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.