ARIEL DORFMAN ap di AMERIKEN yo ki jan lot SANTI PIMAN lan JE POUL

Se yon sel BAGAY ki ap pale OZETAZINI ,se ki jan RIS yo ta ENFLIYANSE REZILTA DENYE ELEKSYON yo.
Mesye TRUMP yo ap voye PYE ,y ap di ke se yon TANTATIV pou DELEJETIMIZE yo.
ARIEL DORFMAN ki se te yon ZANMI SALVADOR ALLENDE ekri ATIK sa a sou NEW YORK TIMES.
Misye di ke okenn PEYI pa gen dwa ENFLIYANSE ou CHWAZI PREZIDAN pou lot PEYI ,men li di TOU ke AMERIKEN yo ap santi jan lot PEYI yo SANTI le CIA ap jete GOUVENMAN ke PEP yo CHWAZI.

Ou pa fe BAGAY paske ou kabab FE l ,paske le w pa an KONTWOL ,le w pa TOU PWISAN ZOT ap ka fe w menm BAGAY lan.

AYE mwen te tande HILLARY CLINTON ap PLENYEN deske RIS yo fe TRUMP genyen ELEKSYON yo.
Byen ke TRUMP pa p BON pou MOUN ki ap VIV OZETAZINI ,men TOU yon KOUDETAMANN lan lot PEYI tankou HILLARY CLINTON se ta denye MOUN ki pou t ap PLENYEN!!!!!!



Now, America, You Know How Chileans Felt


By ARIEL DORFMANDEC. 16, 2016




DURHAM, N.C. — It is familiar, the outrage and alarm that many Americans are feeling at reports that Russia, according to a secret intelligence assessment, interfered in the United States election to help Donald J. Trump become president.

I have been through this before, overwhelmed by a similar outrage and alarm.

To be specific: On the morning of Oct. 22, 1970, in what was then my home in Santiago de Chile, my wife, Angélica, and I listened to a news flash on the radio. Gen. René Schneider, the head of Chile’s armed forces, had been shot by a commando on a street of the capital. He was not expected to survive.

Angélica and I had the same automatic reaction: It’s the C.I.A., we said, almost in unison. We had no proof at the time — though evidence that we were right would eventually, and abundantly, surface — but we did not doubt that this was one more American attempt to subvert the will of the Chilean people.

Six weeks earlier, Salvador Allende, a democratic Socialist, had won the presidency in a free and fair election, in spite of the United States’ spending millions of dollars on psychological warfare and misinformation to prevent his victory (we’d call it “fake news” today). Allende had campaigned on a program of social and economic justice, and we knew that the government of President Richard M. Nixon, allied with Chile’s oligarchs, would do everything it could to stop Allende’s nonviolent revolution from gaining power.

The country was rife with rumors of a possible coup. It had happened in Guatemala and Iran, in Indonesia and Brazil, where leaders opposed to United States interests had been ousted; now it was Chile’s turn. That was why General Schneider was assassinated. Because, having sworn loyalty to the Constitution, he stubbornly stood in the way of those destabilization plans.

President-elect Salvador Allende, of Chile, arriving to pay respects to Gen. René Schneider, who was lying in state, killed by a commando. Credit Robert Quiroga/Associated Press

General Schneider’s death did not block Allende’s inauguration, but American intelligence services, at the behest of Henry A. Kissinger, continued to assail our sovereignty during the next three years, sabotaging our prosperity (“make the economy scream,” Nixon ordered) and fostering military unrest. Finally, on Sept. 11, 1973, Allende was overthrown and replaced by a vicious dictatorship that lasted nearly 17 years. Years of torture and executions and disappearances and exile.

Given all that pain, one might presume that some glee on my part would be justified at the sight of Americans squirming in indignation at the spectacle of their democracy subjected to foreign interference — as Chile’s democracy, among many others’, was by America. And yes, it is ironic that the C.I.A. — the very agency that gave not a whit for the independence of other nations — is now crying foul because its tactics have been imitated by a powerful international rival.

I can savor the irony, but I feel no glee. This is not only because, as an American citizen myself now, I am once again a victim of this sort of nefarious meddling. My dismay goes deeper than that personal sense of vulnerability. This is a collective disaster: Those who vote in the United States should not have to suffer what those of us who voted in Chile had to go through. Nothing warrants that citizens anywhere should have their destiny manipulated by forces outside the land they inhabit.

The seriousness of this violation of the people’s will must not be flippantly underestimated or disparaged.

When Mr. Trump denies, as do his acolytes, the claims by the intelligence community that the election was, in fact, rigged in his favor by a foreign power, he is bizarrely echoing the very responses that so many Chileans got in the early ’70s when we accused the C.I.A. of illegal interventions in our internal affairs. He is using now the same terms of scorn we heard back then: Those allegations, he says, are “ridiculous” and mere “conspiracy theory,” because it is “impossible to know” who was behind it.




In Chile, we did find out who was “behind it.” Thanks to the Church Committee and its valiant, bipartisan 1976 report, the world discovered the many crimes the C.I.A. had been committing, the multiple ways in which it had destroyed democracy elsewhere — in order, supposedly, to save the world from Communism.

This country deserves, as all countries do — including Russia, of course — the possibility of choosing its leaders without someone in a remote room abroad determining the outcome of that election. This principle of peaceful coexistence and respect is the bedrock of freedom and self-determination, a principle that, yet again, has been compromised — this time, with the United States as its victim.

What to do, then, to restore faith in the democratic process?

First, there should be an independent, transparent and thorough public investigation so that any collusion between American citizens and foreigners bent on mischief can be exposed and punished, no matter how powerful these operatives may be. The president-elect should be demanding such an inquiry, rather than mocking its grounds. The legitimacy of his rule, already damaged by his significant loss of the popular vote, depends on it.

But there is another mission, a loftier one, that the American people, not politicians or intelligence agents, must carry out. The implications of this deplorable affair should lead to an incessant and unforgiving meditation on our shared country, its values, its beliefs, its history.

The United States cannot in good faith decry what has been done to its decent citizens until it is ready to face what it did so often to the equally decent citizens of other nations. And it must firmly resolve never to engage in such imperious activities again.

If ever there was a time for America to look at itself in the mirror, if ever there was a time of reckoning and accountability, it is now.




Ariel Dorfman, an emeritus professor of literature at Duke University, is the author of the play “Death and the Maiden” and, more recently, the memoir “Feeding on Dreams.”


Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

M ap pataje ak nou yon lot ATIK ke sa yo rele OZETAZINI yon "public intellectual" te pibliye YE sou NEW YORK TIMES.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON se PWOFESE SOSYOLOJI lan GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ,Gran inivesite katolik lan WASHINGTON D.C
Yo konn liste GEORGETOWN lan LIS 20 MEYE INIVESITE sou PLANET lan ,lan SHANGAI LIST.
Dr DYSON gen yon SHOW sou PBS TELEVIZYON PIBLIK lan ,li se yon ABITYE sou CHENN MSNBC tou ,san bliye li ekri regilyeman sou NEW YORK TIMES.
DYSON di sa k fe TRUMP pi DANJERE ,se paske MISYE ap pale BAGAY li pa konnen e BANN ENBESIL ki te VOTE pou li yo kwe se VRE sa l ap di yo.
Gen yon bagay ke DYSON renmen di ;se ke DESANDAN EWOPEYEN yo konn ap di ke se GWOUP MINORITE yo ki konn ap fe "POLITIK IDANTITE" alos ke DESANDAN EWOPEYEN sa yo pote la "banyE" lan IDANTITE POLITUIK.

Pou MALE INYORAN ki vote pou TRUMP ak KOLONN li yo ,paske se la MIZE TRUMP ap pote pou yo.
DYSON di entere yo se menm ak MINORITE yo ,alos ke MOUN tankou TRUMP yo ap fe yo konprann sa k pa sa pou yo LOLO yo e VALE yo.



SundayReview|What Donald Trump Doesn’t Know About Black People




By MICHAEL ERIC DYSONDEC. 17, 2016




Donald J. Trump attended a service at the Great Faith Ministries International church in Detroit in September. Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times

In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, Kanye West appeared on live TV during a celebrity fund-raiser for victims of the disaster and said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” This wasn’t based on intimate knowledge of Mr. Bush’s racial views, but rather on his treatment of black people in a time of crisis.

Donald J. Trump, who met with Mr. West this past week to discuss “multicultural issues,” according to the rapper, hasn’t been in charge yet to steer black Americans through a crisis. But we have seen enough of his views and behaviors to hazard a guess at how he thinks.

It may be that Mr. Trump’s views reveal something just as devastating as not caring for black people: not knowing us.

Mr. Trump is not alone in this deliberate ignorance, as postelection calls on the left to forget about identity politics have shown. If there is a dirty secret in American life, it is this: The real unifying force in our national cultural and political life, beyond skirmishes over ideology, is white identity masked as universal, neutral and, therefore, quintessentially American. The greatest purveyors of identity politics today, and for the bulk of our country’s history, have been white citizens.



Brigid Moynahan
15 hours ago
I am so glad Dyson points out how much we need to acknowledge the dominance of white culture. As a kid, younger than Bernie I grew up only...



John Betancourt
15 hours ago
The issue is not Trump: the issue is why did more African-Americans not come out and vote for the Democratic ticket.During Obama’s tenure,...



There is a cost to ignorance and the hate that can grow from it. In his eulogy for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was killed in 2015 by Dylann S. Roof, President Obama spoke of the proud history of Reverend Pinckney’s church and community. He noted that we couldn’t know what the killer understood of the community or the lives he was taking, but he did know hate. Mr. Roof was found guilty of that Charleston massacre on Thursday, his violent acts a reminder — not one we needed — of the price ignorance and hate can exact.

“I would be a president for all of the people, African-Americans, the inner cities,” President-elect Trump declared during the second presidential debate. “Devastating what’s happening to our inner cities,” he lamented. “You go into the inner cities and — you see it’s 45 percent poverty. African-Americans now 45 percent poverty in the inner cities.”

Mr. Trump’s views on black people, poverty and cities were quickly challenged as myopic and ill informed. But the administration he is building is emblematic of his ignorance.

The only African-American member of his designated cabinet is Ben Carson, who was tapped for Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Carson was a beloved American icon, a man who endured a hardscrabble childhood in Detroit to become a famous physician. But his turn to right-wing petulance, with a bow to kooky comparisons of Obamacare to slavery, considerably soiled his reputation. If his story was once emblematic of beating the odds to become a success, he is now a different kind of symbol — of how little Mr. Trump knows, or cares, about African-Americans.

Similarly, his pick of Senator Jeff Sessions as his attorney general — a man who according to testimony before Congress once joked that the only problem with the K.K.K. was the group’s drug use, deemed a white lawyer with black clients a race traitor and dismissed civil rights groups as “un-American” — proves Mr. Trump cares little for the interests of the African-American citizens he will serve in the Oval Office.

During his presidential campaign Mr. Trump tweeted out a grossly inaccurate image from a nonexistent “Crime Statistics Bureau” that suggested that the bulk of white people are killed by black people — a belief that white bigots have long parroted as the reason for their racist revenge.

Mr. Trump argued that “African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they’ve ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever.” President Obama drolly declared, “I mean, he missed that whole civics lesson about slavery or Jim Crow.”





Mr. Obama’s retort underscores a troubling truth: Mr. Trump’s vast ignorance of black life leads him to exaggerate the perils confronting black Americans in all the wrong ways. He overlooks the nation’s vicious history of racism to proclaim that this is the worst racial epoch ever. It is a convenient ruse to make the period under President Obama a foil to his heroic rescue of black people through his magical political powers.

The road ahead is not easy, primarily because Mr. Trump’s ignorance about race, his critical lack of nuance and learning about it, exists among liberals and the white left, too.

From the start of his 2016 presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders was prickly about race, uncomfortable with an outspoken, demanding blackness, resistant to letting go of his preference for discussing class over race. He made efforts to improve the way he spoke about the realities of racial discrimination. But Mr. Sanders seemed to remain at heart a man of the people, especially if those people were the white working class.

Since the election, Mr. Sanders has sounded an increasingly familiar theme among liberals that they should “go beyond identity politics.” He warned that “to think of diversity purely in racial and gender terms is not sufficient,” and that we need candidates “to be fighters for the working class and stand up to the corporate powers who have so much power over our economic lives.”

In a recent speech in California, Mr. Sanders said that it is “very easy for many Americans to say, I hate racism, I hate homophobia, I hate sexism,” but that “it is a little bit harder for people in the middle or upper middle class to say, maybe we do have to deal with the greed of Wall Street.”

This is a nifty bit of historical revisionism. For the longest time there was little consideration for diversity, even among liberal elites, much less the white middle and working classes. It seems more than a little reactionary to blame the loss of the election on a brand of identity politics that even liberals were slow to embrace.

Attention to diversity and identity does not undercut our nation’s embrace of democratic ideals; it strengthens them. The black struggle for freedom has ensured that other groups could follow along in the wake of our demand for equality. When the 1964 civil rights bill was in doubt in Congress, white opponents of the bill thought they could sink it by attaching the issue of gender, hoping to appeal to the sexism of those who might otherwise be cajoled to offer their support. Instead, the bill passed, and paved the way for both black rights and those of women. What’s good for black people is good for the nation.

When it comes to the white working class, however, that is almost impossible to see.

The interests of the white working class have often been used by white political elites to stave off challenges to inequality and discrimination by black folk and other minority groups.

In the middle of the 20th century, labor unions curtailed opportunity for black workers by protecting the race-based interests of the white working and middle class. In the late 1960s, Richard M. Nixon even supported a version of affirmative action because he deemed it useful to break unions by accusing them of racial exclusion. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan appealed to disaffected white Democrats who resented being forced to share a small measure of the gains they had accumulated through bigotry and often official discrimination.

Now we hear again the cry that the neglected white working class is the future of American progressive politics. The tragedy is that much of the professed concern about the white working class is a cover for the interests of white elites who evoke working-class solidarity to combat racial, sexual and gender progress.

Identity has always been at the heart of American culture. We must confront a truth that we have assiduously avoided: The most protected, cherished and nurtured identity of all has been white identity. After all, the needs of the black and brown working classes, which are not exclusively urban, are, again, even in progressive quarters, all but forgotten.

Mr. Trump, and to a degree, the liberals and progressives who advocate a vision of America that spurns identity politics, make one thing clear: The real unifying force in American political life is whiteness, no matter its party, gender, region or, at times, even its class.




Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of sociology at Georgetown, is the author of the forthcoming “Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America” and a contributing opinion writer.


Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and