Guest Post: Frederick Douglass on the 4th of July and the American Dream, 1852

I hate to be "that guy" on a day of national celebration, pointing out the gross inequities and hypocrisies of an otherwise free and prosperous country. Frederick Douglass had no such qualms, however, in his scathing "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" delivered in Washington D.C. on July 5th, 1852, excerpted here:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Is this sentiment only limited to historical American hypocrisy regarding the slave trade, which President Abraham Lincoln abolished after a bloody civil war? Nay - Susan B. Anthony was not to be outdone, with the National Woman Suffrage Association's "Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States" just 24 years later.

http://news.yahoo.com/y--big-story--lesser-known-truths-about-fourth-of-july.html

As I continue my series on Incarceration in America, here are a couple articles more, food for thought, on this day of liberty. Freedom isn't free - literally and figuratively:


Probation Fees Rise, Firms Profit and the Poor Go to Jail - NYT

Teen on American justice: 'I'm dead' - Sentenced to 162 years in Jail

[Not-so] Love Lockdown, Prologue (1/4): Do Convicted Criminals dream the American dream?

Do convicted criminals dream the American dream?

Sure they do - Just look at freshly sentenced criminals Rajat Gupta (former Goldman board member), R. Allen Stanford (sentenced to 110 years in prison without parole), and of course Grandaddy Ponzi himself, Bernie Madoff. Hell, these guys even lived the American dream, with its fast cars, deep pockets, luxury yachts and diamonds for the ladies in life.

Now, these riches-to-rags storybook characters are scheduled to rot in a Federal penitentiary for the rest of their lives, leaving exponentially more finances and possibly life plans ruined in their wake. All this justice, of course, conducted in order to dissuade other current or would-be criminals from acting...in exactly the only way they know of how to get to the American dream - Get Rich or Die/Go to Jail Trying.

50 Cent was on to something

A rather paradoxical message, given the global rash of government-bank bailouts and the continued reliance on the instruments (i.e. financial markets) of who-dares-wins capitalism. But enough of this suddenly-fashionable bashing of fallen financial idols. It seems like just yesterday when activist judges, juries, and members of the media started defending the rights of convicted rapists, murderers, gang-bangers and the assorted denizens of American death row - new and vindicating/damning DNA evidence notwithstanding - so I'm sure public opinion will grow weary of its latest social witch-hunt sooner or later, and that District Attorneys/Federal Prosecutors will likewise find some other scapegoats upon which to build their reputations on the docket. Sooner or later, our generation's To Kill a Mockingbird of the early 21st century will be published, this time admonishing the veritable inquisition of financial criminals during a time of long-term recession and entrenched unemployment.

Yet even in a time of economic downturn, when Wall Street becomes an easy target of Main Street's wrath, no one seems to be pissing on how the wildly-popular (and mostly plastic) Kardashians, the train-wreck-of-an-excuse-for-a-man Charlie Sheens, or the well-paid, drug-snorting Lindsay Blohan-type celebrities don't pay "their fair share" of American taxes. Plus Justin Bieber- he's CANADIAN!! Where is that money going??

oh...nevermind.

What compelled me to finally write original content for the blog again - and a three-part series, at that - was a combination of many factors, the premier of which was my roommate's comment that, "no offense, but I think the American Dream is more of a Dream than a Reality."

Morning Update: Another Reason to Love Penguins

Penguins are loved around the world for their novelty, charm, and all around awkward-looking mystique.  If you were still out on the outside looking in when it came to doting over the venerable aquatic creature, however, we at Conflict Revolution have dug up another fun fact about the lovable Sphenisciformes Spheniscidae:

They might like fish, but they don't like Newts.  

Now, apparently the former Speaker of the House loves animals, but hasn't he learned anything in his 60+ years about getting too close to them at the zoo? 

And furthermore, I know they live at opposite ends of the earth, but they are also at opposite ends of the food chain: wouldn't you expect a polar bear to be able to take on a penguin?  Just saying.  

Don't even try to deny the similarity

Other links for Thursday 4/26:

1) In further penguin-related reportage, three Australian guys had a night to remember - then saw what they woke up next to ["Penguin Stolen From Sea World Australia By Drunk Thieves," Huffington Post, 4/23/12]

2) That penguin wasn't the only thing biting fingers during the month of April - this is downright disturbing ["Man bites off bartender's pinky finger after having sex in bar," Newark Star-Ledger, 4/2/12]

3) On a more serious note, another piece about the response to the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Did the media see racism and dollar signs? ["Who is 'Racist'," Real Clear Politics, 4/24/12]

4) Also, guess who's received the most negative media coverage so far this campaign season?  I'll give you a hint: it's not a Republican ["Romney's Media Edge Over Obama," The Daily Beast, 4/25/12]

5) Finally, before you buy that plastic water bottle, check out this app for Android smartphones ["WeTap App Finds Drinking Fountains in Any City," GOOD Magazine, 4/25/12]

It's pretty crappy outside, but it's Thursday, so that's got to count for something, right?  Go get some work done... or not. 

Stereotyping: An In-Depth Look

In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin incident, the issue of stereotyping has once again been hurled into the forefront of the chattering class. In this post, Matt and I will look to critically analyze what is being said and what is not being said concerning this hot-button issue. Unlike past debates where Matt and I have lightly mocked each other's positions, we feel this issue is significantly more sensitive and ignites more passions and emotions than say, economic policy. Thus, we will be taking the issue slowly and carefully in an effort to have the adult conversation that both Matt and I believe is entirely necessary to have. We hope that perhaps others in the media, who would prefer to sensationalize the tragedy for their own selfish agenda (I'm looking at all sides here - you know who you are), would follow our lead and give this event the sincerity, honesty and critical eye it needs and deserves. 

Posted by Stephen (4/7/12):

This issue came up on our Facebook account, and clearly needed to get its own blog post. In the Facebook discussion, essentially Matt's position could be summarized by the following:

Stereotypes exist but should not lead to rational decision making. Many bear the scars of discriminatory legacies and should be looked past if they are to be overcome. A kid in a hoodie is just that and only that - a kid in a hoodie. Wearing such should and ought to have no other connotations.

My thesis for position I will take could be summarized as this: "Stereotyping is an inevitable faucet of the human condition and must be understood and controlled."

The case breaks down as follows:

1. Stereotypes (while perhaps unfortunate) are inevitable as they are ingrained in human evolutionary psychology and biology.
2. Stereotypes (more often than not, and the ones I will be defending) are often based on reality, and so are further difficult to break from
1. Our perception of reality inevitably will impact our future view of the world.
2. It would not be reasonable to expect that our future actions ought not be shaped by past experiences
3. Thus, it would be unreasonable to expect to "overcome" stereotyping
3. Since, stereotyping is both ingrained in human nature and a successful evolutionary tool, it cannot be considered irrational behavior nor eliminated behavior
4. Therefore, since stereotyping cannot be reasonably eliminated, we must seek another way to control the negative impacts.

Now let's get to the meat of the case: