Since my state is home to several expensive universities, including Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design, there is never a shortage of privileged, self-flagellating white kids in Halloween-like clothing, willing to march behind any leftwing Pied Piper who rolls into town.
--Rocco DiPippo, The Autonomist
The more politically correct an organisation, the more likely it is to be staffed at the top exclusively by self-flagellating white liberals.
--Ron Liddle's "Law of Corporate Bigotry"
Leftwing race activist (and self-flagellating white male) Tim Wise is a piece of work.
--David Horowitz and John Perazzo, Front Page Magazine
Do white people who work against racism and whiteness, and who object to their trained adoption of common white habits and tendencies, hate themselves?
Are they really “flagellating” themselves when they do that?
Last week, a one-time commenter named Wesley left a comment here that I want to address in this post, because he used a term commonly flung at people like me, “self-flagellate.” Actually, the more common form of that term, as used by white people who object to other whites who object to racism, is “self-flagellating.”
Wesley commented on a recent post in which I pointed out the white-framed racial dynamics of a television commercial. The post included my acknowledgment that people sometimes don’t enjoy watching television with me because I can’t resist pointing such things out.
Wesley responded in part,
It amazes me that people have absolutely nothing better to do than to search for underlying "racist" motifs in advertising. Advertising has to be as broad and clear as possible so as to garner viewer retention. I get that you enjoy cultural self-loathing and the stereotypical white obsession with "awareness", but you're finding connections where there are none. . . .
I can imagine why people don't like watching television with you. It's not because they're ignorant white racists, it's purely because most people do not enjoy the company of those who racially self-flagellate at every opportunity. Especially if they're doing it to with the interest of taking [a] righteous stance at every possible opportunity.
You represent one of the worst kinds of modern man. The well-off "Awareness Crusader". I'm sorry, that was somewhat childish of me. The hordes of you people just get to me.
Wesley’s entire comment contains many parts I’d like to answer. However, I didn’t reply because (1) I doubted that Wesley would return to read the comment (those who leave such comments, usually under “Anonymous,” usually perform one-time drive bys), and (2) because I’ve been thinking of replying in a post instead. My response has narrowed to a focus on this one term he used, because I see it so often -- "self-flagellating white people."
I think this term has become a cliché among those who object to anti-racist white people. In fact, a Google search for “self-flagellating white” brings up 6,750 results.
But it’s really a nonsense term, isn’t it? At least by my way of thinking. But then, not by theirs.
Here’s what I think is the crucial difference in our ways of thinking.
Those who describe white anti-racists as “self-flagellating white people” basically see no separation between a white person and his or her whiteness. I, on the other hand, do make a distinction between myself (or, my self) and my being placed into the category of “white.”
To describe a white person who objects to common white tendencies as "self-flagellating" is to see his or her objections to whiteness as objections to his or her self. Objecting to racism, and thus to whiteness, is thereby characterized as the absurdity of beating up oneself. The supposition here, which I and others consider false, is that whiteness is inherent to a person -- and along with that, that white people are inherently different, and of course, “superior,” to other people.
But I do not consider myself "self-flagellating"; I would say that I’m actually the opposite. I'm against whiteness, including what it's done to me. The U.S. functions in part under the auspices of a 400-year-old system of whiteness, which categorizes me as white. Whiteness is not something intrinsic to me.
And so, to wake up to how I’ve been categorized within an artificial racial hierarchy, and then to work against its ongoing abuses, is not to “self-flagellate.” It's instead of way of freeing myself into becoming a more conscious (or yes, Wesley, "aware"), and thus fuller, human being.
Being categorized as "white" has rendered me delusional -- about how the world really works, about how I really got to where I am, and about how others got to where they are. Being categorized as "white" also holds back my full development as a human being, in part by withering my understanding of and empathy for others, because I’m falsely led to see them as fundamentally, intrinsically different from myself.
Waking up to that, and working against it, and doing what I can to work against the systemic racial abuses of others, is not a way of flagellating my self.
It’s a way of freeing my self.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
describe white people who point out the problems with whiteness as "self-flagellating"
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
see "white" and "male" as neutral conditions
I think it's always worth noting when someone in the corporate media points out the following:
The raced and gendered identities of white men tend to go unnoticed in our white-framed society, allowing white men to pass under the banners of such adjectives as "objective," "neutral," "unbiased," and so on. Who they are supposedly has little or nothing to do with how they think.
You need to read today's Washington Post column (excerpted below) by Eugene Robinson.
It's been my understanding for awhile now that this white-male identity charade is much more visible as the farce that it is to people who are not white and male. It's no surprise to me, then, that Eugene Robinson is black.
Non-white people have a lot to teach white people, not necessarily about non-white people, but about ourselves. As Richard Wright said decades ago, "White Man, Listen!" Maybe Sonia Sotomayor's hearings will in part serve that purpose, forcing white men to listen to someone who understands that everyone's social positionings affect how they view and "judge" the world.
