The day after the 2006 Oscars, Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan penned a scathing critique of the academy’s choice of best film, Crash, which he described as “a feel-good film about racism.” The film, he wrote, “could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (21)Page 1 of 1 pages“playing down non-white aspects of one’s identity along four axes: appearance (Don’t wear a sari, turban, veil, corn-rows.); affiliation (Speak excellent, unaccented English.); activism (Avoid ethnic or race-based organizations.); and association (Cultivate predominantly white social networks.) “
White kids do this too, if they want jobs. Speak politely in correct English, not wear outrageous clothes, not bring up hot button topic and trying to fit in. This is just how anyone fits into a society. Calling it “acting white” is a misnomer - rather it should be labeled “acting educated and polite”.
Perhaps the important thing to note is that there are very few impediments to blacks succeeding in US society. In fact, they are even given additional aid by the society at large (via reverse discrimination or AA). While i have no problem with helping those in *need*, i would prefer our efforts be directed to those in need on a *need-based* basis, rather than this very artificial raced base nonsense.
Of course, i believe in the “melting pot” view of the US. Others who wish a country filled with diverse people with very different cultures and languages will have a very different view of how this country should evolve.
Posted by wolf on Apr 7, 2006 at 8:40 AM Wolf is correct to say that “acting white” is a misnomer.
I am white and come from an uneducated, poor background. Even had divorced parents and lived in a mobile home, such a cliche, but that was my life.
I watched and listened to how my family behaved/talked and compared that to teachers and any educated person I met or saw on television. I learned from this, leaned to say “I saw” instead of “I seen,” among other things.
Whether any of us like it or not, you WILL be judged on how you act and speak. Even the poorest households in this country have a television. Whatever your color, you hurt only yourself if you bitch and moan instead of watch and learn.
I’ve acutally decided to “act Asian” in raising my own son. Asians out-perform whites in this country. Does that mean that employers and schools are biased against whites in favor of Asians? Or that Asians are naturally more intelligent than whites? Or is it because even the poorest Asians tend to place such importance on education and performance? Hmmmm....I tend to think they’re on to something good.
And isn’t that what human development is all about? Improving on our family’s history by adopting the best of other cultures? Why would I want to flaunt my redneck ways out of some mis-guided family/cultural pride, and then insist that everyone else appreciate and reward it? Why on earth would I criticize an employer for not hiring me because I refuse to “talk good”?
Posted by oleofritter on Apr 7, 2006 at 10:26 AM Interesting article.
I don’t know, maybe we’re all Elizabeth Bennets, uncomfortably aware of the messier aspects of our own backgrounds.
“Acting white” here seems more like “acting WASPy”—or maybe just a sort of . . . where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking and all the children are above-average.
Posted by soundcheck on Apr 7, 2006 at 11:54 AM Very interesting Ms. Chaudhry. Your discussion of acting black, white, where “when it’s their turn to solicit advice, the African-American Sparks family politely declines. “I already know how to adapt and get along with white people. … Black culture has to conform to white society,” took me back to the 60’s and how my parents taught us of the same duality, their world and ours. We didn’t mind being “bilingual,” as Chappelle calls it, because it allowed us to “signify” around white folks, which I think kept our sense of unity and community in tact. That’s not the same as the over blown way “rap stars like 50 Cent, who assiduously perform every negative black stereotype in order to satisfy the fantasies of a white, middle-class audience,” who really abuses this duality resulting in the perverted idea “that says a black youth with a book is acting white.”. This piece goes beyond the surface of the tired Black/White comparisons unlike most discussions on race, especially needed now with the immigration bill debage going on. Keep up the good work.
Posted by theloneous on Apr 7, 2006 at 12:35 PM She wears her Woman of Color on her sleeve. I’m also a woman of color, and so what. Yeah, we’re all the same. That’s just true.
“The freedom to perform our identity gives us the power to define its meaning.”—To quote Pope, that’s an “unmeaning, miscalled a thought.”
Is this a sideways attempt to justify identity as performance? I say we drop that and confess.
And this passage is just BS:
“At the heart of this individualist perspective on race is the assertion of sameness: We are all racists; we are all human. Difference is an artificial cultural construct that disguises and distorts our true universal essence.
