeopardy.  We will talk about the Oakland International Film Festival.  We will also talk about the plight of the Black farmers in California.

“But, first, we need to address these unjustified police murders of unarmed people in the Black community all over the United States.

“Our next guest is the mother of Kenneth Harding, 19-year old unarmed Black man who was shot in mid-July [2011] over a $2 dollar bus transfer by the San Francisco Police Department.  We have his mother live in the studio today.  Her name is Denika Chatman.

“How are you Miss Denika?”

Denika Chatman (c. 7:58):  “I’m good.  Thank you for asking.”

JR (c. 8:00):  “Can you tell the people a little bit about your son, Kenneth Harding?  Who was Kenneth Harding before he was murdered by the San Francisco Police Department in such an atrocious way?”  

Denika Chatman (c. 8:12):  “My son was very filled with life.  He was the life of the party.  He could go anywhere and fit in.  He loved life.  And he was a college student, set to start college last fall.  He was an entertainer.  He was out here [in the S.F. Bay Area] trying to get his music out.  And he was very family oriented.  He loved his mother.  He loved his brother.  He loved his sister.  And he loved the Lord.”

JR (c. 8:45):  “Can you tell the people a little bit about what happened in the middle of July [2011].”

Denika Chatman (c. 8:51):  “Yes.  My son, Kenny, he was on a T-train in San Francisco, Muni Transit.  And the police, pretty much, racially profiled him, approached him, asked him to supply proof of purchase of transfer for being on the train.  And when he didn’t supply it, they removed him from the train where at that time he, just, had sat for a moment and then he took off running.  And while he was running, he was running with his hands up. 

“And they still shot him down and allowed him to lay in the streets for over 28 minutes while he bled out and died.  They wouldn’t allow the paramedics through to try to help him. 

“And, basically, I feel like he was ambushed because they came at him from two different directions over a $2 transit fare.

JR (c. 9:47):  “I just want to put it out there that this is on YouTube.  They can put Kenneth Harding into YouTube and this will come up.”

Denika Chatman (c. 9:56):  “That is correct.  There was over 150 people out there that day.  So, everybody pulled out their phones and started recording.  And that’s why there are so many videos of my son’s death on there.

“And I’ve never seen it.  I don’t want to see it.  But I do get the sympathy calls and support from everyone else who has seen them.”

JR (c. 10:19):  “What’s been going on since in the community of Hunter’s Point where this occurred?  What’s been going on since with people, such as Fly Benzo and Kilo and different people who support you?”

Denika Chatman (c. 10:33):  “That’s where the majority of my support comes from.  As far as Fly, him and his brother Pladee have been assaulted, hospitalised, incarcerated for speaking openly about what they witnessed on that day and for still speaking out in regards to it, which I don’t understand because there’s also a YouTube of what happened to Fly Benzo.  And I don’t understand why the courts won’t just use that as evidence and see what actually occurred on that day and that the police provoked all of this and just drop the charges. 

“And that’s why I endorse his campaign.  Free Fly Benzo.  His brother Pladee, he was assaulted as well. 

“Kilo Perry, the police have harassed him on several occasions; he has been incarcerated for speaking out for the murder of my son, for what he saw the police do.”     

JR (c. 11:29):  “Isn’t the San Francisco Police Department pushing charges that could result in Fly Benzo, otherwise known as Debray Carpenter, where he could be facing years in prison?”

Denika Chatman (c. 11:43):  “That is correct.  And I carry a lot of the guilt behind that because the battle he’s fighting is because he stood up for what he felt wasn’t right, the injustice done to my son.  And because of that he is looking at a lot of prison time.  And that’s why I’m fighting so hard for him on his side in solidarity because something has to be done.  And he shouldn’t have to go through this behind speaking out against injustice.

JR (c. 12:20):  “Can you talk a little bit about what you guys have going on January 22^nd?”

Denika Chatman (c. 12:24):  “Yeah.  On January 22^nd, we are having a peaceful protest march and rally starting at 3^rd Street and Oakdale, my son’s murder spot.  That is San Francisco. 

“And we are marching over to Candlestick Stadium to surround it.  It’s the NFC Playoff Championship Game and we know that the 49ers are gonna make it there.  So, we’re just trying to bring awareness to the game-goers that, ‘We don’t have no problem with you enjoying your game. We’re not even trying to disrupt the game. We just want to bring awareness that right outside of this stadium, the police are killing our children.’

JR (c. 13:08):  “Right.  Can you also talk a little bit about this concert that you have comin’ up?”

Denika Chatman (c. 13:13):  “Yes.  I can touch on it.  We’re having a big benefit concert for my son on February 10^th.  And I’ll just list a couple of the artists who will be there:  The Jacka, J-Diggs, Mac Mall, Turf Talk, Beeda Weeda.”

JR (c. 13:33):  “And this is at 330 Ritch in San Francisco.”

Denika Chatman (c. 13:36):  “Yes.  Everything is still being collaborated, put together, so we’re just waiting on finalisation right now.  But everything is approved to go.”

JR (c. 13:49):  “How has the police been responding to you and your family since this murder occurred?”

Denika Chatman (c. 13:54):  “Well, I went down to the Office of Citizen Complaints in San Francisco to turn in my complaint.  At that time, I had only been in my new home for not even ten days.  And at that time they were the only ones who had my address, my physical address, because I had to put it on the paperwork.  And within three to five days my home address was listed under Google with step-by-step directions on how to get to my home. 

“And I haven’t had any interactions with the police.  However, they still haven’t been forthcoming with any of the evidence, or the videotapes, or anything to prove that they did a righteous kill.”

JR (c. 14:40):  “If people would like to help you and your supporters and would like to help fight police terrorism in aiding the people who are supporting Kenneth Harding, where can they do that and how can they do that?”

Denika Chatman (c. 14:55):  “Well, we just established the Kenneth Harding, Jr. Foundation.  If you would like to support, you can come to our meetings, you can also follow me on Facebook at Justice 4 Kenneth Harding Jr.  And you can actually see everything that we’ve done up until this point as well as find out all the upcoming events and also posted on the page, anything that’s needed or anything that has to do with the Foundation we post it up there, so that if people want to participate or become part of his Committee.  They are welcome to do so.”

JR (c. 15:40):  “Well, Denika, I just want to salute you for standing on the front line when you’ve faced such an atrocity to your own family, the atrocious murder of your own son by somebody who was a so-called public servant.

“Do we know the name of the police officer that killed your son?”

Denika Chatman (c. 15:59):  “There were actually four of them.  And all their names are listed on the Justice 4 Kenneth Harding, Jr. site as well.”

JR (c. 16:06):  “Well, thank you for standing on that front line.  We appreciate your strength and your commitment and dedication.  And you know the Block Report is behind you.”

Denika Chatman (c. 16:16):  “Bless you, JR.  I also want to thank you for being a part of my son’s Board, being part of our Foundation. 

“And one thing that a lot of people don’t know, they can go get the new issue of the Bayview Newspaper, read my story.  It’s called ‘Picking Up the Pieces.’  And on there, I’m actually giving shouts out to you for coming to Seattle to see about me and my family after all of this occurred, for you for being on the front line with me in supporting me throughout all of this, to all my front-runners who are still standing on the front line, who didn’t allow the police to get to them and silence them.  Kilo Perry, Fly Benzo, Pladee Clayton, all o’ ya’ll.  I just wanna thank my true soldiers.”

JR (c. 17:05):  “Well, right on.  Salute.  Thank you for coming in.”

Denika Chatman (c. 17:08):  “Thank you for having me.”

***

Writing, transcript by Felipe Messina for Media Roots

Photo by ElvertBarnes

MEDIA ROOTS — On a recent KPFA radio broadcast, Project Censored discussed the ten-year mark of the U.S. Guantánamo Bay gulag and its implications for the Rule of Law.  One of Project Censored’s featured guests, Dr. Almerindo Ojeda, delivered an Occupy UC Davis – Dissent Lecture on December 1, 2011 at the University of California at Davis.  We present that address here, entitled Guantánamospeak and the Manufacture of Consent.  Dr. Ojeda is a professor of Linguistics and the Principal Investigator in the Guantánamo Testimonials Project of the Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas at UC Davis, for which Dr. Ojeda serves as Director.   

If prisoners at Guantánamo were the canaries-in-the-goldmine, then the U.S. people have not heeded the warning of the decade, a testament to the efficacy of U.S. state propaganda and social control.  The Bush era policies of imperialism and domestic repression have only escalated during the Obama Administration–with Obama’s recent signing of the NDAA (S.1867), any one of us may arbitrarily face the same fate as those languishing at Guantánamo.

MR

***

GUANTÁNAMOSPEAK AND THE MANUFACTURE OF CONSENT

For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctri­nation […] Propaganda is to democracy what vio­lence is to totalitarianism.

Noam Chomsky

Much has been made about prisoner abuse at Guantánamo.  And rightly so: Guantánamo is an ongoing crime against humanity.  If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Guantánamo Testimonials Project we have been carrying out at this campus.  But even though a lot has been said, there and elsewhere, about prisoner abuse at Guantánamo, relatively little has been said about language abuse at the Cuban airbase.  Yet, there has been a lot of it.  And we need to talk about it, if only because prisoner abuse is enabled by language abuse.

Abusing a human being is not easy to do; consenting to do it is not something that comes naturally.  As a matter of fact, the consent to abuse a fellow human being is something that needs to be manufactured.  It needs to be built.  Like a house.  Brick by brick and room by room.

How was this consent to abuse manufactured at Guantánamo?  First, you instill fear.  You say that Guantánamo holds vicious criminals that would not hesitate to chew on hydraulic tubes to bring an airplane down.  Then you cultivate hatred.  You say that each and every one of the individuals detained at the base was personally responsible for 9/11.  Then you abuse language; you engage in what Orwell would call Guantánamospeak.  It is this third step that I want to focus on today.

The abuse of language at Guantánamo began by coining the term war on terror.  A war is something that threatens the very survival of a nation.  Consequently, no citizen of that nation can be against it.  Except for the ‘traitors’ who seek the destruction of their own nation.  But is terrorism something that threatens the survival of our nation?  It can lead to massive loss of life (as 9/11 did).  And it can be a crime against humanity (as 9/11 was).  But threaten the survival of a nation?  Wars are events that have only two natural outcomes: victory or defeat.  Consequently, if you do not root for victory, you are rooting for defeat.  Only a traitor can root for defeat.

But casting our response to 9/11 in terms of a war creates a linguistic problem.  How would you call someone you capture in that war?  Prisoner of war?  This would be extremely problematic, as prisoners of war have rights under the Geneva Conventions, one of them being the right to be free from coercive interrogation.  But interrogate coercively is something our government very much wanted to do with these captives.  So we called them detainees instead of prisoners.  This has an added rhetorical advantage: it makes imprisonment at Guantánamo sound like a minor inconvenience (like being detained by traffic).  So we should consent to that.

By the way, the verb capture is already loaded. Being captured is what happens to fugitives, possibly of justice, and hence to criminals.  Never mind that some of the individuals held at Guantánamo were captured in their homes with their families.  Or fleeing carpet bombing.  Or coming out of a courthouse that had just cleared them from charges of terrorism.  Or were handed to us by local militias in exchange for bounties (a practice that might be called human trafficking in legal circles).

Alternatively, Guantánamo prisoners may be called enemy combatants.  This reinforces the context of war, and hence the survival of the nation.  But mention of war again brings about the term of prisoner of war.  So we should clarify the term enemy combatant and speak of unprivileged enemy combatants.  Adding the adjective unprivileged manages to turn the rights of the Geneva Conventions into privileges.  Privileges are things which are granted by the grace of a legitimate authority.  Rights are something you have regardless of the generosity of the powers that be.  Rights are something powers can no more grant than they can withhold.

And just for the record: Guantánamo prisoners have rights under the Geneva Conventions.  Everyone held in an armed conflict is protected by these conventions.  The fact that some captives did not wear uniforms only means that they do not have the rights Geneva grants to combatants.  They would still have the rights granted to civilians.  For civilians are protected by the Geneva Conven­tions as well as combatants.  I should add that thinking that the Guantá­namo prisoners are in fact protected by the Geneva Conventions is not my inter­preta­tion; it is the interpretation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is the accepted arbiter for the implementa­tion of the Geneva Conventions.  It is the organization the signatories of the Convention, the US included, have agreed to abide by.

But we digress. Let’s return to Guantánamospeak.

Guantánamo prisoners are being coercively interrogated.  This, of course, is not called this way. That may enable dissent.  In Guantánamo, when you are taken from your cell in order to be interrogated, you are said to be making good on a reservation.  Or to be going for an interview.  So, being interrogated is like going to a restaurant.  Or applying for a job.  Nothing to dissent about there.

Interestingly, language does not always take the abuse lying down; sometimes, it fights back.  Guantánamo personnel may say, for example, that so-and-so is going to reservation, a phrase which we would never use for making good on a reserva­tion made at a restaurant (and betrays the attempt to veil the reference to interro­gations, which are something one would ‘go to’).

As has been thoroughly reported, interrogations at Guantánamo can be brutal.  They may involve beatings, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, exposure to temperature extremes, blaring noise, painful binding, and threats of death or harm to self or to others.  Such practices are what independent observers call torture.  But they cannot be called that in Guantánamo.  That would sow the seeds of dissent.  There, these practices are collectively referred to as procedures of enhanced interrogation instead.  Interrogation is acceptable in a criminal setting (given legal protections).  So, what is wrong with enhancing an acceptable procedure?  We should consent to it.

Each one of the aforementioned forms of torture has its own special entry in the dictionary of Guantánamospeak.  Food deprivation is called dietary manipulation—a lapse, perhaps, as manipulation often refers to less-than-legitimate doings (language fights back again).  Sleep deprivation is called sleep management (nothing wrong with managing sleep, is there?  After all, you do not want to be a slouch).  Under one of the modalities of sleep management, a prisoner can be moved, almost continuously from one cell to another for weeks.  This involves full bodily searches, gatherings of belongings, three-chain shackling, marching from one cell to another, and unshackling.  This is done around the clock for weeks, as a consequence of which the prisoner is unable to sleep for more than one hour at a time.  This form of sleep deprivation is referred to as the frequent flyer program (so the movement from cell to cell is to be thought of as the benefits program one gets from an airline by traveling a lot with it).  This is supposed to be funny.  The program is also called Operation Sandman, thus making a perverse reference to the nursery rhyme used to put children to sleep (and acknowledging, via sar­casm, the real purpose of the exercise).

The most common form of beating in Guantánamo comes in the context of forced cell removals.  Suppose a non-compliant prisoner refuses to go to interrogation (or to make good on a reservation he never made).  An Immediate Reaction Force is called in.  An Immediate Reaction Force is a team of six guards in full riot gear that march into a cell, pepper-spray the prisoner (some of you may know about this first-hand)…  In any event, they pepper-spray the prisoner, charge on him, slam him onto the ground, beat him up badly, hog-tie him, and take him wherever he needs to be—which, at that point, is usually the infirmary.  Interestingly, these events are called irfs (based on the acronym for Immediate Reaction Force), and the action itself is called an irfing.  Irf is a new word of American English.  But we didn’t need it.  We already had a term for that.  It would be aggravated battery.  But this term, of course, would sow dissent, and cannot be used.

Beyond aggravated battery, bearing three-chain shackling (on wrists, ankles, and waist) is referred to as wearing a three-piece suit (thus making light of excessive binding by reference to an elegant suit of clothes).  To soften up a hardened terrorist in reservation, the prisoner is made to squat on the floor about a metal eye-ring where he is painfully chained from his wrists and ankles.  This is called a stress position (stress being an unavoidable feature of modern life).  Independent observers might call that binding torture instead.  Then, if all else fails, a prisoner is threatened with being taken to a country where he can be physically abused (beaten, electroshocked, cut, suffocated, or burned).  A practice of torture by proxy from which we can remove ourselves linguistically by appealing to the aseptic term extraordinary rendition.  Language is used here to conceal reality rather than to reveal it.  But the most common form of torture associated with the war on terror is, by far, water­boarding.  Being a widespread form of torture, waterboarding goes under myriad names the world over.  It is not certain that waterboarding actually happened at Guantánamo.  But other forms of controlled suffocation (dryboarding) have been proposed as explanations for the first three deaths in custody at the base.  The one pertinent testimony we have about actual waterboarding has reached us anonymously, allegedly from a guard, who said the practice hap­pened all the time at Guantánamo, where it was not called waterboarding but drown-proofing.  As if prisoners were being protected from drowning—which I guess is true.  Except that it is us that are causing the drowning.  And the protection is only from the natural outcome of drowning (death).  And only to prolong the agony of the victim.

Incidentally, waterboarding is sometimes described as simulated drowning.  Or as a procedure that induces the misperception of drowning.  This is inaccurate and misleading.  It is inaccurate because waterboarding is not simulated drowning; it is actual drowning.  Only that it is controlled so as to prevent death and thus prolong the agony.  Controlled drowning would therefore be closer to the mark.  Describing waterboarding as simulated drowning is also misleading, as it suggests that the problem with waterboarding is deception—which would be no problem at all; deception is a perfectly legal interrogation tactic.

In 2004, the Supreme Court dealt the first of three blows to Guantánamo.  It ruled that prisoners had to be given a semblance of their day in court.  What they got was significantly less than a semblance.  They got a farce.  They were subjected to so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs).  They were called tribunals in order to say that the ruling of the Supreme Court was followed.  But they were nothing like a real American tribunal.  First, the prisoners were not allowed a lawyer; only a personal representative.  And that representative was a member of the military.  Consequently, he had the same employer as the prosecution.  The tribunal took place before a panel of three judges.  They too were members of the military.  As was the “court of appeals” that could overturn the decisions of these tribunals.  As if this were not enough, the prisoner could be tried on secret evidence.  So, there was no way he could defend himself properly.  Hearsay was admitted into the record as well.  And the evidence brought about by the prosecution could not be questioned.  It had to be taken as fact.  This asymmetry between the claims of the prosecution and those of the defense can be traced linguistically in the transcripts of the CSRTs.  The allegations of the prisoner are described as such by appealing to verbs of saying (what are known in the trade as verba dicendi).  Verba dicendi are verbs like says, alleges, claims.  Crucially, however, the charges of the prosecution are mentioned straight up without such verbs.  The impression you therefore get is not one of a conflict between charges and refutations, but one of a clash between facts and counterclaims.  The former breeds dissent; the latter, consent.

The outcomes of the CSRTs were also interesting specimens of Guantánamospeak.  The verdicts of these tribunals were not, as one may expect, innocence or guilt.  No; they were still an enemy combatant or no longer an enemy combatant.  For, finding that a prisoner was not an enemy combatant would question the original evidence supporting his capture.  It would also raise the possibility that he was imprisoned without cause in the first place.  But that would detract from the consent being manufactured.

Amazingly, in remarkably few cases, and in spite of having the cards stacked squarely against him, a prisoner could be ruled to be no longer an enemy combatant.  At which point, the “court of appeals” which, as we said, was also employed by the military, convened a new tribunal to review the results.  Such revised tribunals invariably reversed the ruling of the first tribunals, and found the prisoners to be correctly designated as enemy combatants after all.  Interestingly, these new tribunals were called reconvened tribunals.  As if the original tribunal had just taken a break for lunch and “reconvened” afterwards.  Never mind that the new tribunal had an entirely different panel of judges, was allegedly handed new evidence, and reached the opposite verdict than the old one.

One of the constant fears in Guantánamo is that the prisoners would commit suicide (prison suicides reflect poorly on prisoner treatment).  So, suicides are linguistically impossible in Guantánamo.  According to the prison manuals that have been made public, what we have there can only be described as self-harm gestures—like slapping your forehead or biting your fingernails, I suppose.

Hunger strikes are linguistically impossible in Guantánamo as well.  Like prison suicides, prison hunger strikes are signs of poor conditions at the prison.  Thus, what the Guantánamo manuals prescribe is the use, not of hunger strikes, but only of total voluntary fasts.  This contorted Orwellian idiom removes hunger strikes from the realm of protest and transfers them into the realm of religious beliefs (the prisoners are religious fanatics anyway).  And into the realm of free, volun­tary activity, the existence of which would actually reflect well on the prison.

Incidentally, I mentioned that some Guantánamo manuals have been made public (thanks to the transparency organization WikiLeaks).  This is no small matter, given the amount of censorship that clouds the base.  Once again, censorship (which is unbecoming of a democracy) is called secrecy (an admissible practice in wartime).  It is also called redaction when it is applied to a document.  But to redact a document means to write it (or used to mean as much before the War on Terror).  By coopting the term redaction, censorship vanishes into the very creation of the document; it becomes inevitable (and hence acceptable).

More than 600 of the 779 individuals that have been imprisoned at Guantánamo at one time or another have been released.  A few of them went on to engage in hostilities against the United States or their interests (exactly how few is in dispute).  This has been described as recidivism.  Or as returning to the battlefield.  Even if their captors never claimed that the so-called battlefield returnees had ever been in a battlefield in the first place.  The possibility that these individuals were actually retaliating for the torture they endured at Guantánamo is seldom raised.  For that would suggest that some of the violence we endure is the result of the violence we inflict.  

Consenting to abuse a fellow human being is not something that happens naturally; it is something that needs to be manufactured.

Almerindo Ojeda, Principal Investigator

The Guantánamo Testimonials Project

Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas

University of California at Davis

Author’s Note:  The term manufacture of consent was coined in 1921 by Walter Lippman in his book Public Opinion (see Chapter XV).  According to Lippman, the manufacture of consent was a form of propaganda that the élite had to unleash on the unenlightened masses of a modern democracy.  The term was subsequently used by Chomsky and Herman in the title to a book they published in 1988.  In that book they revealed the way in which profit motive corrupts the mainstream media into manufacturing consent.  The term Guantánamospeak is based on the term Newspeak Orwell coined in his book 1984.  The epigraph to this paper was taken from “Propaganda, American style,” an article which is available online at zpub.com/un/chomsky.

***

Photo by flickr user Art Makes Me Smile

MEDIA ROOTS — As the Occupy Movement coalesced globally, tents and bodies were brutalized by the state and press credentials were swept aside with sweeping arrests of journalists, we may have taken comfort in the thought that they couldn’t jail an idea—the idea of the 99% resisting the tyranny of the 1%. 

Yet, under Obama, powers that be are trying to do just that—imprison ideas, as key books of the Chicano literary cannon have been, essentially, arrested and taken into indefinite detention at some Book Depository.  Not only are scores of innocent immigrants profiled and held arbitrarily to bolster a bogus war on imaginary enemies, but books, too, are imprisoned in the info wars of propaganda for corporate imperialism and tyranny, what Dr. Carlos Muñoz calls the colonisation of the mind.  Dr. Muñoz spoke with Flashpoints earlier this week about this blatant display of racism and state repression in Arizona as well as the historical underpinnings of the Brown and Black struggle for equality in the U.S.

Messina

***

FLASHPOINTS — [17 Jan 2012] “Today on Flashpoints, the Tucson School District bans key books by Chicano and Native American authors.  That’s right.  That’s what I said.  Bans the books.  They box them up, ban them, and put them in the Book Depository.  We ain’t gonna see ‘em.”

***

FLASHPOINTS — [18 Jan 2012] “You’re listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio.  My name is Dennis Bernstein.  The outrage and disgust continues over the decision by the Tucson School system to ban books by Chicano and Native American authors, such as Leslie Marmon Silko, Buffy Sainte-Marie, and Winona LaDuke.  The decisions to ban the books followed a 4 to 1 vote on Tuesday by the Tucson Unified School District, the Board, to succumb to the State of Arizona and forbid Mexican American Studies, rather than fight the State decision.

“Students said the banned books were seized from their classrooms and out of their hands after the vote came.  And they are troubled.  They are saying that it’s sort of like Nazi Germany.  And they were unable to sleep after it happened.  Some of the books also include Suzan Shown Harjo We Have No Reason to Celebrate and many others. 

“Joining us to talk about this very important and troubling situation is Dr. Carlos Muñoz.  He’s one of the key pioneers in ethnic studies and Chicano studies in the country.  Dr. Muñoz was the founding Chair of the first Chicano Studies Department in the nation in 1968 at the California State University at Los Angeles and the founding Chair of National Association of Chicana/o Studies.  He is a pioneer in the creation of undergraduate and graduate curricula in the disciplines of ethnic studies.  He’s the author of numerous pioneering works on the Mexican-American political experience and on African-American and Latino political coalitions.  His book Youth, Identity, Power: The Chicano Movement won the Gustavus Myers Book Award for outstanding scholarship in the study of human rights in the United States.

“Dr. Carlos Muñoz, welcome back to Flashpoints.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 2:59):  “Thank you for inviting me.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 3:01):  “Well, it’s good to have you with us, although it’s a terrible situation.  And this thing, believe it or not, started to unfold on Martin Luther King’s birthday celebrations.  Let me get your initial response to what happened here.  What were you thinking?  What went through your mind?” 

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 3:17):  “Well, you know, I don’t have the words to express my anger at what’s taking place in Tucson, Arizona.  It’s just simply unbelievable.  I mean never did I expect, at this point in time in history, after 40 years of scholarship that has been generated and published and being taught in universities around the country, specifically on the Chicano experience in the United States.  For scholars of Mexican-American background and other people of colour, scholars of colour have collectively made a profound contribution to the body of knowledge of people of colour in this country and have rectified and documented a history that speaks the truth of what this country has been historically as an empire, a promoter of imperialism throughout the world, as a racist, White-supremacist nation, as witnessed by the so-called founding fathers, who were, for the exception of one, all slave owners. 

“This kind of truth doesn’t speak well to what’s going on in Arizona because I think that the people that are there responsible for this particular tragedy in public education are, either, ignorant and never attended the university, never were educated, and/or are members of the Tea Party or some other extreme racist organisations that are promoting anti-Mexican, racist, hysteria.

“So, I think what we see here, as I see it anyway, a situation where right-wingers have collectively organised and made this an issue because it’s a manifestation of the perceived threat of, what I call the, quote ‘Brown Invasion,’ as has been encapsulated by a lot of the right-wing politicians in this country.  Increasing what are called demographic [] that we are witnessing right now has become a threat to many people in power and, of course, especially in Arizona, as you know.  That [either] once they [started] this whole process of criminalizing Mexican undocumented workers and have set the tone for other states to follow that are under the tutelage of right-wing political folks.  So, I think, it’s something that needs to be protested, people have to take to the streets and say [don’t end] in Tucson.  It’s an issue that has become very, very critical and deserves the support of all Americans, regardless of race or ethnic background.  It’s just ridiculous.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 6:10):  “One of the things that people who work within the system, we were speaking with teachers and students, is that it was an incredibly effective programme, in which students were succeeding, students who were dropping out before were staying in school, going on to higher education. 

“Could you talk about how that happens, why it was so important for these students—and the school system there is 61% Mexican-American—why it’s so important?  Say a little bit more about that.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 6:45):  “Well, you know, in any places of education, if you’re a student and you don’t hear about people like yourself in the making of history in this nation, you’re bound to feel somewhat inferior.  You know what I mean?  I’ve gone through that when I was a kid.  I mean, my god, all this White history.  You know?  And all the heroes were White.  And you never hear about the good things that were done by folks of colour in this society and during the building of this nation. 

“And, so, it’s been.  Before, prior to the emergence of ethnic studies and Chicano studies in universities, there were no books about the Chicano experience.  And the consequence of that, as I witnessed it, as I experienced it, was an inferiority complex. 

“You know, my god, all we hear about Mexicans, for example:  they’re criminals, they’re drunkards, their women are whores, they.  There come all these racist, negative stereotypes that are promoted in the movies and television, newspapers.  So, the consequence of that was, historically, what I call the colonisation of the mind where the young people of Mexican descent were pushed into thinking that they were inferior, that their culture was inferior.

“Now, what’s happened in Tucson has been a remarkable, remarkable process of [deep colonisation].  You know?  Where the issues that have been presented there in public schooling have been taken on by teachers, by staff members in the school district, who have had the courage to develop a programme of Mexican-American studies, the first, by the way, and the only one in the whole country at the public school level, a remarkable feat that ought to be celebrated and be set up, you might say, as an example of what other public school systems, including those of us here in California, those systems here, ought to pursue.

“And the consequence has been remarkable, as you mentioned.  In fact, that particular Tucson Mexican-American Studies programme has resulted in the radical turnabout in terms of many people taking pride, becoming proud of the fact that they learn that they come from ancestors who have made contributions, profound contributions to civilisations throughout the Americas—that fact alone is incredible, a tangible contribution to boosting the feeling of being worthy as human beings.  And that kind of feeling is very, very important to have in order for young people to succeed in life beyond public school.

“So, I think what has been done in Arizona by these White politicians has been an effort to return to the days of the 1950s, previous to the Chicano Movement and other Civil Rights Movements in this country.  They try to ‘Americanise,’ quote-unquote, and ‘re-colonise’ the minds of young people in the State of Arizona.”  

Dennis Bernstein (c. 9:56):  “You’re listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio.  My name is Dennis Bernstein.  We are speaking with Dr. Carlos Muñoz. 

“You know, banning this programme in Tucson is almost like banning the speaking of Spanish in Mexico.  Anybody who has spent time in Tucson or Nogales, Arizona understands how prevalent—”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz:  “Right.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 10:14):  “—I mean it’s Mexico, but it’s called the United States.  Now, they did this in front of the students.  The decision was made for the teachers to be boxing the books up in front of the students, shipping them out for storage.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz:  “Right.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 10:29):  “Kids were crying.  I remember when I was down there in Tucson and we were broadcasting from there.  One young student told me that she was really thinking about suicide and had actually tried to take her own life once until she got into a programme like this and began to feel alive.

“Could you comment on that?”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 10:50):  “Right.  Well, this is an example of what I was referring to is when young people are awakened by educators to who they really are and where they come from and why it’s a source of pride, or should be a source of pride, I mean it’s incredible.  You cannot put the value on that kind of intellectual discovery and awakening of a young mind.  It makes a world of difference to a young person to find meaning in their lives that carries them forth toward a positive direction in society to become good citizens and critical-thinking people that are going to make contributions to the betterment of the society as a whole.” 

Dennis Bernstein (c. 11:45):  “You know, one has to believe or gets the strong feeling that they really don’t want the students to succeed because the programme was so successful, the amount, the percentage of students who ended up going to college as a result of this kind of study was overwhelming.  And one has think that this is an attempt to cripple, undermine, and keep these kids down, rather than to cheerlead the fact that they’re getting better, things are getting better, and they’re really succeeding.

“It’s racism at the core, wouldn’t you say?”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 12:25):  “I agree.  I wholeheartedly agree.  And I think, to add to that, what I see here is that with regard to the demographic is becoming more Mexican than ever.  They envision that out of all these young people developing a critical thinking capacity and proud identity that they are going to become the future politicians of Arizona.  And that is a scary thing; that is a scary thing for these guys.  They say, ‘my god, we’re not just going to have undocumented workers who are poor and are a cheap labour source. We’re gonna have people now getting into powerful positions in this country that are going to take away from what belongs to us,’ unquote.

“And, so, I think that’s the bottom line here that they want to put a stop to this process of producing young leaders that are going to be speaking truth to power and that are going to make a difference in the future of in terms of turning the tide against racism and other things that are negative out there in Arizona for Mexican people as a whole.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 13:43):  “Some of the people who have been banned are labelling this, sort of, an inquisition.  We thought, maybe, that was an overstatement.  But maybe now I’m thinking it’s an understatement.  I’m thinking about books that were banned.  Can you imagine The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paolo Freire, Occupy America: A History of Chicanos by Rodolfo Acuña, a good friend of yours.  We actually had the both of you on the show not too long ago.

“Talk about what the White people might be afraid of that’s inside these beautiful books.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 14:20):  “You know, they’re afraid of the truth.  You know?  The truth hurts.

“And I think that as I said earlier, the fact that the scholarship [] Acuña [] really incredible, back-breaking book.  It was the first one to put out a history, a true history of America, in the sense that he documents, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the nature of our society and how, in fact, Mexican-Americans, in particular, have struggled for social justice throughout the history here in this country.

“And it’s just remarkable that all this knowledge that Occupied America represents, they don’t want to acknowledge it.  They have problems with it because Rudy Acuña speaks the truth, as do all scholars. 

“And Shakespeare speaks the truth.  You know?  Talk about this gets really absurd when even people like Shakespeare, an English White guy, you know, who had the audacity, for his time, to speak truth to power, of the British Empire and put out the issue of colonisation and oppression in that regard.  Even there, they can’t tolerate that particular scholarship.

“So, basically, it’s an ideological struggle.  It’s a cultural war that is what’s happening in Arizona between those who espouse the racist framework of analysis that White Eurocentric thought should be predominant in public education and those of us who have struggled against that and have created, and have been teaching now, a more truthful history of our society.  And who had gone out of their way collectively to put forth a more, you might say, visionary process of education that is inclusive of not just Mexican-Americans, but all people.  We don’t do what we are accused of doing, of being divisive, un-American.  On the contrary, we have been most American in the context of continuing the process of creativity and intellectual thought that our ancestors started here in the Americas long before the White man arrived to conquer and engage in conquest.

“We have ancestors that generated civilisation way back when and are people as a whole have continued that process.  And I think that we are remarkable in the context of what we represent as a people, not just being indigenous people, but also inclusive of all the other dimensions of the reality that we represent, as a multiracial, multiethnic people in our society.  And this is what is not acknowledged by these people.  They don’t want to acknowledge that.  It’s scary to them.  And rightly so.  It should be scary to them.  And, so, that’s the whole issue now.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 18:03):  “We are speaking with Dr. Carlos Muñoz, one of the key pioneers in ethnic studies and Chicano studies in this country. 

“I’m wondering, Dr. Muñoz, I don’t see your book on the list yet [] Power: The Chicano Movement.  But I guess it’s gonna become sort of a diploma that you put on the wall alongside all the other ones that you have.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz:  “Yeah.”

Dennis Bernstein:  “I was banned in Tucson and I’m proud of it.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz:  “Well, you know, this is the thing that I tell people that all these people, all these banned books represent quite an honourable group of people.  It’s incredible.  I feel kind of bad; I want that honour of being identified by this right-wing.  I hope I do get that honour down the road.

“But in the meantime, I’m very proud of Acuña and Rodriguez and all these folks down there who have gone and supported in defence of ethnic studies in Tucson.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 19:08):  “And it is troubling that this comes in the context of, really, what is the new Civil Rights Movement, which is the rights of migrant workers, immigrant workers, the workers who do the hardest work in this country, that we all depend on, it’s a way to sort of build the borders higher, even those who are citizens in this country, it’s building walls around their lives, and condemning their kids of a life less than they deserve.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 19:41):  “Yeah.  No, I agree.  I think what’s happening is this effort to get the put down of Mexican-Americans in Arizona, to criminalise them, to put them as social outcasts and not worthy of being ‘American,’ in quotes.  Unless, of course, they take the path of assimilation into the dominant culture, which by the way won’t be so dominant pretty soon down the road.  I made reference to this earlier. The demographic revolution is a reality, whether some White people like it or not.  We are going to be the majority in this country.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 20:18):  “Well, here in California, Whites are already the minority, right?”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 20:22):  “Exactly.  Right.  In Hawai’i and here.  And, so, it’s happening.  Now, mind you, we don’t want to romanticise this fact because I always provide my critical analysis of the demographic revolution in the context that unfortunately that is not gonna be cause the consequence of profound change.  And I cite President Obama as an example; big deal, we have a Black President.  But where are we?  We’re worse off than we were during the Bush Presidency.

“So, the point here is not so much to romanticise that people of colour are going to ‘take power,’ in quotes.  It’s a question of looking at the reality that indeed there is that potential that out of this diversity there will come about a more humanistic society that is going to place its emphasis on social justice and peace and not war and violence throughout the world.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 21:26):  “And, finally, I want to get back to the revenge aspect of this action that we’re taking in Tucson, what it looks like, what may need to happen in terms of fight-back.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 21:00):  “Right.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 21:00):  “We understand that White politicians took this action starting with the fact that Dolores Huerta was in Tucson and talked about how White people hate Brown people.  And White politicians there hate Brown people.  And those politicians never forgot it.  They are in positions of power now and they are punishing the people.  Now, that’s horrible.

“Respond to the fight-back that you’d like to see.  What should it look like?”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 22:11):  “Well, I think there should be a revolution.  I mean this is the time for the revolution to really emerge in the context of Dr. King’s call for a revolution of values.  I’m not talking here about a Hollywood version of a revolution or whatever with violence and all that, but rather a non-violent revolution as Dr. King called for that’s going to transform the value system that we have now in our society, away from the process of individualisation or what’s best for the individual or what’s best for the 1%, but rather what is best for the 99% of our society, that includes the majority of people of Colour and poor Whites and, even, the White middle class.  Right?  ‘Cos we know.  I think this is what I’d like to see happening there. 

“And I think also we have to definitely make clear that it’s not all White politicians there are some good allies.  But it’s a kind of White politician that we need to address this issue toward.  And that is the right-wing, Tea Party, White politician type of person that is out there that’s doing the evil deeds that are taking place in Tucson, Arizona.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 23:44):  “Alright, we have been speaking with Dr. Carlos Muñoz.  He is one of the key pioneers in ethnic studies in this country.  Dr. Muñoz was the founding Chair of the first Chicano Studies Department in the nation in 1968 at the California State University at Los Angeles.  And he is the founding Chair of the National Association of Chicana/o Studies. 

“We thank you very much, sir, for taking the time out, very informative, and we’d love to talk to you again some time soon.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 24:11):  “You’re welcome and have a nice day.”

Dennis Bernstein (c. 24:13):  “Thank you so much, bye-bye, now.”

Dr. Carlos Muñoz (c. 24:15):  “Bye-bye.”

Transcript by Felipe Messina

***