Archive for race

The Word That Cannot Be Spoken (in white company)

Posted in White Supremacy with tags , , , , on January 19, 2010 by marcg

Since the candidacy of now US president, Barack Obama, there has been a reinvigorated US discussion on race. This conversation happens in all kinds of ways. Today’s New York Times has op-ed columnist Shankar Vedantam trying on the newest wig, Colorism. Vedantam cites numerous examples of how skin color prejudice. He references the prison system, hiring practices, electoral campaigns, Harry Reid’s recent exposure of having committed a rhetorical faux pas. He cites the health consequences of Mexican-American women poisoned using skin lighteners. He calls all of this colorism placing the focus on how some humans are punished for having dark skin.

Shankar Vedantam can’t use the terms white supremacy or white skin privilege although they are clearly the subjects of his article. Vedantam, a Niemen fellow at Harvard University likely knows what white supremacy and white skin privilege are. He just can’t write them. In the end, that says more to me than any of the facts or pieces of evidence in his article. We are left trying to unravel this maze of oppression and suffering inflicted on some and unearned privileges and rewards gifted to others without the linguistic benefit of being able to say what we are actually talking about: the historical advantage of humans of European descent. Gained militarily and sustained with centuries of military, economic, biological and psychological warfare.

Discussing the effects and results of centuries of racial oppression in terms that obscure the realities of the problem is not a step forward. Terms like colorism and multiculturalism operate mostly in the service of confusing the discussion and any efforts to move from discussion to action. This false conversation on race serves as a distraction and obfuscation while allowing whites and lighter-skinned elites of various ethnicity who are accepted as honorary whites, to feel as if they are working in service of progressive politics when they are really just defending white supremacy and skin privilege at a moment when rapidly shifting demographics and economic disaster has the future of the West’s global dominance in serious question.

It isn’t that no one is directly indicting the systems of white supremacy and white skin privilege. It just can’t be done within liberal institutions like the New York Times and Harvard University, white company.

Vedantam and other social and pundits present quite a challenge. To dismantle centuries long reign of white supremacy and white skin privilege without mentioning them. A plan built to fail.


Does Mary Norwood Care About Black People?

Posted in Atlanta Politics with tags , , , , on October 14, 2009 by marcg

MARTA, Atlanta’s public transportation system providing about 400,000 rider a day is in the deepest financial crisis in its 40 year history. On Saturday August 15, 2009 service cuts went into effect reflecting MARTA’s deepening fiscal crisis and on Thursday October 1, 2009 a fare increase went into effect. The service cuts and fare increase have affected hundreds of thousands of Atlantans but if you were watching the mayoral debate that aired yesterday, October 13, 2009 you would not have known it.

Do you know how much MARTA costs? I know how much it costs. I live in Atlanta and use the service everyday. Let’s assume you, like me, know how much a bus ride costs in Atlanta. Mary Norwood does not know how much a MARTA bus fare costs.

Doesn't ride MARTA or read about it apparently

Doesn't ride MARTA or read about it apparently

There is a difference between me and you and Mary Norwood not knowing this bit of information. A big one. There is an election coming up soon here in Atlanta. In 20 days, in fact. And according to polls, if that election were today, of us three, the one of us that doesn’t know how much it costs for transit-dependent Atlantans to catch a bus would be the mayor of Atlanta. MARTA stands for Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. It also known as ‘moving Africans rapidly through Atlanta’ due to the highly skewed racial demographic of the ridership.

What is going on inside Mary Norwood’s campaign for mayor? What is going on inside Mary Norwood’s head? How is it possible that mayoral candidate could be ignorant about such an important piece of policy at such a critical time for MARTA and for its cash-strapped, mostly Black ridership?

I view this foot in mouth incident as a sneak-peek into what a Norwood administration might be like for people like myself who rely on something like MARTA. She doesn’t care and doesn’t seem to see it as a problem not caring. Every other candidate attempted to answer the question of the cost of a MARTA fare. Norwood simply said she didn’t know, making it appear that she doesn’t even care that she doesn’t know. It also appears that she and/or her campaign don’t think it matters much that she doesn’t know. All of these things are worrisome to me and they should be worrisome for Norwood. That they don’t seem to be is even more worrisome for me.

Many people have expressed concern about this majority Black city, with its sordid history and present-day white racism problems, having a white mayor. This clear and present expression of either dullness, disdain or disinterest does nothing to allay the concern and much to validate it. Shame on you, Mary.

Election Day

Posted in Obama, US Politics with tags , , , on November 4, 2008 by marcg

Today is a big day here in Georgia for liberals. I don’t think conservative folks really think there is much of a chance of their candidates, McCain and Palin, makin it into the White House but Obama supporters seem upbeat. And, according to the polls, for good reason. By almost every polling indication it seems that McCain needs at least a 5% swing between him and Obama in order to win. I’m not a big fan of polls as they seem designed to coerce opinion rather than reflect it. But they are usually pretty accurate. No poll being run on McCain-Obama has a 5% margin of error so a McCain victory seems highly unlikely.

I called and emailed a few friends about what they were doing this evening while the results from the day came in. To be specific, I asked them what they were doing/where they were going to watch the circus. Down to the individual, my Black friends laughed and offered fun suggestions, my white friends got upset, calling me a nihilist and cynical. I was confused after receiving the first response like this from a white friend. After the second one, I was up to speed and remembering something I’d somehow forgotten over the past couple days, the racial realities of this election. The reactions to my calls and emails reminded me that white folks, white liberals or as many of my white friends refer to themselves, progressives, this election represents a lot more than even the ‘change’ promised by the Obama campaign. For them, this election represents racial redemption and a deep, deep affirmation of their liberal perspective. A perspective that so fiercely (desperately?) wants to believe what it tells itself and others. That this system works. Specifically around the notion of racial progress. They want to believe that the system of the United States is self-correcting. They want to believe this because of two things. One, they understand that things are fucked up and have been for a long time. They understand that they, as whites, benefit from this fucked up situation. So for the sake of their consciousness and the maintanence of their psyches, they need for this situation to be altered. That’s the first foundational pillar of their intense need to believe that they live in a self-correcting system in which a person from a historically oppressed group can rise to the ‘highest office in the land’. The second reason my white friends are so irrational about this election is connected to the first reason but different. They want, no, they need an alteration of the injustice they perceive in the society but the problem comes in that they don’t want to actually stand up and do much about it. They want it to happen but they don’t want to have to do it. Building a movement requires work. Years, decades of work. A campaign requires a headquarters, 18 months and a lot of money from Wall Street. Reforms can be won and lost. Revolution of the system is what is needed. A movement can force fundamental change in power relations, a revolution. But, and of course, this is terribly difficult, sacrificing work that is also extremely rewarding. A campaign is easier but also can’t bring about revolutionary change.

The promise of Obama represents a psychic relief for my white friends (and some of my Black friends but obviously in a totally different way), and for the white population generally, that they need desperately. Thinking about this when the Obama campaign became popular last year, I knew he would eventually be the POTUS. But having insulated myself from TV and the noise of the campaign generally, I forgot what I should expect when talking to my white friends about this election.

While I can’t take, Obama and this election seriously, my white friends can’t do anything but take it completely seriously. And they can’t but take my dismissal of it as the most foolhardy insult imaginable.  I just hope that a few hours from now, when the Obama campaign is officially concluded, that I can have my white friends back. Hopefully for good.

The N Word On ‘The View’

Posted in Racism, Social/Culture, the n word with tags , , , , on July 21, 2008 by marcg

Elisabeth Hasselback, the young white woman in the video, does a great job in illustrating the problems of the white worldview as it attempts to relate to race. At a point in the video she states that we, Black and white people, all live in the same world. This, I believe, is what most white people see the racial reality as in the USA. And it is this misunderstanding of reality that is the largest obstacle to reconciliation and racial progress.

Whoopi Goldberg, the Black woman with the dreads, does a decent job of wading through the many ignorant statements made by Hasselback and grabbing the key statement and focusing on it. If we are to ever reach a point where race and its history in the US are dealt with in a progressive fashion, we as a country, must have something of a common narrative.

I think Elisabeth Hasselback’s opinion represents the worldview of most whites on this issue. This idea, that everyone lives in the same world is a more socially acceptable way of saying that racism does not exist. If racism is about power, about which groups have the power to affect/control the lives of people in other racial groups, then we can’t all be living in the same world. The statement is as akin to the stupidity of a prison guard asserting that he lives in the same world as a prisoner. It’s all about power and control. In a country 232 years old that has had nothing but rich white men as presidents it either the height of stupidity or the height of rank arrogance to make a statement as ignorant as Hasselback’s is. But like I said, her statement represents the thinking of most of white America. If we can figure out a way to affect change in the backwards thinking of whites in this country regarding racial reality, then we can begin to make racial progress.

This is not a small task. And it is, not incidentally, a major factor in the aspirations of the possible first non-white president in the history of this country. Barack Obama, although considered Black, repeats the keywords and catchphrases of whites who think like Hasselback. Obama has repeated, in other rhetorical arrangements, the same toxic ignorance that Hasselback gave us in the video. Obama has stated that there is no Black America. When he says this, he means what Hasselback says, that we all live in the same world, that there are no major differences. Barack Obama has also said that Black people are 90 percent of the way to equality, another way of saying that we all live in the same world (90 percent is close to 100 percent parity, right?). So the candidacy of Barack Obama, while it may have some positive psychological effect in that white America will see a Black face in the highest (political) place, it will also serve to reinforce the wayward thinking of the tens of millions of Hasselbacks across the country who think that Blacks and whites and everyone that is a legal citizen in this country (they definitely don’t include folks who don’t have papers in their thinking) is operating, living on the same economic, social and judicial plane. Although this view isn’t supported by anything but imagination, it is believed by most whites. It is the national delusion that created New Orleans after Katrina. It is the delusion that is responsible for the burnt out urban centers across the nation. This delusion fuels racial division on every front in this country. Divisions that have deep and important political ramifications. Like the fact that people haven’t been able to struggle to get good public mass transit, or universal healthcare, or universal secondary education (free college), or stronger labor laws and higher wages for workers. These are all things that require a unified front as working people struggle against our rich landlords everywhere. In a country with a solid third (if not more) being non-white, the racial divisions fueled by Hasselback thinking none of the aforementioned things are possible to get. We’re too divided. Racial divisions are why we still don’t have universal healthcare. So we all, Black, white, brown, red and yellow, all suffer. Hasselback thinking is killing us all.

If nothing else, debates over Black people being allowed to say and write nigga (that is what the debate is about; whites know they better not use it) allow us to dig a little deeper into what the real racial problems are in this country. So if nothing else, I say let’s keep the word around (hehe…for Black use only) just for that.

Worthy and Unworthy Victims: The Psychology of ‘Western’ Disaster Response

Posted in Global Politics, Psychological Warfare, Racism with tags , , , , on May 13, 2008 by marcg

The cyclone that hit Burma and now the earthquake that hit China both remind me of another one of those weird global rules. If you pay attention to all disasters, you’ll notice that there are grades of victims. Without a doubt, one can perceive the difference in coverage and therefore treatment of white Floridians whenever a hurricane hits the coast. That’s easy to see. And, considering the history and contemporary manifestation of white supremacy in the United States one would expect there to be significant differences in how white victims and black victims inside the US are covered by US corporate media. More interesting to me is how non-US victims of a disaster are covered and subsequently treated as opposed to black US victims of disasters. And before I go any further, I should make it clear that I understand that the US gov’t doesn’t really significantly contribute to any disaster fund. It’s mostly rhetorical blather. I know. But rhetoric repeated on 24 ‘news’ services has psychological and therefore eventual material effects that can and often do determine life and death for vulnerable economically and socially vulnerable people. But about the non-US vs US black victim coverage. I don’t believe the US gov’t cares at all about the Burmese people. But this tragedy provides an opportunity for them to get in psychological propaganda shots at a gov’t, the Burmese gov’t, that isn’t being as obedient to the US gov’t as they’d like for it to be. Therefore, the people of Burma are presented as in the most dire straits and in need of vital aid, which the Burma gov’t is denying them by keeping out US planes full of food (and let’s face it, who knows what else is on the planes) and supplies. By contrast, because the US gov’t has the US Black population in such a subjugated position and has so little to gain by exposing the plight of threatened US Black populations, they get no press. And none of this even begins to address what is and what is not a disaster. 50%+ unemployment and ridiculously high murder rates are the norm in many Black communities. While these circumstances would merit all order of emergency intervention, aid and supplies if the communities were white this status of a Black community is, by white supremacist definition, not an emergency at all.

What does this mean on the ground for regular folks who ‘want to help’ people? The racial situation inside the US is dire. It is understood to always be the elephant in the room. Even by whites, although white folks, with historic consistency, underestimate the size of the elephant and overestimate the volume of the room. Guilt with white liberals and angst ridden backlash with white conservatives and many liberals are just a small part of the white psychological cost of multigenerational denial and ignoring of the US’ problems. Here Burma and, to a lesser extent, China serve a function very valuable to the American empire. Whites, on several psychological levels, understanding that they unjustly enjoy the good life, savor these opportunities to reach out and help melanin endowed people in a tight spot. This is where white volunteerism and charity best fulfill their 21st century imperial role. They provide a psychological salve to whites in the US and Europe that understand that they are the beneficiaries of global rule by force by allowing them to ‘do good works’ in a situation that they can almost justifiably feel they had nothing to do with. I emphasize almost because of most black, brown, yellow and red people around the world weren’t still resisting or trying to recover from the economic and cultural dislocation of hundreds of years of white colonial rule they would be better able to fend for themselves in the face of natural disasters. Another post, though.

The most intense media focus on ‘international’ disasters work to raise the profile of these tragedies to a point where they are immediately identifiable by anyone not residing under a rock. Then the charity framework is deployed as a psychological weapon against whites, allowing them to discharge their guilt and angst into international assistance endeavors that contribute significantly to them not dealing with the man-made domestic catastrophes in US urban centers. Catastrophes that these same whites played a good part in creating. If not for the psychological displacement effect of these international efforts, whites might be more prepared to understand and admit to the destruction they continue to be a part of not thousands of miles but merely thousands of feet from their very homes. It is understood that the framework of international aid and charity serve a vital material as well as psychological function in hamstringing domestic resistance and thus maintaining the US’ imperial stranglehold on so much of the world.

The suffering of Burmese and Chinese people is, of course, horribly real. If only they could see a true international community response as opposed to the political dog and pony show the US and Europe engage in whenever misfortune strikes a vulnerable population of a developing nation. And if only US whites could break out of the mental gridlock of guilt and angsty backlash and both embrace whate remains of as well as rebuild their humanity, we might all be able to look forward to brighter days.

Irrational Black People Criticize Ron Paul

Posted in '08 Elections, Racism, Ron Paul, US Politics with tags , , , , , on November 28, 2007 by marcg

I have written a series of short essays addressing some problems I have seen with Ron Paul and the rEVOLution he is leading for a reason: to provide a place where those who might be critical can come and see how issues, apparently not important to the typical Ron Paul supporter are addressed when approached from a perspective not overwhelmingly flattering and subjective in the way of approving of Ron Paul. As most of the information readily available about Ron Paul is produced by supporters who are disproportionately white and male. I didn’t expect to have a rational discussion about race and Ron Paul. I did expect to have the lack of rational discussion be squarely blamed on me as the black male and dissenting, critical opinion.

The disposition towards racial dialog that I have observed amongst Ron Paul supporters is squarely in line with the typical exchange, to speak generally here, that occurs between whites and non-whites. To be a little more particular, that occurs between white males and non-whites. Although the culture of discussion produced by white males often overflows and overlaps into the habits of others, too, as it is hegemonic.

So being blamed for irrationality and for generally being a problem is no surprise in the general population and the Ron Paul following appears to be not much, if at all, different from conversations with Bush or Reagan supporters regarding race.

Please note that I didn’t say Ron Paul has the same line on policy as does Bush or Reagan. He does not. But the kind of conversation from their various supporters is quite similar. And in all cases, their supporters, Bush, Reagan, Paul (and other Repubs) are disproportionately white.

This factor never seems to peg on their intellectual radar as to why the conversations go badly. I believe this is because their is an assumption that exists amongst all these groups on the RIght, whether they identify as Libertarian or Conservative. This assumption is that black people are emotional and irrational about race and therefore need not be seriously listened to or their critiques seriously examined by rational thinkers, who will disproportionately be white. This assumption underlies the thinking and sets the tone for irrational conversations from a group that in their view is commonly irrational, black people.

That is why the statement that was in Ron Paul’s newsletter, “only 5 percent of African-Americans have sensible political opinions” resonated with so many black folks as a believable statement to come from a Ron Paul. We black political types, having encountered this paternal approach so many times, understand that this is something deeply held in the minds of many whites and the tiny smattering of people of color who caucus with the vast majority of whites supporting a candidate like Ron Paul. It was something that was in line with the typical argument that comes from whites when the topic of race and politics is on the table. And being that this is the US, a country founded in the enslavement of black people, when is race not on the table in politics. Never.

A typical comment from a Ron Paul supporter that came in from one of the essays was this from someone calling himself Jack,

After reading your post, all I can say is:

There goes ANY chance of a rational and reasonable discussion. You didn’t intend to have one of those, though did you? You just wanted to call us all racists (without even knowing the color of the people you are talking to.)

Later, fool.

The predictable part is that I took pains to point out that I don’t know if Ron Paul (It’s not even about Jack or whoever ALL means) is racist and that it doesn’t matter whether he personally is or not because the important things, the policies, are racist. I explained this reasoning. But Jack, like most whites discussing from a similar perspective, find it much simpler and quite accepted to label a black person as simply irrational when it comes to race. This characterization of black and irrational is common in their circles and needs scant if any explanation. I asked a question,

If a person or group of people advocate(s) policies that prove consistently to be detrimental to a racial or ethnic group does it matter how that person or group of people personally feel about race if the consequences of his policy actions have race-based consequences?

How irrational of me.

I also pointed out that Ron Paul has significant support amongst white nationalists groups like Don Black’s Stormfront where Paul is criticized as not being the perfect white nationalist candidate but they best that they realistically have right now. This too, I assume is an irrational point for me to mention or as a African in the US, to be concerned with.

I am black and live in Georgia. So, I mention that Ron Paul opposed and continues to oppose the Civil Rights Act. This too, I suppose is an irrational concern. All of these things add up to my irrationality in this discussion.

And this is why I thought it important to touch on the subject of Ron Paul. I know that he isn’t going to win the Republican nomination, no less the presidency. But as an insurgent group of Right Wingers with a lot of slick advertising and marketing, I thought it important to illustrate through interaction with them, how much like the typical Republican or Right Winger, Ron Paul supporters are when it comes to the issue of race in the US. Blaming those victimized by racism (the collectivist line), characterizing criticism of racial comments and policy as irrational, these are the typical tactics utilized by the Right. And the Ron Paul crowd doesn’t break from this tradition and in fact reinforces it by at once claiming to be different but at the same time, demonstrating the limits to Right ideology. Effectively proclaiming that those on the Right can differ about war and peace, the Federal Reserve, to a degree the corporatocracy and religion but when it comes to race, for the most part, they stand united.

Criticism from black people about their positions is summarily dismissed as irrational.

This is not the kind of group that I, as a black person want to caucus with. Hell, I can’t caucus with them. And I would encourage any person that identifies as African or as a person of color, generally to look long and hard at the record of a Ron Paul or similar type candidate and not just at their campaign websites or those of their supporters which, of course, will not be critical in important areas. Our objections, no matter how articulated or explained, are simply dismissed. Or at best, they take a speech from their candidate, in this case Ron Paul, and simply quote him. As if the rhetoric of their politician should be more than enough to allay any fears and concerns around race and racial policy. As if politicians don’t say all manner of things and make all kinds of statements and promises. The striking thing is that this crowd understands that politicians do this and this crowd is typically quite skeptical of simple rhetoric. Quite skeptical about issues that they care about. But because the race issue is something that they either have little concern or have a reactionary position on, simply referring me and other black folks to stump speeches or an “issues” page full of campaign trail rhetoric is enough. It is as if they are collectively saying, ‘Look, he said right here on his website that he’s not racist, SO STOP COMPLAINING!

And I guess maybe it would be enough…if only I were not so irrational.

Ron Paul and Race

Posted in '08 Elections, Racism, US Politics with tags , , , , , , , , on November 22, 2007 by marcg

I don’t know how Ron Paul feels about black people.

I do know that Ron Paul released a newsletter that printed some very racist and inflammatory comments.
I do know that Ron Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I do know that Ron Paul opposes Affirmative Action.
I do know that Ron Paul, as do all right wing Libertarians, supports eradication of most gov’t social programs that provide a limited safety net to the poor and people of color in the U.S.

I don’t know how Ron Paul personally feels about black people or ethnic minorities generally. The important thing is that it doesn’t matter, really, what Ron Paul personally feels because he supports an agenda that is hostile to these groups. And about that, I don’t have to guess. He proves it year after year in the US Congress. Dr. Paul has proved it with the totality of his life. Dr. Paul has, for the most part, proved consistent in his right wing Libertarian beliefs. Some people give him kudos for this as most politicians are quite duplicitous and blow in whatever direction the campaign contribution winds take them. However, I can offer Dr. Paul no congratulations for consistent support for policies that have proved to harm the most vulnerable while giving an unneeded helping hand to the most powerful. All under the intellectual guise of enhancing and protecting liberty. The same thing most nuanced right wing Libertarians do. I say nuanced because many right wing Libertarians understand that Africans and other people of color will never vote for them and thus don’t concern themselves with rationals for policy positions perceived as racist. They don’t care. Understanding that their target group isn’t people of color nor is it people concerned about people of color, they dispense with any reasoning for things like opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Nuanced RWLs, however, hope to attract moderate to conservative Democrats (who at the very least, feign concern with people of color) and to convince them there must at least be some rationale for that kind of policy. Even if weak. Understanding Ron Paul and race begs a question. If a person or group of people advocate(s) policies that prove consistently to be detrimental to a racial or ethnic group does it matter how that person or group of people personally feel about race if the consequences of his policy actions have race-based consequences?

I don’t think so.

Interesting Ron Paul Support

Politicians, too often with entangling alliances, can hardly be trusted to do the good things they say they will do. No less tell the truth about the bad they have already done. One way that I have found to be somewhat reliable in predicting the future behavior of a political figure is to analyze the individuals supporting him/her. In the case of Ron Paul and race, it is interesting. Ron Paul, like any politician that wants to get elected these days, claims to not be racist. While I have argued that this claim, true or false is largely irrelevant, what are we to do when unabashed racists with overtly racist agendas, support a Ron Paul.

Stormfront is a white pride internet forum with the slogan, ‘White Pride World Wide’. Any internet political veterans reading this know full well who and what they are. Stormfronters are proud bigots. Some Ron Paul supporters will be surprised to discover that their Ron Paul Revolution holds the distinction of being in the company of David Duke, David Irving and other interesting figures supported by the Stormfront community. Why would a person on Stormfront support a non-racist like Ron Paul? Let’s take a look. Scotsman4096 has this to say to Stormfronters with the audacity to claim that Ron Paul is not the real deal,

If anyone expects better than this from the current crop of political candidates who stand a shot at winning, then that person is dreaming, and quite honestly acting as BAGGAGE to the WN movement, because they’re stalling our progress. Is Ron WN? Who knows – his policies help us, and we need action on our issues NOW, not in 2040 when we’re trying to retake California with tanks.

Brandon, who’s username signature is ‘Our skin is our uniform‘, isn’t convinced,

Ron Paul’s priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew.

Bob Whitaker tries to give Brandon some perspective regarding Dr. Paul’s priorities,

Ron Paul is the last chance the white race has for just 10% of its survival, much less America. He is not your enemy you psycho.
And how do you know that’s not his priority? Remember: the game is rigged. Paul can’t come out swinging.

These are a few snippets of page #1 of currently over 600 pages (and counting) of intensely interested and optimistic discussion regarding their hopes for Dr. Paul’s candidacy. And to be certain that this isn’t some misguided (but ultimately innocent) Ron Pauler that wandered into a racist community on the whole hostile to Ron Paul’s candidacy, if you notice the bottom of the page the Stormfront website actually runs Ron Paul fundraising ads. Stormfront, an advocacy group for white supremacy that supports David Duke, supports the Ron Paul candidacy for president of the United States.

While I’m not surprised to read the racist support of the RP rEVOLution something tells me the average Democrat convert isn’t aware or doesn’t want to admit the true nature of the Ron Paul movement. While ignorant in regards to humanity. Stormfronters are very politically astute and are quite capable of analyzing who is and who is not, as they term it, on the side of the white race. If understanding of fundamental RWL public policy initiatives isn’t evidence enough, Stormfront support for the Ron Paul movement should stand as proof positive that Ron Paul, while certainly not public enemy #1, is unmistakably, not an ally to people of color and our supporters.