Recently in Racism Category

Language is powerful.  It shapes what we know, it informs how we understand the world around us, and in some cases, it can be a matter of life and death. 

"Allahu Akbar, " God is Great.

One simple phrase; one act of worship and utmost praise.   It is a common exclamation; it can be an expression of admiration, a declaration of approval or a show of extreme emotion.  A mark of religion and culture that cannot be fully understood when one is on the outside looking in, and lately it seems to be simply and completely lost in translation. 

"Allahu Akbar" were the last words Nidal Malik Hasan uttered before opening fire on his fellow comrades on November 5th.  Hassan, a Muslim man, already marked as a terrorist by the public and the media, will soon be charged with the premeditated murder of 13 people--14 if the prosecutors decide to try him for the murder of an unborn child as well.

Marking him as a Muslim terrorist with personal ties to extremists in Pakistan is already having profound effects on the language of terrorism within America, the nature and motives of the shooting, and the stigmatization of Muslims living in America and beyond.  The "us vs them" rhetoric has been firmly rooted in our language long before 9/11, although it has become much more blatant since the "war on terror" began.  The very phrase "war on terror" is problematic in itself; as if war is not terror and terror is not war; they, in fact, exist simultaneously and function in strikingly similar ways.  The main difference between them is language.

My sister has worked in public libraries for a very long time and she often has interesting insights on working with the public. The other day she shared this story with me.

In public libraries there often isn't enough room to keep every book they ever acquire. The process of removing books from the collection is called "weeding." Weeding is not about censoring books that make some people upset. This is about removing books that are either woefully out of date or have little or nothing in the way of circulation. My sister said that it's easy to weed out of date books, any book that talks about "Soviets, Negros or Retarded people" (in the present tense) can be weeded no problem.

The circulation weeding is another issue. If book isn't being checked out once in a while, there isn't much reason to have it in the collection. It is easy to look up how many times a given book had circulation since it was placed in the collection. One librarian told me "you can even just look for dust on the top of the book on the shelf!"

The problem my sister encountered was when she was weeding the picture book collection in the children's department. She found that over and over again, if there was an African American face on the cover of the book, little or no circulation would be on that book's record. The town she works in has a population of about 50,000 people, and is very diverse racially, the library gets heavy use by the community (it's one of the busiest in the state) but still, an African American face on the cover of a book was death for circulation. She couldn't stand it; there was no other possible reason for the lack of circulation for many of these books, many of which have beautiful art work and wonderful story telling in them. Instead of weeding them, she placed many of them in the special "holiday collection." These are various collections of books that are kept separate from the general collection and are bought out and displayed for various holidays. These books went into the February, African American History Month collection. This will protect the books from ever being weeded in the future and might even increase the likely hood that they will circulate.

We talked about the problematic nature of putting these books in a separate section of the library's collection...I'm not sure what the right answer might be with this situation. I understand way she did it, but still, does it re-enforce the notion of separate, not-like-us feeling that was keeping these books from getting circulated in the first place? I'm glad they are protected from ever getting weeded, but it makes me sad that it has to be done this way.

I am a heavy library user. My kids and I go at least once a week and often twice a week. I had gotten out picture books with African Americans in them before (we're white) and had never thought much about it. From now on, every time we get picture books, I purposely look for a book with a face that doesn't look like my own. Give it a circulation, keep it in the collection. Even if you don't have kids, please look for these books when you are next in your public library and give them a circulation too.

I was on the MSNBC and saw this article.

I am so disgusted there are very few words.  What pisses me off the most is the JP states that he is not a racist...Okay to borrow an idea from Jay Smooth then, "This is a racist act."  He sees that many interracial couples don't work out?...really?  How?  And how many more couples that are interracial don't work out as compared to non-interracial couples?  It's crap...it is just crap and it's wrong and it is racist.

So this video has been circulating on the blogosphere and its overall message is very positive. Please take the time to watch the video before continuing to read the rest of this post.

I love most of this video (clearly not the dig at Tara Reid). "No Homo" is an awful statement originating in a specific genre of music but that has spread way beyond the world of hip-hop. This post isn't at all trying to justify the use of this deplorable phrase.

That being said...go back to the beginning of the video and re-watch it. Notice anything peculiar? Why does he deem it appropriate to change his "style" of speech and dress? I posed this question to my coworkers, and they guessed it was to make a dig at hip-hop culture. Well I agree with them...but isn't the rest of the video a big enough dig? When he changes his language and dress, he is taking a MUCH deeper dig at the entire culture. Using "No Homo" is ridiculous...but he also used the same implications for the way people talk/dress who are apart of hip-hop culture.

Props to FOX News for hiring Don Imus, a well-known bigoted misogynist for his own morning news show, "Imus In the Morning."  Imus is being dubbed "older and wiser" by the press, although personal reform and transformation seems unlikely.  For full coverage of the new program, see the Washington Post.

Imus was the center of a lawsuit in 2007 , and subsequently fired from his previous post with CBS.  The lawsuit, for slander and defamation, was filed by Kia Vaughn, a relatively well-known player for the Rutgers Women's Basketball team in response to Imus' reference to some of the players as "nappy-headed hos " in a broadcasted discussion of a Rutgers game. The comments were met by protest from Rutgers' students, and public condemnation from then Senator Barak Obama. Unfortunately, the law suit was subsequently withdrawn , thereby allowing Imus to ecshew personal legal accountability.

So to FOX News-- Bra-f-ing-o.  We appreciate another egregious example of the network's lack of support for social justice.

From thefwave.wordpress.com

Within the past two weeks there have been several videos posted on YouTube of fights breaking out amongst female Muni passengers. The first video has had over 500,000 views and has sparked debate on the internet over the racial implications of the fight. Race and Space have been a huge part of the reactions of viewers within San Francisco and in the larger audience.

The fight, which took place on a bus running through Chinatown happened between a two women arguing over a seat (I’d like to point out here I do not know either of these women and cannot presume to know their ethnic backgrounds). As you can see if you’ve watched the video, several minutes pass without any intervention by MUNI workers or other passengers. If audience reaction on Youtube, the Chronicle’s SFgate.com or Facebook are any indication, it seems viewers are tending to blame racial differences for the fight.

In a second video of a fight amongst women on MUNI, race and “turf” aren’t even called out: Here, a ABC local news web clip of a story on yet another fight, this one on the 49-Van Ness line that runs south to north through the heart of the city.

Another news story covering both fights on NBCbayarea.com leaves the discussion of race relations and space out of the debate completely and simply goes for a titillating title playing on tired ass gender stereotypes: “Muni Catfight YouTube Redux”.

The coverage of these altercations is crucial and I’m glad this phenomenon of public transportation violence is getting attention especially in a city where buses are the dominant mode of transportation for people of varying ages, ethnic identities, genders and economic backgrounds. I am not especially surprised to see women specifically fighting on Muni versus men, but the way the fights are being covered makes my skin crawl. How is race an issue in this fight over a bus seat? A misunderstanding perhaps, but a full on fight blamed on race at all?

A second issue that conflicts me is the male gaze in this situation. I really appreciate average people using film as a subversive tool against systems of authority (If you have filed a complaint with Muni before you know how futile it really is). The cell phone video that captured the BART shooting of Oscar Grant in Fruitvale is a crucial example of the importance of bringing the everyday perspective to the forefront of media broadcasting. it seems the two films of Muni fights have become the spark that has caused city officials to react in a positive way to violence on Muni.

Disturbing to me is the lack of intervention among passengers of all backgrounds, and the fetishizing of “catfights”. Why do episodes of violence amongst women in particular become sensationalized on the bus, through the eyes of two male spectators (the two men that captured the events) and to the internet audience?

I was at a pretty low-key party last night with some friends, mostly all just sitting around a large dining room table eating and drinking.  I don't exactly remember how, but somehow the conversation turned to race, which is of course normally quite charged; we're not a bunch of social activists or race experts, but a group of scientists who have a lot of different opinions and, my guess is, different exposure to the study of race and class on either an academic or personal level.

I was most happy to find one of the new guys in our department was not afraid to adamantly point out his white male privilege and "white liberal guilt" and to question "Why don't we have any black friends, why is our department all white, why is this CITY all white?"  Ahh, new friend!  (You can definitely question whether or not he should feel any guilt, that is legitimate, but at least give him props for admitting his feelings.)

You can imagine the knee-jerk reaction of most at the table:

"I've just never lived anywhere with a lot of black people.  Are you saying that I should go seek out black friends?  I think that's MORE racist!"

"Why should I feel guilty?  I'm not doing anything wrong."

"Anybody could move to this city if they wanted to, no one is stopping them."  (The cost of living is over 150% the national average here.)

"Well what are YOU gonna do about it, what is your anger doing?"

"There's no real problem because everyone is treated equally."

It's amazing to me, who immerses myself in blogs like Feministing every day, that people still don't see a problem with inequality and just say that the blatant injustice in this world "is just how it is" or "is not a problem."  Certainly, I read about these sentiments, but don't expect them to be expressed by my own friends.  

A few of us continued in the conversation for the whole night.  Some upsetting things were said, but in all we felt like we wanted to engage in the conversation.  However, that was only a few of us.  Sitting here the next morning, I think that the most upsetting thing to me was that most of the attendees (all white men, and later one woman) just got up and left the conversation less than ten minutes after it started.  

I think what I'm most upset about is the fact that I should have used this to explain my anger.  Because later in the conversation, when the first guy and I were pressured on basically how to solve inequality, I pointed out that we don't have to have all the answers, but people have to recognize it and be angry about it before anything can change.  Someone asked me again, "What's the point of being angry?"  I should have better explained that if this conversation had never happened, if we had kept our mouths shut, then no one else would have recognized the problems at hand.  Another guy kept saying that within 100 years, there would be no discrimination, but I pointed out that wouldn't be the case if people aren't angry and if people keep saying (as he did earlier that night) that everyone is treated equally when they are not.  I should have explained that when half the party gets up and leaves the table to avoid having this conversation, things will never change.  When they are insulted and offended and defensive when you try to suggest that they have an inherent privileged position in society, they'll never see what's wrong and resist ways to change.

It was definitely an experience that was thought-provoking and that I haven't had since moving here for graduate school.  Although I'm still offended by the words and actions of some of my friends, I'm glad that at least these things came out in the open rather than being hush-hush about it all.  And at least now they know how I feel, too.

This past weekend I was staying at my BF's friend's house with my BF. We had just finished making and eating dinner together, and were in post-dinner conversation mode. My BF and his friend, A, started talking about their shared hobby which I had little to say on so I excused myself from the conversation so I could write a long overdue email to my friend. After my email, I was checking a few of my favorite blogs, reading a few posts-- letting them geek out together without the guilt of boring the third party.

Earlier in the evening, A, my BF, and I were discussing health insurance considering c-sections and domestic violence pre-existing conditions. My BF and I have conversations about the feminist, anti-racist, etc. posts, articles, books we each read ALL the time. I felt I was in a "safe space" to discuss my personal beliefs.

I was on Sociological Images reading this post on racist mascots. By this point, A's BF, B, her brother as well as her roommate and his GF had come home and were congregating in the kitchen too. Incidentally, a day or so ago, my BF and I had been talking about the lawsuit between Native American groups and the Washington Redskin's so I turned to show the post to my BF. The others read it too.

Afterward, there was a brief non-offensive, if somewhat tinged with white guilt discussion of how difficult it can be to know the "right" labels for people. One person wants to be called Black, another African-American. It can be difficult to know how not to cause offense. B took this as an opportunity to relay an anecdote from his high school days:

Just a quick post here on something that's been bothering me.

I don't know how many of you have been following this "witch doctor" business but it's more than obnoxious. On CNN's ticker they posted this article: "Obama as witch doctor: racist or satirical?"(http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/17/obama-as-witch-doctor-racist-or-satirical/) Are they kidding me? How on earth anyone could see the images of Obama photoshopped as a "witch doctor" and NOT think it's racist is beyond me.

But then they go on to say:

"Posters portraying President Obama as a witch doctor may be racist, organizers of Tea Party protests say, but they reflect anger about where he is leading the country."

Oh, so it's okay to use racist imagery as long as it's just because you're really really upset. Got it.

In conversations on eating disorders, black women are often left out of the debate.  Despite valiant efforts by activists and researchers in the last few decades and evidence to the contrary , eating disorders are still often stereotyped as a young, white girl's disease. Stephanie Armstrong hopes to change that.

In her new book, Not All Black Girls Know How to Eat: A Story of Bulimia , the now 40-something, recovered, married mother of one daughter and two stepdaughters documents her descent into bulimia in her early 20s and describes her struggles as a black woman with a disorder consistently portrayed as a white woman’s disease.  The Los Angelos screenwriter and playwright also examines the “bootylicous” black woman stereotype and why the black community’s “code of silence” often leaves black women with eating disorders suffering in silence.  The work is being hailed as the first book by and among black women about eating disorders.

In an online interview I conducted this week with Stephanie, she shares her thoughts on how her disorder developed and how she recovered from it, the differences between eating disorders among white women and black women, modeling healthy behaviors for her three daughters, body image and more.  I've reposted just a snippet of the interview below.

In what ways are eating disorders similar and different in black and white women and girls?

For me the biggest difference was that we don’t talk about eating disorders in the black community so you believe that they don’t exist. The reality is that we don’t talk about most things in the black community. There is a code of silence that is pervasive. There is also the stereotype that all black women like being heavy. That being bootylicious is a bonus as opposed to being thin. Also, lots of the food that is indigenous of black society (Soul Food) is rich and either fried or cooked until any nutritional value is depleted. Growing up in the hood it was harder to access healthy food and to understand their importance. I didn’t realize vegetables could be purchased fresh for many years. Rich, unhealthy food is more easily accessed in the inner cities. Those are just some of the differences that I have experienced.

How does the stereotype of eating disorders as a white girl’s disease hurt disordered women of color, adult women and others who don’t fit the stereotype?

That belief keeps women of color isolated and feeling more alone and misunderstood. The picture of the classic eating disorder patient is a young white middle class girl. A recent study by USC , the first of its kind, documented young black girls with eating disorders. It found that black girls from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are 50 percent more likely that white women to develop bulimia. It makes us feel that we are not able to fit in within the eating disorder community. Eating disorders are about the need for control. What race or sex is immune to the need to cover up their shame, pain or anger with food, drugs, sex or alcohol?

The reason for the stereotype is the misconception that all black girls like to be heavy, which is corroborated by the rising figures of obesity in the black community. But even that is often the result of B.E.D. (Binge eating disorder). It takes a lot of bravery to come forward and admit that you have an eating disorder. Even when I did admit my problem, there was such a lack of understanding about eating disorders that people simply didn’t understand. They were not aware that laxative abuse, dieters teas, diuretic abuse and over-exercising are all forms of bulimia. Knowledge is power and once my community educates themselves on eating disorders I believe more people will be willing to come forward. We need to remove the stigma and shame first.

For the full interview, read here .  

Colorism is on the rise. It is a problem in other countries and has long been an issue in our country. This issue of intraracial racism or white preference for light skinned people of color has been a point touched on in some of the coverage of black hair issues. But here are a few points these articles don't touch on that I think are important to keep in mind when wrestling with appropriating whiteness as a means to acquire social and material benefits.

I approach coverage on India with a great deal of caution. Whether it's dowry murders, sex trafficking or skin bleaching, India is often conveniently framed by US media as the "other" country riddled with sexism and intra-community problems. In contrast, coverage of the US as a bastion of colorism, racism, domestic sex trafficking and domestic violence murder seem few and far between. However, I do think this article is informative and it's important that female lawmakers are getting credit for calling out skin bleaching products as racist.

The CNN reporter should have also noted that Unilever, one of the major companies hawking these products, is a multinational corporation that has British and Dutch parentage (Thanks Wiki!). This may have some implications for the marketing strategies of Hindustani Unilever. Another fact this report could have included is what the nature of  the skin bleaching regulations are in India and Pakistan. This is important considering that skin bleaching has been linked to cancer. As a result, it's sale in the US has come under scrutiny by the FDA. These European based corporations may not just be behind racist marketing but be selling products that could have devastating health implications on people of color.

Lastly, as it pertains to the Black hair debate: it means something that skin bleaching creams are on the rise in India while hair is India's largest export and utilized en masse by Black folks in the US. It all goes back to this European standard of beauty. And colorism presents an opportunity for people of color to enter into coalitions that promote "critical solidarity." This notion, first introduced to me by scholar Trica Keaton, is about people  coming together with their eyes wide open about how their differences should inform their advocacy while strengthening their coalitions.  While the NY Times blog post on colorism in the US is informative, the conclusion that "racism wanes as colorism persists" is unhelpful. Critical solidarity on colorism between people of color is not about making comparisons about who is worse or better off. It's about recognizing that we all have a right to feel beautiful, valuable and enjoy economic security despite our proximity to whiteness.

Have you heard that Dan Savage may be coming to HBO? Yes, Dan, “I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there…are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color,” Savage.
 
As an African American woman who spends a considerable amount of time studying sexual health policy and reading and writing about sexuality, I haven’t been able to pick up Savage’s column since he made that statement. It seems like it was just yesterday that I was a sophomore in college fawning over the City Paper newspaper stand waiting until it arrived so I could imminently flip to the back page for Savage Love. I even blew my shrinking discretionary income on The Commitment and can still recite passages from it by memory. But I can no longer deny the parts of me he spoke against to indulge the parts of me he speaks to.

I truthfully can’t say when or if I’ll ever be able to patronize any of his stuff ever again. While he’s among many who have denied the contemporary reality of racism and made callous race, sexuality comparisons, (I abandoned my support for The Advocate after that “Gay is the New Black” cover, too) his cut deep.  This is because now more than ever it’s apparent to me that sex and sexuality education work suffers in the absence of multiple analysis, race, class and gender for starters.

Despite Dan’s witticisms, he is sorely lacking on bringing a lens that isn’t just white and male to his gay marriage crusade and by extension his sexuality advocacy and education. While HBO is still in the “consideration” stage of bringing him on, it’s also worth noting that they have yet to materialize a series that truly speaks to the experiences of women of color — be it same-gender-loving or straight — in America. HBO is actually operating on a deficit considering their typecasting of the sexuality of women of color in series like “Hookers at the Point.” And I, for one, am still recovering from “The Wire’s” 5-season-long attack on Black women, particularly Black single mothers.  The prospects of programming that emphasizes race, class, gender and sexuality get dimmer and dimmer, now that a bigot like Dan Savage may be doing their sex-ed leg work.

In terms of gender, class and/or race-conscious suggestions for your own reference, Violet Blue is getting a lot of read-time from me these days. While I haven’t read enough of her stuff to vouch for her on the racial and class front, she does grapple with gender. For some really great intersectional work on sexuality, of course I gotta big up Feministing’s Samhita, Cathy Cohen and Patricia Hill Collins.  In a course I took by Cathy Cohen this summer, these names were also referred to me: Vicki Mayes, Tricia Rose, Gail Wyatt and Orlando Patterson. Do you know any of these scholars? Can you offer more names of folk that are doing sexual health advocacy, advice, media criticism or academic research that brings a combination of multiple lenses to bear on their work?

Of course there are millions of unnamed lenses. But I simply have started with the lenses that have been salient for me in my work.

You may have heard that the recession is coming to an end . These reports have cited tons of economic data to bolster their claims. While progress is important to measure, all that number crunching doesn't account for the many ways this recession affects and continues to affect some of the most marginalized members of society: women and people of color. I am no economist but I do reside in the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, Michigan. From my vantage point, the end of the recession isn't as rosy as it sounds. One indicator is the heightened level of violence this summer.

As 1 of the 40,000+ students returning to the University of Michigan this fall, I have received almost 10 Crime Alert e-mails this summer, 3 within this month alone. I can't tell you how disconcerting it is to have "assault," "armed robbery," "home invasion," or  "purse snatching" in the subject line of an e-mail reporting a violent crime that has happened a short walking distance from my house, or on the very street I live on. Yes, I will admit that I may think twice about carrying my laptop to a night class this fall. But one fact continuously grounds my fear: I am not returning back in September to home foreclosure, or unemployment -- but to graduate school.

What is not to be missed about these Michigan-based crimes is that many of them involve theft or robbery and many of the suspects were black men. It seems to me that this is the recession story that hasn't gotten as much traction -- violence and theft in the midst of economic despair. Economic despair in this country, whether we're in a recession or not, is highly racialized and gendered . Further, it's important to note that along with campus crimes, friends of mine who volunteer at battered women's shelters in neighboring towns have reported that shelters have also been overflowing with survivors this summer. I am not trying to explain away -- or excuse -- Michigan-based violence as being prompted by the recession alone. But it is definitely a factor that often goes ignored in media coverage.

While the heightened threat of violence is a legitimate concern, it is not just a campus safety issue; it's a matter of public policy. Part of the remedy is affordable housing and ladders to gainful employment. Lastly, for all you non-Michiganders, keep these crime alerts, and other effects from the recession that aren't always tallied, in the back of your mind when being greeted with newscaster excitement about the end of the recession. Because even as the economic tide allegedly turns, women and people of color have yet to receive the memo.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Nickelodeon show Avatar: The Last Airbender. Probably not a lot - it is, after all, a children's show.

But Avatar is a really interesting show. It takes place in a made-up world. It really is - it deals with imperialism, environmentalism, genocide, death, family, religion, spirituality, abuse and a bunch of other very serious issues that most 8-10 year olds in America don't think too much about. Frankly, I love this show. I love the characters (who develop and change) and the show is definitely feminist, with kick-butt women all over the freaking place, despite having a boy as the protagonist.

But what I really want to talk about is the live-action movie coming out in 2010, based on the TV series. 

You see, everyone in the cartoon is Asian. The culture and societies of the people in this show are based off of China, Japan, Korea, Tibet, Inuit Alaska and I think I have even seen hints of Philippine culture, but I'm not as familiar with it. Everyone is either Eastern Asian or Inuit (but called differently in the show). The main character is clearly a Tibetan Buddhist. 

However, the live-action movie has casted 3 out of 4 of the main characters with white people. And the fourth person is Indian while his character was Eastern Asian in the cartoon version. 

Jackson Rathbone, Jasper Hale of Twilight, is playing an Inuit-like character. He is white. When this was brought to his attention, how very white he is and how very not-white the character is, he said:

"I think it's one of those things where I pull my hair up, shave the sides, and I definitely need a tan." 

It didn't work. 

This enrages me. Why would they cast white people into Asian roles? Do they think people won't want to watch a cast of Asian people? Could they really not find any "good" Asian actors? (Hard to believe, when they originally had Jesse McCartney in the cast.) 

Frankly, this is disgusting. For such a groundbreaking cartoon, they really fucked over the movie. After all the research and effort that the creators put into making this show as authentic and realistic as possible, it gets taken up by M. Night Shyamalan and all that work gets thrown out the window. 

Fuck this. 

Originally posted at WireTap

I've spent the last few days mulling over blog posts and news articles detailing the events of and reactions to Henry Gates' arrest, and instead of feeling like I'm working towards answers, I am instead left with a growing list of questions. Part of the uproar surrounding Gates' arrest was the troubling reminder that neither socioeconomic status nor reputation could protect the scholar from what happened to him. This was made even more evident in Obama's initial reaction to the incident, a reaction that seemed to reflect anger among the black middle class for still being subjected to police racism.

A long and violent history exists between African-Americans and police officers in the country, one that is by no means in the past . But one particular point stands out when I think about that history, and that is that black women are often overlooked in the conversation about race and police brutality.

I feel reluctant to pose the hypothetical question, "How would things have been different if Gates had been a black woman?" -- these sorts of speculations take away from Gates' experience of racism -- but I do wonder how gender played into his arrest and the uproar that followed.

    I find it difficult to express how angered I have been by the reaction to the Skip Gates arrest, and some other racial incidents recently.  I am starting to feel like our language has truly been turned inside out.  Suddenly, the word “racist” has come to mean pointing out racism. Obama’s statement that it is “just a fact” that there is a long history of discrimination against blacks and Latinos by law enforcement, which should be remarkable only for its obviousness, is suddenly “playing the race card.”  The fact that, to use the words of Ta-Nehisi Coates , “officers are well within their rights to arrest you for sassing them,” is terrifying, and has gotten lost in the “was too!”/”was not!” bicker over whether the officer was racist.1  I have been absolutely appalled by how many whites have rushed to the officer’s defense.  I don’t know what’s in Officer Crowley’s heart; I can’t say whether he’s racist or not.*  But the fact of the matter is that he arrested a man for talking back to him.  We cannot let this fact get lost in the discussion.  This is far from uncommon, and it indisputably happens more to members of less-powerful groups than it does to wealthy white ones. 

    I desperately wish that we could take this incident and turn it into a discussion of issues that are distinct but overlap so much they are frequently thought of as the same thing.  The first is police authoritarianism.  The second is the unjust and unequal treatment of minorities by the state.   They are so often talked about as the same thing because the authoritarianism of the police is disproportionately directed at minorities.

    These are two enormous problems. And if anything is ever going to be done about them, white people must stop being so defensive, so quick to see ourselves as unfairly slandered or even discriminated against.  This is visible any time a white person reacts defensively to an accusation of racism directed at another white person they do not even know, about a situation they haven’t witnessed or studied, and that has nothing to do with them.   What this shows is that it is easier for them to identify with the one accused of racism than with the alleged victim of it.   And that alone should tell us how far we have to go.

    The most grotesque example of this I’ve seen recently was in the emails of Dr. David McKilip, a Florida physician and conservative activist who has been organizing against health care reform .   He sent an email around to his mailing list depicting Obama as a tribal witch doctor , complete with loincloth, headdress, and a bone through his nose.  When this became public and initial criticisms started to come in, he wrote this to his mailing list:

Here they come. The first of what likely will be many emails accusing me of being a rascist (sic) for forwarding this email of Obama as a witch doctor.
…
So Talking points memo is apparently painting me as a racist for sending around a picture that points out that health care will get worse if the government takes it over…

This may be worth doing a story on about how these ultra liberal groups like to race bait and avoid the issue. Professional muckraker? Please. Now they are calling my office phones too!!! Yippee.

Lesson learned: Any attempt to discuss politics will lead to a race-baiting war. Also: Don't engage on anything that looks like personal attacks on Obama. It casues distraction that confuses the issues.

Don't let them bait you. I will choose to ignore them and always talk about the issues.

In his mind, sending around a picture suggesting Obama as a “primitive” African tribal witch doctor isn’t racist or race-baiting; it’s objecting to that picture that is baiting.  And what frightens me is not just that he can write such a thing, but that there will be millions of Americans who agree with him. 

In this post I have focused mainly on whites’ reactions to the Gates arrest and to accusations of racism in general. But so much more needs to be said, about police and authority and gender and race.  It’s hard to know where to begin.  But I hope this is a tiny little fragment of a start.

*And in fact I don’t even think this is a useful framing; the history of America means we breathe in racism our entire lives and can’t help but be affected by it.  Good intentions (or a lack of bad intentions) don’t mean that we don’t have racist beliefs and assumptions that affect our actions.  And, of course, it’s about more than individuals – people who sincerely struggle against racism can belong to racist institutions.

If this clip weren't from Fox & Friends, I would think this was totally unbelievable. After his co-host reported on a study from Finland that shows married people have a lower risk of Alzheimer's Disease, host Brian Kilmeade enlightens us:

We keep marrying other species and other ethnics and -- The problem is the Swedes have pure genes because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland -- Finns marry other Finns so they have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody. We marry Italians and Irish. It does not apply to us.

And you thought he was going to say that's why no gay civilizations have survived. But seriously. WTF. And you know that he thinks he didn't really say something racist, because Swedes, Finns, Italians, and the Irish are all White. I mean, it's not like he's saying that White people are better than Black people, so it's all good, right? No. He just reiterated this idea that there's a pure race, and that the pure race has blonde hair and blue eyes, two characteristics that have been widely associated with Swedes and Finns. I'm afraid of what this guy thinks about Black people.

My boyfriend sent me the link to this article about children who were allegedly (and most likely) banned from a private swim club that advertised open membership because they're black.

The best quote, from the most idiotic PR man to walk this earth:

"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? Really? These sorts of stories remind me how dishearteningly far we have to go...

Audra Shay is a candidate for the national chair to The Young Republicans has managed to get some attention which may (one hopes) derail her bid at the national chair position.

From The Daily Beast:

"On Wednesday, Shay—a 38-year-old Army veteran, mother, and event planner from Louisiana who has been endorsed by her governor, Bobby Jindal—was holding court on her Facebook page, initiating a political conversation by posting that “WalMart just signed a death warrant” by “endorsing Obama’s healthcare plan.” At 1:52, a friend named listed as Eric S. Piker, but whose personal page says his actual name is Eric Pike, wrote “It’s the government making us commies… can’t even smoke in my damn car… whats next they going to issue toilet paper once a month… tell us how to wipe our asses…” 

Two minutes later, Piker posted again saying “Obama Bin Lauden [sic]  is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals .”

Eight minutes after that, at 2:02, Shay weighed in on Piker’s comments:  “You tell em Eric!  lol. ”

Link to original article.

This, of course, has generated the proverbial shit-storm:

Hip-Hop Republican

Huffington Post

Her Full Response at The Conservatist

Is it just me, or was the Air France plane crash covered CONSTANTLY in the news, and the Yemeni plane crash is receiving very minimal coverage? It seems to me that when a plane crash involved primarily POC Western media doesn't seem to care as much. The story of the Yemeni crash seems much more news worthy, considering the amazing survival story of a teenage girl who clung to a piece of the plane and lived. This is just another example of how our media routinely fails to adequately cover news stories related to POC.

Also, it has been rumored that this specific plane had been banned from flying in Europe because of safety hazards. So, planes that are not good enough for Europeans should be used to transport people to Africa? That's just ridiculous.

NorthEast Two-Spirit Society and Audre Lorde Project's Executive Director Forced from Manhattan Pride March

Outrageous, but not surprising, considering queer POC are literally calling out the NYPD every other week for police bruality/harassment.

Interview from NPR's Tell Me More with Luke Visconti, of DiversityInc magazine. 

I've found it's difficult to find an intelligent discussion of whiteness within the greater Quest For Diversity conversation. The two common positions are "I'm sorry for being white, how else can I apologize" or paranoid rantings of "do you want one dating YOUR DAUGHTER?!" (Looking at you, P. Buchanan.)  Visconti has a great line about living with privilege and working to ensure others get to enjoy the same privilege because your privilege never goes away; sharing it doesn't mean you get less, just that others get more. Anyway, enjoy the interview.

Just a quick rant.

I usually don't read comments on stories on AOL News or linked from AOL Today. There's always horrible people there. But I thought this would be a story that no one could trash. A homeless student is heading to Harvard. The student happens to be a black girl, so to several people she only got accepted because of her race. It certainly had nothing to do with the fact she graduated fourth in her class, her GPA is slightly below 4.0 and scored in the 99th percentile on state exams. Yeah, it was just her race that got her accepted to an Ivy League school.

By Rinku Sen

Over the past two weeks, Americans struggled to make sense of tragic shootings that seemed disconnected at first glance. Anti-Semite James Von Brunn killed Stephen T. Johns, a black security guard at the Holocaust Museum . George Tiller’s murder a few days earlier seemed to be about abortion, yet his shooter, Scott Roeder, also had roots in the racial purity movement.  Yesterday, it was reported that the murders of Raul Flores and his daughter in Arizona were charged to three people with white supremacist ambitions.

There’s been lots of discussion about why hate crimes are rising and how to prevent future tragedies, yet we’ve largely missed the relationship between extremist racism and the less obvious version that plays out in our political debates. These shooters all felt that people of color (along with women and Jews) have stolen the birthright of white men.  In his book “Kill the Best Gentiles,” Von Brunn rails against  “the calculated destruction of the White Race.” Roeder was a member of the Montana Freemen; commenters on white supremacist websites praised him for ensuring that Tiller would never “kill another White baby.”  Flores’ alleged murderers appear to have been preparing for a white uprising.

Our discussion of these events has boiled down to the idea that racism is an intentional, violent act of a lone crazy white man. Underlying this idea, however, is the unspoken assumption that since we criminalized such hatred through civil rights laws, there’s nothing else we can do as a country. Collectively, we bemoan the backwardness of “some” people before we move on, thinking of racism as isolated extremism.

Tomorrow is Juneteenth, the holiday that observes the day when the last of the people enslaved by the Confederacy were freed at the end of the Civil War. On June 19, 1865, U.S. troops arriving in Galveston, Texas, read the Emancipation Proclamation and, more importantly, had enough numbers to enforce it. History books will tell you that the war, and legal enslavement of African Americans, ended in 1865.

But really.

My city's local Juneteenth celebration will take place in a city park in what is locally referred to as "the black part" of town (even though people of every ethnicity live there). The fact that we still think of neighborhoods as being "black" or "white" is an annoying symptom.

More problematic is the fact that it's easier to buy liquor on the east side of town than fresh fruit. The city has two hospitals located less than a mile from one another - a good 20 minute drive from the park where we'll be Saturday. The city has placed magnet programs in the arts, math and science at this neighborhood's schools, but white families still drive their kids across town to schools with larger populations, but more white faces. Glance at a map of the city's trash and hazardous waste dumps - almost all in the "black parts" of town. The public housing projects? Same. The new baseball stadium? On top of what used to be a mostly minority neighborhood full of black-owned businesses, before the state built an interstate highway through the middle of it.

One of the things I'll be doing Saturday is registering people to vote. We'll also be educating people about the upcoming municipal elections. People get very involved in national races - president, Congress - but tend to zone out when it comes to the city council, mayor or school board. But since it's those local officials who decide where the sidewalks get built and how the after-school programs are funded, we need to stay on top of them, too.

Juneteenth is a time for all of us to celebrate the end of legal enslavement in this country. But when it comes to ending racism in public policy, we've still got a long, long war ahead.

Crossposted at Choice Words .

What do Scott Roeder and James W. von Brunn have in common, besides both directing their hate through the barrel of a gun? Both men came to the idea of violent action through their involvement in the white supremacist movement.

Dr. Tiller’s assassin was a member of the Freemen , a racist anit-government group with connections to the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis. Roeder first planned violent acts through the Freemen. Though their white separatist and anti-government views are most prominent, the Freemen also think of women as inferior and abortion as a suicidal action by whites. Roeder was also involved in the Army of God , a group that supports violence as a tactic for opposing abortion and homosexuality, and wrote for their website. Roeder’s racism led easily into sexism which led easily into a strong anti-abortion stance. He had already learned violence as a tactic for racist anti-government actions; the transition to violence as an anti-abortion tactic was simple.

Von Brunn killed Stephen Tyrone Johns in an attack on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Von Brunn is a known Holocaust denier who wrote for the website Holy Western Empire and authored a book called “Kill The Best Gentiles.” His hatred was not only directed at Jews; his book warns of the “browning of America” and a plot to destroy the white race. Like Roeder, Von Brunn also has a history of attempted racist anti-government violence .

For both men violence was an act of praxis. They each held an ideology that was taught through racist groups and which they both helped spread through their writings. Neither was content to simply express their hatred through words, though. They published justifications for their violent actions. Killing Johns and Dr. Tiller was the fulfillment of Roeder and Von Brunn’s beliefs.

Roeder and Von Brunn offer a chilling reminder that social justice movements need to work intersectionally, to draw the connections between all oppressions. These terrorists teach us that hatred of one oppressed group leads easily to hatred others. Those who wish to do us harm are already making the links. All those who stand in opposition to these terrible acts must recognize that white supremacy is an intersectional ideology. Connections between racism and antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia are clearly drawn through these two men. As more information emerges an even broader web of bigotry could very easily reveal itself, as all these ideologies easily link to other systems of oppression. In response we must draw the links between our social justice movements and work together as we struggle against hate and for liberation.

A 15 year old black girl in Broward County, Florida was gang raped by six men this past April. Her rapists took photos, and the police found the camera on scene. Seems like a cut and dry case, right?

Not quite. The police aren't pressing charges against two of the men. Their acts were captured on camera. They have admitted to having sex with the girl. 

So why are these two not being charged?

According to CBS4, the victim is being "uncooperative".

Why that matters when the acts are captured on film, I'm not quite sure.

Renee at Womanist Musings wrote an excellent post on 8 June, providing her take on the situation. 

"It has been stated repeatedly that the bodies of

black girls/women are always already sexualized. 

What we fail to really conceptualize when these

words pass our lips is that this translates into

the rape of Black women/girls.  Our bodies have

been violated for generations by both Black and

White men because we are seen as commodities

and jezebels."

I think that her analysis is inarguably correct. 

It is a well documented phenomenon. Do a quick google search if you don't believe it. 

I found an interesting article on OPEdNews by Freddie Venezia. He writes on the subject of empathy. The empathy that white people feel for each other, but not for others. I think it would be beneficial for everyone to read the entire piece, but I'll quote the most relevant part for our discussion here.

"If a Black man was convicted of raping a

white woman, the victim received so much

Empathy, that the perpetrator was sentenced

to death, or was the Empathy for the woman

really the governing value? I ask because if a

white man was convicted of raping a white woman,

the victim seemed to receive much less Empathy,

enough less that the assailant was usually not

sentenced to death. A victim who was Black and

raped by a Black man didn't seem to receive as

much empathy either. And of course a Black woman

who alleged that she was raped by a white man got

so little Empathy that juries never believed her."

This needs to end. A black girl who gets raped by 6 black men is just as traumatized, violated,  disrespected, and deserving of justice as a white girl raped by 6 white men. Or raped by 6 black men.  Or raped by 6 asian men. RAPE IS RAPE IS RAPE. It is never ok, no matter what the skin colour of the victim & rapists.

So, my boyfriend sent me a link to a Wonkette article which discusses a question recently asked by Fox News of its viewers.

The Question was 'If you could send a question to Barack Obama's blackberry what would it be and how would he answer?' (Let the racist hoedown begin!)

I find this incredibly disturbing on a number of levels, from the lies about Obama being Muslim to the language used to describe his ethnicity and also his wife. What is wrong with people? The trouble is that a lot of folks truly believe Obama is a Muslim, that black people are inferior and that women are bitches.

I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense or isn't going anywhere. I just wanted to get some other takes on this. Fox News HAD to know who their viewers are and the kind of racist responses they would get. Fair and balanced? Blah.

*** Cross-Posted at FeminismFriday - The Blog ***

During the last week in Thunder Bay a young native boys hair was chopped off by his teacher's assistant. Since this time the Crown and police have refused to charge the woman accused. Some people may not understand why this is such a big deal, so let's break it down.

The child was touched without permission, during this time the assailant was holding what we can easily refer to as a "deadly weapon " given that you could hypothetically be killed by a pair of scissors. In fact, it is not a stretch to imagine this happening.

The child is native and therefore having long hair is not simply a fashion statement but rather something tied to the child's culture. Cutting off the hair of male native children was regularly done at residential schools, where the goal was to "kill the indian and save the child ".

Based on these facts I would say it would be fair to charge the teacher with assault using a weapon or causing bodily harm. It would be a stretch but I also think this is a race based hate crime.

The point of this post is to spread the word about this horrific action and to encourage people to contact their local politicians and demand that action be taken in this seriously. You may also want to write the school officials and express your opinions to them.

I've been thinking a lot lately about appreciating people's cultures versus appropriating them. The issue that got me started thinking about this is Buddhism. My family is Russian and German, both my parents are immigrants and both have very much assimilated. On my Dad's side of the family people are Jewish and on my mother's side they are mostly Lutheran. I feel no connection to either Judaism or Christianity and my parents encouraged me to look at a variety of religion with open eyes from an early age. When I learned about Buddhism I was fascinated and ended up reading up on many Buddhist writings, going to temples and meditation centers. It is a religion that speaks to me, so now I practice Buddhism and have some Buddhist art in my apartment.

Buddhism is not a traditionally European religion. I think that China, Japan and India have the biggest histories, though I could be leaving someone out. I have been accused, in the past, of not really being Buddhist but rather of being part of a larger cultural trend where white Americans are interested in "trendy" aspects of asian culture. 

I can see where they're coming from. I live in San Francisco where most of the white people I know are into yoga, but have varying degrees of interest or knowledge in the rest of Indian culture. I've seen a lot of white people get into Japanese culture: talking about samurai, ninja, geisha, martial arts and anime. And I definitely think it is problematic when people watch anime and read manga and therefore think they are experts on Japanese culture. I've heard white people condemn all Japanese men as pedophiles, people talk about how asian women are naturally submissive, correct asian people about there own cultural identities, and all the other racists things that I'm sure many of the people here on Feministing have come into contact with. Being interested in a culture is one thing, but co-opting it and using that interest to further racism is very uncool.

On the other hand, don't I have a right to believe in whatever faith I believe in? I don't think anyone would accuse a Buddhist in Japan of co-opting Indian culture (Buddhist originated in India and eventually made its way to Japan), but because I'm white I am suspected of only having a superficial interest. At one point Buddhism would have been very new in China and Japan, how is it any more problematic that it is newer to America? I don't think that if I identified with Judaism or Christianity anyone would ever cross-examine me to see how legitimate my belief was or would accuse me of only believing in God because I wanted to fit in or be cool. 

This line of thought opened up many other questions. What is the difference between co-opting a culture and appreciating it? When is a culture changing organically, as all cultures do, and when is it being killed by another culture? When is it co-option and when are two cultures evolving together? If I go to a temple and am the only white person there, is it outreach or does my presence take away from their cultural identity? If I go to a meditation center where everyone in attendance is white, does that signify a big problem or a racist environment? And what if religion wasn't the issue at hand, what if I really loved Japanese history and wanted to learn how to be a ninja? Would the answers to these questions change if spirituality wasn't part of the equation?

I don't know, but I would love to hear other people's thoughts on all this. 

Here's a group of intelligent, well-spoken students at Princeton who talk about how America is *not* post-racial and who make several good points:

cross-posted from Paradoxes and Paradigms

I admit it freely, I am all too guilty of being a Top Model fan. Beyond that, I'm all too guilty of being a Tyra Banks lover. And beyond that, I'm ALL too guilty of spending weekday mornings (when I can) watching the Tyra Show.

Many remember Tyra's personal act of beauty analysis a few years ago, when she spent a day walking around in a fat suit and prosthetics, experiencing first-hand the oppression of large women. After this endeavor, Tyra was criticized greatly. I compare these criticisms to those I've heard from skeptics of my college's Homelessness Awareness Week. Throughout this week, students sleep in cardboard boxes outside of the campus' chapel. They cannot shower unless a shower is offered to them, they cannot eat unless food is given to them, and they may not ask for anything from anyone. But at the end of this week, the students shower, eat big plates of food, and sleep in their heated dorms. They cannot fully experience this oppression or truly understand it when they know they will go back to their privilege when it's all over. Critics believe this to also be true of Tyra's experience. But can we not give credit where credit is due? These students, and in that situation Tyra, have their hearts open to attempt to understand. They crave a spiritual communion with their oppressed brothers and sisters and others, and want to experience what they do, if not only for a short period of time.

I don't have time to write much about it, but this article was front page in my local newspaper.

http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/6201076.html

A selection from the article:

WATERVILLE -- Hundreds of Colby College students staged a sit-in Tuesday to protest what they said was excessive force used by law enforcement officers in arresting three students on Easter morning.

The crowd gathered in front of Miller Library at noon, with many wearing red clothing to signify blood shed by at least one of those arrested. Students carried signs that said "Would this Happen to a White Student?" and "Define Student Rights," among others.

And:

he said Ramirez has been painted in news reports as a belligerent drunk, but that is not the case. He is a senior who has worked hard with college administrators to bring prospective students to campus, and he plans to graduate next month and pursue a teaching career but could have a hard time getting a job with an arrest record.

"He's just not that person people are making him out to be," she said.

There's clearly more to this story than what either side is saying. In the story it says the students were arrested for trying to prevent volunteer medical personnel  from helping an unconcious student, but nothing is really said about that aside from that the student was "fine" after the incident. 

I really don't know if this is a case of students getting drunk and stupid or law enforcement and campus security acting with excessive force and with racial prejudice.

*I speak mostly of race in this post, but the ideas expressed are widely applicable to many forms of discrimination including sexism, heterosexism, etc.

I feel like the issue of race has been come up a few times in the past week vis-a-vis an April Fool's edition of my school's student newspaper that was at best ignorant and insensitive (the paper doesn't publish the April Fool's edition on their website, but scans are available). Then I saw the story about the middle schooler who made a KKK board game for a class project designed to teach that history in a "fun" way at Womanist Musings. Because I like to torture myself while procrastinating papers about Constitutional Law, I've read many comments on these stories, and those who disagree with the offended parties seem to have three main issues:

1) It was satire; it's not like they could ever mean something so ridiculous as to suggest that we should "[add] a few drops of Georgetown's milk into some dark chocolate Cocoa Puffs". Geez, learn to take a joke.

2) Waah!!! Black people are the racist ones! If we had a White Students Association or a National Association for the Advancement of White People we'd be racists!!!!!!!!!

3) Sure, maybe it was a little insensitive, but it's not like they intended to offend so it's not racist.

First of all, when you use jokes to satirize something, it's supposed to be funny. If you want me to learn to take a joke, you should first learn how to tell a funny one. Second, I don't really see the purpose in satirizing interracial dating unless your motives are that students shouldn't do it. Satire is used to poke fun at something you disagree with. If you're using satire to poke fun at interracial dating either you're racist or you don't understand satire.

This country is so broken.

Four Oakland police officers were killed today, along with the shooter. Apparently, it was a routine traffic stop. I saw this story on CNN.

And I thought immediately about Oscar Grant. So looked it up, and certain stories are playing up the "crowds cheering/taunting the police" angle, claiming this is some sort of "payback" for Oscar Grant's death (this story also had some charming links to the Christian Science Monitor, which gave me an idea of how seriously I should take the writer...but anyway).

I'm sure most people on this site watched the youtube footage, or at least read and account of how his killing went down-when I think of the hate behind that attack, and the riots afterward, and the hate that continues to this day, and how this will probably never be resolved in a satisfactory manner for anyone, it makes my heart hurt.

I don't know if any major news sources have kept up on this story, but here it is again, in all it's glory, with all its ugly effects on the community, serving as a reminder that we most certainly do not live in a post racist society, no matter how many black presidents we elect. And it may not even be the alleged crowds taunting the police officers, it may just be the spin that has been put on this story to make this, yet another, incident of race-baiting and racial hatred.

Here's a link with more info about what Oscar Grants family is doing in preparation for the trial of the officer who killed him, and they're reaction to the shootings.

At least some people harbor forgiveness in their hearts.

I recently have begun talking with an old high school friend about sexual harassment on the street. She is a really innocent sort who felt quite traumatized by the way that older men hoot and stare at her. Talking with her has made me realize something: I am racist when it comes to conceiving of sexual harassment on the street because all I know is my own experience.

Let me explain. I am on Indian descent, and I used to wear the Islamic headscarf and it rendered me somewhat sexually invisible. Generally, I was harassed for being Muslim, especially post-911. I would be walking and people would roll down their windows and yell "Osama Bin Laden!" or "Go back home, Arab!" As a native-born American who had lost a cousin to the World Trade Center attacks, I understood their anger and frustration, and I let it go, although I did implement some personal security measures (wearing a hoodie with the hood up over my headscarf when walking alone at night is an example).

Fast forward to my latter college days, and I had lost my faith and shed my scarf. All of a sudden, walking across the street was a constant trial, as honking and such would ensue. Now, I hadn't all of a sudden started dressing skimpily; I simply had my scarf off. The behavior I encountered surprised me. Worst of all, every single man that harassed me was not white. The men who made kissy noises at me, honked, hollered, hooted, and just seemed to feel entitled to my body were all non-white. No matter how I dressed, walked, or acted, whether I was alone or with someone, I was subjected to packs of non-white men staring at me and harassing me like I was naked and oiled for their pleasure. Eventually, although I hated myself for it, whenever I noticed non-white men on my path, I would instantly change my walking route to completely avoid them. Even if I were walking with a partner, date, or friend, I would ask them to detour without telling them why. I stopped caring about how I dressed or acted and whether or not I was alone and what time of day it was because men would treat me like meat no matter what, but I developed a subconsciously racist attitude. The worst incidents occurred in London this winter, when Indian men would often not only leer at me, but actually grope me on the street as I walked by them, a rather rare occurence for me in the US. In my headscarf days, the people who had been racist towards me were white men, but now, due to who had harassed me, I was the racist, and it hurt me to think of it.

So, when I was talking to my friend about sexual harassment on the street, I automatically thought of non-white men as the perpetrators. I mentally slapped myself for having the thought, but my conjecture turned out to be unfortunately correct.

I guess I have a few questions for my fellow feminists who live in areas that aren't all white. Firstly, what has been your experience with non white men and their attitude towards women? Secondly, do you know of any studies about men's actions and attitudes towards women that have revealed correlations based on race and/or ethnicity, or a lack thereof? I would really love to be proven wrong about this.

The US is boycotting a UN conference on racism that's supposed to be held in Geneva in April.The reasons given are:

"text drawn up for the event criticises Israel and restricts freedom of speech."

The first reason is just blatant racist/imperialistic policies by the US regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict that's not surprising. I mean US senators thought the murder of over 1000 Palestinian civilians was a justified response to Hamas. Why shouldn't the rest of the world criticize that? This is not about criticizing Judaism but criticizing Zionism, or the policies of the Israeli government. How is the Israeli government any different from Muslim terrorists, whom the US condemns, in their beliefs and actions?

The second reason, "restricts freedom of speech" sounds concerning until you read that

"US officials say they are also concerned that some sections of the draft - which call for restrictions on the defamation of religions - could threaten free speech."

So the "free speech" the US is concerned about is the defamation of religions. Apparently criticism of Zionism, which I think is separate from Judaism, does not fall under free speech. Which religion was the US looking to defame? I think it's totally understandable that rules be drawn about defamation, to allow focus about the actual policies of some governments. The US seems to have it all backwards. As Eric Holder said, Americans are cowards when it comes to discussing race.

Here's hoping that Obama rethink boycotting this conference before April.

Ethnic Cleansing is a first-person shooter (FPS) game created by the racist Resistance Records. The object of the game is, essentially, genocide. You run through the 'ghetto' killing blacks and latinos, through the subway killing Jewish folks. Obviously, the premise is disgusting. It isn't, of course, the first title, nor will it be the last, promoting racist sentiment and spreading hatred.

Border Patrol is a flash web game which earned some controversial fame after it's initial release in 2002, but came back again during political talks of immigration in 2006. It was used as evidence in the attempt to pass laws restricting video games. The purpose of the game is to kill as many illegal immigrants trying to cross the border as you possibly can - including characatures of pregnant women with their children, for which you receive more points because you shoot 4 at once. Somehow, people seem to think this game isn't racist. Huh.

Apparently, Ethnic Cleansing isn't harmful either. Who knew blatant racist sentiment could be un-racist and harmless.

I write this because I want to tell this community about it and suggest that (if it's your fancy), if you happen to see a site that carries either of these titles - or similar titles - that you write to them and urge them to remove them from their site.

When Amazon was carrying Rapelay, they ended up banning it because people wrote them emails (this was also discussed in the feministing community awhile back as well).

K, seriously, fellow white feminist women? READ THIS.

Annotate it.

Highlight it.

Scribble notes in the margins.

Read it BEFORE you try and engage with black feminist, womanist, or other feminists of color.

No... really, I mean it, NOW.

Because this shit keeps happening, and while I know you don't mean it like that, while I know you didn't do it on purpose, while I know that the world around us has tainted us and we never asked to be a part of it...tough shit, we are.

Please take my advice on this. Save yourself the embarrassment. I've been the newly feminist white woman from suburbia raring to go and finding herself with shit coming out of her mouth that when it was read back to her through the perceptions of those reading it, it was downright ugly. It hurts to find out what your thoughts mean for the lives of others sometimes. Yes. It throws your whole little world into flux to find out you don't have to wear a white sheet to be racist. Yes. I know.

I'll even give you a hug and help you deal.

But you HAVE to deal.

This shit will probably keep happening, as new, young, white feminists keep coming to the movement. But we gotta spread the word. We have to do what we can to nip it in the bud. Because ignorant white women are hurting our sisters in movement, and making it more difficult for the rest of us to be trusted by them. Because this is our function as allies, to use our social position to point this shit out. Because at some point, it'd be nice for this movement to actually be realized.

And when you're just starting out, seriously, it's a good idea to just shut the fuck up and listen to the truth being spoken around and to you.

Trust me on this. And read Barbara Smith, just for a start.

Hello, everyone. I'm Brazilian and one of the things that intrigue the most are the expressions we use everyday without even realizing that they contain some kind of prejudice.

I've been reading lots of international blogs about feminism lately (that's how I found about Feministing!) and I started thinking about the words considered offensive in english, but not offensive in my first language (portuguese). I think it's curious curious that, here in Brazil, the appropriate way of calling a black person is "negro" -- which seems to be the most offensive thing in the U.S! So, the right form there is "black". It's the same word you use for describing objects, for example (like a black dress or a black pen). "Black", the name of the color, is "preto" in portuguese. And it's VERY offensive to call someone "preto" here. Depending on the context, you can be legally charged on racism because of that word. But I understand that each culture uses each word in a different way. So I guess that's the explanation.

However, there`s an expression that's been really making me curious. It's "person of color". For what I've been reading, it's the most respectful and appropriate expression. Again, we do have the exact same expression here ("pessoa de cor") but it's EXTREMELY offensive. What makes it offensive here is the assumption that black people have a color, while white people don't. Or that white is standard, while black is a deviation -- which is basically "othering".

Now that Obama's our president, racism is over, right?

Err…nope…not even close. 

I found this clip on the youtubes. If you can't see/hear the clip, it's basically about a guy in a local bakery who sells, and I quote, "Drunken Negro Face" cookies.  Yea… uh… you heard me correctly.  And he doesn't deny it, nor does he see anything wrong with it. Some patrons say he has said blatantly racist comments about Obama, and during the Inauguration called them "Obama Cookies." (He said other very racist comments that I don't even want to repeat).  Another patron said he used the "N" word as well when describing the cookie. The cookies themselves are extremely offesive charicatures. I can't even believe this kind of ass-holery.

Sorry America, we still have a long, long way to go. 

I began interning at a Pro-Choice organization a few weeks ago. As I am excited to be here organizing for women's REAL right to choose, I am even more excited to meet and work with student activists. However, through an encounter yesterday I came to a disturbing realization. Despite how naive it would be to think otherwise,just because an individual is pro-choice does not mean that they are pro-everyone, pro- people who face inequality due the situations and the bodies they were born into.

I met someone yesterday who was hyped about petitioning for the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act but through conversation revealed racist and anti-immigrant views. What exactly does it mean to be pro-choice and wish every woman the freedom to be what she wants when she wants when you perceive people of color as less than, worthless and or incapable? Is this a contradiction?

There was a crisis in Alaska this week. People in rural villages were having to choose between heat or food after their King Salmon catch was limited, an early freeze and home heating oil costs rising to nearly $11 a gallon. The Alaskan government wasn't stepping up to the plate so the bloggers kicked into action and helped out, people from all over America sent cash.

A Native Alaskan woman blogger, Writing Raven, posted yesterday, grateful for the help that came and addressing the blame the victim, native bashing that has come with it.

This story on National Public Radio today, archivist Reginald Washington shares what he has found about the African Slaves who build the White House from documents found in the National Archives.  Audio and transcript of the story will be availalble on www.npr.org by 6pm EST.

My thoughts when I heard this immediately took me back to a middle school trip my class took to Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home .  We 12 year-olds wondered what those "other little houses" were for in the back and the perky young tour guide informed us those were for "servants."  "You mean SLAVES!" A friend of mine had said.  The historical erasure of enslaved Africans from our most "American" of places is commonplace I think, and some of the callers to the audio show today reflected surprise that in fact, yes, slaves built the White House!  As activists and social justice advocates, I think it is crucial for us to be always vigilant in naming the history, and remembering that if we don't continue to work for justice, history can and does, repeat itself.

crossposted on Amplify

On Wednesday there was an article in the UK's The Guardian about a new Catholic church appeal against birth control . The article mentions that an Austrian scientists whose discoveries helped to create hormonal birth control is having some regrets, saying that

in most of Europe there was now "no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction". He said: "This divide in Catholic Austria, a country which has on average 1.4 children per family, is now complete."

The scientist went on to say that the low birthrate in Europe is an epidemic worse than obesity in Europe, and one that receives less attention. The Catholic Church jumped on these comments as proof of thier correctness in condeming hormonal birth control. Then they went farther in thier condemnation, claiming to have proof that birth control has been found to have abortive effects and environmental effects on male fertility as well as female fertility.

There are a couple issues with this.

First, there is the obvious problem that the Catholic church is basically making up claims about birth control that  are pretty much understood to be untrue. Hormonal Birth Control only prevents fulls ovulation, if a woman is pregnant it will not give her an abortion. While there have been environmental effects f ound from the hormones in birth control, the few articles I could find spoke only about fish in streams where the man-made hormones have been released, not with male and female human fertility. So, of course, I call BS on the Catholic church.

But there is another thing that bothers me about this worry over European birthrates: racism. Maybe I am oversensitive, but whenever I hear panic over birthrates in Western countries, it seems to come with an implied need to keep up with developing (and generally non-white) areas of the world whose birthrates are much higher. The Austrian Church representative in the Guardian article mentioned birth control's problems as falling birthrates specifically in the West and the scientist described those who chose not have children as

"wanting to enjoy their schnitzels while leaving the rest of the world to get on with it"

At first I thought I was reading too much into the article. Then I found this blog from Law Students for Reproductive Justice, written in response to the Catholic Church's earlier outcries on birthrates last year, when the Pope visited Vienna. The author is uncomfortable with the Church's arguments for the same reasons I am, because the arguments imply

that Europe’s embracing of legalized abortion and rejection of Catholic teachings regarding birth control could threaten the continent’s existence, leaving a world where Catholicism predominates not in traditionally white European countries but in Latin American countries that are devout in the way Europe used to be

Overall, I am not sure how I think Western governments should deal with low birthrates. However, I do think that in our world, with all Western governments clamping down on immigration and issues of civil war, genocide, famine and the HIV/AIDS pandemic tearing apart countries and continents, the focus of the Catholic church on making more white Europeans have babies comes across as a bit detached, and even a bit racist.

So this little gem has just started on ABC, and when I saw the commercial my jaw just dropped.  "Homeland Security USA" is the newest bit of garbage to join the ranks of TV land.  The description on ABC's website says:

They have a job that is dangerous, difficult and always unpredictable. These aren't heroes. They're average men and women working against an epic landscape. The Department's missions include everything from vetting adoption papers and checking visitors' passports to intercepting undocumented immigrants, drugs and other contraband, and stopping potential terrorists trying to cross our borders. What viewers will see is powerful, dramatic, unforgettable and emotional, with unexpected moments of humor. (Emphasis mine)

Is it just me, or is this one of the most transparent attempts at propaganda ever?? It's playing off of the racist seedlings that W has worked so hard to plant and works to demonize /criminalize people of color.  The not-so-sly inclusion of drugs in the description is another distorted attempt to tie people of color (specifically Mexican immigrants) to drug trafficking.

This fear mongering bullshit only perpetuates negative and misinformed stereotypes by glorifying the practice of othering.  It pisses me off to know that anti-immigrant sentiment is so pervasive that a show like this could come into existence without so much as a yelp of outcry.  The kinds of attitudes glamorized in this tripe have very real and very serious consequences for people of color inside this country and out.

It's just gross. Tell ABC how dangerous this is with me.

This story is amazing to me: a muslim family is on an airplane, describing the safest place to sit, and they get yoinked off the plan after someone tips off the airline to the possibility of terrorism and interviewed by the FBI. That's bad enough, but then, after the whole family is cleared, the airline refuses to even rebook their flight, and won't let them back on ANY flight:

"The airline told us that we can't fly their airline," Irfan said.

Even the FBI asked the airline to let the family back on the plane: Airtran keeps insisting that they're just "following homeland security procedures." Which COULD be a plausible (if still dickish) argument, but look at this quote:

"The conversation, as we were walking through the plane trying to find our seats, was just about where the safest place in an airplane is," Sahin said. "We were (discussing whether it was safest to sit near) the wing, or the engine or the back or the front, but that's it. We didn't say anything else that would raise any suspicion."

The conversation did not contain the words "bomb," "explosion," "terror" or other words that might have aroused suspicion, Irfan said.

and also:

"The FBI agents actually cleared our names," said Inayet Sahin, Irfan's sister-in-law. "They went on our behalf and spoke to the airlines and said, 'There is no suspicious activity here. They are clear. Please let them get on a flight so they can go on their vacation,' and they still refused."

I don't know all of these Homeland Security Procedures, but if they include kicking muslims off of your plane, and refusing them any further access to your airline because they make a comment about where they sit that has no link to terrorism, and could not possibly be construed as a direct link to terrorism by any reasonable person, it's clearly just racial profiling.

Natch, we knew that the security measures adopted in the US in the wake of 9/11 included racial profiling, but at least then the FBI was going by some procedure using their (flawed) intelligence. I'm not defending the rouding up of people with suspicious names, but this is seven years later and this is a private company that is totally bound by the non-discrimination in public accomodations portion of federal law, and the decision makers are being huge jackasses.

This is so stupid it makes me incoherent. I hope that the new administration clears up these "security procedures," or we're just going to have another four years of all muslims being de facto terrorists. I'm just glad two of the people affected were attorneys.

Here's the link.

Most of what I write is about feminism, but because third-wave liberal feminism aims at more than just examining women's rights and subjugations, but also the intersections of race and requires us to fight for other social injustices, I want to touch on the latest controversy, with the National Republican Committee candidate for chairman, Chip Saltsman, sending out a song called "Barack the Magic Negro."

While our first reaction will probably be shock and anger, seeing this as an attack on our president, our party, and if we happen to be black, on our race - I can assure you that while those feelings are most natural and even justifiable, we should see this as more than that - it is an attack on our country and its hopes and dreams.

For me, this isn't about the Republican Party and the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party having found racial harmonies and acceptance, while the Republican Party gets left behind and still living in the muddled beliefs that race trumps Americanism. For me, this is about the few in America who are still trying to use race as a wedge to define us - and to divide us. This is about the few who, still grasping for an answer after a landslide of an election that saw an African-American elected president, do things that at the dawn of a new year and American leadership, is no longer acceptable.

We should be angry - we should be hell bent - but not because it is an attack on us, or our values, but an attack on a nation that, for the last eight years, has longed for change. This is an attack on a nation that, for many, since the beginning of our nation's history, has yearned for this day of racial harmonies. This is an attack on all the children who have finally learned to see their peers as Americans, rather than the color of their skin, and those who, on the first Tuesday of November, learned that their skin color no longer mattered in America, so long as they have the will and desire to work hard to achieve their dreams. This is an attack on better days in America.

This is an attack not just on the dreams of African-Americans or Asian-Americans, but all the American Dream.

But, folks, I can assure you that such attacks no longer work - and that America has moved forward - that this is not an attack from the Republican Party, but the very few still left, who cannot grasp the power of change in America. As Americans, while we still remember and remain aware of the painful racial divides the hurt us a nation, we've moved on, and any attempts to try to re-open those wounds this time, won't work. Chip Saltsman will learn that quickly.

Brittany Zimmerman was found murdered on April 2nd. Earlier that evening she had managed to call 911. Not hearing anything on the line, the 911 operator did address the situation as an emergency. Turns out that when the 911 tapes were released, you can hear signs of struggle. The county has of course come under scrutiny for this lapse in procedure. Her murderer has not been found.

This morning I opened up cnn.com to find this cold case has the top headline slot. And there was a very large picture of Ms. Zimmerman.

Let's look at Ms. Zimmerman. She's white. She has pretty blue eyes and red hair. She was young, she was pretty, and she was in college. This fits a very old pattern of affluent white women and girls getting extensive media coverage when it comes to their cases. Wikipedia calls it Missing White Woman Syndrome; though I'm not sure that's the correct term, the entry lists a lot of cases of white women hogging the spotlight. The easiest example is Natalee Holloway. Elizabeth Smart, Laci Peterson, and Caylee Anthony have all also been extensively covered by the news media. And yet Ramona Moore was a black college student who didn't get nearly the attention- her family even had trouble convincing the police that she was in trouble. Because she was black.

This saturation of coverage of while women needs to stop. It's great that CNN is keeping cold cases going, but why not feature Chanel Petro-Nixon, a equally pretty young student who's murder is also a cold case. Why Ms. Zimmerman? CNN will likely defend their choice by saying the 911 tapes make it an extraordinarily interesting case. But CNN sometimes covers interesting local murder cases, but I have never seen one get the top headline unless it is a white girl or woman.

The cold cases featured on cnn.com are all from Nancy Grace's television show. Ms. Grace bills herself as a victim's advocate. She's made herself famous with her passionate and bullheaded attacks against those she sees as hurting weaker humans (namely children and women). I'm not a fan of her show, so I'm not sure if Ms. Grace falls into the White saturation pit, but the pieces that I've seen have been her covering Ms. Smart's case, and Caylee Anthony's case.

I've got faith all you intelligent and eloquent commenters can help me out with this one.

First, I'll paint a picture of where I sit: I'm an undergrad student in Fine Art at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. Queen's is known for (among other things, both good and bad) it's "culture of whiteness", and over the past two years there have been numerous racially-charged, violent and verbally abusive acts committed against minority groups on campus. To name a few, last year a black professor was forced off the sidewalk and called racial slurs by a group of students in engineering jackets; this semester the Muslim Student Association has had multiple break-ins to their prayer space resulting in theft, their "Happy Ramadan" poster defaced and burned, and constant verbal assaults against students who wear hijabs; one Jewish student's car was defaced with swastikas; and finally, the president of our student government commented on a Facebook photo of two girls wearing head-scarves saying, "I like your Taliban picture". You know, 'cause all Muslims are terrorists, right? Seriously.

Needless to say, this stuff has been on my mind.

Even when I first came to Queen's, straight out of my arts-based, multicultural, relatively LGBD positive highschool, I was berated with "Dude, that's so gay", "Quit being a homo", etc., and many of my male friends have been called "fag" and "homo" walking through the student ghetto.

Hence, the lost faith in humanity. Admittedly, I was naive in my highschool days... I really didn't think racism, sexism, and homophobia were as prevelent as they actually are. I'm glad I've realized how pertinent it is to continue to fight for equality, but I am still lamenting the fact that the fight is necessary.

But I'll get to the point here, and relay an incident that I need some feedback on:

I was out one night with some friends, and we grabbed some post-bar falafel. As we were leaving the restaurant, I saw a guy I knew from highschool (you know, the artsy, multicultural, LGBD positive one). He said it was his 19th birthday (which means he's legal, for you American folks), and he was, in his words:

"Going to get fucked like a n*gger"

He proceeded to keep saying "n*gger", until my friend yelled at him, and I told him he shouldn't say that. His response:

"Whatever. There are, like, NO black people at Queen's, and really, if you're black, then just don't come to Queen's!"

My jaw was on the ground. I was just in shock. People think like this?!?

His friend, who also went to my highschool, I think sensing my unease, said, "Oh, he gets kind of racist when he's drunk."

I said, "He get's really racist when he's drunk," and then I left.

I've never seen racism so explicitly before, and what's worse is that he spoke to me like I was in on the joke. And considering everything that's been going on at our school, wouldn't he have examined the implications of saying something like that? I. just. don't. get it.

I mean, racism is hard to wrap my head around period, but I find this even more bizarre coming from someone with a similar background as me. Once more, I had always assumed this guy was gay (although I realize it's unfair of me to presume anyone's sexuality, not having actually spoken to them about it), and he's Jewish. I mean, the guy must have family members directly effected by the Holocaust, and knowing Queen's, must have had his fair share of homophobic comments directed at him. If one knows discrimination on a personal level, how can they say these things so unapologetically, if at all?

Perhaps I am assuming too much about his experience. But, regardless, I just need to know what you guys think could be the cause of this kind of discriminatory thinking.

I also feel uneasy about my own reaction in the moment. I was so caught off guard-- I had had a bit to drink, I was having a good time with my friends-- that I wasn't prepared for him to say something like that, and I don't think I made it clear enough to him that I don't tolerate that kind of thinking. What do you think is the best thing to say in this situation? Is there anything I could've said at that moment that really could have affected the way he thought?

Ultimately, I want to find some sort of understand of this guy and people like him. Because, being here in this environment, constantly hearing about all this hate, I too am beginning to hate. I hate those who will not look critically at the hegemonic views presented to us, and I hate those who will not question their racist, sexist, or homophobic actions. And hating those who hate just seems inherently illogical and hypocritical.

Or is it just a waste of energy to try to figure these people out? Should I instead be focusing on the people whom these comments effect?

This is absolutely outrageous. No teacher should EVER tie up kids in a classroom, no matter what the intentions were. There is also obviously an additional emotional impact on the two black girls picked for this "activity" as well as black students in general. (for more see this) post over at Womanist Musings)

The teacher apologized for "causing any problems for the child" but not for "using that simulation during class." Wow... this is more than a simple "bad decision." This needs to reach national news, and this teacher needs to get fired.

Recently, I was watching the movie "Bride and Prejudice," the Bollywood version of "Pride and Prejudice" which stars Aishwarya Rai. During the movie, my mom came downstairs to check her email and she glanced at the TV. She noticed Aishwarya Rai's hair, which was dyed a reddish brown color. My mom said, 'Why do they do that? They've [Indian women] got that gorgeous dark hair." I responded to this, "We dye our hair." She then said, "Yeah but...It's like losing your culture." I responded to this, "We've lost our culture, I mean, we don't celebrate our cultural heritage or anything," or something to that effect. Then she told me we don't have a culture, we're mutts. 

I am white and I do not celebrate any part of my German or English heritage. I have no traditions that are distinctly English or German in my life. So what makes other women, or anyone, any different? I don't see hair dying as an abandonment of culture. I see it as a change in self expression. When I do it, as a white person, it's a change in style. But if someone who isn't white dyes their hair, or does anything "white," it's seen as an abandonment of culture by a lot of people. 

Furthermore, later in the movie, Aishwarya Rai dons a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. In fact, in a lot of that movie she is wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Is that losing your culture? Or is that wearing what you want?  

Where is boundary? And how do we define "losing your culture"?   

I have dark blonde/light brown hair that I want to make darker, just because I think it's time for a change. No one will look at me upon dying my hair and say, "you're not recognizing your roots." No one. 

It's as though white people expect those who aren't white to recognize and celebrate everything about their backgrounds, when most white people I know totally don't. How can those who are white expect that of so many people when we don't do it ourselves? It's a ridiculous expectation if we're not going to practice what we preach. 

Am I totally ridiculous in thinking this? Any thoughts? 

So, I was searching on Mr. Movie Times when I saw this advertisement on the side of the page:

If you have reliable vision, you will notice that the before picture is of a stereotypical image of a woman of color who is bulging and the after picture is a medium-sized white woman. My initial response was to laugh loudly and call everyone in my apartment to come see, but one has to wonder what was the idea behind this marketing. Or, perhaps, did they simply let a stupid person create the image?

The image linked to Life of Lisa, a website that seems to be some kind of blog-façade advertisement.

(cross-posted at UneFemmePlusCourageuse )

Y'know, as proud as I am of my state for going blue this election, let it never be said that there aren't some real assholes living here. In both my part, the mostly-liberal northeast, and the mostly-conservative southwest.

Let us first tackle the northeast, with the Bastard you probably guessed: Kevin O'Brien, Plain Dealer columnist. Here you go . Now, as I write this I am reminded of what Keith Olbermann said about William Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly during his "Worst Person in the World" segment last night: "Wait--what does it matter what they say? They don't matter anymore!" And in a way, he's right--everything any conservative is saying right now does feel like desperate scrambling to claim relevance to a world which rejected what they say and selected someone who does not subscribe to their worldview as a leader. Same with O'Brien as it is with all the others, but what miffs me about his piece is this particular line: "His election should end the utter nonsense about this being a racist country. (It won't, of course, because "racism" will be such a convenient reason to dismiss any criticism of him.)"

Okay, I do not dismiss every criticism of Obama as racist. "Muslim," "terrorist," "affirmative action admit," "fried chicken, watermelon, and food stamps "--yes, those are racist. The other big criticism of Obama is "socialist." 'Socialist' is an inaccurate label for Mr. Obama, but it is not a racist label. Socialism was founded in Germany, gained most of its infamy in Russia and other Eastern European countries, and is currently in play in countries like Sweden and Nepal. It has also been tried in various places in central and south America, the Caribbean, Asia, et cetera. Therefore, socialism is not a racial concept. So no, while I think people who decry Obama as a socialist are dumb and uninformed (and might actually be racist), the argument itself is not racist (and therefore I cannot determine their racism from that accusation alone). I think most people get that.

The day before Halloween, a woman wrote to the Joplin Globe daring us to "come up with a very good reason to vote for Barack Obama".

Reading the letter, I very much doubt that reason is her forte. Especially this.

"Why would I vote for someone who is all for abortion? Statistics show that mostly the white population uses birth control and the ever-present abortion. Our numbers are dwindling, and Obama wants to keep it that way . Ever think about that? "

D'oh! Silly Republican! You're supposed to be SUBTLE with your racism and sexism! Next time try to disguise the real reason you oppose family planning and just say you're only concerned about TEH BABIES.

This is my first community post, so please be gentle. Pretty much all I do is make fun of this things .

Saying you refuse to have a president whose name is Obama or whose middle name is Hussain is RACIST. Because if we were to change Barack Obama’s name to something …oh let’s say WHITE, let’s give him Dan Johnson for example there would be no way you could hide behind the  “Muslim excuse”   to excuse   the racism that you are really hiding. I would assume in most of America it is not acceptable to call someone the “N” word or to use race as an excuse to exclude a person from a job, education, rights and so forth. But because a bunch of “radical Muslim terrorist” did something despicable all of the sudden every Muslim is a terrorist. Apparently it is okay to show hatred towards Muslims but not hatred towards other races or religions. I thought we were over this a long time ago.   The Islam-o-phobia in this country is disgusting and goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for. We stand for freedom of religion…not picking and choosing which Christian sect you would like to follow but any religion or no religion at all. Putting up a sign that says “Obama supporters can’t park here” is RACIST.  So enjoy the clip…

P.S. I wish there was a word to describe this hatred for Islam so if know of that word please let me know.

So, being a typical pre-hipster and perpetually bored high school kid, I was cruisin' on Facebook the other day just for kicks when I stumbled across this gem:

"Islam Threatens Civilization."

That's right. Now, not only are there groups that exist to perpetuate blatant misogyny (I'm lookin' at you "STFU Hillary Clinton and make me a sandwich") but good ol' Racism as well. Lovely. But before you go a worryin'  bout how the existence of a group like this might be construed as, say, hate, listen to what they have to say:

"No doubt something you see or read here will offend you, but that's not what this group is for. It's about speaking out. This is not a hate group. Members and comments supporting racism, hatred or intolerance will be removed. "

Because you know, there's nothing vaguely racist about a group of white kids from small town Ontario who live in a town where the racial diversity consists of two non-caucasian families out of 8000 people creating a group about how evil and scary Islam is.

Of all the bizarre places I could find insightful political commentary: a post on the New York Times' Fifth Down blog! The author compares the racism in professional football (paucity of black quarterbacks and head coaches) to the racism in the current election.

So if anyone else loves football, this is an interesting change of pace from the usual coverage; even if you don't care at all about football, it's nice to see that some of the criticisms on sites like this have migrated into the mainstream. And bonus points to the author for skewering Rush Limbaugh!

This is a screenshot of the  current (at the time of this entry) facebook profile of a Precinct Delegate in the Republican party in the county where I am a voting resident.

While the exceedingly racist imagery in his profile picture comes, unfortunately, not as a surprise, I am compelled to repost it because Trefney holds an elected position in the Republican party.

Regardless of party affiliation, the thought of somebody so comfortable with imagery this racist (comfortable enough to post it on a public forum attached to their name) with any kind of political power (no matter how little) is terrifying and disgusting.

How is such a person supposed to have the interests of everyone in mind when they think this kind of thing is okay to endorse?

Here's a link to Trefney's facebook profile.

And here's a link to the Livingston County GOP contact page. Let them know what you think.

The McCain/Palin campaign is on the attack, and with it comes a resurgence of the many lies I've read in e-mails from conservative southern relatives.  Among those lies is the notion that Obama is a Muslim. 

In America, "Arab" and "Muslim" have become synonomous with terrorism.  Some voters might be afraid of a black man as president.  And it seems that a great many more voters than that would probably never vote for someone who openly identifies as Muslim.  The Obama campaign has been counteracting the lies by asserting that Obama is indeed Christian.

At a recent event, McCain tried to tone down some of the increasingly negative energy coming out of the crowds at his events.  A woman in the audience said, "I don't trust Obama, he's an Arab."

McCain replied:  "No Ma'am.  He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with.

Sure, McCain is right to correct a false belief.  The Obama campaign is also right in trying to correct a false belief.  But I think something is missing from both, though McCain's side of the aisle is guilty of the fear-mongering and lie-spreading in the first place.  The Obama camp should be open in its support of Arab-Americans.  Yes, Barack Obama isn't a Muslim or Arab, but every voter out there who would think negatively of someone just because of their religion (or ethnic background, as not all Arabs are Muslim) should be ashamed of themselves.  And John McCain should be ashamed for not making a stand.  Arab-Americans are decent family people.  They are citizens.  They are not terrorists.  "Arab" should not be an insult in anyone's vocabulary.  Correct the lies, but stand in support of your fellow citizens, including Arab citizens.

A recent story about a female Muslim student attacked at gunpoint because of her work protesting against Guantanamo Bay and the gassing of Muslim children in Ohio highlights what happens when racist Americans get into an Anti-Muslim fervor. 

I feel like this economic crisis will only increase the chance of violence against oppressed groups.  Thoughts?

Tim Wise is awesome.

Last week, New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristoff tackled the (black) elephant in the presidential race. H e cites a recent Stanford University study suggesting Obama's support would be about six percentage points higher if he were white. Most of these lost votes, Kristoff insists, are not those of "dyed-in-the-wool racists," but those of "well-meaning whites who believe in racial equality and have no objection to electing a black person as president -- yet who discriminate unconsciously."

I know this isn't directly feminist, but since racism and feminism are so often riding side by side, and race is an issue that a lot of us here care about, I thought I'd put this up.  I didn't write it, it was in an e-mail my dad sent me.

First I am really sick and tired of people calling Obama a terrorist. HE IS NOT A TERRORIST!!! Now lets put our Islam-o-phobia aside and try to understand that not every muslim is a terrorist. I was raised muslim and I am not a terrorist. I'm also tired of the republicans throwing that word around today like "its a witch burn her!!!" kind of comment.

Second Sarah Palin in the words of JOHN MCCAIN you need more training and education for your job, therefore I refuse to give you any of my tax payer money. Take it away Keith...

So, I came across this really interesting article about Implicit Association Tests, which are designed to pick up associations that people have that they won't generally self-report. For instance when polled about racial or gender judgments, most people will self-censor because they know that explicitly saying anything that could be construed as racist or sexist is frowned upon. But many times their answers differ if they're kind of "caught off guard" by an IAT test.

Have we been so conditioned by oppression and prejudice that we are not even bothered by it anymore?

I only ask this in light of an exchaneg a friend and I had with three people a few nights ago. Before our staff meeting, we had went to the student union to do a few things, and as we left we noticed that Fox Sports Network was filming something in the middle of Bruin Plaza at UCLA. Ever curious as we are, we walked over to them to see what the fuss was all about. Three of the sports newscasters were standing about, and they were older gentlemen. Two were white and the other man was Black.

A friend of mine teaches Political Science, and is using this piece to demonstrate what a "color blind" society would be like. She and I agree on the implications of this little essay, but she was interested to see what her students would think, and I am interested in hearing what you think.

I wrote this the other day after seeing a documentary on the history of Liverpool and after reading many blogs about privilege, suddenly things just clicked into place a bit more. 

Privilege, me and my city’s bloodstained history.

A lot has been written about privilege lately. I must admit as a beneficiary of white privilege and a comfortable middle class upbringing I have let this issue slide under the carpet for too long; not deliberately but just as the result of well being privileged, the fact that you so often don't notice it.

However reading the plethora of posts on the feminist blogsphere lately has opened my eyes; I’d like to add my small piece about how privilege affects me and the wider world I live in. A ‘How I learnt to see my privilege’  story so to speak.

So, it was Shark-Fu's post , which I read this morning, that spurred this one.  Although my comment on that thread had more to do with reclaming the word "bitch" it incorporated some ideas I've recently had about trying to be a better ally, and specifically, a better anti-racist.

So let me start with one idea from my reclamation comment:

"But instead of letting my discomfort shut my mind down, I just kept reading and tried to enter the world that the writer was creating, by giving myself over to her voice."

This has been what I've been trying to do to become a better antiracist.  And to learn about other feminisms, and womanism, and women who seek equality but who feel so excluded by feminism that the word is anathema to them.  Part of me wants to cry out to them, but feminism is good!  Ignore the bad feminists, they aren't 'us.'  But it really isn't my fucking place, not by a long shot.

I hope this post is not inappropriate for Feministing, but I thought it's content to be both relevant and pertinent. This blog was originally posted on my personal blog, and as I have virtually no readers and felt it needed attention, I felt that here it would have a louder voice.

Apparently, because Kwame Kilpatrick (the estranged, and soon-to-depart mayor of Detroit) and Barrack Obama have shared the same stage on a few occasions, exchanged political niceties, posed for a photo op, and perhaps because they did this all while both being black, they are BFF.

While perusing notoriously anti-feminist Clare Boothe Luce Institute's website for amusement, I cam across a column by Ashley Herzog titled: " College Classes for Conservatives to Avoid," in which she laments her time her classes that deal with " writings of some allegedly oppressed group, such as 'Gay and Lesbian Literature' or 'Women and Writing.'” She was so upset to not be assigned reading by Charlotte Bronte, but God-forbid, take a step out of her white privilege to read about the interesting life of Assata Shakur . And it doesn't take a background in sociology or ethnic studies to understand that things would be different without this white fear surrounding the Black Panthers, and had she been white, her storylines would have played out very differently.

She then advices like-minded conservatives to stay away from sociology in general, anything labeled non-Western or multicultural, "queer theory" (the only subject she had in quotes, and nothing in U.S. history that doesn't reiterate the one-sided view of our history).

What is disturbing about this is that she is suggesting that the best way to survive the baccalaureate core curriculum of the undergrad years is to stay away from any class that points out that the U.S. isn't a meritocracy, and that people of different race, class, sexual orientation, ability, religion, class, weight, etc (and various combinations of privilege and oppression) experience the world in very different ways. College is supposed to be about challenging our understanding, not picking and choosing what one wants to hear and ridiculing the reality of other peoples lives.

I’m pretty late posting on this particular poll , but the issues it raises for me are still relevant.  I was struck reading the statement that 3 in 10 people admit to “feelings of racial prejudice.”  I read reactions in the blogosphere ranging from people who were appalled that 30% of people admitted this, to those who saw hope in the fact that a solid majority were in the “non-racist” camp.  I have to wonder, who are those 30%?

Begin Rant:

I am watching the olympic opening ceremonies and we are at the point where the different countries march in and are announced. I swear if the announcers once more refer to the tradition dress of these nations as "costumes" once more I am going to flip my shit.
If Uganda comes marching out dressed as Batman and Spongebob square pants THEN they are in costume. If they are wearing the tradition garb of their country it is NOT a costume. FUCKING A respect other cultures.

End rant.

I am aware this is not specifically feminist but I thought it belonged nonetheless.

This is my first blog post anywhere so I hope it's mildly interesting to everyone.

The other day I was sitting down to read my papers (yes two papers, don't ask) and about halfway through the main news section I see a tiny little blurb about a missing women for our area. I continue to read and learn that an African American women had been reported missing by her boyfriend when she didn't return home from work. There was a brief describption of her tattoos and how tall she was and a small blurry picture. The second newspapers coverage of this story was even worse in that the blurb was even smaller and there was no picture whatsoever.

I was so pissed after seeing how callouslly this woman's story was buried. Small sections, shoved into corners on pages that were mostly covered with ads and would be likely to be missed. It saddens me because it is another sign of the racism in my area and the belief that people from certain cities just are not as important as the women from the wealthy ones. If a young white women from Valparaiso and disappeared without a trace there would be hotlines to call and places to volunteer to help search. Instead, since this was a WOC and she was located in Merrillville, IN she was downgraded to basic unimportance. It just pisses me off that front page news on my paper is that fact that some people have seen blue sea gulls but missing women get virtually no notice.

The link for the article is located here. I also want to point out that the picture used for this women is her mugshot...because I'm sure the boyfriend who reported her missing couldn't find another picture

This is a post that's been in my head for a while - a rather personal one, I admit.

My family is Jewish. My grandparents are Holocaust survivors - my grandfather jumped off a train when he found out that it was taking him to Auschwitz. He and my grandmother met and married in Israel. My mother lived there for her early life before they moved to the United States; we have a lot of relatives there.

My mother has always, I believe, had a "thing" about Arabs and Muslims, a sort of chip on her shoulder. My earliest memory relative to this, though it didn't strike me at the time, was when I was watching 1776 (the musical about the Declaration of Independence) at a rather young age. There's a line where one character sings, "They say that God in heaven is everybody's God" - Mum stopped by the couch and commented, "That's not true. Muslims don't worship the same God as us." As I said, nothing about this struck me as peculiar at the time. I didn't know any better. I still don't know if that was malice or stupidity.

Continuing the theme of comments made during films she was not actually watching, years later I was watching Lawrence of Arabia, which has a line spoken by an Arab character: "a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous and cruel." Never mind that the comment is in reference to tribal warfare. Never mind that the film concerns a people who want a state, like Israelis. She was passing through the room and, on hearing that line, stopped and said "Yeah!" rather emphatically. I am, or was, a coward. I wanted to say something to her about it, but instead I said, "Mum, I'm trying to watch."

Fast forward several years. My best friend and confidant, whom I consider my brother, is a religious Pakistani guy. Mum is starting to get "into" her Judaism, yells at me for dropping out of Hebrew school, and forwards e-mails about Israel to everyone.

Mum's major misconception #1 about K. is that we "like" each other. "That way." However, according to her, we couldn't date anyway because "he's probably in an arranged marriage." Cue jawdrop. She also asked me, on finding out that K. has a brother, if said brother was in an arranged marriage. I do not know the reason for her fixation on arranged marriage. Perhaps she has watched Bend It Like Beckham too much.

At this last incident, I decided to stop being a doormat. I told her it was horribly racist. She blew up at me. Her arguments was that it wasn't racist because it wasn't a value judgment and "it works for their culture." Except that, for example, that episode in The Office when Michael wants Stanley for his basketball team because he's black is also racist without devaluing sports skills. I tried to explain to her about the concept of "othering" before I remembered that we already knew that she thinks Muslims "contribute nothing to the world." (Her defense of this statement, which I also called her out on, was essentially "it's not racist because it's true.")

I am truly amazed that she has not asked (out loud, to me) yet how a Muslim man like him can be friends with a Jewish woman like me.

My considered opinion is that she thinks that because she is Jewish and Israeli, she has a monopoly on oppression. Nothing can equal the Holocaust, so she's free to hate anyone.

I think I'm going to have to create a basic primer for people like her. Obviously her "Understanding Islam" class at our synagogue has done her no good.

1. Arab =/= Muslim. The majority of Muslims are non-Arab. There is a difference between ethnicity and ethnic practices, and religion and religious practices.
2. Not all Muslims are the same. Like members of any religious group, they differ in terms of religiosity, culture, political views, presence or absence of anti-Semitism, etc., etc.
3. Islam is not the problem. Fanaticism is the problem. My now-fundamentalist-Christian ex is infinitely more likely to blow himself up one day than K., because he is psycho.
4. Imperialism matters. It has affected the infrastructure and economy of countless countries and contributed to the rise of fanaticism.
5. Economics are important. The well-off don't become suicide bombers.

Thoughts? I hope this is helpful for others in this kind of situation.

(These themes reappear in my rebuttal of the last e-mail she sent out, a horrible petty little e-mail about Nobel Prize winners, which I may post.)