Dear Mr. President,
A few months ago, in the rapid decline of my optimism about internet dating, I agreed to go on one last date with a man from the dating site I'd been using. One last chance, I told myself, and then I could safely give up this endless series of awkward, uncomfortable encounters and sulk, self-satisfied, assured of the hopelessness of dating and single men in general. When I arrived at the coffee shop at the appointed time I was already convinced that this encounter would be no different than the last, preparing already the excuses I would make after an hour or, if I could manage, even less. Ten minutes later, I might have been laughing at the irony of this, had I not been too busy attempting to scrape my jaw off of the floor and work the dumbstruck expression off of my face. My date was not only black americano-drinking, charming and easy to talk to, he was clearly intelligent, compassionate, adventurous and funny. (It didn't hurt that he was heart-breakingly, out-of-my-league-by-miles good-looking either.) We talked for hours. Nothing romantic may have come from this date, but we stayed friends, passing e-mails and brief comments on the latest news. He suggested a number of topics for my letters to you, and helped me better understand a few stories I didn't fully grasp. Our friendship since has been casual, but it certainly helped convince me not to completely give up on the idea of meeting men online.
Today my friend, returning from a trip abroad to visit family, was unreasonably held up in an American airport by security. I don't know the details of this, what it entailed or how he finally managed to get on a connection to come back home. Unfortunately, because my friend is also Arab, I know that this would not have happened to him if he had a different last name or a different skin color. The whole situation makes me sickeningly, blindingly angry. When I expressed this to others I heard more stories of friends or relatives or coworkers or friends of friends being held up in the absurd, racist so-called security system in American airports. I remembered walking through Israeli checkpoints, the separate lines for me and for my Palestinian friends and being so naively grateful that such a thing would never happen in MY country. All day I've been thinking about airports, how standing in line to get through security with my white face, American passport and generically WASP-y name while my Arab and Muslim (or, really just sufficiently brown-skinned) friends will be "randomly" given additional screening and I keep thinking of the same metaphor. I'm sitting on a bus in Alabama watching silently as they are made to file past me to the back.
You've experienced first-hand what it is to be thought of as Muslim and/or Arab in this country. Even as President you've seen the ugly, racist way some in this country still view some one with your skin color, your name, or the religion falsely ascribed to be your own. You've heard the crazy woman screeching at John McCain "he's an Arab!", the state representatives demanding to see your birth certificate, the 20% of Americans who think you practice Islam. If any privileged outsider is able to understand the treatment Arab-Americans and American Muslims have experienced in airports since 9/11 I would think that you might be. And while the TSA monopoly on air travel and the necessity of covering great distances quickly may prevent a Montgomery bus-style boycott of airplanes, I suspect that eventually the American people will not stand to see our friends and neighbors and loved ones treated this way in the name of our own safety.
Life isn't safe. I don't feel safer knowing that my friend is being profiled, harassed, or even inconvenienced solely because of his race. I feel sick about it. My patriotism is not a brittle, small thing, but it is based on the principles this country is supposed to stand for even in the face of fear. How am I supposed to love my country, to feel pride in it, knowing that these principles can be so easily betrayed by those sworn to defend them?
My friend, who has, in the course of our political conversations, proven himself to be calmer and more even-tempered than me on many issues, said to me today that "being Arabic and in a US airport may as well be a crime." I don't know what he's feeling or how he'll respond to this incident but I am outraged that he has to feel it, respond to it at all. And it isn't just my friend, it isn't just this airport or this incident. This is happening right now, it has been happening for too long and it will continue to happen until enough people with enough power are brave enough to stand up and say it isn't right, it isn't American and it isn't keeping us safe.
Until we stop boarding the bus and say we'll be walking to work for the foreseeable future, thank you very much.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label racial profiling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racial profiling. Show all posts
Monday, December 27, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Day 291- $423
Dear Mr. President,
I just read an article on the cost of retail theft- which is, apparently, down in 2010 from 2009- and averages out to about $423 per family. This kind of makes me feel pretty awesome, not because I enjoy paying more for things because of thieves, but because I like to think I play a tiny, tiny part in making that number smaller. Especially recently. For the first few months working at my new job, I felt almost entirely useless. In the last few weeks, however, I've had some success and, with a lot of help from my coworkers, finally feel like I'm making some progress. I suppose every one just wants to feel like the work they do serves some purpose. I don't imagine I'm unique in getting a thrill at seeing my profession mentioned on CNN, or that the work we do is on par with the work of real law enforcement, but it is nice to know that we make a difference, too.
The comments posted on the article are sort of amusing. Plenty of angry commenters suggest that, in this economic climate, theft is a sane and rational response. I've encountered this mentality before, especially while working for a large corporate bookstore. Stealing from businesses (seen as wealthy) is OK, because they can afford the loss. I hear it still from thieves who shoplift while also making a purchase, citing their perception of the inflated prices as justification. (Pointing out that theft causes price inflation doesn't often have much persuasive effect in these casses.)
This bizarre rationale always makes me angry. It isn't corporate CEO's who are getting shoved, struck and even stabbed by the more violent shoplifters, it's me, my coworkers and people like us who are probably just as poor (or even more so) than many of the shoplifters. If there is one thing my job has taught me it is that everyone steals. Rich, poor, middle class. Black, white, or any color. College kids, housewives, the homeless, spoiled children looking for a thrill. Everyone steals. And, as this article illustrates, the people who pay the price for this theft are not the companies being stolen from but the consumers who pay higher prices as a result.
I feel like this mentality is reflected in the arguments against social services and, recently, health care reform. People don't seem to understand that the cost of crime and illness and suffering is passed on to all of us, one way or another. When I go to work everyday, I'm not thinking about serving any higher purpose, either. It's enough to me to enjoy what I do and to try to be decent at it. The fact that I'm also trying to save consumers more than $400 a year just kind of makes my job a little more interesting.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I just read an article on the cost of retail theft- which is, apparently, down in 2010 from 2009- and averages out to about $423 per family. This kind of makes me feel pretty awesome, not because I enjoy paying more for things because of thieves, but because I like to think I play a tiny, tiny part in making that number smaller. Especially recently. For the first few months working at my new job, I felt almost entirely useless. In the last few weeks, however, I've had some success and, with a lot of help from my coworkers, finally feel like I'm making some progress. I suppose every one just wants to feel like the work they do serves some purpose. I don't imagine I'm unique in getting a thrill at seeing my profession mentioned on CNN, or that the work we do is on par with the work of real law enforcement, but it is nice to know that we make a difference, too.
The comments posted on the article are sort of amusing. Plenty of angry commenters suggest that, in this economic climate, theft is a sane and rational response. I've encountered this mentality before, especially while working for a large corporate bookstore. Stealing from businesses (seen as wealthy) is OK, because they can afford the loss. I hear it still from thieves who shoplift while also making a purchase, citing their perception of the inflated prices as justification. (Pointing out that theft causes price inflation doesn't often have much persuasive effect in these casses.)
This bizarre rationale always makes me angry. It isn't corporate CEO's who are getting shoved, struck and even stabbed by the more violent shoplifters, it's me, my coworkers and people like us who are probably just as poor (or even more so) than many of the shoplifters. If there is one thing my job has taught me it is that everyone steals. Rich, poor, middle class. Black, white, or any color. College kids, housewives, the homeless, spoiled children looking for a thrill. Everyone steals. And, as this article illustrates, the people who pay the price for this theft are not the companies being stolen from but the consumers who pay higher prices as a result.
I feel like this mentality is reflected in the arguments against social services and, recently, health care reform. People don't seem to understand that the cost of crime and illness and suffering is passed on to all of us, one way or another. When I go to work everyday, I'm not thinking about serving any higher purpose, either. It's enough to me to enjoy what I do and to try to be decent at it. The fact that I'm also trying to save consumers more than $400 a year just kind of makes my job a little more interesting.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Day 209- Activist judges
Dear Mr. President,
I am so grateful for activist judges. Judge Susan R. Bolton, in particular. What strikes me as particularly reasonable is that she has put a hold on any implementation of the Arizona law while she fully considers the case. I don't think that she is particularly activist in this decision, but I'm sure that's what they'll be calling her on FOX tonight, and I'm just glad she's willing to take on the criticism for the sake of justice.
This decision gives me a deep gratitude for our legal system, especially in contrast with news from al-Araqib, where an entire Bedouin village was razed, despite a pending court case to determine the land rights of the villagers. I think it is a terrible reminder of what irreversible damage can be done in the wait for justice delayed. I wonder, how all of those made homeless by this destruction would have felt if an activist judge had stepped in to prevent the demolition, even if it was only until their case could have a fair hearing. Sure, the Israeli right would have decried it as judicial overreach, but families would not be sleeping in tents, cut off from access to water, shelter and basic services.
It is a small comfort to know that, at least for now, the civil liberties of Arizonans have been protected by the intervention of one individual. That, before any one's rights have been violated, she said, let's give this another look. It seems reasonable, wise, and just. I hope that the the law is eventually overturned, as I do not believe it will be effective or fair. For now, as my heart goes out to those made homeless by the haste of the forces that would see them run out of their land entirely, I am reminded how rare and remarkable our own system can sometimes prove itself to be. I hope that you condemn the destruction of al-Araqib, and the injustice suffered by the people who called it home. The people of Palestine, and the Arabs of Israeli citizenship deserve equal treatment by Israeli courts, and, as Israel's ally, it seems only right that we work to ensure this kind of gross oppression does not continue in a country you call our friend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I am so grateful for activist judges. Judge Susan R. Bolton, in particular. What strikes me as particularly reasonable is that she has put a hold on any implementation of the Arizona law while she fully considers the case. I don't think that she is particularly activist in this decision, but I'm sure that's what they'll be calling her on FOX tonight, and I'm just glad she's willing to take on the criticism for the sake of justice.
This decision gives me a deep gratitude for our legal system, especially in contrast with news from al-Araqib, where an entire Bedouin village was razed, despite a pending court case to determine the land rights of the villagers. I think it is a terrible reminder of what irreversible damage can be done in the wait for justice delayed. I wonder, how all of those made homeless by this destruction would have felt if an activist judge had stepped in to prevent the demolition, even if it was only until their case could have a fair hearing. Sure, the Israeli right would have decried it as judicial overreach, but families would not be sleeping in tents, cut off from access to water, shelter and basic services.
It is a small comfort to know that, at least for now, the civil liberties of Arizonans have been protected by the intervention of one individual. That, before any one's rights have been violated, she said, let's give this another look. It seems reasonable, wise, and just. I hope that the the law is eventually overturned, as I do not believe it will be effective or fair. For now, as my heart goes out to those made homeless by the haste of the forces that would see them run out of their land entirely, I am reminded how rare and remarkable our own system can sometimes prove itself to be. I hope that you condemn the destruction of al-Araqib, and the injustice suffered by the people who called it home. The people of Palestine, and the Arabs of Israeli citizenship deserve equal treatment by Israeli courts, and, as Israel's ally, it seems only right that we work to ensure this kind of gross oppression does not continue in a country you call our friend.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Day 161-Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca
Dear Mr. President,
Usually when I'm reading about murdered teenagers suspected of stone-throwing activity, it's a news story out of Palestine. The disgust that grips me is no different, when it happens here at home. I am heartbroken over the death of 15-year old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and there are no excuses for his murder that will make the action pardonable. His family is owed an apology by the American government and the agent involved. This boy was gunned down in cold blood. Mistakes, even tragic, fatal mistakes, happen, but we must be forthright and sincere in our apologies for this unforgivable incident or all Americans will bear the responsibility for the boys death.
I hesitated to tell my roommate about this. I saw how she took the news of the Arizona immigration legislation, or of the mural in Prescott and she herself has been the target of anti-hispanic racism; my sisterly affection for her inclines me to protect her from hearing about these stories. She has young brothers, and I don't know if she saw their faces when she heard of this boy's death, but I cannot fathom the fear that must follow such clear evidence that people who look like her brothers are now fair game for her own country's border patrol. They're treating Mexicans like vermin these days, she said. I didn't know what to say, to try and make it better.
I understand the need for a secure border, or at least the illusion of one, but Mr. President, this is too high a price for me to pay for a false sense of safety. There is nothing I value enough to think worth the murder of unarmed children, of any nationality, in any place, for any reason. Please, do not allow this tragedy to be spun in order to justify the unpardonable actions of the agent. Do not try to sell us on the necessity of this action. It would be nothing short of a betrayal of the trust I and millions of others have in your administration to protect our values. Please, Mr. President, apologize for this mistake, condemn this as a crime and make it clear that this kind of conduct will never be acceptable in the name of the American people.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Usually when I'm reading about murdered teenagers suspected of stone-throwing activity, it's a news story out of Palestine. The disgust that grips me is no different, when it happens here at home. I am heartbroken over the death of 15-year old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and there are no excuses for his murder that will make the action pardonable. His family is owed an apology by the American government and the agent involved. This boy was gunned down in cold blood. Mistakes, even tragic, fatal mistakes, happen, but we must be forthright and sincere in our apologies for this unforgivable incident or all Americans will bear the responsibility for the boys death.
I hesitated to tell my roommate about this. I saw how she took the news of the Arizona immigration legislation, or of the mural in Prescott and she herself has been the target of anti-hispanic racism; my sisterly affection for her inclines me to protect her from hearing about these stories. She has young brothers, and I don't know if she saw their faces when she heard of this boy's death, but I cannot fathom the fear that must follow such clear evidence that people who look like her brothers are now fair game for her own country's border patrol. They're treating Mexicans like vermin these days, she said. I didn't know what to say, to try and make it better.
I understand the need for a secure border, or at least the illusion of one, but Mr. President, this is too high a price for me to pay for a false sense of safety. There is nothing I value enough to think worth the murder of unarmed children, of any nationality, in any place, for any reason. Please, do not allow this tragedy to be spun in order to justify the unpardonable actions of the agent. Do not try to sell us on the necessity of this action. It would be nothing short of a betrayal of the trust I and millions of others have in your administration to protect our values. Please, Mr. President, apologize for this mistake, condemn this as a crime and make it clear that this kind of conduct will never be acceptable in the name of the American people.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, April 23, 2010
Day 113- Ghosts of 2008
Dear Mr. President,
I'm glad that you've publicly addressed the injustice of the racist immigration law recently passed by the state of Arizona. I'm at a complete loss; I can't fathom how in this day and age such legislation could be seriously discussed, let alone signed into law. We need comprehensive national reform, and in the meantime the Arizona legislation ought to be fought by the courts and by the voters. My roommate, a member of the Hidatsa-Mandan tribe, joined in our outrage at this legislation, despite having, better than any of us, a historical claim to this land. We're a nation of immigrants, outside of the reservations. Where are the small-government conservatives now? Where's the libertarian outrage at this massive infringement on individual liberty? How does John McCain, who supports this bill, even look at himself in the mirror?
You've already spoken forcefully about your objections to this legislation, so I'll waste no further time preaching to the choir. As I read through the day's news, another story raised my blood pressure. Try as I might, I cannot seem to effectively ignore Sarah Palin. Pretending she doesn't exist in the hopes that she'll stop talking and go back to Alaska doesn't seem to be effective, so I thought I'd point out yet another example of her glaring hypocrisy. Today, in response to the news that Franklin Graham was uninvited from the national day of prayer ceremony, Palin said, "Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. " This, from the same woman who thought that the controversial views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should have been reason for voters to mistrust you in 2008. While I may not have been as offended by Reverend Wright's remarks as I was by Graham's, I'm sure that I many were. Mrs. Palin needs to decide; either political correctness extends past the church doors or it doesn't. I think the real disconnect between the two situations in Palin's mind is that one condemnation was of America (actually, the American government, but I'm not sure that she makes that distinction unless there's a Democrat in the White House), the other was the entire Islamic faith. Palin believes that one of these is acceptable to criticize, condemn and even insult; the other is not. I think that a certain level of respect in public discourse, especially from religious leaders who claim to be men of God, is not too much to ask. However, I think that expressing the outrage of centuries of racial oppression and government abuse in melodramatic anti-American rhetoric is far less troublesome than calling an entire religion "wicked" or "evil."
I think if Arizona has taught us anything today it is that hatred, bigotry, and hypocrisy may never go out of style in this country, they don't look good on any one.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm glad that you've publicly addressed the injustice of the racist immigration law recently passed by the state of Arizona. I'm at a complete loss; I can't fathom how in this day and age such legislation could be seriously discussed, let alone signed into law. We need comprehensive national reform, and in the meantime the Arizona legislation ought to be fought by the courts and by the voters. My roommate, a member of the Hidatsa-Mandan tribe, joined in our outrage at this legislation, despite having, better than any of us, a historical claim to this land. We're a nation of immigrants, outside of the reservations. Where are the small-government conservatives now? Where's the libertarian outrage at this massive infringement on individual liberty? How does John McCain, who supports this bill, even look at himself in the mirror?
You've already spoken forcefully about your objections to this legislation, so I'll waste no further time preaching to the choir. As I read through the day's news, another story raised my blood pressure. Try as I might, I cannot seem to effectively ignore Sarah Palin. Pretending she doesn't exist in the hopes that she'll stop talking and go back to Alaska doesn't seem to be effective, so I thought I'd point out yet another example of her glaring hypocrisy. Today, in response to the news that Franklin Graham was uninvited from the national day of prayer ceremony, Palin said, "Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. " This, from the same woman who thought that the controversial views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should have been reason for voters to mistrust you in 2008. While I may not have been as offended by Reverend Wright's remarks as I was by Graham's, I'm sure that I many were. Mrs. Palin needs to decide; either political correctness extends past the church doors or it doesn't. I think the real disconnect between the two situations in Palin's mind is that one condemnation was of America (actually, the American government, but I'm not sure that she makes that distinction unless there's a Democrat in the White House), the other was the entire Islamic faith. Palin believes that one of these is acceptable to criticize, condemn and even insult; the other is not. I think that a certain level of respect in public discourse, especially from religious leaders who claim to be men of God, is not too much to ask. However, I think that expressing the outrage of centuries of racial oppression and government abuse in melodramatic anti-American rhetoric is far less troublesome than calling an entire religion "wicked" or "evil."
I think if Arizona has taught us anything today it is that hatred, bigotry, and hypocrisy may never go out of style in this country, they don't look good on any one.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, March 8, 2010
Day 67- Semantics
Dear Mr. President,
Today I'd like to point out yet another example of the appalling anti-Islamic bias in our media. Two articles, about the same tragic incident, caught my attention today. One, linked on the front page of the New York Times website, ran under the headline "Death Toll From Nigeria Violence Hits 500." The other, linked from the front page of CNN.com, ran under the headline "Muslims kill hundreds in Nigeria.". Before comparing the language used in these headlines, I'd like to first say that I am horrified by the violence described by the articles. I'm not insensitive to the superficial nature of the argument I'm about to make, especially when considering the toll this conflict has taken on the lives of so many.
However, these headlines speak to a greater trend, an undercurrent of Islamophobia perpetuated by our media, and, while there may be no statistics available on how many, this certainly has its own grievous toll. The articles, which are about the attack on a largely Christian population by a largely Muslim group, each specify that the attacks were retaliation for an attack in January that left 150 Muslims dead. The NYT article mentions this in the second paragraph, CNN mentions it at the very end of the article. Both quote sources who caution against characterizing the violence as solely based on religion, citing economic, social and ethnic tensions as additional contributory factors. And, (I checked,) in January, both news organizations covered the attack on the Muslims, but neither described it as "Christians kill hundreds in Nigeria." During Operation Cast Lead, no headlines read, "Jews kill thousands in Gaza." Clearly, those headlines would be seen as ridiculous and offensive. Why has it become acceptable to identify criminals as "Muslims", but not by any other religion? I see this time and time again in the way the news is reported. I'm not a Muslim, Mr. President, but I find this reporting style offensive.
I'm writing to you about this because I know you are sensitive to the ways that such perceptions, and the language that supports them, can exacerbate conflict and fear. No religious group should be indicted every time a person claiming to subscribe to it commits a crime. Islam, as you know, does not promote or condone violence and should not be twisted to suit the media's need to simplify the identification of our enemies.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today I'd like to point out yet another example of the appalling anti-Islamic bias in our media. Two articles, about the same tragic incident, caught my attention today. One, linked on the front page of the New York Times website, ran under the headline "Death Toll From Nigeria Violence Hits 500." The other, linked from the front page of CNN.com, ran under the headline "Muslims kill hundreds in Nigeria.". Before comparing the language used in these headlines, I'd like to first say that I am horrified by the violence described by the articles. I'm not insensitive to the superficial nature of the argument I'm about to make, especially when considering the toll this conflict has taken on the lives of so many.
However, these headlines speak to a greater trend, an undercurrent of Islamophobia perpetuated by our media, and, while there may be no statistics available on how many, this certainly has its own grievous toll. The articles, which are about the attack on a largely Christian population by a largely Muslim group, each specify that the attacks were retaliation for an attack in January that left 150 Muslims dead. The NYT article mentions this in the second paragraph, CNN mentions it at the very end of the article. Both quote sources who caution against characterizing the violence as solely based on religion, citing economic, social and ethnic tensions as additional contributory factors. And, (I checked,) in January, both news organizations covered the attack on the Muslims, but neither described it as "Christians kill hundreds in Nigeria." During Operation Cast Lead, no headlines read, "Jews kill thousands in Gaza." Clearly, those headlines would be seen as ridiculous and offensive. Why has it become acceptable to identify criminals as "Muslims", but not by any other religion? I see this time and time again in the way the news is reported. I'm not a Muslim, Mr. President, but I find this reporting style offensive.
I'm writing to you about this because I know you are sensitive to the ways that such perceptions, and the language that supports them, can exacerbate conflict and fear. No religious group should be indicted every time a person claiming to subscribe to it commits a crime. Islam, as you know, does not promote or condone violence and should not be twisted to suit the media's need to simplify the identification of our enemies.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Day 9
Updating from lunch, again. I hate sending in typed letters, but I haven't had time to write out the last two. At least they'll be more legible, I suppose.
Dear Mr. President,
Today while on my way to work I was stopped, for the third time, by a man asking for money. This man doesn’t remember me, as it’s been 3 times in 4 weeks, but I remember him. He’s well-dressed, white, and hangs out on the streets in my (predominantly non-white) neighborhood. He gives the same story about his mother being in one of the 2 major hospitals nearby, and asks for money to drive her back to their hometown, where he promises to mail a check to pay me back, if I leave him my address. Each time, this man tells me the story, and looks about at the homeless men waiting in line by the church center and insists, “I’m not a pan-handler. I’ve gone to the police, I’ve called my bank, but it’s the weekend. I’m just desperate.” What he seems to be saying (and why I find him contemptuous enough to remember him so well) is: “Trust me. I’m white, and middle-class, like you. I dress like your father. I talk like your professors. I’m trustworthy, because we play for the same team.”
Mr. President, I am the daughter of two Sheriff’s deputies. I’ve grown up around law enforcement officers my entire life; I’ve even worked loss prevention for the better part of the last two years. I understand how easy it is to believe that one can tell by race, nationality, age or physical appearance how a person will behave and what kind of threat they pose. But profiling of this kind is the most senseless because it hinders the kind of awareness that actually prevents crimes. If I believed, for example, that every non-white, or visibly poor person on the street was trying to steal from me, or lying about spending the money they ask for on food, than I would likely have given this man at least money, if not also my contact information for its return, the first time he asked me. The idea that a certain race, nation or class of person is automatically untrustworthy implies that trustworthiness can be assumed on such a basis as well.
Working loss prevention has taught me not to pay attention to a person’s clothes or skin color or tattoos or hair style. A person who is going to steal behaves in a certain way, regardless of how they look. That man on the street today acted nervous, only asked other white people for money, despite being surrounded by people of color, and contradicted himself twice in his story. Also, he was dressed like my father. (Clearly, this is not an honest individual.) What angers me is that he has profiled me, as well, a white girl in a non-white neighborhood, naïve, afraid, eager to help those that look like me (but not, “pan-handlers”) This man assumes, based on my skin color and clothes, that we’re on the same team and that he can use that against me.
This also applies to airport security. Take, for example, the three American women in my group, all flying in to the Tel Aviv airport. All three of us were 22 years old, had American passports and spoke English as our first language and offered the same trip information when asked where we were staying in Israel. I was welcomed in and passed through in less than 5 minutes. The second girl, Texan by birth and Indian by blood, was pulled aside, questioned for a half-hour, asked her father and grandfather’s names and (after finding them Hindu and not Muslim,) released. The third girl, the American-born daughter of Iraqi parents, was detained for 4 hours in the airport, shouted at, degraded, and only released after the intervention of our group’s director (himself a white American.) The three of us entered the country with the same ‘nefarious’ purpose; to back-pack, shop, explore ruins and make friends. Of the three, I’m likely the most radical in my political beliefs (and was quick to use my camera phone to snap photos of the Israeli soldiers detaining us during our hike, over their strong objection.) While I pose no threat, whatsoever, to Israel, of the three of us, I, the loud-mouth with the camera phone, was still allowed to enter the country with little to no screening. This is because Israel’s security procedures are based on race, religion and nationality, a system designed to prevent threats, only if they come from people who look, sound, or pray like “enemies.”
My point is that screening people based on what country they’re born in, what word they use for God, or the color of their skin is not going to keep us safer on planes. Rush Limbaugh and the people who think like him may believe that this is a good idea, but the kind of complacency it breeds, (not to mention the time it wastes on the innocent, or their humiliation which can turn into resentment) will only put us in greater danger. Our team doesn’t have the same uniforms or flags or colors, and pretending that the other side does is the worst kind of naiveté.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Today while on my way to work I was stopped, for the third time, by a man asking for money. This man doesn’t remember me, as it’s been 3 times in 4 weeks, but I remember him. He’s well-dressed, white, and hangs out on the streets in my (predominantly non-white) neighborhood. He gives the same story about his mother being in one of the 2 major hospitals nearby, and asks for money to drive her back to their hometown, where he promises to mail a check to pay me back, if I leave him my address. Each time, this man tells me the story, and looks about at the homeless men waiting in line by the church center and insists, “I’m not a pan-handler. I’ve gone to the police, I’ve called my bank, but it’s the weekend. I’m just desperate.” What he seems to be saying (and why I find him contemptuous enough to remember him so well) is: “Trust me. I’m white, and middle-class, like you. I dress like your father. I talk like your professors. I’m trustworthy, because we play for the same team.”
Mr. President, I am the daughter of two Sheriff’s deputies. I’ve grown up around law enforcement officers my entire life; I’ve even worked loss prevention for the better part of the last two years. I understand how easy it is to believe that one can tell by race, nationality, age or physical appearance how a person will behave and what kind of threat they pose. But profiling of this kind is the most senseless because it hinders the kind of awareness that actually prevents crimes. If I believed, for example, that every non-white, or visibly poor person on the street was trying to steal from me, or lying about spending the money they ask for on food, than I would likely have given this man at least money, if not also my contact information for its return, the first time he asked me. The idea that a certain race, nation or class of person is automatically untrustworthy implies that trustworthiness can be assumed on such a basis as well.
Working loss prevention has taught me not to pay attention to a person’s clothes or skin color or tattoos or hair style. A person who is going to steal behaves in a certain way, regardless of how they look. That man on the street today acted nervous, only asked other white people for money, despite being surrounded by people of color, and contradicted himself twice in his story. Also, he was dressed like my father. (Clearly, this is not an honest individual.) What angers me is that he has profiled me, as well, a white girl in a non-white neighborhood, naïve, afraid, eager to help those that look like me (but not, “pan-handlers”) This man assumes, based on my skin color and clothes, that we’re on the same team and that he can use that against me.
This also applies to airport security. Take, for example, the three American women in my group, all flying in to the Tel Aviv airport. All three of us were 22 years old, had American passports and spoke English as our first language and offered the same trip information when asked where we were staying in Israel. I was welcomed in and passed through in less than 5 minutes. The second girl, Texan by birth and Indian by blood, was pulled aside, questioned for a half-hour, asked her father and grandfather’s names and (after finding them Hindu and not Muslim,) released. The third girl, the American-born daughter of Iraqi parents, was detained for 4 hours in the airport, shouted at, degraded, and only released after the intervention of our group’s director (himself a white American.) The three of us entered the country with the same ‘nefarious’ purpose; to back-pack, shop, explore ruins and make friends. Of the three, I’m likely the most radical in my political beliefs (and was quick to use my camera phone to snap photos of the Israeli soldiers detaining us during our hike, over their strong objection.) While I pose no threat, whatsoever, to Israel, of the three of us, I, the loud-mouth with the camera phone, was still allowed to enter the country with little to no screening. This is because Israel’s security procedures are based on race, religion and nationality, a system designed to prevent threats, only if they come from people who look, sound, or pray like “enemies.”
My point is that screening people based on what country they’re born in, what word they use for God, or the color of their skin is not going to keep us safer on planes. Rush Limbaugh and the people who think like him may believe that this is a good idea, but the kind of complacency it breeds, (not to mention the time it wastes on the innocent, or their humiliation which can turn into resentment) will only put us in greater danger. Our team doesn’t have the same uniforms or flags or colors, and pretending that the other side does is the worst kind of naiveté.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, January 4, 2010
Day 4
Updating from work on my lunch break.. I really should have written this earlier in the day.
Today's letter:
Dear Mr. President,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Today being January 4th, and the type of day that requires me to type this up quickly during my lunch break, I am going to write about my favorite constitutional amendment, the 4th. Don’t get me wrong- I think the 1st is the most important- but the 4th is my favorite, (and not just because it features so prominently in Jay-Z’s 99 problems).
While returning from my trip to Palestine in the summer of 2008, I was flying out of the Tel Aviv airport. I’d already had an amazing trip- punctuated of course by run-ins with the IDF at checkpoints and while hiking, though these encounters had been relatively easy for me, as an American. Once in the airport, however, I was on my own and had no idea what to expect. While I’d entered the country with ease, my companions had each been detained, interrogated, searched and grudgingly allowed entrance. During our hike, Palestinian Arabs had to use separate lines through checkpoints, and the IDF soldiers stopping us to check ID often tried to “sort” us, (“Arabs on one side, every one else on the other.”) Our group began as strangers but became fast friends and our response quickly became “We are all Palestinians. You cannot separate us.” Once in the airport I was instructed by my guides to tell any one who asked that I’d spent the whole trip in Jerusalem, and that any items I had purchased (olivewood carvings, jewelry, flags, t-shirts, etc) were also from Jerusalem. I did so, but became uncomfortable lying during a more in-depth search of my belongings.
The woman shouting questions at me wanted to know who I’d been with, their names, their professions, where we had gone and if I had been “alone with any Arabs.” She seemed to think me horribly naïve, and kept insisting that I had been in danger. “Don’t you know what they do to women?” “How do you know they did not try to give you a bomb?” This whole process, while mildly offensive, was still a bit amusing to me, as my backpack was full of the clothes I’d been wearing for 2 weeks of hiking in the summer heat.
I’d heard stories about a British traveler who, growing weary of the endless questions he’d encounter on his trips through Tel-Aviv, would start to remove his clothing at the first question. I’d had a professor experience a truly invasive search at the Allenby bridge crossing, and so I was prepared by these anecdotes that a more invasive search was not impossible. I was dressed modestly, again, on the advice of the trip organizers, but at one point my jacket slipped down to reveal a tattoo I have in Arabic. This caught the attention of one of the security offices and I was ordered to remove my jacket, read the tattoo and explain what it meant. She said “Why would you get that language tattooed on your body?” I was then asked to proceed to a back room for a “metal detector test”, (though I did not encounter a metal detector but instead was asked to remove my clothing,) and frisked. The girl conducting the search seemed mildly embarrassed about the ordeal and apologized to me several times before checking between my toes and in my hair. I passed this strange test and the girl led me through security and escorted me to my gate, even intervening with her supervisor to allow me to keep my asthma inhaler in my carry-on.
After an uneventful day in Prague, I made it to customs at JFK. The man looked at my passport, looked at my tattoo, and said “Welcome to New York.” In that moment, sir, I loved my country more than I had the rest of my years. Knowing that I could have a tattoo of anything and not be interrogated about it, knowing that I could have my belongings kept private unless there was reasonable cause for suspicion, knowing that my constitution protected me in this way made me incredibly grateful. I’m sorry that so many of us have to experience a loss of our freedom to appreciate what we have.
This brings to mind the tightened security and more elaborate searches faced by many Americans since the attempted attack. While I am genuinely happy to have my belongings searched before bringing them aboard a flight- I have no wish to die in an airplane and would cede even my beloved 4th amendment rights, to some degree, for this safety- I wish there were ways to ensure that these measures were being conducted in a such a way as to respect the individuals being searched. I hope that passengers are not being profiled by their race, religion or personal appearance. We have to find a way to balance personal safety with personal freedom and the inevitable mistakes along the way will need to minimized, admitted to and apologized for. I only hope that we do not allow fear to shape our country into something unrecognizable.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today's letter:
Dear Mr. President,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Today being January 4th, and the type of day that requires me to type this up quickly during my lunch break, I am going to write about my favorite constitutional amendment, the 4th. Don’t get me wrong- I think the 1st is the most important- but the 4th is my favorite, (and not just because it features so prominently in Jay-Z’s 99 problems).
While returning from my trip to Palestine in the summer of 2008, I was flying out of the Tel Aviv airport. I’d already had an amazing trip- punctuated of course by run-ins with the IDF at checkpoints and while hiking, though these encounters had been relatively easy for me, as an American. Once in the airport, however, I was on my own and had no idea what to expect. While I’d entered the country with ease, my companions had each been detained, interrogated, searched and grudgingly allowed entrance. During our hike, Palestinian Arabs had to use separate lines through checkpoints, and the IDF soldiers stopping us to check ID often tried to “sort” us, (“Arabs on one side, every one else on the other.”) Our group began as strangers but became fast friends and our response quickly became “We are all Palestinians. You cannot separate us.” Once in the airport I was instructed by my guides to tell any one who asked that I’d spent the whole trip in Jerusalem, and that any items I had purchased (olivewood carvings, jewelry, flags, t-shirts, etc) were also from Jerusalem. I did so, but became uncomfortable lying during a more in-depth search of my belongings.
The woman shouting questions at me wanted to know who I’d been with, their names, their professions, where we had gone and if I had been “alone with any Arabs.” She seemed to think me horribly naïve, and kept insisting that I had been in danger. “Don’t you know what they do to women?” “How do you know they did not try to give you a bomb?” This whole process, while mildly offensive, was still a bit amusing to me, as my backpack was full of the clothes I’d been wearing for 2 weeks of hiking in the summer heat.
I’d heard stories about a British traveler who, growing weary of the endless questions he’d encounter on his trips through Tel-Aviv, would start to remove his clothing at the first question. I’d had a professor experience a truly invasive search at the Allenby bridge crossing, and so I was prepared by these anecdotes that a more invasive search was not impossible. I was dressed modestly, again, on the advice of the trip organizers, but at one point my jacket slipped down to reveal a tattoo I have in Arabic. This caught the attention of one of the security offices and I was ordered to remove my jacket, read the tattoo and explain what it meant. She said “Why would you get that language tattooed on your body?” I was then asked to proceed to a back room for a “metal detector test”, (though I did not encounter a metal detector but instead was asked to remove my clothing,) and frisked. The girl conducting the search seemed mildly embarrassed about the ordeal and apologized to me several times before checking between my toes and in my hair. I passed this strange test and the girl led me through security and escorted me to my gate, even intervening with her supervisor to allow me to keep my asthma inhaler in my carry-on.
After an uneventful day in Prague, I made it to customs at JFK. The man looked at my passport, looked at my tattoo, and said “Welcome to New York.” In that moment, sir, I loved my country more than I had the rest of my years. Knowing that I could have a tattoo of anything and not be interrogated about it, knowing that I could have my belongings kept private unless there was reasonable cause for suspicion, knowing that my constitution protected me in this way made me incredibly grateful. I’m sorry that so many of us have to experience a loss of our freedom to appreciate what we have.
This brings to mind the tightened security and more elaborate searches faced by many Americans since the attempted attack. While I am genuinely happy to have my belongings searched before bringing them aboard a flight- I have no wish to die in an airplane and would cede even my beloved 4th amendment rights, to some degree, for this safety- I wish there were ways to ensure that these measures were being conducted in a such a way as to respect the individuals being searched. I hope that passengers are not being profiled by their race, religion or personal appearance. We have to find a way to balance personal safety with personal freedom and the inevitable mistakes along the way will need to minimized, admitted to and apologized for. I only hope that we do not allow fear to shape our country into something unrecognizable.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
