Friday, September 16, was Constitution Day. While I am
deeply grateful that we are governed by a Constitutional government, I'm also convinced
that our current Constitution has been influenced by the Doctrine of Discovery
and, therefore, has some deeply embedded flaws that need foundational
level changes.
The Constitution begins with the inclusive words "We
the People," but Article I Section II, the section which lays out who
"We the people" actually refers to, never mentions women,
specifically excludes Natives and counts African Slaves as 3/5th human. Article I, Section II of the United States
Constitution demonstrates that this document was written to protect the rights
and interests of white, land owning men.
And even the 14th Amendment that was passed July 28, 1868 to address those omissions, did not fix it. The 14th Amendment extended the right of citizenship to anyone born in this land and under the jurisdiction of the government. However, women were still disenfranchised and did not receive the right to vote until Women's Suffrage in 1920. And even after Natives became citizens through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, many of our people did not receive the right to vote until 1948.
And we often forget that the 14th Amendment was one of the amendments referenced in 1973, Roe v. Wade, which concluded that unborn babies were not fully human and therefore could be aborted.
Indian Removal, Jim Crow Laws, Boarding Schools, the Massacre
at Wounded Knee, segregation. All of these events took place after the passage
of the 14th Amendment.
The problem is the Constitution of the United States was written
with the assumption that the dominant had the right to determine who was and
was NOT human. And it was written specifically to protect the rights of white, land-owning
men, not to the rights of natives or other minorities. And this is evident in many of
the issues plaguing our nation today.
Women earn 70 cents to the dollar. Why? The constitution is
working.
US prisons are filled with people of color. Why? The
Constitution is working.
In 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled for
Citizens United and declared that corporations have the same rights to
political free speech as individuals, opening the door to unlimited financial
political contributions. Why? The Constitution of the United States of America
is working. It is protecting the interests of white, land-owning men.
In his final state of the Union, President Obama quoted the
Constitution. He was discussing our need for a new politics and said, “'We the
People.' Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we’ve
come to recognize mean all the people, not just some."
When I heard him say that, I thought, "Hmmm. I must not
have gotten that memo.” While it sounds nice, and I'm sure a few people agree,
that we the people should mean all of us. But I'm not convinced a majority of
people in the United States are on board with that conclusion. In fact, that
seems to be part of the debate that we are having this election season.
Donald Trump is running around the country promising to
"Make America Great Again," advocating at the top of his lungs that
“We the People” does not include Muslims, immigrants from the south, women,
and, based on the obscene amount of money he has made buying and selling land
in the United States, definitely not natives.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is reassuring people
that “We don’t need to make America great again. America never stopped being
great.” Demonstrating that she does not understand the systemic racism and
blatant oppression that has been endured by people of color throughout the
entire history of this nation. In fact, she actually agrees with Donald Trump,
that our history and our foundations are great.
Unfortunately, the dialogue that is taking place this
election season is not about broad-based equality or ending racism. The
conversation we are having today is about the type of racism we want to settle
for. Do we want Hillary Clinton to work to keep racism as our nation’s implicit
bias, or allow Donald Trump to champion racism as our explicit bias?
From the platform at the Democratic National Convention,
Cory Booker, an African American Senator from New Jersey, said, "Our
founding documents were genius. But not because they were perfect. They were
saddled with the imperfections and even the bigotry of the past. Native
Americans were referred to as savages, black Americans were referred to as
fractions of human beings, and women were not mentioned at all. But those facts and other ugly parts of our
history don't detract from our nation's greatness."
Are you kidding me??? Our founding documents were
genius? Those racist words do not
detract from our nation's greatness?
Our foundations are the problem. The foundations of the
United States are not great; they are racist and built on the assumption that
people of color are less than human.
But our country is fearful to fully acknowledge our history
and our systemic problems. That is why politicians, of all races, speak to
Americans using the language of exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism is actually the coping mechanism for a nation in
deep denial of its unjust past and its current racist reality.
Photo from Kaepernick story at USA Today |
White Americans tend to be more accepting when minorities
pull ourselves up out of our hardships and onto the national stage, and then
declare that in spite of our nations colonial history and racist founding
documents, America is still great. What
drives our nation crazy is when a black athlete like Colin Kaepernick, enters
the largest sports stage in our country, the NFL, and quietly refuses to stand
during the National Anthem, silently protesting a song which celebrates the
history of a colonial nation that was founded on stolen lands, slavery,
ethnically cleansing.
When a document is written through a particular lens, with a
certain set of assumptions, like our Constitution was, it is not enough to just
add an amendment or two and assume the general consensus had changed. We
actually need to specifically name and acknowledge the implicit racial biases the
document was written with and intentionally decide if the country wants to
change them.
George Erasmus, an aboriginal leader from Canada said, “Where
common memory is lacking, where people do not share in the same past, there can
be no real community. Where community is to be formed, common memory must be
created.”
This quote gets to the heart of our nation’s problem with
race. The United States of America does not share a common memory, and
therefore, we struggle to have real community. White citizens of this country
remember a mythical history of discovery, expansion, opportunity, and
exceptionalism, while our communities of color have the lived experience of
stolen lands, broken treaties, ethnic cleansing, slavery, Jim Crow laws,
boarding schools, segregation, internment camps, and mass incarceration.
There is no common memory.
But we can change that. We can more accurately teach our
history. We can learn about the Doctrine of Discovery and address the inequality
it embedded into our foundations. We can stop minimizing our racist and violent
past and quit referring to our foundations as great. We can acknowledge that
our country and our foundations need an incredible amount of work. We can
create a common memory, and begin planting seeds for better community.
So Happy Belated Constitution Day. Let's get to work.
Mark Charles
(Navajo)
(Navajo)
When a document is written through a particular lens, with a certain set of assumptions, like our Constitution was, it is not enough to just add an amendment or two and assume the general consensus had changed. We actually need to specifically name and acknowledge the implicit racial biases the document was written with and intentionally decide if the country wants to change them.
ReplyDeleteI am with you. The foundation is not great, regardless of other good things in it. In regards to updating the Constitution, do you think it should be thrown out and started over, or the Amendments rewritten or updated ( to specifically name the faults in the document and intentionally state the different things that classify as racism?)
ReplyDelete