Racism: Its for everyone, but luckily something we can combat

Racism is something that anyone who’s ever taken a history class knows has been apparent in the United States for hundreds of years. However, what most people don’t know is that profound racism has been a problem in every part of the world for a long time, and that our neighbors to the north and south are no exception. In Canada, many of the textbook cases of racism against blacks, jews, and other minorities have taken place over the centuries. On top of that, there has been much tension at given times between Anglo-Canadians and French Canadians, since both groups are very prominent in the country yet in some ways very ethnically and culturally different from each other. In Mexico, racism against the indigenous Mexicans was of course prominent when the whites first arrived (in fact, all three countries have long histories of terrible treatment of indigenous people) and later the tables turned and whites were discriminated against. To some extent, racism still exists in these countries, much stronger in some places than others. What can be done to extinguish racism or to a greater extent hatred of certain groups on our continent?

First off, this is not going to be a “pick on whitey” post. African Americans in certain communities in the US are well known for racial tensions with Latin American. Asian people in some places are known for tensions with African Americans. Don’t even get me started on Jews and Muslims from the Middle EAst. The fact is, since there are so many walks of life to be had in North America, racism exists to some degree in all of them. So what can be done if anything? Personally, I think the answer lies in education. I’m not just talking about education on race; I’m talking general, traditional education. I do not believe it is a coincidence that the parts of the country with the worst education systems (regardless of the racial majority in that area) have the most racist groups. States that rank higher in education such as the New England states typically do very well, and the number of hate groups in those states is usually less than 10. States in the Deep South which typically do poorly have dozens of groups of this type. There is a lot to be said for the fact that people who are simply more educated have less of a chance of being racist. Personally, I believe it has to do with the byproducts of a good education. You’re taught to examine things, think for yourself without following blindly, and research things (or people) for yourself before passing judgment. Also, I believe in tolerance programs. I believe that funding should be given to all schools for them and I believe that we need to step them up a bit. It’s easy to talk about loving everyone and not stereotyping when you’re living in an area where everyone is the same race as you. Should urban and suburban schools combine these programs? I don’t know, just a thought. 

Irrelevant: Thoughts on Fracking I think we should all be able to agree on

During our studies over the course of this week about hydraulic fracturing, we discussed even more pro’s and con’s than I had originally realized. I did not know that the gas they’re extracting burns cleaner and coal, however I also didn’t know what a massive amount of water is needed for the fracking process. In a Huffington Post Article, good and bad things about this process are laid out, and left for people to make their own decisions about. Personally, the negatives frightened me much more than the positives swayed me.

After reading this article, we watched the documentary “Gasland” about a man who went around to residential areas close to fracking sites and observed the impacts, mostly the fact that they’re water had been polluted with dangerous chemicals and toxins. The worst part of it was, many of the companies involved would not cooperate with any sort of investigation, would not claim responsibility, and found ways around any attempt these people made to prove it. People were stuck with nothing more than their contaminated water, water so polluted in some places that it would actually catch on fire.

Personally, I don’t believe fracking is worth the environmental devastation that it creates. However, I’m a realist in the sense that I believe that some businessmen aren’t just going to allow their operations to be shut down and the fact is that we probably won’t stop it as long as theres money to be made. So I propose this very simple solution. You want to use fracking? Fine. But you need to play by a reasonable set of guidelines, not ones you make up. You must disclose what you’re pumping into the ground for starters; people have a right to know. I don’t care what the most cost effective method is, you must do all you can do to use methods that will not contaminate the surrounding areas. If you contaminate someone’s water supply, guess what, you just bought them a lifetime supply of water or a way to fix it. You can’t just go around destroying people’s livelihood and not be held responsible for it, that is not an acceptable way to conduct business. No matter what your views on fracking, allowing companies to behave in such a (in my opinion) despicable manner is not something anyone should be okay with or support.

  

The Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion: Not going as smoothly as Keith Stone

In my last post, I discussed the struggle of deciding whether or not expansion of the Alberta Oil Sands (economic benefits v. environmental impacts) is a good idea or not. For that reason, I will not go into too much detail in this post about that topic. I will, instead, discuss a major issue in regards to that topic on this side of the border. The major argument about Canadian oil here America is in regards to the construction of the Keystone Pipeline XL expansion.

What is the Keystone Pipeline?

The Keystone Pipeline has been operating for around two years now and has moved countless barrels of crude oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries in the United States, most predominantly of which are in Illinois and Oklahoma. Even before the original pipeline was finished, propositions for expansion had already begun. This would add pipeline and more refineries in Montana and Texas. Though many different government organizations approved the project, the EPA and other environmental groups said that there needed to be more research done on the environmental impacts before construction could begin. From there, like with anything else in American politics, polarization began.

And so it begins…..

In late 2011, the Republicans in Congress began to demand that President Obama have a decision on the pipeline in 60 days. Almost entirely for that reason, he rejected the proposition. In an Fox Business Article written in January of 2012, they mention that part of Obama’s statement read “The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment." As the argument over the pipeline continued, so did the attacks on the President for his decision. In a May 2012Fox New Article, journalist Grover Norquist pushes for Congress to bypass the President and approve the pipeline saying that Obama rejected to proposition to “Attempting to appease his insatiable base during this election cycle” while the Republicans in Congress are simply “Eager to approve the pipeline and enjoy the thousands of jobs, millions of barrels of crude oil, and billions in economic activity that are tethered to the project.” Clearly, he has a pretty strong opinion on the matter.

So what do we do?

In the last few months, Obama has “embraced the southern leg of the project,” to get oil to the Gulf, but it seems the controversy about the Keystone XL will continue for some time. Personally, I can see both sides of this argument. Times are still tough, and this pipeline will create jobs and help America feed some of their appetite for oil. But the reality is that we need to understand the environmental impacts of what we do before we undertake a project of this magnitude. While I understand that thorough investigation may take longer than some people would like, and theres always the fear of political bias when such things are done, we have to do something before we build anything this massive, let alone a pipeline for oil.

Economy vs. Environment: The Neverending Battle

In the constant debate over the use of the Alberta Tar Sands, the debate seems to simply come down to once overwhelming pro and one overwhelming con. The pro is that it’s good for both the U.S. and Canada’s economies, and the con is that it has the potential to devastate the environment in this region of the continent. In the report “The Alberta Oil Sands From BothSides of the Border”by Martin Pasqualetti, the benefits and problems with the projected expansion of oil production in the northeastern region of the country. Throughout the reading, I appreciate the fact that author doesn’t come out and take a stand on this touchy issue. Instead, he simply asks the questions and presents evidence for both sides. “Deciding on the proper role and contribution of the Alberta oil sands requires judging the economic benefits against its environmental costs. Will gaining the fruits of oil-sands development be later considered a devil’s bargain? More broadly, must the mere existence of this massive and enticing natural resource necessarily prompt its development?”

In the beginning, he discusses how it could be mutually beneficial to both countries. Simply put, Canada has more oil than they use, the U.S. is willing to buy it. Given the fact that Canada’s close proximity to the U.S. would cut down on transportation costs and the similar governments and cultures all but eliminate the possibility of political conflict, getting as much of our oil as reasonably possible from Canada seems like a good idea to many Americans and perhaps many in the Canadian government. However, once the environmental impacts are weighed, the question becomes much more difficult, the environment in Northern Canada is very fragile and has the potential to be thrown off on a devastating scale by the expansion of Oil Sand production. This could have a massive impact on the native wildlife, water supply, and native populations. With this negative impact comes potential high costs to the Canadian Government to fix the problems caused. Once this is taken into account, it certainly begs the question about whether or not the money made from the U.S. is worth the money that may need to be spent.

Another point worth looking at and mentioned throughout this debate is the idea that this expansion of oil production in Canada will be something of a “crutch” for both countries. As said by the “Global Edmonton” website, “Reserves are limited. In total, global reserves sit at around 1.3 trillion barrels, equivalent to about 40 years of reserves at current consumption rates.” To me, this seems like a quick fix, and one that could hinder the U.S.’s motivation to find other energy sources. The fact is we’re going to run out of oil at some point, and progress has to be made in way of other reliable sources. If we continue to scrap for oil anywhere we can, it feels like its nothing more than a Band-Aid on a bigger inevitable problem

.

Show you my papers? But I'm White!

In one of the readings for this week, the idea of bringing laws similar Arizona’s controversial immigrant laws into Ohio is discussed. The legal battle against illegals is now going on very close to my home town of Mason, OH. Like anything else, the advocates have their support in opposition. Those on the supporting side believe that this is necessary to combatting the influx of illegals into this area, while those in the other side believe morally wrong and racist law. While logical points are made on both sides to an extent, in the end I couldn’t find myself believing that this was a good law for Ohio. Upon looking at the facts objectively, I realized two major things that I believe make this law illogical. Also, I consider a, though maybe not ideal, perhaps useable compromise.

We’re Not Arizona

One major reason I feel States Rights exist is because two states in two entirely different regions of the country do not stand to benefit from the same type of laws in all situations. In Arizona, constant influxes of people just across the border, gang violence from immigrant gangs, and fights with the drug cartels are a daily reality of life. While I don’t agree with their new policies, I do understand that in an environment like that more drastic measures do need to be taken. In Ohio, these provisions come more from the fact that we’ve simply had an influx of Mexican Immigrants and there is speculation that they are taking jobs away from Ohioans who want them (speculation that I haven’t really seen any statistics to back up). While that’s still a problem that may need to be addressed, its hard for me to believe that in a comparatively mild situation like Ohio’s that new laws like Arizona’s wouldn’t do more harm than good.

The Race Question

I ask a very simple question about these new laws, one nobody can seem to answer. How DOES one present reasonable suspicion of being illegal if you aren’t racially profiling? Obviously, racial and ethnic profiling violates federal laws, but no one seems to be able to explain to me how officers get around that and form suspicion. Honestly, I feel like they don’t. I feel like if such laws were enacted they’d come up with some kind of an official vale for it, and then do just that. For that reason, one major revision I feel needs to be made.

The Solution

I realize it would cause problems all its own, but I feel the only way to be able to make this work effectively without profiling is to simply only check arrested persons and check everyone who is arrested. If every person who is arrested is checked, then you can still figure out who is illegal without having to use prejudice to do so. I realize this would take resources and cause some frustration logistically, but I feel it’s the only fair way. 

Greg Letiecq: Just a Small Town McCarthy

Upon watching the documentary "9500 Liberty" yesterday, I found myself fascinated with some of the Organizations and people discussed at length in the documentary. I became particularly fascinated with a man by the named of Greg Letiecq. His presence throughout the entire documentary, perhaps more than any other person in Prince William Country Virginia, kind of confused me. Early on, while I didn’t necessarily agree with his views, he seemed a far cry from a crazy person. He talked about how, though we need to deport illegals, we must do so with love and care. Quickly, things made a turn for the worst. He began discussing how a gang of violent Anarchists from Southern Mexico called the Zapatistas were invading the town. My professor, who is extremely educated in the Latin American studies, informed us that this group is very isolated to their region of Mexico and that any claim that they’re here is completely unfounded. Soon, they began showing the things said on his blog, his posts struck me as the paranoid ramblings of a mad man, and the comments…. Well, lets just say “racist filth” is an understatement.

What really blew me away about this guy was that, as insane as the things on his blog sounded, he was aligning himself with local politicians and appeared to have a great deal of influence in his community. I found him to be such a curious character that I figured it was time to some research. What I discovered amazed me. First off, the things this man says in his region of Virginia has made him enemies on a National level. The legendary anti-hate organization Southern Poverty Law Center has an entire profile on him (calling him a “Nativist”) and he has been openly criticized in several blogs and even in the nationally read Washington Post. In the article, written in 2007 even before the height of Mr. Letiecq’s popularity, begins by discussing some of his claims such as “Illegal immigrant ice cream vendors might be spreading leprosy in Manassas” and “Prince William County has been infiltrated by ‘unassimilated marxist radicals.” Upon doing my own reading of his blog, Black Velvet Bruce Li, I found his messages to be just as unfounded when discussing everything from the prison sentencing of illegals to his constant baseless accusations of, what a shock, "Marxism" against President Barack Obama.

Honestly, I don’t know whether or not Mr. Letiecq believes everything he says (I mean, calling another human being an “open air toilet” is pretty harsh by any decent human’s standards) and honestly that’s not the point. I believe that he is taking subjects that are already touchy and adding fuel to the fire by capitalizing on the fears of his fellow community members. He is leading witch hunts and fabricating everything he can at every turn. The worst part is, he is enabled by average people. Which makes me think, could another Greg Letiecq pop up anywhere? Including my back yard?

Idealism in a time of Realism

Anyone who’s ever been trying to pick a place to eat when they’re out knows how irritating it is when you have a person in your group that says “no” to every place you suggest, yet doesn’t seem to have any suggestions of their own. In many ways, the debate over immigration in towns like Farmingville, NY is reminiscent of this frustrating situation. Over the last several years, this small town outside New York City has been a point of much controversy around the issue of immigration. A large influx of undocumented immigrants into the town upset many people and the Sanchum Quality of Life Organization was created to combat the problem. What really happened was a slew of constant angry and polarizing protests, a rigid ideological division within the town, and out of it all an environment was created that got so out of control is resulted in violent attacks on the immigrants and even the deaths of two young men.

Eventually, local politicians and other human rights groups pushed to diffuse the problem by offering up the idea of a hiring cite. Instead of standing around in the streets of the community (something the SQO said was a major concern for their children’s safety) they would be required by law to all gather in one assigned place in town if they wanted to look for work. This made those who opposed the immigration to Farmingville furious and they went after the proposition in full force because they believed it did nothing more than encourage immigration to their area. It was struck down.

The fact is, I can understand people’s fear and frustration to an extent. A huge group of people show up in your town, they loiter on your street corners, and no one knows who they are or where they’ve been. Sure, that could be a little scary, I get that. But by the same token, it is the hand Farmingville has been dealt, and obviously someone is hiring these people or else they wouldn’t be here. So this is the situation they’re in, and when a situation is an unchanging reality, it’s hardly a good time to become idealistic. In the video, a man arguing on the side of hiring site said something to the extent of “their proposal is basically too send in the helicopters and deport everyone right now, but that’s just not going to happen.”

Basically, they don’t want them there at all, so anything that could be done for them or the situation is totally out of the question in their mind. So they will continue to fight and protest instead of suggest anything that could be done to remedy the situation. This is a problem that can be seen in many places in our political system and is something I feel needs to be stopped. Your position cannot simply be against something, you must be able to offer a realistic alternative.

Source: PBS “Farmingville POV” Documentary 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUDTtmpM6b8