Michael Jackson And Eminem, And The SPLC, Oh My!


So there is this

rap artist Eminem.

Yes, “artist”—the same label
we gave

Mozart
now applies to modern day

gangstas who can rhyme.
Actually, they don`t even have to rhyme
anymore once their prolific use of the word

Bling-bling
proved a challenge.

Eminem recently released a music
video that poked fun at several big name
celebrities—including

Michael Jackson.

Recently (November 15, 2004) the
British webzine

femalefirst.co.uk
ran a story entitled

Eminem Labeled Racist By Michael Jackson

“Jackson
is upset with Eminem because the irreverent rapper pokes
fun at the pop superstar in his

JUST LOSE IT
promo—dancing on a bed with
young boys
, losing his

fake nose
on a dance floor and

setting his hair alight.

Er…is Jackson just now finding out
that people make fun of him?

Now a surprise: Jackson says the
video is

racist
.

And Geraldo Rivera, an NBC
commentator best known for his reign as King of the

daytime talk shows
(“Transsexual Aboriginal Midgets
who Love Bad Boys!”), agrees.

Rivera was quoted attacking the
powers that be at MTV for airing the video—”people
who allow lazy racism to get on the air."

Michael Jackson also said he was
worried about the negative impact on the community:

"I
think that it`s demeaning and disrespectful but I also
want to make it clear it`s not just about Michael
Jackson but a

pattern
of disrespect that he [Eminem] has shown to
our community.”

Of course, Michael Jackson accusing
anybody of demeaning and disrespectful behavior is like

Jeffrey Dahmer
chastising another man`s dietary
habits.

If you are like me and do not see
the racism
in Eminem`s video that is because there isn`t any.

Throughout his

career
, Michael Jackson earned well over a billion
dollars by challenging the tenets of decency while
swaddled in

First Amendment
privilege. Now, his career is
over—and he calls for censorship while he moonwalks all
the way to the bank.

Does a free man have the right to
speak his will—even when his will is

hate-filled,


bigoted
and unenlightened?

The answer, in America, is yes. But
special-interest groups want us to believe the answer is
no…but only if you are white.

The label “racist” has become a

temper tantrum defense f
or any non-white person
who isn`t getting

something they want.

How did this happen?

Special interest groups who
moonlight as social activists have made racism a
product.
Mountains of civil litigation and
strong-arm lobbying tactics have made their product
extraordinarily profitable.

One of the largest players in this
game is

The Southern Poverty Law Center
. It is diligently
exposing “hate groups” through a project it calls

The Intelligence Report
,
which applies the same
logic/comic theory that dubs a fat man “slim.”

Some of its targets include:

According to the

SPLC
, “Some of the groups have clear ties to
openly racist organizations, and even some of those that
don`t still espouse thinly disguised bigotry.”

If I read this correctly, the

honor of making the SPLC list
is pretty much based
on a hunch. They have “ties” to another organization or
they have written something not openly racist but
“disguised” in some way.

Basically, this means the SPLC has
no proof of overt racism…but proof is not a
prerequisite.

Imagine the scene in court.

Judge:
“Do you have any evidence?”

SPLC:
“Well your honor, we really, really, really don`t like
what they stand for. And we have thirty years of case
law to set the legal precedent that our feelings and
opinions
are considered admissible evidence.”
 

The SPLC is pro-immigration and
anybody who isn`t is automatically a racist. The proof,
apparently, is in our eyes.

“In the
eyes of most of these groups, immigrants (typically,
non-white immigrants) are responsible for nearly all the
country`s ills, from

poverty
and inner city decay to

crime
, urban

sprawl
and

environmental
degradation.”

Well, yeah. Except we choose not to
omit the

key adjective i
n that statement: Illegal
immigrants.

“Many
of them also believe there is a secret plot by the

Mexican government
and

American Hispanics
to wrest the Southwest away from
the United States in order to create `Aztlan,` a
Hispanic nation.”

The SPLC is misinformed.

There isn`t anything “secret”
about the

Aztlan plan
. It is an

overt, ethnic crusade.

Which brings me to

MeCHA
[Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de
Aztlan]
. Its

notorious
slogan:
"Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada”—”"Everything
for the race.
Everything outside
the race, nothing."

In 1995, A Latino INS officer was
killed in California. The University of California-San
Diego chapter of Mecha published an editorial in its
newspaper, Voz Fronteriza, called "Death
of a Migra Pig
."

Sample:

“We`re
glad this pig died, he deserved to die . . . All the

Migra pigs
should be killed, every single one…the
only good one is a dead one…The time to fight back is
now. It is time to organize an anti-Migra patrol…It is
to
[sic] bad that more Migra pigs didn`t die with
him.”

I think an October 13 2003

editorial
in

The Stanford Review
, a student paper (you were
expecting the

Los Angeles Times
?) said it best: “MEChA is
in many ways the modern day Ku Klux Klan of Chicanos.”

Chicano KKK? Yeah, pretty much.
Only not the white, hooded KKK of old, rather a more
modern
version. The Review went on:

“We are
in no way suggesting that MEChA is an organization that
lynches and terrorizes other races in the manner the KKK
has in the past, nor has MEChA been the cause of
intimidation, pain, and anguish as has the KKK. Where
the comparisons are familiar, however, are in the
present day ideologies of the organizations…while the
KKK calls for the complete assertion of White European
control of America, MEChA calls for the assertion of
Chicano control. Both organizations call for segregation
of the races, which is something that should have been
left far in the past.”

What impressed me most about the
Review`s
editorial is its steadfast belief in First
Amendment protections…even for ethnic supremacists:

“While
we at the Review often disagree in the position
MEChA takes on many issues, we do not challenge their
right to exist on campus nor do we want them to stop
their efforts of social activism.”

Regardless of the ethical paradox,
our Constitution is strengthened by every

racial slur
that remains uncensored—even though we
disagree with it and don`t understand why anyone would
speak it.

Organizations like the SPLC may
believe in the First Amendment—but not, apparently, for

white people.

Which may be better than Michael
Jackson, who believes in it only for himself.

But not much.


Bryanna Bevens [email
her] is a political consultant and former chief of staff
for a member of the California State Assembly.