We are living in scary times. Back in 2008, I remember the unbridled joy with which much of America celebrated the election of Barack Obama, our first African-American president. Tom and I went to Seattle and people were literally dancing and drumming in the streets. People were hugging and the people all around us were so thrilled at this historic event.
But it didn't come easy. The whole campaign was marred with racist innuendos. Obama was accused of being Muslim (not that anything was wrong with being Muslim, but the accusation was meant as an insult). He was accused of associating with terrorists. His citizenship was called into question. He was simultaneously accused of being "uppity" and mocked for being a "community organizer". He received death threats while campaigning. Michelle was compared to a gorilla. The whole thing was extremely ugly. Yet not only did Obama prevail and win, he won by a landslide.
While many of us celebrated, there were those who were really angry. For white voters, particular those who weren't cosmopolitan or comfortable with diversity, Obama's election was a shock. "When coupled with the broad decline in incomes and living standards caused by the Great Recession, it seemed to signal the end of a hierarchy that had always placed white Americans at the top, delivering status even when it even when it couldn't give material benefits," writes Jamelle Bouie in Slate.com.
That night I read hateful things on my Facebook news feed. One person said, "I think I'm going to vomit." The next evening at soccer practice, one of my daughter's teammates stated, "We're going to die," presumably because Obama had been elected. She was 10 at the time--I'm sure she was repeating what her parents had said.
Throughout President Obama's tenure, he has been treated with such disrespect. From a Congressman yelling "You lie!" during his State of the Union address, to the Trump birther accusations, to the Republican obstructionism, Republicans have tried their hardest to delegitimize him. Their latest ploy is their threat to block his Supreme Court nominee. However, the majority of Americans feel this is the wrong thing to do, and that the highest court in the land should not go with only 8 justices for a year.
During all of this, moderate Republicans stayed silent. Those who might have spoken out against this abhorrent behavior did not. Many in fact engaged in this behavior as a wink and a nod to their constitutents. How many Republicans were caught using racist language, or were found to be members of organizations that were known to have connections to white nationalist groups?
However, it was an unspoken rule that being openly racist was unacceptable. However, Trump apparently feels he doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. He seems to not have any shame or embarrassment about saying things that most civilized people wouldn't say. He knows what these mostly white, mostly working class, mostly non-college-educated supporters are angry about and he manipulates these people and their anger by tapping into it and fanning the flames. He doesn't provide answers--he just ratchets up the anger. So now, these people somehow feel emboldened to wear their racism, xenophobia and bigotry proudly for the world to see. It's frightening.
At one rally, a white man sucker-punched a young African-American man. He was subsequently arrested for assault. The violence visited upon protesters has continued to escalate. In Chicago, people decided enough was enough and thousands of protesters showed up at the Trump rally, forcing Trump to cancel it. It was interesting to note, however, that the Trump people had scheduled the rally to take place at the University of Illinois in Chicago, a campus that is 25% Latino, 25% Asian and 10% African-American. Looks like he WANTED there to be violence. Why else would he hold it there? Trump is an attention whore--to him, media coverage is a good thing, regardless if it's good or bad.
So when Trump doesn't win the presidency, what's going to happen to all of these people who support Trump? They've been very open now about their racism, their xenophobia. Are they ever going to learn that they can't live in the 21st century hating everyone that doesn't look like them? It' not going to work.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Monday, February 17, 2014
My two cents on "White Girlfriend in Barbershop" video
Apparently all of a sudden people have noticed that racism has existed in this world now that a white woman has become a "victim" in a staged scenario where an African-American hairdresser calls her out for being at a barbershop with her black boyfriend. Reactions from the other black patrons range from sticking up for the white woman, to silence, to a diversity trainer trying to facilitate communication and understanding between the white woman and the hairdresser.
I don't have an issue with this video per se, but what I find interesting and somewhat disturbing is that it is THIS particular video that gets people riled up. THIS is the video that goes viral and has white people sharing all over Facebook about racism. And what is so ironic is that I have shared dozens upon dozens of posts on Facebook about racism towards people of color, and with the exception of the few people I can count on every time, I am met with...............silence. And now all of a sudden this rah rah rah about this white woman in a barbershop? And it's inspiring people to speak up about racism when they encounter it?
I can't tell you how many times I have spoken up about racist comments and racist behavior when I've encountered it only to have it cause conflict in my life. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it, but I know that people DON'T speak up because they're afraid. They're afraid of confrontation. And particularly as a person of color, I'm often the ONLY one in a room full of white people trying to explain my perspective, and people want to change the subject. Or there's an awkward silence. No one has a camera on me making a video that's going viral where a million people are going to say, "Good for Meg! She spoke out against racism!" Yet a couple of black women spoke up for a white woman and social media goes crazy!!!!
This blogger captured exactly how I feel, but from a white woman's perspective:
(Taken from Why "White Girlfriend Enters Black Barbershop" Makes Me Uncomfortable)
"This outpouring of support for this video – found in hashtags like #colorblind, or comments like ‘inspiring!’ ‘let’s move forward to combat racism,’ or ‘I got teary-eyed’ — almost all from White folks, makes me feel uncomfortable. It really does.
“Why?!” you might ask. ”Aren’t you dating a Black man?!” others yelp. There is an expectation that I, as a White woman, would revel in this demonstration of Black folks ‘sticking up for me’ (in the majority of cases), or even worse, be pleased with those who failed to intervene, who illustrate just how hard it is out there for us white women.
NO.
It’s really not hard out here in these streets for White women. Actually, it’s pretty damn easy. Yes, as women, we are oppressed in many ways. There are double standards, there are oppressive gender norms, there are republicans attacking our reproductive rights at every turn. But y’know what? Those issues effect all women, and generally have a disproportionately more negative impact on women of color, who often lack the resources and privilege to overcome these barriers. So let’s skip that part.
We navigate this world with White skin, which has afforded us a wealth of privilege from birth. It has allowed us historical privilege which allowed many of our families to accumulate wealth in the form of assets that simply were not avenues available to Black or Brown families. It has afforded us the ability to embody our identity as individuals, to never speak as a monolith for our ‘group’ of white people, and to be considered the ‘default’ conception of ‘American’ in almost every situation. We have benefited immensely from the material, structural, and social privileges that come with white skin.
So why are we SO freakin’ pumped about this video?
It’s almost as if people feel that this video is empowering to White folks. Let’s talk about some of the reasons White people, consciously or not, are excited about this video:
1. Ohmygod, it shows that love is colorblind! That’s such a cute narrative. ”I don’t see color. It doesn’t matter if you’re white, brown, purple, orange, or green.”
2. Look at us White people!!! We are so advanced and generous. You see, we won’t just DATE Black folks, we will take shit for ‘em too! Poor old white girls, we just have to sit there and take it from those ANGRY BLACK WOMEN! We are pretty much saints.
3. It confirms the narrative that REVERSE RACISM IS REAL! I mean look, they only set up ‘real life situations that could happen’ on these shows, which demonstrates that if us White people try to do something like get into a relationship with a non-White person, WE JUST FACE SO MUCH OPPRESSION!!!
These are all problematic. If you’re one of the women or men who is just so progressive that you don’t even see color… well, then you may well be failing to acknowledge and honor a major part of a person’s identity and experience navigating this world. Secondly, this video reinforces the perception that there are a ton of Black women out there who are just sitting, stewing, getting angry about all the White women who “take away” their Black men, who are just waiting to spew hatred on the first interracial couple they see. This is a harmful perception, it is reductive, and I don’t think that we should be reinforcing it on TV – nor should we be crafting white women into the martyr of the show.
Lastly, this little social experiment lends false credibility to the idea that reverse racism is real. We won’t get into the multitude of reasons that this just patently isn’t true, but this video is dangerous. And people’s love for it is dangerous too. But why? Aren’t people just excited that Black folks are taking a stand against all this hate on the White woman?
The problem is, whether Black folks rallied to defend this White woman, or sat in uncomfortable silence, isn’t the point. The point is that this video reinforces the narrative that reverse racism is real, and that White folks are unjustly and undeservingly oppressed and discriminated against by Black folks. Maybe this seems like an insignificant example, I mean, it’s just a little barbershop experiment, right? But it lends credibility and strength to the idea that these cases are happening everywhere, and that this is just the beginning. That Black and Brown folks are oppressing us White folks in other ways, like how we’re now discriminated against in the workplace or college admissions processes because of affirmative action.
As a White woman who is in a relationship with a Black man, I remain a privileged person. If I am in a barbershop and a woman – White or Black – begins to give me shit because of my relationship, do you know what I can do? I can get angry and I can yell at her, because I don’t need to worry that if the police come, myself or my friends may be roughed up, searched without cause, or injured simply because of the color of my skin. I don’t have to worry that all of those around me will just see my outrage at her comments just as a product of me being a White woman, not because of my individual anger and hurt at her comments.
White folks embrace and excitement of this video simply makes me uncomfortable. This is my truth. For those who shared it, I wonder why it struck you as so deeply important. I wonder why it took this instance – of a white woman being discriminated against – to care deeply. Maybe it’s because you’re happy that Black folks stuck up for her, and think that it is a tribute to how ‘evolved’ we have all become on race. But then I wonder why I don’t see you regularly posting ‘what would you do’ videos of Black and Brown folks being discriminated against and White folks reactions – whether good or bad.
At the end of the day, I’m simply left with a pit of discomfort in my stomach, and a lot of questions about why a White woman’s discrimination and ‘rescue’ have moved so many. Perhaps us White folks should begin to try to answer those questions, no matter how painful the answers may be."
I don't have an issue with this video per se, but what I find interesting and somewhat disturbing is that it is THIS particular video that gets people riled up. THIS is the video that goes viral and has white people sharing all over Facebook about racism. And what is so ironic is that I have shared dozens upon dozens of posts on Facebook about racism towards people of color, and with the exception of the few people I can count on every time, I am met with...............silence. And now all of a sudden this rah rah rah about this white woman in a barbershop? And it's inspiring people to speak up about racism when they encounter it?
I can't tell you how many times I have spoken up about racist comments and racist behavior when I've encountered it only to have it cause conflict in my life. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it, but I know that people DON'T speak up because they're afraid. They're afraid of confrontation. And particularly as a person of color, I'm often the ONLY one in a room full of white people trying to explain my perspective, and people want to change the subject. Or there's an awkward silence. No one has a camera on me making a video that's going viral where a million people are going to say, "Good for Meg! She spoke out against racism!" Yet a couple of black women spoke up for a white woman and social media goes crazy!!!!
This blogger captured exactly how I feel, but from a white woman's perspective:
(Taken from Why "White Girlfriend Enters Black Barbershop" Makes Me Uncomfortable)
"This outpouring of support for this video – found in hashtags like #colorblind, or comments like ‘inspiring!’ ‘let’s move forward to combat racism,’ or ‘I got teary-eyed’ — almost all from White folks, makes me feel uncomfortable. It really does.
“Why?!” you might ask. ”Aren’t you dating a Black man?!” others yelp. There is an expectation that I, as a White woman, would revel in this demonstration of Black folks ‘sticking up for me’ (in the majority of cases), or even worse, be pleased with those who failed to intervene, who illustrate just how hard it is out there for us white women.
NO.
It’s really not hard out here in these streets for White women. Actually, it’s pretty damn easy. Yes, as women, we are oppressed in many ways. There are double standards, there are oppressive gender norms, there are republicans attacking our reproductive rights at every turn. But y’know what? Those issues effect all women, and generally have a disproportionately more negative impact on women of color, who often lack the resources and privilege to overcome these barriers. So let’s skip that part.
We navigate this world with White skin, which has afforded us a wealth of privilege from birth. It has allowed us historical privilege which allowed many of our families to accumulate wealth in the form of assets that simply were not avenues available to Black or Brown families. It has afforded us the ability to embody our identity as individuals, to never speak as a monolith for our ‘group’ of white people, and to be considered the ‘default’ conception of ‘American’ in almost every situation. We have benefited immensely from the material, structural, and social privileges that come with white skin.
So why are we SO freakin’ pumped about this video?
It’s almost as if people feel that this video is empowering to White folks. Let’s talk about some of the reasons White people, consciously or not, are excited about this video:
1. Ohmygod, it shows that love is colorblind! That’s such a cute narrative. ”I don’t see color. It doesn’t matter if you’re white, brown, purple, orange, or green.”
2. Look at us White people!!! We are so advanced and generous. You see, we won’t just DATE Black folks, we will take shit for ‘em too! Poor old white girls, we just have to sit there and take it from those ANGRY BLACK WOMEN! We are pretty much saints.
3. It confirms the narrative that REVERSE RACISM IS REAL! I mean look, they only set up ‘real life situations that could happen’ on these shows, which demonstrates that if us White people try to do something like get into a relationship with a non-White person, WE JUST FACE SO MUCH OPPRESSION!!!
These are all problematic. If you’re one of the women or men who is just so progressive that you don’t even see color… well, then you may well be failing to acknowledge and honor a major part of a person’s identity and experience navigating this world. Secondly, this video reinforces the perception that there are a ton of Black women out there who are just sitting, stewing, getting angry about all the White women who “take away” their Black men, who are just waiting to spew hatred on the first interracial couple they see. This is a harmful perception, it is reductive, and I don’t think that we should be reinforcing it on TV – nor should we be crafting white women into the martyr of the show.
Lastly, this little social experiment lends false credibility to the idea that reverse racism is real. We won’t get into the multitude of reasons that this just patently isn’t true, but this video is dangerous. And people’s love for it is dangerous too. But why? Aren’t people just excited that Black folks are taking a stand against all this hate on the White woman?
The problem is, whether Black folks rallied to defend this White woman, or sat in uncomfortable silence, isn’t the point. The point is that this video reinforces the narrative that reverse racism is real, and that White folks are unjustly and undeservingly oppressed and discriminated against by Black folks. Maybe this seems like an insignificant example, I mean, it’s just a little barbershop experiment, right? But it lends credibility and strength to the idea that these cases are happening everywhere, and that this is just the beginning. That Black and Brown folks are oppressing us White folks in other ways, like how we’re now discriminated against in the workplace or college admissions processes because of affirmative action.
As a White woman who is in a relationship with a Black man, I remain a privileged person. If I am in a barbershop and a woman – White or Black – begins to give me shit because of my relationship, do you know what I can do? I can get angry and I can yell at her, because I don’t need to worry that if the police come, myself or my friends may be roughed up, searched without cause, or injured simply because of the color of my skin. I don’t have to worry that all of those around me will just see my outrage at her comments just as a product of me being a White woman, not because of my individual anger and hurt at her comments.
White folks embrace and excitement of this video simply makes me uncomfortable. This is my truth. For those who shared it, I wonder why it struck you as so deeply important. I wonder why it took this instance – of a white woman being discriminated against – to care deeply. Maybe it’s because you’re happy that Black folks stuck up for her, and think that it is a tribute to how ‘evolved’ we have all become on race. But then I wonder why I don’t see you regularly posting ‘what would you do’ videos of Black and Brown folks being discriminated against and White folks reactions – whether good or bad.
At the end of the day, I’m simply left with a pit of discomfort in my stomach, and a lot of questions about why a White woman’s discrimination and ‘rescue’ have moved so many. Perhaps us White folks should begin to try to answer those questions, no matter how painful the answers may be."
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Jon Husted's Attempts at Voter Suppression Amount to Government-Sanctioned Discrimination
"I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process
to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout
machine. Let’s be fair and reasonable." - Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State
If you've been following what is going on in Ohio, you know that Ohio voters still do not know whether they will be able to vote during the three days before the election, something they have been able to do since 2005.
Ever since the Ohio election debacle in 2004, when voters stood in the rain and cold for 10 hours to vote because there were not enough voting machines, and still not everyone was able to vote, the county election boards decided to extend voting hours and to also allow voters to vote the three days before Election Day. This alleviated the long lines. This has worked since 2005.
In 2004, George W. Bush won Ohio, but in 2008, Barack Obama won the Buckeye State.
So now Jon Husted, the Republican Secretary of State, is doing everything in his power to suppress Democratic votes. And his actions are very transparent. Originally, he was only allowing early voting for military personnel (who typically vote Republican). Disallowing early voting would have had a disproportional effect on those who lived in the urban areas which were more densely populated and also tended to vote more Democratic. His actions have already been overturned by a Federal Judge. The judge filed a preliminary injunction against Husted, forbidding him from eliminating the three early days of voting, yet he has ignored the judge's decision and has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Everyone has the constitutional right to vote. Clearly, Husted is willing to contort the voting process that has been in place since 2005 to make it very, very difficult for Democrats, and specifically, African-Americans, to vote. His intentions are obvious. He has stated it now. Everyone should be absolutely outraged by his actions, which amount to government-sanctioned discrimination.
First of all, it is NOT Mr. Husted's job to do whatever it takes to make sure a particular candidate wins. His job is to make sure the election is fair. How can he say he is doing the fair thing if this is the way that elections have been run for the past seven years and there has not been an issue with it before? Let the people decide whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama would be the better president. Is he that unsure about his party's candidate that he has to rely on these deceitful, dishonest tactics to undermine the voting process? Let everyone cast their vote. This is absolutely despicable. Mr. Husted, you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you've been following what is going on in Ohio, you know that Ohio voters still do not know whether they will be able to vote during the three days before the election, something they have been able to do since 2005.
Ever since the Ohio election debacle in 2004, when voters stood in the rain and cold for 10 hours to vote because there were not enough voting machines, and still not everyone was able to vote, the county election boards decided to extend voting hours and to also allow voters to vote the three days before Election Day. This alleviated the long lines. This has worked since 2005.
In 2004, George W. Bush won Ohio, but in 2008, Barack Obama won the Buckeye State.
So now Jon Husted, the Republican Secretary of State, is doing everything in his power to suppress Democratic votes. And his actions are very transparent. Originally, he was only allowing early voting for military personnel (who typically vote Republican). Disallowing early voting would have had a disproportional effect on those who lived in the urban areas which were more densely populated and also tended to vote more Democratic. His actions have already been overturned by a Federal Judge. The judge filed a preliminary injunction against Husted, forbidding him from eliminating the three early days of voting, yet he has ignored the judge's decision and has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Everyone has the constitutional right to vote. Clearly, Husted is willing to contort the voting process that has been in place since 2005 to make it very, very difficult for Democrats, and specifically, African-Americans, to vote. His intentions are obvious. He has stated it now. Everyone should be absolutely outraged by his actions, which amount to government-sanctioned discrimination.
First of all, it is NOT Mr. Husted's job to do whatever it takes to make sure a particular candidate wins. His job is to make sure the election is fair. How can he say he is doing the fair thing if this is the way that elections have been run for the past seven years and there has not been an issue with it before? Let the people decide whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama would be the better president. Is he that unsure about his party's candidate that he has to rely on these deceitful, dishonest tactics to undermine the voting process? Let everyone cast their vote. This is absolutely despicable. Mr. Husted, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Monday, August 20, 2012
No daylight between Todd Akin and Paul Ryan
Yesterday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri) made a statement which caused a huge negative reaction in the media and on social networks. When asked in an interview if abortion should be legal in the case of rape, he responded, "From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," (referring to pregnancy caused by rape). "If it's a legitimate rape, the female
body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume
maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some
punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not attacking the child."
He later said he misspoke, however, the damage was done. The Romney campaign rebuked Akin's comments, calling them insulting and inexcusable. Some Republicans have called for Akin to exit the Senate race against Democratic incumbent, Claire McCaskill. His controversial comment was the topic of conversation on every political news program.
Looking closely at his words, nowhere does he take into consideration the woman, the rape victim. He doesn't consider the physical and emotional trauma that the victim has suffered. And interestingly enough, Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan's stance on abortion is exactly the same.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1999. He has a long anti-choice record from his years in Congress.
It's very easy to hold convictions when you really think it's never going to happen to you. But when these issues become personal, I believe that people begin to think twice. I don't believe that issues are black and white.
What I find so ironic is that those who shout the loudest about abortion and want to take away a woman's right to choose are those who also want government to stay out of people's personal lives in other arenas (i.e. guns). If these people don't believe in abortion, then DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION!!! But don't take away a woman's right to have an abortion if she feels that is in her best interest, and ESPECIALLY if she's been raped, or the victim of incest, or she will die if she doesn't have an abortion!!!
Perhaps Romney disagrees with what Todd Akin said, but I wonder whether Paul Ryan disagrees. And if not, will women want to vote for a ticket that takes away their rights?
He later said he misspoke, however, the damage was done. The Romney campaign rebuked Akin's comments, calling them insulting and inexcusable. Some Republicans have called for Akin to exit the Senate race against Democratic incumbent, Claire McCaskill. His controversial comment was the topic of conversation on every political news program.
Looking closely at his words, nowhere does he take into consideration the woman, the rape victim. He doesn't consider the physical and emotional trauma that the victim has suffered. And interestingly enough, Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan's stance on abortion is exactly the same.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1999. He has a long anti-choice record from his years in Congress.
- During his time in the House, Rep. Ryan has cast 59 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. All of these votes were anti-choice.
- He cosponsored “personhood” legislation that is so extreme that, if passed, it would ban abortion care in almost all cases, including rape or incest.
- He cosponsored a measure that would force a woman to undergo an ultrasound before she can receive abortion care, even if her doctor doesn't recommend it and even if it is against the woman’s will.
- He has repeatedly voted to deny funding to Planned Parenthood.
- “I’m as pro-life as a person gets. You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”
It's very easy to hold convictions when you really think it's never going to happen to you. But when these issues become personal, I believe that people begin to think twice. I don't believe that issues are black and white.
What I find so ironic is that those who shout the loudest about abortion and want to take away a woman's right to choose are those who also want government to stay out of people's personal lives in other arenas (i.e. guns). If these people don't believe in abortion, then DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION!!! But don't take away a woman's right to have an abortion if she feels that is in her best interest, and ESPECIALLY if she's been raped, or the victim of incest, or she will die if she doesn't have an abortion!!!
Perhaps Romney disagrees with what Todd Akin said, but I wonder whether Paul Ryan disagrees. And if not, will women want to vote for a ticket that takes away their rights?
Monday, April 09, 2012
The Test You Can't Fail
I met a woman from New York on Facebook who creates art related to diversity. She shared a very interesting article--actually a test--by Molly Secours that I think really drives the point home regarding white privilege. I hope that people begin to really think about what white privilege is, because right now, there is such a racial divide in our country between those who see so clearly the racial injustices that happen in our society, and those who deny that racism exists. The ultimate white privilege is to not have to talk about race, and those who would like to sweep the racial aspect of the Trayvon Martin case under the rug are exerting their white privilege.
Here's the test. You can't fail, and you may discover something about yourself.
Take the White Privilege Pop Quiz for Trayvon Martin: It's the Test You Can't Fail
Here's the test. You can't fail, and you may discover something about yourself.
Take the White Privilege Pop Quiz for Trayvon Martin: It's the Test You Can't Fail
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Why You Should Care About the Trayvon Martin Case
I'm going to ask you a question. What if Trayvon Martin was YOUR child?
Oh I know, I know. Some of you can't imagine it. Because of the privilege that you may not even be fully aware of, you think this will NEVER happen to you. You can't imagine YOUR child ever being treated like a worthless piece of meat. So you don't really put yourselves in the shoes of Trayvon Martin's parents, and you don't TRULY feel the pain of Trayvon Martin's parents. You go on with your lives, knowing that this will NEVER happen to me. But just for a moment, imagine if this happened to YOUR child:
YOUR child is walking home from going to the local convenience store to pick up some Skittles and an iced tea for his/her younger sibling. You live in what you believe to be a "safe" neighborhood. A gated community.
YOUR child, who is only 17 years old, is followed by a 28-year-old. He/she is scared. The adult is following him/her. YOUR child runs. The adult pursues him/her. There is an altercation. YOUR child screams for help. And YOUR child is shot in the chest.
The police department does a cursory investigation.
The police department tests YOUR child for drugs and alcohol, but does not test the shooter.
The shooter is released because he claims self-defense, although he is the one who pursued YOUR child, and he is 100 pounds heavier than YOUR child, and it was YOUR child that was screaming for help.
The police department waits THREE days to inform you that your child is dead. YOUR child is laying in the morgue dead.
The police department withholds 911 tapes that provide important evidence.
The shooter is not a registered neighborhood watch captain, but a self-proclaimed neighborhood watch captain.
The shooter has been told not to pursue YOUR child, but ignores the orders and continues to pursue YOUR child. And this shooter is not a police officer, nor a registered neighborhood watch captain, but a regular citizen.
How would YOU feel?
Now if you don't already feel empathy for Trayvon Martin's parents, your blood must run ice cold.
But there is the additional element of racial animus in this case. George Zimmerman had a history of calling 911 46 times and being obsessed with looking out for young black men in his neighborhood. He stated in the 911 tapes that Trayvon was "up to no good" (he was walking home from the convenience store) and that he looked like he was on drugs. Then he also stated that "they always get away" and there is a portion of the tape that sounds like he says "f**king coons".
Why didn't the Sanford Police Department arrest George Zimmerman? How is this police department complicit in this case? Is this their brand of southern justice? If George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin had been white, would George Zimmerman have been arrested? (I think we all know the answer to that.)
A million people have signed the petition to fully investigate this case. This is about justice. In the public school system, we say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. We recite the words, "with liberty and justice for all". Those words do not ring true if things like this still happen in America.
If you don't care about this, and speak out about it, who is going to speak out when YOUR child is marginalized in some way? What if your child ended up being killed because he or she was gay? Or lesbian? