in battle with the boston globe

chelsea is a local, working class town near boston. it has a big latino population. there was an article in today's globe which tells us that "four chelsea businesses that had been operating for years suddenly stand accused of scamming customers. the article details examples of various latinos paying bills to a company who never sent in their payments, shipping goods at another business to nations like el salvador, which either never sent the items, or sent them months late and with valuables stolen, and a company that insisted that people pay with cash, and then didn't produce the items the people had paid for. however, police tell us the scams are "not racially motivated." later in the article, a professor tells us that "it's easier to scam people in a place like chelsea. it has nothing to do with being racist, but certain people are easier marks and easier targets because they may not know the language very well and they fear authority. they're going to target lower income people."

ok, let's digest this. is it not racism itself that contributes to making "certain people easier marks and easier targets?" and why is it that poor latinos may "fear authority?" if it is only a class issue, why don't poor whites also "fear authority?" and what of people not knowing the language as a reason for latinos being targeted? my ex landlords, a first generation elderly italian couple, can barely speak english, and can not read and write in the language. why were they, and the thousands of similar people, many of them working class residents of the north end and east boston, not targeted for similar scams? what is racism if not a systemic and institutionalized system of power that acts to oppress sections of the populace, hence making them vulnerable to such practices described in this article? do we need klansmen riding off with the loot and screaming "spic" at the victims for us to conclude that racism may have played a role in what happened? of course, class also played a role. old fashioned greed played a role. the troubled economy likely also played a role. but to categorically state that racism played no role in what occurred in chelsea is to display a stunning ignorance of racism. in reality, the various categories of oppression are interconnected. therefore, it is likely that both class oppression and racism played integral roles in these incidents. yes, many of the residents of chelsea "speak another language," but so do many white immigrants. yes, many of chelsea's latino are poor or working class, but so are many of the white residents of south boston, charlestown, sommerville, east boston, and elsewhere in the boston area. it is likely that chelsea was targeted for such practices because their residents are largely from a discriminated against minority and are poor. once again, race and class connect to create situations where certain poor people who speak "other languages" are targeted, and to create feelings in certain poor people to "fear authority."

but, of course, this has nothing to do with racism.

the paper also had a article about how israel is trying to cope with the bombings. that's right, how israel is trying to cope! not to make light of it, but so far, israel has lost 4 people to hamas rockets, 3 of whom are citizens, and 2 of those 3 citizens are arab israelis, the same people who have less rights in israel than if i were to show up there today as a jew who wanted to live there. in gaza, the death toll is now near 400, which is a ratio of 100 to 1 in the killed department, but which elicits no articles from the "liberal" globe about how the bombed and sanctioned of gaza are trying to "cope" with being attacked by the 4th largest military in the world, thanks to american aid. however, if you read the laborious, so called "even handed" reporting, you do get a glimpse of what is occurring in gaza. for example, "humanitarian organizations say a period of calm is needed to get essential supplies into the territory, where 1.5 million palestinians are running out of food, medicine, and fuel." is a period of calm needed to get essential supplies to the coping israelis? are the israelis running low on fuel, food, and medicine? if not, why do their coping strategies warrant an article, while the destruction in gaza gets tucked away toward the end of a piece which spends as much time telling us that 4 people have died in israel as it does telling us that israeli bombs have killed 400 and injured nearly 2,000?

and don't even get me started on the herald