RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Origins of an Early School-to-Deportation Pipeline Print
Written by   
Saturday, 07 November 2020 13:41

Padilla-Rodríguez writes: "In May 17, 1972, Border Patrol agents in Guadalupe, California detained an undocumented Mexican worker and expeditiously scheduled him for 'departure' from the United States."

Immigrant children in a detention center. (photo: Ross D. Franklin)
Immigrant children in a detention center. (photo: Ross D. Franklin)


The Origins of an Early School-to-Deportation Pipeline

By Ivon Padilla-Rodríguez, NACLA

07 November 20


Appeals to childhood innocence helped enshrine undocumented kids’ access to education. But this fraught politics of childhood has also inadvertently reinforced criminalization.

n May 17, 1972, Border Patrol agents in Guadalupe, California detained an undocumented Mexican worker and expeditiously scheduled him for “departure” from the United States. His deportation order for May 19 came just one day before a public meeting on the issue of discrimination in the Guadalupe Union School District. It was a case of state-sponsored retaliation. He had been fired from his job of more than two years at a local dairy farm and apprehended by federal immigration authorities for protesting insidious practices in the administration of a program for migrant students and demanding that his two children be provided a safe, non-discriminatory schooling environment.

The implementation in 1965 of the Migrant Education Program (MEP), a federal education policy aimed at ensuring access to quality schooling for the children of migrant workers, had created a little-known data collection technology that stored intelligence that could be used to quickly locate migrant students’ families. Despite its originally good intentions, the MEP ended up producing novel forms of precarity for the growing numbers of undocumented children and parents that ended up in U.S. public schools in the 1970s.

This late-20th century data collection helped to transform schools into early school-to-deportation pipelines. Debates around migrant children revealed that the politics of childhood can be wielded for vastly different ends—ranging from humanitarian to punitive—in a single moment in time, a phenomenon that continues to have reverberations today. Divergent conceptions about migrant minors exposed the extreme malleability of childhood innocence and, ultimately, its racial exclusivity.

Even though the majority of Latin American immigrants to the United States during the 1970s were adult males, children increasingly migrated or were brought north in search of family unity, educational opportunities, work, and safety after 1965. The termination of the guestworker Bracero Program and the passage of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act severely limited the availability of lawful avenues for migration, causing millions of Mexican adults and children to enter the United States without authorization. In fact, it was during the ‘70s and ‘80s that immigration authorities started to immediately incarcerate unaccompanied minors in immigrant detention centers and jails.

At the time, the educational enrollments of undocumented children, which was estimated to be at least 40,000 in California and anywhere between 20,000 to 120,000 in Texas, inspired deeply contradictory responses from U.S. citizens, local child welfare advocates, and liberal policymakers.

In 1966, for example, a private U.S. citizen wrote to the California Department of Education to denounce the MEP because he alleged it represented a “multi-million dollar fraudulent scheme” imposed on U.S. taxpayers for the benefit of “Mexican aliens.” He attached significant culpability for this “fraud” to undocumented Mexican youth, whom he claimed belonged to a criminal organization called the “M.A.F.I.A.,” which stood for “Mexican-American Fraud in America.” This kind of xenophobia was rooted in the longstanding racialization of the invading “wetback,” which extended to minors and didn’t even spare infants.

When directed at children, this anti-immigrant vitriol denied minors the privilege of childhood innocence and instead portrayed them as menacing and inherently criminal. They were treated not as defenseless kids but as young people more akin to adults. Depicted in this way, migrant youth become seen as capable of committing fraud to gain entry to the nation and as serious threats to its society and social safety net.

Unlike the immigration opponents behind such fraud claims, the grassroots advocates and teachers who conceived of the MEP viewed migrant youth with and without U.S. citizenship in entirely different terms. Migrant education advocates sentimentalized childhood as inherently innocent. They believed adults had a moral responsibility to shelter defenseless kids from the adult worlds of work and punishment by ensuring migrant children could safely remain in schools—an early version of sorts of the #SchoolsNotPrisons movement.

