Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Black Americans and Intelligence

For a great deal of my adult life the topic of intelligence and race has intrigued me. I remember well many discussions (typically they were heated arguments) with colleagues over the matter, with quite a few of those colleagues citing the results of standardized tests and SAT/ACT scores by race to "prove" their opinion that blacks just didn't have it intellectually, a point I refused to accept since I thought those differences were cultural and were related to inadvertent bias in test construction.

For the last several days I have been reading about the professional research of Claude M. Steele, a prominent American social psychologist whose life's work has been into that very topic. His book, Whistling Vivaldi, was mentioned by Ta-Nehisi Coates in Between the World and Me, which prompted my interest. Although Steele is currently the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost of the University of California -- Berkeley, when he was actively engaged in full-time research his work focused almost entirely on self-image, self-affirmation, stereotype threat, and identity threat, all of which turn out to be closely related.

Since the book, Whistling Vivaldi, is basically a summary of nearly four decades of empirical research by Steele and many colleagues in the U.S. and Europe, I can’t possibly do it justice in a scant paragraph or two in this post. But, it is a breathtakingly significant work that demonstrates through those decades of research that when stereotype and identity threats are removed, racial as well as gender differences in test scores simply disappear. He also demonstrates that those threats are related to higher incidences of elevated blood pressure in black Americans, physiological conditions that do not characterize black Africans and that are almost certainly caused by the tensions characteristic of black-white relations in the U.S.

I know most people lead very busy lives but I fervently hope readers of this post find the time to examine Steele’s groundbreaking research. Although his book was not a quick read for me because it addresses unfamiliar topics in social psychology, it is an extraordinarily powerful work that is critical to a more complete understanding of the real world elements of race in America.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

America IS Exceptional: Count the Ways

1. The U.S. imprisons more people per capita than any other country. As of the 
end of 2015, the United States had the highest incarceration rate in the world,
with 716 people per 100,000 behind bars; the comparable rate was 475 in Russia
and 121 in China. The U.S. has five percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2016 black Americans represented 12 percent of the U.S. adult population but 33 percent of America's prison population.

2. The United States is currently the only country in the world where juvenile offenders
may legally be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

3. The U.S. spends more money ($560.4 billion in 2015) on its military than any other country and more than the combined defense budgets of the next nine largest countries in the world.

4. The U.S. is number one in the world as measured by our willingness to project
violence, meaning military action, on nations and organizations whose
values and policies we reject.

5. The U.S. spends more money on healthcare than any other country yet has higher rates of illness/disease per capita than any Western European country, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

6. U.S. rates of infant mortality exceed those of every Western European country, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

7. People in the U.S. have more weapons per capita than in any other country.

8. More people die annually of gun violence in the U.S. than in any other country.

9. More people in absolute numbers and per capita are murdered in the U.S. than in any other country.

10. Per capita and in absolute numbers, more black people in the U.S. die in custody or at the hands of the police than in any other country.

11. A smaller proportion of the U.S. electorate votes in national elections than in any other developed country.

12. U.S. college students borrow more money for their education than do students in any other country.

13. Income inequality in the U.S. is greater than in any other developed country.

14. America has lower social mobility than most other developed nations.

15. The CEO-to-worker pay ratio in the U.S. exceeds that of any developed country.

16. The U.S. spends less on social support for families (welfare) than any developed nation.

Conclusion: People who claim that America isn’t EXCEPTIONAL don’t know what the Hell they are talking about. America, it's a wonderful country.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Conservative vs. Progressive: The Role of Communication

Well before the November 2016 elections I thought the time was appropriate to reflect on what political labels mean in the real world. My purpose was to take a no-nonsense look at the traits and ideals that are characteristic of Americans who hold conservative and progressive world views. I was eager to understand why people in both camps who appear to be rational in other aspects of their lives hold political points of view that they seldom take time to analyze. What I found is very briefly summarized in this post.

At their core, political conservatives base their ideology on what social psychologists have recently identified as five moral standards: harm/care, fairness/cheating, authority/subversion, loyalty/betrayal, and sanctity/degradation.[1]  That ideology is individualistic by nature and positioned in staunch opposition to a strong national government. Progressive/liberal ideology is largely based on two moral standards: harm/care and justice, which is understood as fairness, reciprocity, rights, and equality leavened with compassion and tolerance and is more collective than individual and generally favors a strong national government.[2]

Conservatives are more committed to individual liberty and curing society's ills through individuals’ choices to better themselves and others and a free market unencumbered by government regulations. Progressives are more committed to individual equality under the law and seek to ameliorate society's ills through targeted government intervention. Because of those and other critical differences, conservatives view powerful centralized government with deep suspicion and even loathing. Liberals, on the other hand, see strong government as a marvelous opportunity to effect change for the greater societal good.

As a life-long progressive, I must admit both to a great curiosity about and an almost visceral distrust of political conservatism. Please note that while intellectually I understand what some psychologists posit as the moral foundations of conservatism, specifically the five moral standards mentioned above, I have relatively little sympathy for that interpretation. Rather than taking a supposedly moral foundations approach, I see the basis of conservatism more conventionally as resistance to change (expressed as commitment to tradition, authority, and social convention) and acceptance of inequality as natural and unavoidable.[3] I believe those critical foundations are driven by personal needs to reduce uncertainty and fear through threat reduction or avoidance, which, of course, I realize may be a reflection of my personality and core principles, though I can live with that awareness.

The problem is both conservatives and progressives are convinced they, and only they, are on the side of the angels. As a direct result of those deeply held convictions, both sides spout “facts” that support their positions while ignoring or denigrating other “facts” that do not. If you pay attention to the travesty that constitutes cable news commentary on Fox News, MSNBC, and occasionally CNN, you know the salient reality: the louder you shout and the more effectively drown out your opponent, the greater likelihood you will “win” the argument and be proved “right.” Which is idiocy, pure and simple, whether your name is Bill O’Reilly, Keith Olbermann, or Joe/Jane Lunch-Box.

We have stopped talking to each other and, far worse for our future, we no longer listen to those with whom we disagree. We yell our points of view with no regard for rationality or civility. From my vantage point, the critical political problem for the U.S. in 2015 and coming years seemed straightforward: if our myriad problems have any chance of being positively addressed, both sides need to engage in genuine civil discourse and acknowledge that no single political ideology has a lock on “truth” or moral rectitude.

When I embarked on this effort several years ago, I was convinced both conservatives and liberals must, as a first step, understand what their opponents believe. That conviction meant we all must work hard at stepping outside our protective shells of self-righteousness and certitude to see the full dimensions of the other’s viewpoint. Regardless of what we believe as individuals, our political opponents are like us, convinced our position is the only correct one. To admit the slightest weakness or uncertainty regarding a specific policy or program (like Social Security or immigration) is to invite attacks from opponents as well from like-minded ideologues intent on toeing the party line. I thought then that only open and honest dialogue could take us past the present impasse to a middle ground that does not require either side to abandon deeply held beliefs.

After several years of reading largely academic literature in sociology, political science, and psychology and reflecting about what it means to be conservative and progressive, I was blindsided by an insight I had not previously considered. It struck me that four significant problems contradict the seemingly sage position espoused above about engaging in genuine discourse and acknowledging that no one political ideology has a lock on the “truth.” First, in terms of practicality, almost no one would do it. Second, doing so would run counter to key conservative personality traits. Third, political ideologies are not based on rationality thus at least some of their adherents respond poorly to interactions that rely on reason or logic. The fourth issue also involves rationality and is discussed several paragraphs below.

As far as the first problem is concerned, most of us are happy to dislike, demean, and attack people with whom we don’t agree and to bond with those with whom we do. We seem disinclined to change those behaviors. Each side knows they are right and their opponents are a combination of dishonest bastards and stupid assholes. It’s that simple, especially where politics are concerned.

Here’s a real world example of people happily attacking those with whom they do not agree and in the process irrationally denying part of the moral foundations that supposedly define who they are. Many millions of conservatives claiming to be God-fearing, church-going, Christians vigorously applauded the U.S. Justice Department’s definition of torture as only actions that "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." In real life that definition means when I attach an electrode to an enemy combatant’s penis and deliver one severe electrical shock after another or shove bamboo splinters under his fingernails and set them on fire, or imprison an enemy in a freezing cell without blankets or adequate clothing for weeks those same self-professed, God-fearing Christians fervently profess not to believe that I’m committing acts that are torture, illegal/immoral, and are prohibited by international treaties to which the U.S. is signatory.

If those scenarios do not blow your mind then you already must have realized that people who have intense loyalty to members of their in-group (in this case patriotic fellow Americans) have little to no regard for the personal well-being or safety of members of a despised out-group (potential Muslim terrorists) and that intense patriotism/loyalty is a far more significant and deeply held “moral” precept than their vaunted Christianity. Anyone wonder how Jesus Christ would react to that “reasoning?”

With respect to the second reason for my change of mind, it may come as no surprise that I disagree entirely with Jonathan Haidt’s or Jesse Graham’s well-meaning conclusion that the wall separating conservatives and liberals can be taken down brick by brick by each understanding the other’s concerns. The major problem Haidt and his colleagues fail to recognize or address is that conservatives as a group have never valued open-mindedness or tolerance for diversity of opinion. So, asking them to be open-minded or tolerant with respect to progressive beliefs or to be positive about changing the world for the better flies in the face of the very personality traits and “moral precepts” that make them conservative in the first place. Thus, dialogue would be a waste of time and effort unless progressives alone would be expected to compromise their values. Which is the precise position elected conservatives have taken in Washington, DC.

The third reason I believe dialogue between conservatives and liberals would prove non-productive in terms of achieving genuine understanding is political ideologies are not based on reason. According to Haidt and many other social psychologists, ideology is based on innate moral principles that enable adherents to distinguish between right and wrong. Most conservatives are moral realists who believe in the existence of true moral statements that report objective moral facts and deny that cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. Most liberals are moral relativists who believe that right behavior has no correct or universal definition and that morality can only be judged with respect to the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. In either case, attempts to use reason and understanding as a basis for effective communication are bound to fail since, for conservatives, that dialogue comes down to good v. evil.

The fourth reason that constructive dialogue is impossible is that when people, for whatever reasons, refuse to recognize reality, meaningful exchange will never occur. Black is white, white is black. Water boarding or weeks of sleep deprivation under temperature extremes are not torture. Our (pre-Affordable Care Act) market-based healthcare system was the best in the world. Trickle-down economics and the free market work financial miracles. Evolution is a figment of Darwin’s imagination. The Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. America doesn't have gun problems or race problems. Global warming doesn’t exist; scientists who claim so are charlatans and liars.

No amount of evidence will change those beliefs because they are not based on objective rationality. And progressives are supposed to dialogue with people who believe and spout such nonsense? Hello Alice in Wonderland.

Here’s a personal example. A man I respect and regard as a friend and who I worked with for nearly ten years is a conservative Republican. Several years ago, when the debate over some sort of national healthcare system was hot and heavy, my conservative friend and I engaged in a lengthy e-mail discussion of the problems with healthcare in America. Naturally, given my leftist convictions, I argued that we needed a government-regulated system, a position he adamantly opposed. After I ranted about the historically abysmal ranking of the U.S. in a broad array of medical statistics with respect to other industrialized nations, my friend wrote back that the best way for adequate healthcare to be delivered to all Americans was through free market functions. I was astounded and aghast. His email was written several years after the collapse of the economy in the Great Recession of 2007-2008 and even after the once venerable and deeply embarrassed Alan Greenspan recanted his previous Milton Friedman look-alike economic ideology, hung his head in public ignominy, and admitted to Congress that the market was in obvious need of more stringent government regulations to control Wall Street’s immeasurable and rapacious greed.

Even though I readily admitted my friend was right about the technological superiority and post-diagnosis efficacy of American medicine, at least for those who have employer-based medical insurance or Medicare, he refused to acknowledge our then system was characterized by flaws and constraints in access to healthcare that callously and regularly resulted in denied coverage and excess illnesses and deaths. No matter how many decades of medical statistics documented how poorly and consistently our national healthcare system performed, he believed those flaws either were figments of my imagination or just didn’t matter in terms of our world-class healthcare system. He simply refused to acknowledge inequities.

Thus, I’m convinced that attempts by conservatives and liberals at dialogue, no matter how well-intentioned, will do no good whatsoever in terms of an open exchange of ideas. After all, what good is it if l understand the conservative point of view since I do not find it credible or even based on rationality or honesty? Because, for all too many conservatives, rationality, and even historical reality, plays no part in the discussion. That said, as a professional urban/regional planner whose work was always grounded in rigorous data collection and analysis, I have never based my political or socioeconomic beliefs on a refusal to honestly examine and engage real world conditions. That is why it astounds me that many of not most conservatives refuse to accept any number of evidence-based positions (evolution, global warming, the age of the universe/Earth, dating of geological materials, etc., etc, etc.). It has gotten to the point where millions of conservatives believe science itself has been politicized and must be attacked as a bastion of evil liberalism.

Today, an enormous number of Americans have stopped thinking and only react to political stimuli on a visceral/primitive level that excludes, overrides, or minimizes rationality. We no longer are concerned with anything that could be identified as “objective truth" or "objective evidence" but only with selective “factoids” that support our ideological position. That way we can defend Brack Obama’s outrageous actions because he’s a life-long Democrat and needs liberal support. Or defend Mitch McConnell’s outrageous actions because he’s a life-long Republican and needs conservative support. Or champion the astonishingly empty-headed Donald Trump for whatever pseudo-reasons people invent. It’s an utterly bizarre world when we are convinced, deep in our hearts, that ideological shit is 24-carat gold.

Although people today seldom read plays, especially those written 50 years ago, Eugène Ionesco’s “Rhinoceros” has an eerie, contemporary feel. In that play, people are transformed into rhinoceroses and start following the rhinoceritis political movement. They can no longer speak but bellow and delight in trampling humans. What better metaphor could we have for our contemporary situation with Republicans fully prepared to drive the country into default rather than compromise on taxes?

Today, to complete the irony—or is it absurdity?—Tea Party supporters see liberals as unthinking rhinoceroses. Hello Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi; the list goes on and on. And liberals see anyone they classify as right-wing nut jobs as unthinking rhinoceroses. Hello Scott Walker and The Donald; the list goes on and on.

With unerring accuracy, Ionesco put his finger on the problem:

People allow themselves suddenly to be invaded by a new religion, a doctrine, a fanaticism . . . At such moments we witness a veritable mental mutation. I don’t know if you have noticed it, but when people no longer share your opinions, when you can no longer make yourself understood by them, one has the impression of being confronted with monsters — rhinos, for example. They have that mixture of candor and ferocity. They would kill you with the best of consciences. Source: Martin Esslin. 2001. The Theatre of the Absurd. New York: Vintage Books, pp. 181-182.

That’s where we are today. Even though I know on a theoretical plane it’s appropriate to engage my right-wing friends in dialogue, I am convinced such actions would be absolutely counter-productive. The only result would likely be for them to strengthen and reconfirm their conservative beliefs.

Of course, I have other problems with conservatism. Understanding the well-documented characteristics of conservatives to be closed minded, prefer tradition over change, favor their in-group and be hostile to out-groups, and believe in authoritarianism, gender hierarchy, and social dominance will never lead me to accept the implications of those values, which I reject outright and regard as suspicious on every level. Needless to say, I do not recognize those beliefs as having positive moral value, especially since their practice has historically resulted in one group wielding power and dominion over others, usually with the dominant group using violence and the threat of violence to control subdominant-groups. People who strongly believe in authority, order, and stability, even with adverse costs to “others” not included in their in-group, are highly unlikely to change their belief system simply because they want to “understand” where progressives are coming from.

Only now do I understand the invisible wall separating progressive and conservative ideologies. No way can I overcome that division. Fundamentally, my conservative friends and I have nothing to say to each other. We do not communicate on a meaningful level and I doubt we ever did. Thinking we could was only an illusion.

Of course, that impasse has filled me with ambiguity and sadness. I still have affection and respect for many conservative friends. But that didn’t and doesn’t make me rush to the phone or e-mail, to reach out to heal the wounds. In my heart, I know those attempts would not result in substantive changes to our respective political positions or in our convictions. I cannot understand their point of view and they, obviously, cannot fathom why I believe what I do. I see the world one way, my conservative friends see it another. I now believe that those differences arise from personality traits, though I firmly believe they may be even deeper seated in the psyche. In any case, it is as if we live on parallel universes that do not intersect or interact. So be it.

Those conclusions, combined with my judgment that the American political system is one of the most inherently corrupt and morally bankrupt on Earth, have led to a decision to pull back from all but the most basic political interactions, such as voting. Regardless of what that charming and utterly untrustworthy chameleon, Obama, has said, for meaningful political change to occur, the America we live in will have to wait until a monster tsunami-like wave washes away the current political system wherein oceans of campaign money corrupt nearly every elected representative at state and national levels. A hypothetical that, of course, has zero chance of seeing reality.

Like Mark Twain, I am supremely confident of one thing: Washington politicians on both sides of the aisle will continue bending over backward to prove they are conscienceless hypocrites who gleefully pad their pockets and those of their campaign contributors at the nation’s expense. And thanks to the partisan rulings of an ideologically charged U.S. Supreme Court, that situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

So, what’s left for progressives and conservatives? Here’s a directly related question: Why did I write this essay? The answer to both questions is the same: to appeal to people who are supposedly in the middle, the moderates or centrists who are not overtly committed to either ideology. My hope is that rational appeals to mainstream independents will carry the day, which is why I’m absolutely ecstatic to see that pompous gasbag dipshit Donald Trump pushing all the GOP Presidential wanna-bes way off to the right on issues like immigration and birthright citizenship. Does anyone out there think that when it comes time to vote in the national election, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and various other immigrants will quickly forget the racist slurs and vulgar slights that now crawl out of the mouths of most of the GOP contenders? Peoples’ memories are not that short and anyway the eventual Democratic candidate will never let them forget those heinous comments that GOP candidates made during the primary to their batshit crazy base about rapist immigrants, anchor babies, and illegal aliens intent on stealing jobs from white Americans.

Reminding voters in the presidential election that the GOP is the party of white identity whose burning desire is to remain in control despite their coming loss of majority status shouldn’t be too hard or even much of a stretch.

Here’s my strategy and it should be the Democrats as well, to engage mainstream independents with rational arguments about immigration, voting rights, healthcare, the environment, government regulations reining in Wall Street, taxation, etc. My guess is that well-reasoned arguments will win the day and that progressive candidates will also benefit.

Have to wait and see what develops in the real world. In truth, I'm not optimistic.

Endnotes
[1] See http://www.moralfoundations.org/ and Graham, Jesse, Jonathan, Haidt, Sena Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P. Wojcik, and Peter H. Ditto. 2012. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47: 55-130.

[2] For a fascinating but, for me, ultimately disappointing evaluation of the moral basis of politics and what has been proposed as a way out of our present dilemma, see: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html. See also the work of psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham, “When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize.” Online source: http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pub041.pdf.

[3] See Jost, John T., Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser, and Frank J. Sulloway. 2003. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3): 339-375; available online at http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

American Exceptionalism: Beautiful Myth vs. Historical Reality

Although the passionate belief that America as a country is morally superior and truly Exceptional is not confined to Republicans, it typically characterizes those who lean to the right, though some may self-identify as moderates or even as centrist Democrats. To illustrate the nature of Exceptionalism I have provided three quotes from nationally known conservatives. The first is from Mitt Romney; the second from Marco Rubio; and the third is from an article in the National Review by Ramesh Ponnuru. Similar opinions have been issued by hundreds of well-known conservative politicians and pundits and are widely available on the internet.

"We are a people who, in the language of our Declaration of Independence, hold certain truths to be self-evident: namely, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It is our belief in the universality of these unalienable rights that leads us to our exceptional role on the world stage, that of a great champion of human dignity and human freedom."[1]

"America is the first power in history motivated by a desire to expand freedom rather than its own territory."[2]

"Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it . . ."[3]

From the extensive public record on Exceptionalism it appears that, for many conservatives, merely pointing to the existence of those core values in our history is sufficient proof of America’s exceptional nature. It’s as if conservatives are convinced that good intentions are all that are required to achieve the condition labelled Exceptional. Simply stating that “all men are created equal . . . with certain unalienable rights . . .”, that America is the “great champion of human dignity and human freedom,” and the U.S. is “an exemplar of freedom” seems for many to mean that that was the case and no one with a patriotic bone in her/his body would think of questioning it.

But some Americans take a more critical view of our history and wonder if Exceptionalism is nothing but a beautiful myth with which we comfort ourselves to avoid what is a much harsher reality. To shed light on that challenge, in this essay I examine specific elements from American history that many may have never learned, have ignored or are indifferent to, or have discarded as irrelevant as to who we are. My direct focus is on white/non-white issues rather than on land-based conflicts between Native Americans and whites. Readers desiring additional information on how the U.S. treated Native Americans might consult my post of February 5, 2015, titled: American Exceptionalism: An Evaluation.

The critical question I begin with is straightforward: How did our country act, considering the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution declares as self-evident truths that all persons are created as equal under the law and are possessed of inalienable rights, including among others freedom of speech and assembly, personal security, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The first part of the answer to that question should be evident since even before we become an independent country black Africans were enslaved in every colony and, after the Revolution, in every newly formed state. In addition, according to the U.S. Naturalization Law of 1790, only white men of good standing could become U.S. citizens. That law as applied to blacks stood until passage of the Civil Rights Law of 1866 but was still in effect after that for Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians until the mid-20th Century.

Thus, in historical reality, from our earliest founding as a country until the end of the Civil War, American core values of freedom, dignity, and equality were reserved for whites only, with non-whites treated as distinctly inferior and legally subordinate. But, what happened after the Civil War? Perhaps things changed dramatically for the better. A number of examples are presented below to illustrate that historical reality, starting with Reconstruction and working toward the present day.

Reconstruction Era, 1863-1877

Although the Civil War ended in 1865, Reconstruction almost immediately evolved into an extension of that war. It became a struggle between northern Radical Republicans and their allies who wanted to punish both Southern states for traitorous acts and Southern white supremacists committed to racial segregation as the foundation of their way of life.

President Andrew Johnson, a Southern War Democrat from Tennessee, was an open advocate of white supremacy and an opponent of extending civil and human rights to newly freed blacks. Johnson’s Reconstruction policies granted amnesty to former Southern rebel soldiers and permitted only white men to vote or to participate in the framing of the new state governments. He appointed provisional governors from the white Southern power elite and outlined steps for the creation of new state governments that would allow the election of representatives to the U.S. Congress. Johnson strongly supported state sovereignty and the right of each state to decide how to treat blacks.

It is critical to view Johnson’s conduct in context of the times. For example, by 1865 only a few New England states had granted Black American men the right to vote and, between 1865 and 1868, Connecticut, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin voters rejected proposals to enfranchise Black American men.[4]

Many Radical Republicans became outraged that the recently defeated but unrepentant Southern rebels would be returning their former Confederate leaders to national political power, that none of the Southern state conventions had granted freedmen the right to vote, and that every Southern state had immediately passed legislation (Black Codes) that tightly restricted the freedoms of former slaves. That anger seemed more than justified when Benjamin F. Perry, South Carolina’s provisional governor, declared at that State’s constitutional convention: “. . . this is a white man’s government.”

With President Johnson's support, Southerners focused on strengthening white supremacy to ensure that blacks were held in a debt peonage and socio-political vise that was slavery in every aspect but name. That system was enforced by threats and violence by armed white vigilantes that included home burning, rape, public whipping/beating, genital mutilation, lynching, and countless acts of physical violence that terrorized black communities in every Southern and Border State and that were encouraged and sanctioned by state and local governments.

After the 1866 election, angry Radical Republicans in Congress wrested control of Reconstruction from President Johnson, who had rejected the idea that blacks had the same rights of property and person as whites, passing the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 that divided the former Confederate states into five military districts, with the exception of Tennessee, which had already been re-admitted to the Union. To be re-admitted into the Union, each state was required to accept the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which granted citizenship and political rights to Black Americans.

Under Reconstruction’s military occupation and the oversight of the Freedmen’s Bureau, Black Americans received the right to vote, own property, and to hold political offices that had formerly been restricted to white Southern Democrats, a situation that was abhorred and opposed at every turn throughout the South. President Johnson vetoed all the Radical Republican initiatives but those vetoes were overridden in the Senate. In 1868, the Radical Republicans impeached President Johnson but the Senate failed to convict him by a single vote. Although the impeachment effort failed, Johnson’s power to influence the direction of Reconstruction was greatly compromised.

As early as the late-1860s, Southern and Border State Democrats had initiated the process of regaining political power by suppressing black voting through systematic acts of fraud, intimidation, and violence carried out by ruthless white sheriffs, local judges and election officials, and armed extralegal, all-white paramilitary groups variously known as the Ku Klux Klan, White Brotherhood, Redeemers, Sabre and Rifle Clubs, Knights of the White Camellia, White League, White Liners, and Red Shirts. By the early- to mid-1870s, organized white intimidation and violence against blacks was the norm in every Southern and Border State.

The stakes in controlling the political infrastructure of the South were extraordinarily high. In effect, passage of the 13th Amendment increased representation from Southern states in the U.S. House of Representatives because it made the infamous three-fifths slavery Compromise in the Constitution meaningless since those who had been slaves would thereafter be counted as whole persons in apportioning seats in the House. If Congress seated unrepentant Southerners, political power would immediately swing to the Democrats. To expect Republicans who had just won the Civil War to surrender national power to a region that had been defeated on the battlefield and to a population they viewed as traitors was totally unrealistic. With Reconstruction and passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, Radical Republicans in Congress had focused all their efforts on changing the balance of power in the South and on effecting a political revolution that they thought necessary to ensure Black Americans would be able to achieve the full freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.

Radical Republicans not only failed to secure Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms for blacks through the Reconstruction effort but also inadvertently insured that the political order in the South that would control the lives of four to five million Black Americans for nearly a century would be based on white bigotry and supremacy. Many factors helped ensure Reconstruction’s failure, among them national economic problems like the Panic of 1873, the rise of a national conservative consensus, a general feeling that Reconstruction had failed to achieve worthwhile goals, the national resurgence of the Democratic Party, and a growing national climate that accepted bigotry and racism as normal. As painful memories of the Civil War faded, most Northerners lost interest in maintaining what turned out to be a difficult and prolonged struggle to ensure Black Americans would be granted the freedoms, dignity, and equality guaranteed by the Constitution. The insurmountable problem was that the South that emerged after Reconstruction was remarkably like the pre-war South in terms of its foundation on white bigotry and supremacy, with the exception that overt slavery of blacks was replaced by a system of debt peonage and social controls enforced through intimidation and violence sanctioned by every level of government and by every element of Southern white society.

By the mid-1870s, most moderate Republicans as well as Northern Democrats had begun classifying Southern blacks as simply another special interest group that they thought had to start standing on its own feet, despite slaves having been systematically denied freedom and education for more than 250 years and being totally unprepared to face hostile Southern legislatures and violent white Southerner bigots without the continuing support of the federal government. But by the late-1870s, all three branches of the federal government had effectively turned their backs on enforcement of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of Black Americans and left them to their fate at the hands of Southern white supremacists.

Reconstruction ended as a result of President Grant’s withdrawal of federal troops from Florida and the infamous and under-the-table Compromise of 1877 that resulted in the fraudulent election of Rutherford B. Hayes as President. By that time, Southern Democrats had used intimidation and violence by armed white mobs and extralegal militia to seize control of all Southern and Border State legislatures. In 1890, Mississippi adopted a new constitution that disenfranchised nearly all black citizens through literacy tests, poll taxes, multiple ballot box laws, white-only primaries, grandfather clauses, and residency requirements, cutting black voter enrollment from approximately 147,000 to around 8,600.[5]  When those discriminatory provisions survived legal challenges to a U.S. Supreme Court that was blind, deaf, and dumb to civil rights violations against Black Americans, nine of the other Southern states adopted similar constitutions, disenfranchising the far greater majority of their Black American residents. Other specific examples include: Louisiana adopted a new constitution in 1898, dropping the number of black voters from 130,000 to 5,000;, Alabama re-wrote its constitution in 1901 to establish white supremacy as the rule of law and reduced the number of eligible black voters from more than 180,000 to 3,000; and in Virginia, the number of black voters dropped from 147,000 to 21,000.

The Southern disfranchisement movement was so comprehensive that black people could not vote, serve on juries, or hold political offices, activities that were restricted to registered white voters. As a result, Black Americans were systematically excluded from any role in the socio-political system other than that of a lower caste.

Here’s another twist on denying black vote in the South. Since after the 1870s only Democrats were elected in general elections, in Southern States the most critical election was the primary. But because official state voter registration forms intentionally did not ask a voter’s party affiliation, county and local registrars were the only officials who determined party membership. Because no Southern Black Americans were acknowledged as members of the Democratic Party, they could not vote in primary elections even though they were formally registered voters. Those tactics and systemic white violence against black voters ensured the near total absence of blacks at the polls until the late-1960s.
But white-only primaries, poll taxes, and literacy tests were not the only obstacles to black suffrage. Black land owners and workers throughout the South were told that they would lose their jobs or be denied access to credit if they attempted to vote. In many cases, when a black farmer’s white neighbors found out he intended to vote, local merchants refused to extend credit, weigh his field crops, or deliver materials to his farm. Suppression of black vote was well-organized and systemic through the South and was specifically intended to oppress the black population and sharply curtail their rights.

As has been noted by numerous observers, the Confederacy may have lost the Civil War on the battlefield but the South won the struggle to maintain their white supremacist way of life and to continue oppressing blacks through intimidation and violence. The result was a century-long war of savagery and terror against black citizens carried out by armed Southern whites supported by local and state governments. An as illustration, Mississippi Governor James Vardaman famously stated that "If it is necessary every Negro in the state will be lynched; it will be done to maintain white supremacy."[6]  Many if not all Southern conservatives believed that black suffrage during Reconstruction had been an enormous political blunder because blacks were inherently inferior, unqualified, and unprepared to assume the responsibilities of citizenship and, thus, the near total segregation of blacks from whites was a necessary precondition to eventual citizenship.

*     *     *

Simply stating that Black Americans were denied the fundamental rights of freedom and human dignity guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens does not reveal the specific nature of the inequities and violence committed by bigoted whites and hostile Southern state and local governments against Black Americans. Therefore, several examples are provided below to illustrate the reality of the term “lack of human freedom and dignity” in Southern States for Black Americans. These few examples, extending from the end of the Reconstruction Era to the mid-1960s, are but the tip of an enormous iceberg of racial intimidation and violence directed against Black Americans that characterized Southern and Border States.

Colfax Massacre, Louisiana, 1873
The Colfax Massacre on Easter Sunday, April 13, 1873, occurred during a confrontation between Louisiana Democrats in the White League, an armed extralegal militia organized to ensure white supremacy, and white and black Republicans in the nearly all-black and lightly armed official Louisiana State Militia. Between 100 and 150 blacks were killed, half had been murdered after they surrendered, had been disarmed, and held captive by the White League for several hours. Three whites were found guilty of the murders but were released when the legally clueless U.S. Supreme Court declared that their convictions had been unconstitutional because the Enforcement Act of 1870 (which was based on the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment) applied only to actions committed by states and did not apply to individual actions or private conspiracies. That infamous and morally bankrupt decision—United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)—left Black Americans throughout Southern and Border States at the mercy of bigoted state and local governments dominated by white Democrats determined to enforce white supremacy via violence and deny the constitutional rights of Black Americans.

Vicksburg Massacre, Mississippi, 1874
In 1874, armed, extralegal white militias in Vicksburg, Mississippi, worked to suppress black voting and succeeded in defeating all Republican city officials in the August election. By December, the emboldened white Democrats forced the black sheriff to flee to the state capital. Blacks who rallied to Vicksburg to aid the sheriff also had to flee in the face of superior white forces, as armed whites flooded the city. Over the next few days, armed white gangs murdered up to 300 Black Americans in the city and its surroundings. No one was indicted or prosecuted for those crimes.

Ellenton Massacre, South Carolina, 1876
In a brutal and relentless drive to regain political and social power in the South, conservative white Democrats used intimidation and violence to prevent Black Americans from voting. Prior to the election of 1876, armed conflicts took place in Ellenton and nearby areas of South Carolina. White supremacy supporters formed rifle clubs and other paramilitary groups that were established to prevent black Republicans from organizing, voting, and all other political activities.

The Ellenton Massacre occurred from September 15 to 21, 1876. Tensions over elections had been building for weeks and residents of the area had appealed to the governor to curtail the actions of numerous Democratic rifle clubs, which were mobs of extralegal, armed white vigilantes organized to control the election by suppressing the black vote through threats and violence. Although many details of the Race Riot are uncertain, at least in part due to whites who had participated in the violence concealing or destroying evidence, several facts stand out. On September 20, 1876, Simon Coker, a black State representative, was forcibly removed from the rail car on which he was traveling and shot to death by members of a white mob. It was estimated that one white man and between 100 to 150 blacks were murdered in the Ellenton Massacre. No one was indicted or prosecuted for those crimes.

Thibodaux Massacre, Louisiana, 1887
The Thibodaux Massacre is a tale of a bitter agricultural labor dispute leavened with racism, bigotry, and ruthless violence by armed white mobs. The plight of black sugarcane workers in 1887 was one of back-breaking labor and inadequate pay. Most field hands were paid approximately $13 a month in script issued by the plantation that was redeemable only at a plantation store, whose prices were arbitrarily set by the landowner and had little or no relation to market prices. Overcharged workers usually wound up in debt to the landowner. By Louisiana law, if an agricultural worker owed money to a landowner he could not leave the land or employment on the land until the debt was paid in full. That and similar laws throughout the South essentially reduced agricultural laborers, including tenant farmers and share croppers, to a type of serfdom known as debt peonage.

After a three-week sugarcane strike organized by the Knights of Labor union against plantations in southern Louisiana that demanded elimination of scrip, an increase in daily wages, and payment every two weeks, the Louisiana Sugar Producers Association rejected the demands and had the strikers evicted from the plantations by armed white militias. Violence erupted when two white militiamen were fired upon at a checkpoint where they were trying to prevent blacks from moving about the city of Thibodaux freely.

The incident enraged the white population of Thibodaux and unleashed mobs of armed white vigilantes that indiscriminately attacked the black population of Thibodaux in what can only be described as a racial massacre. Between 35 to 300 blacks were killed in the ensuing violence, including defenseless women and children, almost all of whom were unarmed. All of the dead were Black Americans. No one was charged with any offense.

Ocoee Massacre, Florida, 1920
On November 3, 1920, which was Election Day in central Florida, a deadly race riot began in the previously unremarkable, small semi-rural community of Ocoee and quickly spread to nearby Orlando, Apopka, and Winter Garden. The reason was that several Black Americans who had been legally registered to vote in Florida and had paid their poll tax had shown up at the polls to vote. They were physically assaulted and turned away by armed white men. An armed white mob went to the homes of the two black men who had attempted to vote and shots were fired; the situation quickly escalated out of control. The resulting mob violence spread to surrounding cities and nearly 500 blacks living in the Ocoee area were forced to flee for their lives. Before order was restored, nearly all the black-owned homes in Ocoee had been destroyed. The FBI later estimated that from 30 to 60 black men, women, and children had been murdered by mobs of white terrorists. No one was arrested or tried for the attacks. No Black Americans would vote in all of Orange County, Florida, for nearly 20 years after the massacre. Blacks did not re-inhabit the Ocoee area in any numbers until 1981, 61 years after the riot.

Tulsa Race Riot, Oklahoma, 1921
The Tulsa race riot was a large-scale, racially motivated conflict that occurred from May 31 to June 1, 1921, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a city that legally enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised Black Americans. After a black man had been accused of assaulting a young white woman and arrested, armed mobs of whites and blacks exchanged gunfire. A mob of approximately 2,000 armed whites then attacked the prosperous black Tulsa neighborhood of Greenwood, burned it to the ground, and murdered numerous black residents. During that assault, more than 800 blacks who had been attacked by white mobs had to be admitted to local white hospitals because the two black-only hospitals had been destroyed by white mobs. Local police and Oklahoma National Guard troops arrested and detained more than 6,000 black residents simply because of their race. No whites were arrested. An estimated 10,000 black residents were homeless and 35 blocks with 1,256 residences were reduced to rubble by fires set by armed whites. Estimates of black fatalities varied from 55 to 300, with estimates by modern historians at the highest end of that range. The black man originally arrested for assault was released when the young woman refused to press charges. No charges were filed against individual white rioters.

Rosewood Massacre, Florida, 1923
Rosewood was a small, stable, self-sufficient black community in west-central Florida near Cedar Key on the Gulf Coast. It had a thriving all-black population of about 150 until New Year’s Day, 1923, when a white woman in the nearby predominantly white town of Sumner accused a black man of beating her. Those accusations and the news that a black convict had escaped from a local chain gang combined to create the critical mass that erupted in an explosion of bigotry and violent racism. Hundreds of enraged whites formed an armed mob led by the County Sheriff and marched into Rosewood, ostensibly in search of the escaped convict. When they shot and lynched a black male Rosewood resident, other male members of the black community resisted.

Over the next several days more than 30 black Rosewood residents were murdered by an armed mob of at least 300 white men. Those who escaped the violence fled the area. Almost all of what was left of Rosewood was destroyed by fire for no reason other than racial hatred. An all-white grand jury investigation resulted in no indictments and the massacre was quickly forgotten by everyone except the survivors. After the massacre it was determined that the beating that had started the mob violence had been administered by the woman’s white lover. She had lied so that her husband wouldn’t learn of her affair. The Rosewood properties previously owned by black residents were later sold by the County for back taxes.

It wasn’t until 1983 that the incident became public when St. Petersburg Times investigative reporter Gary Moore wrote about the massacre. His article was followed by a segment on CBS-TV’s news magazine 60 Minutes, a documentary on The Discovery Channel, and by a Hollywood movie directed by John Singleton and featured Jon Voight, Ving Rhames, and Don Cheadle. The next twelve years was filled with political haggling and legal wrangling as a restitution claim for Rosewood survivors was introduced in the Florida Legislature. A Special Master appointed by the Speaker of the House ruled that the State had a “moral obligation” to compensate survivors for the loss of property, violation of their constitutional rights, and mental anguish. On May 4, 1994, Governor Lawton Chiles signed a $2.1 million compensation bill that gave nine survivors $150,000 each and established a state university scholarship fund for Rosewood families and their descendants.

*     *     *
Assuming that many if not most Americans may be more sensitive to violence to individuals than by violence to a more anonymous collective, I have listed below a small sample of individuals who were murdered by Southern white racists/bigots.

Harry T. and Henrietta Moore: founders of the Brevard County chapter of the NAACP and civil rights pioneers. Harry was President of Florida's NAACP and was the statewide leader in opposing lynching—at that time Florida had one of the highest rates of black lynching in the U.S. On December 25, 1951, the night of the Moores’ 25th wedding anniversary, a bomb placed under the bedroom in their house exploded, killing both. Harry Moore was the first NAACP official murdered in the civil rights struggle and is justly revered as a martyr. No one was arrested or prosecuted for the murders.

George Lee: civil rights activist, minister, businessman, vice president of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership, and head of the Belzoni, Mississippi, branch of the NAACP was heavily involved in black voter registration drives. He was shot to death in northwestern Mississippi on May 7, 1955, by an unidentified white assailant. No charges were brought in the murder.

Lamar Smith: civil rights activist, farmer, and WWI veteran was shot to death at 10:00 AM on August 13, 1955, by a white man on the crowded courthouse lawn in Brookhaven, Mississippi, after urging blacks to vote. Although the killer was known to dozens of witnesses, no one was arrested or tried for the crime.

Emmett Till: a 14 year-old Black American from Chicago who was vacationing with relatives in Mississippi, was savagely beaten, mutilated almost beyond recognition, and shot to death by two white men on August 28, 1955, after reportedly flirting with a white woman at a local grocery store in Money, Mississippi. The two men were tried but found not guilty by an all-white jury. Till’s almost unimaginably brutal murder and the subsequent acquittal of the two white men charged with his death by an all-white jury attracted widespread media attention and outrage in the U.S. and throughout the world. The killing occurred in a context of increasing black challenges in the South after World War II to white supremacy. As one of Till’s killers, John William (J.W.) Milam, reflected later:

"I like niggers—in their place—I know how to work ‘em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, niggers are gonna stay in their place. Niggers ain’t gonna vote where I live. If they did, they’d control the government."[7]

Herbert Lee: civil rights activist shot and killed on September 25, 1961, in Liberty, Mississippi, by E.H. Hurst, a white member of the Mississippi State Legislature for participating in the voter registration campaign. Hurst was never changed with the murder as all the witnesses were coerced into testifying Lee had threatened Hurst. After one black witness, Louis Allen, told the FBI that he had been forced to lie to the coroner’s jury, he was murdered. No one was charged or prosecuted for his death.

Medgar Evers: a black U.S. military veteran of WWII and civil rights activist involved in working to desegregate the University of Mississippi was assassinated on June 12, 1963, in Jackson, Mississippi. Evidence, including fingerprints on the murder weapon, pointed to Byron De La Beckwith, a founding member of the White Citizens' Council. Although De La Beckwith was tried twice, both all-white juries were deadlocked, in part due to his being supported by numerous politically prominent Mississippians, including then-Governor Ross Barnett. De La Beckwith was finally convicted of murder in a third trial on February 5, 1994, and died in prison.

Addie Mae Collins (age 14), Denise McNair (age 11), Carole Robertson (age 14), and Cynthia Wesley (age 14): Bombing victims who died on Sunday, September 15, 1963, at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, when four members of the Ku Klux Klan planted dynamite beneath the front steps of the church. Although by 1965 the FBI had information concerning the identity of the bombers, no state or federal charges were brought until 1977, when Alabama Attorney General William Baxley reopened the investigation. Klan leader Robert E. Chambliss was convicted of murder despite the FBI’s refusal to release evidence necessary for the prosecution. Two other former Klan members, Thomas Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry, were also brought to trial by A.G. Baxley. Blanton was convicted in 2001 and Cherry in 2002. Herman Frank Cash, the fourth bombing suspect, died before he could be tried.

James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner: civil rights activists killed on June 21, 1964, near Philadelphia, Mississippi, by Klansmen. Seven men, including Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price, were convicted in federal court of conspiracy to deprive the three victims of their civil rights. In 2005, Edgar Ray Killen, a former recruiter and organizer for the Neshoba County and Lauderdale County KKK, was tried and convicted in state court of three counts of manslaughter for the deaths of the three civil activists for planning and directing their murders and was sentenced to 60 years in prison, 20 years for each count to be served consecutively.

Viola Liuzzo: civil rights activist was shot and killed near Montgomery, Alabama, on March 25, 1965, by members of the Ku Klux Klan; less than two weeks later, a charred cross was planted on the front lawn of her Detroit residence. One of the men in the Klansmen's car was a paid FBI informant who provided evidence against the three Klansmen who killed Liuzzo. After the first state trial ended in a mistrial, an all-white jury took less than two hours to acquit one of the Klansmen. All three were later convicted on federal civil rights charges.

Jimmie Lee Jackson: civil rights activist was beaten by white Alabama State Troopers and shot by Trooper James Fowler on February 18, 1965, while participating in a peaceful voting rights march in Marion, Alabama. Although Jackson was unarmed, his killer was not charged with his murder until May 10, 2007. In a bargain with state prosecutors, Fowler pled guilty to manslaughter and served five months.

James Reeb: civil rights activist and Unitarian Universalist minister from Boston died as a result of being brutally beaten on the head with a club by white racists in Selma, Alabama, on March 11, 1965. He had answered MLK Jr.’s call to clergy around the country to join a second effort to march from Selma to Montgomery. The three white men indicted for Reeb’s murder were acquitted by an all-white jury.

Vernon Dahmer: civil rights activist and president of the Forrest County, Mississippi, chapter of the NAACP died on January 11, 1966, of severe burns and smoke inhalation after his Hattiesburg home was firebombed by a mob of white racists opposed to his efforts to register black voters. Thirteen men with KKK ties were tried. Four were convicted in part because Billie Roy Pitts (the bodyguard of KKK Imperial Wizard Sam Bowers) entered a guilty plea and turned state's evidence. However three of the four convicted were pardoned by Governor John Bell Williams within four years. In 1998, based on new evidence, the state tried Bowers for Dahmer’s murder and assault on his family. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, where he died in 2006.

Martin Luther King Jr.: national civil rights leader was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was assisting city sanitation workers who were on strike. James Earle Ray was convicted of the murder and died in prison.

Cynthia Marie Graham Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lee Lance, Depayne Middleton-Doctor, Clementa C. Pinckney, Tywanza Sanders, Daniel Simmons, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, and Myra Thompson: murdered on June 17, 2015, at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, by white racist Dylann Roof, who was arrested and charged with 33 federal crimes and nine counts of murder by the state.

*     *     *

Although Black Americans are the principal focus of this essay, Hispanics and Asian-Americans have also faced numerous challenges to their Constitutional rights, including literacy and language tests, poll taxes, discriminatory immigration and naturalization laws, and intimidation and violence. Despite many Americans being unaware of the details, U.S. law prevented any person who was non-white from becoming a citizen. As was mentioned above, the Naturalization Law of 1790 determined that only white men of good standing could become U.S. citizens, meaning all others were barred, including Native Americans. That law stood until it was repealed, at least in part, on December 17, 1943, when Chinese were no longer barred from U.S. citizenship, a concession made only to keep the Chinese Army fighting against the Japanese in WWII. The well-known federal case of In re Ah Yup 1 F. Cas. 223 (C.C.D. Cal. 1878) (No. 104) found that Chinese were non-white and thus were ineligible for naturalization. Anti-Chinese sentiment was so high that in 1882 Congress enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, which sharply restricted Chinese immigration to the United States, classified Chinese immigrants as permanent aliens, and excluded them from U.S. citizenship. Adding insult to injury, in 1922 Congress enacted the Cable Act, which stipulated: “any woman citizen who marries an alien ineligible to citizenship shall cease to be a citizen of the United States.” [8]

Concluding Thoughts

The famous German sociologist, Max Weber, proposed an intriguing analogy to a country’s beginning that revolved around a game played with dice that were honest at the onset. But, over time, each major historical event structured future socio-political development/evolution by becoming institutionalized, loading the dice as it were, establishing a directional bias that became stronger and more pronounced as time passed. To put it another way, according to Weber, historical events establish societal values and pre-dispositions that influence future events, thus shaping the direction of socio-political change.

But, as an alternate scenario, what if that game started with loaded instead of honest dice, biasing a country’s socio-political system in a pre-determined direction from the get-go? What if the initial playing field had not been level and the resulting game had not been unbiased at any point? In that variation on Weber’s analogy, events that predisposed a country to favor whites over non-whites would set in motion a support process that increased the future likelihood of favoring whites.

Weber’s loaded dice can easily be identified across American history: the Constitution recognized black slavery as legal and blacks as inferior; the Naturalization Law of 1790 allowed only white men to become citizens; the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision ruled blacks were not fully human; the 1871 Blyew v. United States decision found that in nearly all Southern and Border States whites could kill, rob, or cheat Black Americans as long as the only witnesses were black since by state law blacks could not testify against whites; the 1875 United States v. Cruikshank decision left Black Americans throughout Southern and Border States without the protection of federal law; the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Law prevented people of Chinese nationality from immigrating to the U.S. solely because of their racial heritage; the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision found racial separation was legal; Native Americans were not allowed to become American citizens until the mid-20th Century; 127,000 U.S. citizens were imprisoned during World War II and their property was confiscated without judicial process because of their Japanese ancestry; and today we cannot ignore the Affirmative Action programs that are increasingly under attack across the U.S. Connecting those dots should not be difficult.

The very real problem we face today is that conservatives cannot see or cannot allow themselves to see historical reality: that America’s national identity was rigged as ethnocentric from the outset, favoring whites and handicapping people of color, whether enslaved or free blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. From our earliest beginnings as a country, whites were virtuous and superior and non-whites were despicable and inferior and thus not deserving of the same rights and freedoms, no matter what awe-inspiring words were enshrined in the Constitution. What conservatives shield themselves from is that good intentions are meaningless when immoral, unethical, and inequitable acts by whites against people of color are the societal and governmental norm.

Achieving freedom and equality requires, at minimum, a legal system that is fair to all. Although people need a level playing field for success to be attainable, structured inequity translates into success largely for the favored in-group and failure for devalued out-groups. If the source of that inequity is government law/policy that is enforced at all levels from local to national, then transitioning to an unbiased future will be extraordinarily difficult.

To trumpet American Exceptionalism today in the face of our history of ethnocentrism is an act of arrogance that ignores or justifies more than three centuries of white oppression of non-whites and creates the beautiful myth that all people in the U.S. enjoyed freedom and equality as a natural right throughout our history. We owe not our country unconditional love or approval. Rather we owe ourselves the courage to be honest in the face of hard reality. We’re not a perfect country; after all, has such ever existed? But the claims conservatives make that America is, in essence, better than every other country in the world flies in the face of our history. It’s that refusal of conservatives to acknowledge the warts and flaws and self-serving immoral behavior that inevitably characterizes all countries that puts the lie to American Exceptionalism.

Starting from colonial settlement onward we became an “Exceptional country” through a process designed to enrich and empower whites at the expense of all others. We became an “Exceptional country” because a coalition of Southern white plantation owners and Northern white merchants were able to exploit the unpaid labor of savagely oppressed and enslaved blacks that transitioned after the Civil War into the savage oppression of Black Americans through Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and violent socio-political restraints. We became an “Exceptional country” through a century of legal, illegal, and extra-legal acts by whites from all political parties and at all levels of government aimed at oppressing non-whites.

Simply because conservatives want to believe the best of the U.S. does not mean that was what transpired in the real world. Wishing it were so does not create historical reality.

For a century after 250 years of the almost unimaginable evil of slavery, federal, state, and local governments turned what was essentially a blind eye to a highly organized and efficient system of legally-based repression, intimidation, and savagery in Southern and Border States that focused physical and psychological violence against Black Americans with the specific intent of depriving them of Constitutional rights in order to maintain and strengthen white supremacy. It was not until passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Voting Rights Act of 1965 that American citizens who were first granted suffrage after the Civil War by the 15th Amendment were finally able to vote after 100 years of violent subjugation by state and local governments and white supremacists. That century of systematic, nationwide de jure and de facto hostility and repression has never been officially acknowledged by the U.S. government. Nor has the government apologized for more than two centuries of enslaving blacks. Nor has an apology or any type of broad-based support, not to mention financial/economic reparations, ever been offered to Black Americans by the federal or state governments.[9]

People who trumpet American Exceptionalism cannot allow themselves to see that this country was founded on ethnocentrism and has continued throughout history to operate on that precept because that’s the way the Weberian dice had been loaded. Which makes the U.S. like all too many other countries that were organized around and operated through in-group favoritism and out-group hostility.[10]  Because to acknowledge that historical reality would negate their sense of superiority over other countries and pop their American Exceptionalism balloon. Although it is impossible for conservatives to admit, at our innermost core what makes Americans exceptional is our almost limitless addiction to hypocrisy and denial.

To all conservative politicians and their followers who beat the drum of American Exceptionalism and discount or ignore our shameful history of racial hostility and oppression, I offer the words of Joseph N. Welch, chief counsel for the U.S. Army, as he addressed Senator Joseph McCarthy during a 1954 Senate investigation:

"Have you no sense of decency . . .? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"[11]


END NOTES
[1] Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/07/text-of-mitt-romneys-speech-on-foreign-policy-at-the-citadel/?mod=google_news_blog
[2] Source: https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/598577980298829824?lang=en
[3] https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/339276/exceptional-debate.
[4] Steven F. Lawson, 1999. Black ballots: Voting rights in the South, 1944-1969. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
[5] Steven F. Lawson. Ibid, p. 14-15 and http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf. See also Michael Perman. 2001. Struggle for Mastery: Disfranchisement in the South, 1888-1908. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
[6] Source: Chris Danielson. 2013. The color of politics: Racism in the American political arena today. New York: Praeger Publishing. See also: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/flood-vardaman/
[7] Quoted in http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf Also see: William Bradford Huie. 2001. “The shocking story of approved killing in Mississippi,” in Racial violence on trial: A handbook with cases, laws, and documents, p. 245. Christopher Waldrep, ed. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO; and Stephen J. Whitfield. 1991. A death in the delta: The story of Emmett Till. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[8] Charles J. McClain. 1996. In search of equality: The Chinese struggle against discrimination in nineteenth-century America. Oakland, California: University of California Press. Also see: http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf; McClain, Charles J. 1995. Tortuous path, elusive goal: The Asian quest for American citizenship. Asian American Law Journal. 2:33-60. Available online: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=aalj
[9] See Ta-Nehisi Coates: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
[10] See: Axelrod, Robert, and Ross A. Hammond. 2003. “The evolution of ethnocentric behavior.” Revised version of a paper prepared for delivery at Midwest Political Science Convention, April 3-6, 2003, Chicago, Illinois. Available online: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
[11] For the original quote, see: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6444/

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Confederate Battle Flag and Southern Heritage

All those who believe that the heritage of the Confederacy and that of the South is purely about a cherished and all but sacred way of life and nothing more should be encouraged to read the famous Cornerstone Address given on March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia, by Alexander H. Stephens, who served as Vice President of the Confederate States of America from February 18, 1861, to May 11, 1865.

An excerpt from that speech is provided below.

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the 'storm came and the wind blew, it fell.'

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man (emphasis added); that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Near the end of his Cornerstone Address, Alexander Stephens boldly summarized Southern Heritage for all to see: “With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.” For the full address see: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

Southern Americans proud of their heritage also should never forget that on January 9, 1861, the State of Mississippi issued its Declaration of Secession from the Union, stating: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.” Source: http://http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

In short, the Confederacy, the way of life of the South so innocently and eagerly promoted as Southern Heritage and the sacrifice of soldiers, as well as the post-Civil War Jim Crow world was founded on one thing only: white supremacy and white domination over black slaves who with their descendants would remain slaves in perpetuity. All the other characterizations are smokescreens, wistful myths, or scurrilous lies.

Watching Southern whites demonstrating their passionate belief in revisionist history on national TV/cable news shows leads you to the conclusion that a great many if not the overwhelming majority give every appearance of being poorly educated, inarticulate, ignorant, and proud of it. Their words/actions leaves little doubt as to their intentions: We might not be smart but we vote; so don’t fuck with us.

As an aside of sorts, could it be that the South is inhabited only by whites who are ferociously proud of their heritage? Or could it be that millions of Black Americans also live in that region who do not identify with the white supremacy, oppression, and slavery represented by the Confederate flag? As an on-point example, South Carolina is home to 1.35 million Black Americans, which is about 28 percent of the State population. Take a guess as to what they think of the Confederate flag and of the whites who rant and rave about their proud Southern heritage.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary—EATING FLORIDA

For those Readers who are somewhat reformed couch potatoes and are eager to experience part of natural Florida without getting their shoes wet, or even dusty, the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in the Big Cypress may be the answer to their prayers. The Sanctuary is a place where even dedicated couch potatoes can relax because visitors can walk into the heart of the swamp on an elevated boardwalk and stay high and dry while becoming immersed in a wetland forest primeval.
By 1952 it had became painfully obvious to everyone who was even mildly interested that commercial logging would soon destroy all large tracts of first-growth baldcypress in Florida. Aware that the ever-increasing public outcry might slow their relentless plundering, the Lee Tidewater Cypress Company offered an option on 2,240 acres of pristine baldcypress forest to the National Audubon Society (joined with an association of 14 other conservation groups) as a sanctuary for wood storks and other endangered wading birds and then donated 640 acres more. Today, Sanctuary property under Audubon Society management has increased to 13,000 acres. The Society’s primary goal at Corkscrew is to preserve the natural ecosystem through extensive monitoring, prescribed burning, limited human access, and control of such exotic pest species as melaleuca (also widely known as cajeput), Australian pine, water hyacinth, and Brazilian pepper, among many others.
In all, timber companies hauled nearly forty thousand railroad cars of cypress from the Big Cypress Swamp in two decades. One rail car held between 60,000 and 80,000 pounds, or thirty to forty tons. You do the math (or I can do it for you — 1,400,000 tons total or 70,000 tons of baldcypress annually). Lumbermen loved to use cypress wood in construction, for railroad ties, posts, and roofing shingles because it was soft, light, strong, straight-grained, very durable, did not warp, and was highly rot-resistant, even under water. Cypress lumber was also used to make gutters, coffins, stadium seats, and pickle barrels. It was even used for the hulls of PT boats in World War II.
Because southwestern Florida’s water regime had been savagely altered by the earlier channelization of the Caloosahatchee River and by the diking of Lake Okeechobee, it took only a few years for the land to dry out after the big trees had been removed. Then one fire after another swept through the cut-over stands, destroying the thin soil down to bedrock, making reseeding and restoration of the baldcypress an impossible task. It took thoughtless, greed-obsessed people less than 30 years to effectively destroy a substantial part of the Big Cypress, an environment that had taken a minimum 5,000 years to develop naturally. Greed reared its ugly head once again and triumphed, as usual, aided and abetted by indifferent or intentionally ineffective State regulatory agencies.
Corkscrew Swamp’s 17 square miles is the last sizeable, contiguous stand of baldcypress left in Florida. Several of the individual baldcypress giants in the Sanctuary may exceed 700 years old. Those huge trees are over 130 feet in height and have girths easily exceeding 25 feet. The Sanctuary is a major nesting ground for endangered wood storks and is a haven for the rare swallow-tailed Everglades kite and also provides nesting sites for white ibis and the great egret.
The original impetus for the National Audubon Society in establishing Corkscrew Swamp as a sanctuary was to save the endangered wood stork and other rare birds. Between 1881 and 1917, perhaps 95 percent of the egret and other wading bird populations of Florida had been systematically slaughtered for ladies’ fashion accessories, especially to provide plumes for fancy hats and other elegant head gear. The only thing that had saved the few birds that survived was not the half dozen inadequate Federal laws prohibiting interstate commerce in birds protected by state laws, but the simple fact that, in 1917, New York whores began using feathers in their costumes as they strutted their wares on the streets. After that, no respectable society “lady” wanted to be confused with ladies of the night so feathers and plumage were instantly dropped from the fashion plates of the rich and social elites.
Nature lovers the world over owe a great debt of gratitude to those nameless prostitutes who simply desired to look upscale and high fashion. They inadvertently and unintentionally saved some of the most beautiful birds in America from certain and remorseless slaughter. And for that alone I hope that God forgave their sins, whatever they were. Unfortunately, the decline in the plume trade came too late for Guy Bradley and C. G. MacLeod, dedicated Audubon Society game wardens who were murdered by plume hunters intent on shooting out all the remaining rookeries in south Florida.
For the uninitiated but interested, it's relatively easy to tell a number of the large wading birds of Corkscrew Swamp apart. Though you’ll probably need a copy of Peterson’s Field Guide to identify the similar looking long-legged members of the heron family. Wood storks are large birds with very large wingspans, about five to six feet in length. Their identifying marks include a white body, dark legs, a naked, dark ugly-looking head that earned it the Florida nickname, ironhead. Its long, thick dark bill curves slightly downward and looks quite lethal, especially from a fish’s point of view. It has black under-side wing and tail feathers. It often soars high overhead on thermals with its legs stretched behind and its neck out straight, unlike the slightly larger herons that fly with their necks held in a curved, S-shaped position.
The white ibis is about half again smaller than the wood stork and has a white rump and black feathers only at the very tips of its wings. White ibis also have reddish bills and legs. Great egrets are large, slender birds, though slightly smaller than wood storks, and feature all-white bodies, wings and tails. Their legs and feet are black and their straight, rapier-like bills are yellow or orangey-yellow.
As an inveterate bird watcher, I'm fascinated by wood storks. One reason I've always loved to observe birds is they can tell us so much about how our environment is faring. But, if you pay attention to what has happened to wood storks in south Florida you're likely to become sad, depressed, and maybe outright angry. Wood storks are truly amazing creatures. They time their reproductive cycle to coincide with the occurrence of shallower waters during south Florida's dry season, when the small fish and frogs they hunt are concentrated in pools as the surrounding marshes dry up. Unlike many other wading birds, a wood stork actively hunts by inserting its beak in the water and moving it about. When a prey animal touches the sensitive beak it snaps shut with lightening speed, about one-fortieth of a second, easily one of the fastest known reaction times in nature.
Before 1900, as the dry season deepened in intensity, the terrestrial dry-down progressed geographically, from upland areas in the northern part of its range to the wet prairies and eventually to the southernmost sloughs and lagoons. That almost linear progression across the vast Kissimmee-Everglades-Big Cypress Basin ensured a continuous supply of concentrated prey through the breeding season. That cycle practically guaranteed breeding success, as a single wood stork needed at least three to four pounds of fish/frogs each day to feed itself and its hatchlings. If it rained too much and the fish were disbursed or the dry season started too early and the fish population died off then the storks would not reproduce. So, the question is if the storks are so marvelously adapted to the specific south Florida environment, then why today has their population been reduced by more than 90 percent when compared to its pre-1930 population? What happened?
The answer is as simple as it is obvious. Humans have altered the land-water system for their short-term financial benefit. Dikes, canals, pumping stations, water impoundment areas, levees, large-scale agriculture, and urban development. We can sum up all these factors with a phrase for the ages: Water Management. What the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District had done was to effectively change the timing and duration of the complex natural hydro-regimes within the entire Kissimmee-Everglades-Big Cypress Basin. And thus they have artificially and perhaps permanently changed all the ecosystems of south Florida.
True, things are not as bad as they were 30 years ago when civil engineers ruled this land with a clenched iron fist. Or even as bad as 15 years ago. But, if you disbelieve those radical, doom-saying environmentalists and really think south Florida is on its way back from the brink of disaster, then why aren't the wood storks on a breeding splurge? Or why hasn't the Everglades snail kite made it off the endangered species list? If you take another guess it had better have something to do with the way Americans have mistreated central and south Florida.
Environmental education is another of the Audubon Society's primary missions at Corkscrew Swamp. And they do a fantastic job. The self-guided elevated boardwalk tour serves as the chief tool to educate visitors. A guidebook, obtained at the Visitors Center, illustrates points of interest along the trail and is complemented by roving interpreters who are available to respond to questions about the Sanctuary and its flora and fauna. Portable exhibits are frequently used to demonstrate fascinating tidbits of swamp ecology and their significance to the well-being of the entire ecosystem.
A two mile-long elevated boardwalk leads into Corkscrew Swamp from the northern-most edge of the Big Cypress. My advice is to arrive promptly at 7:00 a.m. and walk through the swamp slowly, savoring the almost solemn silence and the varied microenvironments. It is, after all, the last remaining stand of virgin baldcypress in Florida. Several of the giant trees in the Sanctuary were mature when the Spanish conquistadores first landed in the early 16th Century. A little quiet reverence or reflection would not be inappropriate.
Our pleasant stroll to the boardwalk begins through a stand of virgin pines located on slightly elevated ground. Their tall, dark, and stately trunks stretch straight into the sky. The transition zone between the pinewoods and the next microenvironment, wet prairie, is sprinkled with plants associated with moist pine flatwoods, including marsh pinks, meadow beauty, and Catesby's lily. Several hundred yards farther brings early morning visitors into a fog-laced stand of the smaller but still impressive pond cypress bordering lettuce fern lagoons. In the cottony mist you can see a profusion of epiphytes (air plants among which are orchids and bromeliads) hanging from the pond cypress trunks and limbs, including the ubiquitous but ever intriguing Spanish Moss, cardinal wild-pine, beautiful butterfly orchids, and ferns in incredible abundance and variety. Bromeliads, which belong to the same family of plants as pineapple, can grow in the ground, on tree trucks and limbs, or on the sides of rocks. They typically have stiff leathery leaves with a spike of bright flowers.
Minutes later, after transitioning through a stand of smaller pond cypress, you enter an immense baldcypress cathedral whose natural splendor simply takes your breath away. Magnificent, awe-inspiring trees tower overhead, several more than one hundred feet tall. The aura of almost sacred mystery is overwhelming, practically demanding that visitors contemplate what southern Florida would be like today if law or conscience had restrained the marauding timber companies. And don't we all know exactly what a fat chance that would have been, especially in the State of Florida.
I first brought my family to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in the mid-1980s. Just as we entered the densest part of the virgin cypress forest, we were treated to the ear-splitting roars of a nearby alligator, challenging only God knew what. It was a heart-stopping thrill for me but certainly more than a little frightening for all three of our kids, who were twelve, nine, and seven years old. Not more than five minutes later a small barred owl unexpectedly swooped low over our heads, landed on a tree trunk some 30 feet away and deftly snatched up a morning-chilled, slow moving lizard. With its breakfast secure in its beak, the owl then swiveled its head to stare at the small group of humans intruding into its space. As I watched, absolutely transfixed by the drama of the scene, the hapless lizard’s tail twitched wildly from one corner of the bird’s beak to the other. Well, coming immediately after the roar of the gator, the twitching tail hanging out of the owl’s mouth was about all the natural environment my finicky wife and kids cared to see. So, they departed for the car’s reassuring comfort. Which was fine by me since I had more time to soak up the magic and mystery of Corkscrew Swamp.
When the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary was established in 1954, it was in a remote part of Collier and Lee Counties and attracted fewer than 10,000 visitors annually. By the early-1990s, however, attendance surpassed 100,000 visitors annually, nearly overwhelming its modest sewage facilities. That inability to handle wastewater adequately presented an immediate problem that had to be addressed since Florida law required all facilities with that heavy visitor load to build appropriately sized sewage systems.
The recommended solution was to construct two small package plants featuring traditional technology that would work in tandem, both running full speed during the heavy onslaught of the tourist season and only one during the off-season. The problem with that solution involved not only efficiency and reliability but also the large amount of land needed and the system’s inappropriateness in a natural landscape.
At that point a scientist named John Todd suggested a patented wastewater treatment system called Living Machines that used sunlight, bacteria, green plants (such as alligator flag, arrowhead, pickerel weed, blue flag iris, and swamp lily), and animals (including snails, shrimp, insects, and various types of fish) to restore wastewater to pure conditions. Todd, a PhD ecologist whose work was inspired by the famous systems ecologist, Howard Odum, was founder of Ocean Arks International, which is a Vermont-based not-for-profit corporation that had been designing Living Machines for well over ten years. The system Todd proposed would occupy an area of only 4,900 square feet (a little more than a tenth of an acre), purify wastes without chemical additives, and recycle 90 percent of the purified water back into the toilets for reuse. Audubon was intrigued since Todd’s innovative system used natural processes and had the added value of costing substantially less than the conventional sanitary engineering approach. Construction began in May 1994 and was completed in October 1994. The Sanctuary has and continues to use the first Living Machine treatment system permitted in Florida.
The Living Machine has the added advantage of offering the Sanctuary wonderful educational opportunities. The entire facility is open to the public and is interpreted with illustrative signs and displays. Sanctuary officials feel that the wastewater treatment system is so attractive and efficient that it is an ideal setting for teaching water chemistry, natural wastewater purification, and recycling lessons to visitors young and old, consequently it fits flawlessly into Audubon’s environmental educational program and into its mission to preserve the last remaining baldcypress forest in America.
Implications
The wonderful lesson of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is that non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in this case the National Audubon Society, can work with private landowners and various government agencies to purchase pristine, damaged, or even broken ecosystems before they are irretrievably destroyed. For certain, those sensitive lands can't all be purchased and typically they can't be protected by single-handed and uncoordinated action. But by joining together communities, businesses, governments, partner organizations, and people just like us those fragile land-water environments can be preserved for future generations to use and enjoy and also to preserve in turn for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.
I have adapted materials contained in The Nature Conservancy’s web site to provide just a few of the many ways the mission of environmental preservation can be achieved: land acquisition (known by real estate professionals as fee simple), public and private lands conservation, conservation easements, conservation buyer projects, conservation-friendly public policies, public land management, parks-in-peril program, public funding for conservation, debt for nature swaps, conservation (estate) trust funds, ecosystem services payments, resource extraction fees, public finance campaigns, and transfer of development rights. Those methods work. We only have to step to the plate and get involved.
Many environmental organizations regularly work hand in glove with local stakeholders (people like you and me who give money in amounts large and small), governmental agencies at varying levels, other non-profit organizations, international groups, and corporations with consciences and enter into unilateral-multilateral-bilateral agreements to buy and preserve fragile and sensitive lands. NGOs like the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council among others are able to play critical roles in ensuring that environments that have present and lasting value are not thrown into the crushing jaws of development.
For the gift of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary we all owe the National Audubon Society a debt of gratitude, despite the numerous failings of its sister organization, Audubon of Florida, with regard to the nearby Everglades. More on that debacle later.