I publish an "Editorial and Opinion Blog", Editorial and Opinion . I have a Jazz Blog @ Jazz and a Technology Blog @ Technology.
What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White
What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White
Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.
This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.
Sunday, August 05, 2018
Opinion: Calling The Press The Enemy Of The People Is A Menacing Move : NPR - #ManchurianPresident needs someone to explain the First Amendment to him. "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
White liberal racism: Why progressives are unable to see their own bigotry.

"There have been a lot of disturbing poll results over the past several years, but none more than this one: According to a 2016 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, 57 percent of white Americans believe that discrimination against white people is “as big a problem” in America as discrimination against minorities. Several months after the survey was conducted, of course, Donald Trump went on to win the presidency by getting well over half of the white vote. In a new book called White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, Robin DiAngelo examines how a large chunk of white America got to a place where it is constantly feeling besieged and victimized, and why she thinks even white progressives are so unwilling—or unable—to acknowledge their own racism.
I spoke recently by phone with DiAngelo, a lecturer affiliated with the University of Washington who has been conducting workshops about diversity and racism for two decades. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed racism on the left, whether there is value in scolding people for their bigotry, and whether the word racist should only apply to people who intend to discriminate.
Isaac Chotiner: What led you to this concept of “white fragility”?
Robin DiAngelo: Well, I was a classic white progressive, which meant I was clueless about racism, which meant I could not answer the question, “What does it mean to be white?” I thought I was not racist and I really didn’t have anything more to learn. I applied for a job as a diversity trainer, and I was in for the most profound learning curve of my life. It was a parallel process. One, working side by side with people of color who were challenging the way that I saw the world and my place in it. Part of being white is that I could be that far in life, be a full professional, educated adult, and never have had my racial role be challenged in general, or by people of color in particular.
The other part was going into the workplace and trying to talk to overwhelmingly white employees about racism. The hostility was incredible. After just years of that, I got better and better at not only understanding how white people pull this off—how we claim racial innocence in a society that is so separate and unequal by race—but also at articulating [that privilege] in a way that white people could hear.
What is racism, and how do people who are white progressives perpetrate it?
We’re taught to think of racism as individual acts of intentional meanness across race. That it’s always an individual, it has to be conscious, and it must be intentional. That definition exempts virtually all white people from the system that we’re all in and that we’ve all been shaped by. It is the bedrock of our country. That changes the question from “If I’m racist,” [to] which most white people would answer “No,” to “How is this manifesting in my life?” Because it is. It’s on me to figure out how.
What’s a specific example?
I think the inability to answer with any depth whatsoever the question of what it means to be white is actually not benign. People of color know that most white people cannot answer that question. [If] I can’t tell you what it means to be white, I am not going to be able to hold what it means not to be white, what your experience is. I’m going to end up invalidating, minimizing, dismissing, and not believing. That’s what white progressives do every day.
So then what does it mean to be white?
It means many things, but it means not ever having to bear witness to the pain of racism on people of color. It means not being held accountable for the pain that you cause people of color. It means not knowing the history of this country and being able to trace that history into the present. It’s being relentlessly reinforced in superiority and then not ever being able to admit that.
OK, but are you saying that a white person is, almost by definition, part of this system, or that white people, because of their role in this society, just tend to be more clueless and lazy because they’re in positions of privilege?
I might say the first one leads to the second one. I don’t think any of it is benign. I don’t think white people are racially innocent, as we often like to position ourselves to be. There’s a kind of refusal to see or to know or to believe or to hear that allows us then not to have to act.
What could a white person in America in 2018 do to not be racist, or do you believe that’s impossible?
Well, I have to ask you a question I forgot to ask you earlier. What is your racial identity?
I’m white. My family’s originally from Eastern Europe.
OK. All of us have been shaped by the cultural water that we swim in. All white people have internalized a racist worldview. Let me own that. As a result of being raised as a white person in this society, I have a racist worldview. I have deep racist biases. I have developed racist patterns, and I have investments in not only the system of racism that has served me so well. It’s so comfortable. But I also have an investment in not seeing any of that because of what I believe it suggests about my identity as a good person. The way that I think about it is, “How do I be a little less white, a little less racist quite frankly, less defensive, less arrogant, less certain, less complacent, less passive?”
When they ask me, “What do I do?” I have to ask a couple questions back. The first thing is “How have you managed not to know? It’s 2018. As a white person in 2018, why is that your question? How have you managed not to know what to do about racism when good information is everywhere and people of color have been trying to tell us forever?” That’s meant to be a challenge. The first thing you have to break with is the apathy of not taking initiative.
Are there things that you think that white people should do, like, more actively, in the community, besides awareness? The things you have talked about so far seem more about consciousness.
Oh, god, yeah. If that awareness does not lead to action, then it’s meaningless.
Do we have to be careful about labeling people with good intentions a certain way, especially if, as you said, this is about building relationships?
I would say that we have to move beyond intentions to impact.
Obviously when I say “white supremacy,” I’m connecting it to me, I’m not talking about someone in a robe, right? Get up to date. If you have better language that captures the systemic nature of racism, then I’m open to it, but right now we don’t have better language. You have to change the way you understand what those terms are, not demand that people don’t use terms that you don’t like and find ones that are so neutral and comfortable that we’re back to protecting the status quo.
I’m all for strategy. I do want to move the white collective forward. I want us to cause less pain, suffering, and damage. I’m all for whatever strategy would do that. There are many, many styles, and all of them are important. While I may be talking very bluntly to you or in an interview, if I was doing a presentation … I mean, I assume you read my book. I hope it doesn’t come across as scolding, but there is a kind of directness that I think is necessary. For many people, my directness is what completely changes them. For other people, my directness shuts them down. Great. Go over to somebody else somewhere. Don’t use that as a reason not to engage.
That I agree with. People who claim to be offended by what you are saying should toughen up.
I’m with you on that.
So what are your strategies, then, when you are doing workshops?
I hope my directness was illustrated in the earlier claim I made that I have a racist worldview, patterns, and investments. That is a pretty bold claim in this society for a white person to make. I’m very clear and comfortable making it, but I point that finger towards myself if you notice that. That helps other white people. If they identify with what I’m saying and they see me owning it, they’re more able to own it in themselves. Right? I try to point the finger inward, not outward.
I also try to overwhelm them with evidence that makes it undeniable. I do use humor. There’s a little bit of mocking the narratives, the evidence that white people give for their lack of racism. If we can laugh at it a little bit, if I can go, “Oh, my God, I’ve said that. Now I do see how silly it is,” maybe there’s a little space there. The laugher helps loosen that up. Hopefully, they’ll think more deeply next time they’re compelled to say something like that.
What you’re saying will redefine racism in the minds of a lot of people. Their definition of racism would be different. Their definition would be Richard Spencer, David Duke, or, dare I say, the president. What—
Do you ever wonder what qualifies as racism in the white mind, seriously?
What do you mean?
Even just “dare I say the president?” Yes, you may say the president.
That was a joke.
Again, that’s an aside. It’s like, “What the hell qualifies as a racist for most white people?”
OK, well, what is a good word for that type of racism?
For the Donald Trump type?
Yeah, or Steve Bannon or whoever.
I just call that “avowed racist.” I’m not an “avowed racist.” I’ve named my racism, but I am committed to challenging it. They are not committed to challenging it. I say they are committed to perpetrating it. I just say “avowed racist” versus me. Does that make sense?
I don’t know if I agree. I think we might want a different word, rather than just adding “avowed.” It seems like if we’re re-conceptualizing what racism is, or at least how it’s commonly defined, maybe you want a different word for racist politicians versus KKK members. Or maybe you don’t because it’s all part of a gradation. Or maybe it’s not. I’m just thinking out loud.
I want to be clear. I don’t see myself as redefining the term. I want to change the way the average white person understands what racism is, but I am using the sociological definition. You asked me, “What would you call the difference perhaps between Trump and me?” But I actually think, yeah, we both are racists. I see that as a continuum that I’m on and will be on for the rest of my life. In any given moment, I have to ask myself, “How am I doing on this continuum? What end am I behaving closer to? How do I know?” He and I may be on different spots on the continuum, but we’re both on it. I don’t tend to distinguish between the two of us, which probably shocks some readers, but if you’re asking me to somehow identify that difference, I would say “avowed” versus maybe “implied” or “implicit.”
So you consider yourself a racist right now?
Yes. I will always have a racist worldview and biases. The way I look at it is I’m really clear that I do less harm than I used to. I perpetrate that racism less often. I’m not defensive at all when I realize—whether myself or it’s been brought to my attention—that I’ve just perpetrated a piece of it. I have really good repair skills. None of those are small things because they mean I do less harm. I have many more authentic, sustained cross-racial relationships than I ever had before. I can, with confidence, say there are people of color in my life who see me as a supportive and trustworthy person. I had none of that before.
How do you think about minority groups in America who face racism and discrimination but who may also have racist attitudes and have benefited or are benefiting from the same system that keeps other people, especially African Americans, down?
After 20 years of talking day in and day out to overwhelmingly white groups of people, I’m really clear that there is a profound anti-blackness in this culture. In the white mind, black people are the ultimate racial other. I used to shy away from “Oh, don’t make it a black-white dichotomy,” but I feel really clear. There are bookends. White is on one end, and black is on the other. Your relationship, where you are positioned between those two bookends is going to shape how you experience your life. Right? The closer you are to whiteness—the term often used is white-adjacent—you’re still going to experience racism, but there are going to be some benefits due to your perceived proximity to whiteness. The further away you are, the more intense the oppression’s going to be.
You mean whiteness both in terms of skin color and in terms of whatever habits or ethnicities white society values?
Skin color’s really interesting because I was just going to move to that. Even within a group of what we call black, there is colorism. Anti-blackness goes across that entire spectrum. Within all groups of color, the closer you are to white, the more benefit and the closer you are to black, the least benefit, right? I think that white-adjacent groups have to ask themselves a really hard question, which is “Who have I aligned with? Have I aligned with whiteness, or have I taken up and aligned with black people in this struggle against racism?” Most of those white-adjacent groups have not challenged anti-blackness within their own communities.
If I try to be self-reflective about my privileges, the main things I would think about are being white, being male, and being American. Because most of the things that you have just said about white people, I think a lot of people in the rest of the world would say are true of Americans. We have incredible privilege. We often don’t know about or think that we have this privilege. Our worldview is shaped by a certain type of supremacy. How do you think about what being American means in this context?
I’m just trying to get it organized in my mind. There are absolutely all of those things that go with [being] American. A friend of mine who’s African-American or black traveling somewhere else in the world is going to have what we might call that kind of … what Peggy McIntosh called the “invisible knapsack,” right? They’re going to have the status of that American citizenship and, likely, depending on the context they’re in, they may also be dealing with anti-blackness that’s been exported worldwide. In some ways, it’s kind of what are they leading with first? What’s the first thing somebody’s responding to? Those are questions I never have to ask myself.
I think it’s like saliency. I mean, that’s the way I think about the multiple identities that I carry—that, in some context, one or the other of those identities is more or less salient. I’m a white woman. I’m a cisgender woman. I’m an angry feminist and I have been for a long time, but that does not mean that I don’t perpetrate racism towards women of color. And that I can experience sexism and patriarchy and misogyny, and I do and still perpetrate very similar dynamics onto somebody else. Right? That’s where saliency comes in.
How much of this role of whiteness we’re talking about is about whites being the majority here the way whites are the majority in France or Hindus are the majority in India, and how much of this is really about America itself?
I actually don’t think it’s about numbers. I think it’s about power. White men are approximately 34 percent of the population in the U.S. and control virtually all institutions. Women are the majority of not just the country but the world, and the poor are the majority of the world. It’s about institutional power. That’s why with the so-called browning of America, there will be adaptations, but the institutions will continue to be controlled by those who currently control it.
Have you noticed any differences in discussing these issues in the last three years? It feels like there’s been a combination of this very big white backlash, not just in the election of Trump but against what people see as P.C. culture. But that is coupled with more of a realization of the importance of diversity, the importance of hearing different voices, the importance of understanding structural forces, than at any other time in my life, even just five years ago.
Yes. On the one hand, way more permission for explicit racism, right? But also a kind of urgency from more moderate people to engage and to understand what is happening. I think that the outcome of that election just shocked a lot of white people. I find that my work is actually easier. While I get more hate mail and I get more threatened and I feel like my life is at risk in a way it wasn’t before, I also find generally white people much more receptive because I think we’re scared. It’s like that election freaked us out and we definitely want to understand what is happening and what do I do. That very, very thin veneer of post-racial bullshit has been ripped away. Right? It’s clear as a bell we’re not post-racial.
Post–Obama’s election, you mean?
Yes. That’s what I was up against then, just this complacency that we were post-racial. That’s gone. People that were complacent about it are not anymore. I find them more receptive."
White liberal racism: Why progressives are unable to see their own bigotry.
Opinion | Why the Government Wants to Know Your Citizenship Status - The New York Times

"The civil rights lawyer Vanita Gupta answers vital questions about the citizenship question on the census, including what you can do to stop it.
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.
