A photo of the White House with a KFC restaurant on it was circulating on the Internet, which was attributed to Miami's Cubanazo Right-wingers. This image has been interpreted, correctly, as a racist image.
KFC is very popular with Cuban-Americans. When I was growing up, a trip to KFC was like dinner at "The Four Seasons" restaurant in New York.
"Banning Books in Miami," (Editorial) The New York Times, February 11, 2009, p. A30.
"Schools are supposed to introduce children to a variety of ideas and viewpoints. [The] Miami-Dade School Board decided a few years ago to put one viewpoint off limits. It banned the children's book 'A Visit to Cuba' from its school libraries because it said the book offers too positive a portrait of life under the Castro regime. That was bad enough, but then last week, a federal appeals court upheld the ban. The Supreme Court should reverse this disturbing ruling."
Controversial materials in school libraries -- also freedom of speech in classrooms -- are essential ingredients of a good education. I am certain that appreciating the First Amendment must begin in schools. Ever since the Piko decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this notion -- for the most part. This appreciation requires that children be exposed to diverse, conflicting, controversial points of view, understanding their rights to accept, reject, discuss or analyze all sides of contested issues freely. The key word being "freely."
Most people will not attend law schools or take a full university course in First Amendment law. However, every American should have some appreciation of the ideas and values underlying America's controversial commitment to freedom of expression and conscience. This magnificent and still revolutionary national commitment is the essential principle of U.S. democracy. You do not underscore your differences with so-called "totalitarian" regimes by censoring dissidents or those with whom you disagree because you have the power to do so in Miami or New Jersey. One way to demonstrate what we say that we believe in America is by inviting disagreement and free discussion of rival points of view.
Any letters deleted from words in this essay so far? I am still obstructed from accessing my writings at Critique. The American Constitutional vision -- this is a matter of daily struggle and always will be -- suggests that individuals have a zone of spiritual-intellectual life that must be protected from intervention by government. You may believe or think what you like. You have the right to say what you please concerning political issues, religious questions, beliefs or atheism, without fear of government. This includes persons with controversial or minority radical views or philosophies, even (gasp!) "Communists." ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")
Justice Holmes famously relied on the "market" of opinion to weed out false views and "select" among opinions those that are most successful. These metaphors feel dated since the collapse of social Darwinism and brutal capitalism. Nevertheless, the crux of the principle that opinions and ideas must fend for themselves in the give and take of societal dialectics still stands.
I am not troubled at defending my views. Criticism is O.K. Suppression, harassment, destruction of any forms of political or philosophical speech is not O.K. -- in fact, censorship is a crime, expecially when state action is involved. ("How Censorship Works in America.")
My opinion of the underlying basis for enshrining freedom of expression in the Constitution is that this concept is interrelated with our American belief in the dignity of each person as well as democratic principles. By virtue of your humanity, you deserve that your values and beliefs along with their expression be respected. Not only is fallibilism a rationale for free speech, but (more fundamentally) principles of alterity (meaning rights of the Other) and recognition, mutual spiritual concern require that the thoughts, values, beliefs and inner of lives of other persons be accorded the toleration (John Locke) that I desire for my own views. ("John Rawls and Justice.")
Everybody favors freedom of speech for oneself and those with whom one agrees. The hard part is to protect the freedom of speech of those we disagree with and/or consider mistaken, stupid, or wrong. Hence, you will not find me advocating censorship of any opinion, however moronic it may be from my perspective for a person to hold any one opinion -- this includes the Cubanazos' efforts to restore the ethos of 1957 in Havana.
You will also not find me hesitant about expressing (or insisting on) protection for expressions of my opinions. Did I mention the hackers and cyberwarfare directed at me from New Jersey's government offices? An American jurisdiction cannot tolerate or encourage public criminality while judging anyone's ethics. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
The best way of making the argument that Cubanoids wish to present to the Revolutionary government in Havana that greater tolerance of dissent in Cuba is appropriate is by demonstrating their own tolerance of disagreement in Miami. Thus far, I have seen very little appreciation of rights of dissent and conscience in Miami's calle ocho. There are at least two views concerning the Cuban Revolution. The solution to disagreement with the opinions or perspectives of the person writing "A Visit to Cuba" is to include in discussions another book with different views.
I wish to point out to those concerned about the lives of artists and eccentrics in Havana that a society that is not threatened is always more tolerant of disagreement than a country that is menaced 24 hours per day by economic embargos and military threats. I deal with a war every day to write and defend my essays. This experience -- after years of what any rational person will describe as psychological torture -- has not filled me with the milk of human kindness. (A word was deleted from the foregoing sentence and restored to the text by me.)
" ... 'A Visit to Cuba' and its Spanish edition, 'Vamos a Cuba,' are part of a series of books for children ages 4 to 8 that introduces them to the geography, customs and daily life of different countries. The Miami-Dade County Public School District had 49 copies in its elementary and middle schools."
"The father of an elementary-school student, complaining that the portrait of Cuba in the book was inaccurate, petitioned to have 'A Visit to Cuba' pulled. The school superintendent denied the petition, but the school board overruled him. The board said it was acting because of inaccuracies and omissions in the book, but Miami's strong anti-Castro political sentiment was undeniably a factor."
Based on my experiences -- this saddens me -- I am convinced that there is a fascist mutation in Cuban-American political culture (and in the population) that is a twisted version of the very evils that many Cuban-Americans claim to oppose. You do not censor the speech of others. You do not hack into someone's computer, alter texts, deface works of art or books because you "don't like" someone, even if you have the political protection that allows you to do such a thing because you will harm America's credibility on free speech issues. Much less should you do such a thing -- censor any form of speech -- because you disagree with a person's opinions. To speak of bringing democracy and freedom to others, after engaging in censorship, is absurd.
Persons given secret power over others, or control of speech, will abuse that power or control. Worse, we have learned from Zimbardo and Milgram, that they will enjoy hurting, manipulating, or controlling others. Sure enough, the ACLU sued on the grounds that this was censorship, content-based, involving state action, clearly prohibited by the First Amendment.
I am aware of the ages of the children involved. However, the singling out of one book dealing with Cuba out of a series that was otherwise acceptable suggests or reveals a political motive. Worse, is to teach children the opposite of the lesson necessary in a democracy. Tolerance, tolerance of diversity of points of view is what we want those children to learn early in their lives.
After winning at the District Court level, a federal Circuit Court in Atlanta (Republican appointees?) deemed the removal of the book just fine, deciding against the original Plaintiffs. This case should go to the U.S. Supreme Court where I am confident that even Justices Scalia and Thomas will agree that free speech prohibits governmental removal of books from school libraries based on "controversial" ideas and opinions. Any ideas or opinions in books -- including, I was shocked to learn this -- the Harry Potter books (?!) may be "controversial."
The counterargument will focus on the age group of the intended readers and society's obligation to act in locus parentis ("in the place of parents") for school children. There is no allegation that disgusting child porn was found in this book. Unlike the computers of New Jersey's legislators and (probably) judges, which are filled with illegal materials, no child is tortured in this text, apparently, nor are sexual acts involving children depicted in this work.
Neil M. Cohen, Esq., of the New Jersey Legislature and Bar Association's Ethics Committee will be disappointed. Such actions and depictions violate child safety laws -- as do many N.J. politicians and legal officials -- and are irrelevant to this discussion. ("Neil M. Cohen, Esq. and Conduct Unbecoming to the Legislature in New Jersey.")
Schools are places where academic freedom and protection of free communication of ideas are vital. It is unwise to teach children to disregard some opinions that are placed beyond the pale of discussion for unexplained reasons. Besides, geography in most places in the world is usually non-political, even as descriptions of landscapes are not easily seen as controversial. To suggest that there are palm trees in Cuba should be possible for both Communists and Cubanazos.
"The Supreme Court should not let this ruling stand. School boards have some discretion about what books to place in school libraries. The First Amendment does not, however, allow them to suppress political viewpoints."
Stereotypes are a two-way street. I have experienced being stereotyped. For this reason, I am profoundly offended by malevolent uses of such racist images, especially as regards African-Americans, who are typically belittled by racist stereotypes in the shopping malls and baseball fields of Miami's Cubanoid neighborhoods.
What do you think, Senator Bob? "On the one hand, but on the other hand."
