Cagle World

I knew it was only a matter of time before segments of the right-wing media, both here in America and in Britain, would reignite their propaganda/outrage machine towards Meghan Markle, better known as The Duchess of Sussex.

Markle has been urged to defend her sister-in-law, Princess Kate, after she found herself at the center of a royal crisis thanks to an edited family photograph.

Catherine, the Princess of Wales, posed for a picture with her three children for Britain’s Mother’s Day, but fans quickly took to social media websites to point out a numerous issues with the photo. Kate conceded to altering parts of the photograph and apologized for the supposed “confusion.” Kensington Palace was under immediate pressure to explain what parts of the image were changed, while numerous royal sources declared the controversy as “exceptionally damaging” to the Royal Family.

Given the major public relations disaster the incident has morphed into, British public relations expert Ryan McCormick has called on Markle to assist her sister-in-law, saying in an interview with the Mirror, “If I was advising Meghan, I would tell her to speak loud and passionate in defence of Kate. Meghan may not like being on the brunt of negative press but, she’s definitely more familiar with it than Kate.”

“The Duchess could help the Princess of Wales tremendously by guiding her through this crisis publicly and behind the scenes,” McCormick added.

Since Meghan and Harry’s engagement in 2017, Kate and Meghan have been employed as one another’s nemesis in the press. Meghan tends to be depicted as more progressive, regal, and enticing, but also more bratty, demanding, and sinister. Kate tends to be positioned as more conservative, down to earth, and pedestrian, as well as more royal and maternal.

The two have always been intertwined and unable to be seen as independent of one another. Thus, it has been understandable that as Middleton’s absence has extended toward tawdry gossip and scandal, Meghan supporters inquired to know why the royal family was ready to grant special privileges for Kate that they would not make for Meghan. Such questions are certainly fair game.

Immediately from the outset of her involvement with Prince Harry, Markle was the target of vicious and racially-coded venom, with comments such as “Harry’s new girlfriend is straight outta Compton.” Coverage climaxed after the couple granted an interview to journalist Oprah Winfrey, where they revealed several details that shined a light on the racism – whether conscious or unconscious – among certain members of the royal family.

Perhaps, as a biracial woman who identified as such, Ms. Markle was unaware she is seen as Black. The specter of racial ambiguity is something that is forfeited. Being a woman of color, the intersection of race and gender, as the late Pauli Murray referred to as “Jane crow and Jim Crow,” is all too often commonplace. This was and is evident in the treatment she has endured from her detractors.

As the racists see it, she was wealthy and supposedly privileged, and thus, she should be grateful and engage in unadulterated mea culpas of thankfulness to Buckingham Palace and the larger British society, and stop making those “baseless and unfounded” charges of racism. In essence, they believe  Markle should stay in her supposed lane and know her place.

This was the same royal family that sat idly by and allowed (perhaps even aided and abetted, according to some sources) the level of racism directed toward Harry and Meghan, which escalated to such a volatile point they were forced to depart the United Kingdom. Now, that the seemingly favored daughter in-law, Catherine, has come under such dissecting scrutiny, people expect Markle to sweep in, come to the rescue and act as the Black mammy savior.

While such a choice is obviously Markle’s to make, at the moment, she has remained pretty mum on the entire sordid episode. Given her past history with the tabloids and the demeaning behavior of her fellow royals, a neutral stance is probably the most sagacious course of action.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

It was “The Stepford Wives” meets “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Nearly a week later, people are still talking about the State of the Union response given by Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, which has been widely mocked by politicians and pundits alike. It certainly didn’t require the skills of a futurist to realize her less-than-stellar efforts would result in a raw and ruthless parody on “Saturday Night Live.”

One Republican pollster called Britt “creepy,” while a national Republican consultant told Rolling Stone, “I’ll give Biden this — He at least gave a better speech than Katie Britt.” “It’s one of our biggest disasters ever,” another unnamed Republican strategist told The Daily Beast. Radio host and former Fox Newser Megyn Kelly all but served the junior senator her political severance papers.

Katie Britt was successful in one manner. She had people talking about her.

Giving the State of the Union response is pretty much a thankless job. You are in the crosshairs of the opposing party, which is bound to attack or misrepresent anything you say in an effort to discredit you. More often than not, it provides few advantages to the career of the individual who receives the ambiguous honor of delivering it.

There have been some very poor performances. Britt’s, however, was a colossal failure, a wipeout that overshadowed even the less stellar attempts such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s near drowning in 2009, Sen. Marco Rubio’s water guzzling in 2013, and Rep. Joe Kennedy appearing in front of the cameras with ChapStick plastered over his chin in 2018, prompting viewers to believe he was panting.

What tipped Britt’s lukewarm performance from merely clueless to outright obscene was its darkest moment, when she told a horrific and sadistic story that, at least by implication, turned out to be a bold-faced lie. It was about a woman Britt met when she visited the Texas border. “She had been sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12. She told me not just that she was raped every day, but how many times a day she was raped,” Britt said. “We wouldn’t be okay with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it. President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.”

Such an account appeared to be a powerful, touching, and emotional story. However, some stealth fact checking, led by journalist Jonathan Katz, revealed that although the woman in question and her experiences are accurate, they did not take place on American soil, but rather occurred in Mexico. They also occured between 2004 and 2008, more than a decade before Biden was sworn in as president. The Post’s fact checker Glenn Kessler awarded Britt four Pinocchios for the way she twisted this tragic story to make a craven partisan point.

Britt, a 42-year-old rising star in her party, was supposed to represent “America’s mom,” according to talking points that were sent around to conservative influencers before she spoke from her upscale designer kitchen. Fellow Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville commented, “She was picked as a housewife, not just a senator.” Really?

Britt is actually an an attorney who served on Capitol Hill as chief of staff to her predecessor, Richard Shelby. She was also the first woman to lead the Business Council of Alabama, which is the state’s chamber of commerce. She’s been a pioneer insofar as it relates to female politicians in Alabama, so presenting her as a housewife first reveals some alarming and major flaws behind why the GOP struggles to effectively recruit suburban women.

That deeply contradictory and problematic message is hardly reassuring during a moment when the Republican Party is attempting to dispel its image as a retrograde entity that desires to return women to the pre-1960s era.

An era of women being largely nonexistent in the workplace, primarily raising families, forced to accept physical and emotional abuse, battling mental health issues by suffering in isolation and silence, having to quietly overlook, if not, outright tolerate marital infidelity, bereft of any legal rights from the judicial system, and residing in a state of potential economic and social vulnerability by deeply mired in second-class status. Such an image will hardly prompt many women across the political and generational spectrum — particularly many millennial and Gen Z women — to embrace the party.

There are people weighing in on Katie Britt’s future. Some argue that she has likely been omitted from Trump’s short list for vice president. Others believe it will take her years to recuperate from such a politically disastrous situation.

One thing is certain. Neither the Republican National Committee nor the National Republican Party did themselves any favors by ushering Katie Britt into the political lion’s den to deliver such an ill-judged response.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Historically viewed as a fringe belief system, Christian nationalism has become a considerable force in American politics, particularly as it relates to the current Republican Party.

A new survey from Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution revealed more than 50% of Republicans believe the country should aspire to become a devoutly Christian nation by ascribing to the fundamentals of Christian nationalism, or, at a minimum, identifying with such beliefs.

Christian nationalism is the assumption the United States is a Christian nation, and that the nation’s laws should be deeply rooted in Christian values. Such a mindset has long been prevalent in white evangelical spheres, but has rapidly gained considerable traction within the mainstream Republican party.

Committed Christian nationalists represent only 10 percent of the population, according to a 2023 PRRI/Brookings Christian Nationalism Survey. Despite such a distinct minority, Christian nationalists have been successful in garnering additional influence by aggressively integrating themselves into a more sizable Christian electorate and declaring themselves as ordinary men and women.

Not surprisingly, support for Christian nationalism is heavily correlated to political ideology. Americans who reside in culturally conservative red states are much more likely to espouse Christian nationalist beliefs or be more inclined to harbor Christian nationalistic sympathies. More than half of Republicans also hold Christian nationalist beliefs, compared with a quarter of independents and just 16% of Democrats.

In 2022, a collection of right-wing writers and leaders published a document titled “Conservatism: A Statement of Principles.” The section on God and public religion stated, “Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private.”

That is an alarming and troubling statement, implying non-Christians should have second-class status in our country. That Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and others should be deprived of equality under the law. Such rhetoric is the antithesis of freedom to worship enshrined in the Constitution.

Christian nationalism is not an ideology where an individual’s belief system defines their political values. Human beings can certainly hold divergent opinions as they relate to immigration, reproductive rights, or any other political issue. Like everyone else, Christians routinely spar among one another on such issues. Debate and a diversity of viewpoints are often beneficial to both the debaters as well as the larger society.

What distinguishes Christian nationalism is not religious participation in politics but the myopic perception that Christian primacy and theology must be deeply saturated in virtually every aspect of our society. It is tied to a visceral sense that the well-being and survival of the church is closely tied to the outcome of any given political race. Christian nationalism’s supporters have little, if any, compunction about attempting to impose their personal value system upon others. Such beliefs often manifest themselves through linear ideology, a specific identity, and unbridled passion.

If Christian nationalism were successful in becoming the norm, it would abolish our current Constitution and further fragment our democracy.

Incidentally, it was the thrice-married serial adulterer and wayward (at least by traditional religious standards) former President Donald Trump who courted right-wing Christians. According to one analysis, Trump’s judicial appointees were almost universally Christian, and a majority had some kind of affiliation with a religious group such as a church or other religious foundation.

Trump also appointed three of the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Unable to garner the support of the majority of Americans for dictating American culture, Christian nationalists have mounted a legal-political crusade against all who refuse to embrace their religious worldview. The Supreme Court’s new conservative majority has steadily eroded the separation of church and state embedded in the Constitution.

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, these theocrats have successfully put their disdain and disregard for the life of the pregnant into law in one right-wing Republican-dominated state after another. But this is just the warm-up act.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and his fellow crusaders would like to inject their religious doctrine into the veins of every political aspect of federal law and public policy in an effort to establish religious hegemony. Conservative governors and legislators have arrogantly, brazenly, and shamelessly invoked God and religion as the legislative purpose behind such draconian measures.

If we value the freedom to worship in our own way, such arrogant and disingenuous proselytizing has to be combated.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Being the ever-menacing carnival barker that he is, former president Donald Trump said the four criminal cases he faces have garnered him significant support from Black voters.

Why? He claims due to the historic injustices Black Americans have endured at the hands of the criminal justice system, they can identify with his legal dilemma.

“I think that’s why the Black people are so much on my side now because they see what’s happening to me happens to them. Does that make sense?” Trump said at the Black Conservative Federation Gala in Columbia, South Carolina.

During his speech, he further commented that Black voters had warmed to him “because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against, and they actually viewed me as being discriminated against. It’s been pretty amazing.”

Continuing his barrage of dishonest and racially-offensive rhetoric, he stated, “The lights are so bright in my eyes that I can’t see too many people out there.” To laughter from the audience, Trump continued, “But I can only see the Black ones. I can’t see any white ones. You see?”

“That’s how far I’ve come,” he added as the crowd cheered. “That’s how far I’ve come. That’s a long—that’s a long way, isn’t it?”

Trump and a few members of his immediate family have been accused of racially inflammatory remarks and behavior. The Justice Department sued him in 1977 for discriminating against potential Black tenants. He was taken to task for stoking racial tension when he purchased newspaper ads in the New York Times in the late 1980s urging the state to adopt the death penalty after the rape of a jogger in Central Park, a crime wrongly blamed on five Black and Latino teenagers. It is also important to note he has never apologized to these young men who lost more than a decade of their lives to such a gross injustice of the criminal justice system.

By the way, let’s not forget how he arrogantly and shamelessly engineered racial animus toward President Barack Obama by becoming an ardent proponent of the so-called birther movement, which falsely promoted the lie Obama was not a legitimate American citizen. Later, at a press conference at the grand opening of one his hotels, Trump was forced to acknowledge to the many journalists in attendance that “Barack Obama was born in the United States.”

To be honest, much of the mainstream media deserved to be sucker punched for disingenuously embracing such nonsense.

Trump continues to revert to and engage in xenophobic foolishness toward people of color by continuing to aggressively pronounce Obama’s middle name, “Hussein,” and refer to Nikki Haley as Nimrata Randhawa when he mentions both individuals on the campaign trail. And he has continued to question whether political opponents are eligible to hold office, in particular former governor and ambassador Haley.

Donald Trump appeals to the most vile and base instincts of his supporters, who often embrace offensive stereotypes that have been traditionally ascribed to Black Americans. It’s not an accident – Trump is very astute to the fact that such scurrilous and intellectually dishonest rhetoric appeals to his far right MAGA supporters, which is considerably, if not predominantly, White Supremacist in their value system.

During his speech last week, Trump was surrounded by a few prominent Black leaders, including former Housing and Urban Development secretary Ben Carson and Republican Florida Rep. Byron Donalds. He was also lauded by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the only Black Republican currently serving in the U.S. Senate. Thus, the specter and spirit of intellectual dishonesty was rampant.

Thankfully, Black voters don’t appear to be swayed by the nonsensical rhetoric and pandering coming from Trump, a rabid race-baiter cynically trying to garner votes. Painting all Black people as criminals certainly didn’t help, especially has Trump himself faces four criminal indictments and the specter of prison.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

It should probably come as little surprise that a majority of American millennial and Generation Z women identify as liberal.

A Gallup Poll released earlier this month indicated the ideological gap between men and women across various generations has increased over the past few years, and that young women today are much more liberal than young men.

Some of their findings:

– Women aged 18 to 29 are now 15 percentage points more likely to identify as liberal than men of the same age group.

– Young men are slightly more likely to identify as conservative (29%) than liberal (25%), with moderate (44%) as the largest share — numbers that have been consistent over the past quarter of a century.

– More young women identify as liberal (40%) than moderate (37%).

– Women aged 18 to 29 are 13 percentage points more likely to identify as “pro-choice” than men, according to a Harvard poll released last year.

Such results don’t surprise me. For a plethora of reasons, the past few years have been emotionally fraught for women across all ages. In just over the past few years we’ve seen the rise of the #MeToo movement, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the implementation of draconian anti-abortion laws in Republican-controlled states across the country. These have all had a  alarmingly detrimental and chilling effect on many women.

Abortion and reproductive rights are not the sole issues that account for such effects. Many more women than men are enrolled in postsecondary education. The number of women attending college far outpaces that of men. This is a trend that has been occurring for decades. Meanwhile, the number of men enrolled in higher education institutions has consistently decreased. Currently, the ratio of women to men in college enrollment stands at roughly 60 to 40, and the gap is widening. Americans with college degrees tend to gravitate more toward left-wing politics compared to Americans without such degrees.

Until a few decades ago, sexual politics was primarily discussed underground or in restricted circles with like-minded individuals. Today, with more tolerance among Americans, and with the rise of liberalism among younger millennials and Gen Z, there has been a notable increase in young people openly and publicly identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. In a recent survey, 56% of young women reported they were exclusively attracted to men, whereas 75% of young men said they were exclusively attracted to women. Prior and current research suggests LGBTQ Americans of all ages tend toward liberalism.

Unlike some of their aunts, grandmothers, and older female relatives, younger American women do not have to rely on a man’s income for their livelihood. Many young women make as much, if not more, than their male cohorts, so the need to have a husband or male provider for their economic security is less of a reality. Several longer-term trends have influenced young women’s liberalization as well. For example, the share of women aged 18 to 29 who are married has fallen by half in 20 years, from 31% in 2000 to 15% in 2021, according to the National Opinion Research Center. In a nation with a 50% divorce rate, it makes sense that people would consider marriage with some trepidation.

American women, from little girls to teenagers to adults, have always had to confront multiple dilemmas in their lives. Like with many non-white groups (although women of color are members of both categories), for one or two steps forward, American women have encountered a step or two backward. However, given the increasing opportunities for women in politics, corporate America, higher education, and other arenas that were largely off-limits decades earlier, the future for the current generation looks much more positive.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

From the Duchess of Sussex and actress Meghan Markle to former Harvard President Claudine Gay to Vice President Kamala Harris, Black women have been the target of severe attacks in recent months.

The most recent example (and there have indeed been many as of late) are the distasteful comments made by Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas toward his colleague, Democrat Cori Bush of Missouri.

Nehls, an acid-tongued conservative, took it upon his shamelessly arrogant self to refer to representative Bush as “loud” and “mouthy.” Nehls also referred to Buch’s husband, a man who served as a member of the U.S. military, as a “thug.” The incident comes after Bush defended her use of campaign funds to hire her husband for security services, given the fact that she, like several other members of color in Congress, have been the targets of death threats.

“She doesn’t even support the police. But the idea of paying her thug money to try to help protect her?” Nehls said. “What if she wouldn’t be so loud all the time maybe she wouldn’t be getting threats… When you are out there talking the way she does, I’m not surprised that people are probably pretty upset because she’s a pretty radical person.”

Nehls all but said “she needs to know her place.” There’s also the irony of Nehls calling Bush “loud” while his own party is home to outspoken loudmouths like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and Chip Roy.

It is hardly news that obnoxious politicians like Nehls are quick to spout irresponsible and largely nonsensical rhetoric, often laced with racial stereotypes and tropes. The larger issue here is that his comments represent a long, disturbing history of people denouncing and denigrating Black women.

From president Trump on down, for some reason, it seems that humiliating and degrading Black women has become a trend within the Republican Party, and there doesn’t appear to be a cease fire anywhere on the horizon.

Public disregard and disrespect for Black women has always been problematic. Recall former radio host Don Imus, who referred to members of Rutgers women’s basketball team – college students – as “nappy-headed hos” and “jigaboos.” Black women are frequently defined as “angry” or “uppity,” and former President Ronald Reagan made the term “welfare queen” a campaign issue.

The relentless effects of such demeaning and disrespectful behavior toward Black women in our society sends a searing, disturbing and detrimental message to the larger society. It’s beyond time men of all races to confront the sexist, racial and cultural stereotypes that remain deeply ingrained across our society.

To paraphrase Peter Finch’s Howard Beale, it’s time for Black women to stand up and declare they’re “mad as hell” and won’t tolerate such a continual onslaught of debasement, disregard and disrespect. Society at large must reexamine its negative preconceived notions of Black womanhood, and the media must do its part in helping to dispel dangerously pernicious myths associated with women of color.

Such a conscientious task may not be easy to accomplish. After all, old habits are hard to break. But it’s a crucial and mandatory step to take, especially while loud and ignorant men roam freely through the halls of Congress.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Several years ago, Taylor Swift was far from the femme fatale some members of the MAGA far right now consider her to be.

Many conservatives used to revere Swift. In 2015, Republican lawmakers invited the pop icon for personal tours of the U.S. Capitol and offered to provide donors tickets to her concerts. Even Donald Trump stated she was “terrific” and “fantastic.”

How times have changed.

Swift is now political poison to the right, largely despised for her progressive viewpoints, her unabashed support of feminism and, perhaps worst of all, for having the gall to inject herself into the NFL.

“The NFL is totally RIGGED for the Kansas City Chiefs, Taylor Swift, and Mr. Pfizer [Travis Kelce],” charged Mike Crispi, a Salem Radio talk show host, “all to spread DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA.” On Fox News, Jesse Watters accused Swift of being a “Pentagon asset.” Newsmax host Greg Kelly accused Swift fans of idolatry: “If you look it up in the Bible, it’s a sin.” One America News host Alison Steinberg suggested Swift and Kelce were plotting to brainwash teenagers into thinking about sports when their focus should be on Jesus Christ.

And on and on and on.

The NFL has been a historically conservative organization with a right-leaning fan base. Taylor Swift represents assertive, powerful, independent womanhood. She is pro-choice and a staunch advocate of LGBTQIA rights, and she openly espouses and supports liberal and progressive positions on race, gender, class, and economics. Hence, she epitomizes most of the things despised by many conservatives, especially by the reactionary right, and they view her as a credible and serious threat.

The reality is that for many decades, conspiracy theories have been a fundamental factor of right-wing politics. During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, the modern right feared that communists had infiltrated virtually all avenues of American society. During the 1960s, Republicans, many of them former Dixiecrats, decried the civil rights and antiwar movements as being engineered and agitated by Russian politicians in Moscow.

Similar political paranoia was evident in the 1970s when far-right strategists declared that Democrats were conspiring with leftist radicals and homosexual sympathizers to eradicate America and Christianity. In fact, such efforts were so effective that they convinced millions of Christian evangelical voters to join the Republican Party. By the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan revisited 1950s paranoia when he insisted the anti-nuclear weapons movement was a creation of the Russians, despite denials from the FBI. The Republican Party embraced Christian Coalition leader Pat Robertson, a proponent of antisemitic conspiracy theories, and granted him considerable a power within Republican political circles.

When Bill and Hillary Clinton resided in the White House, right-wing journalists and pundits went into overdrive with conspiracy theories about their various business dealings and the suicide of aide Vince Foster, alleging it was murder. The ultra-right pastor Jerry Falwell sold sleazy videos alleging the Clintons had murdered many of their political enemies. Prominent party leaders, among them Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, assisted in amplifying the anti-Clinton conspiracy theories, which conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh used to radically entice millions of listeners.

The right’s attack on Barack Obama was fueled by a torrent of conspiracies regarding his past, most evident in the racist birther conspiracy theory that Trump sinisterly embraced and exploited to become a darling of the conservative right. Obama was portrayed in right-wing media as a Kenya-born undercover Muslim and secret socialist whose goal was to establish death panels and to destroy America.

What really rankles the psyches of today’s conservatives is that unlike many entertainers, Swift has demonstrated courage while being unapologetic about her convictions. She has spoken her truth despite physical threats and the potential public backlash. She has refused to remain silent, even if that means being targeted by the menacing and sinister hostility of Doanld Trump and his MAGA sycophants.

Although she hasn’t even endorsed President Joe Biden for reelection yet, that hasn’t stopped members of MAGA power circles from threatening to declare — as one source close to Donald Trump called it — a “holy war” on the pop megastar, especially if she ends up publicly backing the Democrats in the 2024 election.

Hostility aside, declaring war against Taylor Swift is an ill-advised tactic that could further augment her already powerful brand. She has demonstrated over and over that her cultural influence is a formidable and undeniable reality. To target someone with her profile and her legion of diehard fans is an almost futile effort that would alienate sizable segments of the county. She is simply a force to be reckoned with.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

In news you might have missed, 22-year old Madison Marsh – a second lieutenant in the Air Force and master’s student at the Harvard Kennedy School’s public policy program – was crowned Miss America in Orlando, Florida.

Marsh, representing the state of Colorado, is the first active-duty Air Force officer ever to receive the national title. Southerner by birth, born in Fort Smith, Arkansas, Marsh graduated from the United States Air Force Academy with a degree in physics focusing on astronomy.

Upon her victory, March paid tribute to her late mother, who died of pancreatic cancer in 2018. Shortly after her mother’s death, Marsh founded The Whitney Marsh Foundation, which raises money for pancreatic cancer research, awareness, early detection, and patient care. This is her platform.

Since their inception as part of the pageant apparatus in 1989, platforms have been one of the most scrutinized aspects of the contest. While the majority of Miss Americas have served largely controversy-free reigns, there have been a few who managed to garner the ire of certain segments of the country.

One such former winner was Kira Kazantsev, Miss America 2015.

Kazantsev worked at a planned parenthood as an intern, and drew considerable outrage among conservative viewers. Organizations such as the National Right To Life (arguably the direct antitheses to Planned Parenthood) wasted no time going after Kazantsev, while a number of conservative websites levied attacks against her character and what they perceived as her lack of moral values. For the most part, Kazantsev took the criticism in stride and was unapologetic about her activities.

Miss America 1976, Tawny Godin (then Tawny Little), outraged many pageant fans when she stated she supported a woman’s right to an abortion. Vanessa Williams, Miss America 1984 and the first Black woman to win the crown, was the victim of racial hostility and death threats by those who saw her victory as an affront. Nina Davuluri faced similar racial hostility as well from disgruntled internet bloggers when she became the first Miss America of East Indian heritage. The late Leanza Cornett, Miss America 1993, announced that she was a pro-choice Christian Republican and was viewed with a jaundiced eye by many conservative pageant fans.

Incidentally, during the 1990s, there were a number of Miss Americas who arguably had controversial platforms and still won the crown. Cornett adopted AIDS awareness as her platform. Her successor, Kimberly Aiken, Miss America 1994, took on the plight of the homeless for her cause. For Kate Shindle, Miss America 1998, safe sex and condom distribution in public schools was her platform. Each walked off with the crown. Laura Kaeppeler, Miss America 2012, touted mentoring children of incarcerated parents.

The reality is that Miss Americas are complex human beings. Despite wearing a tiara and traveling across the nation for a year promoting their causes, they have emotions and opinions just like the rest of us. Some are liberal, while others are conservative. Some hold deeply political beliefs, while others are completely apolitical.

There are some on the right who need to realize that not every Miss America is going to be devoutly religious or necessarily be excessively patriotic. There are others on the left who need to come to the realization that women who decide to participate in the Miss America contest or any pageant cannot be stereotyped and broadly labeled as people with low self-esteem, limited intellect, entrenched with a hyper intensive level of narcissism, lacking a social conscience or being manipulated by a sexist culture. Such regressive thinking of both camps is myopic and backward.

It is probably safe to say all of the nation’s Miss America winners embody characteristics that can be found in all of us. They are not monolithic – they’re human.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

In just the latest example of his tendency to employ passive-aggressive racially coded dog whistles, former President Donald Trump referred to Republican presidential rival Nikki Haley by her birth name, Nimarata.

Haley is the daughter of Indian immigrants and was born Nimarata Nikki Randhawa. She took her husband Michael Haley’s last name after they were married. Trump recently amplified his attacks on her by targeting her birth name and falsely stating she is ineligible to become president because her parents were not U.S. citizens when she was born in 1972.

The truth is Haley was born on American soil and is thus eligible to run by the laws of our constitution. Coming from Trump and the larger right-wing apparatus, such tactics are hardly surprising. Trump and other Republicans practiced similar xenophobic antics during the 2008 campaign , when they falsely accused then-presidential candidate and eventual President Barack Obama of being born in Kenya.

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz jumped on the racist bandwagon by stating on Newsmax, “What I can tell you is for every Karen we lose, there’s a Julio and a Jamal ready to sign up for the MAGA movement, and that bodes well for our ability to be more diverse and to be more durable as we head into not only the rest of the primary contest, but also the general election.”

Can we honestly be surprised at comments like these from Republicans?

The fact is xenophobia has always been a central part of American life and an ugly factor enraging and galvanizing voters. It’s a form of racism and discrimination that has threatened the democratic ideals upon which this country was founded. For example, in the mid-19th century, anti-Catholic xenophobia swept the nation, and Catholic immigrants faced hostility. Then, in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first federal law to single out a specific immigrant group for exclusion. This law remained in effect until 1943.

In the late 19th century, nativism was rampant, and the country’s leading scientists and politicians labeled Italians, Jewish people, and others from Southern, Central and Eastern Europe as “inferior races” that pushed the “native born” aside, leading to a call for “America for Americans.” Thus, quotas were implemented to allow immigrants from Northern and Western Europe but not Southern and Eastern Europe or from Asia.

During the harrowing years of the Great Depression, calls to deport Mexicans became part of local and federal policies. Almost one out of every five Mexicans or Mexican Americans were forced to leave the country, including natural-born citizens. During World War II, 120,000 Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps for the duration of the war based on the US government’s reasoning that they were a severe threat to national security.

A temporary reprieve occurred in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement helped raise support for immigration reform. The 1965 Immigration Act overturned discriminatory quotas that had been in place since the 1920s and indisputably outlawed discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence in government decisions to issue international visas.

By the 1990s, xenophobia had begun to regain momentum as immigration became a vital component of the rightward growing conservative movement . During this decade, right-wing journalists, scholars, and politicians argued that growing numbers of immigrants from Latin America, Africa, and Asia were culturally diluting and ethnically assaulting the “core of American identity.” By this they meant white America.

Such impassioned and sinister tactics were successful in generating backlash, electing conservative politicians to office, and moving political influence in the United States rightward on a number of issues. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Islamophobia became a signature symbol of the political, social, and cultural right.

Nikki Haley, who had previously stated her father had to teach at a historically Black college and university because he was unable to secure employment at a white institution of higher learning, continues to espouse the notion that “America was never a racist nation.” She does this even as Trump continues to attack her, her name, and, by default, her ethnicity.

Should Haley continue selling her moral compass by engaging in such blatant denials and by refusing to state such obvious truths, despite the fact that she knows better? America has been and, in certain ways, still is a nation where racism and xenophobia exist. To claim otherwise is to be disingenuous to the point of straining credulity.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Donald Trump is on track to once again secure the Republican presidential nomination, as he did in 2016. No surprise here.

Anxiety and weariness are ever-present in the run-up to the November 2024 election. There is intense speculation on how Trump and his cult-like band of sycophantic followers will respond, whether in the face of victory or defeat.

The motivating factor for Trump’s reemergence as a candidate is revenge. He has made it abundantly clear to his MAGA base he is their answer to retribution, and has promised to “completely annihilate” the deep stat. Whatever actions he takes – illegal or otherwise – would garner significant support from pluralities of Republican voters and politicians.

Polls continually demonstrate that politically right-of-center voters are increasingly shunning political decency. It began happening almost immediately after Trump announced his initial candidacy in 2015. Instead of rejecting candidate Trump and his odious messages of racism, sexism and xenophobia, many right-wing Republicans, including White evangelicals, saw an opportunity to regain executive power by coddling white supremacy and tapping into the regressive psyche of the nation’s most reactionary impulses.

Today, almost a decade later, we are still enduring the results of such reductive maladies.

This is not the only disturbing difference among Republican voters. An increasing segment is now considering condoning political violence. A poll conducted in October 2023 indicated that a startling 33 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

Particular animosity has been directed toward Republicans who have adhered to the rule of law. Republican lawmakers and election officials in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin, as well as members of their families, have received death threats for following the law and rejecting Trump’s demands to overturn the 2020 presidential election. More recent threats have been directed against political officials in the political, legal, and criminal justice system, who have tried to hold Trump accountable for his actions.

Recently, Trump amplified his rhetoric, referring to his political opponents as “vermin” and declaring that immigrants entering America illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country.” In more politically sane and sensible times, such remarks would be considered so offensive and reprehensible that any politician would undoubtedly suffer backlash from colleagues and voters. Nonetheless, in the perverse political world of conservative politics, a Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa Poll found that a 42 percent plurality of likely Iowa Republican caucus goers said such rhetoric would actually bolster their commitment to Trump.

This is  hardly a new American phenomenon. To quote Black Panther H. Rap Brown, “Violence is as American as cherry pie.” Violence is deeply embedded in the fabric of the nation’s soil starting with the Revolutionary War, when the nation aggressively, defiantly, and skillfully defended itself against the tyrannical impulses of British imperialism. During the Civil War the nation was engaged in a fractious divide over the repugnant regime of slavery. Post-reconstruction President Rutherford B. Hayes and his vice president, Samuel Tilden, with their infamous Hayes/Tilden compromise of 1877, withdrew union troops from the South and returned the region to its segregationist Dixiecrats, who were all too eager to exact their revenge on Black citizens through a variety of economic social and judicial indignities  —  among them overt, wanton violence and political disenfranchisement.

Millions of workers waged courageous battles during the early to mid-decades of the twentieth century as they remained steadfast and defiant against the physical and emotional violence directed toward them by sadistic corporate managers, wealthy stockholders, and other business titans. Also consider the brave and heroic struggle so many clergy, students, and ordinary folk undertook during the modern civil rights movement. These men, women, and in a number of cases, children routinely managed to bravely persevere despite relentless opposition from hardcore segregationist sheriffs with water hoses and cattle prods, foreclosures of land, violent prisons, and angry white segregationist mobs.

Trump has been successful in sinisterly tapping into the socially-stunted psyche of more than a few white people who long for the days when people of color and non-christians were second-class citizens and members of the LGTB+ community were shunned.

Trump’s die-hard base longs for the day when America returns to the nation it unmistakably resembled in the mid-nineteenth century. The Jim Crow era of the mid-20th century is too benign for them. Their message is clear: either you are with them, or you are against them.

If you are a member of the latter category, they intend to deal with you by any violent means necessary.

–

Copyright 2024 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.