The screams of dead children -- everywhere

|
(167)

The screams of a thousand dead children wail through my mind. Children in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya killed by empires’ drones; thousands of young men of color America killed by white supremacist occupying armies called police, security guards and neighborhood watch agents; teenage workers from Bangladesh and China killed by corporations for profits; countless babies and young people killed by drive-by shootings and gun violence in communities of color intentionally ghettoized, destroyed and preyed upon by devil-opers, bank gangsters, gentriFUKators; and hundreds of white, middle-class children, youth, and adults killed by more gun violence perpetration, mental illness and the mental vacancy of wite culture.

Thousands of children die for corporate profits, war profits, and prison industrial profits every year in this country. Dead because gun violence is glorified and the sale of guns make some people rich, because parents are tired and don’t have the energy to fight with their kids to turn off the video games, because video games, un-conscious rap, Hollywood movies and corporate news with people killing each other make death look like entertainment -- and with each sale make more profits for tech corporations in Silicon Valley run by the new technological colonizers. Because guns are exciting, especially when you have little else to be excited about.

So shouldn’t the grief for all of our children be the same? Shouldn’t our actions to stop the rise in death by gun violence everywhere be equally urgent and comprehensive?

The president shed tears in a prime-time speech for the 20 white middle-class children from Connecticut. But what about crying for babies killed by drive-by shooters, youth killed by police, and hundreds of teenage workers from China who react to mercury poison and throw themselves out the window while US tech companies make billions in profit? Why aren’t thousands of people shedding tears and sorrow and sympathy for the children in Gaza who die everyday?

In the bizarre naming of poverty positions there is a terrifying concept called the deserving vs undeserving poor rooted in the US crums (welfare) policies that were originally set up for white widows of World War II veterans in the 1930s and 1940s. Due to overt and systemic white supremacist institutional values that undergird everything in the US from its stolen beginnings to now, these white, hetero-normative women were viewed as the deserving poor, or “legitimate” poor people, who had come upon bad times from no “fault” of their own and therefore were deserving of our aid and our sympathy. In contrast, indigenous sisters, sisters of color in diaspora, or divorced, poor or unmarried women were viewed as aberrant, pathological or “lazy,” who had inherently done something to “deserve” their poverty and therefore deserved none of the US crums, only criminalization, incarceration or disgust.

I think we have come to a time, with the meteoric rise in death by gun violence of so many of us of all ages, colors, cultures and regions of the country, where we now have the deserving vs undeserving dead. How about little baby Hiram, 1 year old, who died because he happened to be in the line of fire from a passing car in Oakland? Or Ayana Jones, a 7-year-young innocent baby shot when Detroit police stormed their home with assault rifles to “find a suspect.” Or Derrik Gaines, a young disabled man who was killed by Daly City police? Or the countless children killed in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq or Libya by colonizing empire armies attempting to steal more indigenous resources for the ever-hungry jaws of capitalism? Did they deserve to die because someone calls their innocent bodies “collateral damage?”

What about all of our poor children of color -- sorted, separated, tested, and arrested out of schools -- who roam the streets with no jobs, no hope and endless violent images pumped into their heads from corporate media lies and mythologies in the holding tanks called our ghettoized neighborhoods, pick up guns and shoot each other for something to do until the police arrive to place them into the plantation prisons that await their profitable arrival? Do they deserve to die?

There are many reasons why children and adults are killing each other. My Black Indian Mama Dee used to say, white supremacy and capitalism isn't good for any human, even white people. People have talked about the proliferation and glorification of guns to all young people through mass media, as well as the deep wounds of the cult of independence on a human's psyche, not to mention the gutting by Republicrats of the mental health system. But one of the deepest ones that I see is the factory schools themselves, the separation of youth from elders’ wisdom and the ways that our children no longer even vaguely understand the respecting, honoring, and neccessary reverance of their elders.

Om this society, we are taught how to ghetto-ize and separate our elders from our children in as many ways as possible. This separation and lack of reverence is valued in capitalism as it sets up more products and capital to trade on. I pray and send love and strength to these families and little ancestors to help their still living families decolonize from this myth of separation and capital-inspired death so their may be healing for them.

From this moment and so many more like it, I am drawn to believe that when people like me and my mixed race family in poverty die, we deserve to. My hope and vision is that with this moment of so much sorrow for the families in Connecticut, perhaps the oddly democratizing impact of death will free us all from the unspoken but clearly existent concept that some of us deserve to die and awaken us all to the real-ness that none of us do.

Comments

You go Tiny! You go girl!

Corporations and Israel (Jews), killin' peoples of color indiscriminantely!

End the Madness! yes'm do!

Posted by Troll the XIV on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 3:43 pm

have added gravitas to your lament if you had made a point of excluding the gratuitous references to race in your piece since, whatever else you think about the CT tragedy, it clearly had NOTHING to do with race.

The race card doesn't have to be played every single time regardless of context, ya know?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

When white suburban American kids are killed, it rises to a whole nother level of media coverage and sympathy than when non-white, urban and non-American kids are killed.

It is different to point out those indisputable correlations than it is to pimp on race in ways that people of those ethnicities do not support as measured by the ballot box.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

card. There's a time to play the race card and a time to keep it in the deck. This is the latter.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 5:16 pm
Posted by matlock on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

Do dead children actually scream?

Posted by Chromefields on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 10:21 am

awaken us all to the real-ness
awaken us to the real-mess
awaken us to the real-less

that is capitalism.

Those Conneticutt children died cause they is capitalist lackey.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

"Pick up a gun and put a pig on the run."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 6:11 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

Lucretia Snapples? Unlike Tiny, You're clearly not made of the best stuff on earth.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:53 am

Lucretia Snapples? Pathetic. Unlike Tiny, you are obviously not made of the best stuff on earth.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:54 am

I hoped people noted the defense of mass killer Gaddafi.

Such a strange free association screed.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

but it's only when whites kill POC kids that she has a problem.

But then of course that's consistent with her unspoken corollary that it doesn't matter that most murders in the US are committed by non-whites either. It's only the minority of murders by whites that are worth commenting on, apparently.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

I just did an internet search to find out exactly how many people it is that Gaddafi really killed. Well there's allegations that he massacred a thousand or so in 1996... there are some still iffy allegations that he was responsible for Lockerbie... a bunch of deaths in a nightclub bombing. Even if all of these allegations are true, that's still pretty low on the list of "mass killers." I'm NOT defending Gaddafi, but the level of "mass killing" doesn't rise anywhere near to the number of murders perpetrated by just about any US President.

The Lybian civil war killed 30,000 people, by any measure far more than Gaddafi ever killed. So Tiny is completely correct to include Lybia. It wasn't a defense of Gaddafi; it was just pointing out yet another mass murder by western powers.

And while we're on the subject... again, I don't want to "defend" Gaddafi, under whose regime people lacked political freedoms... but his regime has to be judged on its totality. Gaddafi dramatically improved access to health and education and improved the country's infrastructure. Under his regime the nation was economically prosperous and had the highest HDI on the entire continent. Life expectancy in Lybia was 77 under Gaddafi, and in case you think it's just about oil, note that the life expectancy in Equitorial Guinea, another oil-rich African nation (richer than Lybia on a per capita basis) is only 50. No, it's not just oil. It's creating a social structure that allows the benefits of oil wealth reach the people, which it did under Gaddafi. Having a life expectancy of 77 instead of 50 -how many lives *saved* does that translate to? Does he get any credit for that.

And now, after the US-backed murder of 30,000 Lybians, the country is being taken over by a combination of Islamist radicals and western puppets ready to sell off Lybia's oil at firesale prices to foreign multinationals (in exchange for a cut of the profit of course). Methinks Lybians are going to wish for a return to the "bad old days" of Gaddafi before long, if they don't already.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 8:42 am

Gaddafi's regime ruthlessly suppression criticism and dissent, was directly complicit in the Lockerbie mass murder, and was widely regarded as an intolerant despot.

He was overthrow by his own people, and no civil war is ever peaceful - ours certainly wasn't. If the Libyan people were happy to pay that price to be free of their dictator, then who are we to quibble either way?

You and Tiny really need to find a hero that we can relate to and sympathize with. It's certainly not the laundry list of despots, dictators and deathmongers that you are both trotting out.

Oh, and of course racecard-playing is always tedious and precious.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 9:04 am

defended Gaddafi. The Libyan people don't seem so happy with the United States government. Neither do the Iraqis, the Afghanis or the Congolese.

Thanks, Greg, for your well researched comment.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 9:19 am

Tiny tried to make a race issue out of a child murderer. That's despicable.

Greg wasn't quite as bad but, by switching the focus from violence against American children to deaths that happened as a result of a foreign civil war which overthrew a vicious dictator was certainly disingenuous.

The former was a pointless murder of innocents. The second was an unfortunate but necessary cost of a desirable transition.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 9:32 am

would have ended much quicker and been far less bloody without our meddling.

Funny how we throw around terms like "mass killer," but only with regards to foreign governments. None of you would ever say "mass killer Bush" or even "mass killer Obama," even though they both murdered far more than Gaddafi did in 42 years in power.

I think Tiny's point is why should deaths in America be regarded as so much more meaningful than deaths elsewhere? Aren't all children as precious as American children?

When you consider the fact that many of those foreign children are dying at the hands of the American military (and American weapons in the case of Gaza), I think the point is a good one.

And in the end, the violence that we sow around the world is reaped here as well, and not just in the form of terrorism against Americans. Nobody can say for sure what combination of factors led to any particular mass shooting, but I'm convinced that the violence this country perpetrates abroad does affect the minds of Americans. You cannot feed people a steady diet of fear and hate, train them to dehumanize and murder abroad, even going as far as indoctrinating youth with video games created by the US military which teach people that shooting up craploads of people is cool and fun... you cannot do these things and expect all that to NOT have an effect on the minds of our youth.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 10:34 am

foreigners than about our own people. Do you think foreigners care about American death as much as their own. Everyone has a little nationalism in them, except perhaps Tiny and Greg who are both on record as denigrating America (taking advantage, of course, of our much superior rights of free speech to do so).

But what Tiny did here was malicious because she sought to use the natural public outrage over the CT killings to try and flog an anti-American agenda. She just couldn't stand the expression of any empathy with white people, and that's racism.

Very poor and inappropriate.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 10:46 am

They don't come here and murder us (at least not without provocation), so the least we can do is not murder them. Can we at least care that much?

Posted by Greg on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 11:20 am

many more would be killed if they had the power and capability to do so. They hate us, apparently, and traitors like Lisa/Tiny feed into that.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

with your teen moralizing. Bush was a mass murderer, the invasion of Iraq was a travesty.

Gaddifi was a supporter of international terrorism letting his country be a training ground for various international terror groups, he killed his own people with his secret police as well as killing dissidents. Your and Tiny's off hand defense of him is akin to the left defending the Ayatolla and Castro while they were monumental human rights abusers.

You talk about how American's don't know about the world outside our borders, while you have the most provincial and simple mind here. You think that the actions of the USA effects the minds of everyone everywhere and thus you have a theory that can excuse all evil deeds as the fault of the great satan. You have an all encompassing world view that the only wrong answer is not blaming America.

Your world view is much like the far right of the 80's, Reagan said all the trouble in the world came from the USSR and simple minded right wingers agreed. How the USSR caused the unrest in Ireland well before the founding of the Soviet state was never explained.

You parade your lack of morals as morals.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

This is the logic of fascism, if everyone's guilty then everyone's innocent. We can only influence what is done in our name and with our resources, we are not responsible for the acts of others. Perhaps if we were not compelled to finance such criminal brutality via the government and military, then we might have some standing to speak against the crimes of others. But the definition of chutzpah is killing both of your parents and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court as an orphan. Nobody wants to hear that.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 12:52 pm

"I think Bush and Gaddafi" are scum bags.

It's a bit odd to be like Greg and blame the USA for most of the actions of Gaddifi. Greg's logic is like that of a right winger excusing all the crazy antics of friendly military dictators because they happen to be friends with the USA. Greg hates the USA so much he will make excuses for dictators just because they also hate the USA. He is a left wing Jesse Helms.

In all of Greg's self referential verbiage he isn't that complicated.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

put American down. It's odd in a nation as patriotic as we are (in Europe, it's deemed cool to diss on your own land, but not here).

Upon closer examination, it is typically people who feel that they are failures in modern American society and, rather than blame themselves, they lash out at their country, even while millions overseas strive and take risks to come here.

And I just have to ask - if they find this nation so tough to live in, then the good news is that there are about 200 other nations. Some of them will give you citizenship for a stupidly small amount of dollars.

So why stay and whine hopelessly when they could find a place so much more suited to their worldview? It baffles me. Unless, of course, they secretly like it here but do not want to admit it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

for her thought provoking piece. Nothing in her essay implies that the Newtown victims deserved to die. Commenters should base their criticism of her contribution on its content. That basic standard might be too much to ask here.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 10:11 am

What was said that she tried to make it a race issue when it was a peculairly American tragedy and race wasn't a factor.

Effectively she tried to divert sympathy from the dead kids to a bunch of combatants in the Middle East. That was a totally inappropriate playing of the race card and she was rightly called out on that.

I guess she just couldn't stand it that sympathy was being expressed when the victims weren't non-white. That's reverse racism.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 10:24 am

It was NATO (i.e. the French, British and USA) with their planes that overthrew Ghadaffi. 30,000 Libyans died and it nothing. WOW. How many of them were innocent little kids. I get it. White Kids killed in America is tragedy, While Libya Children death are the price to freedom. White Supremacy in effect.

Posted by Leo on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

The revolution was started by the locals you know? All people "of color" who are subject to dictators should just sit back and take it so as not to upset the delicate leftists in the USA.

It's is certainly shocking that the left have now become defacto defenders of dictators purely to serve their obsession with race.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

Life expectancy in Nigeria is 51 years.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 10:51 am

And of course it's in Africa. What's your point?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 11:11 am

So short, so succinct, so clearly intended to be disturbing to those with enlightened values... so very, very false.

This is Bold-Lying-Guest's M.O.

That which Bold-Lying Guest most loudly crows about is most strictly false.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 1:39 pm

he knows something about other's commenter's MO. In essence - he's a lilliputian wannabe-censor who LOVES attempting to head off any rational discussion over any issue with which he disagrees. lilliputians is a Republican plant designed to make progressives look bad - at that he's excellent.

Let me tell you what time it is lilli. What time it is is you need to get a life which doesn't involve trolling every message board in San Francisco as a plant for FOX News or Newsmax - because some of us are onto your bullshit.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 2:21 pm

a high murder rate.

Lucretia Snapples' input here is a crucially vital as Bold Lying Guest's.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 7:12 pm

It's the murder rate in the US that counts, along with who is doing it, and where?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 7:37 am

Nigeria is another oil state and has a life expectancy that is 2/3 that of under Gadaffi in Libya. Your point?

Posted by marcos on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 9:44 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 7:36 am

Maybe you haven't experienced abject misery, but things like having access to health care, clean water, education, nutrition, are a big deal to most people.

The ideal situation is where you have that *and* political freedom, like you do in Venezuela, but given a choice, I think most people will take the extra quarter century or so of life. You can't be very free if you're dead, you know.

As for corruption... nobody really gives a damn about corruption, least of all the United States. Even with Gaddafi skimming his few billions, people knew he was keeping up a decent standard of living. That's why the regime lasted as long as it did, and only fell because of massive foreign military intervention. The western powers who talk such a good game about corruption, will prove much more rapacious than Gaddafi in their pursuit of the nation's oil wealth.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 8:35 am

I fail to see what any of us have to learn from the kind of basketcase nations you keep citing as desirable. You're taking anti-americanism a bit far, even by your own self-hating standards.

But I'm sure these third-world countries would welcome an America-hater like you, so what are you waiting for?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 8:58 am

The US is the country that is falling apart, becoming a basket case of its own due to rampant corruption that has undermined democracy and the rule of law.

Most all of Latin America has divorced the colossus to the north, is charting its own path forward and is doing quite well.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 9:11 am

currency while nobody wants to hold the currencies of Nigeria, Libya, Venezuela or whatever other basketcase nation you care to cite as a poster child for stability and prosperity.

Oh, and of course their people will kill to live here, while no American in his right mind wants to live in those places, including of course all the America-haters here.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 9:50 am

Do you one of the few who really think that the days of the dollar as world reserve currency are not numbered? The rise of BRIC that have no interest in subsidizing a US that can't buy their crap and eventual settling of Europe leaves the US as the odd man out.

The best thing that could happen to this country is for it to lose the right to print money to maintain the imperial military.

It took two centuries to bring Latin America to the depths that it experienced in the 1980s, it will take some time for it to find its path as well. But it is clearly on its way!

Respect for the citizenry and the value of their votes is the trend in Latin America. The only place where that is really not happening is Mexico where the US retains the most influence.

And those are the places where we continue to see the most brutality, where the state is run as an instrument for a corrupt political class. Just as the CIA tried to oust Chavez ten years ago, the CIA will not tolerate democracy on the doorstep of empire.

It is for this reason that I oppose any infringement on the rebellion clause of the US Constitution, but don't expect for any forces that disrespect the rule of law and elections to do anything but eliminate rights to perpetuate their fleecing and looting.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:04 am

Honduras and Colombia to your list of countries not keeping up with the trend.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:18 am

Honduras tried, but the CIA nixed that shit. Likewise in Colombia, US involvement is the highest in the hemisphere.

US involvement againsdt a Latin American nation's economy or democratic politics causes brutality, violence, poverty and destitution in that country, transcending mere correlation.

These policies of visiting brutality on Latin Americans to abscond with their natural resources and labor on the cheap pushes Latin Americans to migrate somewhere safer like here and pulls them to come reclaim that which was stolen.

This is where poverty, brutality and immigration all find a nexus.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:28 am

Since we're discussing nations that are more free and desirable than the US . . . ;-)

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:32 am

The US and UK did overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, replaced him with Pahlavi which, wait for it, led to brutal repression which purged the secular liberals leaving the field to the newly risen political radical conservative Islam.

Just like the US owns the Taliban and bin Laden/al Queda, the US owns the Islamic Republic of Iran.

You'd think that they'd been at it long enough to have figured out how to elicit different outcomes if they so desired. At this point, they do what they do because that is what they want to do.

We've got to deal with that sick reality instead of deny it.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:42 am

I sim[ly said that they are always made with good and reasonable intent.

Odd that you would focus on OUR military excursions when so many other countries have done much worse and you ignore them.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:04 am

that brainwashing works.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:13 am
Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

on the basis of scholarship, history, experience and critical information are not the product of brainwashing. Opposition to imperialistic US foreign policy does not equal hatred of America. Then again, complex reasoning and critical thinking do not appear to be your forte.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

Also from this author

  • SF Stories: Tiny

    A party without my friends

  • Gated communities of hate

    When did we start believing that only certain people deserve to be out in public?

  • Making black herstory, every day

    Let's make February count this year