Dear Ted Cruz, Let's Talk About "Gang Activity"

“Donald, I see your bigotry and raise you... wait for it... XENOPHOBIA!”

Based on not-so-distant history, shouldn’t we be empowering law enforcement to patrol and secure white neighborhoods before they become radicalized?

[Content warning: Pictures of racist violence.]

Dear Ted Cruz,

Hey, Ted — Hey! How are things? It looks like you’re really giving Donald a run for his money on the old bigot train these days! I guess you figured it was time to lay off the vaginas and attack a new something you know nothing about, and so you’ve turned your attention to the Muslim community.

YAY, YOU!

Now, I have to hand it to you: that’s quite the clever one-up. Donald says, “I’m gonna build a wall and Mexico is gonna pay for it!”

So you turn around and essentially say, “Donald, I see your bigotry and raise you... wait for it... XENOPHOBIA!”

I kid, I kid. That wasn’t your actual statement.

This was: “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” Nicely played, sir.

Except you forgot one thing: That shit has been tried before and it didn’t work.

But it’s OK, maybe you forgot! It’s all good. I’ll do you a solid and let you slide on that memory lapse. However, I want you to think about something: You’re proposing that law enforcement goes into, and patrols Muslim neighborhoods throughout the country to make sure they (the residents) don’t become radicalized terrorists. You used a “gang problem” as an analogy for your proposal:

“If you have a neighborhood where there's a high level of gang activity, the way to prevent it is you increase the law enforcement presence there and you target the gang members to get them off the streets. I'm talking about any area where there is a higher incidence of radical Islamic terrorism.”

So, by your reasoning, it’s safe to say that we should go into areas where one group of people are thought to be terrorizing another group of people, round up the terrorizers, and get them off the streets.

OK, cool. I see your proposal, and I raise you “history."

1. Greenwood — Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1921

A white woman started a rumor that she was raped by a Black man in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At the time, Greenwood, a suburb of Tulsa was booming with Black money, and the residents were wholly independent. They had their own school system, hospitals, banks, grocery stores, movie theaters, etc. It was so prosperous, it was referred to as Black Wall Street.

That is, until this nasty rumor spread. In the span of 24 hours, Greenwood was burned to the ground.

Linda Christensen writes:

During the night and day of the riot, deputized whites killed more than 300 African Americans. They looted and burned to the ground 40 square blocks of 1,265 African American homes, including hospitals, schools, and churches, and destroyed 150 businesses. White deputies and members of the National Guard arrested and detained 6,000 black Tulsans who were released only upon being vouched for by a white employer or other white citizen. Nine thousand African Americans were left homeless and lived in tents well into the winter of 1921.

2. California, 1940s

Did you forget about California and its lovely history of internment camps? The government rounded up 120,000 Japanese citizens and placed them in internment camps throughout California. They also shipped them out of the country, to places like Peru, Brazil, and Argentina. Why? To avoid possible espionage and sabotage during the war.

And what was the outcome? With the exception of a “few suspicious individuals,” the Japanese people were free to return to their homes two years later — none having been charged with a crime.

3. The Jim Crow South

I’m pretty sure you know all about what went down with slavery, but I’m feeling crafty, so here are some more photos for you. You know, for a memory jog. It’s important to have a visual and historical reference when referring to “high levels of gang activity,” especially if it takes place in an area where there can be a higher incidence of terrorism.

So, I don’t know if you caught it, but there’s a running theme here, Mr. Cruz: In each of these historical references, angry white men were the terrorists.

Angry white men were the ones engaging in “high levels of gang activity”. Angry white men were the individuals who became radicalized and inflicted terror on innocent groups of people. Sometimes they were military men, sometimes they were policemen, sometimes they were firemen, and sometimes they were just guys from down the block.

But they were always allowed to engage in bombing, burning, raping, beating, and a plethora of other atrocities because of a perceived threat. And much like you are proposing, this was government-sanctioned and government-protected.

That being said, my question to you then, Mr. Cruz, is this: Based on-not-so distant history, shouldn’t we be empowering law enforcement to patrol and secure white neighborhoods before they become radicalized? I mean, based solely on history and statistics, it seems that those neighborhoods would to have a higher likelihood of radical terrorism. Right?

It sounds pretty asinine doesn’t it, Mr. Cruz? I mean, could you imagine going into every single predominantly white neighborhood in the country and standing guard, questioning people for walking down the street, interrogating brothers (not to be confused with ‘brothas’) because they're brothers, and according to the media brothers are suspicious because they radicalize each other?

Here’s the short answer for you Mr. Cruz. You should be familiar with it as a so-called “Christian”:

No. We shouldn’t employ your asinine solution because, simply put — if you wouldn’t want it done to you, you shouldn’t do it to anyone else.

I know you learned that in Sunday School. Now excuse me, I need to sip my tea.

Signed,

Adiba Nelson

Owner Of A Vagina

Follower of Jesus

Not Voting For You

Articles You'll Love