The Impact of Slavery

During this holiday season, I am reminded once again of the power the institution of slavery can have. We live in a time when our society would like to forget that slavery ever existed in this country. I have heard for years that African American should just "get over it" and stop "using slavery as an excuse" for anything they don't like. I have had people tell me to my face that "You weren't a slave, and neither were your parents and your grandparents, so why should it be such a big deal to you?" This is the sort of thing you will hear often enough, from pretty much every corner of the United States. You will hear it from the very rich to the very poor, from Yuppies to Rednecks, from recent immigrants to Americans whose ancestors have been here for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Interestingly, there is actually one group of people I never seem to hear this sort of thing from.

Jews.

Why is this, you might ask? Why would a culture-wide examination of slavery and oppression be something they could relate to? No, it isn't the Palestinian issue and no, it has nothing to do with Nazi Germany and the wholesale slaughter of Jews in Europe. Try going further back into history.

The holiday season I was referring to earlier is the Passover. More than 3,000 years have gone by since the Jewish people were enslaved by the Egyptians. Even though they were able to hold onto their religion, their language, and their traditions, 116 years of grinding slavery was enough to scar an entire society. The Passover does not simply commemorate their freedom from slavery; it is a remembrance of just how horrible an experience it was for them. It is one of the most widely honored holidays among the Jewish people because it was an experience that, in many ways, defines who they are as a people today.

Fast-forward to Americans of African descent living in the Western Hemisphere in the early 21st century. Slavery for this disparate group of people lasted more than four times longer than the Egyptian enslavement of the Jews. While Jews have had 3,000 years to come to terms with what was done to them by a people they managed to escape from, African Americans still live in the country that enslaved them. They are told that 150 years should be more than enough time to "forget about it" or "get over it" by descendants of the people who either enslaved them or (for the most part) had no problem with another group of people being treated like cattle. The Jewish people were held in captivity, but retained everything that made them who they are. Captivity for them did not mean the complete destruction of their culture. African Americans have been left with almost nothing besides some physical features and a unique musical and artistic tradition to link them to their history as an independent people with a culture that defined not only who they are, but told the story of who they had been.

For those of you who are unaware, African Americans actually have their own version of the Passover; it's called "Juneteenth" or Emancipation Day. It commemorates the day (or week; Texas is a mighty big state, and it took a while for word to get around) slaves in Texas, the last state to received President Lincoln's Executive Order freeing (most) slaves in the United States, were told that they were free.

For now, most Juneteenth celebrations are little more than neighborhood parties, with larger communities sometimes marking the occasion in a more formal fashion, sponsoring guest speakers and holding conferences on culture and race. It is very much a communal kind of remembrance, full of barbecues and parties, rather than a personal one. The week-long ritual Passover has become for Jews is a much more thoughtful and somber affair.

It makes me wonder what Juneteenth will look like in a few thousand years. Will backyard barbecues become set and ritualized, a new kind of seder with specific foods served to remind those of African descent of the hardships of slavery? Will there be recitations of General Order No. 3, as it was read in Galveston Texas on June 19, 1865?

Personally, I'd appreciate it if people simply talked about the legacy of slavery and thought seriously abouts its effects. Like any trauma, talking helps. And when you are living in the aftermath of a culture-wide trauma that lasted for nearly 500 years, you're looking at a lot of soul-searching and quite a bit of talking.

Just ask the Jews.

My Mother's Obituary

Katherine Mary Hopwood

February 25, 1950 – October 19, 2010

Katherine passed away peacefully in her sleep of natural causes at her home in Bruno, Minnesota. She was one of four children born to parents Lorraine and the late Reginald Hopwood. She will forever be remembered by her beloved children Vincent Hopwood, Kari Heckt and Aaron Hopwood, treasured grandchildren Sirí and Brandeis Hopwood, Melanie, Winston and Jackson Heckt, Audrey and Ellis Hopwood, devoted sisters Victoria and Tamara Hopwood, loving brother Jon Hopwood, and special friend Billy, along with countless other friends and family whom were blessed to know her.

Katherine was a graduate of St. Peter Claver Catholic School, Marshall Junior High School, and St. Paul Central High School (class of 1968), where she was recognized as an outstanding athlete. Her professional life was marked by her devotion to helping others. During her time in the Twin Cities, Katherine worked as a community activist for various organizations including Sabathani Community Center and Southside Neighborhood Housings Services. After working in the Twin Cities for more than 20 years, she moved north to Bruno, Minnesota, where she continued with her desire to be a presence in the community, working for a variety of organizations, including the St. Croix Boy’s Camp and, most recently, for the Duluth Transit Authority.

During the remaining years of her life, Katherine worked hard to realize her dream, turning a small cabin in the woods into a beautiful home – her own slice of heaven. Even as she built a network of close friends in her adopted home of Bruno, she worked hard to maintain ties to her former life, constantly driving back to the Twin Cities to visit family and friends. A film aficionado and cowboy history buff, Katherine loved sharing the joys of life with everyone she met. She touched the lives of many, many people with her ever-present smile, boundless energy, and endless generosity. She was a strong woman who never judged others, choosing instead to celebrate those she knew with her time and her willingness to do whatever she could to make their lives a little brighter and their burdens a little lighter.

A foreign policy too ugly for words

Some of my more conservative friends argued that, during the last presidential election, that my support for Obama was simply a matter of "drinking the Kool-aid" and blindly supporting one candidate over another on a strictly partisan basis. My response at the time was to not only provide links to my information sources and my reasoning for supporting a particular candidate over another, but to leave them with this caveat to my choice for President:

"If Barak Obama isn't doing what he was elected to do, I will be one of his harshest critics"

To date, while I haven't agreed with 100% of the policy decisions his administration has made, I have had a generally favorable view of his presidency.

With this policy announcement, my view of the Obama presidency has gotten a bit dimmer.

In a recent article for the online magazine Salon.com, writer Glenn Greenwald detailed his shock and disgust over a recent action by the Obama administration:

In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

A large part of American civil liberties revolve around what is called "due process", which is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. By arguing that an American citizen's right to due process can be arbitrarily ignored without legal recourse, that the office of the President has the indisputable power to put an American citizen to death without proof that can be presented (and refuted) in a court of law, is an inexcusable abuse of power.

In my opinion, anyone involved in the death of an American citizen under these circumstances, should be prosecuted for conspiracy and murder. I can agree that the need for secrecy as a means of protecting this nation is necessary in some instances, and I have no problem with the Executive Branch of our government holding the power to make the determination as to what should be kept secret. However, I draw the line when secrecy as it relates to our national security equals carte blanc to essentially operate death squads targeting American citizens around the world.

Apple takes the hit for the non-story about suicides at Foxconn

According to numerous press reports, Foxconn, the Chinese tech company responsible for the manufacture of the iPad, has seen 13 employees commit suicide so far this year. Every news report I have seen has implied that the pressure to produce the iPad has turned the company into a sweat shop, creating a high-pressure work environment that drives people to suicide. The press has been making comparisons between Apple and other American companies who, in the past, have taken advantage of foreign workers as a means of boosting profits regardless of working conditions.

Legitimate observation or complete bullshit? Let's do the math.

According to the World Health Organization, the annual suicide rate in China per 100,000 people is 13.0 for men and 14.8 for women. Foxconn employs a total of 800,000 people. You would expect that over the course of an entire calender year, the company should average 104 (13x8) suicides for men and just under 120 (14.8x8) suicides for women.

Based on the cultural average, the company should have seen 52 men and 60 women commit suicide so far this year. So my question is: why is the media making such a big deal over a relatively low number of suicides? Foxconn should be getting a commendation for having such a low suicide rate, not being lambasted by an ignorant press with accusations of being some sort of sweat shop.

And trying to throw mud on Apple over this? I don't believe I've seen worse business reporting in my lifetime. Getting some details wrong is to be expected; no news organization is perfect. But this? Un-frickin'-believable. While I commend some media outlets such as ZDNet.com for calling bullshit on the way this story has been reported, I lost a lot of respect for a lot of news outlets over the gleeful sensationalism with which they have followed this story.

The Supreme Court and handgun ownership

NPR had a fantastic and informative segment on their "Talk of the Nation" program yesterday regarding a Second Amendment case the Supreme Court is currently hearing:

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, gives individuals the right to own a handgun. Today, the court began what looks to be a long process of deciding where to draw the line on gun rights.

The 2008 ruling struck down the handgun ban in the District of Columbia, which comes under federal law. So the first issue is whether that decision extends to cities and states, specifically to the city of Chicago and its suburb, Oak Park, Illinois.

And if an outright ban is unconstitutional, does that allow handguns just in a home or just in a business? Would most people be allowed to carry concealed handguns in their cars or on the street?