As various critics have pointed out over and over again, this kind of liberal humanism effectively lets white Americans off the hook and denies the need for radical social change.”
The format of quoting academics and “many critics” is either a bad writing habit, or fear of saying things more straightforwardly. I like how critics haven’t just pointed this out frequently, but over and over again.
Radical social change in Lakshmi’s mind would appear to be necessarily waged in “courtrooms, schools, workplaces and in the media.” Wait, that’s where normal efforts at social change are waged. Radical social change, according to many historians who pointed this out over and over and over again, only happens in the streets, usually with weapons.
People squirt clouds of ink for the same reason that squid do.
Posted by grendel on Apr 7, 2006 at 3:36 PM I think that Wolf and Winterchestnut are on to something here. To some extent everybody acts.
The job interview, the first date, and the first day at school are not the occasions when people are happy to just be themselves. Experience also leads people, or has at least led me, to be change the way I behave in different situations. I have learned that the way I greet someone can make them think that I am akin, or very different, to them. In some cases it leads to real hostility. Do you speak to all of your friends and relations in the same way? or do you find yourself using different vocabularies and skirting issues that are likely to lead to arguments?
I used to work in call centres and can remember that the ‘steady hum’ of our machinery was the shifting of voices and speech patterns and salespeople or customer service people. As the calls progressed they came to sound like their clients. If they abruptly returned to their ‘natural’ intonation and accent it was because the conversation had taken a turn for the worse. You can observe the same behaviour in bars. When people want to get along they mimic each other, when they don’t they don’t. They will also lie, to themselves and to others, to fit in or feel comfortable.
Race, class, age, religion, and sex are pretty important social cleavages and it is when people cross these cleavages that they are most obviously acting but it is not just about race.
I think there is also a premise here that black people who use academic language, for example, are behaving in a way that is false. Have you ever heard an interview with Maya Angelou, dose she conform to the stereotype or is she “acting white”.
Posted by richard123 on Apr 7, 2006 at 9:44 PM The growing nation-wide effort to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is emblematic of a larger issue: what kind of country is the United States to become.
Yesterday’s news brought out two explosive pieces of information:
Lewis Libby, the indicted chief aide to Dick Cheney, has admitted under oath before a Federal Grand Jury that it was George W. Bush himself who authorized Libby to illegally “leak” classified information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in July, 2003 in an effort to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson who had publicly stated that “there is nothing to the story” that Saddam Hussein’s government was trying to buy uranium for a nuclear weapons program. Wilson is the husband of Valerie Plame, the undercover CIA operative whose identity was revealed to the media as retaliation for Wilson’s contention that Bush’s assertions about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction were false. The “classified information” that Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to plant in the New York Times turned out to be entirely false.
Bush’s Attorney General admitted yesterday that Bush believes that he has the authority to personally authorize the secret wiretapping, without any court order, of any and all conversations and emails between Americans that occur exclusively within the borders of the United States. Earlier it was revealed that Bush set up a massive secret wiretapping operation monitoring a huge number of Americans, but he had asserted that it was only to listen in on conversations of people in the United States who were making international calls and emails.
The fact that Bush has not already had articles of impeachment filed in the House of Representatives is clear evidence that the people must act forcefully as the true guardians of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is exactly what the ImpeachBush.org movement is doing. When impeachment looked remote, there were still tens of thousands of individuals who tirelessly worked to collect petitions, hold rallies, wrote and called members of Congress and donated so that we could place newspaper ads all across the country.Today, impeachment is not remote at all. It reflects the majority sentiment. Recent polls show that by 52% to 43% majority the American people favor impeachment if it is proved that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. A nearly similar majority support impeachment if the President broke Federal wiretapping laws by authorizing the secret wiretapping of Americans without a court order when there is no evidence or inquiry of criminal wrongdoing.
Yesterday’s revelations confirm again that this is a lawless administration. Impeachment is imperative. This is a challenge for every person in this country who has a commitment to the Constitution. The people must continue to act rather than wait for the politicians to lead.
Now that more than 700,000 people have voted for impeachment at http://www.impeachbush.org/ it is urgent that we do everything in our power to make the issue of Bush’s criminal conduct a major issue between now and the November Congressional elections. The newspaper ads are an excellent way to keep the issue of impeachment front and center. We have succeeded in placing more and more ads because of the donations of the people who are committed to this course.
We want to increase the visibility in the weeks ahead with even more newspaper ads. Please continue to show your support by making a generous donation on-line or by learning how you can send a check. This is a grassroots people’s movement. It is historic and it can succeed with your help. Click here to make your contribution.
-All of us at VoteToImpeach/ImpeachBush.org
Posted by brian28 on Apr 7, 2006 at 9:48 PM oops,
well maybe it makes the point. I was thinking about Maya Angelou’s interveiw with donald swaim http://www.wiredforbooks.org/mayaangelou/
but I just googled another interview , this time with Oprah, and she sound different - of course!
But I do not think she was being someone other than herself in either, just talking to the audience.
Anyway, I was really thinking about a friend who is a Mathematician. When he speaks with his colleagues he has a different accent and vocabulary to that he uses when speaking to his mother. I do not think that this is because he is somehow being false at work ,or at home. I think he is very definately himself wherever he is.
Posted by richard123 on Apr 7, 2006 at 10:06 PM I’ve followed Black.White. because I did just that. In the late ‘60’s, my college friends and I were messing around with makeup. I tried my darkskinned friend’s foundation; we were astounded at the difference. Carmen suggested I borrow a friend’s afro wig, ahot pink dress I would never wear as my redhaired, paleskinned self, and dark hose. I wore granny glasses but did not otherwise diguise my eyes, nor did I speak differently.
For three evenings, I wore this outfit in public with them. One was very light, redhaired,; one was a bit darker with white features; the third was darkskinned, very African-appearing. They were afraid to appear white in public—I only had did it because I was with them in Santa Fe NM USA.
My other friends never figured it out. I was “Carmen’s cousin from Chicago.” The Black Student Union members invited me to dinner, a few guys even hit on me. One night we knocked on my own door. My mother didn’t recognize me until we dissolved into giggles and ‘fessed up.
We went to Chicago to visit Carmen’s real cousin. Again, I put on wig and makeup. On the way to Chicago from Santa Fe, we were harrassed by a Missouri state trooper who, according to Carol, thought we were hookers; he followed us from Joplin to St Louis, scaring us badly.
In Chicago, however, we were treated well. We attended a Black Panthers party and boy howdy did I get an eye-opener on race and class! I socialized a little but was terrified of being found out. My friends realized that getting caught out would be a Very Bad Thing so we left. The Panthers were fierce and dedicated, looking to survive in a world that hated them; hearing them, I could never be comfortable in my privilege again.
I dressed like that only once more. I wanted to visit a shop in the same Chicago neighborhood, but quickly realized that those streets were not healthy for a white girl. I bought makeup and returned to the shop “incognito.” This time, no one noticed me as I shopped.
Because of my history, Black.White. has been interesting. You’d think race issues would have progressed a teeny bit in 40 years! I like Brian, and feel enormous sympathy for him and Renee regarding their son, who is way too cute for his own good. I want to slap Carmen and Bruno for their impenetrable bastion of white privilege; with Rose, well, she tries and I think she knows she’s a privileged white kid.
In my experience, which comes out of my history, culture and skin color, much race conflict is born of conqueror’s rights and the subjugateds survival. It’s tough to let go of your history—and sometimes dangerous, as the pendulum of tolerance swings back and forth.
In race relations, culture/history play a large part, but we are also identified by our “race,” which doesn’t exist in the biological arena. Brian is lighter than some “white” folks, while Bruno seems darker than some “black” and ‘Hispanic” folks.
But .. . “we know what we know.” You can tell a black person or a white person, can’t you? Just like my own friends knew me . . . .
Posted by KatherineBryce on Apr 10, 2006 at 6:06 PM I feel that an integral part of the contemporary experience is performative. We should not expect anything that exists on the level of popular culture that comprises our hypermediated world to be anything more “real” in terms of understanding or articulating the systematic forms of racism that are less individualistic. Artists who are more apt at addressing racism are ambiguous and indirect because racism is very complex, with overt and hidden practices. However complexity is not a part of pop culture.
One way to understand these popular trends is to distinguish between racism and prejudice. People can have individual prejudices that are directed at other racial and cultural types but that does not have to be equated with racism. It is mistake to assume that the film “Crash” falls short of addressing “real” issues of racism because I don’t see the film as purporting to address those issues. The film addresses prejudices that cross cultural boundaries. That’s the value the film has to offer.
I enjoyed the film “Crash” because I could appreciate it on the level in which it was presented. Hopefully another film will come out that more directly addresses racism, but also the intersection of class and gender that make oppressive aspects of our society so pernicious.
Posted by Epistrophy on Apr 11, 2006 at 9:42 PM I began reading this article hoping for a substantive critique of reducing racism to individual interactions (e.g., prejudicial attitudes leading to discriminatory behavior). However, it soon became clear that, rather than offering a structural or institutional analysis of racism, Lakshmi Chaudhry’s level of analysis remains at the individual--the only difference being that she has rightly pointed out that race is a social construction and must therefore be continuously enacted, constructed, and reproduced in various “performances.”
We need to view race as a social construction, but, if we are truly interested in eliminating racism, we must look beyond the level of the individual. A sociological approach would do the trick, but this seems to be ignored by the author, even attributing Erving Goffman’s sociological concept of “covering” to an author who is drawing on his work .
If we truly want to deal with race in a serious, as opposed to superficial, manner, we need to take a serious look at the institutional and structrual aspects that reproduce racial inequality. Chaudhry might start by looking at such classics as Oliver and Shapiro’s “Black Wealth/White Wealth,” Massey and Denton’s “American Apartheid,” and W.J. Wilson’s “The Underclass.”
Posted by bakunin on Apr 12, 2006 at 9:57 AM I can see where the issue of ‘covering’ or taking on behaviour of the race or social set of power can be a disturbing reality. It happens in the realm of men and women too. Women are now and have been for some time, paying to see male strippers and having ‘bachelorette’ parties and this behaviour is such an obvious attempt for women to appear to be gaining power through behaving like men even though there is such an obvious false nature to it - if one of these guys were to jump off the stage and aggressively pursue the women in the audience, they are most likely to ‘act’ differently than men given their social experiences as women. Similarly though, men are starting to become more body conscious and looks concious....again, this is not a gain for either sex really. I can see how this may lead to us running in circles instead of progressing...however, there are some so-called ‘male’ behaviours that are going to definitely benefit whoever adapts to them as they are simply characteristic of those who succeed - confidence, ascertiveness...in the end, they’re not really ‘male’, they are just characteristics that have been attached to men in comparison to women given our respective historical social behaviour differences.
In the same way, isn’t it possible that some of these ‘white’ characteristics are aspects of behaviour that everyone wants to adapt to in every society (whatever the dominant colour) in order to gain opportunities? I’m sure we have all experienced other cultures during travel and through friendships with others and realize that every cutlure has it’s own higher level of pronouciation and diction of their language which affords them a certain positive distinction. Accents are also going to have some affect in any society. Having said this, there is no doubt that we must re-define what we consider to be a desirable state of existence....our principles based on a united people of different genders, races and experiences through the media etc..
Posted by deepbluesea on Apr 13, 2006 at 12:11 PM Wolf,
While we are in accord with the ‘melting pot’ philosophy of America, I think we may disagree on the definition of a melting pot. For example, when I cook up a soup, I sautee some onions, carrots and celery in some oil, toss in a can of tomatoes, add the stock and some veggies, et voila. And everything has the flavor of everything else.
To extend the metaphor, your version of a melting pot would have all the ingredients tasting like tomatoes, which would be a sign of a bad chef. In your opinion, all minorities should conform to the dominant culture. Where’s the blending in that? Shouldn’t we adopt aspects of their culture? Aren’t there things to learn from the black experience?
I think that having “a country filled with diverse people with very different cultures and languages,” as you wrote, is like the first twenty minutes of a melting pot. A good soup takes about an hour and a half.
Posted by rocco on Apr 14, 2006 at 12:43 AM These discussions always fascinate and puzzle me. They puzzle me because I was raised with as little awareness of race as my parents could afford me. To me, differences in skin color carry about the same weight as differences in eye color or hair color among Caucasians: it’s interesting that people come in different varieties, but in our essential nature we’re the same.
No, it’s not just a feel-good cliche (although it’s that, too - admittedly). It’s also a biological FACT.
The way to be your essential self is to be yourself, e.g., without being self conscious beyond a reasonable level of politeness. I know that sounds simplistic to many people, but it’s the truth. Get over it! Be who you are comfortable being, whether that behavior is “race appropriate” or not. The people you are so afraid of (the so-called “white power structure") will respect you more for it.
Note the careful use of the word “respect”, as opposed to “like” or “love”. If you want love, buy a puppy. If you want respect, be authentically who YOU are, as an INDIVIDUAL.
Those silly, mawkish Hollywood movies do get one thing right: it is up to each individual to make things better. Putting the responsibilty off on a Nameless Mob ("those people...why, if it wasn’t for them...") encourages passivity in the face of intolerance, and discourages people of good will from positive action ("You’re only being nice to me because you’re a Guilty White Liberal").
Folks, it really is this simple: you connect to people one a time. You make friends one at a time. You overcome preconceived ideas in individual minds one at a time. If that sounds hopelessly naive to you, then I submit you are hopelessly cynical.
Posted by WingFlanagan on Apr 14, 2006 at 3:59 PM WingFlanagan,
My only comment on your post:
History has a life of its own, which does indeed affect our individual lives. It’s not so much that your points are naive, but that they do little to address the historical markers that groups of people draw on our timeline of events.
I do agree indeed that people should be judged individually; but cultures are amalgams of these individuals, who share commonalities which often conflict with the commonalities of other groups. The reasons for the arbitrary division of groups (genetics, religion, etc.) are irrelevant in this context.
To remain above the fray, as it were, is a denial of the very real consequences of these factors. To address them is to acknowledge them, and, hopefully, in turn alter them.
Posted by rocco on Apr 14, 2006 at 5:37 PM I recently saw a 20/20 news program edition where many young African-Americans spoke out against the idea that by virtue of their academic achievement they were “acting white”. It has gotten to such a point that Illinois Senator Barak Obama has weighed in on the side of the students who object strongly to being expected to hue toward a popular stereotype at the expense of their academic success. The students thought it unfair to be ostrocized because they were smart. It is also racist to think of academic ability as white regardless of your race. I was heartened by the students’ objections. I sincerely hope more students join them.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 15, 2006 at 4:57 PM I for one am with ya, WingFlanagan!
Undermine, erode, challenge, pointedly ignore, laugh at, mock, trivialize, confound, rage against, and otherwise dampen the influence of race-based thinking. “Biological fact”, es verdad! Fuck history. It’s 3/4 mythology and cooked data anyway.
Ya don’t have to like me, but we’re still cousins. We’re in the same bloody lifeboat no matter how you slice it.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 18, 2006 at 12:43 AM Besides, how the hell do you “act white”? Or “act black”? Does a dark-skinned Punjabi act the same as a dark-skinned Sudanese, though their melanin levels might be similar?
Blah. Delusions within illusions. Time to transcend like a mofo. Pass the mayo.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 18, 2006 at 12:47 AM WingFlanigan,
I feel you on one level, but you are living in the clouds! Come back down and acknowledge that “passing” happens for a reason. You claim that whites don’t respect people who pass - why do folks of color do it then? Why do you think people have been doing it since the first slave arrived on our soil? Cause it BENEFITS them. I don’t know if you have enough info to be able to criticize people who pass. If that’s the way to get a job, apartment, respect, cooperation etc. then that’s what people are going to do. And you take the blame OFF of injust structures (whites, assimilated people largely being in power and maintaining privelege through racism, exclusion), and off whites themselves (who are sometimes racist or unwilling to go out of their comfort zone to deal with other cultures) for making people pass.
I agree that race is sometimes over stressed - it might not be AS MUCH of an issue if it wasn’t brought up sometimes. But you are waaaay overstating your case. How you look/talk/act matters. And I don’t know about you, but I personally treat people of different races differently. And I admit it. And that’s because I can’t help it - it happens in many unconscious ways and is re-inforced by shitty movies like crash, and by the definition of “white” and “black” culture and stereotypes which pervade our culture. The problem is not that we talk too much about race, but that we still don’t have the courage (and our leaders don’t ask it of us) to look at our OWN issues with race and justice, at our own prejudice, fear etc. I just don’t feel that anyone can claim that they treat people race neutrally.
You also write:
“Be who you are comfortable being, whether that behavior is “race appropriate” or not. The people you are so afraid of (the so-called “white power structure") will respect you more for it. “ I hate to say it cause I like your idealism, but it seems you are putting the blame on people of color for their ill treatment. And that’s silly i think. Passing happens to gain something or with the perception that it will help a person gain something. And it often does. The fact that you blame people of color might mean that you actually do have issues with race. Perhaps that you are not willing to admit that you are part of a group (although you yourself may not discriminate) that discriminates, and benefits from it, and that has a responsibility to change it—beyond your personal behavior! This is Chaudhry’s point! In some people it is white guilt which metamorphizes into shifting the blame to others for racial prejudice. The ego works to protect itself. You are also belittling people of color for talking about REAL structural problems to racial equality when you say they are being “afraid” of the “so-called ‘white power structure’”.Anyways, I think this is a great debate, and important since most folks want to say “racism is over! We don’t need to talk about race anymore.(see all in congress except a handful).” thanks to Chaudhry and to all for participating.
Posted by RobbyB on May 28, 2006 at 3:03 AM Well been and seen all this stuff before...Grew up in a black so-called working middle class 2 parent household with euro-centered values.To say this is a confusing issue is understated...Point-blank amerika don’t give a damn about any of this stuff...The conversation is an issue base off of slavery and the marginalization dehumanizing effects resulting post-extant...know we want to act like there is concern when in reality most folks black or white don’t care...Capitalism is a fascistic unstable form of governance it does not have time too actually deal with these things...Black folks & all people of good-will who truthfully care need to reach down past all the culturally nero-minded muck that represents amerikan social values etc… and come to realize that all culture and knowledge came from afrika ; appreciate these facts and respect the true intellectual value of this point ; authors such as Gerald Massey & Ivan Van Sertima are an excellent place to begin ( a lot of reading but worth every minute / the voluminous work on this subject IS extensive ).you don’t have to start wearing a kufi or change your name ...just get the facts straight...respect yourself and others and stop being so xenophobic...that job alone if started today would take maybe a good generation or so of collective study and revisionist thought....
....Respect....
Posted by Redhorse on May 28, 2006 at 10:02 AM Calm dowm Kuya...history ain’t that bad a thing...if you don’t know it you are bound to repeat and I know you don’t want that...Mythology is the language / science of the ancient scholars ;don’t blame our collective fore-mothers & fore-fathers because some johnny wannabe think he know somethin and I mean thin as in thinly veiled non-scholarship wants too lie about our collective past ( please check out the work of Prof. Van Sertima , his personal story speaks to that very issue and his professional mission conquers that misconception ).The baby is beautiful it’s the bath water that needs to be thrown out....also excellent RobbyB don’t want to be marginalized or marginalize myself that’s the most damaging aspect of racism when you believe all the negative hype...Respect…
Posted by Redhorse on May 28, 2006 at 10:46 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Lakshmi Chaudhry
- The Godless Fundamentalist
In The Root of All Evil, biologist Richard Dawkins reveals his own lust for certainty - The Power of Mean
Fuller argues that the moral power of Rankism = that everyone experiences being a somebody and a nobody - can overcome the innate force of bullying? - Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
The Bush administration's pragmatic policy toward Pakistan suggests its foreign policy is less ideological than imperial - The True Temptations of the West
Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond is a travelogue by Pankaj Mishra about the shadow of poverty in South Asia. - Why Hemingway Is Chick-Lit
Women read more fiction than men. - What Not to Watch
Makeover shows like "What Not to Wear" teach women to listen to their inner demons
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
