By now, unless you were already inebriated for the Super Bowl or otherwise unconscious, you're likely familiar with Tom Tancredo's disgusting peformance at the Tea Baggers Ball on Friday. In the off chance that you missed it:
TANCREDO: And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. People who could not even spell the word "vote," or say it in English, put a committed socialist idealogue in the White House, name is Barack Hussein Obama.
What brings me to this diary is a (yet again) outstanding vivisection performed by Dr. Maddow on her show last night.
dKos has plenty of diarists who are better historians ( and writers!) than I but I didn't see this specifically diaried so I thought I'd do it. As she stated in her show last night, Rachel spent the weekend fuming about Tancredo's comments ( among other things) and decided to do more research about the realities of literacy tests in our history. This segment is worth watching.
If you're unable to view, she describes the reality of what it was like to be subject to these tests, and offers examples of things that I would bet money Tom Tancredo or Sarah Palin couldn't answer. With our without palmnotes. HT to dmhlt 66 for transcript 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Monday, February 8, 2010
Like so many others, I am appalled when people appropriate history for their own selfish purposes. There are some things that are just not like any other. Slavery, the Holocaust, the history of First Nations people, lynching are but a few examples. Jim Crow and its poll taxes, literacy tests etc. is another.
In Rachel's segment, she offered examples of real literacy tests that were used and made the point, with which I cannot agree enough, that we are not talking about 100 years ago, or 75 years ago, or 60 years ago but 45 years ago; within the lifetime of many on this board. Some on this board may have even been forced to take these. I don't know that anyone in my family did but I will be asking because I need to know their story.
From the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website, here's but a brief glance at the reality of literacy tests:
A typical test consisted of three-parts. For example:
* In "Part A" the applicant was given a selection of the Constitution to read aloud. The registrar could assign you a long complex section filled with legalese and convoluted sentences, or he could tell you to read a simple one or two sentence section. The Registrar marked each word he thought you mispronounced. In some cases you had to orally interpret the section to the registrar's satisfaction. You then had to either copy out by hand a section of the Constitution, or write it down from dictation as the registrar spoke (mumbled) it. White applicants usually were allowed to copy, Black applicants usually had to take dictation. The Registrar then judged whether you were able to "read and write," or if you were "illiterate."
* In Parts "B" and "C," you had to answer two different sets of four written questions each. Part "B" was 4 questions based on the excerpt you had written down. Part "C" consisted of 4 "general knowledge" questions about state and national government.
Your application was then reviewed by the three-member Board of Registrars — often in secret at a later date. They voted on whether or not you passed. It was entirely up to the judgment of the Board whether you passed or failed. If you were white and missed every single question they could still pass you if — in their sole judgment — you were "qualified." If you were Black and got every one correct, they could still flunk you if they considered you "unqualified."
Your name was published in the local newspaper listing of those who had applied to register. That was to make sure that all of your employers, landlords, mortgage-holders, bank loan officers, business-suppliers, and etc, were kept informed of this important event. And, of course, all of the information on your application was quietly passed under the table to the White Citizens Council and KKK for appropriate action. Their job was to encourage you to withdraw your application — or withdraw yourself out of the county — by whatever means they deemed necessary.
Really Tom Tancredo? This is what you envision for America? Now it will be argued that no, that's not what he meant. Much like any other self entitled arbiter of the way things should be, for example, Rush Limbaugh, he'll say it was "satire" or he was being hyperbolic to make a point. But like my grandma used to say about any situation when you should think before you speak: "Measure twice, cut once".
Let's look at an example from the 1965 Alabama Literacy Test
- Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?
___Public Education
___Employment
___Trial by Jury
___Voting
- The federal census of population is taken every five years.
___True ___False
- If a person is indicted for a crime, name two rights which he has.
____________________ ______________________
- A U.S. senator elected at the general election in November takes office the following year
on what date?
_______________________________________________
- A President elected at the general election in November takes office the following year
on what date?
____________________________________________________________________
- Which definition applies to the word "amendment?"
___Proposed change, as in a Constitution
___Make of peace between nationals at war
___A part of the government
- A person appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court is appointed for a term of ________
- When the Constitution was approved by the original colonies, how many states had to
ratify it in order for it to be in effect? _______________________________________
- Does enumeration affect the income tax levied on citizens in various states? ________
- Person opposed to swearing in an oath may say, instead:
(solemnly) ____________________________________________________________
More questions available at link.
People like Tancredo and those who feel free to appropriate other's history for their own convenience do so because they have no skin in the game. It's not their history. I can't imagine anyone who lost family to the Holocaust would use imagery of that in protesting health care reform. I can't imagine anyone whose family history included being threatened, mentally and physically, and even beaten, attempting to exercise a right guaranteed them by the Constitution, would so cavalierly call for the re-imposition of any kind of test in order to vote.
When people ask things like "Why is there a ___ History Month"? This is why. This is why there is a Black History Month for example. This is why we need to highlight the pieces of history that get overlooked. And this is why we need things like this for as long as the Tom Tancredos of the world are with us.
Update: Obligatory Sally Field Oscar moment. Rec List? Thanks :)
Update2:Seneca Doane reminds us of an important point in the comments:
One might think that literacy tests are currently barred by the Constitution.
They aren't. Poll taxes are, by Constitutional Amendment, but while literacy tests might well be vulnerable to a 14th-Amendment challenge -- and I think we'd get five votes on our side -- that's not while they are illegal.
Instead, they are barred by statute -- the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act can be eliminated by a majority of both houses of Congress and a Presidential signature. It was in danger when it last came up for reauthorization a few years ago.
This is one reason that we fight. A Teabagging Republican would gladly display the stuffed head of the Voting Rights Act on its trophy wall.
And Deoliver47 reminds us of Miss Fannie Lou Hamer's remarks to the DNC in 1964 after, as Rachel describes in her segment, Fannie Lou Hamer "dared".