What the "birthers" are REALLY saying.

This man says it so much better than I ever could.


If you're inspired to speak out and take action after seeing this, here's what you can do:

1. Boycott all things Trump.
2. Write to NBC and tell them that they need to cancel Trump's show Celebrity Apprentice because you don't like racists...or the networks that sign their paychecks.
3. Forward and post this video, and talk to your friends and family about why Trump's actions are so dangerous and hateful. Spreading knowledge and awareness and creating positive, supportive energy against racism is powerful action.

What did I leave out?

Looking over the past few months of this blog before my professor takes a look was a good chance for me to be honest with myself about what I've focused on and why.

When I began this blog, I wanted to explore White privilege and the White community within anti-oppressive work. Why these topics? Well, this is was a fairly selfish endeavor. I have often felt isolated, both within and without the anti-oppressive movement: among people of color, I'm never sure what my role in the conversation should be - I don't want to speak too much, I don't want to ask to many questions and ask someone to act as my educator, I don't want to make a fool of myself; and among my White peers, I feel isolated because there aren't many White allies who are also examining these topics and themselves in any real way.  So this blog - what began as a project for a course focused on "ISMs" but will continue as my own means of exploration - started out to find some clarity for myself.

I wanted to take a good look at the anti-oppressive movement as a whole, which maybe was a bit ambitious. I focused on racism, but within that I feel that I fell into the trap of often looking at racism in dichotomous terms. So many of my issues are about racism between White and African or African-American communities. I've found that my blog posts have really mirrored the conversation in class, in that the main communities of focus are White, Black, and Latino, and the conversation has largely excluded Asian communities, Native and indigenous populations, bi-, multi-, and inter-racial groups, as well as the prejudice and bias that these populations hold towards each other. I have touched on many of these topics, but I do wish I had explored them further, and that will be my goal as I continue this blog.


One of my main hopes was to start a conversation, to have readers leave comments to get a dialogue going. While I see that a few hundred folks (or maybe the same few people over and over?!) have viewed my blog, no one has left me any comments! So get on that so we can get talkin'. Please :)


I'm excited that I have a forum to continue this conversation - hopefully not just with myself!

Capstone Controversy

What a fitting end to the Columbia University experience.

Over the past week, it has come to light that the subject of our Capstone analysis was likely unaware of the project and was none too happy to find out it was focused on her. This revelation has led to an organizing movement among the students, seeking to support this veteran in her healing and make amends in whatever way possible.

This Capstone Controversy has brought up so many issues for me:

• Ethical concerns of consent 
• The fact that a White author was brought in to tell the narrative of a Native American woman
• The fact that for many students at this school, this will be the first time in two years that the plight of Native populations is discussed
• The intent of the Capstone organizers versus the impact of their actions
• Scapegoating individuals rather than addressing the institutional atmosphere that allows ethical dilemmas to manifest
• The difficulty in promoting inclusion while avoiding exclusion or an "us vs. them" mentality

But one of the most stressful aspects of this controversy for me is the acceptance that individuals should be able to make mistakes without having observers vilify their behavior.  This was a difficult lesson to learn.  The fact that one of the faculty members has served as a role model of mine in the field of anti-racist and anti-oppressive work is what has really made me try to make sense of this dissonance.

I have worked hard over the past few years to accept the fact that most often, no one act or mistake can define a person. We are all many things, and if any of us were judged by snapshots or moments of our lives, one would have a very incomplete - and sometimes antithetical - portrait of who we are.  I'm constantly struggling with how people view me in the context of anti-racist work.  I know I still perpetrate microaggressions from time to time, and might even make a much more overt display of an ISM on occasion. I constantly worry about the fact that while I am trying to learn and be a part of the anti-oppressive movement, I myself am not immune to lapses in judgment and transgressions.  So where does that leave me? 

I have had to accept that waiting to perfect oneself before stepping out of your comfort zone or standing in support of a cause is a losing battle. I will probably never be at a place where I am 100% free of bias or internalized superiority or am aware of all the ways that ISMs affect me. But that doesn't have to discount any good work that I may do. In much the same way, I feel that even if a mistake were made on the part of the faculty, it does not mean that all of the good work they have done up until this point should be thrown away and forgotten.  There has been an undercurrent of scapegoating, in my opinion, of certain faculty members. I believe in giving criticism and praise where criticism and praise are due, and this is no different. If there was a an ethical breach, then it must be addressed. But I also fear that the tone of the conversation taking place at school today will have serious implications for the reputations of faculty that have worked hard for many years prior to this controversy and will continue to practice anti-oppressive work for many years after it.  It frightens me that some of my colleagues are ready and willing to discount faculty members so quickly; I fear for their reputations and jobs, and I think it would be a massive loss to the CUSSW community if some of these folks were lost. 

It's a difficult, confusing situation. I have ethical concerns of my own with this capstone project, to be sure - but I also have ethical concerns with some of the response that is coming out of the counter-movement.

It's a boy!

Does this mean the so-called "birther" debate can finally die?

Two years after he began his presidency, 3.5 years after launching onto the national stage, and nearly 50 years after he was born on decidedly U.S. soil, President Barack Obama has had to release his official birth certificate (again) to combat claims that he is not American.

Huh? What? Come again?

Sadly, the poorly-veiled racist attack did end back in 2008 when questions of President Obama's national origin were first raised. The initial release of a photo of his birth certificate only cause more alarm and panic because - how could it be?! - his middle name was Hussein. This fueled "jokes" and "accidental slips of tongue" of 'Osama' for years to come.

So what will the birthers and their newest cheerleader, Donald Trump, do now? Will the release of the President's birth certificate, a document issued every day to thousands but somehow seen as inconceivably real because of the color of his skin, the origin of his middle name, and the homes of his ancestors - will this quiet the questions once and for all? Doubtful. Public response to the birthers has been incredulous for many years now. For many, the President's birthplace was never a question or concern, while for others, it has continually resurfaced, as if it is impossible to believe that a multi-racial, dark-skinned man with an informed world-view and well-traveled family has any place in the power structure of the United States. And based on the collective history of this country, it is a bit amazing even today that he does.

So no matter what public awareness of the truth is or what the response has been for many years, the birther camps are going to stay steadfast in their disbelief of the President's citizenship, because it's not about the birth certificate at all. The birthers' assertions imply that President Obama - and other folks like him - do not belong in America, simply could not have originated here in this White-skinned, wealthy male country. The undercurrents of racism and hatred are clear, and can't be combated with common sense or legal documentation. The heart of racism is emotionally-based, and is not founded on logic or sense.

Fighting emotion and hate with papers and proof is simply keeping the conversation going. It will never be enough, and no one should have to continually prove their worth or value to those who do not want to  believe.

The Immigration Debate Rears Its Ugly Head...

There's got to be some sort of amnesty!

Feminism Cop-Out?

Just came across this article that Tim Wise wrote during the 2008 Presidential Campaign. It's an interesting proposition - he says that some White women were using feminism as a cover-up of their racist beliefs in their decision to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.

Read it here:
Your Whiteness Is Showing

I know that for a long time I would default to my oppressed or vulnerable identity and ignore my dominant identities - something that, if I'm being honest, I still retreat to if I'm not checking myself. Did I hold on tighter to my bag when I was walking home at night because the man that passed me was Black? No, no, it's because I'm a woman! It's such an automatic response, something that along the way was ingrained in me. Even before I could name my Whiteness, I knew I should avoid it. How does that work? I've spoken with many individuals that do not share my White identification who also take part in this phenomena of ranking pieces of ourselves.

And to complicate the issue, it's sometimes difficult to discern which part of yourself really was responding in any given situation. This is the tension that arises when we attempt to compartmentalize our personalities or conceptions of self into independent, exclusive parts.  My identity as a woman is irreversibly, undeniably impacted, defined, altered, and adhered to my identity as a White person, as a member of the "middle class", as a graduate student, as a victim and survivor of violence, of all of my many selves.

But recognizing the impossibility of separating our own identities does not always make it easier to stop asking others to do the same. And it certainly doesn't prevent us - even when we try to be aware - from periodically slipping up and calling on one part of ourselves to take precedence over another (maybe less desirable) piece.


What do you think - can a response to one ISM act as a guise for perpetrators of another ISM? Is it a conscious or unconscious action?

Representation in the Media

The new Law & Order Los Angeles debuted yesterday, and I was pleasantly surprised. The first episode was almost half in Spanish, with English subtitles - something you certainly don't see everyday.  Many of the lead characters are Latino, and although the first episode featured a Mexican gang - and all of the stereotypes that went along - the heros of the episode were also people of color, and the second episode featured a White man as the "villian".

I've written previously about the show "Outsourced", a show whose cast is predominantly people of color but that, in my opinion, consists entirely of cheap jokes about stupid stereotypes of the Indian culture.  It seems that in the general media, people of color are included in one of the following ways:

• Either it's a show like Law & Order LA where there were so many more people of color than there are usually that it was very noticeable; OR
• A person's race / ethnicity / religion / etc serves only as comedic relief or is exploited in some other way; OR
• There is a really negative portrayal in the news - see below: 

I think that representation of many different groups of people is increasing in the media, but it still has a long way to go. There is a mix of overt examples of racism in the media like the "looting vs. finding" captions, and then there are the more subtle microaggressions that continue to run rampant. Microaggressions can include the lack of different cultures in primetime television, the showing of internalized superiority (such as when different lifestyles are mocked or othered), and the messages we receive about what is good, beautiful, and right. For this, see my previous entry on "Liv Dolls"...

The Power of Language

It's that time of year - we are all counting down the days til our graduate program is over. Facebook events are popping up left and right - study sessions, celebratory drinks, and final gatherings before many of our friends leave the city.

One of my friends created an event called "CUSSW grads love picnics" - for a post-graduation gathering in Central Park. We were all busy inviting friends on Facebook and fantasizing about the weather actually being warm enough to sit outside on the grass (and without homework!!) when a peer pointed out something none of us had realized: we were using racist language.

In a kind comment left on the event's page, this peer - a well-respected anti-racist organizer - pointed out the following:

"Note that "picnic" has a history of being a derogatory term related to lynching African people...other words that could be used include "luncheon", "outdoor luncheon", "bar-b-que", "food in the sun"...get creative!...let's break the cycle of hurtful/unacknowledged language...all love!"

I was completely unaware of this awful connotation of the word "picnic".  When I first saw this comment, I was sitting in a car with my parents; they both confirmed that they had never heard this use of the word either and sounded skeptical of this darker meaning.  I accepted that it must be true, as this woman was much more knowledgable about the use of language in this context than I was, but I did have a momentary thought of "uh oh - another word that I have to remain conscious of not using" - as if this was going to be a burden for me.

A few days later, I received an email in my inbox from the friend that originally created the event. An excerpt:

"For transparency purposes, I would like to come forward as the creator of this event. The event was named without thought about the historical uses of the word "picnic", and I apologize for any unintentional offense it may have caused. Thank you______ for bringing this issue to light, and for speaking with me about it in person as well. I think it is a necessary and important dialogue for us to have. 

I'd like to ask that everyone please be respectful on the wall for this event. It is important to recognize that regardless of opinions, knowledge of linguistic myths, or disagreement in general, we all have our own personal experiences and oral histories regarding these kinds of issues, and sensitivity to these facts is much appreciated."

 I, of course, immediately had to email her and ask what comments had prompted this email (as they had been deleted). Apparently, a number of people (all social work students, mind you) had begun posting things from urban myth websites in an attempt to 'debunk' the assertion that picnic is a derogatory word. Where did this impulse stem from? What about the woman's comment had touched people in such a way that they felt they had to prove her wrong?


I think there was a strong personal element to this interaction. The comment shook people up - whether because they realized their ignorance (like me), because they had already been aware of this racist meaning but had not spoken up, or for some other reason.  Regardless, people felt a need to disprove and debunk this assertion, and in my opinion that debunking only serves to make yourself feel more secure and at peace. Otherwise, what purpose would denying someone else's history or experiences fulfill?


I feel that this conversation taking place over the internet emboldened people to disagree with the commenter. If the medium had changed, and this point had been made in class, I don't believe that many people would have spoken up in protest. Perhaps they would have expressed their disagreement with friends afterwards, but I doubt that insensitive or mean comments would have been made face-to-face. 

When Revolutions Align

There is a really interesting debate going on in California right now concerning a proposed bill to include gay history in public school curriculum. You can read about it here.

Many of the tactics used by opponents of the bill are remnants of earlier struggles, such as the civil rights and women's rights movements. Let's take a look and see how these tactics have been recycled throughout the years...

• "There's just no infrastructure in place." We've heard this before, right? Most recently, this argument has been thrown out in opposition to immigrants in the United States. The problem with this line of thinking is that it places more value on economics and the status quo over what is fair, just, and logical. (Even as I write this, I realize that my personal values and beliefs are influencing what I feel is "logical", which is why these conversations are so hard to have on a national level.) In this example, opponents have said that teaching the history of the LGBTQ community would "burden an already crowded curriculum".

• "This group needs to stop pushing their agenda on this country." Dominant groups are always afraid of losing power, whether that is a conscious fear or not.  As one opponent of this bill stated, "What are we going to take out of the curriculum to get this type of curriculum in? Are we going to take Winston Churchill out?" Presenting these 'all or nothing' scenarios is truly fear-mongering. To tell people that in order to include someone else, they will have to give up a part of themselves and their history is an effective way to halt progress.

• And then there's the idea of "indoctrination". This is a scary word thrown around by folks on both sides of the party line, something I've used myself when discussing the separation of church and state. Religious groups who oppose the proposed education bill say that it would "indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality".  What about the indoctrination of ISMs and stereotypes youth receive every single day in school? Pubic school curriculum is heavily focused on the contributions of the dominant culture, with the history of marginalized populations thrown in for "color".  Isn't the absence of these communities' histories and the simultaneous reinforcement of the "superiority" of White, heterosexual culture a form of indoctrination? 

This article reminded me again of how important it is for all groups that have and continue to experience oppression to work together for the inclusion of all people.  I'd love to hear ideas on how we can take this beyond the individual and to more of a community level!

Seriously??

UPDATE (4/23/11): Not surprisingly, this story has largely lost coverage in the news. Not everyone is forgetting though - I just found an article about a protest that was held today outside Marilyn Davenport's home. Read it here. I like that it was a peaceful, respectful protest with people from many different groups who were there for many reasons.  "This [protest] is motivated by race," said Davenport's neighbor incredulously. Well...yes. Why is that a bad thing? The accusation that something is "motivated by race" or that someone is "pulling the (Black/Latino/"minority") card" is frustrating for me; whenever it's thrown out into the public arena, it seems like everyone - especially politicians - back off immediately. News flash! - Davenport's email was motivated by race - that's why she thought the "joke" was amusing.

Okay, I think it's high time we've moved past a few things:

1. Forwarding ridiculous emails...learn, people, learn!
2. Doing something racist/sexist/homophobic and then crying innocent - you just had no idea that it would offend someone! 
3. While we're on that point - putting the onus on the victim - THEY were offended, so it's THEIR problem.
4. The whole "President Obama wasn't born in America" thing - you have been disproven, so just stop already.

A quick recap of the story:

Marilyn Davenport, a tea partier (can we still call them tea baggers?) and an official on the Orange County Republican Committee, forwarded an email to her friends. The email was the above picture with caption "Now you know why there's no birth certificate". As they always do, the email became public, and Davenport issued an apology - as well as an email to her supporters that she would not be resigning from her position. Her "apology" was offensive in and of itself; Davenport said that she had no idea that the email might be considered offensive or racist. Really? 

There was a lot of public outcry against what Davenport did, and many want her to resign. Clearly, her supporters don't seem to agree that what she did was wrong. As a White woman serving as a politician in an institution built to serve the dominant group, she holds the power. But how would this look if a woman or man of color were to forward an email that was denigrating to White people?

I've often heard Republicans, Conservatives, and tea partiers accuse President Obama of being "racist" against White people. If a politician of color ever sent out an email like the one Davenport sent out, there would be hell to pay. I think the Right (and the Left, probably) would make a statement along the lines of "We cannot tolerate racism anywhere, no matter who it comes from; this is inappropriate and unacceptable, and this person must step down."  There would be much more media coverage, and Fox News would have a field day. With Davenport, however, I wouldn't be surprised if this story is out of the news by tomorrow or the day after, with no real action taken by Davenport to educate herself or remedy the situation.

Revelations from a Hospital Bed...

So I, unfortunately, spent the past few days in hospitals - both in New York City and in Boston.  Although I was mostly focused on how I was feeling and all the needles and pills (ack! I hate hospitals), there were a couple of moments that I knew I'd have to write about in this blog as soon as I was back home.

The first took place in the Emergency department at St. Luke's in New York.  I went in early on a Friday evening, and the waiting room wasn't too full. I filled out my "triage card" and handed it to the nurse behind the partition, a White woman.  I noticed her giving a dirty look to the Latina woman standing next to me when she dropped something near me and said "sorry, mami" kindly and loudly. What was the dirty look directed at? A few minutes later she called me into the room to admit me to the hospital, before all of the people who had been there before me (incidentally, nearly all people of color). The nurse was extremely nice to me, joking around and wishing me well. I couldn't help but wondering if I was receiving different treatment based on my skin color. Certainly, my condition was serious and that might have been why I was admitted right away, but why did I have a nagging feeling that there was more to it?


When I entered Mass General in Boston, I again encountered this question. When I was first admitted to a room, one of the doctors came in to ask me the standard questions - symptoms, smoking/alcohol/drug use, any other medical conditions, etc. It was a quick exchange, and when it came time to ask about alcohol and drugs, the doctor actually said "I see you're into organic food (I had some vegan snacks with me), so I'm guessing no smoking, drinking, or drugs, right?" It was a moment I paid no mind to until the following day, when another patient was admitted to my room.

This new patient was a Black girl, probably around my same age.  When a different doctor came in to ask that same list of questions, I noticed that it took a different note than mine had.
"Do you smoke?"
"No."
"Drink alcohol daily?"
"No."
"Drugs?"
"No."
"What about marijuana or cocaine?"
"No...I'm a nurse too you know! I try to stay really healthy."

Would this doctor have asked the same questions of me? Maybe. That was the assumption my mother had, as would many other White folks, I'd say. But I don't doubt that the color of her skin influenced the doctor's line of questioning.  It seemed to me that the girl's last statement about being a nurse was to justify herself or prove that she wasn't who the doctor thought she was.

In both of these situations, it's impossible to know the true motives behind the experiences. My heightened awareness of my White privilege and of racism might serve to either make me more sensitive to racist comments or to read more into things than what they are (isn't that what people of color are always accused of?). I don't think any of the White medical professionals involved in what I described would say they were being racist, or would even be aware of the microaggressions they'd perpetrated. But I can tell you that the woman laying in that bed next to me, vulnerable with illness and alone at the hospital, certainly seemed to notice.

Tina Fey Speaks the Truth

“But I think the first real change in women’s body image came when JLo turned it butt-style. That was the first time that having a large-scale situation in the back was part of mainstream American beauty. Girls wanted butts now. Men were free to admit that they had always enjoyed them. And then, what felt like moments later, boom—Beyoncé brought the leg meat. A back porch and thick muscular legs were now widely admired. And from that day forward, women embraced their diversity and realized that all shapes and sizes are beautiful. Ah ha ha. No. I’m totally messing with you. All Beyonce and JLo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful. Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits. The person closest to actually achieving this look is Kim Kardashian, who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes.”
Tina Fey, Bossypants




Ah, Tina Fey. Gotta love her. This quote was taken from her new book Bossypants, and what she says is so true - American society has fetishized parts of women's bodies, while deeming other parts "less than".  Tina jokes about it, but really - this is another example of racism and sexism becoming tangled up together, leading to an impossible-to-achieve body image that excludes nearly all women.  


Upholding these ideas of what a woman, a man, a particular culture, an age, etc must look like and present themselves as perpetuates all ISMs. It's ridiculous, but it's so prevalent that I barely notice anymore. The past 3 commercials on tv were for products that will help women become "more beautiful", and they all featured a White spokeswoman with long, blond hair and blue eyes. So much pressure.

MUST SEE.

This was an AMAZING play, created and performed by stunningly self-aware teens. It really blew me away. Go see it if you have the chance - I believe there's another performance on May 1st at the JCC in Manhattan as well!

Race and the Abortion Debate

Read the full article.




First it was Soho, and now it's Chicago.

Racism has been superimposed on the abortion debate in a major way.  It's a clever marketing ploy, playing off of the strong emotions people have in response to racism in hopes of hitching the pro-life stance to those same feelings. What has people upset is the question of authenticity - is there real concern for this community, or is this campaign exploiting African-Americans to further its agenda?

The divisions between issues are never clear and are never neat.  However, I feel that the hijacking of an ISM to push a discussion of an issue like abortion is dangerous territory. This tactic plays on peoples' emotions and trivializes the ISM, impeding on the space where it can be discussed earnestly.

Racism in Communities of Color

I was recently doing some research for a project about the Russian Jewish community and I came across this press release.







Racism, prejudice, and discrimination among communities of color is something that gets abandoned a lot of times in the discussion of racism.

Even though my intentions in this blog were to look at as many facets of racism and White privilege as possible, I feel like it continues to promote a mostly dichotomous view of racism as a Black and White issue.  But this inter-group tension is essential to the discussion.

Prejudice between marginalized communities prevents partnerships from being built that could be used to push against institutional and systemic oppression. The development of factions also promotes the dominant group and is, of course, supported by the culture in power.  Freire spoke of how the oppressed often becomes the oppressor when given power, and how this cycle keeps everyone in their respective positions on the losing side of the power imbalance.

This is not to trivialize the real histories of partnership and tension between communities of color. There are long-standing walls that divide everyone, and we can't forget to work at dismantling these as we all simultaneously examine the dominant culture's grasp on power.

Building Bridges!

Building partnerships between communities.

Learning to share the space we all live in.

This is what I get to do! :)

Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

Examine your privilege.

The link above brings you to 3 things: the first is Peggy McIntosh's famous article on White Privilege; the second is a guide for White people on how to personally respond to racism written by damali ayo; and the last is an essay taken from Robert Jensen's book The Heart of Whiteness.

Jensen's book is INCREDIBLE. It was one of the things that really pushed me into anti-racist work and made me realize what my role in racism and oppression is. It's a short book, and I remember sitting down one night and working my way through it. I was crying by the end, overwhelmed by a sense of guilt after realizing that I had a lot of racist thoughts and internalized superiority floating around inside me that I'd never before been aware of. In fact, this was the first time I had ever heard of such a thing as "internalized superiority". Five years of social work education and degrees, and the idea had not so much as been hinted at!

So this 'white guilt' that was suddenly hanging over my head - what was that rooted in? Was this a personal epiphany? Had my family or society told me along the way that I should have guilt for not only our history, but our present situation? I've tried to figure this out, and it's really difficult to discern where the roots lie. I wouldn't say that white guilt is an institutionally supported feeling - certainly, most of the institutions in this country are built up to make White folks feel more comfortable with themselves.  And my family doesn't really talk about issues of race and oppression around the dinner table. I've concluded that the standards I and my education have placed on myself, along with those expectations of my peers to be good, kind, and fair, create dissonance with those pieces of my inner racist self. I know that I've had conversations with people of color who also struggle to understand where this sense of "white guilt" comes from.

In the end, I don't think it's a hugely productive emotion. It can serve as a motivator to push past it, but what you move past the guilt into depends on how uncomfortable you want to be. It's easy to push past the guilt - or rather, deny the guilt - and go back to blissful ignorance. It's harder to push past the guilt into a deeper understanding of oneself and one's role in a generally oppressive system. This is what I'm constantly striving for.

Miami Police Dept. - "on the hunt"?

These two articles I just read make me want to curl up in a ball and pretend like I don't live in America anymore. These are scary, scary times my friends.



Abortion is essentially illegal in South Dakota as of today.


And Miami cops are just killing Black men left and right - and calling it a "hunt".


"We hunt," says one police officer. "Our guys were proactively going out there, like predators," said another. These comments were made in the midst of a chain of fatal shootings that left 7 African-American men dead at the hands of Miami law enforcement. All of the officers responsible for these deaths are Latino. So what, if any, influence did race have on this string of tragedies?


If you ask the police department, they'd say none. While they view the deaths of these men as unfortunate, they don't agree that there is any racial motivation.  The public and the families of the victims, however, strongly disagree.  There have been a number of protests and pending court cases in response to the fatal shootings, but the police chief continues to defend his department.


This awful situation may serve to shed light on racial tensions and law enforcement.  There, sadly, is no short supply of stories to choose from: Oscar Grant in California, Danroy Henry in New York, and Michael Pleasance in Chicago, for example. It is easy to talk about the issue of police brutality in communities of color when another person dies, but a more sustainable conversation must take place if there is any hope of changing the cycle of violence.



Forward widely, spread some outrage.  
Speak out if you are so inclined (please be so inclined).

Can we map attitudes and stereotypes?

I stumbled upon this "map of stereotypes" on the internet recently. It was meant, I'm assuming, as a light-hearted look at the stereotypes WE hold about different parts of the country. It left me wondering though - who is the WE?

I started to think how this map might look like and what it might mean depending on who drew it. If it was written by a person of color, might it be different? Would history play a role?

If it was a White person that made this map, then the reference to "fried chicken" and "yes sir & yes ma'am" might allude to commonly held racist beliefs about Black individuals.

I believe that it would be extremely different  for a Black person (what stereotypes would the South hold?) or a Latino or Latina author (I'd like to see what they'd write for Arizona....and what about those 22 states that have copied SB1070?).  Imagine what the map would look like from a Native American perspective?


It seems that it's easy to joke around and poke fun at stereotypes when you are the one holding many, the one that maybe doesn't come into contact with others' stereotypes about yourself or your community on a daily basis. I created the map below of the stereotypes I hold; this is an exercise in becoming aware of what biases and beliefs I hold, not a statement that they are correct or founded!

Okay - couple of things here:

1. Just realized that I am no longer good at geography...what happened?
2. There's whole parts of the country that I don't even think about. i.e., the "Bible Belt" (how I view it)
3. I have a lot of stereotypes about New England and Massachusetts in general, because I grew up there. I found that although MA is a liberal state in many ways, my area of the state is extremely conservative. I hold lots of stereotypes about the southcoast of MA in particular, including that all the men are fishermen who are addicted to drugs. This is a crazy generalization, and it tends to discount the heritage of my community as well as all of the individuals that certainly don't use drugs. This stereotype is borne of my personal experiences - I knew and dated quite a few of those substance using sailors - and it's left me bitter in some way and cynical about my hometown. So this is how a lot of stereotypes begin, right? Taking one personal experience and generalizing it to a much larger group of people? And of course, this stereotype is based in some kernel of truth - that my hometown is the heroin capital of the northeast - and that's what often confuses the issue of stereotypes. What comes first - the statistics, or the stigma?
4. I have a really negative view of this country. I usually don't feel any sort of patriotism, and that's not something I'm proud of. I do think there are things to be proud of here, it's just hard to remember them when I've based my career on working to solve some of the (many) major problems the US faces. 

Ideas of Beauty

Here is one of the latest crazes with pre-teen girls - the Liv Dolls.

The basic gist is that there are 4 dolls, each with it's own personality. The commercial shows 4 friends and their doll counterparts. Three of the friends are White, and one is Black.  The Black girl in the commercial has deep brown skin, brown eyes, and natural hair. But when she is transformed into a doll that is supposed to be a representation of her - all of a sudden she has light skin, straight hair, and green eyes (see above picture - she's the doll on the right). 

I first became aware of these dolls when I saw a commercial a few weeks ago on a Saturday morning. It caught my attention with this line: "Don't you want fabulous hair like the Liv dolls? They have the most beautiful hair!" The four dolls that were shown as the voiceover went on had long, straight hair. Subtle messages that this is the only type of hair that is beautiful are hurtful - what about all the girls who don't have long straight hair? Is their hair ugly in comparison?

I'm sensitive to this issue because my feelings about my messy, curly hair have changed back and forth over the years. When I was in middle- and high-school, I hated my curly hair. All of the popular girls had straight hair, so I ironed it til it was pin straight every day for 5 years.  I always received compliments on my hair if it was straight, but never if it was curly - and I got the message loud and clear about what was "pretty" and what wasn't. I started to embrace my curls in college, but would often straighten my hair as my boyfriend at the time told me I was prettier that way (awful!). And over the past two years, I've moved to the other extreme: I will only wear my hair curly, in protest of the standard of beauty that was always pushed on me. But is this any better? I now feel like I can't straighten my hair if I'm in the mood for a change, as if I wouldn't be authentic if I did. It reminds me of conversations I've heard in class about hair, especially in the Black community. I've heard lots of comments from women that they only seek out other Black women for friendship who keep their hair natural; part of me can understand why, but part of me feels that judging someone based on their chosen hairstyle is just reinforcing all of the negative messages women receive. If a Black woman chooses to relax her hair, does that make her less Black in their eyes? It's a conversation I've never had with anyone, but I think there's a lot of overlap between gender and racial ideals of beauty and the underlying beliefs/messages.

American standards of beauty are often culturally based and have far-reaching historical roots. Our hair texture, skin color, body shape, and body size are all held up to a standard that is portrayed over and over again. Although the commercial bothered me because I have curly hair, I am still able to easily find people to identify with and when I was young I had dolls that shared some of my characteristics.  What about individuals who are exposed day in and day out - on TV, the news, magazines, movies, clothing ads, commercials, the toy aisle - to people that look nothing like them, and then are told that those are the beautiful people? What does it mean to watch a commercial where maybe you do identify with one of the girls, only to see her morphed into a doll where all of the features you identified with were changed?

We are teaching children so much from such a young age, and the messages we are reinforcing are often hurtful, detrimental to one's self-esteem, and racist.

a bit of spoken word for tonight

"willing to die to become a student"....this breaks my heart into a million pieces.

"Why should Chicanos have to die to win the approval of this society?"

"I wanna break tradition - the mentiras my parents told me, about gringos, negros, chinos...smashing it against the ground like coconuts..."

History continues...the genocide of culture and potential and experience in this country is shameful, so shameful.

Childhood throwback...

Old-school racist cartoons...sorry Bugs Bunny.

I actually just bought a cheap dvd at Target of "classic cartoons" because I grew up watching Betty Boop (my first car's 'name' was Betty...yep).  I haven't watched it yet but I'll be sure to report back on whether or not there were any crazy racial undercurrents to Daffy & Popeye. Wouldn't be surprised.

...ouch. If you would like to further challenge your faith in humanity, just read the comments on this video's page.

This is one of the many overt ways that internalized oppression and superiority become ingrained in our society from an early age. When the public becomes aware of a particularly racist or otherwise prejudice clip through an article like the one above, there is often condemnation of how terrible it is.  Many times there is an assumption that things have gotten better that goes along with that condemnation. 

If the public were truly concerned over the way overt and covert ISMs are affecting themselves and their children, they would look at this old cartoon and then make the jump to examining current children's television through that same lens. Unfortunately, this often does not happen.  

Race and Reproductive Freedoms

Huffington Post's take on this racist, opportunistic, manipulative ad.

RALLY FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH

Saturday, February 25th

1-3 pm

Foley Square

UPDATE: The Rally for Women's Health was a beautiful, inspiring event. Foley Square was filled with a really eclectic group of people.  Part of me was surprised to see so many men standing in solidarity with the women present at the rally; unity of groups like that is such an amazing thing and really adds to the feeling of support. In the days leading up to the rally, the above billboard was the focus of many primetime news segments, radio discussions, and blog posts. There was definitely a mix of outrage and support for the billboard in the news.  While some people felt that this ad was exploiting the African-American community and selfishly playing on fears, others felt that high rates of abortion within communities of color was an important and timely topic to discuss.

At the rally however, it appeared as though the former was more heavily represented.  Staff of Planned Parenthood, women's rights activists, politicians, and artists all took the stage to offer their support for the agency.  A few of them referenced this billboard in outrage, saying that they as Black women refused to become pawns in the pro-life agenda (I am paraphrasing here).  The crowd cheered and there was definitely public support in speaking out against the billboard. Surprisingly, I didn't see any signs that were directed at this billboard, even though it had become a pretty major part of the debate at the time.


And just for fun, here are a few pictures of me, my sign, and my friends at the Rally!

"I'm a woman, NOT a womb!"

The other side of my sign...!!!

And my favorite:

Outsourced?

Has anyone seen the NBC show Outsourced?

Check it out at 1:23.

This article sort of misses the point.
"Why can’t the show acknowledge Todd’s got a little Michael Scott in him? Rather than letting all those jokes fall flat — and worse, fall racist — why not just give us a hint that Todd, mostly a well-meaning, non-annoying guy, has his blind spots?"


Because, you know, racism is fine and forgiveable if it comes from a grown White man who means well, right?


A much funnier commentary on this ridiculousness.




I feel that there are both institutional and cultural components to the racism of this show.  Culturally, there's a form of xenophobia at work here and a definite sense of internalized superiority - a sort of "you're different, we don't know you, so we're going to create a 'funny' caricature of you to make ourselves more comfortable". By juxtaposing the dominant American view of 'amusing' Indian culture against the normalized behavior of the White male lead, the show reaffirms viewers sense that they are in the right.  But the institutional racism is what makes this comparison possible at all.  If our society, media, and pop culture were not built on a foundation that wholeheartedly supports the dominant culture in so many ways, then 'entertainment' of this sort would not be possible. Institutional racism is what tells us that it's okay to create Outsourced, it's okay to watch Outsourced, and it's okay to laugh at the jokes...even if you'd feel bad if you thought about them much further beyond the punchline.


My personal experience of traveling to India definitely influences my dismay at this show.  I had to come to terms with the fact that children were touching my White skin in awe, and their fathers were talking about how much more beautiful my light skin was compared to their deep brown skin. It was jilting to have that perception of superiority be stated so plainly; in the United States, we don't talk about internalized superiority so openly, do we? But it's there, to be sure, and it was obvious in the implications of the questions I was asked upon my return: It's dirty there, isn't it? Those people wipe their ass with their hands, huh? Ugh! What a backwards country, right? (To which I would always respond, WE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE BACKWARDS!). We're 'polite' here - we don't name our superiority complexes, we just live our lives, establish our laws, and laugh at our night-time tv shows in ways that make it clear without ever having to say a word. 

One of my favorite scenes:

This movie shook me up.

Sometimes, I don't know how to ingest something. This is one of those cases. I feel affected by what I saw on the screen, but I need more time to process it. There were parts of the film that I could identify with, and others that were foreign to me - these are the parts that frighten and excite me. It made me aware of my Whiteness all over again, and I felt out of place in the theater as one of the few White people present. 

The sections of the movie that I felt a strong connection to and related to most were those that dealt with the difficulties women face in relationships. I wondered though how my experience might be different than a woman of color's experience...does my race serve as some sort of protective factor, or affect my experience in some way? I am sure that it does, but I am not sure how just yet.

The end of the movie, when the women all come together as one group, was inspiring for me - and it also made me think about a sense of sisterhood and community. One of the aspects of race that I first became aware of when I was younger was the sense of community that I perceived it as offering you.  Only, I didn't feel that sense of community; I didn't feel a connection to other White people, and it wasn't like there was a clearly defined 'culture' of Whiteness. I felt like I was missing out on something, like there was some intangible connectedness that I wasn't tapped into.

Now this whole idea may have been naive, and it may have been oversimplifying matters of race far too much. But I was reminded of it as I watched For Colored Girls, and I was reminded of the fact that authenticity in both in-group and out-group relationships can be hard to establish. I often feel like where I am in my own racial identity development has affected my ability to build authentic friendships with women of other races and cultures, while also putting me in a very different place than some of my White peers.  It's hard for me to make sense of and to be coherent in my explanation; all I can say is that these are the thoughts that are rolling around in my head after watching this film.

Racism in the Military

The Ground Truth: The Human Cost of War

This documentary effected me in a major way.  It really shows the extent of America's xenophobia and what that has resulted in.  It's awful what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, both for the citizens of these occupied nations and for the American soldiers who are forced to do heinous things and have to suffer with the psychological trauma and lack of services afterward.

The military encourages many ISMs (sexism, racism, heteronormativity, homophobia, etc). One of the ways that this manifests is in the slang used and the songs sung during training at boot camp.

Bomb the village, kill the people
Throw some Napalm in the square
Do it on a Sunday morning
Do it on their way to prayer.


Ring the bell inside the schoolhouse
Watch those kiddies gather round
Lock and load with your 240
Mow them little motherfuckers down.
- Marine basic training song, taken from The Lonely Soldier


Disturbing songs such as this one serve to desensitize and dehumanize whoever is on the other side of the battlefield. Training exercises also accomplish the same task; for example, take this passage from The Lonely Soldier:

"'They put us in this foxhole thing and there was this little hut far out to the left, and inside the hut were Iraqi people. We had to bomb them...they all had the little turban thing and the dress thing...' The military does use Iraqi and Arab immigrants, whom it calls cultural role players, for training...it also uses nonwhite and women soldiers. Eli PaintedCrow commented on this: 'They never use white soldiers to do the roleplaying, but they could. But we're not supposed to be bombing White people, I guess.'"

 The message is loud and clear. Even if racial slurs are prohibited in the military, racism is alive and well - along with many other ISMs. The dehumanization of different groups is ingrained in military culture and history, particularly the hatred of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ community. When an institution devalues the life of one group, the humanity of all groups is compromised.

Republicans "play the Black card" in the debate over women's rights...

Excellent commentary on Rep. Gwen Moore's speech

We talk about the intersection of ISM's...well here it is.

I'm having a difficult time right now with this.  I am mortified that there is a very real chance that the government is going to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood.  I think that my generation became very complacent in the fight for women's rights; we felt like our mothers had done the job for us and we were comfortable - more or less - and felt protected. But clearly we can't be complacent anymore. 

This isn't just an issue impacted by the clear sexism inherent in our ruling government. The Republicans have chosen to accuse Planned Parenthood of being racist as well (ironic, no?) and are using that as a main argument in support of the Pence Amendment.  While Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger did support eugenics over 100 years ago, the organization now supports many low-income women of color in family planning. The article I linked to above includes a link to the book Medical Apartheid for more on that if you're interested.

If you're in the NYC area you can protest this legislation at the Rally for Women's Health on February 26 from 1-3 pm in Foley Square.

You can also sign a petition here: http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/stand_up_for_women/?r_by=-3800340-F9WTdRx&rc=paste1

How far has advertising progressed in the last century? (Spoiler alert!: Not very far at all.) Let's take a look at some vintage ads and their more modern counterparts:

Then, you could use Pears' Soap to get "good and clean".

   

Now, there's a cream for that. You don't want to be "wrong", do you now?...

Of course not! You want to be "fair and handsome", according to this ad. 

Apparently, the two are exclusive.

Then, these White men were just sort of confused about why this stereotypically represented indigenous man wouldn't want to wear a lovely pair of oxfords...

But now, this chick is downright pissed.  Beware..."White is coming".

White man asking Black man to bow then....

And now, a White man having a bunch of Black men bow down to him.

Can't you see this dude on a plantation?

It seems to me that the key in advertising is to reinforce societal beliefs and power dynamics ever so subtly; every once in a while (really, pretty damn often) an advertiser slips up and creates one of the ads that we see above. But which advertisments are worse - the ones that are glaringly, overtly racist, or the ones that perpetuate racism in a covert way?

The problem with ads that are so clearly racist is that the public can rally around them; they can be part of the outcry of how sad the skin-lightening ads are, how awful it is that this company should be promoting light skin over darker complexions. It's an easy out, something we can all point to and say "shame, shame".  

But the covertly racist ads are even more insidious, I would argue.  A marketing campaign doesn't have to promote skin bleaching to send the message that white skin is better than brown skin. It only has to have almost exclusively White models, or equate Whiteness with fairness, goodness, and happiness, for example. The message still gets across, only when it's covert or subtle, there isn't as much public awareness or outcry.

What do you all think about how race is represented in advertising? Have you seen any ads recently that reinforced racial stereotypes?

FDNY electrician finds noose in locker

NY Daily News story

In an AOL News article on the same story, it was mentioned that in 2005, "firefighter Lanaird Granger filed a complaint saying that he found a noose at a Brooklyn firehouse. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in his favor. Nobody was ever disciplined in the case."


For all those who want to say that racism doesn't exist, what's this?


What bothers me is that incidents like this are ones that everyone can rally around; it's clear that this is wrong, and there aren't many people who would deny that this is in fact racist.  These crazy acts of hate give White people something to point at and say, "I do not agree with this, therefore I am not racist".  When there are such glaring examples of outright hatred, who's going to pay any attention to the subtle microaggressions and institutionalized oppression that occurs every day?


Answer: The people who have to live with it every day. The people who's lives are effected. The people who receive constant messages about who they are and what they can and cannot become. The people who can't afford to deny the existence of hidden, insidious racism.