Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

race card Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on January 15, 2015 40 Comments
The Oscar nominations have been revealed, and everyone is talking about this year's nods, snubs, and most importantly---the racial and gender makeup of the Academy and its nominees. Of course. Here we go again. We're barely over this weekend's total freakout over the various combinations of skin color and genitalia that won top rights at the Golden Globes; you'd think we'd be given at least a week to recuperate. But no: That's right, ladies and gentlemen. The internet spent an entire day lobbing hate at a group of talented entertainers whose only crime is the relative paleness of their skin:

Posted by Amy Miller on January 12, 2015 21 Comments
I remember when Halle Berry won her Best Actress Oscar back in 2002 for Monster's Ball; it was such a huge deal--she beat Judi Dench! It was the same year Denzel Washington won for Training Day, and everyone agreed that entertainment awards would never be the same because an actor and actress of color had both taken home a prestigious award. Apparently, Halle and Denzel didn't set a standard that year---they set a quota. From last night's Golden Globe awards: Is anyone else already exhausted? Twitter was:

Posted by Amy Miller on January 05, 2015 29 Comments
Teachers in the San Francisco United School District are concerned about race. In an area where schools are almost 90% non-white, you'd expect that an emphasis on cultural diversity would happen by default, and that teachers wouldn't need the help of an institutionalized curriculum to get the job done. But in the wake of the Ferguson protests and rise of the "Black Lives Matter" movement, five teachers from the San Francisco area have teamed up to provide other educators with a guide to teaching about the Michael Brown shooting, the Ferguson protests, and race-based social justice movements. From the San Francisco Examiner:
Chalida Anusasananan, a teacher librarian at Everett Middle School who helped launch the resource guide, said both incidents and the subsequent protests have hit home with many public-school students in San Francisco, where nearly 90 percent are nonwhite. "We wanted to make sure that teachers had a means to teach what students were talking about with their families, or seeing on the news, or feeling every day," Anusasananan said. The resources, posted to the SFUSD's LibGuide page, includes the grand jury documents, poetry, videos and graphics, readings, and lesson plans and activities for elementary, middle and high school students. "What has to happen first and foremost is to create a safe space in the classroom for young people to talk about these things," said Karen Zapata, a humanities teacher at June Jordan High School and a co-founder of the grass-roots organization Teachers 4 Social Justice. "What's happened affects young people on an emotional level."
I took a look at the online curriculum provided by the five teachers, and it's pretty much what you'd expect to see. I took some screenshots: Screen Shot 2015-01-05 at 1.08.01 PM

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on January 05, 2015 16 Comments
When he's not fighting with the teleprompter or holding rallies that summon Black Jesus, Al Sharpton stays pretty busy. But how does he make the big bucks? Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein of the New York Post have the skinny:
Want to influence a casino bid? Polish your corporate image? Not be labeled a racist? Then you need to pay Al Sharpton. For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence.
Even corporate behemoths like Sony Pictures aren't immune to the Sharpton shakedown:
Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal met with the activist preacher after leaked e-mails showed her making racially charged comments about President Obama. Pascal was under siege after a suspected North Korean cyber attack pressured the studio to cancel its release of “The Interview,” which depicts the assassination of dictator Kim Jong-un. Pascal and her team were said to be “shaking in their boots” and “afraid of the Rev,” The Post reported. No payments to NAN have been announced, but Sharpton and Pascal agreed to form a “working group” to focus on racial bias in Hollywood. Sharpton notably did not publicly assert his support for Pascal after the meeting — what observers say seems like a typical Sharpton “shakedown” in the making. Pay him in cash or power, critics say, and you buy his support or silence. “Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him. Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group that has produced a book on Sharpton. And Sharpton, who now boasts a close relationship with Obama and Mayor de Blasio, is in a stronger negotiating position than ever. “Once Sharpton’s on board, he plays the race card all the way through,” said a source who has worked with the Harlem preacher. “He just keeps asking for more and more money.”
Sony is not the only corporation that landed in Sharpton's crosshairs. According to the NY Post, AEG, Plainfield Asset Management, Macy’s, Pfizer, General Motors, American Honda, and Chrysler have all "donated" to Sharpton's organization.

Posted by Amy Miller on December 19, 2014 8 Comments
First, they came for the team's trademark protection, and everyone spoke up because we are a nation who loves football. Then, they came for the media's right to say the team name on-air, and we all spoke up because we are, again, a nation who loves football---and hates it when politics interferes with our enjoyment of it. Yesterday the Federal Communications Commission rejected a petition challenging the legality of using the Washington Redskins team name name in on-air broadcasts. From the National Journal:
The author of the petition, George Washington law professor John Banzhaf III, argued that the "derogatory racial and ethnic slur" is deeply offensive to American Indians. The word amounts to obscenity and profanity, which the FCC bans from the airwaves, Banzhaf said. ... Banzhaf's petition had asked the commission to reject the license renewal of WWXX-FM, a radio station owned by Redskins owner Daniel Snyder that had repeatedly said the team's name on the air. Instead, the FCC renewed the license, saying it found "no serious violations." But in an interview, Banzhaf said he expected the defeat and that it's really just "round one" of the fight. He is asking the FCC to reverse past decisions, so he didn't expect the Media Bureau to side with him, the law professor said. He plans to appeal the decision to the full commission and, if necessary, to the federal courts.
I'm sure he will appeal, and I'm nearly equally sure his arguments against use of the "Redskins" name will continue to fall apart. The FCC's ruling is comprehensive, thorough, and based in both FCC and Supreme Court case history.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on December 10, 2014 46 Comments
Yeah, they went there. "The killings of Michael Brown and Treyvon Martin clearly shows that we don't live in a post-racial society as many expected when you were elected," Ramos says. Obama chuckled, "Well, I didn't expect that. You probably didn't either." "But many people expected you to do more on race relations, dealing with white privilege. Do you get angry with this? Is it your responsibility?" Then President Obama claimed Americans experience more equality now than before he took office, and also that Eric Holder was awesome. When Ramos pressed on saying, "but there's not really been a lot of improvement," Obama retorted, "The folks who say there's not a lot of improvement, I don't think were living in the 50's and remembering what it was like to be black or Hispanic and interacting with the police then." Take a look:

Fact Check:

Flashback to November 2, 2008. The Washington Post had this to say:

Posted by Amy Miller on November 25, 2014 11 Comments
A federal judge has ruled that the owners of the Washington Redskins should be allowed to pursue legal action against a group of Native Americans who are attempting to block the team's trademark protection. Back in August, the Redskins sued to reverse a previous ruling siding with the activists who seek to destroy the team's allegedly racist brand, and today, U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee denied the activists' request to dismiss the suit. The Washington Post has the background on the case:
The five Native Americans — Blackhorse, Phillip Glover, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Jillian Pappan and Courtney Tsotigh, members of American Indian tribes in Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah, Nebraska, and Florida — are the second group to mount a challenge to the team’s trademark protection. The first group was led by Suzan Shown Harjo, who filed a petition in 1992. The patent office ruled in the group’s favor, but the Redskins appealed in federal court and won on a technicality: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Harjo and the other plaintiffs had waited too long after turning 18 to complain about the Redskins name. But the court did not rule on whether the team name was disparaging. In the new case, Blackhorse and the other defendants filed their petition in 2006 when they were in their late teens and early 20s, ages considered early enough to file their grievances. They argue that federal trademark law bars the patent office from registering trademarks that “may disparage” groups or individuals. The law enables people to petition the office if they’ve been injured by a trademark and feel it was unlawfully awarded.
This is an old battle, but given the level of racial tension in America right now, it's more relevant than ever. Back in June, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Redskins trademark registration, citing concerns that the branding was disparaging toward Native Americans. (Federal trademark law prohibits registration of trademarks that “may disparage” or bring individuals or groups "into contempt or disrepute.”) In the board's decision, it said that although many Native Americans do not find the trademark to be disparaging, it based its decision on whether or not there was evidence "that a substantial composite of the Native American population found the term ‘Redskins’ to be disparaging when the respective registrations [were] issued.”

Posted by Amy Miller on October 19, 2014 37 Comments
Salon.com said This may be the worst race-baiting campaign ad since Willie Horton. Greg Sargent at WaPo announced Willie Horton is back!. The freaking out was over an NRCC-sponsored ad linking Rep. Lee Terry's (R-Neb.) Democratic opponent to convicted murderer Nikko Jenkins, who also happens to be African American. The ad attacks state Sen. Brad Ashford over his support for the state's "good time" laws, and blames those laws for Jenkins' early release. It doesn't mention Jenkins' race. Here's the ad: Here's the original Willie Horton Ad:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 20, 2014 10 Comments
It started out sounding like a classic racial profiling case. A white man is in a car kissing a black woman. The cops pull up, suspecting it's a case of prostitution. It wasn't. Just a husband and wife having a little fun, until the worst stereotypes of black women infected police minds. The woman was handcuffed, cried. And her wrists were cut by the handcuffs. The couple claimed the police approached only because they were an interracial couple. And it went viral. I remember seeing it at Buzzfeed via Twitter, and thinking: Not good. But then something happened. Neighbors -- the ones who called the police in the first place because of allegedly lewd public exposure -- produced photos that appeared to show the couple doing the nasty in the front seat. In broad daylight. While parked in a visible and trafficked area. TMZ was all over it:

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 13, 2014 12 Comments
Before the 2008 election, many liberals insisted that if Obama didn't win it would be because America is a racist country. Now that Obama has won two presidential elections and almost a decade has passed, many liberals are still insisting that America is a hotbed of racism. In fact, according to a new report from Alexandra Jaffee of The Hill, Democrats are planning to run on racism in the 2014 midterms:
Democrats push race issues Democrats are injecting race into the 2014 midterm elections amid fears that a drop-off in minority voters could severely cost them at the polls this fall. Democratic leaders in Congress and administration officials have suggested GOP opposition to policies ranging from immigration reform to ObamaCare are, at least partly, motivated by race. More broadly, they’ve suggested conservative Tea Party criticism of President Obama is based on the fact that he is black. Democrats reject charges that the rhetoric is a concerted political calculation on their part as they try to retain their Senate majority and make gains in the House. “You turn out voters by demonstrating your past performance and what you’re promising to do for a constituent in the future,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “I don’t call that race-baiting. I call that a political platform.”

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 05, 2014 22 Comments
Please make it stop. First they came for Black List, Baa Baa Black Sheep,Rejigger, Providence Plantations, Black Friday, Gobbledygook, Illegal Immigrant, Undocumented Immigrant, Master Bedroom, Chink in the Armor, and even the use of white copy paper and brown bagging it to lunch. Politically correct speech has become an Albatross around our necks. Then they came for the paint, and there were few words left to defend it. Fired employee sues paint company over racist paint names:
A black man in New Jersey has filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Benjamin Moore Paints, which he says named one of its paint colors after him and then fired him when he complained.

Posted by Bruce Carroll on June 27, 2014 13 Comments
The Daily Mail has obtained three racially-charged radio ads placed by organizations that worked to help incumbent U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) stage his come from behind run-off victory this week.
[The ads] claimed that supporters of conservative McDaniel had connections to the Ku Klux Klan and that McDaniel had a 'racist agenda.' They also warned that black Democrats 'could lose food stamps, housing assistance, student loans, early breakfast and lunch programs and disaster assistance' if he were to become the Republican U.S. Senate nominee. 'Vote against the tea party. Vote Thad Cochran,' one ad said. 'If the tea party, with their racist ideas, win, we will be sent back to the '50s and '60s.'
Accessibility by WAH