You can listen to the segment by clicking here (link downloads a 30 min long, 14 MB mp3 file), or click here to read a transcript.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the current arguments for and against the right to bear arms has to do with how this constitutional right has been treated compared to other constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment right to free speech. Tellingly, the very next Amendment written by the Framers of the Constitution, guarantees individuals the right to own a firearm. These and other Bill of Rights amendments were both seen as protection for vital individual freedoms. And yet, proponents of Second Amendment freedoms are marginalized by our society as "gun nuts". As many of you would no doubt argue, the "gun nuts" are an unpopular group, seen as being "out of touch" with the realities our society faces in this day and age. Even from a historical and legal perspective, the more popular rights such as free speech still have restrictions on them that pass the Constitutionality test. By this logic, restrictions on the what and the how of firearm ownership are perfectly logical.

I would, however, point out that while enacting a few minor restrictions on firearms is very much in line with the idea of balancing the protection of personal freedoms with the safeguarding of our society's general welfare, enacting blanket bans on whole classes of firearms goes beyond the line between individual freedoms and the public interest. While Free Speech and other rights enjoy extremely limited restrictions, we have recently seen some extremely broad and invasive laws limiting Second Amendment rights.

Don't get me wrong. While I happen to own a firearm, I fully recognize the dangers in their unrestricted sale and use. I also happen to be a member of an ethnic group in which I am 7.5 times more likely to be shot and killed than any other member of the general population. Simply put, my issue with this issue boils down to a larger question affecting the application of Constitutional law: How should Constitutionally guaranteed individual freedoms be administered? Or, in other words: Where to we draw the line between the public interest and individual freedoms?

Many people have argued in the past that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the advances in weapons technology that have taken place since the Constitution was written, and that individual Second Amendment rights should be restricted because of the increased danger posed by modern weaponry. But consider this: if changes in our Second Amendment rights are necessary, why not simply enact a Constitutional amendment modifying how the ownership and use of firearms is treated under the law? The Constitution is designed to be amended as a means of allowing for societal changes; such changes have taken place numerous times in our past. By leaving things as they are and "reinterpreting" individual freedoms to fit current social conventions, we risk invalidating the letter of the law and making the guarantees protecting all our personal freedoms subject to the whims of a select group of individuals.

In my opinion, based on the current letter of the Constitution, restrictions on the kinds of weapons individuals have the right to own will probably be almost completely eliminated by the Supreme Court. I also expect many fashionable restrictions, such as the assault weapons ban and restrictions on certain kinds of ammunition, will also be struck down as unconstitutional. I might not be very happy about this, but I would be even more unhappy if the court sets a precedent of steamrolling individual rights and abandoning its constitutional role as "law interpreter" in favor of assuming the mantle of "law maker".

The focal point in this discussion is the letter of the law, that if you don't like it, you should change it or learn to live with it. No one should be allowed to simply disregard the parts they don't personally agree with, and our legislators should not have free reign to decide which parts of the Constitution should apply to their constituents.

An observation from That Guy; you know, the one who was always such a Good Friend when you were young?

Unless a man is sure of who he is and what he wants out of life, he is incomplete and has very little to give in a relationship. Maturity isn't simply an end to childish behaviors, but a level of personal understanding. In the face of their lack of maturity, you have to recognize the difference between the hope that springs from the dream of love, and the reality of love. If a man is incomplete, then you've fallen for the dream of what could be at the expense of recognizing the reality of what is.

And that will break your heart like nothing else.

Oh, and it hurts, but the pain that comes with that experience is only the mourning after the death of the dream. Just remember that the dream doesn't have to be wrapped up in one individual. It will take time, but the dream will return. And when it does, someone else will come along to share it with you.

Good luck and take care.

Why Google's China Gambit Makes Sense

In the midst of China's drive to become an economic power, Google's plight has quickly become a black mark on the business climate the Chinese government has been cultivating. While Google is an internet-based company, the internet has become critical to modern business operations. By threatening to pull operations from China, Google isn't threatening the government; they are calling into question that country's ability to maintain and safeguard EVERY company's business operations. They are leveraging their business clout against Chinese economic interest and changing the context in which foreign companies do business in China, potentially setting themselves up for a hefty competitive advantage in a growing market.

Google knows that even if the Chinese government is not directly involved in those network attacks, Chinese authorities will feel pressured to step in deal with those responsible. If the government fails to do this, they will appear weak and ineffective, two things this government in particular will bend over backwards to avoid. If China can't make Google happy, Google may very well become a symbol that will retard the economic growth China currently enjoys.

It is a mistake to paint this incident as a political issue. Far more important to the players directly involved in this story, this is a purely economic issue. As for whether or not the Chinese government is directly responsible for Google’s network attacks, the true answer is irrelevant in the face of what Google stands to achieve by publicizing this issue.