 |
|
|
|
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsMost EmailedVisit our sponsorsUpcoming events
 |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
PollRecent reviews
Who's new |
Words to live byWhile a considerable number of Muslims in the U.S. are African American, and most of the African Americans are engaged in limited income jobs, Muslim immigrants in the US have relatively higher household incomes -- partly, a consequence of liberalization of U.S. immigrant policies in the 60s that opened the doors to skilled and educated immigrants. Consequently, many in the immigrant Muslim population did not face the same level of economic, political, and institutional discrimination termed "structural racism", as faced by many in the African American and now predominantly in the Mexican immigrant communities in the U.S. Here, then, lies a promise in the recent spate of racist attacks against Muslims in the US. There is a parallel in racism meted out to Muslims, African Americans, and Latino immigrants. It is hoped that many in the American Muslim immigrant community will use the present climate of Muslim xenophobia to challenge the trap inherent in their own class privilege and the status as a high achieving "model minority" that often creates a distance from those less privileged in the community. Subscribe Buttons                    | |
Politics as usual
Hillary HAS NOT DECLINED the DFA invitation either, just as Obama and Edwards have not declined the Prez on the Rez invitation. Yet you make a huge distinction there. You blast hillary for not accepting the DFA deal *yet* you not do blast Edwards and Obama for not accepting the Prez on the Rez deal *yet* In one case it is acceptable to "not accept as of yet" some invitation (hillary/dfa) but in another case (obama/edwards and prez on the rez) it is not? It is hypocritical.
Also I do not believe Hillary is terrified of the unions. That is another distortion you read into her declining that invitation. She simply knows how the game is played, and knows one appearance or debate is not worth losing vital union endorsements. Edwards and Obama no doubt know this too. But you are not biased against them.
When you judge candidates based on whose important asses they have kissed, and not on the substance of the issues, you are playing "politics as usual" Tht is what you are doing. What Hillary has or hasn't done in the past on behalf of Native Americans simply seems to matter less to you than whether she has kissed the ass of this particular vocal group. Whether Hillary takes progressive/liberal stands seems to matter less to you than whether she has kissed the ass of DFA. You are looking for symbolism over substance. That is, again, politics as usual. You can't crusade against politics as usual, against back room schmoozing and special interest ass-kissing, when you are demanding that the candidates do that very thing.
I am not crusading for Hillary, I am defending her against what I think was a cruel, unnecessary headline. She has not told indian country to drop dead. More likely than not, she will be the democratic nominee next year. You are not putting yourself in a position to be a strong advocate for the ticket when you have your byline under such vicious headlines. Again I suggest you change that headline. Don't editorialize in it. It should simply say something like "Hillary declines Indian Country debate invitation" There is no need for the cruel, insensitive, outright hostile words you used in that headline.