MAILBAG: The Florida vote

Now that Jimmy Carter has called attention to evidence of voter discrimination in Florida, the issue is starting to get some attention from the press. However, U.S. media outlets continue to ignore a key aspect of the story: the truth about what happened in 2000. As Greg Palast reported, Jeb Bush’s Florida election officials issued a list of 94,000 voters to be purged from the electoral roll for being felons. African Americans made up a majority of those on the list, and Democrats made up 80 percent, but only five percent were felons. Jeb’s purge list was the crucial document that papered over his brother’s electoral defeat. In 2001, the NAACP launched a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the disenfranchised voters. The state of Florida  settled the suit by agreeing to restore to the electoral roll all those who had been wrongly removed. But the 2000 purge still hangs over this election, as does a new felon list issued by the state. Equally ominous are the recent news reports of police harassment of black activists who were attempting to register voters.

Palast, who not only broke the Florida election story but worked with the NAACP in its lawsuit, says that only around 2,000 of the 94,000 people on the old felon list have had their voting rights restored. Despite the lack of progress on that front, Florida officials found time to create a purge list for 2004, this one bearing 47,000 names. In July, following press reports of errors on the new list, the NAACP’s president, Kweisi Mfume, announced that “Florida is not following the process negotiated by the NAACP,” and called on the U.S. Department of Justice to stop the new purge. In response, Glenda Hood, Florida’s secretary of state, issued a press release stating that “there is an unintentional and unforeseen discrepancy related to the Hispanic classification” on the felon list and that her department was “removing this portion of the Central Voter Database for the 2004 elections cycle.” “This portion” appears to refer to the entire felon list, but Hood’s office did not respond to a request for clarification on that point or on the other issues discussed in this article. The secretary’s press release concludes by saying that election supervisors would “work with Clerks of the Court to ensure that ineligible felons are removed from the rolls.”

Concerns about the situation in Florida have prompted the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to commence a major initiative in the state: the “Truth and Justice Campaign.” The campaign’s director, Rev. Willie Bolden, explains that SCLC’s aims are two-fold: to obtain affidavits from those who tried to vote in 2000 but were wrongly turned away, and to get out the vote in 2000, highlighting any obstacles that emerge. During the last week in September, officers from SCLC’s national and state offices toured localities across Florida. However, the catastrophic weather there has affected the campaign as much as other aspects of life, and caused SCLC to cancel visits to hurricane-stricken areas.

SCLC officers are trying to get more information about published reports that plainclothes police have been harassing people involved in voter registration drives in African American neighborhoods. Leaders of SCLC’s Florida chapter sent a letter about the matter to Secretary Hood’s office, but received no reply. Bolden is not surprised by the apparent lack of interest on the part of state authorities. “We don’t need to spend a lot of time trying to get help from Jeb Bush. We need to organize people and inform America about what’s going on in Florida.”

Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, SCLC’s interim president, reports that he also wrote Secretary Hood to state his concerns about the potential for further voter discrimination. He did receive a response, but said that it merely explained the basics of state voting laws. How does the Florida situation compare to cases in other states where SCLC has been investigating possible voter discrimination? “Florida tries to get people off the rolls. I’ve never seen it that strong in any other state.”

For his part, Rev. Bolden says that he hopes the affidavits from victims of voter discrimination will preserve the true story of the 2000 election for history. But the question troubling him and other civil rights activists is whether history is repeating itself.

—Chris Pepus

 

The dream is alive

Sebastian Rotella’s article last week in the Los Angeles Times, “What the French love about America,” reveals some of the complexity of the sentiments we, and others, feel when we think about the United States. Not bad food for thought as we face the remaining hours before we elect our next president.

Rotella’s piece centers around a three-day panel on North American literature, which took place last week in Paris, a city bearing some fame for being a “bastion of anti-Americanism.” Festival America, as the panel is titled, is considered the “biggest of its kind outside the United States,” according to its organizers. Rotella attributes its popularity in France to the centrality of social realism in North American literature, as opposed to the “excessive introspection” many French readers perceive as the primary focus of French authors. In addition, Rotella notes that the range of cultures and types of writing inherent in North American literature fascinate many French readers.

Rotella intimates in his article that it is precisely the diversity of opinion and perspectives coexisting within the United States which is valued by the French, despite their declared disregard for American foreign policy, and enthusiasm for American products, which may seem paradoxical.

“Part of the American dream is about reinventing yourself,” Rotella quotes Danzy Senna, a Boston fiction writer, as saying. “And I think there’s something powerful and alluring about that idea, and something really terrifying about that lack of a fixed identity.”

Rotella’s citation of Sherman Alexie suggests that, despite all that appears to be wrong with the United States, our nation does retain a few saving graces worthy of contemplation:

“I see white American writers on these stages disparaging the country, when everything they have is because of that country. The dream has not died. I am a millionaire because of my imagination. I don’t know if you could find another society that has ever existed where somebody like me could become what he has become.”

The United States is a nation recognized for its diversity and complexity. We’re allowed to hold complex opinions about our identity as American citizens, just as citizens of other cultures and nations may have complex opinions about American culture and the way the United States interacts with the rest of the world. The American Constitution grants us this right.

—Michaele Shapiro

 

Making struggle sexy

An excerpt on the inequalities and injustices of the American penal system from Poli-Tainment, a resource guide for activists.

The American correctional system of the past 30 years has been characterized by a population increasing exponentially in response to shifts in policy towards mandatory minimum and determinate sentencing. Persons convicted of a crime today are far more likely to be sentenced to incarceration — and will spend a longer period in prison — than their counterparts in past decades. During 2002, the nation’s state and federal prison and local jail population exceeded two million for the first time in history. These trends have contributed to prison overcrowding and state governments being overwhelmed by the burden of funding a rapidly expanding penal system. The results of these decisions are prisons filled with large numbers of non-violent and drug offenders (over 50 percent in both state and federal prisons) at an annual cost of incarceration of $20,000 or more, along with increasing evidence that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective means of achieving public safety.

It is the logical, inevitable consequence of “tough-on-crime” laws and punitive sentencing polices that elected leaders and public officials embrace to avoid addressing the pressing social problems caused by institutionalized racism and political and economic exclusion. By incarcerating high proportions of low income African American, Latino and American Indian residents and maintaining surveillance over them for even longer periods of time, the criminal justice apparatus perpetuates a social segregation policy that intentionally isolates historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities and communities, ensuring a capital divestment policy that builds neither social capital nor economic infrastructure.

According to the U. S. Department of State’s 2000 report to the U.N. Commission on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), “discrimination in the criminal justice system” is a “principal causative factor” hindering progress toward ending racial discrimination in [U.S.] society.

Facts & statistics on criminal justice & black people

Arrests

FBI data compiled from more than 8,500 police agencies show that blacks were the subject of 29 percent of arrests in 1999 (The Herald Sun, 2001), although they make up about 12 percent of the population.

In 1996, black Americans made up 13 percent of the U.S. population, but 30 percent of all convicted federal offenders (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).

The possibility of incarceration for black Americans is six times (16.2 percent) higher than for the rest of the population (2.5 percent) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).

Incarceration

In South Carolina, 68 percent of men between the ages of 18 and 64 were African American. Blacks made up 27 percent of the state’s total population in the same age group (The Herald Sun, 2001).

In 2000, roughly one in 10 black men was in prison (Boston Globe, 1999).

In West Virginia, blacks made up 44 percent of the female inmates ages 18 to 64. Blacks were 3 percent of the total female population in the same age range (The Herald Sun, 2001).

The black prison population has increased eightfold from three decades ago, when there were 133,226 blacks in prison (Boston Globe, 1999).

Black children are nine times more likely than white children to have a parent in prison (Children’s Defense Fund, 2001).

A survey of traffic stops in Volusia County, Florida, showed nearly 70 percent of those stopped were blacks or Hispanics (Boston Globe, 1999).

Because many states bar felons from voting, at least one in seven black men will have lost the right to vote (Boston Globe, 1999).

Thirty to 40 percent of the next generation of black men will permanently lose the right to vote if current trends continue (The Sentencing Project, 1998).

In nine states, one in four black men can never vote again because they were convicted of a felony (The Sentencing Project, 1998).

Juvenile injustice

Ever since juvenile courts were first established in the early 1900s, the laws in most states have permitted judges to approve the transfer of children from the more protective and treatment-oriented juvenile court to criminal court jurisdiction. But first, there had to be a hearing in which the child’s maturity, comprehension, skills, and appropriateness for treatment in the juvenile system are balanced against the nature of the offense and factors such as the length of time before the child becomes a legal adult. In rough numbers, approximately 10,000 children were transferred annually to adult criminal court in this manner.

But in the late 1980s, as violent crimes among juveniles surged, lawmakers following a “tough on crime” ideology enacted laws that authorized transfer to criminal court of juveniles at a much younger age and for less serious crimes than before. These “automatic” or “direct file” transfers were determined by the charge placed against the child by police or at the discretion of a prosecutor, without prior judicial review. Under these laws, upwards of 200,000 children have been prosecuted each year as adults in criminal court.

The Sentencing Project has sought to restrict the practice of “automatically” transferring children to adult court without judicial review. There are many reasons. Children are responsible in different ways than adults for their actions. They are less able to exercise their rights and less able to comprehend court proceedings. They are frequently denied access to education and subjected to abuse when placed in adult jails and prisons. Many court systems fail to provide adequate defense services to children in adult court. Racial disparity characterizes the decisions to prosecute children as adults. Adult sentences, imposed upon children, are unduly harsh — destroying the formative years of a young person’s life, and in the instance of lengthy sentences, the prospect of life outside a prison forever.

Statistics on black youth and the criminal justice system

Black students are punished more severely for the same behaviors as white students. Nationally, black students are fewer than one out of five public school students, but one out of every three students suspended is black (Advancement Project and the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, June 2000).

Compared with white youths, black youths are more likely to be held in a detention facility, formally charged in juvenile court, and transferred to adult criminal court, where they receive harsher and longer sentences (Youth Law Center, Justice Policy Institute, Building Blocks for Youth, April 2000).

Compared with youths in juvenile facilities, youths in adult prisons are eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by prison staff, and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon (Children’s Defense Fund, 2001).

The latest juvenile-crime report by the Department of Justice shows a 68 percent drop in the juvenile murder rate from 1993 to 1999, reaching its lowest in recorded history (Building Blocks for Youth, Youth Law Center, 2001).

Juvenile arrests for violence fell 36 percent from its 1994 peak to 1999, the lowest they have been in a decade (Building Blocks for Youth, Youth Law Center, 2001).

Despite the continuing decline of youth crime, nearly every state has changed its laws to make it easier to prosecute youth as adults (Building Blocks for Youth, Youth Law Center, 2001).

A study in California found that compared with white youths, minorities were 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 6.2 times more likely to be tried in adult court and seven times more likely to be sentenced to prison once they get there. (Justice Policy Institute, 2000).

For youths charged with violent offenses, the average length of incarceration is 193 days for whites, 254 for African Americans, and 305 for Latino youth.

Among those not previously admitted to a secure facility, African Americans are six times more likely than whites to be incarcerated and nine times more likely to be jailed if charged with a violent offense.

For drug offenses, African Americans are 48 times more likely than whites to be sentenced to juvenile prison (Building Blocks for Youth, 2001).

In Cook County, Illinois, 99 percent of youths tried as adults are African American or Latino (Building Blocks for Youth, Youth Law Center, 2001).

Education versus incarceration

In the past decade, many states have cut their budgets for higher education funds to compensate for rapid growth in prison populations and prison construction, fueled in part by increasing numbers of drug offenders in state and federal prisons. In both New York and California, prison expenditures now exceed university financing and more black men are admitted as prisoners than graduate from the state universities. From 1977 to 1995, U.S. prison spending increased by 823 percent while spending on higher education went up by only 374 percent.

Prison industrial complex

What is the prison industrial complex?

The prison industrial complex (PIC) is a complicated system situated at the intersection of governmental and private interests that uses prisons as a solution to social, political, and economic problems. The PIC depends upon the oppressive systems of racism, classism, and sexism. It includes human rights violations, the death penalty, industry and labor issues, policing, courts, media, community powerlessness, the imprisonment of political prisoners, and the elimination of dissent.

Black women are the fastest growing segment of the prison population and Native American prisoners are the largest group per capita. Approximately five million people — including those on probation and parole — are directly under the surveillance of the criminal justice system. The prison industrial complex profits from racist practices in arrest, conviction, and sentencing patterns. Black and brown bodies are the human raw material in a vast experiment to conceal the major social problems of our time.

The racially disproportionate demographics of the victims of the war on drugs will not surprise anyone familiar with the symbiotic relationship between poverty and institutionalized racism. Economic inequality and political disenfranchisement have been inextricably intertwined since the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The racist enforcement of the drug laws is just the latest example of institutionalized racism. As political economist John Flateau graphically puts it: “Metaphorically, the criminal justice pipeline is like a slave ship, transporting human cargo along interstate triangular trade routes from Black and Brown communities; through the middle passage of police precincts, holding pens, detention centers and courtrooms; to downstate jails or upstate prisons; back to communities as unrehabilitated escapees; and back to prison or jail in a vicious recidivist cycle.”

From plantation to prisons:

Where does the money go?

According to the U.N. International Drug Control Program, the international illicit drug business generates as much as $400 billion in trade annually. Profits of this magnitude invariably lead to corruption and complicity at the highest levels. Yet the so-called war on this illegal trade targets economically disadvantaged ethnic minorities and indigenous people in the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Putting aside the question of legality, there is no evidence of a “trickle-down effect.”

These substantial profits are not enriching the low-level players who constitute the vast majority of drug offenders. To the contrary, the black market drug economy undermines non-drug-related businesses and limits the employability of its participants. Discussing the “legal apartheid” that keeps the developing world poor, Peruvian economist Fernando De Soto observes that “[t]he poor live outside the law . . . because living within the law is impossible: corrupt legal systems and warped rules force those at the bottom of the world economy to spend years leaping absurd hurdles to do things by the book.”  “In a criminalized economy, the risk of imprisonment is almost ‘a form of business license tax.’”

Who is profiting?

In the United States, prison architects and contractors, corrections personnel, policy makers and academics, and the thousands of corporate vendors who peddle their wares at the annual trade-show of the American Corrections Association — hawking everything from toothbrushes and socks to barbed-wire fences and shackles are making money from the PIC.

The sale of tax-exempt bonds to underwrite prison construction is now estimated at $2.3 billion annually. The Wackenhut Corrections Corporation —  which manages 37 prisons in the United States, 18 in the United Kingdom and Australia and has one under contract in South Africa — tried to convert a former slave plantation in North Carolina into a maximum security prison to warehouse mostly black prisoners from the nation’s capital. Promising investors to keep the prison cells filled, these corporations dispatch “bed-brokers” in search of prisoners — evoking images of 19th century bounty-hunters capturing runaway slaves and forcibly returning them to the cotton fields. Corporations that appear to be far removed from the business of punishment are intimately involved in the expansion of the prison industrial complex.

Prison construction bonds are one of the many sources of profitable investment for leading financiers such as Merrill Lynch. MCI charges prisoners and their families outrageous prices for the precious telephone calls which are often the only contact inmates have with the free world. Many corporations whose products we consume on a daily basis have learned that prison labor power can be as profitable as third-world labor power exploited by U.S.-based global corporations. Both relegate formerly unionized workers to joblessness, many of whom wind up in prison. Some of the companies that use prison labor are IBM, Motorola, Compaq, Texas Instruments, Honeywell, Microsoft, and Boeing. But it is not only the high-tech industries that reap the profits of prison labor. Nordstrom department stores sell jeans that are marketed as “Prison Blues,” as well as t-shirts and jackets made in Oregon prisons.

Racism & poverty: The free market and prison economies

Today there are over two million people incarcerated in the United States. Studies demonstrate that two-thirds of state prisoners had less than a high school education and one-third were unemployed at the time of arrest. Over the past decade states have financed prison construction at the expense of investment in higher education. At the same time, access to education in prison has been severely curtailed. Officially, 8.3 percent of working-age blacks in the United States are unemployed but taking into account the “incarceration effect,” the rate is significantly higher. Research confirms the obvious &dashm; the positive relationship between joblessness or low wages and recidivism.

The stigma of prison has been codified in laws and licensing regulations that bar people with criminal records from countless jobs and opportunities, effectively excluding them from the legitimate workforce and forcing them into illegal ventures. As economists Western and Petit point out, “[T]he penal system can be viewed as a type of labor market institution that systematically influences men’s employment … [and has a] pervasive influence … on the life chances of disadvantaged minorities.”

Like slavery, the focused machinery of the war on drugs fractures families, as it destroys individual lives and destabilizes whole communities. It targets American Indians living on or near reservations and urban minority neighborhoods, depressing incomes and repelling investment. “The lost potential earnings, savings, consumer demand, and human and social capital … cost black communities untold millions of dollars in potential economic development, worsening an inner-city political economy already crippled by decades of capital flight and de-industrialization.”

Abolition & prisons as environmental racism

What is abolition?

Abolition is a political vision that seeks to eliminate the need for prisons, policing, and surveillance by creating sustainable alternatives to punishment and imprisonment.

Abolition means acknowledging the devastating effects prison, policing, and surveillance have on poor communities, communities of color, and other targeted communities, and saying, “No, we won’t live like this. We deserve more.”

Abolitionists recognize that the kinds of wrongdoing we call “crime” do not exist in the same way everywhere and are not “human nature”, but rather determined by the societies we live in. Similarly, abolitionists do not assume that people will never hurt each other or that people won’t cross the boundaries set up by their communities. The society must create alternatives for dealing with the injuries people inflict upon each other in ways that sustain communities and families. Keeping a community whole is impossible by routinely removing people from it.

In the last 20 years the United States has built more prisons than any country during any period in history. The cost of the U.S. criminal justice system now runs to $120 billion per year. But the financial costs are only part of the story. There are other costs not so easily seen; costs passed on to those least able to pay them &dashm; the poor rural towns in which most prisons are built and the poor urban communities from which most prisoners are sent. Therefore, because the costs of the current prison expansion are being passed to the poor, and especially to people of color, prisons are examples of economic injustice and environmental racism.

Women, incarceration & re-entry

Since 1980, the number of women in prison has increased at nearly double the rate for men. Nationally, the 93,000 women in state and federal prison represent a figure more than seven times the number in 1980. The “war on drugs” has been the primary factor in this dramatic growth, with a third of women prisoners incarcerated for a drug offense. These trends raise questions regarding the consequences of incarceration on women offenders. Women prisoners often have significant histories of physical and sexual abuse, high rates of H.I.V. infection, and substance abuse. Traditionally, alternatives to incarceration for women have been limited, as has correctional programming designed to meet their specific needs. In addition, large-scale women’s imprisonment has created an increasing number of children &dashm; estimated at 125,000 &dashm; who suffer from their mother’s incarceration and the loss of family ties.

Women comprise over 6.7 percent of the incarcerated population. One can expect about 9 percent of those women to be released within 60 months of their sentence. Upon release, society expects them to find employment. Of the women who face this challenge, most of them are women of color who will face a greater challenge finding employment upon re-entry than white women. Whether they are expected to work as a condition of a public assistance program or simply as a means of survival, to successfully re-enter, women have to create a foundation for themselves and a job provides the bedrock of this foundation. Unfortunately, the criminal record that follows them out of incarceration serves as a terrific impediment to fulfilling both society’s and their own expectation that they find employment upon release.

Alternative to mass incarcerationRestorative justice

What is restorative justice?

Restorative justice is a systematic response to wrongdoing that emphasizes healing the wounds of victims, offenders and communities caused or revealed by the criminal behavior.

Restorative justice is a new framework for the criminal justice system that is rapidly gaining acceptance and support by criminal justice professionals and community groups. Restorative justice involves looking beyond retribution to find deeper solutions that heal broken relationships.

Indigenous/Native practices, such as Maori justice, and the use of sentencing circles (or peacemaking circles) by North American Indians have been heavy influences.

South Africa created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to address injustices under apartheid.

A report from the Department of Justice of Canada analyzed a collection of studies to determine the effectiveness of restorative justice. Encouragingly, it found “restorative justice programs are a more effective method of improving victim/offender satisfaction, increasing offender compliance with restitution, and decreasing the recidivism of offenders when compared to more traditional criminal justice responses (i.e. incarceration, probation, court-ordered restitution)” (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2001, p.17).

Practices and programs reflecting restorative purposes will respond to crime by:
a.identifying and taking steps to repair harm,  
b.involving all stakeholders, and
c.transforming the traditional relationship between communities and their governments in responding to crime.

Some of the programs and outcomes typically identified with restorative justice include:

Victim offender mediation
Conferencing
Circles
Victim assistance
Ex-offender assistance
Restitution
Community service

Three principles form the foundation for restorative justice:

1. Justice requires that we work to restore those who have been injured.
2. Those most directly involved and affected by crime should have the opportunity to participate fully in the response if they wish.
3. Government’s role is to preserve a just public order, and the community’s is to build and maintain a just peace.

Restorative programs are characterized by four key values:

1. Encounter:  Create opportunities for victims, offenders and community members who want to do so to meet to discuss the crime and its aftermath.
2. Amends:  Expect offenders to take steps to repair the harm they have caused.
3. Reintegration:  Seek to restore victims and offenders as whole, contributing members of society.
4. Inclusion:  Provide opportunities for parties with a stake in a specific crime to participate in its resolution.

  

STORY INDEX

MARKETPLACE >

Poli-Tainment
URL: http://www.Poli-Tainment.com

RESOURCES >

American Civil Liberties Union
URL: http://www.aclu.org

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
URL: http://www.cjcj.org

Critical Resistance
URL: http://www.criticalresistance.org

Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM)
URL: http://www.famm.org

Justice Policy Institute
URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org

National Black United Fund, Inc.
URL: http://www.nbuf.org

National Lawyers Guild
URL: http://www.nlg.org  

The National Urban League, Inc.
URL: http://www.nul.org

Prison Activist Resource Center (PARC)
URL: http://www.prisonactivist.org

Homies Unidos
URL: http://www.homiesunidos.org  

Active Element Foundation
URL: http://www.activeelement.org  

Prison Moratorium Project — NY
URL: http://www.nomoreprisons.org  

Youth Empowerment Center
URL: http://www.youthec.org  

The No War on Youth Online Resources page
URL: http://www.colorlines.com/waronyouth

  

 

Inside the beltway, outside politics

With memories of the closest election in history still fresh on our minds, millions of typically apathetic voters hope to make a difference in this year’s election. The only problem is finding a candidate who will change our lives for the better.

I’m feeling very attractive lately. Two rich guys want me, and I have something they need — an undecided vote.

Most people have a position when it comes to politics. They formulate their political opinions starting with their parents’ party views and then shape their own beliefs as they grow and develop their own identity. But I don’t have a position, and I honestly don’t know why.

My father was a World War II and Korean War veteran. My mother was a Cold War information-gatherer-turn-stay-at-home-mom. Given those two facts, you’d assume the obvious:

Republicans.

But I’m not sure if that’s the case. Politics were never discussed in our house. We lived in Virginia, inside the Beltway. Naval Reserve pay and defense contracting put food on our table, but my parents never discussed the defense budget, rising health care costs, Social Security, or anything remotely political as you would expect growing up in Washington, D.C.

My father loved Archie Bunker, hated hippies, and thought women should stay out of the military service academies. The only time I suspected he might be a Republican was when we saw Richard Nixon get on the Sequoia after we enjoyed a trip to the wharf to get crabs. Dad smiled when the president waved to us.

Mom grew up on a farm in North Carolina and left at 18 to go to Washington to become a civil servant. Her last post with the U.S. Air Attaché in Bonn, Germany in the late 1950s required her to be friendly with the locals and bring information back to her superiors. In the 1970s, she watched the Equal Rights Amendment movement, and she believed in the right to choose. The only political opinion she ever expressed was “I’d vote for Jesse Jackson.” But now she listens to Rush Limbaugh.

I was a sophomore in college when I attained the right to vote. I worked at the Pentagon, writing press releases during college breaks, and volunteered as a reading instructor for the mentally challenged. Throughout the years, I continued to volunteer in my community instead of voting — that way, I could actually see the difference my actions made.

I finally registered to vote when I was 26. I was engaged and almost out of graduate school, and I felt like it was time to care about national politics. My brother was 24 years old, serving on a submarine in Charleston, South Carolina. We decided our votes didn’t matter in the general scheme of how the country was run. We did the unthinkable: We voted for Perot in 1992.

Not much has changed for me in the subsequent 12 years. I’ve been laid off twice and was just days from getting laid off three other times. I’ve cashed out two 401(k)s and one IRA while under- or unemployed. I’ve moved to four states to get a job. Dad’s dead after years of mediocre care from military doctors. Mom’s on a government pensioner’s fixed income living in the same house. My brother is now a civilian dodging downsizings within his company, and he joined the Naval Reserve primarily to ensure he’d have health care and a small pension. We’re all doing OK, but not great.

One thing has changed recently. I registered to vote again. My political apathy turned to action when I checked the “other” political party box on the voter registration form and added “undecided.” I find comfort in the fact that millions of Americans are as undecided as me and fearful of another Florida voting debacle.

The 2004 candidates appear to have distinct opinions about major topics. Kerry supports a woman’s right to choose. Bush opposes abortion and passed legislation banning U.S. funding to any international health care agency providing reproductive services. Kerry is against school vouchers. Bush is ready to hand them out so parents can send their kids to schools that perform well. Kerry believes in gay civil unions. Bush wants to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

I see truth and fiction in each of their arguments. For example, Bush supported No Child Left Behind, but didn’t fully fund it while in office. The threat of vouchers may force a school, with the right resources, to develop programs to help children. Neither candidate can fully define what terrorism is and how to stop it. This only heightens my indecision. I must select the best man for the job. But given the choices before me, my decision may come down to choosing the most promising of the non-promising.

I believe if I grew up less apolitical, I still wouldn’t know what to do in this election. I’m coming back from a 12-year voting hiatus. Is there a presidential hopeful who will reassure me that I made the right decision to vote in the wake of this current indecision?

Only time will tell.

STORY INDEX

COMMENTARY>

“Election 2004 not likely to be as close as 2000” by Richard Benedetto
URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2004-10-08-benedetto_x.htm

“Scaring voters to the polls” by Helen Thomas
URL: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1008-32.htm

“Why don’t Americans care?” by Mark Morford
URL: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1006-31.htm

 

Where the two elections shall meet

Salman Rushdie may be a movie star with rock star friends, but he still offers readers of his 2002 essay collection Step Across This Line valuable insight into the 2004 U.S. presidential election, democracy, and the war on terrorism.

When Salman Rushdie’s Step Across This Line: Collected Nonfiction, 1992-2002 was published in 2002, I read it cover-to-cover. His essays became my bedtime stories — and opportunities for politico-cultural ruminations — for several weeks thereafter. Reading it again some two years later, I can’t help but feel a bit giddy at times as I alternate between thinking, “he gets it,” and longing for Rushdie to produce another collection of essays if for no other reason than to flirt with my wit, and offer me insightful new perspectives that remain pertinent this political season.

The essays cover a huge amount of territory: temporally, geographically, and culturally. He reflects on both his first screening of The Wizard of Oz as a young child in India in “Out of Kansas,” and his attendance at a Rolling Stones concert in “In the Voodoo Lounge.” He pays homage to literary greats J.M. Coetzee, Edward Said, and Arundhati Roy, and muses on both the predatory nature of photography in “On Being Photographed,” and the value of the press “in keeping the issues alive” in “Farming Ostriches.”

Now transplanted in, but never wholly of, the United States, Rushdie explores the mundane with a high-caliber literary brilliance. Throughout, Rushdie’s fascination — even boy-like obsession — with contemporary culture is linked to politics. The perfect example of this is his tale of joining U2 onstage during a concert and his admiration of Bono’s success at “reducing Jesse Helms — Jesse Helms! — to tears, winning his support for the campaign against Third World debt.”

For Rushdie, though, it’s not simply such acts of cross-cultural solidarity or unions of the Left that constitute politics. Rather, Rushdie finds politics in the very act of frontier-crossing inherent in both reading and writing: opening one’s eyes, elevating one’s consciousness, allowing oneself to be simultaneously astute and vulnerable to political and moral malleability. As the author explains in “Step Across This Line: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Yale, 2002”:

To cross a frontier is to be transformed … At the frontier we can’t avoid the truth; the comforting layers of the quotidian, which insulate us against the world’s harsher realities, are stripped away and wide-eyed in the harsh fluorescent light of the frontier’s windowless halls, we see things as they are … At the frontier our liberty is stripped away — we hope temporarily — and we enter the universe of control. Even the freest of free societies are unfree at the edge, where things and people go out and other people must go in and out. Here, at the edge, we submit to scrutiny, to inspection, to judgment. These people, guarding these lines, must tell us who we are. We must be passive, docile. To be otherwise is to be suspect, and at the frontier to come under suspicion is the worst of all possible crimes … what we mean when we reduce ourselves to these simple statements is, I’m not anything you need to bother about, really I’m not … I am simple. Let me pass.

Did I step across that line and let myself be challenged the last time I read Rushdie’s essays? Certainly. Many times. And re-reading Step Across This Line some two years later, I get the feeling that I’m being questioned once again. This time, though, I cannot help but read from a slightly different position — that of an American who, since her first reading, has seen this country wage a unilateral war in the name of securing the world from terrorism — under the leadership of a man who scarcely knew the names of foreign leaders when he came into office four years ago and who may again win another tight election, even though he has alienated most of those whose names he has since managed to learn.

“About Islam”

Rushdie’s insight on U.S. domestic and foreign policy demands our attention in this election year — even if the publication date makes his essays appear outdated at first glance. Given the author’s personal experience with terrorism in the form of a fatwa issued by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Rushdie’s assassination, the essays offer a unique perspective on the United States’ war on terrorism — likely the deciding factor for many voters. Perhaps predictably, this traumatic experience, which forced Rushdie to go into hiding until the Ayatollah’s 1998 death, has forever changed his life, his politics, and his characterization of Islamic “extremists.”

Born to Muslim parents in India, Rushdie vehemently criticizes what he calls “militant Islam” in several selections in Step Across This Line at a time when demonizing Islam and conflating it with terrorism isn’t exactly politically correct. Somewhere in the process, he contributes to a political reality that may burn as many bridges as many of his other essays seek build.

Consider, for instance, his seemingly trite, yet highly personal and deeply internalized, position concerning the causes of September 11 and the resulting war on terrorism in his November 2001 essay “Not About Islam?”:

Let’s start by calling a spade a spade. Of course this is ‘about Islam.’ The question is, what exactly does that mean? After all, most religious belief isn’t very theological. Most Muslims are not profound Quaranic analysts. For a vast number of ‘believing’ Muslim men, ‘Islam’ stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for the fear of God — the fear more than the love, one suspects — but also for a cluster of customs, opinions, and prejudices that include their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of ‘their’ women; the sermons delivered by their mullah of choice; a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with music, godlessness, and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and fear) of the prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over — ‘Westoxicated’ — by the liberal Western-style way of life.

Highly motivated organizations of Muslim men (oh, for the voices of Muslim women to be heard!) have been engaged, over the last thirty years or so, on growing radical political movements out of this mulch of ‘belief.’ These Islamists …  include the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, the blood-soaked combatants of the FIS and GIA in Algeria, the Shia revolutionaries of Iran, and the Taliban. Poverty is their great helper, and the fruit of their efforts is paranoia.

In this passage and numerous others in Step Across This Line, Rushdie can, at times, seem reminiscent of Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington, whose “Clash of Civilizations” thesis foreboded that the post-Cold War world would be fraught with civilization-changing wars between Eastern and Western religions and cultures, with Islam playing a central role. In progressive academic circles, Huntington has long been heavily criticized for his oversimplified characterization of Islam and of relationships between peoples across cultures.

But when Rushdie makes such statements, they seem to reflect authenticity; one cannot simply dismiss the speaker’s words as racist or essentialist. Not only does Rushdie hail from a part of the world and a history where conflict is often the norm, but the Anglo Indian writer-in-exile has literally had his very existence at stake and been affected by so-called terrorism more intimately than almost any American politician waging the war on terrorism. It also doesn’t hurt that Rushdie, in his usual fashion, tells his own narrative in such a compelling manner in “Messages from the Plague Years” that even opponents and skeptics of the war on terrorism can’t help but empathize with Rushdie’s alienation. He has been shunned not only by Iran, but also by his Indian homeland, which quickly renounced The Satanic Verses as anti-Muslim, even though, as the satirist-novelist suggested in a recent interview with St. Petersburg Times writer Margo Hammond, the book was actually intended to depict metropolitan life in Thatcherite London.

At the very least, Rushdie invites those on the Left — many who oppose everything from the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq to the Bush administration — to reconsider the way in which their position allows them to divorce themselves from genuine political action. It also encourages us to consider how — and if — one can reconcile discriminating against “militant Muslims” while demanding that civil liberties and freedom of speech not be sacrificed in the name of the war on terrorism.

“It Wasn’t Me”

On the other hand, Rushdie’s book, which was published prior to the Bush Administration’s March 2003 declaration of war on Iraq, can seem outdated when read in the context of the 2004 election. That is, his demonization of so-called militant Islam certainly has some relevance today, but it cannot effectively address the question that has dominated much of the 2004 campaign: Why did the Bush Administration invade Iraq unilaterally when the Presiden allegedly knew all along that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction?

While many leftist writers and publications dubbed Rushdie a “Hawk” when, citing the terrible toll taken on the Iraqi people under Saddam, he voiced his support for the dictator’s overthrow, Rushdie has never gone so far as to support Bush’s war. Last month he told C.F. Niles of the People’s Weekly World Newspaper, “President Bush did not tell the truth to the United Nations. Things in Iraq are not getting better, they are getting worse. This is not my opinion — everybody knows that Bush is just electioneering …”

Perhaps Rushdie was borrowing a page from his own book here. Some three years ago, writing about Bush’s claim that there was no proven link between greenhouse gases and global warming in his April 2001 essay “It Wasn’t Me,” Rushdie relayed, “The president has a big microphone, and if he goes on repeating his claims, he may even make them stick for a long, damaging time.” When I initially read “It Wasn’t Me” — an essay suggesting how fitting Shaggy’s hit single (about a man denying an affair even when his girlfriend witnessed him in the act) is at a time where denial keeps the world spinning ‘round, I didn’t fully appreciate Rushdie’s accuracy. Today, however, the truth that those in high places can right their wrongs with countless doses of denial is more evident.

After reading Step Across This Line in the current election milieu, I was repeatedly reminded of President Bush’s insistence that he had made the right choice in unilaterally invading Iraq, even though he justified that invasion with the false information that Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and many others have conceded, to some extent, that Bush misled the American public to invade Iraq, and yet billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives later, he remains poised to win a second term. Perhaps the best support for Rushdie’s argument comes from an October 22 Boston Globe article, which reveals that “A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided ‘substantial support’ to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion.” All of this despite a flood of stories and high profile reports to the contrary. Bush is apparently at the center of it all — he is, after all, the one with the microphone, as Rushdie says — and everyone else just can’t quite capture the attention of diehard Bush followers. No one else gets as much air time to deny, deny, deny.

Four years none the wiser: Lessons from 2000

Of course, while the free speech — er, free denial — of one American man is helping this election shape up to be as close or closer than the last, the outcome will affect far more than the American people. As Rushdie wrote in his essay entitled Senator Liberman” four years ago, “The citizens of the rest of the world [are] already disconcerted that only about 30 percent of American voters feel it’s worth bothering to vote at all, and the thought that the relative perceived holiness [of the candidates] may be of decisive importance does nothing to reassure us … Today, even the United States’ friends are beginning to wish a Rest of the World candidate were permitted to run. We all live under the aegis of the American Empire’s unchallenged might, so the victorious candidate will be our president, too.”

If Rushdie’s argument made sense four year ago, it’s even more fitting in 2004, at a time when a combination of Bush’s pre-emptive doctrine and the United States’ disregard for its allies’ opinions have spurred a drastic decline in the world’s opinion of the United States. Not that long ago, I mulled over the possibility that non-Americans should get to vote for the U.S. president. Often it seems that there are far more people across the globe who criticize — and sometimes praise — the ways in which they’re affected by U.S. policy than there are Americans who concern themselves with the far-reaching consequences of Washington, D.C., decisions. But given the controversy that has arisen in several states over new Americans registering to vote, the possibility that the Republicans or Democrats would so much as entertain the idea of opening the U.S. presidential election up to citizens of the world seems extremely remote, to say the least.

Fortunately, the next best possibility — heeding the advice and insight of those looking in — is well within reach thanks to the wonders of modern media. While Rushdie can’t vote here, he can offer an outsider’s view of how the democracy we practice in the United States can impact billions of people worldwide. He can offer as well an insider’s view into another democratic system — that of his Indian homeland, which, he writes, “is like the United States a large federation of regionalisms, where people define themselves first as Bengalis, Tamils, Kashmiris, and so on, and only after that as Indians. But India, with far fewer resources than the USA, has managed — albeit imperfectly — to run a constituency-based, direct-election democracy for over half a century. It’s hard to grasp why Americans can’t do the same.”

While Rushdie certainly raises useful questions concerning indirect democracy’s necessity and its ability to represent minorities — many whose ballots went uncounted or who were barred from voting on Election Day 2000 — his criticism of American democracy could not, of course, be fully realized when he wrote this first essay after Election Day 2000. Sure, he correctly indicated that the Electoral College foolishly allows for the possibility of a tie. He also pointed out — quite eloquently — that the United States often provides election assistance to developing countries to teach them how to build “fair” and “efficient” democracies while it can’t even count all of its own votes or find a non-partisan way to quell the political bickering that predominates during election season — particularly during election overtime season.

But it was in his December 2000 piece “A Grand Coalition?” that Rushdie raised a question deserving of far more attention then and now. That is, when an election ends in what essentially amounts to a tie, might it make more sense to resolve it through a coalition government — one where, for instance, the Bush/Cheney Administration serves half the term and the Kerry/Edwards Administration serves the other two years, or where the vice presidential candidate on the ticket that garners a few more votes steps aside and allows the other presidential candidate to serve as vice president?

As President Clinton said back in 2000 during the 35-day election standoff, “The people have spoken. It’s just that we don’t yet know what they mean.” Might it be possible that some sort of coalition government — a system that has worked reasonably well in many other democracies — provides the best answer to the problem of the divided nation? Perhaps it would even help unite it, as Bush promised — falsely — to do four years ago.

STORY INDEX

TOPICS >

Iraq War >

“Edward Said, Salman Rushdie, and the Iraq War” by Dr. Sabah Salih
URL: http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/11-5-04-opinion-sabah-rushdie-and-irq-war.html

Islam >

”War on Iraq: Where are the Islamic Moderates?” by Mark LeVine and Raymond Baker
URL: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/15050/

Interviews >

A Conversation with Salman Rushdie
URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1177360

Salman Rushdie, Out and About
URL: http://www.powells.com/authors/rushdie.html

Election >

”How the Grinch Stole America” by Salman Rushdie
URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,417622,00.html

Marketplace >
(A portion of proceeds from all books purchased through the Powells.com link below help support InTheFray)

Step Across This Line by Salman Rushdie
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=2-0679463348-3&partner_id=28164

 

Quote of note

“It is unfortunate that a court of appeals has permitted the Republican Party to continue its plan to challenge voters on Election Day, but we were prepared for this outcome.”

— Ohio Democratic Party Spokesman David Sullivan, in response to today’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of Cincinnati, which will allow the Republican Party to place thousands of monitors inside polling stations in Ohio to challenge the eligibility of certain individuals to vote.

The G.O.P. now has the official sanction of the courts to send a small army of 3,500 monitors to polling stations around Ohio, where they will question the eligibility of voters. Democrats allege that this Republican challenge to voter eligibility is an intimidation tactic against minority voters. Republicans insist that they are merely protecting the democratic process against voter fraud.

In a lower court ruling, Judge Susan J. Dlott and Judge John R. Adams both asserted that there are already measures in place to prevent voter fraud. If we are to believe the dissenting voices, this Republican victory is, at very best, excessive and, at worst, a sanctioned form of disenfranchisement.

Mimi Hanaoka

  

 

Clout concerns

Word on the street is that 20-somethings, a segment of the population that is traditionally apathetic when it comes to voting, could decide the 2004 election. But in the battleground state of Ohio, the GOP seems to have left much-needed College Republicans behind.

The OSU College Republicans registration tent.

In a 200 seat classroom at The Ohio State University, before an American flag tacked to the chalkboard, the College Republicans overflow into the aisles. Their meeting opens with a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, during which one member yells “under GOD!” emphasizing the controversial phrase on which the Supreme Court avoided passing judgment this past June.

A screen drops down from the ceiling and the room goes dark. A trailer begins for the new anti-Michael Moore documentary “FahrenHYPE 9/11.” There are cheers and laughs. The Republicans plan on filling a 600 seat room for a screening of the film five days before the election.

Most of the meeting, though, is dedicated to plans to counter and ridicule the Democrats’ efforts. For vice-presidential candidate John Edward’s visit, the College Republicans plan on attending the rally with a pair of giant flip-flops in tow. And in response to a question posed by an audience member about the legality of driving people to the polls on Election Day, one officer replies, “I’m sure [driving people to the polls] is [legal]. I’ve heard of Democrats paying homeless people with liquor to vote. I’m pretty sure that’s not legal.”  

No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio and its 20 electoral votes. While the two candidates’ numerous visits since March of this year, (15 for Bush, 25 for Kerry) show they are paying attention to the battleground state that has lost many manufacturing jobs over the past several years, neither seems to be courting the most passionate and politically impressionable demographic in the electorate: students.

Perhaps this neglect is reasonable. The large numbers and ideological fervor that students bring to the table are weakened by poor voter turnout. 25 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 25 turned out in 2000, compared with 66 percent of voters between the ages of 65 and 74. Yet Democratic-aligned groups like Vote Mob, ACT Now, Hip Hop Teen Vote, MoveOn.org, and Howard Dean’s grassroots group Democracy for America have poured unprecedented time and money into organizing the nation’s students for the 2004 vote, while, on the other side, College Republicans seem to be bearing the largest part of the burden. Visits to The Ohio State University in Columbus, and Miami University, 35 miles north of Cincinnati, reveal campus conservatives feeling underappreciated in the state that, according to conventional wisdom, Bush must win to get re-elected.

Students crowd the Republican Voter registration tent.

Outnumbered by Hollywood

Smack in the middle of Columbus, the large Ohio State University, with an undergraduate population of some 37,000, is anything but picturesque. Located near a litany of tattoo parlors and coffee houses, fast-food restaurants and second-hand music shops, there are large areas of grass where students lounge in the sun studying, reading, and talking politics. Copies of OSU’s student paper The Lantern blow in the wind. The front page reads: “Political Parties, Voter registration groups reach out to voting students.”

Nearby, on the corner of Neil and 17th Avenue, the OSU College Republicans are working a voter registration tent to help take back Franklin County, which narrowly went to Gore in 2000. A quick and unscientific poll of 20 random people on the quad suggests that John Kerry appeals to 55 percent of the voters, Bush only 35 percent, and 10 percent remain undecided. While anyone can register, many of those who sign up to vote at this tent take a Bush/Cheney “04 placard with them and tuck it under an arm or roll it up into a tube on their way to class. Several shift workers comment on the lack of animosity.

Zack Blau, tall, fair-haired, and wearing glasses, explains that his efforts to register voters have been met with some hostility, but not as much as he expected. “One or two people walk by saying ‘fuck Bush, or go Kerry.’ Not too bad. Every once in a while, you get a guy who wants to start an argument, but that’s about it.” The College Democrats’ table, usually set up nearby, has been absent in the last few days.

Eric Little, however, does not share Blau’s optimism. He wears a red-striped Polo shirt and jeans and has a Bush/Cheney sticker secured to his left breast-pocket. He is thin and obviously tired. Having worked for the campaign for almost a year, the labor has taken its toll. He is grateful for the opportunity but expresses confusion over what seems like a lack of involvement from the rest of the campaign. The Franklin County Republicans charged OSU Republicans with the responsibility of registering 2000 new voters before the October 4 deadline, and following up with them in the final days before the election.

“We are given a huge task and not much money to do it,” he says. “If it were more important to get people turning out to vote than just registering them, then you think they would give us a bigger chunk of the budget.”

For Little, the task of competing with the numerous democratic groups is tough. “The Dems have Vote Mob and Hip Hop Summit. We aren’t given much money and we don’t have any celebrities. We are outnumbered and outspent by people and groups that are not students and who aren’t affiliated with the university.”

The huge task is made even bigger, Little says, by the harassment he receives from anti-Bush groups. Chairman of Buckeyes for Bush and a member of the College Republicans, Eric often takes the lion’s share of the labor, working the voter registration tables when others are unable or unwilling. “There’s no greater frustration than working [a voter registration table], doing something we think is a public service and somebody runs by and swears at you.”

His frustration is compounded by a rumor he’s heard from several people that Vote Mob is discarding the registrations of declared Republicans. “These kinds of rumors breed apathy toward the election,“ says Little. “People end up thinking that politics is this corrupt animal and that we’re going to end up throwing away their forms as a result.”

Little’s feeling that the Democrats are outgunning the Republicans on campus by using “Hollywood” influence is supported by the visible presence of celebrities at student-led events. The OSU College Democrats recently held a rally attended by Kerry“s stepson Andre Heinz, actress Claire Danes, and Boston Public star Rashida Jones. That same week John Edwards visited Columbus to attend a debate-watching event, which was also promoted by the OSU College Democrats.

More recently, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., spoke to a crowd of roughly 300 in OSU’s Campbell Hall. He received applause when he said that the Bush administration’s assault on the Clean Air Act has caused 10 times as many deaths every year as the September 11 attacks attacks, and got laughs when he described the scientists that the administration depends on as “biostitutes.”

And on October 28, just five days before the election, Bruce Springsteen accompanied Kerry on one last swing through the swing state. The Lantern reported that 40,000 people attended the campus concert.

One of many posters for anti-Bush concerts and rallies.

When Buchanan isn’t enough

Over at Miami University, 35 miles north of Cincinnati in Butler County, which went to Bush in 2000, the political atmosphere is more subdued. Some 15,000 undergrads at what is considered a “public Ivy“ don’t see the large public rallies and visible recruiting effort on the part of Democrats and Republicans at places like OSU. Rather, Miami students seem almost closeted about politics. Anyone wanting to join a political discussion or club must actively hunt for one.

Despite the generally reserved and conservative bent of the school, College Republicans don’t feel that their views are always respected.

For example, several students have complained that Dr. Laura Neack, a professor in the political science department, has a pro-Kerry approach that stifles criticism. “Dr. Neack has said in class that if Bush is re-elected, she is almost certain there will be a draft,” says student Matt Nolan.

According to Nolan, there was no mention of the fact that the bill to reinstate the draft, House Resolution 163, was written in 2003 by Democratic Congressman Charles Wrangle of New York, and that the bill was defeated in the house by a vote of 402-2. Nolan also says that when anyone who supports the President attempts to divulge such information in class, they are told to sit down and be quiet.  

When contacted, Dr. Neack refused to comment.

Miami College Republicans Steve Szaranos and Nathan Colvin, (president of the group), say they are frustrated by the way material is presented by liberal professors. “It’s like [professors think] “I’m your elder and I’m going to bestow this knowledge on you. You conservatives don’t know what you’re talking about,”” says Szaranos.

But what really irritates them is the way, in their estimation, they were shut out of the selection of guests for a debate on October 4. Pat Buchanan, who has publicly opposed the Iraq War, was chosen to debate Andrew Cuomo, a decision that Colvin feels was unfair. “With the Iraq war as the hot button of this campaign, to have a ‘conservative’ that is against the war is an injustice to the students,” Colvin says.

Colvin was able to lobby successfully to have the Bush twins visit campus on October 20. But then Howard Dean spoke on campus the following day. To even the score, Colvin and the College Republicans booked Ann Coulter, conservative provocateur for October 28. Although Coulter is a heavyweight in the conservative circles, she’s no match for the Boss in drawing crowds.

STORY INDEX

CONTRIBUTORS >

POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS >

College Republican National Committee
URL: http://www.crnc.org/default1.asp

College Democrats of America
URL: http://www.collegedems.com/

 

The double agent

Shifting between Chinese and American identities, a Shanghai observer finds herself both alien and at home. Part three of a three-part series.

When celebrating a research subject’s birthday Shanghai style, rather than eating the cake, it is customary to zha dan gao or plaster each other’s faces with it.

Since coming to China on a research fellowship, I’ve spent very little time with other “foreigners.” I have preferred to “go native,” spending most of my time with my research subjects, rural-to-urban migrant workers who think of me by turns as a confidante, a little sister, an odd spectacle of cultural hybridism, or some combination of the above. As I have assumed the identities they apply to me, the way I identify myself has also evolved.

The notion of “transformation” in a foreign land is a familiar cliché to Americans who venture abroad. But during my time in China, my cynicism has yielded to a grudging resignation that I have transformed — and that whether the change has been “authentic” or imagined does not change its reality. Being foreign teaches you not only how different you are, but also how thoroughly unremarkable you can be among the masses in an unfamiliar territory.

The sensation and science of being foreign

The more I see of Shanghai, the more I discover that everyone here has come in search of liberation. Migrants see this city as a way out of poverty. Westerners see a way out of the ennui of ordinary middle-class existence.

Foreigners are a different kind of migrant, in search not of wealth but of self-affirmation. Talented but aimless individuals flock to Shanghai because they feel like China is a place where “things are happening.” This country also attracts the dregs of educated America: sad middle-aged BA-generalists turned English teachers, meandering middle-class 20-somethings trying to cash in on globalization, earthy backpackers whose lives are tucked between the dog-eared pages of a Lonely Planet.

I’ve developed a taxonomy of the foreigner species, known in China as laowai. There are savvy laowai, with their native girlfriends, their slick use of the local slang, their inside jokes about how ridiculous the Chinese are with their uncivilized habits, their pathetic English, their sexual awkwardness and comical willingness to hit on foreigners of the opposite sex. Then there are the clueless with their pathetic Chinese, their fear of loud traffic and unsanitary restaurant conditions, their naïve fascination with all things “classically” Chinese, like pagoda rooftops, calligraphy scrolls, and chintzy kimonos for which they pay scandalous amounts at seedy street markets.

Many of the foreigners I’ve met have passed the initial culture shock and subsequent euphoria phases of being immersed in a new culture. They are now in the jaded phase. They just can’t get used to some things, they say, like the shoving crowds on the buses, the filth in the streets. Some resign themselves to leading a Western existence in China. Like the Chinese American girl I know who, in her three years here, has never ridden a city bus and admits to having not a single Chinese friend.

For its part, Shanghai prides itself on being more “open” to the rest of the planet than any other city in China and currently aspires to be a dazzlingly modern global capital. The city’s come-hither gaze toward the Western world disturbs and frustrates me, though I owe my own presence here to it, and it makes me more determined to distance myself from the foreign influence in this city that I ironically help constitute.

My negative impressions do have a tangentially scientific basis. Assisting a Chinese sociology professor’s study on the lifestyles of foreigners in Shanghai, I learned that most of the interview subjects shared two major characteristics. Whether they had come in the hope of teaching English for a decent salary or slipping into a white-collar post at a branch office of a foreign company, they were in China mainly because they did not want to be at home. “I just wanted something totally different” was a frequent comment.

The other characteristic these ex-pats had in common was that they professed disdain for other expats, looking down on the stereotypical cloistered lifestyle of expense accounts and social clubs.

At a downtown bar crawling with tipsy Westerners, a young man said to me with a smirk, “Foreigners in China are disgusting.” A fellow foreigner, an English teacher — who said he had left his techno party-monger identity behind in Britain because he was “pissed” —mused, “It’s easier than London. But the beer’s more expensive.”

Newly arrived foreigners don’t share the same irritating complacency but irritate me nonetheless with their naïveté. A young woman I met through American friends, apparently unfamiliar with the one-child policy, asked me one evening if abortion was legal in China. Another interviewee, a Canadian man working for a foreign company in Shanghai, expressed awe at the laborers he saw on the streets struggling to earn a living.  “I see the people go by on bikes. Old, old people peddling, ringing the bell, trying to pick up scraps and stuff like that,” he said. “It’s helped make me a lot more conscious of my money.”

There’s something unsettling about this glorification of hardship. In a Westerner’s eyes, the poor of another country become a muddy moral window, reflecting through grease spots and blood stains a pathetic world that makes the privileged feel passively guilty but above all fortunate. The gain seems, like so many other interactions between developed and undeveloped societies, one-sided.

Blending in and mixing it up

I feel at once disgusted by fellow Americans’ self-confidence and impressed with their survival skills, which even the least culturally competent learn quickly.  I hear them peppering their English with Chinese curse words and haggling with shopkeepers like an “authentic” Chinese. But what could be more typically American than assuming that an American identity can be cast off or disguised as one chooses?

But I dismiss their gratuitous efforts to assimilate mainly because I can pull it off better than they can. Looking Chinese gives me a great advantage over non-Asian Westerners, whose tallness, hairiness, angular features, and plump figures jut out in a Chinese crowd. In my own pursuit of authenticity, I always speak in Chinese, shop at neighborhood markets, and eat at the homes of Chinese friends, borrowing their slang. And it feels good to claim the power of residing in two parallel cultures.

Maybe I’m too Chinese for my own good. I’m coarser in China than I am even in my native New York, grabbing mercilessly for a seat on a crowded bus, speaking at the same loud volume — rude to Western ears — that others use when they address me. My questions here are more intrusive, reflecting a traditional Chinese lack of social caution in asking about your monthly salary, or pointing out, as one friend did recently, that your teeth look unusually yellow this afternoon. Unlike Westerners who politely turn down elderly beggars and children selling flowers (which generally encourages their pursuit), I no longer acknowledge their presence as I walk by, the same way Shanghai natives do. We are all pushed forward by the knowledge that if we stopped to listen to every poor person and everyone who takes advantage of sympathy, we’d never go anywhere.
Yet what separates me from the hordes rushing into a modern lifestyle is that I do stop to listen, often through thin walls. My research topic is the rural migrants who flood into the cities for work, upward-striving but poor and often poorly educated. While the economic and social gulf between us is enormous, despite — or possibly because of — the differences between us, we turn the space between us into a synaptic connection.

My American background has made me instantly popular as it makes me an object of intense curiosity. While I disrupt their notions of a classic laowai, they also see me as a fellow Chinese, with American characteristics. Some migrants have sort of adopted me, viewing me as a distant relative living in the big city by herself who needs looking after. They call me xiao gu niang, or “little girl,” and say I should protect myself because I’m dan cun — the Chinese term for pure and naïve. I do feel vulnerable here, but not in the way they think. I want to tell them that they oversimplify me — perhaps reading simplicity out of me the same way I read out of them complexity that I imagine.  I probably seem simpler in China because my language skills limit my power of expression.  Or perhaps their inability to view me in all my complexity reveals not my “purity” but their innocence.

Migrant stallkeepers play cards to pass the time during a slow day.

A complicated woman

While individual complexity is highly valued in the West, in the mind of a rural migrant who has had to adapt to the assault of rough city life, dan cun is a precious and rare quality. One migrant worker I know recently brought his girlfriend (whom he met through chatting on the Internet) from Guangxi Province to Shanghai. A quiet girl, she whiles away many of her afternoons at an Internet cafe or in front of the television in the back room of the construction storefront where he works. Though her personality seems bland and even a little withdrawn, I see why my friend is drawn to her: She had that purity and consistence that is hard to find among urban youth who get wrapped up in the temptations of Shanghai youth culture — drinking, gambling, even organized crime. My friend didn’t seek a perfect match in looking for a girlfriend; he looked for a transparency, an innocence he could simultaneously protect and escape into.

Individuality is not prioritized here simply because to do so is a luxury. In America, I seek interactions with people who challenge me, but I find that intellectual and emotional challenges are most appealing when everyday living is relatively easy. Personal subjectivity becomes important when the impersonal aspects of our lives are settled, stable, and in a sense, boring. For people who struggle with economic hardship, socializing is utilitarian — a release from the burdens of the workday. Romantically, as my friend’s girlfriend showed me, a good match consists of trust, convenience, and a tacit agreement to face future struggles together. Intellectual or sexual attraction is a secondary consideration.

Though I think it would be a stretch to argue that Chinese culture does not value individuality at all, traditional Chinese do tend to idealize simplicity in a girl’s personality. For migrants who are often in dire economic circumstances, a “pure” girl symbolizes comfort, stability, and solace in a tumultuous society. This doesn’t mean women are looked down upon. Certainly, females are much more respected in Chinese society today than at any other time in history. Still, when I observe workers from a local market in their homes, I see that women, apart from work and raising children, are generally devoid of much of a personal life. Men work hard as well, but they also find the time to drink and gamble with friends, often when their wives are looking after their children or their market stalls. Women are supposed to be tough, working to support their families as men do, but they should never be tougher than their husbands. A complex or fu zha personality would threaten the gender hierarchy that upholds this society and many others.

Complexity can, however, be welcome on occasion, especially if it speaks with a foreign accent.  Most of my research subjects and other Chinese I’ve befriended have expressed respect for me because I am a college graduate, an international traveler, and a woman. I know that my difference intrigues them; my foreignness empowers, and I use it to my advantage. I get a slight thrill from stretching gender boundaries when I hang out with male migrants. Once when I went to dinner with a group of construction workers, the boss was shocked that I was not uncomfortable with the situation, suggesting a respectable local girl would never go out alone at night with a group of rowdy men. During a recent visit to a research subject’s house, I had the slightly awkward realization that I was the only woman willing to discuss politics at dinner.

Having it both ways

I still can’t bring myself to call my research subjects “friends,” although they think of me as such. While they tend to simplify me in their minds, I analyze qualities of theirs to which they themselves are oblivious. My conversations with them never feel quite equal and thus can never be fully open. We’re operating on different levels of awareness — maybe even two different levels of power.

They feel privileged to have a friend like me, who offers them a window into a world they’ll never experience, yet who does not speak a strange language or have a white face.  A migrant worker close to my age told me that his village friends wanted him to take me back home on his next visit, so they could see what his “American friend” was like. I didn’t appreciate the prospect of being paraded around like an exotic pet. Yet I can’t be angry with him, because my “friendship” with him is similarly self-serving. My research subjects are my primary sources, and the fact that I can access them makes me feel special the same way they perhaps feel special for accessing an American.

A foreign student once told me that when people see foreigners here, they see money. I’m reluctantly beginning to believe him. People question me about everything from the price of my tape recorder or the clothing I am wearing to my monthly rent or the amount of my fellowship. I’ve been asked for a loan more than once, for rent money, for investment in a future business, for the purchase of inventory. I guess this is what I would do too if I lived in a world where it was crucial to grab every opportunity that came my way. I restrain my urge to yell that being from a First-World country does not make me a credit union.

But in the end, I have to concede my privilege, and it drags heavily on me. It’s not just having financial resources or an education. My privilege is rooted in my insight, my ability to view these people from my American perspective — to pass judgment, to observe their limitations and aspirations and futile hopes — while remaining detached. To me, they are primarily subjects, and friends only when I want them to be more than foils in my China experience.

It’s odd being able to have it both ways, operating as a two-faced double agent, moving back and forth across the culture gap. The more I become aware of the distance between myself and the migrants, the more I want to close it by spending time in their homes, talking with them, joking with them, trying to build some sort of rapport. But there’s always an element of exploitation, because I am the researcher. My investment in this place is not one of the heart but of the intellect, and though I’ve built warm relationships here, despite my determination to see the best in these people, they are not intellectual connections.

And on the other side, I see myself in the context of other foreigners living in China, and I realize that what I despise about them is what I fear seeing in myself — that cold, careless, clumsy superficiality, that arrogance forged from the latent understanding that this whole country is a temporary experience—a cultural experiment that can end any time one gets tired of it. It’s that arrogance of being able to choose one’s environment.

A debatable identity: two halves, or a whole?

Still, I also willingly enforce my arrogance. Cultural divisions feed my American exceptionalism, manifesting itself in my constant assumption that I must be right in a given debate — on China-Taiwan politics, on how much freedom parents should give children, on when a young person should get married — because I grew up in a comparatively democratic country and have a perspective on the world that the Chinese lack, or because I’ve graduated from college and the person I’m speaking to has a rural junior high school education.

I’ve spent countless evenings with a migrant worker from Shandong, in front of a television flashing images of combat in Iraq and the War on Terror, arguing with him about whether Iraq was better off before the American “liberation.” Though I’m hardly a defender of America, I feel compelled to counter the simplistic idea that Iraq was a content and peaceful nation before America came in and screwed everything up. When the same man said that he supported Osama Bin Laden for attacking America on September 11, 2001, a spontaneous twinge of patriotism urged me to ask: “If my parents had been working in the Twin Towers then, would you still support him?” Inwardly, I know I just desire to counter other people’s self-righteousness with my own, and the fact that both sides are probably misinformed affords us the opportunity to argue pointlessly with abandon.

Even among Chinese peers with educational and class backgrounds similar to mine, with whom I previously looked forward to sharing a common youth culture, a condescending attitude has begun to envelop me. I find myself looking down on Chinese young people’s obedience to a system of laws and rules that I see as oppressive. They stomach a dull and creativity-stifling public education system. Though many don’t respect the social structure that they must negotiate, they comply with it in order to get ahead.

Americans do the same thing, of course, but in China, where education consists basically of tests and regurgitation of lessons, complicity seems even more dangerous to an already silenced civil society. With one Chinese friend, a journalist, I debated whether China would soon face political instability if it did not begin to democratize its government. She asserted that China was more stable than I thought, that you could get along fine as long as you did not get involved in politics or voice your opinion when you weren’t supposed to. She prefers to stay away from sensitive issues like political oppression.

I wanted to tell her that her self-censorship is more of a threat to China’s political future than any outright oppression. But I refrained, because there is no way for me to grasp fully China’s political situation. My Chinese peers, at any rate, may be freer than they appear on the surface. The friend who has vowed to stay out of politics recently went through a political “training course” run by her employer, which she was instructed not to report about. In her bag on the way back from work, however, she carried one of the books that has been banned from press coverage.

People are subtly challenging the system in ways that I can’t understand; coming from a relatively enlightened political culture may actually blind me to the nuances of this political change. Who am I to lecture people on the necessity of political reform in China when I cynically ignore what’s going on in American electoral politics, and when my own country prospers at the expense of the freedom of others?

In our elliptical debates on cultural rifts, people have questioned whether I feel more Chinese or more American.  The simplest answer I can conjure is the loaded one:  I feel both Chinese and American. People admire this access to both cultures, instilling in me a pride that I’m not completely comfortable with. I like to be proud of things that I’ve done, not of a background that I did not choose.

But much of my confidence here is rooted in privilege that I did not earn. Sometimes I walk down the street, see people climbing over each other to board a bus at rush hour, spitting gratuitously on the sidewalk, displaying extremely bad hairstyles, begging on the street, walking around with a mass of scar tissue where one’s cheek should be—from a factory accident? A “struggle session” during the Cultural Revolution ?—and I think, Damn it, America is a great country. My hometown, New York, is a rough place, but at least people line up to buy train tickets there, at least most public toilets display a modicum of sanitary standards, at least the contents of your daily paper are not exactly the propaganda of the ruling party, and if the police harass you unjustly, there is a chance that you can seek legal redress through the justice system. Living in China has made me, an unlikely patriot, feel lucky to be an American — even, dare I say, proud.

The author encountered these young girls during a visit to an impoverished Tibetan settlement in Western Sichuan Province.

Through double-doors

The Chinese have a custom of going from door to door, leisurely visiting neighbors, called chuan men. It seems that my lifestyle now consists of jumping among different doors.

I live half my life now among migrant workers, people who have also chosen their environment. But did they choose it, really? “We were forced here,” one woman told me when I asked if their migration had been empowering to her as a female head of household. It’s not freedom to them — it’s economic captivity.

Entering their lives makes me realize that some doors will always remain closed to me. I know they are joking when they tell me to bring them back to America with them (help my son find a job there, all I need is a visa) again and again, but each time they repeat the request, the seams of their smiles bear threads of desperation. They don’t expect me to help them, but they still ask, out of an instinct to pursue any chance of improving their situation.

And why shouldn’t I help them, if I have more at this moment than they will ever possess? Am I selfish? Do my “American values” dictate that they should earn their way out of poverty on their own? Or am I just afraid that if I help one person, there will be nothing stopping me from helping the dozen or so other people I’ve befriended over the past several months who all need money? I think the main reason is my fear that if I make myself an economic resource for these people, they’ll see me more as an opportunity to get ahead than as another human being, and I will begin to see them as faceless, desperate opportunists and nothing more. That’s not the kind of relationship I was seeking when I came to Shanghai. The hectic, overcrowded anonymity of this sprawling city spurs me to try to preserve the best parts of my humanity, both native and foreign, as much as possible.

But underneath the moral conundrums of living as a foreigner in a –developing-world metropolis, what pains me most is that there is nothing keeping me from abandoning my troubling sense of ethics altogether. A foreigner has so much more license to screw up in China. American dollars go a long way here, and the status of being American can buy you a lifestyle of pleasant apathy unimaginable in the West.

I worry about falling into this laziness of Western privilege. In the past century, my native country has displaced China (the once-great empire named the “center of the earth”) as the axis of modern civilization. But when I try to discipline myself into being as un-foreign and humble as possible, in some ways it only reaffirms my foreignness. Who else would have the time and resources to experiment with a denial of privilege besides those who are most privileged? I have an ample research grant that covers all my living expenses while I am here. I try to fulfill the fellowship’s well-intentioned mission of scholarly and cultural exchange.

But it’s hard to approach the task with humility without being tugged by the inherent self-importance of being a cultural ambassador, especially when I know I represent America to the people with whom I interact. As I negotiate this new territory, I’m discovering that the border between native and foreign is surprisingly porous, the line between experience and exploitation so fine, it is almost irrelevant.

This article was written during a 10-month research fellowship in Shanghai. The author has since returned to the United States, though she has not fully recovered from China — and hopes she never will.

STORY INDEX

TOPICS > CULTURAL IDENTITY AND LIVING ABROAD >

World Hum
Enlightened travel writing.
URL: http://www.worldhum.com/

PLACES > CHINA >

China’s Communist Revolution, a Glossary
The BBC’s multimedia project on the history of Communist China.
URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/special_report/1999/09/99/china_50/default.htm

China Internet Information Center
Official news from China.
URL: http://www.china.org.cn/english/

Asia Times Online
Unofficial news from China.
URL: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China.html

 

Adoption and racism: a response

Over the past several days I have received a vast amount of mail in response to my October 29th PULSE Posting, “Pssst … Wanna buy a baby?”  Unfortunately, much of this mail was vitriolic in tone, and made offensive comments regarding my supposed race and/or the race of my child.  I have responded to most individuals who wrote me, as long as their email was not aggressive, but would like to address several points that were common among all emails.

Clearly, Davenport’s Christian Science Monitor article, and my summary thereof, does not reflect the entirety of the wide-ranging debate surrounding adoption.  Rather, it highlighted a concerning new trend, albeit without hard or fast statistics as adoption it seems, is a field without extensive data collection. The international adoption of African American babies is concerning, particularly when held in contrast to the rising numbers of international adoptions by middle class Americans.  As citizens invested in an ongoing dialogue about identity and race, we cannot help but question the implications of these trends.

Several readers pointed out significant barriers to interracial adoption beyond those illustrated in the article. One such obstacle is the decaying American foster care system, in which children linger indefinitely in a netherworld between ever changing caregivers.  Unlike foreign countries, the United States does not support a large orphanage system and in most cases, presses for reunification of the family rather than adoption by a permanent, non-kin caregiver.  The foster care systems’s problems are manifold, and in no way make adoption within the United States an easy process.  In addition, there is a history of social work agency resistance to interracial placement, as unnecessarily traumatic or, worse, inappropriate.

I do not believe that  personal experience as either an adopted child or an adoptive parent is necessary to hold an opinion about adoption, no more than experience as a member of a minority ethnic group is necessary to form an opinion about racism. Those individuals touched personally by adoption may no doubt have different opinions based on their unique experiences.  Nonetheless, as we pursue dialogue, no topic can be held as sacred, and it is our most personal beliefs and actions that often necessitate the closest scrutiny.

Laura Louison

 

Some political nomad

In my high school, there was apathy and a great dearth of knowledge about politics, but after coming to college, it was like people took a turnabout. All of the sudden, everyone knows everything about their parties, the issues, economics, etc. Maybe because the upcoming 2004 election is a big deal. Perhaps it’s a logical step to becoming an independent adult. No matter the reason, politics is a major issue everywhere on campus; the unversity newspapers, college preachers, and dining room talk at dinner.

Everyone knows that college is the time for experimentation, whether it be sex, drugs, and/or alcohol (note: I’m too much of a coward to try any of the above). Before coming to the University of Kentucky, I didn’t know that politics too was something students liked to fool around with. Fellow columnist Michael Benton was my English 101 and 102 professor and he is responsible for molding me to the political activist I am. Because of that, I started taking politics and how they affected me very seriously. Everything from media-biasedness to human rights was a common discourse with my friends because I was searching for truth and enlightenment. What was the way for me? Within two months of registering on my 18th birthday, I went from Democrat to Independent. The Democrats weren’t doing it for me. It was a party of no ideas and passive leaders.

I’ve always been a left-leaning citizen from my democratic backround at home and the imporatance of equal rights for gays since my late teens. However I got more liberal with each semester and Air America Radio broadcast making me lose hope in our American government. Less than three months from being an Independent, I became a full-fledged Socialist. I did this for several reasons:

1. The two-party system seemed very tainted.
2. I believed the “corporations are the spawn of Satan” hyperbole.
3. Sharing everything seemed swell.
4. Saying you are part of a communist/socialist party sounds “deck” in the hipster world.

Despite getting the odd stares from people when mentioning this at dinner parties, something still didn’t feel right. Sure, the whole concept of it is very naive, but it seemed perfect for a utopian society and that was the problem. There is no such thing and there never will be.

I used to share my socialist rhetoric with my fellow pro-wrestling fans in political threads on our forums. While many folks would believe wrestling fans are fastidious far-right conservatives without a high school diploma, well, that wasn’t the case here. Many are very intelligent (and write columns on their passion too!) and brought me to a more common sense side of the political world. An overwheling number of them that countered my rhetoric introduced me to their party, the Libertarian party. (They also made fun of socialists because SOCIALISM WORKS! [wonderful sarcasm]).

I was intrigued by this dark horse of a party. NAMyth (North American Myth) says this: “Everyone owns their own lives, no one owns someone else, that’s the foundation of Liberty.” Libertarians believe that the government should be severly reduced in size and power (which the Republican party has failed to do). The Government is the servent to the individual, and things like socialized health care (looking at you, Mr. Kerry) and using Congress to make unncessary amendments that infringe on the rights of others (I’m talking to you, Bush, Jr.) is ridiculous and unethical. They have some incredible stances on certain issues that I agree with:

— The War on Drugs is a joke and an unspeakable failure. The Party (www.lp.org) says: Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government’s only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
— Social Security isn’t working; we should as individuals work on out own retirement plans. It needs to be privatized.
— Welfare. More of a failure. Get rid of it.
— Immigration: Everyone should come in if you believe your country sucks. Just don’t expect any handouts.

Let’s just say I registered as a Libertarian a few weeks ago.
I might be the political nomad I’ve been in the past year, I don’t know. However, this all seems like common sense to me. Focusing on the individual (instead of the government) and their rights and responsibilites as an American citizen sounds like the kind of government we are supposed to have. I urge you all to at least look up this party (the largest 3rd candidate party in the U.S.) and get an opinion for yourself. You might like what you read, or comment me for how silly I am. Either way you might get a different perspective on how a government should operate.

Airplane Radio

 

MAILBAG: Adoption … healthy white infant/healthy infant

Sadly, nothing has changed in the mindset of Potential Adoptive Parents … Healthy White Infant, Domestically to now Healthy Infant, Internationally … To quote Cindy, “We wanted a healthy infant who would be in our family forever.” Ah, yes, the Forever Family — seems that is the newest rhetoric being offered. There is already a Forever Family, the original family of the infant, the baby’s parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, all the generations before whose genes are Forever woven into the fabric of this tiny infant, this human baby. Newborns are not clean slates, erased of all their ancestral origins, just because someone has enough money to buy a baby. These tiny infants that PAPs are procuring come with much history and a family they are already connected to. I have read adoptors’ writings about why they adopt internationally, most glaringly written; they won’t have to contend with the birthmother at such a nice safe distance. Domestically, they cannot pretend as well with the Concept of the Forever Family. That Bothersome Birthmom just might show up, shattering the Fantasy of the Forever Family. Whether domestic or international adoption, when this child comes of age, he/she can determine for themselves about searching for their Family of Origin, fully shattering the Forever Family Fantasy that adoptors want to keep in place. One cannot pretend to give birth to a baby, “as if born to;” the natural fact is these babies are born of their mothers and are related to the families of. For those who adopt, adopt for the right reasons, children needing families, not needy people needing children to fulfill their own longings, their fantasies. That is a grave injustice to the babies/children you are professing to love unconditionally. I would question the “unconditionality” of anyone adopting, who in the same breath is talking about what the mother of the baby will do in the future. You do know your adoptive child will one day ask about his/her family of origin. How will you speak of them — in the context of your fears or through the unconditional love that any parent is obligated to give their child?

—Chris

personal stories. global issues.