The Bush and Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation

How Deep is President Bush’s Racism Against Afro-Americans and Arabs?

In an earlier paper, “F…Saddam! We’re Taking Him Out! there was a conviction expressed that at least sub conscious racism influenced the U.S. President to make a crude, rude, shocking proclamation in a private office where he was not invited.

His crude proclamation was indeed a more concise proclamation than that made by former President Abraham Lincoln known as the Emancipation Proclamation. Even though the crude and brief Bush Proclamation was much shorter than the Lincoln Proclamation, there are numerous contrasting parallels between the two presidential proclamations, which are instructive for us to examine

Parallels Between Two Emancipation Proclamations

    Parallel One: Both Proclamations defined the course the U.S. intended to pursue from the day of the Proclamation forward.

Parallel Two: Lincoln’s great proclamation was thoughtfully delivered in dignity in a context of compassion.

Bush’s ill-conceived proclamation was delivered in a context of rudeness and filth when he interrupted a private office with a filthy swear word delivered with an attitude of contempt.

Parallel Three: Lincoln’s proclamation was meant to deliver Afro-American people into a context of freedom.

Bush’s act of serious disrespect for an Afro-American women while delivering his proclamation demonstrated that Lincoln’s Proclamation approximately one hundred thirty five years ago contained one inherent weakness. It did not liberate the small minds of millions who refuse to at least sub consciously treat Afro-Americans as equals. (Bush certainly would not have treated an equal status white woman in the disrespectful way he treated Condoleeza Rice. Yet, there is the possibility that Bush treats all women with similar disrespect.)

Parallel Four: Lincoln’s proclamation was delivered in the midst of a great war that had as one of its main purposes, the freeing of all Afro American people who had been enslaved for economic reasons in a foreign land. This wonderful Proclamation was delivered by a true statesman.

Bush’s proclamation, “F_____Saddam! We’re taking him out! was made many months before there were any concrete or legal reasons that the U.S. could go to war. Yet the statement was characterized by an exceptionally belligerent attitude by a person who did not exhibit the qualities of even a want-to-be statesman. Also, this President has not yet convinced the Iraqi people and millions of others that the Iraq war was not for the economic benefit of the liberators. So they remain convinced that the war was not for the benefit of the liberated.

Parallel Five: Lincoln’s Civil War was both to preserve the union and to free the slaves.

Under bush, the first three options of why there was going to be a war had nothing to do with freeing Iraqi’s. However, his fourth option was an Iraqi liberation.

(A. The first option why the war was to be fought was to destroy weapons of mass destruction. Since no such weapons were uncovered, plan B became the preferred option.

B. The Plan B option for fighting the war was to prevent an imminent attack on the U.S. from Iraqi equipped and inspired terrorists.

As this option became increasingly remote plan C became the reason for the pre-emptive war against Iraq.

Option C – It was hoped that there would be demonstrable links between the terrorist acts of Al Qaeda on 9/11 and Iraqi fighters under Saddam Hussein. When these ties proved to be too insignificant to be a credible excuse for a desired war, the Bush gang’s spin artists began to serve option D to the global community.

Plan D. This Plan was to liberate Iraq and to emancipate Iraqis. This was a credible but still illegal reason for going to war against an oil rich nation. Option D did prove to be more digestible and to heave more validity than any of the three previous options. Nevertheless, a combination of a war that is one half pre-emptive and one half humanitarian/liberation, flies in the face of international legality and most certainly not legally defensible. Moreover, to begin this type of war in the frantic atmosphere of a rush to crush while conspicuously avoiding respectful diplomacy so that the international community would support such a needed but illegal war, sets an exceptionally dangerous precedent. In fact, such an illegal action, though it has a strong humanitarian/ intervention dimension, may well precipitate more serious future problems than it solves. This certainly should not have been the approach of even a want-to-be statesman.

So the Proclamation by Bush several months before UN Resolution 1041, that said, “F____Saddam! We’re taking him out!” became President Bush’s Emancipation Proclamation for the people of Iraq, even though liberation (Emancipation) was Bush’s fourth justification for the war. But it remains to be seen whether it was truly an “Emancipation Proclamation” or an “Occupation Proclamation.”

Parallel Six: Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation carried within it idealism that was very difficult to fulfill but the potential gains were well worth the risks taken.

Bush’s Emancipation in its final form of offering the people of Iraq both liberation and democracy contains mot idealism but naivete. Regretfully for both Iraqis and Americans this naivete may bring potentially disastrous results which will prove that his lofty goals did not justify the risks taken.

The Depth of Racism

    It is difficult to decide which of the following two realities about the character of President George W. Bush shocks both Americans and the world community the most:

Shocking Reality One: That he would enter the private office of his National security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice while she was having a private meeting with three U.S. senators and use such vile language making it even worse, he was using this unacceptable language while he was arrogantly boasting about ending the regime of the leader of a sovereign nation even though the majority of the nations of the world held this leader in great disrespect.

Shocking Reality Two: That conscious or subconscious racism appears to have been a major factor in the reason that the President of the United States would feel so free to openly display the degerate and disrespectful side of his persona to a respected, educated, cultured, competent, Christina woman with an Afro American Heritage. (Yes, I will apologize for being wrong about the racism issue if it can be demonstrated that the President of the United States routinely demonstrated his contempt for all women by belligerently making obscene statements in the presence of women who have the outstanding qualities of the U.S. National Security Advisor, Miss Condoleeza Rice. If not, what other explanation is there but at least sub conscious Racism.)

Racism in Georgia

    To begin to understand how deeply racism it ingrained in the American mind, and apparently in our President’s mind, we will pay a quick visit to the southern state of Georgia. As I was watching CNN on Saturday, May third, I was just about to switch to another station when the TV newsperson caught my attention. She said something like, “You will be surprised to hear what the students themselves had to say about their “for whites only” prom. This comment caught my attention so I did not switch the channel though there were several uninteresting news items before they finally took us to a public high school in Columbus, Georgia.

Then they had a short film of the previous year’s prom where there were both black and white students attending and sometimes dancing with each other and appearing to enjoy it.

Then, in the days before the “For Whites Only Prom, three or four students form both groups had on camera interviews. The white students seemed fairly defensive and totally unsympathetic on why their fellow black students should have any complaint about their insisting on a “for whites only” prom.

They made such statements as,

“I don’t know why they’re complaining. We’re having an integrated prom later, and they will be allowed to attend that prom.

Or another person said, “I don’t know what the fuss is all about when we have a whites only prom. We have separate student councils too.”

When black students were interviewed, I cannot recall their precise statements. Nevertheless, the deep feeling of being betrayed that they expressed, made a penetrating impression. It made me feel almost ill as I identified with their justified hurt. And that hurt was magnified because the whites that were interviewed showed absolutely no understanding of why the Blacks should feel hurt. In fact, I saw the whites calloused attitudes as almost incomprehensible.

The CNN interviewers managed to get an on camera interview with the proprietor of the location being rented to the whites to hold their dance. When the proprietor was asked the question, “Don’t you think that it is wrong for these students to have a “For whites only” prom? He appeared to be very uncomfortable to go on record answering such a question. He apparently realized that more of his future customers would be white rather than black. But he finally answered:

“Yes, I think it is wrong. But I also think that they have a right to a “white only prom” if that is what they want.”

I do not remember any school officials being interviewed, but the explanation that was given for their approval of such a racist arrangement was:

“We have nothing to do with this. The students have a right to do what they want. And the school has no responsibility to tell them what they can and cannot do since they are the ones who have arranged everything.

As a high school counselor, I sometimes find what some educators define as education, is both indefensible and superficial. To think that we value high SAT scores while we simultaneously ignore trying to help young, potential George Bush’s and Trent Lott’s have compassion for those of another race and see no responsibility to help transform their racist attitudes.

When you consider the heritage of the state of Georgia from the perspective of the exceptional persons who have come from that state, it seems unimaginable that here would be a racist Columbus, Georgia high school.

A few of the outstanding personalities of Georgia who should have had a positive impact on these students, their parents and their faculty are:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – an outstanding leader who successfully fought racism.

Jackie Robinson – a marvelous baseball player who endured much suffering to pave the way for Afro-Americans to play major league baseball.

President Jimmy Carter – a man of integrity

Andrew Young – An Afro-American UN Ambassador under Carter. (Significantly, he himself was not only a victim of Racism for being Black. He was also a victim of Israeli racism against Arabs. The Israelis cleverly but evilly forced Ambassador Young to lose his important position as the U.S., United nations Ambassador. The Israelis discovered that Andrew Young wanted peace so badly between Israelis and Palestinians, that he was forced by Israelis who wanted power more than peace to lose his position. His crime was that he met with the illegal PLO in order to encourage them during their discouraging search for peace.)

Ray Charles – An internationally known and highly respected Black vocalist.

Herschel Walker – One of the best running backs to ever play in the National Football League

Clarence Thomas – The only African American who is now Supreme Court Justice.

Yet, despite these bright lights who have represented the State of Georgia with honor, there are people in Columbus, Georgia who are still living in the darkness of racism because ingrained racism is so difficult to overcome.

Recently, I had an opportunity to attend a workshop conducted by an exceptionally knowledgeable white sociologist. Armed with an array of statistics which included how films with Black themes are excluded from winning academy awards, you were overwhelmed with how so much racism could be occurring in the U.S. in this twenty-first century.

During a break I asked the gentleman privately for his personal opinion regarding racism against Arabs by the Bush Administration. My question was whether he thought that since it was Arabs who controlled the oil in Iraq rather than Iraq being inhabited by white Europeans sitting on the oil, did this make a difference in how fast the Bush Boys rushed to crush Iraq?

He was more dignified in his answer than I was in my undignified, biased question. But his answer was unequivocal. From the evidence he had evaluated, the fact they were Arabs and not white Europeans who were opposing the United States, made a great deal of difference concerning our lack of restraint in going after the Iraqi Arabs as fast as we possibly could.

What I find increasingly incomprehensible in how Israel constantly plays the race card and has intimidated so many who are terrified of criticizing Israeli actions for fear of being accused of being anti-Semitic. Yet, there is consistent racism toward Arabs by both Israel and the U.S. – Nevertheless, Israeli and American racism is virtually never mentioned by the Arabs. In contrast, I read in what I recall to have been the CS Monitor that there are over one hundred and twenty Holocaust films which are available to Americans. So it is my opinion that these films constantly cause the horrible crimes against the Jews to stimulate the paranoia of the American public regarding being anti-Semitic. Yet, American government officials and commentators on cable news constantly speak in a despairing way about draining the swamp which is the Middle East. (They are definitely referring to Israel when they make this racist comment.)

Until Arabs begin to realize that they have a right to conduct open and credible public campaigns against U.S. and Israeli racism against them, there will continue to be more “Iraqs” and more “West Banks.”