Good Intentions Take a Nefarious Turn

The well-intentioned teachers and child welfare advocates who rejected the criminalization of migrant youth wrapped their advocacy in a race-neutral politics of childhood and successfully lobbied Congress to include the MEP in Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. They cited migrants’ status as “the most educationally deprived group of children in our nation” and the need to restore their sense of an “active childhood.”

What grassroots education advocates did not anticipate, however, was that the MEP’s introduction of a unique computerized data collection technology in primary and secondary education would be refashioned for nefarious purposes. This federal data bank, known as the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS), stored personal data about migrant youth and their parents, including birthplaces, home addresses, migration patterns, and medical and academic histories, on a central computer with no clear or enforceable procedures to protect migrants’ privacy.

By gathering intelligence and reproducing anti-immigrant attitudes inside school walls, the MSRTS enabled local police and federal immigration agents to detect migrant youth and their parents, transforming schools into arms of the immigration regime and sites of carceral surveillance. The California Education Code enabled school administrators to expel students from schools if they determined the child lacked legal immigration status. The Education Code also required school officials to report undocumented students to local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. In 1975, Texas created a law permitting school districts to deny undocumented children educational access, and in 1980, the state legislature seriously considered a mandatory reporting law like California’s, which would have equipped school personnel with the power to report students to immigration authorities. The expulsion and information-sharing provisions of state education laws were twin features of late-20th century school-to-deportation pipelines. They facilitated a double removal of undocumented children: first from schools and then from the nation.

MSRTS data collection was weaponized to surveil migrant children and their undocumented parents, whom education authorities saw in racial stereotypes that marked them as violent. A 1973 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report revealed that some California schools, for example, refused migrant children forks at lunch and explained this policy by asking, “How can you expect children to use forks if they use tortillas at home? And they’d just use them to stab one another.” These fears helped justify school administrators’ advice for counselors to “share [their] complaints with police and welfare agencies.” In fact, internal policy memos of the California Department of Education’s legal office allowed for the transfer of MSRTS files, specifically, to law enforcement.

Deploying the Politics of Childhood Innocence

When noncitizen parents and their children challenged the injurious practices of the MEP, they found themselves threatened with detention and deportation, like the father in Guadalupe. Depositions for educational litigation also revealed administrators’ commitment to calling the Border Patrol when school files revealed a child’s undocumented legal status.

In the ‘70s and ‘80s, undocumented children in California and Texas challenged their unconstitutional school expulsions and schools’ transformation into deportation pipelines in state and federal courts. This legal advocacy culminated in the 1975 Maria v. Riles case, which invalidated California’s mandatory reporting laws, and the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, which struck down the Texas law that expelled undocumented youth from schools.

The lawyers in Plyler developed arguments rooted in the politics of childhood to build a sympathetic defense against undocumented pupils’ educational deprivation and public schools’ transformation into sites of immigration enforcement. According to attorney correspondence, the trial strategy relied on the portrayal of “a warm picture of innocent human beings.” The plaintiffs’ young ages and the prevailing conception of childhood as fundamentally innocent, their lawyers hoped, would convince the Supreme Court that the undocumented children were “without fault” for their family’s irregular immigration status and their supposed abuse of U.S. social institutions.

This line of reasoning worked. Justice William J. Brennan’s Equal Protection analysis relied on the notion that undocumented youth were “innocent children” who could not “affect their parents’ conduct nor their own status.” Even though this presumption of childhood innocence has had the effect of preserving noncitizen children’s right to an education into the present day, it also helped to cement the idea that undocumented parents’ conduct was criminal. The “warm” portrayal of “innocent” school children succeeded in institutionalizing children’s role as rights-bearers at the expense of their adult parents.

The weaponization of childhood innocence to indict migrant parents’ brave and difficult decision-making has had far-reaching consequences. The 2018 “zero-tolerance policy” that separated children from their families by prosecuting parents for illegal entry was rooted in the notion that parents’ conduct was undeniably criminal.

To this day, migrant children’s access to the politics of childhood innocence is far from guaranteed. Plyler’s endorsement of undocumented young people’s innocence did not eradicate school-to-deportation pipelines, nor did it shield asylum-seeking children from immediate criminalization in immigrant detention, which reached unprecedented levels of apprehensions and violence in recent years.

The history of the school-to-deportation pipeline lays bare the double-edged sword that is the politics of childhood innocence. But understanding this history does more than expose xenophobes’ attitudes about border-crossing minors. It also suggests that contemporary immigration policies that rely on injuries to child or family welfare are not aberrations, but part of a much longer history of child migration. Rhetoric about childhood innocence requires close scrutiny, because its consequences can be just as insidious as that of the explicit criminalization of migrant childhood, and yet far more likely to fly under the radar.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: There Was Actually a Lot of Good News for the Left on Election Day Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50823"><span class="small">Liza Featherstone, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 07 November 2020 12:09

Featherstone writes: "Don't let the gloom of Tuesday's national elections obscure the remarkable results in lower-level races across the country. Dozens of socialists were elected to legislatures, while minimum-wage hikes, rent controls, and taxes on the rich to fund schools all won voter backing, even in very red places."

In New York, Democratic Socialists of America-endorsed Julia Salazar was reelected to State Senate. (photo: Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket/Getty Images)
In New York, Democratic Socialists of America-endorsed Julia Salazar was reelected to State Senate. (photo: Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket/Getty Images)


There Was Actually a Lot of Good News for the Left on Election Day

By Liza Featherstone, Jacobin

07 November 20

 

on’t let the gloom of Tuesday’s national elections obscure the remarkable results in lower-level races across the country. Dozens of socialists were elected to legislatures, while minimum-wage hikes, rent controls, and taxes on the rich to fund schools all won voter backing, even in very red places.

Many of us have been refreshing the link to the Pennsylvania results for days, while mourning the voters Bernie Sanders could have reached, the mediocrity of Joe Biden, and the sad fact that so many of our neighbors and fellow citizens voted for Donald Trump, even after the chaos and mass death for which “2020” has become gallows shorthand. The implications of the US presidential and Senate contests will no doubt be parsed for months.

Drawing less attention are Tuesday’s many progressive and socialist victories, a number of which would have been astonishing just a short time ago. While conservative Democrats like Kentucky’s Amy McGrath and Staten Island’s Max Rose were crushed by rabid-right opponents who humiliatingly out-Trumped them, the Left, nationwide, offered a way forward.

Although Florida voted for Trump, that state also passed a resolution to increase the minimum wage, eventually to $15 an hour.

That wasn’t the only progressive decision made by “red” voters. Many communities passed referendums to fund their public schools, even in conservative states like Indiana. I asked education journalist Jennifer Berkshire, cohost of the education podcast Have You Heard and coauthor (both with Jack Schneider) of A Wolf at the Schoolhouse Door: The Dismantling of Public Education and the Future of School (New Press, 2020), what she made of this.

“Voters routinely come together across party lines to increase school spending,” Berkshire explained. “If you look at Wisconsin, counties that went big for Trump also voted to hike their own taxes to invest in schools. You see this pattern all over the country.” Arizona even passed a statewide tax hike to bring in nearly $1 billion in new dollars to its underfunded school system, a measure that, Berkshire notes, enjoyed bipartisan support.

Portland, Maine, joined Florida in voting for a minimum-wage hike, as well as voting for rent control, against facial surveillance, and for a local Green New Deal. Democratic Socialist of America (DSA), among other groups, campaigned for all four Portland measures.

Tenants were also winners in Boulder, Colorado, where voters passed No Eviction Without Representation, a measure to tax landlords and use the money to provide legal representation for tenants facing eviction, another initiative backed by DSA.

All in all, Colorado had a feminist night, rejecting forced reproductive labor for women — that is to say, defeating an attempt by the anti-choice forces to restrict abortion — and for family and medical leave.

Montgomery County, Maryland, with DSA’s help, defeated a property tax override.

Oregon voted to tax the rich to fund universal pre-K. The state also decriminalized a startling number of drugs, including small quantities of heroin, cocaine, and meth, a huge step for the nationwide movement against mass incarceration.

Speaking of drugs, South Dakota, Montana, Arizona, and New Jersey legalized weed for adults for any reason, while Mississippi approved medical marijuana. Washington, DC, legalized psychedelics. (All of which we will need, especially if Mitch McConnell retains control of the Senate, but I digress.)

Striking further blows to our cruel and racist regimes of punishment, cities elected (and in some cases reelected) progressive district attorneys who campaigned on platforms of reform — ending cash bail, for example — including Chicago’s Kim Foxx, St. Louis’s Kim Gardner, Mark Gonzalez in Corpus Christi, Monique Worrell in Orlando, Eli Savit in Ann Arbor, Austin’s José Garza, and George Gascòn in Los Angeles. (It looks as if Julie Gunnigle, in Phoenix, may also win when all the votes are counted, but that race is still very close.)

Speaking of rejection of the Confederacy — Mississippi voted overwhelmingly (73 percent) to adopt a new state flag without the Confederate symbol, substituting a more appealingly neutral magnolia.

In Congress, the original Justice Democrats–powered “Squad” — Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib — were all reelected, along with Medicare for All champion Pramila Jayapal and Green New Deal cosponsor Ed Markey. Katie Porter, a liberal Democrat representing a historically conservative California district, was reelected by a comfortable margin. Progressive educator Jamaal Bowman of New York defeated an entrenched incumbent, and activist Cori Bush became the first black woman, nurse, and single mother to represent Missouri in Congress.

In fact, it was a powerful night for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which had endorsed twenty-nine candidates and eleven ballot initiatives. Of those, at least twenty candidates and eight ballot initiatives won.

In addition to the victories for AOC, Tlaib, Bowman, and Bush, DSA won big in State Senate races. In New York, the organization won five contests for state-level government, reelecting Julia Salazar to State Senate and electing Jabari Brisport to join her, while three more DSA-endorsed candidates (Marcela Mitaynes, Phara Souffrant Forrest, and Zohran Mamdani) head to the state assembly. Two other DSA members, Emily Gallagher and Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, both formidable activists whose races were not endorsed by the organization, also won seats in the assembly. Philadelphia sent three DSA-endorsed candidates to state government: Nikil Saval to State Senate, and Rick Krajewski and Elizabeth Fiedler to the statehouse. Minnesota also gained a socialist state senator, Jen McEwen. In Western Montana, DSA helped send Danny Tenenbaum to the statehouse.

DSA also won impressive local victories, helping to send Greg Casar to the Austin City Council, Jovanka Beckles to East Bay’s public transit board, Dean Preston to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and Janeese Lewis George to the Washington, DC, City Council. In Los Angeles, Konstantine Anthony won a seat on the Burbank City Council, and Nithya Raman, candidate for Los Angeles City Council, also looks like a winner, though her race has not been called yet.

The Los Angeles Times called its local elections a “progressive political shakeup,” asking, “Is it just the beginning?” There’s no doubt that the summer’s uprisings against police brutality affected elections here, as in many other cities. Amplifying the strong decarceration mandate of the city’s district attorney race, Los Angeles County passed Measure J, which sets aside 10 percent of county-generated funds for social services, including mental health treatment and housing, in communities harmed by racism, prohibiting the local government from spending any of those funds on jails or police.

The implications of all these wins? Organizing works; Left majorities can be created; and many Americans want racial justice, serious redistribution of wealth, and a better life for the working class.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Thanking You Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51635"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog</span></a>   
Saturday, 07 November 2020 09:34

Reich writes: "The only good thing Trump has done is to awaken many of us to injustices that have plagued our country for centuries."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Thanking You

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

07 November 20

 

he only good thing Trump has done is to awaken many of us to injustices that have plagued our country for centuries.

Over the past four years, we’ve taken to the streets to raise our voices – from protecting the sovereignty of Indigenous land and water, to demanding an end to systemic racism and police brutality, to fighting back against nonstop attacks on reproductive freedom, and so much more.

This unprecedented wave of activism has made one thing clear: The American people are fired up.

And now we are taking that momentum to the ballot box. We are voting not only for ourselves and our family’s future, but for our community, for those whose votes have been suppressed, and for the survival of American democracy itself.

We’ve made millions of phone calls, sent thousands of letters, and knocked on who knows how many doors. We’ve mobilized our families, friends, and neighbors to head to the polls.

We are a multi-racial, multi-class coalition that’s come together in unprecedented solidarity to send this racist, narcissistic man packing.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Poland's Historic Fight for Abortion Rights Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56927"><span class="small">Kinga Stanczuk, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 07 November 2020 09:28

Stanczuk writes: "Last week, Poland banned abortion after its government stacked the courts with right-wing ideologues. But they didn't count on women fighting back - and now they face a historic wave of protest."

People gather and light up their smartphones or lanterns to form an inscription saying WYBÓR ('choice'), along with a lightning bolt, to show solidarity with the protests against the Constitutional Court ruling on tightening the abortion law at Blonia Park on November 03, 2020, in Krakow, Poland. (photo: Omar Marques/Getty Images)
People gather and light up their smartphones or lanterns to form an inscription saying WYBÓR ('choice'), along with a lightning bolt, to show solidarity with the protests against the Constitutional Court ruling on tightening the abortion law at Blonia Park on November 03, 2020, in Krakow, Poland. (photo: Omar Marques/Getty Images)


Poland's Historic Fight for Abortion Rights

By Kinga Stanczuk, Jacobin

07 November 20


Last week, Poland banned abortion after its government stacked the courts with right-wing ideologues. But they didn’t count on women fighting back — and now they face a historic wave of protest.

oland is on fire. During a historic recession, amid the worst pandemic since World War I, the Constitutional Court decided that abortion is unconstitutional in cases of lethal fetal abnormalities. This decision unleashed a wave of furious women’s protests, without precedent in democratic Poland.

The Polish abortion regulation bill from 1993 stated that abortion was legal in three cases: when pregnancy is a result of rape, when the life of the mother is at risk, or in the case of lethal fetal abnormalities. In the last decade, an estimated 95–97 percent of legal abortions in Poland were carried out due to the latter condition, meaning that the recent verdict is an effective ban on abortion, with only the remaining 3 percent of cases remaining legal.

The Law and Justice party (PiS) is responsible for the current makeup of the Constitutional Court; part of the legal establishment believes that the Court has been politicized to the point that its decisions are not legally binding. The debate between the lawyers is one thing, but something much bigger is happening: women are organizing politically in the biggest mobilization in the country’s history.

The government had already tried to pass an anti-abortion bill written by a far-right legal think tank, Ordo Iuris, once before but had to abandon their plans due to an unrelenting wave of “Black Protests” of an estimated 160,000 protesters back in 2016. So far, women’s protests have been the only fully effective social mobilization against the Law and Justice government — the only ones to force the government to take a step back.

If the mobilization in 2016 was big, the one in 2020 is a force of nature. Picketing, chanting, spontaneous walks in over eighty towns and cities, several marches of more than fifty thousand people. The current protests have taken place after the decision was already made, when we know for a fact that roughly a thousand women each year will be forced to carry to term fetuses with severe abnormalities.

In the streets, one can hear the resounding anger, helplessness, and naked fury. The biggest pro-choice organization, the Polish Women’s Strike (OSK), named their campaign “This Is War”: the protests developed immediately after the announcement of the ruling on Thursday night. As thousands of people gathered by the Warsaw residence of Jaros?aw Kaczy?ski, the leader of Law and Justice, tens if not hundreds of police vans arrived on the scene. In the early morning hours, the protesters were hit with tear gas by the police.

The next day, the OSK organized a series of mass demonstrations in all major Polish cities. The protests are massive, furious, and unusually vulgar. “Get the Fuck Out!” is the official slogan of the protest — only a few months ago, this kind of language would have been unthinkable. The previous wave of political protests maintained a certain liberal decorum: witty slogans, caricature, satire, imagery, a blasphemous rhyme here and there. Now the slogans are both violent and clearly anti-government. As we roamed the streets of Warsaw in an eleven-kilometer march, people gathered on balconies to wave and swear together, and drivers sounded their horns to reinforce the slogans; a display of solidarity I have never seen before.

Each day, new groups are joining the protests. Last Sunday, in the little town of Nowy Dwór Gda?ski (population 10,000), the women’s protest was reinforced by a long tractor column of protesting farmers who had just finished picketing against changes in the animal welfare bill. In several towns, women’s protests were joined by football fans; in Praga, an old, working-class part of Warsaw, middle-aged men started posting photos on local Facebook groups showing their support. Some of them took selfies making a characteristic L sign with their fingers — a clear indicator that they are Legia football team supporters.

The trade union of taxi drivers organized their own protest unit, and many local council institutions added the symbol of the strike — a red thunderbolt. The government pushes the propaganda to the limits: the protest has already been compared to the SS, the Gestapo, Italian fascism, and Bolshevism. The panic is apparent.

Interestingly, the gender balance of the protests has significantly shifted since 2016, when the last massive wave of protests took place. Back then, there were mostly women. Now, people come with their families, friends, and colleagues. Last Friday, I saw a large corporate group organizing before joining the march, bringing along partners, parents, and children. The youth plays a leading role in the protests: instead of the old bards of the past revolutions, the music of the protests is Eric Prydz’s “Call On Me,” Rage Against the Machine, Miley Cyrus, or new-wave Polish synth-pop. Technically, due to the COVID-19 restrictions, teenagers under the age of sixteen are not legally permitted to leave the house. “We have a government to topple,” the slogans say.

On Tuesday, five days into the powerful, nationwide women’s mobilization, Kaczy?ski delivered a six-minute address to the nation. The speech was both offensive and surreal, the level of disconnection with the social reality quite shocking. “There are no alternative systems of morality to that offered by the Catholic Church,” he said. “Rejecting the Church means nihilism.” He called on his supporters to “defend the churches at any cost. This protest will bring an end to the history of this nation.”

I was not even a year old when Poland began its transition to democracy, so Tuesday was the first time in my lifetime that an active member of the government, the de facto leader of the nation, declared war on his own people. It is telling that the word “women” does not appear once in Kaczy?ski’s speech; the protesters are depicted as genderless “nihilists” who “commit a very serious crime” by not following the COVID-19 restrictions.

The video has an eerie quality to it: it seems like it was filmed in the mid-1990s; Kaczy?ski sits with his big, puffed-up, pale palms uncomfortably close to the viewers. He even suggested the protesters were trained abroad — the oldest trick in the book. The whole movement asked questions yesterday: Has he actually lost it? Will the army be used to pacify the protests? One of the opposition party leaders commented in response to Kaczy?ski’s address: “Even if, by some miracle, people on both sides keep their cool, provocations will happen. You will have blood on your hands.” All of this is happening as COVID cases are skyrocketing — they’re currently standing at 18,000 cases per day.

To persist in such a distinctly threatening situation requires character. The leader of the Polish Women’s Strike (OSK), Marta Lempart, called for a strike on Wednesday, October 28, and a march through Warsaw on October 30. The leadership of OSK published a list of demands, including the removal of the wrongfully nominated chair of the Constitutional Court, cancellation of the ruling, full abortion rights for women, and the resignation of the government.

Meanwhile, government officials anonymously admit the complete political failure of passing the ruling during the pandemic, but no public declaration has been made to that effect. The day after Kaczy?ski’s ominous speech, thousands of women hit the streets again — with the same, if not increased, perseverance.

Earlier this year, one of the leaders of OSK, Klementyna Suchanow, published a powerful book under the same ominous title, This Is War, in which she describes the way the ultraradical right manages to lobby democratic forces to implement laws straight out of Margaret Atwood’s dystopia.

As she argues, if women give in to ideologues now, if they allow them to lobby our governments, the far right will end up passing legislation to imprison women for miscarriages or remove any medical grounds for abortion, as the previous Ordo Iuris bill did. It seems that Poland has reached a critical point. Women’s oppression will have to end — now.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Call for Reconciliation: It's Time Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47905"><span class="small">Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website</span></a>   
Friday, 06 November 2020 13:48

Keillor writes: "The past few years have seen a tremendous increase in grudgery in our country - need I point this out?"

Garrison Keillor. (photo: MPR)
Garrison Keillor. (photo: MPR)


A Call for Reconciliation: It's Time

By Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website

06 November 20

 

ome New York friends tried to shame me for rooting for the Dodgers last week on the grounds that I should uphold their grudge against the team for leaving Brooklyn in 1957 and moving to LA, which is ridiculous. I have my own grudges to maintain without taking on other people’s. They also shamed me on grounds that the Dodgers’ payroll is four times the Tampa Bay Rays’, a big rich team versus a young scrappy team, but I am not impressed. I used to have a grudge against prosperous writers until August 1969, when a magazine paid me $500 for a story at a time when my monthly rent was $80. I’ve been in favor of prosperity ever since.

Walter O’Malley moved his team to Los Angeles because it was 1957 and not the Forties, cross-country air travel was an accepted convenience, and in Brooklyn he had to wrangle with contentious boards and councils and grassroots resentment of owners and moguls, and in LA he found a city that desperately wanted him. It was like leaving a jealous old girlfriend and going with an eager new one. Anyway, I’m not from Brooklyn. I’m from Minnesota and we have Wisconsin to begrudge and if we weary of scorning cheeseheads, there’s always South Dakota, the state where men on giant Harleys congregate to give each other the coronavirus.

I was brought up by evangelicals to hold a grudge against the Established Church, i.e., Anglicans: we met in storefronts; they gathered in cathedrals. I was brought up by Ford people to resent people driving Cadillacs and Buicks. My parents came out of the Depression and we had sensitive antennae to detect wealth and privilege: we shopped at Sears; they patronized clothiers. We drove to visit distant relatives and slept on our relatives’ floors; the privileged traveled to see exotic sights and stayed in hotels. (Nonetheless, we went to their houses on Halloween because they gave out full-size Hershey bars, not the miniatures.)

We’re a land of immigrants — even you Ojibwe and Iroquois moved around a good deal to escape from tribal quarrels and feuds — millions came from Europe who were weary of being despised by strangers and wanted to make a fresh start. My grandpa came from Glasgow to escape the disapproving eye of his stepmother. The Rosenbergs came over from czarist Russia and made the big decision at Ellis Island to become the Ross family. Goodbye history, be your own person.

I maintained my anti-Anglican grudge until I fell in love with one and married her in St. Michael’s Church, statuary looking down at me, stained glass, a priest in his robes, and now for thirty years I’ve tried to fit in and genuflect left, right, chin, belly button, and kneel for confession. My other grudges — against people with tattoos and unnatural hair colors, men with tasseled shoes, people who go around with wires in their ears — have faded over the years, especially as I spend more time in New York, a city where diversity comes with the territory. I board the subway in Midtown and I do not see one maroon U of M Golden Gophers T-shirt, not one. I doubt that anyone in this car would enjoy discussing sanctification by grace with me.

The past few years have seen a tremendous increase in grudgery in our country — need I point this out? We the righteous and civic-minded and tolerant cross the street to avoid having to talk to you yahoos and yo-yos. And this will do us no good in the years ahead. So we need to relax our loathing of each other. Especially our enormous grudge against Republicans. Yes, bug-eyed chinless Mitch has stiffed the country at every turn, trying to maintain minority rule, and yes, Lucky Lindsey gave us a 6-3 Supreme Federalist Court that is prepared to reaffirm the Dred Scott decision, but it’s time to forgive and put aside our enmity for large men in golf pants who comb their hair into ducktails using pomade that keeps the wings nicely feathered even in a stiff headwind. As a sign of reconciliation, I am going to bleach my hair and start following the Bible. It is a tremendous tremendously good book, a fantastic book. It’s the greatest ever. The greatest ever. And guess what. It’s in English so any true American can read it and that is a beautiful beautiful thing.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 Next > End >>

Page 298 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN