Anyway, I have to bite my lip not to say hello, or I will be mired in a conversation like a gulf seagull trapped in BP oil. But I can’t help myself, my southern hospitality is all mixed in with the manners my mother beat into me, and the two conspire to make the chance of me keeping my mouth shut an impossibility. So I say, “Hi, how’s your day?” I’m thinking this might lead to a “Fine, thank you” or a “Doing good, and you?” I hope for an answer that’s short and polite so that I can get back to scrubbing the bumper, but as expected, I’m not so lucky.

I call the old Chinese guy “China Man.” Well, at least in my head. I have asked him his name many times, but he always responds with a fake, easy-for-an-American-to-understand name like “Joe” or “Lee” or “Juan.” I know he’s lying, because he never uses the same name twice, plus everyone in his extended family has at one time or another told me their name was “Lee.” I know it’s not their last name, and I doubt that everyone in the house is named Lee. (If so, could you imagine the irony?)

After my brief interrogative, China Man picks up his pace and heads in my direction. He looks intent–like I have just asked the meaning of life and he has a possible solution–or perhaps he just didn’t understand and wants to come over to clarify. But I think neither is true. After he gets a little closer, I say again, “Hi, how is your day?”, emphasizing each word a little more carefully. He slows to a stop, plants his walking stick on the wet pavement, and after a pause that was either about 10 seconds or a minute, he said, “I Love America. But things are becoming clear.” “Oh?” I say. “Yes!” he replies about an hour later. “I believe…this war is not what you think.”

This is a REALLY loaded topic, so I stand still and say nothing. I know from several past “how do you do’s” that he is an ex-military man, Chinese military that is. To be specific, he didn’t play for our team during the Cold War.

So, you might think his war reference is about Iraq or Afghanistan, but don’t be so sure. He could be talking about the Vietnam war, for him Vietnam only wrapped-up last week. Or maybe he means one of the “WW” wars. This is a more likely choice, but he was around for both WW’s and now has trouble keeping them straight. “Did the Germans invade Poland, or was that before Franz Ferdinand was assassinated?” It’s hard to keep that kind of thing straight, you know. But this time China Man is on his game and says, “The thing that is most clear…is that however good intentioned you Americans are, you are wrong. And those in the world you think to be your friends most probably are not.”

Well, the next 45 minutes were a blur of international politics, some current, some relevant, some not. In the end, I think China Man had it right. Things ARE becoming clear. And more Americans agree that we just might be doing it wrong. And, I have learned the hard way several times now, that those we think to be our friends may actually not be our friends at all.

Slow-moving Joe or Lee or Juan got it right…way to go, China Man!

The man on the motorcycle is dead.  He was twenty-two, a motorcycle enthusiast, murdered and from Puerto Rico.  His wish was to be embalmed and posed this way and his wish, like the wish of another murdered twenty-four year old in this country (posed standing upright in his mother’s living room for three days), was upheld.  The secret to all of this, said a funeral director, is in the “special embalming”.

However bizarre this may seem, the practice of posing dead people in various tableaux is not new.  It was popular in the Victorian Era when family members couldn’t afford cameras and wanted their dearly departed to be immortalized, although it was also practiced by the wealthy.  It is suggested that upon Prince Albert’s death, Queen Victoria went into such an intense period of mourning that grief, now in vogue,  became literally showcased in the bereaved mainstream.  As a practice,  it can be seen as an extension of memento mori (“remember you will die”), a practice of inserting images of the dead in paintings and sculpture on tombs as well as on cathedrals.  Christianity embraced this sentiment as it is especially moralizing and wishes to teach the woeful idea that life is short, tempus fugit, and you better not sin.

Although creepy through modern eyes, it must not be forgotten that death was a frequent visitor in homes at this period.  Infant and childhood mortality were common and children saw death as a part of life.  Today, death and children are kept as remote from one another as possible as lost ones release their spirits in hospitals and nursing homes.

All of the people in the photographs, save a few, are dead.  The deceased were held upright using special stands with clamps, their eyes propped open or pupils painted unconvincingly on the photographs. The girl at the top of the article is a fourteen year old in her wedding dress.  Her name was Margaret Rose.  The bottom image of a man and child, ostensibly father and  son, are both deceased.

Imagine it’s the fifth century before the Common Era, on a plain bejeweled with a magnificent palace complex and flowing gardens, with the coffee brown Zagros mountains in the distance, and a sky the color of lapis lazuli. Colorful tents and scents all around, wafting in the breeze. Trumpets; drums and bustle. Nobles astride steeds with their retinues, and representatives from thirty nations line up to present the King of Kings, the Shahenshah, with gifts from their lands, be it neighboring Babylonia, or far-flung Ionia, Egypt, Libya, India and anywhere in between. In ancient times, as to the Iranian mind today, Iran truly was the center of the universe.

We are at Persepolis, the Hellenization of what the ancient Persians called Parsa. Today it is known in Persian as Takht-e Jamshid, the ‘Throne of Jamshid,’ after the mythical King of Persia in Ferdowsi’s national epic, the Shahnameh, which kept alive the earlier Yima (cf. Vedic Yama) of the Zoroastrian holy book, the Avesta (itself absorbing the earlier Indo-Iranian myth). This is how the Persian name took root over time in the root of the Iranian imagination and folklore as the past was half-forgotten and mythologized. In reality, the initial completion of Persepolis was finished under Darius the Great.

Please take a few minutes at your leisure to view part of this video, from the documentary, “Persepolis Recreated,” which also digitally recreates, as the name suggests, what Persepolis would have looked at at the time:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGeJRTw7mW8

It is Nowruz, and the Shahenshah is hosting the greatest empire in the world at his ceremonial capital in the foundation of the first great Persian Empire, the Achaemenid Empire, in the modern province of Fars (approximately 45 miles northeast of the city Shiraz). We know that the actual administrative center of  the Achaemenids at that time was Susa (also home to the Tomb of Daniel and the setting of the Book of Esther). Persepolis was officially a summer residence, but moreover, it appears to have been built for purely propagandistic and ritual purposes, but also housed a great treasury and library.

Nowruz (transliteration varies greatly), Persian for ‘New Day,’ is New Year’s Day on the Iranian calendar, beginning on the first day of the month Farvardin. It is celebrated by peoples and nations with a heritage of Iranian ancestry or links to Persian culture: Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Kurdish regions (an Iranian people), India, even in the Muslim Balkan countries.  Over the years in recent history Nowruz has been banned by the Soviets in Azerbaijan, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and there was even a campaign by the most radical Islamists after the 1979 Islamic Revolution to erase it from the calendar.

Nowruz, since at least the time of Persepolis, has been celebrated on the vernal equinox, March 21^st in the Gregorian calendar [1]. This vernal celebration, of course, is not unique. In the West we are all familiar with the successor to the pagan commemoration of Ostara; Easter. However; this not limited to Indo-European cultures, and it appears as if Nowruz is not entirely of Aryan origin at all.

The roots of Nowruz in the pre-Islamic religion of Persia, Zoroastrianism, is generally assumed and recognized by Iranians. In Zoroastrianism to this day it is observed as the highest of holidays, commemorating the creation of fire, the spirit of Highest Truth (Asha Vahishta), and is symbolic of looking towards Frashokereti, when the Savior will come back to destroy Evil and the world will be Renovated to a perfect state. (If this eschatology sounds familiar, it isn’t coincidence. But, that’s a whole other subject!)

Mary Boyce, the late authority on Zoroastrianism, said that it was likely that the Prophet Zarathushtra (known in the West as Zoroaster, c. 11^th century BCE, Eastern Iran) was “re-dedicating what was probably an ancient celebration of spring .” [2] Zoroastrianism made it the highest of all seasonal festivals (Gahambars), the seventh and final of the year. R.C. Zaehner, an earlier philologist and specialist of Zoroastrianism, like Boyce, wrote,

The feast of Noruz survives as the greatest by far of all the national holidays in Iran even now because it is genuinely national, a survival from a long-forgotten pagan past, as little influenced by Zoroastrianism as it is by Islam. [3]

In 539 BCE, Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. He was invited by the priests on his march south to Babylon, conquered it, and proceeded to return plundered idols and relics to their home city’s sanctuaries, in addition to decreeing that Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Second Temple. As such, Cyrus is the only Gentile in the Bible referred to as ‘God’s annointed’ (messiah). This is also when the first charter of human rights and religious freedom was written, in the Cyrus Cylinder. [4]

On the Babylonian New Year festival of 538,  he had his son, Cambyses II, ceremoniously installed as king of Mesopotamia. On the vernal equinox, the Babylonian king would have the idol of Marduk removed from the temple next to the great Ziggurat and paraded through the streets.  This ceremony was enacted for the first time in many years by the new prince, under the directive of Cyrus. Rule was again restored after a period of strife.

In the Babylonian belief, this annual rite would ensure that order prevailed over chaos; that the seasons for the coming year would remain in sequence, and that they would be fruitful. In similar fashion, Cambyses was installed as the son of Re in Egypt. Michael Axworthy writes,

This was an empire that always preferred to flow around and absorb powerful rivals, rather than to confront, batter into defeat, and force submission. The guiding principles of Cyrus persisted under Darius and at least some later Achaemenid rulers. [5]

As such, several authors [6] suggest that Nowruz was borrowed from the annual Semitic Babylonian politico-religious ritual symbolizing the sovereign’s victory over anarchy, of life over death. This is also found in the Avestan concept of kingship; the victory of asha (Divine Order; cognate with Sanskrit rta, precedent of dharma) over the Druj, The Lie, associated with Angra Mainyu, the Zoroastrian Devil. The famous motif of the Lion overwhelming the Bull at Persepolis captures the essence of both, sans any overt religious iconography or message.

Whatever the source, or combination of sources of Nowruz, by the time of Darius, the first stage of Persepolis was completed and host to one of the grandest celebrations of power in history. In reliefs added later by Xerxes on stairways leading to the central Apadana Palace and the Throne Hall (completed under Xerxes’ son, Artaxerxes), can be seen delegates from nearly every nation with their gifts of tribute, to be followed by wine, music and dance. Persepolis was known as the richest city under the sun, and indeed its treasury was overfull, even though it appeared to serve little other purposes than these. This ended only when it was razed and looted by Alexander the Great in 330 BCE (considered by some as revenge for the razing of the Acropolis in 480 CE under Xerxes). [7]

In the later Parthian (246 BCE – 224 CE) and Sassanid (224-651 CE) Empires, more rituals would be added, though little is known under the Parthians. In the Sassanid, twelve temporary pillars (some say seven) were erected nearly a month before Nowruz day, with different kinds of seeds placed on top of each, sprouting greens by the time of the celebration. The Sassanid Empire, the second great empire, comprised many religions, and although Nowruz was officially a celebration of a Zoroastrian state, it was secular enough to be celebrated by all – including Jews and Christians. At all times it is assumed it was celebrated by all social strata, as well (though history tends to not record the common classes).

Then, 636 CE, fifteen years after the Hijra of the Prophet Muhammad, an Arab Muslim army routed the superior Persian army at Qadisiyyah, near Kufa, Iraq. Such is the humiliation of this event that Saddam Hussein purposefully named his invasion of Iran after it. By 651, the Muslim conquest of Persia was complete. The Persians fiercely resisted culturally (not to mention a few insurgencies), and Islamization took centuries longer, until the 10^th-11^th centuries. It is during this time that many Zoroastrians fleeing persecution emigrated to India, where they are known to this day as Parsis (Persians).

However; unlike across today’s modern Arab world, Arabization never took. In fact, the new Caliphate was increasingly giving way to the superior bureaucracy of the Persians, as it was to the Persian arts. Iran did as it always did, it absorbed its conquerors, adapted, and in turn conquered them culturally.

Around the dawn of the 11^th century the poet Ferdowsi completed a grand translation in an early form of Modern Persian (Farsi). It was a collection of surviving Middle Persian (Pahlavi) texts entitled the Shahnameh (Book of Kings). Ferdowsi is credited for preserving Persian cultural heritage and its language. Not only is knowledge of the character of Iran incomplete without knowing whom Ferdowsi is, I dare say it is impossible.

In the Shahnameh, Jamshid (pictured above) ruled for 700 years as the archetypal ruler in a mythical golden age after defeating the divs (demons). He was endowed with farr (the Zoroastrian khvarena), a Divine Glory. The investiture of farr was like a radiant sun (a nimbus), himself seated a golden throne. This idea, known to the Achaemenids, can also be seen in many solar crowns and tiaras to this day (cf. Sol Invictus). It was this coronation for which Nowruz was first celebrated, according to Ferdowsi’s national tome. In the pagan version of Jamshid (Yima), he his immortal and never dies, but disappears underground. Thus, mankind is made mortal until his return (cf. Persephone).

In the Shahnameh, many myths are shown to have survived, including interpretations of Yima, which do not adhere to what was the orthodox doctrine of what was the Zoroastrian Church, nor to surviving scripture and beliefs of remaining Zoroastrians today. In a similar fashion, forthcoming centuries of Islam would prove unable to alter what transcends formal religion altogether. Nowruz has never successfully been transformed such as Christmas was by Christians. Nowruz, above all, is Iranian. Not only that, as a celebration of joy, like Zoroastrianism, it is a much needed respite from the dour pall a strict state-imposed version of Shi’ism can bring. Outside Iran, and to all people, it is an annual reaffirmation of life, fit for all humanity to appreciate.

II. Nowruz Today

Prior to Nowruz it is custom to buy new clothes, plant green sprouts in an earthenware dish (such as wheat, barley or lentils) and clean the house (khane tekani, which symbolically, was preparing the house for ancestors, traditionally done on Chaharshanbeh Souri; more on this day below). On the streets a minstrel-like character fills the air with boisterous singing announcing that the New Year is coming, “it’s only once a year!” He wears red clothing and conical cap and blackface. [8] He roams the street, alleyways, markets and parks, sometimes with a crew. Watch a just such pair of busking performers in this video.

He is known has Haji Firouz, or Mr. Victorious (successful, et cetera). The origins of this character are obscure, and unrecorded until after the Muslim conquest. Several theories abound though. One is from the Shahnameh, which traces itself back to a Mesopotamian ceremony surrounding the god Tammuz, whom died and was reborn every year, according to Iranist Mehrdad Bahar.

Another is that he represents a Zoroastrian priest who tended the holy fire. The cap does actually suggest the dress of the priests of ancient times with their hood-like caps, adopted from Scythians (picture above). The reasoning here is that the red represents fire, and black-face, ash. However; I am not aware of any colors being worn by the priesthood other than white. This part appears to be fancy.

Among the Parsis in India, colorful new clothes, often red, including caps for boys are worn on New Year’s day there (photo), so there may still be credence and clues to be found in this Iranian custom of Haji Firouz wearing red. In Iran too, underneath chadors, a wave of vibrant (and defiant) color of sleek dresses may catch one’s eye with a slight gust, and indeed, all other lands still paint the town, so to speak (in a good way), with festive clothing. Watch videos of Norouz celebrated around the world.

The Haji Firouz origin story I find most interesting though, is of a Persian soldier named Pirouz Nahavandi, whom was captured by the armies of Caliph Umar at the battle of Qadissiyah. He was brought back to Medina as a slave, where he pretended to convert to Islam. Having gained the trust of Umar, he assassinated him in 644 during morning prayers at the Medina mosque (built upon the site of Prophet Muhammad’s house), as retribution for the Muslim conquest of Persia.

The historicity of this account varies, and as so often happens, elements of truth have surely been embellished over time. It is generally agreed that Umar was assassinated by a Persian plot, though. Such is the curious contradictions of Iran, that a Shi’a country which mourns Umar’s assassination, could also celebrate Pirouz as a national hero. A presidential decree signed by Ahmadinejad in 2007 to destroy the Firuzan tomb near Kashan, where he is popularly believed to be buried, was met with protests. There are layers of symbolism in the legend of Pirouz Nahavandi. And it can be readily seen why opponents to the Islamic Republic sometimes disparagingly refer to the victory of the Islamists as “the second Arab invasion.”

Whatever the origin of the Haji Firouz tradition, it, like Nowruz itself, is emblematic of the nature of Iran itself. The relationship of an enduring Persian nationalism and heritage, with that of the Islamic faith. This is not to suggest that Shi’ism and all other religions cannot in fact be Iranian; but that with the state in the hands of hardliner Islamists, Iran’s pre-Islamic history can present a problematic reality to the foundations of their own legitimacy.

Of the events associated with Nowruz most opposed to by the hardline Islamists is Chaharshanbeh Souri (Red Wednesday). It is begun on the eve of the last Wednesday of the year, and thus celebrated on Tuesday. It consists of trick-or-treating, banging spoons together loudly, fireworks, and bonfire jumping. Among the concerns of the regime has been its roots in “superstition.” But, moreover, is the propensity towards mischief. Since the Islamic Revolution, as one of the few events where mixing of the sexes is relaxed, it has become rowdier and rowdier. The concerns are not unfounded, and there have been numerous tragic accidents, especially since the late 1990s.

This event, generally five or six days before Norouz, occurred this year on the 16^th. It is rooted in the sixth Zoroastrian festival of the year, Hamaspathmaedaya, the Feast of All Souls. According to Zoroastrian belief, on the days from this day until the New Year, guardian angels and the souls of the dead visit the earthly realm. As such, nowadays, divination is still practiced on this night (there is also a Shi’i form, known as estekhareh). Bonfires are lit, often just alone, the idea being not to not let the sun set and to be vigilant against evil. Two views of this year’s Chaharshanbeh Souri can be seen in videos here.

Jumping of seven fires while chanting to them “zardi-ye man az to, sorkhi-ye to az man” (my sallowness is yours, your fiery red color is mine), are attested to only after the Islamic conquest (now often just one or several). The Zoroastrian’s veneration of fire would likely have considered this act of fire-jumping blasphemous. But, in the recurrent Zoroastrian number of seven, this act (according only to my deductive power of intuition) likely preserved symbolically the journey of the year over the seven great festivals of the year (Gahambars) to the Zoroastrians.

Not counting these preceding days, the festival of Nowruz lasts thirteen days. During this time the country of Iran shuts down. Family travel home, marriages are performed, coworkers and acquaintances exchange sweetmeats, gifts are given, and hidden wine bottles appear from the back of cupboards. Amou Nowruz (Uncle Nowruz), who kicks the winter out, is a Santa Claus type figure who also gives gifts to children. The days are filled spending time with family, outings, and eating traditional meals and treats, such as Sabzi Polo Mahi (an herbed fired fish dish with pilaf), on Nowruz Day or the night before. Koukou Sabzi (herbs and baked eggs) and Reshteh Polo (rice and noodles) are other typical dishes. A sweet mixture of nuts, berries and raisins known as aajil is consumed throughout the remainder of Nowruz.

By far the most iconic aspect of Nowruz is the sofra-ye haft sin, the haft sin spread. Haft means seven [9], and sin, the Perso-Arabic letter corresponding to s. The Haft Sin is set on a table, over a dining cloth (sofra). It can be elegant and luxuriant, or fairly simple. But, more social conscious households will arrange more aesthetically pleasing ceremonial spreads, as this is the time to entertain visitors, as well as family.

The exact moment of New Year has a bit of a countdown like in the West. Before it, the family is assembled around the Haft Sin (as with the Christmas Tree) and poems or scripture are recited. The second the New Year strikes is called Saal Tahvil. Elders’ hands may be kissed out of respect, and kisses and hugs all around! This is when presents are exchanged. After this the house may be purified with the burning of esfand, sprinkling rose water, and walking around the house with a mirror and candle as a blessing. Candles are left to drip away and burn out on their own.

In addition to the essential seven items beginning with s, are several other common additions. No Haft Sin need be identical, and will differ to taste and by regional custom. In fact, there isn’t even any consistent essential seven s items. While containing elements of much older symbols, the custom of arranging them this way is only attested to as being a little over a hundred years old.

The following are among the most popular items, their Persian, its meaning, and what they represent. Every spread will contain most of these, varying by combinations thereof:

• sabzeh – greens – sprouts of wheat, barley, mung beans, or lentils in an earthenware dish. This is the one essential item.

• samanu – a sweet pudding made of germinated wheat – affluence and ingenuity.

• senjed – dry fruit of the oleaster tree -- love.

• sepand – esfand – seeds of the Syrian Rue – protects from evil eye.

• sir – garlic cloves – medicine, protection.

• sib – apple – health, beauty.

• somagh – sumac – the color of sunrise; triumph of good over evil.

• serkeh – vinegar –age, patience.

• sonbol – hyacinth flowers – spring.

• sekkeh – coins – prosperity, wealth.

Other items commonly found, which don’t start with ‘s’ in Persian:

• goldfish – life, the animal world; Pisces.

• mirror -- reflection.

• candles – illumination.

• decorated eggs -- fertility.

• book – wisdom.

These are but the most common. Several other items can be found, starting with ‘s’ or not. While the practice of spreading the table is relatively new, the symbols that comprise it are ancient. To go into each one could easily take a page. An apple is seen in the Persepolis reliefs. Esfand seeds are burnt like incense to ward off the evil eye. The very heptad itself, can be seen as Zoroastrian (related to the Amesha Spentas, like Archangels).

The book is often a Qur’an, but depending on one’s respective religion, it can also be a Torah, Bible, Avesta, or Kitáb-i-Aqdas (though given persecution of Bahá’í’s, this would not likely be left in view for just anyone to see). More secular families will have the Shahnameh, or the Divan-e Hafez. While Rumi is among the greatest poets revered in Iran, it is Hafez, a 14th century Sufi poet of Shiraz, whom Iranians turn to for guidance and inspiration more than any other.

Or, there may be two of each. The table is also kept stocked with fruits, such as apples, pomegranates, and quinces; and pastries and nut flavored nougats or mixes. A fruit not for eating that can be found is a bitter orange floating in a bowl of water, symbolizing the world.

Though the table spread is not itself Zoroastrian, there are several unique layouts for them, as well. (One such assertion claims that it may have started in Zoroastrianism, as seven metal trays.) In this layout they will put the candle in front of the mirror, to spread its radiance. Look in the most holy Shi’i shrines and you will see a splendid reflection of light refracted to infinity. A Shi’i philosophy, known as Eshraghi, can be traced itself to Zoroastrian thought. The thing that distinguishes the Zoroastrian spread, though, is that it is not a Haft Sin, but a Haft Shin. All items beginning with the letter sh.

Yazd, smack dab in the heart of Iran, is the largest center of Zoroastrianism surviving in Iran. It has one of the most famous Fire Temples in the world (picture above), or the most photographed, at least. It is a custom of Iranians, regardless of religion, to visit it on Nowruz. A particularly apropos time, would be on the sixth day of Nowruz, what is known as Nowruz-e Bozorg (Great Nowruz) in general, and Khordad Sal to Zoroastrians -- the date Zarathushtra’s birthday is honored. Author Paul Kriwaczek, tells of a conversation he had with a Zoroastrian when visiting the Yazd area,

Before Islam, Noruz was celebrated with a haft shin not sin table. We put on seven things beginning with ‘sh.’ We put sharab (wine) for celebration, shir (milk) for nourishment, sharbat (sherbet) for enjoyment, shamshir (a aword) for security, shemshad (a box) for wealth, sham (a candle) for illumination, and shahdaneh (hemp seeds) for enlightenment. So that these things would be ours for the coming year. [10]

The Parsis of India do not celebrate the Haft Sin, though they still do Nowruz. Among Zoroastrians it is still customary to settle outstanding arguments, put on new clothes, exchange presents, and visit the Fire Temple. Going to the Fire Temple, unlike other religions, is not a central feature of the faith, and reserved by the laity for such special occasions. Another noticeable addition to a Zoroastrian spread, as on the Fire Temple walls, will be a framed portrait of Zarathushtra.

At the end of the Nowruz period, on the last day, Sizdah Bedar, ‘Getting Rid of the Thirteenth’ is observed, though ‘observe’ is not the right word! Not only does it sometimes overlap with April Fool’s Day, it is also filled with pranks and fun. It is the day for everyone to go outside, play, and picnic at the local park, or go for a hike. For school children who didn’t complete their homework packets over the break though, it is a day of torment!

In the old days, the goldfish from the Haft Sin would be released into a creek, but nowadays most keep the goldfish. The sabzeh from the haft sin table is still taken outside though, and scattered, having collected all the bad that could befall the family in the coming year. The ancient roots in Zoroastrianism to this day also signified the victory over the demon of drought for the coming year.

And with that, life in Iran once again resumes the next day, until the next Nowruz, the biggest, and notably un-Islamic, holiday of Iran.

III. Politics of Nowruz

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XkrK95atT4

Tomb of Hafez in Shiraz, on Nowruz Day Eve

After reading this far, you will have readily seen the political significance of green, sabz, its not only being the color of Islam, but of rebirth, growth and new hope. The Islamic government has never been able to crush this holiday’s spirit, and attempts to co-opt it are meager and farcical, at best. Each year it is customary for the Supreme Leader to name the next year. One year was the “year of Imam Ali,” and last year, it was “Saal-e Eslah-e Olgouyeh Masraf” (the year of reforming consumption patterns).

It is also a time for all figures, to give Nowruz messages. This is typically the president, but this year, the year of 1389, included messages from all the Green Movement leaders, including Zahra Rahnavard, Mir Hossein Mousavi’s wife (Iranian women keep their surnames). In a speech to the Iran Participation Front (Reformist organization), Mousavi ended with this,

In regards to the future, I feel that the movement that has begun is irreversible. We will never again return to the conditions that were a year ago. We have to value these change in ideas. I am very hopeful for the future, we must encourage hope and patience; patience meaning faith. This movement wants nothing for itself, it wants freedom and prosperity and progress and better days for all people and it will surely achieve these aims. The move after the election, and the election itself raised people’s awareness about their rights. We must invite people to fortitude and perseverance. We must name and know the coming year as the year of fortitude and perseverance. A year of perseverance for the green movement to reach its aims.

Mousavi declared the year as one of “patience and perseverance.” Supreme Leader Khamene’i, for his part, declared this the year of “redoubled diligence and redoubled work,” after congratulating the country for crushing “the foreign plot” on 22 Bahman, that conspired against the Revolution after an “unprecedented” and “outstanding” election.

As to anything Ahmadinejad had to say, this sums that up:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p79sfRMe37I

President Obama issued his second Nowruz address not only to the government, but more to the people of Iran, this year. An excerpt from his address,

Last June, the world watched with admiration, as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West; and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.

The United States does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs. Our commitment – our responsibility – is to stand up for those rights that should be universal to all human beings. That includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear; the right to the equal administration of justice, and to express your views without facing retribution against you or your families.

I want the Iranian people to know what my country stands for. The United States believes in the dignity of every human being, and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice – a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy, and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran’s borders. That is the future that we seek. That is what America is for.

As John Limbert, the former Iranian hostage now with the State Department said during his lecture I had the pleasure of attending, Obama is here offering himself up not as an enemy, but as a rival to the regime. To its people, John Limbert joked about him being a houvi, the prettier and younger wife. All in all there is no way to measure if this is the case, but taking Mousavi out of the equation, it’s hard not to be more attractive than Khamene’i!

On a positive note, in February the United Nations General Assembly voted to recognize March 21st as International Day of Nowruz. In the United States House and Senate both also passed Nowruz Resolutions. In the Senate, it was unanimous and a who’s-who of co-sponsors. In the house, there were two votes against it. Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) had written an open letter to the two naysayers prior to the vote, even gifting them flowers and the book Funny in Farsi, by Firoozeh Dumas (in fine Nowruz spirit). I’ll let you in on who these racist fucking bastards are: Jeff Miller, representing Joe Scarborough’s old district, and arch-Birther (who’s mother may or may not be a crocodile), Bill Posey. But, as Nowruz teaches, good overcame evil.

In this house,

May obedience overcome disobedience!

May peace overcome discord!

May generosity overcome avarice for wealth!

May reverence overcome pride!

May the true-spoken word overcome the false-spoken word distorting truth!

- Zoroastrian blessing [11]

Endnotes

1. The date has crept over the years in India according to two of the traditional Parsi calendars, with insufficient intercalation, and falls in late August!

2. Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices 34.

3. R.C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism 138. Zaehner was also a British intelligence officer during the Iranian coup d’état of 1953.

4. Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology 215-216.

5. Michael Axworthy, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind 21.

6. John R. Hinnells, Persian Mythology 98-108, is inconclusive on the depth of influence, but suggests some level of syncretism was likely, at the very least.

7. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago has a Persepolis complex map and archive photographs from their groundbreaking archaeological expedition in the 1930s here. Another site, Persepolis3d.com reconstructs a virtual Persepolis in full color and detail. A brief complex overview from Iran Chamber Society, here.

8. Before the Pahlavi dynasty, folk theater also featured a jester-like character in black or white face whom defied convention. I wonder if the two could be connected.

9. For any fellow etymology enthusiasts, think of Greek hepta, Latin septem. It is from the Avestan hapta, which was closely related to Sanskrit, sapta. All Indo-European languages, of course.

10. Paul Kriwaczek, In Search of Zarathustra: The First Prophet and the Ideas that Changed the World 216.

11. From a Fezana Nowruz prayer book [PDF]. Adapted from this prayer.

Happy Nowruz!

Okay, I may be Old Testament School but though I’m flattered that some Texans would rather have me in their schools than gravity, I’m not comfortable going back into the classroom. I can’t fit my legs under those desks anymore and…my teen years were a bit awkward, I’d rather not be reminded of them.

This situation’s made clear that there are a few misunderstandings about me so I think now may be a good time to clear up some of them:

a. I am not American

Okay, maybe I was the first and most primal American Idol but I’m not American. That doesn’t mean I have a Nigerian birth certificate either. It’s like that old joke about Lincoln being born in a log cabin that he helped his father build, how could I have been born in a country on a planet that I created? So if I wasn’t born in America and I haven’t married an American woman (you should see my eHarmony profile, “Seeking a married virgin to get pregnant but not looking to leave her husband.”) , I don’t even have a green card.

How could I be American? I mean, I’m supposed to be everyone’s God, you know? How would Americans feel if I told them I was Canadian and liked them best? I do like back bacon but the bottom line is that I can’t hold a passport from any nation because my head shot would be way too big to fit on one.

b.  I am not an advocate of capitalism.

Believe me, after I lost a bundle in the tulip crash, the stock market crash, the dot com crash, the housing crash, I’m capitalismed out. I really don’t know where folks got the idea that I favor any economic system. When you’re eternal, you don’t even have a concept of possession.  What someone owns right now will eventually be someone else’s after enough time passes. Everything that’s physical today will eventually be transformed into something else. Except Twinkies…those damn things last forever.

Are folks really asking themselves, WDWJII (What Derivatives Would Jesus Invest In)? Like lots of people losing their homes and buried in credit card debt, my son was totally down on the money changers. He didn’t have a single credit card, really.

He and I pretty much see eye-to-eye on this, economic systems shouldn’t be worshiped. They should just be tools for making the lives of the most people the best they can be. If they’re not working great to do that, they should just be changed until and so they do.

The way some down there are about capitalism is like insisting on wearing the same  bikini that fit 20 years and 30 pounds ago.   It really doesn’t fit America like it used to, it’s come apart at the seams and needs to be mended. And adding a bit of Spandex wouldn’t hurt.

c. I don’t want to be President of the U.S.

No offense to Pres. Obama or any presidents before him but for me, that would really be a bit of a job demotion from omnipotent lord of all creation, you know? And can you imagine the way I’d be attacked if I ran? “He doesn’t stop the devil, can we trust him to stop Bin Laden?” or “He’s almost as old as John McCain, his VP is just one Atheist’s argument away from becoming president”.

Actually, I have an appreciation for the separation between church and state…really miss that, anyone know whatever happened to it?

d. The Devil is not responsible for the things and/or people you don’t like.

Many people blame The Devil or demons possessing people for things that happen or are said that they don’t like. They would be correct more often blaming bad things on high fructose corn syrup.

The truth is that Satan’s been going through a bit of depression lately, it’s a bit of the Empty Nest syndrome. Enough little evils have grown up in enough people in the world, Satan just doesn’t feel needed anymore. I don’t want to say he’s become very needy but every time I see him he asks, “Do these horns make my face look fat?”

So, just try to think of me like your parents. Humanity has grown up, moved out and is living in its own apartment. It can stay up late and party without regard for the consequences, it can be conscientious and dedicated to doing well at its work, it can care about its neighbors and help them or steal their Sunday newspapers.

Humanity can always call me to talk, I know my advice isn’t always wanted and I’m okay with that. Other times, I know how appreciated it is.

I won’t interfere in Humanity’s life and I only ask one thing of it, please no more ties on my birthday, I’ve got a whole closet of them and honestly, I never wear them.

Peace!

Texas has just officially doomed generations of their children to ignorance and being oddities in their grasp of history and reality…because neither of those items supported the political views of conservatives and Republicans.

I normally keep my quotes to a minimum but there is so much outrageousness here, I couldn’t pare it down:

From the NY Times:

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

By James C. Mckinley Jr.
March 12, 2010

After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”

“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”

There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”

Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.

Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.

In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”

“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”

In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.

Even the course on world history did not escape the board’s scalpel.

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?scp=1&sq=texas%20education&st=cse

Holi (pronounced ho-lee), also known as Phagwa, is marked at the transition from the Hindu months Phalguna to Chaitra. The Hindu calendar being lunisolar, this date changes every year. In 2010 it fell on March 1st. Besides India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, it is observed by the South Asian diaspora in all its regional varieties throughout Europe, America, Canada, Australia, in New Zealand, South Africa, and of course, Suriname, Trinidad, Mauritius and Fiji which are notable countries where South Asians were brought for labor and now constitute a significant proportion of the population.

Background.

Vaishnava

In a timeless past of the Satya Yuga, a ruler from a race of giants, known as Daityas, held power and riches unrivaled, except by his own attire. Thus, he was known as Hiranyakashipu, or, ‘Golden-robed’. After performing austerities (tapas) and being granted a boon by Brahma which had made him nearly invincible, the ‘Demon King’ attacked the Heavens, lorded over earth, demanded people worship him, and squandered his wealth on destruction and his own greatness, even challenging Lord Indra.

This all was at odds with his own son, Prahlada, a pious devotee of Lord Vishnu; a Vaishnava, whom sought to correct his father in the right virtues of a Maharaja and to guide him in Bhakti realization of the Supreme Soul by renouncing avarice and absorbing his thoughts on Him. This only made his father furious,

[T]he daitya ruler daunted upon seeing how the attempts ran futile, devised with determination for a variety of ways to kill him. Crushing him with an elephant, attacking with the king’s poisonous snakes, with spells of doom, throwing him from heights, conjuring tricks, imprisoning him, administering venom and subjecting him to starvation, cold, wind, fire and water and with piling rocks upon him, was the demon unable to put his son, the sinless one, to death… (Srimad Bhagavata Purana, 7.5.42-4)

And yet, the boy through his devotion to the Lord was protected from his father’s persecution time and time again. At long last his father’s wrath brought him before the court, and challenged to see this God who could challenge his own deific powers. He would try to kill his son himself this time, but before the boy’s head could be severed by his father who scoffed that no one could save him, God made his omnipresence known to all assembled from a pillar. The universe cracked open, and a cacophony of sounds and kaleidoscopic dimensions could be seen; the omnipresence of God within everything.  Narasimha, the fourth avatara of Vishnu, a hybrid with man’s torso and lion’s head then appeared from this pillar and mauled the Demon King Hiranyakashipu to shreds. The king had used a boon from Brahma gained by devotion for evil; thus God had to manifest himself in earthly form to correct this terrorizing and subjection of earth and heavens alike.

Among the schemes Hiranyakashipu hatched against his son was when he asked his sister to have Prahlada to sit in her lap in a bonfire. Hiranyakashipu’s sister had received a special boon that gave her immunity to fire. However; she was burned to death and Prahlad saved. There are numerous accounts as to the reason for this, but suffice it to say, the sister of the king died and good triumphed.

Hiranyakashipu’s sister was named Holika, from which Holi is believed to derive. It is this event that Holi celebrates in Holika Dahan (the burning of Holika), in which bonfires are lit, primarily in North India, the day before Holi. Originally these included effigies of Holika, but in most parts this is now replaced by a simple pyre. Comparisons to their fellow Aryans’ (if only common traditional heritage; I have no intent of opening the Aryan Invasion Theory can of worms here) celebration of Cheharshanbe-Souri in Iran and indeed, bonfire spring festivals in Indo-European cultures throughout Europe, are readily seen. The triumph of light over darkness.

Shaivite

The main story as recounted and summarized above, can be considered by some to be a Vaishnava polemic, with Hiranyakashipu representing Lord Shiva. As such, given where you are, an alternate account is of Kama and Shiva.

As recounted in the Saura Purana, there was another daitya called Taraka whom had achieved a boon from Brahma after severe austerities. He asked for the boon of being invincible to the gods; and like Hiranyakashipu, effectively immortal. Of course, Brahma thought this too much so asked for an exception. The wily Taraka made the condition that only the child of Shiva could kill him. Shiva was doing penance and lost in himself after losing his first wife, Dakshayani (which is the subject of another famous myth which is the source of the practice of sati; Sati being another name for Dakshayani), therefore Taraka had reasoned that Shiva would be unable to produce a son.

Of course, Taraka does what demons granted boons of immense power by Brahma do, he terrorizes the universe of gods and men. He battles Vishnu for 30,000 years alone, but Vishnu has to retreat in confusion and hide. Beleaguered, the gods meet with Brahma, who tells them of Taraka’s weakness. They hatch a plan.

Parvati, who had realized she was the reincarnated Dakshayani from a young age, and had performed severe penances for Shiva’s hand in marriage, was put before Shiva. The only problem, is that Shiva was absorbed in yogic asceticism, having renounced the world after the loss of his first wife. So, Kama (yes, as in the Kama Sutra; and, counterpart to Greek Eros; Cupid) is enjoined to put lust into Shiva and wake him from his trance to produce the progeny that will defeat Taraka.

But, when Shiva awakens from his meditation after being immovable by either Parvati or Kama, he sees Parvati there, and then, sees Kama with his five flowered arrow drawn in its bow and aimed at him. Shiva’s third-eye shoots forth a fire accumulated in his tapas and incinerates Kama by its own power independent of Shiva’s will. Parvati is now distressed, and rebukes Shiva. It is now that she asks for her boon from him, having suffered as an example to all yoginis past and present. She asks that Kama be revived. Consenting, Shiva replies, “Let [Kama] be without a body in order to please you, lady with beautiful eyes. In that form he will be able to shake the world.”

Long story short, Shiva and Parvati beget Skanda (the Hindu ‘Ares’), who destroys Taraka. In South India, Holi is thus referred to as Kama Dahanam. But of course, the larger lesson was the victory of love, for now the disembodied Kama, with his wife Rati, could flit from one corner of the earth to another like the wind. In this context, Holi is like an Indian Valentine’s Day.

Radha Krishna

In this spirit, the Ras-Lila is celebrated (literally, ‘Passion Play’ and quite different from the Christian form, of course!); particularly in Mathura and Vrindavan, where Lord Krishna (the eighth avatara of Vishnu) was born and the place of the Ras-Lila, respectively. The Ras-Lila is the all-famous tale of the gopis’ (milk maidens) love and adoration of the perfect youth Krishna, who playfully teased them mercilessly in the 10th Book of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana (not to be confused with the Bhagavad Gita of the Mahabharata), and the tryst between him and Radha, whom is never actually named, in chapter 30, where she is only a mystery woman held in awed jealousy by the pining gopis who follow the couple’s footsteps into the forest. This story with elaborations is a staple of bhajans and Indian poetry, drama, and naturally, today’s transmitter of myth, Bollywood (here’s an example).

A word of warning. To suggest anything unchaste about Radha, or to reduce Krishna to a Casanova, to suggest anything sexual at all beyond romantic metaphor, is extremely offensive to devout Hindus; particularly Vaishnavas. It has an invective history with the Christian missionaries and continues to this day on Christianist supremacist websites. Having said this word of warning though, of Holi, the entry in A Dictionary of Hinduism says,

A spring festival dedicated to Krishna and the gopis. It took the place of an earlier kind of Saturnalia, ‘the survival of a primitive fertility ritual, combining erotic games, “comic operas” and folk dancing’. Some of the earlier elements remain, such as the singing of suggestive songs, the throwing of coloured water, and jumping over bonfires, the ashes of which are believed to possess magical powers.

Indeed, I tend to take this view, and see the other myths as later accretions or adaptations to an earlier Indo-European fertility festival, as do I see the Radha-Krishna relationship a sublimation of an earlier myth. During Holi, caste distinctions are suspended, and the sexes may mix freely; likely customs surviving from the ubiquitous “safety valve” many early cultures observed at least once a year -- just as modern ones do to this day.

Playing

In a 7th century play, Ratnavali, it was said,

Witness the beauty of the great cupid festival which excites curiosity as the townsfolk are dancing at the touch of brownish water thrown from squirt-guns.

They are seized by pretty women while all along the roads the air is filled with singing and drum-beating.

Everything is coloured yellowish red and rendered dusty by the heaps of scented powder blown all over.

This is the first recording of Dhulhendi, the day of Holi most recognizable today. Let me set the scene. You know nothing of Holi, you are a visitor in India. This delightful scenario is played in this scene from the 2006 film, “Outsourced”:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9OY4bIbRQ0

Instruments of Fun:

Abir and Gulal -  colored powders

Originally made from natural dyes, some with Ayurvedic properties, there has been concern over toxic ingredients in recent years, and a move towards organic products. The symbolism with spring, of course, is self-evident.

Pichkari -- soaker type of syringe

While many of these still retain their traditional design, many more kids can be seen with super soakers and custom pichkaris with Bollywood actors and actresses, cartoon characters and other themes, even in shapes like elephants or one designed as a bow and arrow (like the ancient Hindu heroes).

Bhang

Bhang, made from grinding cannabis leaves and flowers into a paste is mixed into chilled drinks and munchie snacks alike. The signature drink of Holi is thandai, a milk based drink flavored with pistachios, almonds, and, of course, marijuana! But, a bhang lassi can also be whipped up, as seen above. Oh, and if you happen upon a sadhu in Varanasi, see if they will pass the chillum. This is one of a few times where social use of marijuana is acceptable, though generally not by women (patriarchal societies’ ‘designated drivers’). Watch this Bollywood song with the information and vocabulary you have just gained!

Hola Mohalla

Although not widely celebrated in Pakistan, in India Holi is now a secular holiday celebrated by all: Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Christian, Jew, Parsi, Sikh, atheist, etc. The day after Holi, as well, is the closely related Sikh holiday of Hola Mohalla, most visible in the Sikh homeland of Indian Punjab. In warrior-saint Guru Gobind Singh’s martial tradition, Sikhs will mock fights, sing, play music, recite poetry and kirtans, and eat communally, as is per Sikh practice.

So, alas, to explain my title. It is common to say “Holi hai!” which means “it’s Holi!” as a greeting. Unfortunately, due to timing, I fell off on writing this, and thus added the Hindi ‘was’, tha, to reflect the belated nature of this article.

To end with, I only chose one Bollywood Holi song among a plethora of possibilities, as this one clearly lays out several elements outlined herein and brings it to life! (plus my crush on Rani Mukerji didn’t hurt the selection process)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o8Cslm9uNc

Holi Mubarak! -- Happy Holi!

WHAT IS HATE SPEECH?

Hate speech is the kind of speech used to denigrate an individual or a group of people because of something about them, such as their race, ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ideology, social class, or physical appearance. Speech is considered written or oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting (such as burning a cross).
Some people have trouble defining hate speech. Does it matter whether the speech occurs in a face-to-face encounter, in an online diatribe, in a novel, in a newscast, during a classroom presentation, or as part of a political candidate’s campaign? Can hate speech be defined as a list of words (fag, nigger, kike, retard, fatso, gimp), or does the context of those words count (rap music, Lenny Bruce, a scholarly paper)?  Which is more important in determining hate speech, the intent of the speaker (Rahm Emanuel saying the Democrats are “fucking retarded,”  or the reaction of the audience (Sarah Palin, because of her Down’s Syndrome child)?

The following might be considered hate speech:

In Maryland, at a town hall hosted by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardina, a man held a sign “Death to Obama” and “Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.”  The man was detained and turned over to the U.S. Secret Service for questioning. It is illegal to threaten the life of a president.

A couple of weeks before last November’s election, a man in West Hollywood, Calif., had a display outside his home of a mannequin dressed to look like Sarah Palin hanging by a noose around her neck. A likeness of John McCain appeared to be emerging from a fake fire.

A liberal radio talk show host, Mike Malloy, said on the air: “I have good news to report: Glenn Beck appears closer to suicide. I’m hoping that he does it on camera. Suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies toward self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glenn Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months.”

Is this hate speech?

The Two Minutes Hate: August 12, 2009

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwbi3ANsu_c

I am certain this is:

Tempe pastor reiterates wish for President Obama s death Phoenix Arizona

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkkZ7PnPI7s

Before a truck bomb took out the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, these people might have been dismissed as cranks. Now, after the deaths of George Tiller and Stephen Johns (the Holocaust Museum guard), it feels as if we should take action.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment from restricting speech. Unique among courts in the world, the Supreme Court has extended broad protection in the area of hate speech—abusive, insulting, intimidating, and harassing speech that at the least fosters hatred and discrimination and at its worst promotes violence and killing. The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute; private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities.

There is obviously a direct a direct link between freedom of speech and a vibrant democracy. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” I ask, is that correct? Is the national debate bolstered when, for example, hate speech is mainstreamed? Or are the real issues pushed to the backburner while we debate nonsense, like whether or not our President is an American citizen?

Americans vigorously dispute the application of the First Amendment. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his famous Abrams v. United States (1919) dissenting opinion, had a shocking opening line: “Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical.” What could Holmes have been thinking?

Perhaps Holmes was saying that all of us have within us a kind of censorship-impulse. Governments are especially prone to censor. As Holmes went on: “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.” Censorship is a kind of social instinct. As caring and responsible citizens of society, we are likely to want many results with all our hearts. We want safety, we want freedom from fear, we want order, civility, racial and religious tolerance, we want the best world for our children. We want these things with all our hearts, and when others express opinions that seem to threaten these hopes, we want to enact laws that forbid them to express it.  It is only logical to want to prevent opposition to what we know is good. But that’s the crux of freedom of speech: Who are “we” and how do we “know what is good,” really?

Most people believe in the right to free speech, but debate whether it should cover flag-burning, hard-core rap and heavy-metal lyrics, tobacco advertising, hate speech, kiddie porn, nude dancing, and religious symbols on government property. Many would agree to limiting some forms of free expression.

Many influential American thinkers have often argued that robust protection of freedom of speech, including speech advocating crime and revolution, actually works to make the country more stable, increasing rather than decreasing our ability to maintain law and order. Does that hold true even if a percentage of citizens want to see minority populations disenfranchised; even if they want to see their brand of Christianity become the national religion; even if they government programs labeled fascist? Freedom of speech allows a tiny but vocal group of people to use the megaphone of the media to spread lies, fear, and hate too.

Perhaps if a society as wide-open and pluralistic as America is not to explode from festering tensions and conflicts, there must be valves through which citizens with discontent may blow off steam.

Probably the most celebrated attempt at an explanation to the value of free speech is the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor, a notion most famously associated with Justice Holmes’ great dissent in Abrams, in which he argued that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” The marketplace of ideas metaphor does not assure that truth will emerge from the free trade in ideas, but merely says that free trade in ideas is the best test of truth. Is that true? And doesn’t Holmes make certain assumptions about Americans? For example, doesn’t he presume an educated populace, one taught critical thinking skills?

The connection of freedom of speech to self-governance and the appeal of the marketplace of ideas metaphor still, however, does not tell it all. Freedom of speech has value on a more personal and individual level. Freedom of speech is part of the human personality, a value intimately intertwined with human autonomy and dignity. In the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1974 “The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit — a spirit that demands self-expression.”

Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. The U.S. Supreme Court has often understood the First Amendment in a way that defies the logical impulse to censor. In scores of decisions, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment in a manner that to most of the world seems positively radical. Those decisions are numerous and cover a vast and various terrain, but consider some highlights. Americans have the right to:

Desecrate the national flag as a symbol of protest.

Burn the cross as an expression of racial bigotry and hatred.

Espouse the violent overthrow of the government as long as it is mere abstract advocacy and not an immediate incitement to violence.

Traffic in sexually explicit erotica as long as it does not meet a rigorous definition of “hard core” obscenity.

Defame public officials and public figures with falsehoods provided they are not published with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

Disseminate information invading personal privacy if the revelation is deemed “newsworthy.”

Engage in countless other forms of expression that would be outlawed in many nations but are regarded as constitutionally protected here.

And infamously, now, corporations have the right to make political contributions to increase the influence of money on the political process.

“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment. But in the United States,” Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”

Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France. By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.

SUPREME COURT CASES RELATED TO HATE SPEECH

According to opinions in Supreme Court cases, there are four main characteristics that make hate speech a legal offense: Incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, a clear and present danger, and fighting words. There are other areas of speech not protected by the first amendment too—obscenity, libel and slander, and conflict with other governmental interests (like gag orders during trials and certain speech during war).

Incitement to imminent lawless action

In Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), the justices upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to call publicly for the expulsion of African Americans and Jews from the United States, even though the speech in question intimated using violence. The justices held that unless the speech was intended to cause violence and had a high likelihood of producing such a result imminently it was protected by the First Amendment. The Brandenburg test has proven nearly impossible to meet.

True threats

The Supreme Court explained the definition of true threats in Virginia v. Black (2003) — in which it upheld most of a Virginia cross-burning statute — this way:

“True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protect(s) individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”

In Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2002), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that some vigorous anti-abortion speech — including a Web site that listed the names and addresses of abortion providers who should be tried for “crimes against humanity” — could qualify as a true threat. The 9th Circuit emphasized that “the names of abortion providers who have been murdered because of their activities are lined through in black, while names of those who have been wounded are highlighted in grey.”

Even in the speech-restrictive world of the military, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled in United States v. Wilcox (2008) that a member of the military could not be punished for posting racially offensive and hateful remarks he made over the Internet about white supremacy.

A Clear and Present Danger

In 1919, the Supreme Court was first requested to strike down a law violating the Free Speech Clause. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had, during WWI published leaflets challenging the conscription system. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck’s conviction for violating the Espionage Act. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, wrote that “the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

The “clear and present danger” test of Schenck was extended in 1919, again by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case involved a speech made by Eugene V. Debs, a political activist. Debs had not spoken any words that posed a “clear and present danger” but a speech in which he denounced militarism was nonetheless found to be sufficient grounds for his conviction. Justice Holmes suggested that the speech had a “natural tendency” to stop the draft. Can you imagine this precedent holding up today? I can’t, given the amount of anti-government talk I hear in the media daily.

Freedom of speech was also influenced by anti-communism during the Cold War. In 1940, the Congress made it illegal to advocate “the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence.” Even though there was no immediate danger posed by the Communist Party’s ideas, the Court allowed the Congress to restrict the Communist Party’s speech.

These cases have never been explicitly overruled by the Court, but subsequent decisions have greatly narrowed its place within First Amendment laws. Now only speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable.

Fighting Words

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, (1942) that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to “fighting words,” and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if “by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Say a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the “fighting words” doctrine for racial harassment.

Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn’t found the “fighting words” doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn’t meet the narrow criteria stated above.

Libel and Slander

You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization. This is a highly inconsistent ruling, as I can provide several examples where president Obama was the object of both lies and slander. Obama is a racist, a fascist, a socialist. Perhaps the President has decided it is not worth it to put these statements to the test. Of course, it is very difficult to prove that the defamer knew his or her facts were lies.

Nonverbal Symbols

Symbols of hate are constitutionally protected if they’re worn or displayed before a general audience in a public place, say, in a march or at a rally in a public park. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect the use of nonverbal symbols to encroach upon, or desecrate, private property, such as burning a cross on someone’s lawn or spray-painting a swastika on the wall of a synagogue or dorm.

In recent decades, American courts have held that public hate speech, such as the Nazi march in Skokie, must be protected under the First Amendment because there is no principled way to distinguish that speech from other forms of political expression. I would argue that this form of speech invades its targets’ rights to personal security, personality, citizenship, and equality. The crucial question then becomes whether this form of speech should be protected anyway because of its political character. The answer to this question turns on our conception of political speech. After looking at the leading theory in this area -- Justice Holmes’s vision of the marketplace of ideas -- I argue that political speech is best understood as discourse among individuals or groups who recognize one another as equals and free, as well as members of the community. By denying recognition to its targets, political hate speech violates the fundamental ground rules that should govern political debate. I believe that this form of speech should not receive constitutional protection. Interpreting the First Amendment in this way would not only allow American law to reconcile the competing demands of free speech and human dignity; it would also approach  political hate speech in the same way that many other liberal democratic nations and the international community does.

It once seemed easier to ignore the haters among us. They held furtive meetings in out-of-the-way places, wrote racist screeds in the guise of bad novels, and when they appeared in public, they wore hoods to hide their faces. Now, they apply for admission to the bar, stand for elected office, appear on radio and television talk shows, and increasingly take their message to the mainstream by using the Internet.

America, we like to feel, has room for everyone. It is a place of tolerance, equality, and justice. Hate is an affront to that vision, and the lengthening list of hate crimes should haunt our national conscience and make us search for a remedy. I am struggling with Freedom of Speech.

Next-- Part 3: The Psychology of Hate Groups and How They Recruit

(with apologies to Salvador Dali)

I am bothered by movies, such as “Saw” and “Hostel”, that, to me, serve no purpose other than to depict the extremes of human pain and cruelty. I confess to having never watched a film from either of those series, nor have I watched a Hannibal Lector movie, or a Chucky, Freddy Krueger or Jason movie (which, I imagine, at this point seem almost quaint in their depictions of cruelty), so it is not only what is depicted on the screen, which I haven’t even seen, that disturbs me. It is the very fact that such movies exist, and that they pull in audiences. To me, they are a depraved sub-genre of moviemaking that elevates torture to their prime, even sole, raison d’etre (indeed, they have been dubbed “torture porn” and “gorno” by critics), and that bothers me. Are people really entertained by all that blood and gore? And if that is not the right word, what IS the experience that they crave, as they settle their butts into aisle seats? As to the people who make such films, why on earth do they spend precious hours of their lives depicting demoralizing, black spectacles of the last things that any of us would wish to experience, or even wish upon our worst enemies? Oh, believe me, I know the obvious answer to my question (they DO make money after all, and frankly, how hard can they be to make? We all know what we don’t wish to experience; all one has to do is pick up a camera and film that!), but is even money worth the de-humanizing that I feel must go on in the process of creating such films?

 I am not arguing against the presence of violence in films. Indeed, some of my personal favorites, such as “The Godfather” and “Goodfellas”, contain numerous scenes that are not for the squeamish. If push came to shove, I could probably even be called upon to defend Wes Craven’s notorious, ultra-violent 70′s sleeper, “Last House on the Left” ( which took its plot from Bergman’s “The Virgin Spring” and borrowed heavily from Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”). One might well ask, what’s the difference? Well, in the case of LHOTL, this was an amateurish film by a freshman director, depicting amateurish villains who epitomize the dumb, self absorbed, amoral, societal outcasts we can easily imagine committing the atrocious crimes we see onscreen (and read about in the papers). They are not the incarnations of sadism one finds in slick gorno movies, creatures right out of our nightmares who are intelligent and irredeemably evil, sparing no expense to devise the most ingenious and horrific methods by which to dispense with their victims, for no other purpose than the pleasure that they get from doing so. To arrive at an understanding of the villains of the gorno movies, to place them in any sort of context, we need to go back to a French nobleman from the Age of Enlightenment whose writing was so over the top that he provides the very name for the “ism” that is out and out cruelty toward another living being.

 Sade’s “libertines” (one should not refer to them as  “villains”, when to him they were heroes) were precisely the kind of monsters we see in todays horror movies. Smarter and more powerful than their victims, they operated without restraint, and with no other purpose than to inflict pain. In Sade’s stories, the only way to escape victimhood was to allow yourself to become corrupted by your torturers, to become just as merciless and sadistic as them. These were the only triumphs he would allow in his nightmarish fables, that some would “liberate” themselves from any moral or empathetic impulses, which he insisted came from society, the real “villain” he himself was at war with. One can read Sade’s stories and accept them as he intended, as all-out assaults on society and civilization, on anything that limited individuals from behaving exactly as they themselves chose to. But that would naturally lead one to ask, if people could do anything they wanted to, why would they do that? Looking deeper, I believe that one can find a more pathological motivation, one which is readily on display in today’s torture porn movies as well; a deep seated hatred of the human body.

 Oh, Sade loathed bodies!  He wanted them sliced, diced, beaten, pulled apart, you name it. The one thing he didn’t want was for them to keep their original, native form, to be allowed to go on about their ways in peace. To him, an intact body was a challenge, perhaps even an affront, to his aesthetic. He treated them with nothing but the utmost disdain. And yet, it is telling that for all the descriptions of cruelty he filled page after feverish page with, he was particularly vicious toward the parts of the body that give birth to and nurture other bodies. Although there is no question that his writings and ideas have spiced up the sex lives of numerous couples throughout the years (and hey, whatever gets you through the night…), in the works themselves sex was anything but a life affirming, life celebrating activity. Genitalia, breasts, pregnant women, and fetuses are mercilessly tortured and destroyed by Sade’s libertines. The family itself is attacked viciously. In his stories, fathers rape their daughters, and corrupted daughters do unspeakable things to their mothers. The very reality of biological life seems to infuriate him.

 What’s going on here? In the face of such depravity, one naturally searches for answers. Even if the knowledge goes nowhere toward ending man’s inhumanity to man, we strive to somehow make sense of things so dark and twisted they seem to defy explanation, for the sake of our own sanity if nothing else. My belief is that we see in Sade’s writing a psychological phenomenon that has its roots in the very nature of our sentience. It is the mind’s hatred of the body, because it can suffer, and take the mind along with it as it does so. 

 It is hard to imagine anything more painful than being eaten alive from the hind legs forward, and yet this is a fate that befalls thousands of our fellow creatures, in forests and savannas, every day. The vast majority of human beings will come to far more benign ends, but the important distinction is that we are well aware of what could happen to us, if we are not careful, or just plain unlucky. The fact is that, unlike animals, we can think about things happening to us that are every bit as frightening and unwelcome as the things that are shown in the torture movies. It is with our minds that we think about them, but it is our bodies that we imagine experiencing the suffering. We are the only species that has a distinct separation, a schism even, between mind and body. We can actually live lives, of a kind, outside our bodies. No other creature can. We can daydream, create stories, make songs, paint pictures, have sexual fantasies, relive memories vividly, conceptualize, invent, etc. We can easily imagine a life involving no body at all! Indeed, we have created science fiction stories where our minds are placed inside computers, thereby living eternal, pain-free lives. People who are stricken with cancer or other long term, debilitating and painful illnesses frequently describe themselves as “prisoners” in their bodies. What I am positing is that there is an element of human consciousness that chronically feels this way. Sade was expressing this, first and foremost, I believe, though he himself was perhaps unaware of it and presumedly would have denied it. It is ironic that he, due to his atrocious behavior as well as his writing (which outraged the Emperor Napolean), spent much of his life as a prisoner, in jails and mental asylums, creating through his mind an outward experience of the very thoughts that drove his writing. 

 The mind is frightened by the amount of pain, seemingly limitless, that the body it is merged with can experience. Although our central nervous system has evolved the sensation of pain to keep us from burning or bleeding or freezing to death, this impeccable biological system renders us horrendously vulnerable. So averse to its demise is our body that it keeps pain sensations active even as we lie helpless, and crushed, under the rubble of an earthquake, or trapped inside a burning room, on the off chance that we will somehow manage to get ourselves out of our predicament. Isn’t it plausible that our minds, aware of the stubbornness of the body, and its survival-at-any-cost imperative, would develop resentment against it? Why can’t we shut the pain mechanism down when we want to (apparently some yogis have developed this very ability, but it takes years of rigorous training)? When there is no hope of escape? Every king, dictator, Grand Inquisitor and mafioso throughout history has exploited this “flaw” in the body’s design. In fact, it is impossible to imagine the worst forms of government even existing without it, as such regimes are propped up by the fear they induce in the common folk. All of that suffering, down through the ages; no wonder the mind is pissed!

 And so, the mind acts this out, through the mediums that it has developed, the “art” that is Sade’s writing and today’s gorno movies. Each time the mind, represented by Sade’s libertines or Hannibal Lector, or any of the demonic, merciless,ingenious psychopaths who fill our screens as well as our nightmares, gleefully tortures to death somebody else’s body, it has its revenge, momentarily. That’s the experience viewers are after, I feel. Though I am disturbed by such movies, and by the large following they have, I ultimately see them as merely symptomatic, and don’t expect them to go away. They, or some similar manifestation, will be with us so long as we have the ability to contemplate, and fear, our fate.

While the subject of hate is complex, hate itself can be divided into two general categories: rational and irrational. Unjust acts inspire rational hate. Who but the most spiritual or the most philosophic of us could argue that hatred of someone who had maliciously harmed us or our loved ones is irrational? Hatred of a person based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin constitutes irrational hate. When I talk about hate, I am talking about the irrational kind. Most definitions of hate focus on the ways in which hate-mongers see entire groups of people as the “Other.” For example, Tolerance.org argues that “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

According to the southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League ( SPLC and the ADL) a hate group is any organized body whose beliefs and actions are rooted in enmity towards an entire class of people based on ethnicity, perceived race, sexual orientation, religion or other inherent characteristic. I want to add to this anti-government and conspiracy theorists.

As I wrote in my introduction to Hate In America, I often try to comfort myself by looking at history when I think things have never been worse. I have found that hate in America is as traditional as apple pie—the same as in any country, but because we are a nation of immigrants we have very conflicted attitudes. In some ways it is might be considered fair to consider the United States of America as this country’s original hate group. And it started even before the War of Independence was won.

Racism against Native Americans

During the colonial and independent periods there were many conflicts with the indigenous Americans in order to take their resources. Through wars, massacres and forced displacement and the imposition of treaties, land was taken and numerous hardships imposed. After the creation of the United States, the idea of Indian removal gained momentum. The doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” included stereotyped perceptions of all Native Americans as “merciless Indian savages.” Racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. In a policy formulated largely by President George Washington’s Secretary of War, Henry Knox, the U.S. government sought to encourage Native Americans to sell their vast tribal lands and become “civilized”, which meant (among other things) for Native Americans to abandon their cultures of hunting and become farmers, and for their society to reorganize and give up clans or tribes.

There are too many incidences and dates to cite, but I have tried to list the main examples of systematic racism.

1776—Thomas Jefferson inserted this sentence into the Declaration of Independence (referring to grievances against King George III): “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

1803 –Louisiana Purchase; Lewis and Clark expedition. One goal: gather information about the Native American tribes to be used against them.

1830– Indian Removal Act passed by Congress; legalized removal of all Indians east of Mississippi to lands west of the river. “Trail of Tears” in which Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while en route to their destinations, and many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee.

1837 –Smallpox epidemic on the Plains. Many historians claim that blankets infested with the disease given to Native Americans.

1862– Minnesota Uprising of Sioux; 38 hanged at Mankato.

1870– First Ghost Dance Movement, Prayer to prevent immigration.

1876 –Battle of Little Big Horn (Custer).

1877– Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce War.

1890 –Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge. Ghost Dance. Last major bloodshed involving Indians and the U.S. Government.

Racism Against African Americans

1641 – Slavery legalized in Massachusetts colony.

1790– 20 percent of the overall population in the thirteen colonies was of African descent. The legalized practice of enslaving blacks occurred in every colony. Slaves were used as a labor force in agricultural production, shipyards, docks, and as domestic servants. In both regions, only the wealthiest Americans owned slaves. Poor whites recognized that slavery devalued their own labor. The social rift along color lines soon became ingrained in every aspect of colonial American culture.

1857—The Supreme Court issues the Dred Scott decision, which decreed a slave was his master’s property and African Americans were not citizens.

1883 – A number of cases are addressed under this Supreme Court decision. Decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (the last federal civil rights legislation until the Civil Rights Act of 1957) was unconstitutional. Allowed private sector segregation.

1896 –Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court decided that “separate but equal” facilities satisfy Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, thus giving legal sanction to Jim Crow segregation laws.

The 20^th century was nadir of American race relations and saw a hardening of institutionalized racism and legal discrimination against African Americans.    Poll  taxes, acts of terror by groups such as the KKK were not unusual. The first half of this century saw racism in the United States worse than at any period before or since. All expressions of white supremacy increased, including anti-black violence, lynching and race riots.

1908 –Race Riot in Springfield Illinois leads to the creation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

1913 –Federal segregation. The Wilson administration began government-wide segregation of work places, rest rooms and lunch rooms.

1919–Whites riot against blacks in Washington, DC. The white mob – whose actions were triggered in large part by weeks of sensational newspaper accounts of alleged sex crimes by a “Negro fiend” – unleashed a wave of violence that swept over the city for four days. The Washington riot was one of more than 20 that took place that summer in different states.

Meanwhile, the Ku Klux Klan was being revived in Maryland and Virginia, as racial hatred burst forth with the resurgence of lynching of black men and women around the country – 28 public lynchings in the first six months of 1919 alone, including seven black WW II veterans killed while still wearing their Army uniforms.

1921–The deadliest racial confrontation begin in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The exact number of people killed in the riot, which destroyed a 30-square-block area was never determined. Some historians, citing survivors’ accounts, have put the figure as high as 300.

Racism against Asian-Americans

The first wave of Chinese came here at the beginning of the 19^th century to work as laborers on the transcontinental railroad. While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this “yellow peril.” Political parties and unions rallied against the immigration of yet another “inferior race”. Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only.

1882 — Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended in 1892. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only US law ever to prevent immigration on the basis of race. These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the U.S. that had left China without their wives and children.

The Chinese were often subject to harder labor on the transcontinental railroad and often performed the more dangerous tasks such as using dynamite to make pathways through the mountains.  The San Francisco Vigilance Movement promoted mob violence against Chinese immigrants. My husband, who is Chinese and has family that has lived in San Francisco for generations, tells that the Chinese were blamed for the earthquake in 1906.

During World War II, the United States created internment camps for Japanese citizens in fear that they would be used as spies for the Japanese.

Racism against Latin Americans

1830s –The United States first came into conflict with Mexico as the westward spread of Anglo settlements and of slavery brought significant numbers  of new settlers into the region known as Tejas (modern-day Texas), then part of Mexico.

1848–After the Mexican-American War, the treaty promised that the landowners in this newly won area would enjoy protection of their property as if they were citizens of the United States. Many former citizens of Mexico lost their land in lawsuits or as a result of legislation passed after the treaty.

1851– California Land Act enacted, which had the effect of dispossessing Californio owners ruined by the cost of maintaining litigation over land titles for years.

1943–The Zoot Suit Riots were incidents of racial violence against Latinos in Los Angeles. Repeated confrontations over many months between small groups and individuals culminated into several days of non-stop rioting. Large mobs of servicemen would enter civilian quarters looking to attack Mexican American kids, some of whom were wearing zoot suits, a distinctive exaggerated fashion popular among that group.  The disturbances continued and were even assisted by the local police for several days before military commanders declared downtown Los Angeles and Mexican American neighborhoods off-limits to servicemen

1960’s –Mexican-American workers formed unions of their own and joined integrated unions. The most significant union struggle involving Mexican-Americans was the United Farm Workers’ long strike and boycott aimed at grape growers in the San Joaquin and Coachella Valleys.

Anti-Semitism

1800s and early 1900s– hundreds of thousands of Eastern European Jews were escaping the pogroms, and largely arrived at Ellis Island in New York, as my family did. It is thought that as soon as they left the boat, they were subject to racism from the port authorities. (The derogatory term ‘kike’ was adopted when referring to Jews because they often could not write English letters so they may have signed their immigration papers with circles – or kikel in Yiddish.)

1910– Southern Jewish communities were attacked by the KKK, which often used ‘The Jewish Banker’ in their propaganda.

1915– Texas-born, New York Jew Leo Frank was lynched by the newly re-formed Klan, after being falsely convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment.

1924—National Origins Quota Act passed.  Growing anti-immigration feelings in the United States at this time resulted in the quota, which severely restricted immigration from Eastern Europe. It remained in effect until 1965.

In the years before and during World War II the United States Congress, the Roosevelt Administration, and public opinion expressed concern about the fate of Jews in Europe but consistently refused to permit large-scale immigration of Jewish refugees. The United States accepted only 21,000 refugees from Europe accepting far fewer Jews per capita than many of the neutral European countries and fewer in absolute terms than Switzerland.

U.S. opposition to immigration in general in the late 1930s was motivated by the grave economic pressures, the high unemployment rate, and social frustration and disillusionment. The U.S. refusal to support specifically Jewish immigration, however, stemmed from something else, namely anti-Semitism, which had increased in the late 1930s and continued to rise in the 1940s. It was an important ingredient in America’s negative response to Jewish refugees. About 100,000 German Jews did arrive in the 1930s, escaping Hitler’s persecution.

1939–The SS St. Louis sailed from Germany in May carrying 936 Jewish refugees. On 4 June it was also refused permission to unload on orders of President Roosevelt as the ship waited between Florida and Cuba.

Jewish lobbying for intervention in Europe drew opposition from the isolationists/nativists, amongst who was Father Charles Coughlin, a well known radio priest, who was a renowned anti-Semite, believing that Jews were leading America into the war. He preached in weekly, overtly anti-Semitic sermons and, from 1936, began publication of a newspaper, Social Justice, in which he printed anti-Semitic accusations such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as did Henry Ford in his Dearborn, Michigan newspaper.

Anti-European immigrant racism

Several European immigrant groups have been subject to discrimination either on the basis of their immigrant status (“nativism”) or on the basis of their ethnicities.

In the 19th century, this was particularly anti-Irish racism, which was partly anti-Catholic, partly anti-Irish as an ethnicity or race (notably accused of drunkenness), an example being the Philadelphia Nativist Riots.

The 20th century saw racism against Italian Americans and Polish Americans partly from anti-Catholic sentiment, and partly from Nordicism, which considered Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans inferior. Nordicism lead to the reduction in Southern European and Eastern European immigrants in the Immigration Act of 1924

Racism against Middle Easterners and Muslims

Racism against Middle Eastern Americans arose in the 1970’s following the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans during the Hostage Crisis. Following the 9/11 attacks, discrimination and violence has markedly increased against Arab Americans and many other religious and cultural groups.

Iraqis were demonized which led to hatred towards Arabs and Iranians living in the United States. There have been attacks against Arabs not only on the basis of their religion but also on the basis of their ethnicity and even their clothing.  In addition, non-Arabs who are mistaken for Arabs because of perceived “similarities in appearance” have been collateral victims of anti-Arabism.

Iranians as well as South Asians of different ethnic/religious backgrounds (Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs) have been stereotyped as “Arabs”. Ann Coulter called Iranians “ragheads” and Brent Scowcroft  called the Iranian people “rug merchants.”

Homophobic Discrimination

In covering a history of homophobic discrimination, it gives a clearer picture to list the laws that reduced discrimination, rather than to only list laws that were anti-gay. The reason for this is that until the 20^th century in America, gays were mainly in the closet. They had the ability to hide their sexuality for the most part. And they had to—the entire society saw them as deviants. Because of that ability (and necessity) to hide themselves, there was very little institutional homophobia; it was only after the gay community formed and gays dared to congregate that they became hate targets on a larger scale. When reading about these laws that were written for gays, it is good to remember that before they were enacted, they had no legal protections. One more point about the anti-gay groups: Almost all of them are Christian religious organizations, but I hesitate to label them all as hate groups, although some clearly are.

1958– the Supreme Court established a precedent that a homosexual publication was not intrinsically “obscene” and thus protected by the First Amendment.

1967, the Supreme Court upheld the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which among other things banned homosexuals, as constitutional. This ban remained in effect until 1991.

1969—Stonewall riots in New York. On June 27, the police raided a gay bar, which was a common practice at the time. This type of raid, which was often conducted during city elections, had a new development as some of the patrons in the bar began actively resisting the police arrests. For the first time a large group of LGBT Americans who had previously had little or no involvement with the organized gay rights movement rioted for three days against police harassment and brutality. These new activists were not polite or respectable but rather angry activists that confronted the police, taking their cues from other civil rights movements of the 60’s. This was the beginning of the Gay Liberation movement.

1977– the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a high school teacher fired for being gay. While this is not an official judgment on the merit of the case, it did uphold a lower court’s ruling that becoming a “known homosexual” automatically impaired his efficiency as a teacher which used various methods to support this claim: 1. Defined homosexuality based on the New Catholic Encyclopedia which deemed the act as implicitly immoral; 2. An “immoral” person could not be trusted to instruct students as his presence would be inherently disruptive.

1985– the Supreme Court let stand an appellate ruling ordering the university to provide official recognition of a student organization for homosexual students. The case set a national precedent by removing legal restrictions against gay rights groups on college campuses.

1986– the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that homosexual sex was not protected under the right to privacy.

1996–the Supreme Court ruled against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination.

1998– President Clinton’s Executive Order  prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation for federal employees.

2000– the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America had a First Amendment right to exclude people from its organization on the basis of sexual orientation.

2003– the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that laws against sodomy cannot be directed at homosexuals alone, and furthermore, that intimate consensual sexual conduct is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Owing to the United States’ federal system and the variety of attitudes toward LGBT rights, the status of LGBT civil rights in the U.S. is at present a patchwork. At the federal level, there is no recognition of same-sex unions and no laws forbidding employment discrimination against LGBT persons. Some states have enacted such laws, however. States in the Deep South still support homosexuality being completely illegal, and overwhelmingly oppose marriage-like rights or same-sex marriage.

State courts also produced a patchwork of court opinions regarding the rights of LGBT citizens to marry, which has prompted calls for a Federal Marriage Amendment, along with state amendments to ensure that courts would not change the civil definition of marriage. As of 2007, the legal options available to same-sex couples depends on what state they reside in.

Hate crime laws (also known as bias crimes laws) protect against crimes motivated by feelings of enmity or animus against a protected class. On April 29, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which would expand the definition of hate crimes in federal law to include gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability. The legislation would also remove the prerequisite that victims of hate crimes be engaging in a federally protected activity (Matthew Sheppard Act).

Currently, in the United States there is no federal law against housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

From Wikipedia: “As the movement for same-sex marriage has developed, many national and/or international organizations have opposed that movement. Those organizations include the American Family Association, the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority, NARTH, the national Republican Party, the Roman Catholic Church, the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the Southern Baptist Convention, Alliance for Marriage, Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage.”  It’s worth a read to see how these groups have embedded themselves into the political discourse. One I’d like to add is the Westboro Baptist Church, infamous for their preaching that “God Hates Fags.”

Other Hate Groups

Militias, white supremacists, tax-protestors, Identity Christians, and Patriots often intertwine ideologically and it is hard to unravel these groups.

The Militia movement is a paramilitary movement with roots from the Survivalist movement, tax-protester movement and other movements in the United States. It inherited paramilitary traditions of earlier groups, especially the conspiratorial, far-right antigovernment “Posse Comitatus” which took its moniker  from the government Act of the same name. The formation of today’s militias was influenced by the historical precedent of existing paramilitary movements such as the Posse Comatitus. The County Rule (posse comitatus literally means the power of the county) movement and the militias share an ideological kinship, revolving around the idea that the county is the supreme level of government and the sheriff the highest elected official. Posse comitatus refers to the authority of county sheriffs to conscript able-bodied males to keep the peace or arrest felons. The power still exists in states that have not repealed it by statute.

1878–Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of U.S. troops for civil duties like domestic law enforcement short a declaration of martial law. The Act provides two exceptions: those expressly authorized by the Constitution; and those Congress expressly authorizes. For instance, Congress expressly authorized the Coast Guard to carry out drug law enforcement duties during peacetime.

1970s– Richard Butler, a neo-Nazi from California carrying out a self-described war against the “Zionist Occupational Government,” or ZOG, relocated to the Idaho panhandle to establish his Aryan Nations compound. He saw the Pacific Northwest, with its relatively low minority population, as the region where God’s kingdom could be established. Butler also believed that a racially pure nation needs an army.  .

1990s. The militia movement grew following controversial standoffs with the federal government. The militia movement claims that militia groups are sanctioned by law but uncontrolled by government; in fact, they are designed to oppose a tyrannical government. Adherents believe that behind the “tyranny” is a left-wing, globalist conspiracy known as the New World Order.

1991 –Publication of Pat Robertson’s book, “The New World Order.” Members of the Christian right who subscribe to the conspiratorial world view presented in Robertson’s book are part of the  far-right milieu home to a variety of movements, including Identity Christians, Constitutionalists, tax protesters, and white supremacists.

The militias have close ties to the older and more broadly based Patriot movement, from which they emerged, and which supplies their worldview. According to Chip Berlet, an analyst at Political Research Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has been tracking the far right for over two decades, this movement consists of loosely-linked organizations and individuals who perceive a global conspiracy in which key political and economic events are manipulated by a small group of elite insiders. On one flank of the Patriot movement are white supremacists and anti-Semites, who believe that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers.

At the other end of this relatively narrow spectrum is the John Birch Society, which has repeatedly repudiated anti-Semitism, but has its own paranoia. For the Birchers, it is not the Rothschilds but such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the U.N. which secretly call the shots.  Berlet estimates that as many as five million Americans consider themselves Patriots.

1991—End of the cold war. While the Patriot movement has long existed on the margins of U.S. society, it has grown markedly in recent years.  Three factors have sparked that growth. One is the end of the Cold War. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, their search for enemies turned toward the federal government, long an object of simmering resentment. The other factors are economic and social. While the Patriot movement provides a pool of potential recruits for the militias, it in turn draws its members from a large and growing number of U.S. citizens who oppose the federal government.  This predominantly white, male, and middle- and working-class sector has been buffeted by global economic restructuring, with its attendant job losses, declining real wages and social dislocations. While under economic stress, this sector has also seen its traditional privileges and status challenged by 1960s-style social movements, such as feminism, minority rights, and environmentalism.

1992– Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Two events inflamed Patriot passions and precipitated the formation of new  militias. The first was the FBI’s confrontation with white supremacist Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, in which federal agents killed Weaver’s son and wife.

1993—Waco, Texas. The second was the federal government’s destruction of David Koresh and his followers at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. Key promoters of the militia movement repeatedly invoke Ruby Ridge and Waco as spurs to the formation of militias to defend the citizenry against a hostile federal government.

1993 –Passage of the Brady Bill (imposing a waiting period and background checks for the purchase of a handgun).

1994 –Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (banning the sale of certain types of assault rifles). To the Patriot movement, these laws are the federal government’s first step in disarming the citizenry, to be followed by the much dreaded United Nations invasion and the imposition of the New World Order.  But while raising apocalyptic fears among Patriots, gun control legislation also angered more mainstream gun owners. Some have become newly receptive to conspiracy theorists and militia recruiters, who justify taking such a radical step with the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Right-wing organizers have long used the amendment to justify the creation of armed formations. The Ku Klux Klan began as a militia movement, and the militia idea has continued to circulate in white supremacist circles.

It has also spread within the Christian right.

Christian Patriot Movement

The Christian Patriot movement is a movement of political commentators and activists. Their interpretations of history and law aver that the federal government has turned against the ideas of liberty and individual rights behind the American revolution and America’s Christian heritage.

In the early 1990s, the Coalition on Revival, an influential national Christian right networking organization, circulated a 24-plank action plan. It advocated the formation of “a countywide `well-regulated militia’ according to the U.S. Constitution under the control of the county sheriff and Board of Supervisors.” (Sheriff Joe Arpaio ?)

(It is at this point that I find myself on unsteady ground. Do Christian dominionists belong in this category? Do right-wing churches? It’s a quivery line, but I want to present only those groups delineated as hate groups by the SPLA and The ADL, even though I personally feel that Christian radicalism, like radical Islam, contains threads that can be categorized as hate. But in general, I will leave religious hate for another discussion.)

———————————————

Obviously, I have left out scores of examples of institutional racism and discrimination in the United States, and I hope you will see this as a limitation of space, and not as insensitivity. I also left out many specific groups that I will address when discussing the rise of hate on the internet.

We like to think that we have made progress, that we are different from the unenlightened people of an earlier age, and most of us are. But hardly all of us. We can make allowances for Thomas Jefferson the slave owner and anti- American Indian Founding Father—after all, he was from a different time.  Most people have changed and evolved. We can see by looking at the history of hate in America how far we have come. And we can see by the rise of hate in the media and on the internet how far we still need to go. The roots of bigotry and hatred run deep in our national experience, but while I think we need to stay vigilant, I came away from this exercise more encouraged than despondent.

(Next—Part 2: Hate Speech and the First Amendment)

Taking Action Against The SCOTUS Decision!

Today I received another alert concerning the recent SCOTUS decision that fell on us like standing under a tree with a flock of birds roosting in it. It was messy and  didn’t smell too good either.  I am asking every one to please read and sign the petition supporting legislative action to curtail this as soon as possible.  Our very Democracy may depend on it.

Do you remember what Mr. Fluffywuvers faced?  Then sign the petition!

Attention Planet People,

We deserve a country where our elected officials are not bought and paid for by Big Business. But last week’s Supreme Court decision in the case Citizens United vs. FEC overturned over a century of precedent and opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of corporate money to flow into our political system. Shockingly, the court’s decision may even allow foreign corporations and large multinationals to manipulate our elections.

If we do nothing, this ruling has the potential to undermine the very foundation of our democracy.

Representative Alan Grayson has been one the most forceful voices in responding to this crisis. He has introduced a number of bills as part of a “Save Our Democracy” initiative to blunt some of the worst implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.

I signed a petition to President Obama and the Congressional leadership telling them they must enact Grayson’s strong laws to save our democracy from the pernicious influence of corporate money. Please join me by clicking below.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/grayson_democracy/?r_by=7507-2307056-iH.6BVx&rc=confemail1