Being Black in Oregon; Local Patriots Looking Out

Just a couple of things that caught my attention this evening.

Dan Petegrosky at Blue Oregon brought up the report published by the Portland Urban League on ‘the social & economic condition of African Americans in Oregon.”  The report was launched this morning in Portland.

It reviews the status of Black Oregonians in areas such as education, employment, housing, health, criminal justice and child welfare. The report reveals a persistent gap in the living standards between black and white Oregonians, which is growing wider as a result of the economic downturn.

The blog started by the Portland Urban League references two articles: The State of Black Oregon and an editorial written by Nikole Hannah-Jones with both articles sparking up ricocheting comments, along with the apparent prerequisite racist ones.

One of the more interesting comments was at Blue Oregon by ScubaDew, part of which is below:

I think it’s worth mentioning that, even though our state constitution was drafted with a amendment specifically forbidding slavery, it used to be literally illegal for blacks to live in Oregon.

Like most racism in America, people tried to justify this by couching it in economic terms. Oregon farmers claimed they were afraid that rich plantation owners would come with an army of black slaves or cheap black laborers, which they thought would edge out more “modest” family farmers who couldn’t afford such labor.

The other is a post from Tara on a weekend happening in Twin Falls involving a group – TEARS of the Patriots – focusing on the Constitution, presumably the U.S. Constitution, along with some local letter writers who were all about alerting those reading the Magic Valley News to the need to “Educate ourselves on Constitution Day.”  That’s all fine and dandy, but that very first letter had me flummoxed early on.
And I quote from that ‘Educate ourselves on Constitution Day’ letter to the editor.
I was taught a long time ago that the Constitution does not give us our rights but protects them. These rights have been determined by God and nature and no written law can change this.
Am I missing something?  The Constitution doesn’t give us rights only protects them.  And, apparently the only dispenser of those rights are God & nature.   However no written law can change ‘God-given and apparent natural rights.  I’m sorry – isn’t the Constitution all about ‘the law and isn’t it, like, written down?’  It seems to me those two sentences don’t even BELONG together or anywhere near each other.  And for Chris’sakes, that shit gets blown right out the window if one doesn’t believe in “God” doncha think?

More later when I untangle my brainwaves…..


One Response

  1. if you happen to untangle the brainwaves, please share the secret to doing so! 😉

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: