ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Civil Rights

LGBT

AUDIO: Chris Christie Apologizes For Suggesting Civil Rights Should Have Been Voted On

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has apologized for comments he made that the civil rights movement could have advanced with referenda instead of deadly protests, admitting, “I wasn’t clear enough. I absolutely wasn’t”:

CHRISTIE: I also recognize that my job, one of my jobs as Governor, is to clearly communicate to people what I’m thinking, every time I open my mouth. And I try to be very good about being very direct about what I say so that there’s no ambiguity but obviously when I was talking last week at the town hall meeting about the civil rights movement in the South, I wasn’t clear enough. I just wasn’t.

And what I did was, by saying those things, I left them open to misinterpretation and obviously there are some folks out there whose feelings I hurt or sensibilities I offended. And I apologize for that, because that’s my job. My job is to clearly communicate all the time. And so to those folks out there who were somehow offended or concerned about the ambiguity in my statement, I apologize for that because very clearly what I was trying to say, I said yesterday at the press conference about five or six times.

He did, however, defend calling those who compared him to segregationists as “numbnuts,” explaining that his mother used to use the term for him. “Maybe I should have said ‘stupid, out-of-line,’” he suggested, after asking, “What’s wrong with “numbnuts’?” In fact, Christie didn’t actually take back any of his comments, but merely tried to assuage those who were offended. Listen to it:

Christie’s remarks have triggered a strong backlash from African-American leaders, such as Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who suggested Christie “has not read his recent history books” and pointed out that “most of the governors…were outright segregationists.” Newark Mayor Cory Booker responded simply: “Frankly, I wouldn’t be where I am today” if states had voted on civil rights.

Meanwhile, five former New Jersey govenors, including Democrats Brendan Byrne and James Florio, have broken with Christie by endorsing marriage equality. “I think the climate is right on a basis of civil rights,” said Byrne, the oldest of the former Garden State governors. “I would ask that the Legislature pass it.” Former Govs. Jon Corzine and Jim McGreevey, both democrats, are on record as supporting marriage equality, as well as two Republicans, Tom Kean and Christie Todd.

(Fatima Najiy contributed to this post)

Justice

Rand Paul Explains His Family’s Opposition To Civil Rights Act: ‘It’s About Controlling Property’

In 2004, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) voted against a resolution praising the 1964 law banning whites-only lunch counters and employment discrimination because he claimed that “the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” Ron Paul’s views were recently echoed by his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who claimed that opposing the ban on whites-only lunch counters is the “hard part about believing in freedom.”

In an interview this morning on CNN, the younger Paul was asked to defend his father’s disregard for one of the most important legislative accomplishments in American history. His answer? Allowing private businesses to maintain a culture of virulent racism is the price we must pay in order to have cigar bars:

RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights…for example, I can’t have a cigar bar any more, and you say, “well, that has nothing to do with race” — the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.

Watch it:

Later in the same interview, Paul attacks the interviewers for “dwelling on an obscure issue” by questioning his father’s opposition to desegregation. Simply put, there are not very many victims of the apartheid state that the Civil Rights Act helped end who would describe desegregation as an “obscure issue.”

Justice

Rep. Poe Rushes To Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Defense, Calls The DOJ Investigation A ‘Waste Of Taxpayer Money’

Last week, the Department of Justice released the results of a three-year investigation into the actions of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, finding the Arizona official had committed rampant abuses and regularly “engages in racial profiling.”

In particular, the study found that Arpaio’s office targeted Latinos both in the workplace and in the streets. “Latino drivers are four to nine times more likely to be stopped than similarly situated non-Latino drivers,” read the report, and his office often targeted individuals simply for having “dark skin” or speaking Spanish. In one example, as Ian Millhiser writes, “One inmate was refused new bed sheets, even after she used a fellow inmate to explain in English that her old sheets were soiled, because the jail told the inmate that she had to make the request herself in English.”

Though instances of lawlessness like this have been ubiquitous in Arpaio’s office, conservatives are beginning to rush to the Arizona sheriff’s defense. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) echoed this sentiment on the radio late last week, telling host G. Gordon Liddy that the investigation was a “waste of taxpayer money.” Poe went on to excuse Arpaio, saying the sheriff was simply “doing his job.”