Are you an American citizen? The Trump administration really wants to know. In March, it added to the 2020 census a question asking people, for the first time in more than half a century, about their citizenship status. Administration officials have claimed, in public and before Congress, that the Justice Department needs the question answered in order to properly enforce the Voting Rights Act. But late last month, the government turned over a batch of emails as part of a federal lawsuit that casts significant doubt on those claims. The push to include the question has also set off concerns about the way such data might be used in the next decennial redistricting cycle, which begins in 2021.
For perspective, the editorial board spoke with Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of groups that is opposing the citizenship question. From 2014 to 2017, Ms. Gupta served as the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division.
What’s the most important thing we have learned from this latest release of documents?
The new documents give us evidence in black and white of something that many of us already suspected to be the case: The rationale that the Justice Department needs to go door-to-door to find out who is a citizen in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act is obviously a ruse.
The documents show that, contrary to what administration officials have claimed, the decision to add a citizenship status question to the 2020 census was made in the early days of the Trump administration, and it was made without any thought whatsoever to the consequences for the success and accuracy of the census, for scientific accuracy or for the Census Bureau’s own judgment.
The president’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, clearly was involved from the outset. He worked with the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, and his political staff to make it happen and to provide the rationale later.
There’s a startling 2017 email from Secretary Ross’s chief political liaison to the White House, Earl Comstock, who acknowledges the secretary’s frustration with how slowly things were going in the process to add the question to the census — this is in May 2017 — and he assures the commerce chief that he’s going to get it done. In another email, Comstock said that he would arrange for the Justice Department to request the citizenship status question, and that he believes there are court cases to justify the need for that data. It’s trying to backdoor in a rationale that might be perceived as more politically acceptable.
This evidence also highlights the extent to which it appears that Secretary Ross misled Congress in attesting numerous times to this voting-rights enforcement rationale. And it reveals that all the “stakeholder engagement” he conducted in February and March was basically just to check the box, because the decision had been baked in months before.
So what’s really behind the inclusion of the citizenship question?
The involvement of people like Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach — the Kansas secretary of state, who is a leading proponent of the idea that voter fraud by noncitizens is rampant — says everything you need to know about what the real rationale for the question was. These are individuals who, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other members of the Trump administration, have long had a deeply anti-immigrant agenda. They’re seeking to redefine and restructure American democracy to preserve their political power at a time when the demographics of this country are changing significantly. The census, the independence of the Justice Department and the federal courts, voting rights and voting access — these are all core functions of our democracy that are being weaponized for a partisan agenda, an agenda born out of deep anti-immigrant, anti-people-of-color sentiment.
This isn’t the first time that nativists have sought to have a citizenship question included in the census. It’s just that it’s always been a fringe agenda, and now that fringe is in political power. And this question is just the beachhead. It goes hand in hand with efforts to purge voters and restrict voting rights; with moves to strip citizenship from American citizens; and with schemes to revoke birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Why does it matter how the census is run?
It’s important to remember that the constitutional requirement to count each and every person, not just citizens or legal residents, is based on the very first thing the federal government was told to do when this country was established. It’s literally Job 1.
And there’s only one constitutional purpose for the census, which is to allocate seats in the House of Representatives and to determine Electoral College votes. This is the basis for political power, and the census is foundational to our democracy because of that. Today, of course, hundreds of billions of dollars in federal money gets doled out to communities based on the census count.
Isn’t it reasonable for the government to want to have data on citizenship?
Well, for starters, states already know that information. They have it through the American Community Survey, which the Census Bureau sends out to about 2.5 percent of households every year, and which asks a broad range of questions about jobs, housing, schools, citizenship status and more.
But the mandate of the decennial census is one thing alone: to count every single person in this country. It isn’t to be used as a fishing expedition to get random information on people. Also, we know that in this administration, a citizenship question is not benign.
Which communities are most at risk of being undercounted?
We know who the hardest to count communities are: communities of color, rural communities, urban low-income households, immigrants, children under 5. Even before the citizenship question was added, there were tremendous levels of fear among immigrant communities in particular around reporting personal data to the government. Consider what happened to the Dreamers, who were told by the Obama administration to trust the federal government and register in order to get some level of stability in their status. Then the Trump administration yanked that away from them, and their status is now in limbo.
Remember also that a lot of immigrant families are mixed status — there are undocumented family members living in the same homes as legal immigrants and U.S. citizens — so the repercussions of this fear are significant. The Census Bureau encountered unprecedented fear about confidentiality of responses in September 2017 pretests, even without being asked about citizenship. The concern, which is understandable, is that their data will be used against them for enforcement purposes or otherwise.
How does the fight over the citizenship question relate to debates over redistricting?
First, the census count serves as the basis for states to redraw their district lines every decade. Under the Constitution, those districts must be equally sized. The Supreme Court has been extremely demanding about the degree of precision in measuring equality.
In a 2016 case called Evenwel v. Abbott, a group of voters in Texas asked the court to rule that only eligible voters should be counted toward equalizing districts. The justices unanimously rejected that argument and ruled that states may draw districts based on the total number of people in those boundaries, not just citizens or eligible voters.
That was clearly right. The Constitution requires lawmakers to represent every single person in their district, not just certain people or fractions of people. We fought a civil war over this concept! And once you go down the slippery slope of limiting representation to citizens, you have to ask: Where is the line? Are we talking about all citizens or only those who are eligible voters? Because that would exclude children. Or what about only citizens who actually turn out to vote? If I then don’t vote, does that mean my legislator won’t represent me?
Still, there are people who were upset with the court’s decision in the Evenwel case and are trying to find ways around it. So the effort to challenge the Evenwel decision is quite alive and well, and it’s playing itself out in state legislatures right now.
In Missouri, the statehouse in May passed a constitutional amendment that would require state legislative districts to be drawn using citizens rather than the total population. In Nebraska, there is a bill that would exclude the noncitizen population from the redistricting process. And in Alabama, the state has filed a lawsuit with the same goal.
My sense is these efforts are seeking to use various tactics to achieve the same end, which is to weaponize the census to redefine American democracy for a narrow set of people. They’re trying to fundamentally change what this country is, and aspires to be, by creating different classes of people — including people who may actually be here legally but who are rendered invisible for political representation purposes, as well as for the purposes of being part of the community and sharing in police, health care, hospitals, schools and the like.
And the data that would come from the citizenship question are a precursor to that push, a necessary ingredient for states that want to make their noncitizens invisible.
What can regular people do to ensure a full and accurate census count?
We’ve had a lot of people ask if they should boycott the census. First of all, filling out the census is required by law. But more to the point, it would play into Steve Bannon’s greatest dream, which would be to have a systematic undercount of vulnerable communities, particularly communities of color, that would result in reduced political representation and reduced availability of basic services.
Right now, there are six federal lawsuits challenging the citizenship question. In one of these cases, filed by 17 state attorneys general and a bipartisan conference of mayors, the judge has suggested the administration included the question in “bad faith.” A lot more is going to be revealed, but it’s quite possible that federal courts will find that the process violated federal law and possibly even the Constitution.
The bottom line is, this census is happening, and that’s why we’re fighting so hard to undo this question."
Opinion | Why the Government Wants to Know Your Citizenship Status - The New York Times
Trump acknowledges, defends 2016 meeting between son, Kremlin-aligned lawyer - The Washington Post
"BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — President Trump on Sunday offered his most definitive and clear public acknowledgment that his oldest son met with a Kremlin-aligned lawyer at Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign to “get information on an opponent,” defending the meeting as “totally legal and done all the time in politics.”
It is, however, against the law for U.S. campaigns to receive donations or items of value from foreigners, and that June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya is now a subject of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia probe.
While “collusion” is not mentioned in U.S. criminal statutes, Mueller is investigating whether anyone associated with Trump coordinated with the Russians, which could result in criminal charges if they entered into a conspiracy to break the law, including through cyber-hacking or interfering with the election.
“Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower,” the president wrote in one of several early morning tweets Sunday, many of which took aim at the media. “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics — and it went nowhere.”
He concluded by further distancing himself from the meeting his son arranged, writing: “I did not know about it!”
Trump was responding to a Washington Post report this weekend that although he does not think his eldest son intentionally broke the law, he is worried that Trump Jr. may have unintentionally stumbled into legal jeopardy and is embroiled in Mueller’s investigation largely because of his connection to the president.
The Trump Tower meeting also included Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his campaign chairman at the time, Paul Manafort, who is on trial over tax and bank fraud charges after being indicted by Mueller.
Trump’s tweet, however, conflicts with a statement that Trump Jr. had released to the New York Times in July 2017, as the newspaper prepared to report about the meeting. In that statement, Trump Jr. had indicated that the meeting had been “primarily” about the issue of the adoption of Russian children by Americans.
Amid public uproar over the meeting, the president’s son was forced to release follow-up statements, ultimately acknowledging that the meeting’s true purpose had been to get dirt about Hillary Clinton from a lawyer he had been told was working for the Russian government.
The Washington Post reported a few weeks later that Trump Jr.’s initial misleading statement had been “dictated” by Trump.
The president’s attorneys at first denied that Trump’s involvement in drafting the response to the Times, but months later, in a letter intended to explain why Mueller should not interview Trump, they agreed that the president had, in fact, authored the statement. They described the statement, which had not mentioned that the Russian lawyer was expected to bring damaging information about Clinton, as “short but accurate.”
And they said that Trump Jr., Kushner and White House staff had made a “full disclosure” about that session to Mueller and Congress.
Trump Jr.’s testimony to Congress contained a similar defense as his father’s Sunday tweet, indicating that he saw no reason not to accept a meeting that could yield important information about Clinton, even though he was told that it was part of an effort by the government of a hostile power.
In addition to weighing in publicly on the Trump Tower meeting, the president also unleashed angry tweets against the media Sunday morning from his 11-day working vacation in Bedminster, N.J.
In one tweet, he declared the media the “Enemy of the People” and accused them of sowing division and distrust. “They can also cause War!” Trump wrote. “They are very dangerous & sick!”
In another, he expressed frustration with both the media and Mueller’s probe. “Too bad a large portion of the Media refuses to report the lies and corruption having to do with the Rigged Witch Hunt — but that is why we call them FAKE NEWS!”
Trump acknowledges, defends 2016 meeting between son, Kremlin-aligned lawyer - The Washington Post
Saturday, August 04, 2018
Ving Rhames’s Terrifying Run-In with Police & An Egyptian Zoo’s Fake Zeb...
White males will never understand what it is like to he Black and to always be in fear that a stupid, bigoted White person can and often will cause your life to be terminated, without any provocation or warning. This is the nature of the American caste system which supersedes the class system struggle in America. Whites by being Whites, have the privilege of not being subject to this type if aggression. The American Revolution was fought for far less oppression.
Restraint Chairs and Spit Masks: Migrant Detainees Claim Abuse at Detention Centers - The New York Times

"VERONA, Va. — Guards at a juvenile detention center for troubled immigrant teenagers had many ways of handling serious problems. At times, they resorted to the chair. Other times, the mask.
According to migrant teenagers and a former worker, the high, hard-backed metal chair had wheels so it could be tilted and moved like a dolly through the halls of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center, a northwest Virginia facility that houses American and undocumented migrant youths who have emotional, behavioral and psychological issues.
Teenagers as young as 14 were strapped to the chair — some stripped down to their underwear — with their feet, arms and waist restrained by cushioned leather straps and loops, they said.
Those who guards feared might spit on staff, said one former worker, got the mask — a mesh hood that covered their entire faces and heads. Sometimes, the detainees said, they were forced to wear it while in the chair.
Uses of the chair and mask are among the more extreme examples of complaints that have emerged from inside a handful of detention centers that house teenage migrants with a history of violence, mental health problems or, in some cases, gang affiliation. A few hundred a year are held in this separate network of jail-like facilities that also hold American juveniles who have been sent there for a range of behavioral issues and crimes, including assault and murder.
The centers have tougher security measures than the immigrant-only shelters where the vast majority of the migrant teenagers are sent after entering the country illegally, either on their own or with their families.
For years, the government has sent the most troubled migrant youths to these more restrictive facilities, and many complaints about these sites came well before the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Others, though, have been lodged in the wake of the recent surge of detained immigrant children and teenagers, accusations that include use of the restraint devices, injections of psychotropic drugs and long periods in solitary confinement.
In sworn statements at the center of a class-action lawsuit against the Shenandoah Valley facility and the government commission that receives millions of federal dollars to run it, six former detainees paint a hellish portrait of daily life inside.
“They locked me in a room that was 8x10, or maybe 8x16, for 23 hours a day, all by myself,” said one detainee identified only as R.B. in the suit. Originally from Guatemala and now 18 and living with his mother in Texas, he had a pre-existing mental illness and was transferred to the Shenandoah Valley facility because of “behavioral problems,” according to the lawsuit. He said he often got into fights with other detainees and guards because he felt so isolated and angry over his fate. Punishment was the chair and mask, he said."
Restraint Chairs and Spit Masks: Migrant Detainees Claim Abuse at Detention Centers - The New York Times
Friday, August 03, 2018
Thursday, August 02, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)