White men often simply don't see how they're fooling themselves this way. In many cases, and probably most, it's not that white men are pretending to be more objective and neutral and so on than say, a black civil rights leader, or a Latina Supreme Court nominee. They just assume that they are, without even consciously thinking they are. And yet, to assume that women and people of color are subjective, biased, and so on is, nevertheless, to assume and imply the opposite about oneself.
As a white man who's still trying to keep this common white tendency up in the more conscious realms of my own psyche, I'm grateful to Eugene Robinson for calling out so clearly its most recent public display. Maybe some of those important white men will read his column and really listen, especially to such bits as these (and again, I strongly recommend the whole thing):
Whose Identity Politics?
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege.
Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.
Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings -- as he did at his confirmation hearings -- but unforgivable for Sotomayor to mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work. Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge's work, as he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage and bereft of experience.
The whole point of Sotomayor's much-maligned "wise Latina" speech was that everyone has a unique personal history -- and that this history has to be acknowledged before it can be overcome. Denying the fact of identity makes us vulnerable to its most pernicious effects. This seems self-evident. I don't see how a political party that refuses to accept this basic principle of diversity can hope to prosper, given that soon there will be no racial or ethnic majority in this country.
Yet the Republican Party line assumes a white male neutrality against which Sotomayor's "difference" will be judged. . . .
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) was more temperate in his remarks than most of his colleagues, noting that Obama's election victory ought to have consequences and hinting that he might vote to confirm Sotomayor. But when he brought up the "wise Latina" remark, as the GOP playbook apparently required, Graham said that "if I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over."
That's true. But if Latinas had run the world for the last millennium, Sotomayor's career would be over, too. Pretending that the historical context doesn't exist -- pretending that white men haven't enjoyed a privileged position in this society -- doesn't make that context go away. . . .
(read the rest)
h/t: resistance at Resist Racism
Monday, July 13, 2009
hate to admit that they've done something racist
in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania
This post is a follow-up to one from last week on the swimming-club debacle in surburban Pennsylvania. CNN reported yesterday that after rejecting a group of inner-city children, the Valley Club has offered an "olive branch after racism allegations."
After reviewing these most recent reported reactions of the club's representatives, I think there's a common white tendency at work.
Most white Americans do not think of themselves as "racists." Indeed, that label, as commonly understood, is not a fair and accurate description of most white Americans. However, given the ongoing, de facto white supremacy of American society and its institutions, most white Americans do have racist tendencies. And as a result, these tendencies do sometimes result in racist actions.
When these racist actions happen, most white Americans will do almost anything to deny that what they did, and/or the effects of what they did, were "racist." After all, they seem to think and more or less say, "that would mean that I myself am a racist. And let me assure you, I am not."
Although the Valley Club has offered an "olive branch," as if to admit that it did something wrong, it seems to me that what its representatives remain reluctant to admit is that what it did was wrong precisely because it was racist.
Here's part of the CNN follow-up:
A suburban Philadelphia swim club has invited children from a largely minority day-care center to come back after a June reversal that fueled allegations of racism against the club, a spokeswoman said Sunday.
The development came during a hastily called Sunday afternoon meeting of the Valley Club in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania. Club members voted overwhelmingly to try to work things out with the day-care center, which accused some swim club members of making racist comments to black and Hispanic children contracted to use the pool, said Bernice Duesler, the club director's wife.
Duesler said the club canceled its contract with the Creative Steps day-care because of safety, crowding and noise concerns, not racism.
"As long as we can work out safety issues, we'd like to have them back," she told CNN.
She said the club has been subpoenaed by the state Human Rights Commission, which has begun a fact-finding investigation, "and the legal advice was to try to get together with these camps, " Duesler added.
Alethea Wright, Creative Steps' director, said, "They should have done that before."
Wright has repeatedly lambasted the club for its tepid response to the charges and said the children in her care were "emotionally damaged" by the incident.
"These children are scarred. How can I take those children back there?" she said. . . .
Swimming privileges for about 65 children from Creative Steps were revoked after their first visit June 29. Some children said white members of the club made racist comments to the children, asking why "black children were there" and raising concerns that "they might steal from us."
Days later, the day-care center's $1,950 check was returned, Wright said.
Club director John Duesler told CNN that he had underestimated the amount of children who would participate, and the club was unable to supervise that many kids. He called his club "very diverse," and said it had offered to let day camps in the Philadelphia area use his facility after budget cuts forced some pools in the area to close.
Wright has rejected the camp's contention that the swim club's pool was overcrowded. The club had accepted a 10-to-1 ratio of children to adults and was considering adding up to three lifeguards, according to e-mails obtained by CNN.
But John Duesler said last week that the Valley Club also canceled contracts with two other day-care centers because of safety and overcrowding issues.
The Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission launched an investigation last week after allegations of racism at the Valley Club. The commission said that as part of any investigation, the two sides eventually could be asked to sit down face-to-face with its investigators.
"We always encourage opposing parties to communicate with one another if they feel they can resolve these issues amicably," Commission Chairman Stephen Glassman said.
Bernice Duesler said she wasn't yet sure how the club will "reach out" to Creative Steps and the other two camps. . . .
(The entire story is here)
What do you think of the Valley Club's response?
Do you think they'll ever admit to racist actions, on the part of the club or the members?
Have you encountered white folks who bend over backwards to explain that something they've done, which was clearly racist, was anything but?
Update: Abagond points out in a comment:
That CNN story is pretty troubling in its own right: they left out the most damning piece of racism in the whole affair: that the swim club president at first was not concerned about safety at all but the "complexion" of the club!
Not only do they leave that out, but CNN prints the club's claim that it is "very diverse" without challenge.
Abagond has since expanded these observations into "How the press is soft on racism," a solid critique of the white-framed corporate press.
Friday, July 10, 2009
forget that Jesus was a racist
Here's a clip from an eye-opening, paradigm-shifting BBC documentary on the real life of Jesus:
Note to any offended fans of Jesus: this portrait of Jesus is not an attempt to depict an actual Jesus. And really, how could it be ? Jesus wasn't even white. Let alone British.
h/t: Missives from Marx & That Mitchell and Webb Look
Thursday, July 9, 2009
keep their jobs on fox news no matter what they say
Has anyone ever been fired from Fox News for going too far? Has anyone there who's pulled an Imus been justifiably fired for it?
I mean, people go too far by my standards on that "news" outlet almost every time I happen to watch it. But sometimes this or that Fox pundit or commentator goes too far for just about everyone -- and yet, far as I can tell, they still keep their jobs.
That's likely to happen with the most recent example, yesterday's racist, eugenicist outburst on America's mixed, "impure" bloodlines, as vomited forth by Brian Kilmeade. You might remember him as the guy who stormed off the set recently when Jesse Ventura insisted on talking straight about torture and other American war crimes.
Kilmeade, along with his partners in the fine art of "talking-to-adults-as-if-they're-children," was discussing a study's claims that people in Finland and Sweden who stay married are less likely to suffer from Alzheimer’s. Kilmeade thinks that has something to do with how "pure" the blood is in those countries, compared to American blood, which he thinks suffers from intermixing with different "ethnics" and . . . "species"?!
This Air America segment, with Cenk Uygur of "The Young Turks," contains a somewhat fuller clip of Kilmeade's comments than the one that's been making the blogosphere rounds. If you want to skip ahead, the Fox clip begins at about 40 seconds here (and what's up with the whistle-and-rimshot sound effect at one point? That's a Fox insertion, not Air America's).
In her post on this racist outburst, Jessie at racism review provides some useful background on the roots of Kilmeade's claims:
The argument Kilmeade is making, and to their credit that his co-workers at Fox News seem appalled to hear, is one that’s rooted in the discredited racial pseudo-science of eugenics.
Eugenics, which reached ascendancy in the U.S. and Europe in the 1930s, advocated social progress through encouraging those deemed “fit” to reproduce to have children and discouraging, even coercing through forced sterilization, those thought to be “unfit.” One of the intellectual factories producing knowledge steeped in eugenics was at Cold Spring Harbor Lab on Long Island, just outside New York. While claims about “fitness” and “unfitness” were sometimes tied to inherited disease, just as often these designations were linked to poverty and race. Thus, people who are poor or not considered white are designated “unfit.” Indeed, in the extreme version of eugenics, some people were considered “less than human” or of “another species.” This kind of thinking is part of what fueled the Third Reich’s calculated extermination of six million Jews. Following the defeat of the Nazis and the liberation of the camps, the theory of eugenics fell into disfavor.
What do you think? Should Kilmeade be given a pass for his white supremacist comments?
Have you encountered other instances of this kind of thinking, on the dangers of race-mixing, in other ordinary, everyday situations?
If Kilmeade's blatherings bother you enough, you might even consider it worthwhile to go this far, in response to this and other Fox outrages:
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Complaints
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
File a Complaint
The completed complaint form can also be faxed to: 1-866-418-0232
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
treat working people of color like they're less than human
This is a guest post by Angry Black-White Girl. She's based in Oakland, California and runs an eponymous blog (where this post also appears). About herself, Angry Black-White Girl writes that she's "Clean and articulate. Young, hip and belligerent. I am Black, Lebanese, Hungarian and queer as a three dollar bill." She started blogging "primarily to call out racism and to center the experiences of women and queer people color with a focus on the personal, the political and the absurd."
An episode in white privilege
Lately, few events in my life have merited an internet ranting sesh. However, today provided an exception.
I was waiting for a commuter rail to take me from Boston back to suburbs, with a number of drunken Red Sox fans. My people. One girl, who I read as white and about my age, had taken a broom from the janitor's closet and was using it to sweep the platform. Her friends and family appeared to be egging her on as she got up in waiting passengers' space to sweep by our feet. Eventually the janitor came to collect his broom, but she refused to give it back. In a turn of events that struck me as bizarre, two separate groups of people, one which appeared to be related to her and one that didn't, came to her defense, claiming that the broom was hers, when they knew otherwise. "She's doing a good job," they said," why don't you just let her sweep?"
That's where things started to get ugly. "I work for my money," she said, still sweeping. Then, loud enough for him to hear, "I take care of my kids", thus implying that he, a working class man of color, did not take care of his kids. In front of a platform of spectators she had stolen his supplies, refused to give them back and humiliated him. I can't explain how I know that this situation would not have been allowed to carry on for so long if she had not been white and he had not been a man of color, but I know that is why he could not simply take the broom back from her, but stood outside her circle of friends of family and patiently gestured that he needed his broom back. When his polite attempts failed, he went upstairs to get his boss, a white man, who came down and said little more than, "Jose needs his broom back," and then gently took it out of her hands, meeting little resistance from her or the crowd that had come to her defense.
On the train home, she started ranting about how that job should belong to an "American" anyway (as if she could have known whether he was a citizen or not,) and that the janitor should be deported. At this point, I moved to another car in the interest of her safety.
refuse to swim with black people
Demonstration at an “all-white” swimming poolCairo, Illinois, 1962
Early in Kansas history, Blacks and Whites shared the same churches, schools, and public facilities. As time passed, though, segregation became more common.
In practice, many public places--especially in larger cities -- were segregated. The town of Lawrence, an antislavery stronghold in territorial days, had a segregated swimming pool as late as the 1960s.
African American poet Langston Hughes lived in Lawrence much of his childhood. In his autobiography, Hughes remembered not being able to accompany his white friends to the pool.
"Misery is when you find out your bosom buddy can go in the swimming pool but you can't."
--Langston Hughes, Black Misery, 1969
(source: Kansas State Historical Society)
During the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, a key site of struggle for desegregation of separate-but-obviously-unequal spaces was the public swimming pool. As the Movement gained undeniable credibility with most white Americans, one particular mode of racial interaction took white Americans an extra-long time to get used to -- getting in the water with black people, and especially letting one's kids get in the water with black kids.
In many places, white-controlled pools remained segregated longer than other nearby public facilities. Private swimming pools typically stayed that way for even longer.
By now, in our supposedly "postracial" times, you might think that white discomfort with swimming alongside black people would be long gone. But if you do think that, you'd best think again.
As Philadelphia's NBC affiliate reports today, a private club near Philadelphia is still turning away black swimmers:
More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.
"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.
The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers' first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.
"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."
The next day the club told the camp director that the camp's membership was being suspended and their money would be refunded.
"I said, 'The parents don't want the refund. They want a place for their children to swim,'" camp director Aetha Wright said.
Campers remain unsure why they're no longer welcome.
"They just kicked us out. And we were about to go. Had our swim things and everything," said camper Simer Burwell.
The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded.
"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion. . . and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement. . . .
The "complexion"? Did he really say that?!
Here's the NBC affiliate's video report, which includes some interviews that I found heartbreaking.
To think that racist attitudes today still make some kids feel the way Langston Hughes felt as a child, who just wanted to go swimming in a nice pool, so many, many summers ago . . .
[h/t: Carmen D of All About Race, via email]
UPDATE: The Field Negro writes,
HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006
And their email: info@thevalleyclub.com
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
think that black people are "loud"
I had lunch the other day with John, a long-time friend. We've known each other since the days when we both attended a large suburban high school that was almost 100% white.
John wasn't quite himself because he hadn't slept much the night before.
"I was woken up at about 3:30," he complained, "by two noisy guys walking down the street."
"Ah. So I guess your window was open. Still, were they THAT loud?"
"Yes! And then I couldn't get back to sleep for a couple of hours. I hate it when that happens."
"Yeah, well, me too. Have some extra iced tea or something."
He smiled a bit, but then frowned.
"And you know, they were clearly drunk, or high on something. But, also, I don't think they would've been THAT loud if they hadn't been black guys."
I stopped stabbing my salad.
"Oh. Really?"
"Well, sure. I mean, these guys were LOUD. They were literally shouting at each other. And of course it was 'mf'ing this' and 'mf'ing that.'"
John had lowered his voice by this point; he was now "whispering 'black,'" that hunkered-down mode that white people often fall into when they discuss "black people." Also, I knew that if we were in some places other than a restaurant, John wouldn't be using those "mf'ing" abbreviations.
"So," I said carefully, lowering my voice as well, "you think black people are loud."
"Well of course they are. And I'm sure you've noticed that too."
"Um, I have heard a lot of loud black people. But I've heard a lot of loud white people too. And a lot of quiet black people, for that matter."
"Yeah yeah," John said, waving away what I'd said. "I expect that from you. I, however, prefer to just see and say things like they are. And black people are louder than white people. Generally."
"Generally. Hmm."
Where to begin?
"Okay, look. I have a lot of white relatives living out in the boonies, right? You know that, you've met some of them."
"Right. Your cousins and such."
"Yes. Remember how loud they can be?"
"Yeah, okay, I do, there's some loud white people all right. But that's people living out in the boonies. Lower class, like I guess you'd say."
"Well, maybe working class, or lower middle class. I'm not sure what I'd say, and I don't really like saying 'out in the boonies' either. But the point is, they're loud too."
"So, you're saying these guys who woke me up were lower-class black guys? How can we know that?"
John was frowning again.
"All right, maybe they were lower-class or whatever guys," he said. "But I dunno. I really think it's more of a race difference than an income difference. I mean, I have NEVER heard two white people shout at each other like that. It's like they were shouting at someone a couple of blocks away!"
"Maybe so. But I've heard white guys who looked like frat guys doing that too. Not to do my own generalizing. But look, aside from these ridiculous, broad generalizations, what about this -- why are you saying that black people are loud? Why didn't you say instead that white people are quiet?"
John just looked at me.
"I mean, I really don't want to say whites in general are any quieter than blacks in general. I have no idea. But what I'm wondering now is, why did you say that blacks are loud, instead of that whites are quiet?"
"Because . . . whites are the norm. They're normal. Anything that deviates from that gets labeled with that deviation. That difference from a SUPPOSED norm. And that norm doesn't get labeled because it's THOUGHT OF AS the norm, not as things like 'quiet.' Even though it's just like, another difference, that in this case, would be 'quiet.'"
I held up my hands and slowly, but quietly, clapped.
"Sounds like you've been reading my blog!"
"You know I have. Thanks for writing it."
"You're welcome. Thanks for reading it."
"But," John said, pointing a spoon at me for emphasis, "I still say that blacks in general are louder than whites in general. Or wait, okay, whites in general are QUIETER than blacks in general. Same difference, really."
"No, no. Nope, I can't allow that. Pay attention, please. Neither statement is more worthwhile or valid than the other. Saying that whites are more quiet than blacks is still, to be honest, stupid and unfounded. However, it does at least takes away that, um, mantle of normalcy, from white people."
"Hmm," John said, as he picked up his hamburger. "'Mantle of normalcy.' I'm not QUITE sure what that means. But I think I got it. And, I do expect to see it on your blog."
"Oh you will, John. You will."
Monday, July 6, 2009
take big risks with animals
Maybe sticking your head into the mouth of a killer whale isn't an especially "white" thing, but it sure does seem like one to me.
From Siegfried & Roy to Steve Irwin to the guy who tried to control Pinky the cat, every time I see or hear about someone doing something crazy dangerous with an animal, it's a white person.
Usually when I point out a common white tendency here, I try to explain what's particularly white about it, how being classified as "white" can influence a person to do this or that thing.
However, I'm a little mystified about whether taking unnecessary risks with animals really is an especially "white" thing, and if so, just why those who do it are overwhelmingly white.
Maybe it's a remnant from the days when white people went around conquering the earth? (Not that they don't still do that.) After all, that usually included conquering any new place's animals too.
Shut up, silly creature. We're white people. When we arrivesomeplace we've never been, then we "discover" that
place . . . It's always been like this and always will . . .
This planet belongs to us now!
(larger image)
I was reminded of what seems to me like a particularly white enthusiasm -- "extreme" adventure involving animals -- when I saw this commercial for a new show, "Untamed & Uncut," on a network largely devoted to such doings, Animal Planet.
It's no surprise to me that, as far as I can tell, everyone depicted here in extreme proximity to a dangerous animal is white.
Coincidence?
I wonder. . .
I also wonder about the viewing demographic for these kinds of shows.
Mostly white?
I'm guessing so.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
declare themselves the real americans
We were founded on a very basic double standard. This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free. Am I right? A group of slave owners who wanted to be free. So they killed a lot of white English people in order to continue owning their black African people, so they could wipe out the rest of the red Indian people and move west and steal the rest of the land from the brown Mexican people, giving them a place to take off and drop their nuclear weapons on the yellow Japanese people.
You know what the motto of this country ought to be? "You give us a color, we’ll wipe it out."
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. . . .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. . .
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
adopted on July 4, 1776
Be in enacted by the State and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof . . .
ratified on March 26, 1790
Autonomy is freedom and translates into the much championed and revered "individualism" . . . . Eventually individualism fuses with the prototype of Americans as solitary, alienated, and malcontent. What, one wants to ask, are Americans alienate from? What are Americans always so insistently innocent of? Different from? As for absolute power, over whom is this power held, from whom withheld, to whom distributed?
Answers to these questions lie in the potent and ego-reinforcing presence of an Africanist population. This population is convenient in every way, not the least of which is self-definition. This new white male can convince himself that savagery is "out there."
After 1870, Blacks as well as Whites could naturalize, but not others. . . . from 1870 until the last of the prerequisite laws were abolished in 1952, the White-Black dichotomy in American race relations dominated naturalization law. During this period, Whites and Blacks were eligible for citizenship, but others, particularly those from Asia, were not. Indeed, increasing antipathy toward Asians on the West Coast resulted in an explicit disqualification of Chinese persons from naturalization in 1882. . . .
In 1935, Hitler's Germany limited citizenship to members of the Aryan race, making Germany the only country other than the United States with a racial restriction on naturalization. The fact of this bad company was not lost on those administering our naturalization laws. . . .
In 1952, Congress moved towards wholesale reform, overhauling the naturalization statute to read simply that "[t]he right of a person to become a naturalized citizen of the United States shall not be denied or abridged because of race or sex or because such person is married." Thus, in 1952, racial bars on naturalization came to an official end.
The Legal Construction of Race
(1996, 2006)
My skin color was an asset for any move I was educated to want to make. I could think of myself as “belonging” in major ways, and of making social systems work for me. I could freely disparage, fear, neglect, or be oblivious to anything outside of the dominant cultural forms. Being of the main culture, I could also criticize it fairly freely. My life was reflected back to me frequently enough so that I felt, with regard to my race, if not to my sex, like one of the real people.
A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences
through Work in Women’s Studies" (1988)
Deep within the word "American" is its association with race. . . . American means white . . .
Friday, July 3, 2009
make class-project videos on racism
One of the ways I try to check the pulse of today's racism is by cruising around on YouTube. I don't know yet just how YouTube fits into and represents "our culture" (whatever that is), but its search function does cough up all sorts of trends and phenomena that I didn't know existed.
One example that's existed for a long time now, and that's also made its way to YouTube, is the class-project video. I remember making one in high school, for a course called "Mass Media." Thrust together randomly with three people I didn't know, I proposed that we address "world hunger." We ended up patching together crude juxtapositions of starving-African-children photos with the footage we'd shot on a rainy afternoon -- extreme closeups of each other's mouths as we gorged ourselves at McDonald's.
Although the ostensible topic of that video was the same as its unimaginative title -- "World Hunger" -- our project probably had an unintentional subtext on "whiteness," given that we were all white, and that we all lived in the unstated-but-purposefully "white" suburbs. Since thinking about that video still makes me feel kind of nauseous, I'll leave it to you to imagine any racial, racist, or racish* subtext it may have had.
I wish I could show you that long-lost classic, "World Hunger," but alas, the videotaped copies we made for each other are probably long gone. Anyway, I have a much better one to send you off on your wonderful weekend with.
The following anti-racism class project was made by students at Oak Park High School, in Winnipeg, Canada, for Mr. Pearase's Digital Film class. I know all of that not from YouTube, but rather from another blog that posted this video, boingboing. That's where Mr. Pearase sent a link to the video, along with an introduction. The comment thread there is great, because some of the students who made the video jumped in, along with Mr. Pearase.
Do you remember making group-project videos in high school, or in college?
Can you recommend any other especially effective ones that are available online?
The best one I've seen so far is one I've posted before, Kiri Smith's award-winning "A Girl Like Me." It's about racism, the insidious power of "whiteness," and what it takes for some people to resist it. (I should also mention Phillip Wang's excellent and hilarious "Yellow Fever," which seems like it might've been a class project, but I'm not sure about that.)
*h/t to myblackfriendsays for the word "racish," a term I hereby deem most worthy of high circulation.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
wonder whether describing a condom as a "sombrero" is racist
Wear Your Sombrero Condom Pal™ AssortmentYesterday I was talking to a young woman -- I’ll call her Terry -- about her current part-time job. She’s part of a team that visits local high schools, in pairs or individually, to do presentations on sexual health and awareness. She had a complaint about her boss to ask me about, since she knows I write this blog.
“I definitely try to be careful about anything even potentially racial when I’m presenting,” Terry said, “but then our boss said something that seemed to me like just, too much.”
“Yeah?” I said. “About what?”
“Well, when we’re explaining how to use a condom, we’re supposed to describe the shape it should have when you first put it on. So, we always say it should look like a sombrero, instead of a beanie.”
“Okay. I get it. It gets that shape because there’s supposed to be more air left at the end, right?”
“Right. So my boss says, ‘We really need to stop saying sombrero, and we need to come up with some other description.’”
“Why?”
“Because she says sombrero is racist!”
“Maybe it is. But you disagree.”
“Yes. I mean, I get that a sombrero is a Mexican thing, and a beanie isn’t racial or ethnic. But a sombrero IS a Mexican hat, isn’t it? And most people know what it looks like, right?”
“Most people, I guess. But I’m not a kid anymore, like the ones you’re presenting to. Do they know what a sombrero is?”
“Sure, I think so. But I don’t get how comparing a condom that looks the way it should to a sombrero is racist. A sombrero isn’t a person, it’s a thing. And it’s an ACTUAL thing.”
“Hmm. That’s true. So, you’re asking me if I think that’s racist too?”
“Right. Because I don’t think it is racist.”
I know Terry well, so I know that she cares and thinks about these things in a deeper way than most white Americans do. That is, she’s not one to throw around charges of “political correctness” when people claim that something is racist. In fact, I’ve never heard Terry describe anything as “politically correct.” So I knew she wasn’t just saying that her boss was being “pc,” and over sensitive, and brushing off her claim about the word “sombrero.” Terry really wanted to figure out HOW using “sombrero” in a presentation on sexual awareness is racist.
“Okay,” I said, “Let’s see.”
I was stalling. I wasn’t sure myself that “sombrero” in this situation is racist, and if it is, just why that’s so.
Terry was waiting.
“So you said most or all of the kids will easily know what a sombrero looks like.”
“Right.”
“Well, how do they know that? Wouldn’t they get those ideas from movies, and TV shows? Maybe from their textbooks too.”
“Right. It’s just common knowledge, you know? A sombrero is just a hat. That happens to be a Mexican hat.”
“Well, that’s true, but I bet these kids have common stereotypes in their heads about Mexicans.”
“Maybe. Probably.”
“And what would those be?”
“Um, lazy. Illegal immigrant.”
“Yes, I think so. So, does the image of a sombrero bring those associations to mind for your audience? I mean, when I was a kid, we had this kind of cartoon image of a Mexican person taking a siesta under a huge, cartoonish sombrero. The word ‘sombrero’ brings that image to mind, and the stereotype of Mexicans as lazy. Do you think it does that for your audience too?”
“Hmm. It doesn’t for me. I mean, I’m seventeen, so I’m not much older than these kids.”
“Okay, well, maybe it’s not racist to say ‘sombrero’ then.”
“Right. So far, I don’t see anything wrong with saying ‘sombrero’ when I’m talking about condoms. It’s a useful image because just about everyone knows what they look like.”
“Okay, let’s see. I’m not trying to find a way to defend your boss’s claim. And you know I’m not reflexively ‘pc’ either.”
“Right.”
“I’m just trying to see how it could be racist. So far, for me, I wouldn’t use it because even if the same stereotypes don’t come to mind for you that do for me, they might come to mind for someone in your audience. Maybe just for the older people in the room, like the teacher whose class your visiting.”
“Yeah, I guess so.”
“Also, a sombrero is considered a Mexican thing, right? So, let’s say that you have someone in the class who’s from Mexico, or even somewhere else, in Latin America? Or what if they’re just, Latin American, period?”
“Yes, that happens. I do have students like that when I’m presenting.”
“So, I think it’s possible that you’re singling those students out with that word. I mean, the idea of a sombrero might bring that student to mind for the other students. They might even turn around and look at that student, or like, smile or smirk while they’re thinking about a sombrero, and also thinking about that student.”
“Hmm. I can see that. I mean, I can imagine that. But I’ve never noticed any students acting like that when I did say sombrero.”
“Well, yeah, but who knows what they’re thinking. Anyway, that might be a reason not to use that word.”
“Yeah, that makes sense,” Terry said. “I don’t want to single anyone out.”
“Right. It seems like that might happen, even though you’re not directly talking about this or that student when you use that word.”
“Actually, come to think of it, it’s true that sombreros get used for humor a lot. I mean, I see them on like, ‘Family Guy,’ and ‘King of the Hill.’ And they’re supposed to make the white person wearing them look ridiculous.”
“True," I said, "and that happens in other situations too. It’s like, there’s supposed to be something funny about sombreros. And yet, like you said, they ARE a real Mexican thing.”
“True,” Terry said. “Like those stupid racist ‘taco-and-tequila’ parties.”
“Yeah,” I said, “dressing up like that is supposed to be fun, and funny. A white person in a sombrero, again. It’s making fun of a real thing from Mexico. But then, you’re not making fun of sombreros in your presentations.”
“Right! So I still don't get what’s wrong with comparing a condom to a sombrero in that situation.”
“Well, it’s true,” I said, “that a sombrero is just a hat that happens to be from Mexico. But suddenly throwing the idea of a sombrero into unrelated situations brings certain associations or ideas to mind for people. Things that ridicule or trivialize Mexico and Mexican people. And Latinos more generally, I think. And also, you know, maybe those are things that distract from your presentation, too.”
We fell silent for a moment. I don’t know how fully convinced either one of us was.
“Well,” I said. “If you come up with any more solid ideas about it, I hope you’ll let me know.”
“Sure thing, you too. Thanks for the input.”
“You’re welcome. I think there’s more to say about the topic. Tell you what -- I’ll do a blog post and ask my readers about it.”
“Great idea. I’ll be sure to read it.”
“And by the way, did your boss suggest some other word? Something else besides sombrero, to describe how the condom is supposed to look?”
“No! That’s the other thing -- she doesn’t think we should use it, but then she didn’t come up with some other suggestion.”
“Dang. Thanks a lot, eh?”
“Yeah. That’s what I almost said.”
So, dear readers, what do you think -- should those who explain to a high-school audience the proper shape for an about-to-be-deployed condom avoid saying that it should look like a sombrero? And if so, can you suggest a viable substitute?
And finally, on a lighter, somewhat related note, since I do want to promote safe sex, here's one of the best condom ads I’ve ever seen.
Unless, that is, it’s racist . . .
Monday, June 29, 2009
get upset when whiteness is momentarily bumped off center-stage
This guest post (which also appears here) is by Renee, who blogs at the excellent, prolific, and always powerful Womanist Musings. Renee lives in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada with her two "darling little boys" and her "unhusband." She writes about herself, "I am a committed humanist. I believe in the value of people over commodities. I believe in the human right to food, clothing, shelter, and education. I am pacifist, anti-racist, WOC. My truth may not be your truth, but I intend to speak it nonetheless."
"OOOPS The Blacks Are Chatting On Twitter"
Last night was the BET tribute to Michal Jackson. I am the first to admit that there are plenty of issues with BET in terms of plain old fashioned coonery and sexism, however their attempt to honour Michael came from a good place. I did not watch the show, as I refuse to pay for that kind of nonsense to be beamed into my home furthermore I am raising two young boys that do not need their heads filled with that kind of nonsense. A network that can produce hot ghetto mess is not worth five seconds of attention.
As one would expect many people watched the tribute and were tweeting their experiences. I tweeted my thoughts of the red carpet which was hosted by Don Lemmon on CNN. (Yeah I know, did you think you would see the day when BET was featured on CNN?) At any rate, with the number of people watching and tweeting, it quickly became a trending topic.
Twitter became a bridge for people to come together to share their impressions on the ever controversial BET. This interactive format gave many people of color an outlet for our frustrations, rather than the usual snarky commentary from a couch that goes nowhere. Twitter provided a platform for the voices of people of color.
There are those that found the trending topics disturbing. How dare black people have the nerve to communicate with each other in such large numbers. Did we actually forget that the internet was created for whiteness?
The above are just a sampling of the tweets posted last night. The rest can be found here. Dear God who let Black people on Twitter? Seriously, allowing these topics to trend is a legitimate threat to white hegemony….Whiteness must be the center of any and all conversations at all times, otherwise uppity people of color might come to believe that their issues are worth serious consideration.
We have moved to such a post racial state that it is not necessary to talk about issues that concern Blackness, Whiteness can function as the default for all. There certainly isn’t any racism or privilege involved in this at all. WHEEE… My, how things have changed since, slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement and the election of a Black president.
Update: Another one, via Nezua's Imaginando:
Nezua: "sez dickboy as he throws up a 'gang' sign. people are so confused its embarrassing."
Thursday, June 25, 2009
get inside the heads of non-white people
Michael JacksonHow do those in the oppressed group answer the question "who am I?" Albert Memmi writes that the oppressed internalize an identity that mirrors or echoes the images put forth by the dominant group. People come to accept and believe the images put forth about their group as part of their natural definitions of self. Moreover, in questioning their own positions in society, members of the oppressed groups often believe that the source of their problems lies not in the structural relations in society, but in themselves, in their own inadequacies and inabilities to be anything other than what the dominant image describes.
The Wretched of the Earth (1961)
At a certain point in their existential experience, the oppressed feel an irresistible attraction toward the oppressor and his way of life. Sharing this way of life becomes an overpowering aspiration. In their alienation, the oppressed want at any cost to resemble the oppressor, to imitate him, to follow him.
Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968)
I remember Michael Jackson for the internalized racism that he seemed to increasingly display, and for how the incredible light in his young eyes gradually faded as he grew older, perhaps in part as a result of that burden.
I remember him more, though, for so much amazing music, and for what was even more amazing to me, the many ways that he made his body move.