LIDDY: The attack on the sheriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, again by the federal government, accusing him of racial profiling, because apparently Hispanics are more likely to be illegal aliens than anybody else. [...]

POE: [...] Sheriff Arpaio and Maricopa County has the authority under a program called the 287-G program, authorized by the federal government, to investigate people in his jail that are illegally in the United States. He’s authorized by the federal government to do this. Now the federal government is saying, “ahh, we don’t want you doing this anymore,” and has named a bunch of excuses. They’ve been investigating him for three years. It’s amazing. Three-year investigation and they’re still not through. Another waste of taxpayer money. Program authorized by the federal government, approved by this sheriff, and now the federal government is saying, “obviously, he’s doing such a good job we don’t want him doing it anymore and want to take away his ability to even inquire as to people in the county jail as to whether they’re illegally in the country or not.”

The Justice Department’s findings against Arpaio are devastating in their scope. In Maricopa County, there are more individuals – over 540,000 – who primarily speak Spanish than in all but six other counties in the nation, yet Arpaio’s office routinely singled out non-English speakers to target. They even once employed a police operation at a local McDonald’s because they received a letter claiming that one of the workers didn’t speak English. Such racially-motivated targeting has been so commonplace under Arpaio that the Justice Department warned they will “not hesitate to file suit, if necessary,” to end such practices.

Unfortunately, Arpaio will likely continue to dismiss these serious charges – he claimed that it was actually he whose civil rights had been violated by the Justice Department by “calling him every kind of name” – under the cover of defenders like Poe.

Justice

Civil Rights Violator Sheriff Joe Arpaio Whines That DOJ Violated His Civil Rights By Calling Him Names

Last week the Justice Department announced the findings of its three year investigation into notorious Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, concluding that he was guilty of systematic civil rights violations against Latinos. In a searing rebuke, DOJ said Arpaio had relied upon racial profiling and discrimination in his obsessive campaign against undocumented immigrants.

Arpaio was quick to respond that the DOJ probe (which began under the Bush administration) was politically motivated. The man who made his name parading prisoners around in pink underwear and cramming them into inhumane outdoor “tent cities” complained that his own civil rights had been violated because DOJ called him names:

At the same time, the sheriff rejected as false all of the allegations concerning systemic civil-rights violations. He acknowledged isolated incidents of misconduct by deputies or detention officers, but he said those occurred during arrests of 7,000 suspected illegal immigrants and jail contact with 40,000 others.

You’re bound, with 50,000, to get a few complaints,” Arpaio said.

Likewise, the sheriff denied unlawfully targeting critics for arrest during political protests. “We don’t go after anybody,” he said. “Actually, they go after me. They’re demonstrating in front of my building, calling me every kind of name. If you want to talk about civil-rights violations, what about that?

Arpaio stalled the investigation for 17 months by refusing to turn over records to federal investigators, forcing officials to file an unprecedented lawsuit against him for breaking the law by not cooperating. And the man who relishes brutally enforcing the law is still acting as if it does not apply to him.

Defiant as ever, Arpaio is pledging to resist the Justice Department’s order that he reach an agreement to reform internal affairs and training and submit to independent monitoring. He said Friday that he will not agree to be “controlled by some federal monitor or something.”

(HT: Adam Serwer at Mother Jones)

Justice

Ohio Landlord Refuses To Apologize For Posting ‘Whites Only’ Pool Sign Because It’s ‘Historical’

In September the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ruled that a white landlord, Jamie Hein, had violated the state’s Civil Rights Act by posting a sign by the pool of her duplex that read “Public Swimming Pool, White Only.”

A black tenant filed a discrimination complaint with the commission after Hein accused his teenage daughter of using chemicals in her hair that made the water “cloudy.” Days later, she posted the sign on the gate to the pool.

Hein has so far been unapologetic, and is asking the commission to reconsider their ruling. “If I have to stick up for my white rights, I have to stick up for my white rights,” she said. She recently defended her actions to ABC News, giving the curious excuse that the sign was merely “historical”:

An Ohio landlord accused of discriminating against an African-American girl with a “white only” sign at her swimming pool told ABCNews.com that the sign was an antique and a decoration.

“I’m not a bad person,” said Jamie Hein of Cincinnati. “I don’t have any problem with race at all. It’s a historical sign.”

The sign in question reads, “Public Swimming Pool, White Only.” It is dated 1931 and from Alabama.

Hein, 31, was unapologetic about the racist origins of the sign that she displayed at the entrance to her pool. She said she collects antiques and was given the sign as a gift. She also said that even though the sign seems to indicate that the pool is public, the pool is on her private property and “everybody has to ask before getting in my pool.”

Landlords and business owners are subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and Fair Housing Act, which prohibits them from discriminating against customers and tenants on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, handicap, familial status or national origin.

Alyssa

The NBA and the Rise of Nerd Fashion

Wesley Morris’s piece on the rise of nerd fashion in the NBA is fascinating, but I’m kind of surprised he doesn’t mention David Stern’s dress code until the third-to-last paragraph of the piece:

When David Stern imposed the league’s reductive dress code six years ago, all this role-playing, reinvention, and experimentation didn’t seem a likely outcome. We all feared Today’s Man. But the players — and the stylists — were being challenged to think creatively about dismantling Stern’s black-male stereotyping. The upside of all this intentionality is that these guys are trying stuff out to see what works. Which can be exciting. No sport has undergone such a radical shift of self-expression and self-understanding, wearing the clothes of both the boys it once mocked and the men it desires to be.

I’d actually be really curious to hear more about the stylists in these equations, the people who mediate between the league’s expectations of the men who are the key to their profits, and those men’s expectations of themselves. If the rise of Kanye West and nerd hip-hop hadn’t coincided with the ban, what might the prevailing riff on the code have looked like? What inspirations would they have turned to—and because fashion evolves, where might they turn next? Malcolm X wore himself some crisply-cut but patterned suits back in the day is all I’m saying.

Alyssa

‘Boardwalk Empire’ Open Thread: Loss

This post contains spoilers for the Nov. 20 and Nov. 27 episodes of Boardwalk Empire.

I apologize for the delay in writing last week’s recap, but in a sense I’m glad I get to consider both of these episodes, in their predictability and very strong moments together. I also appreciate a chance to highlight Matt Zoller Seitz’s excellent essay on Boardwalk Empire‘s misplaced priorities when it comes to gender, privileging fairly conventional if convoluted gangster stories over the richer domestic dramas that the show mostly uses as pretty window dressing.

Working backwards, I agree with him that Angela’s death at the hands of Manny Horvitz, who has arrived in Atlantic City intending to kill Jimmy and shoots Louise, stealing a clandestine night with Angela, instead, was emotionally striking. Manny’s shock, and his recovery via the intensely cold like, “Your husband did this to you,” was one of the more precisely-executed emotional moments of the season. And yet, I’m disgruntled by the decision on two levels. First, it’s the equivalent of J.K. Rowling killing Remus and Tonks in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, a moment when a piece of art needs some deaths to winnow the cast and illustrate emotional costs, but its creators don’t have the guts to lower a truly devastating blow on the audience by killing a main character. Second, there’s something really distasteful about the show’s regression to the norms of the past, where gay relationships inevitably end in death. It’s of a piece, I suppose, with the show’s generally punitive attitude towards sex. But I resent both the specific decision to kill off Angela and with her, one of the show’s legitimately interesting avenues of social exploration, and the general decision to default to killing the depressed lesbian.

The decision to have one of Margaret’s daughters struck down by polio seems to come from a similarly vengeful place. Whether she needs to confess that she’s sheltering with the man who murdered the father of her children, or that she’s betraying Nucky, Margaret clearly believes her sin is responsible for her misfortune. But at least that plotline gives rise to a more interesting speculation: in living with Nucky, has Margaret lost not just the health of one child, but the moral direction of another? Teddy plays a cruel joke on her when he pretends he’s stricken, too, and earns himself a slapping for it, while a weeping Margaret tells Nucky, “God help me, but he has his father’s cruelty,” only to have Nucky insist that he just wants attention, and knowing that his sister’s hospitalized “isn’t the same as understanding” the true magnitude of what’s befallen his family. But on their father-son trip to New York, Nucky realizes that something deeper than genetics or the loneliness of a little boy may be at play when Teddy reveals that he witnessed Nucky burn his own father’s house down, a poisonous revelation that ends with a deceptively sweet, “Don’t worry, Dad. I won’t tell.” Maybe Teddy’s just a child. But maybe in Nucky’s house, he’s learned that secrets are powerful, that there is something to be earned by keeping them.
Read more

Alyssa

Ten Americans Who Deserve Great Biopics

Hendrick Hertzberg joins my call for more Revolutionary War movies, saying in particular that we should have a definitive Alexander Hamilton biopic. I agree, though I might recommend an adaptation of David Liss’s The Whiskey Rebels instead of a more straightforward approach. But I also think this points to a larger problem: we need a more creative approach to biopics that’s oriented towards truly great stories instead of just the most famous people who a talented actor would enjoy impersonating. To wit, ten suggestions from American history.

1. Harriet Tubman: The Underground Railroad is one of the coolest things to happen in American history, and it’s only part of what makes Harriet Tubman awesome. Tubman made 13 runs on the Underground Railroad, an act of outrageous courage given the fate that would have awaited her as a conductor were she ever caught. She was the first woman to head up a Union military expedition—which involved guiding ships past a river Confederate forces had mined—during which she helped free more than 700 slaves. And she did all of this despite having seizures and headaches. And it might be fun to see Viola Davis cut loose a little bit post The Help, or to see C.C.H. Pounder deploy her glorious steeliness on an iconic portrayal of Tubman.

2. Ida Tarbell, Ida Wells and Nellie Bly: I’m a sucker for movies about journalists, and these three women are best in class. From Tarbell’s investigation of Standard Oil, which set the standard for document-based investigative journalism going forward; to Wells’ reporting on lynching in America; to Bly’s expose of the state of mental health treatment for the poor, all three were absolutely fearless, telling stories about bureaucracies and norms and prompting reform or efforts at reform. Too often, journalism movies and television shows have to gin up absolutely ridiculous plots to up the stakes—sorry, State of Play, I love you, but it’s true. But sometimes journalists go where the government won’t, even within our own country, at considerable risk to themselves. All three roles would be juicy, but I’d particularly like to see Kerry Washington, so wonderful in The Last King of Scotland, play Wells, who was just a few years younger than Washington is now when she gave her seminal speech on lynching.
Read more

Alyssa

Remembering Joe Frazier For Who He Was, Not Who He Wasn’t

Joe Frazier died late Monday at age 67 after a short battle with liver cancer, and nary a story will be written about the two-time heavyweight champion of the world that doesn’t include ample space for Muhammad Ali. It was Ali who overshadowed Frazier both in the ring and out. Ali was flashy, changing his name upon joining the Nation of Islam, courting Malcolm X, dodging the Vietnam War draft, and, yes, beating Frazier in two-of-three fights. And at a time of civil unrest, it was Ali who painted Frazier as a friend of the conservative elite, an Uncle Tom, a puppet of the White Man — a distinction that became a part of how Frazier would always be known:

During the interview in which Ali called Frazier an “Uncle Tom,” he told the British reporter, “He’s the other type of Negro, he’s not like me. There are two types of slaves. Frazier’s worse than you to me…. One day he might be like me, but for now he works for the enemy.”

It wasn’t just Ali. After Frazier beat The Champ in the Fight of the Century at Madison Square Garden in 1971, Boxing Illustrated posed a question to readers: “Is Joe Frazier a white champion in black skin?” By that time, Frazier had been alienated by much of America’s black community, seen by many exactly as Ali had painted him.

Joe Frazier, to be sure, wasn’t Muhammad Ali. But does that diminish Frazier’s accomplishments, either as an athlete or as the change agent he (perhaps unintentionally) was? It shouldn’t. Frazier’s career began when he fled the racism of the Jim Crow South, moved to Philadelphia, and learned to fight. Like Jesse Owens, Wilma Rudolph, and, incidentally, Ali before him, Frazier highlighted America’s racial injustice by winning a gold medal in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics while representing a country that didn’t represent him. A few years later, it was Frazier who lent money to Ali, who had been imprisoned and stripped of his title for dodging the Vietnam War draft. Frazier later petitioned President Richard Nixon to get Ali reinstated into boxing.

After his career, he started a charitable foundation and opened a Philadelphia gym to give troubled youth a place to go to ease their frustrations and learn to box, much as others had done for teens like Ali and Frazier years before. Well into his fifties, Frazier still fought charity bouts to raise money for troubled youth in communities across the country.

Plenty of black athletes, Ali included, used their platform to become outspoken activists for American racial injustice and inequality. Plenty of others, like Frazier, highlighted social injustice and inequality simply through their accomplishments, accolades, and acceptance by mainstream America. Perhaps none, however, was demonized by other black athletes quite the way Frazier was by Ali. Ali was flashy, bold and outspoken, and imprisoned for his beliefs, and his activism rightly endeared him to millions of people around the world both during his career and after.

“I don’t want to be no more than what I am,” Frazier once said. But while it may not be his enduring legacy — or, for all I know, the legacy he’d choose for himself — Smokin’ Joe Frazier played a positive role in the change of America’s racial norms during his lifetime. Just because he wasn’t Muhammad Ali shouldn’t diminish that.

Justice

Civil Rights Leader Rep. John Lewis: Voter ID Laws ‘Are A Poll Tax,’ ‘I Know What I Saw During The 60s’

A young Rep. John lewis (D-GA)

Republican lawmakers across the country have been waging an successful campaign to restrict the right to vote. States are cracking down on non-profit organizations’ registration drives, reducing early voting periods, and repealing laws allowing citizens to register to vote at the polls on Election day, leaving as many as 5 million voters facing disenfranchisement in the 2012 election. Perhaps the most radical restriction is the GOP’s push for voter ID laws that require citizens to obtain and present state-approved photo identification to vote. These laws disproportionately (and perhaps purposefully) affect minorities, seniors, and low-income people who typically make up the Democratic base. At least six states have passed such restrictions.

Incensed by the regressive trend, civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) put the Republican efforts into historical context. “In 2011, we should be ashamed,” he said Tuesday night on the House floor. “We should be making it easy, simple, and convenient to vote. Instead we’re creating barriers and making it more difficult.” Noting that “we cannot separate the dangerous trend across this nation from our history,” Lewis warned of our “step backward towards another dark time in our history.” Singling out the voter ID laws as a particular “threat,” Lewis reiterated, “Make no mistake, these voter ID laws are a poll tax. I know what I saw during the 60s“:

LEWIS: Each and every voter ID law is a real threat to voting rights in America. Make no mistake, these voter ID laws are a poll tax. I know what I saw during the 60s. I saw poll tax. And you cannot deny that these ID laws are another form of a poll tax. In an economy where people are already struggling to pay for the most basic necessities, there are too many citizens that would be unable to afford the fees and transportation costs involved in getting government issued photo Ids. Despite all the voter ID laws across the country, there’s no convincing evidence — no evidence at all — that voter fraud is a problem in our election problem.

The right to vote is precious — almost sacred — and one of the most important blessings of our democracy. Today, we must stand up and fight. The history of the right to vote in America is a history of conflict, of struggle, for that right. Many people died trying to protect that right. I was beaten and jailed because I stood up for it. For millions like me, the struggle for the right to vote is not mere history, it is experience.

Watch it:

Since he was 21 years old, Lewis has been a seminal leader in the non-violent struggle to achieve voter and racial equality in this country. He “endured brutal beatings by angry mobs and suffered a fractured skull,” and was nearly beaten to death to achieve a basic freedom that is once again being infringed upon today.

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), who has been leading the House effort against voter ID restrictions, reflected on Lewis’ words: “Congressman Lewis has risked his life to ensure that every American has the right to vote. His bravery should stand as an inspiration to us all to continue the fight against Republican efforts to suppress voting. His perspective on this issue is invaluable.”

Older

Switch to Mobile