The media’s war against the South turns ugly

Monday, March 03, 2008

This is one of those days when the corporate media’s propaganda war spills over into the realm of glaring overkill.

The Charlotte Observer really overdid it today, and I guarantee it’ll make your blood boil. I’ll start on the first page. There’s a color picture of a gold-and-steel building shaped like a giant slice of moldy cheddar cheese. We’re informed it’s the architect’s plans for something called The Harvey B. Gantt Center for African American Arts and Culture. This is to be the new home of Charlotte’s existing African-American Culture Center. So they get a new one. Yay!

And on the cover of the Observer’s local section is a color picture of the latest piece of government-funded art (that’s you and me doing the funding). And what a lively piece of agitprop it is! It’s a tribute to the growing Latino colony building up here in Charlotte. As we all know, every vanguard needs its symbols, and this one will be one of the best:

Charlotte’s growing diversity will soon become more colorful, with the start of work on the city’s largest publicly funded Latino art project.

Called “Home Sweet Home,” the 9-foot-high, 25-foot-long mural on canvas is intended to depict the immigrant experience of straddling two cultures. It is funded by a new Arts & Science Council initiative that seeks to encourage Latinos to share their culture with the community.

Yeah, that’s the problem with those Latinos—they’re always so shy about sharing their culture with others. I mean, if it wasn’t for the Spanish-only billboards on the east side of town, the pounding thud of Latino hip-hop pouring out of vans painted in the red, white, and green of the Mexican flag, or the drumbeat of reports of another Latino gang claiming turf in Charlotte, we wouldn’t even know they were here. This mural, we’re assured, will fix that:

Gil says recruiting dozens of Latino children to work on the mural is his way of trying to spread that same feeling of belonging. Each will be asked to use their palms dipped in paint to create the stars and stripes of a huge U.S. flag that serves as the mural’s background.

On top of that, he intends to paint symbolic images, including shadowy workers who’ll represent the faceless, nameless immigrants helping to build so much in the country.

How do you like that for heavy political symbolism? They’re reconstructing American identity and redefining the meaning of the American flag. So I’ll leave it to you to figure out what that flag symbolizes now. (Hint: it ain’t yours anymore.)

I know what you’re thinking—after two prominent articles on African-American and Latino cultures, it’s time for a little balance. And the Observer (send them email) doesn’t disappoint. After two pieces celebrating two admirable cultures, journalistic fairness requires an article on an evil culture. So today’s featured op-ed is by the oh-so-enlightened, permanently wounded, and eternally smug Leonard Pitts, who offers this advice to a high school newspaper writer in Florida who slammed all Southern symbols as “extremely offensive”:

Dear David: My first word of wisdom would be, watch your back. It sounds as if some of the folks you’re dealing with aren’t screwed on too tight. That said, let me offer you some answers to the arguments typically advanced by defenders of this American swastika.

They will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery. Remind them that the president and vice president of the Confederate States of America both said it was.

They will tell you that great-great-grandpa Zeke fought for the South, and he never owned any slaves. Remind them that it is political leaders—not grunts—who decide whether and why a war is waged.

They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that “heritage” is not a synonym for “good.” After all, Nazis have a heritage, too.

If Mr. Pitts was just too subtle for you, check out the graphic that accompanies the print edition of his article:

Let’s imagine for a moment that some adventurous soul wrote an article about, oh, how the Israeli flag symbolizes genocide against Palestinians, mentioning how even the US and the UN can’t stomach the current Israeli assault against Palestinian civilians, and for emphasis added a graphic of the Star of David in a rifle’s crosshairs. Or perhaps an investigative report on the shocking level of corruption in municipal governments headed by African-Americans with African names featured a map of Africa in the crosshairs.

Actually, you probably don’t want to imagine what would happen. But rest assured, it never will—not in a paper published by the US corporate media. Such a piece wouldn’t advance the globalist agenda, which the articles quoted above most certainly do.

Finally, just to put icing on today’s journalistic cupcake, the Observer also printed a guest editorial by Angelina Jolie, who is, as we all know, an empty-headed multicult celebrity. She’s just returned from a tour of Iraq and wants to share her wisdom. Here, she dutifully recites the globalist, universalist catechism word for word as she urges Americans to support a military effort to impose liberal values on the Middle East, which our handlers have always used to sell their war. Jolie puts her own glam spin on the Neocon agenda in a piece subtitled, “Time is right to help millions of refugees, for their good and ours.”

It is not too early to start working on solutions. Last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR’s need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis “to the maximum extent possible”—which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made. …

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations
seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

Now before you start wondering why a liberal like Jolie would support a Neocon war, or why a liberal rag like the Charlotte Observer would do the same (see here, for a past example), remember that Neocons are simply liberals armed with assault rifles.

And their weapons are targeted at us, as the above graphic warns.

On The Web: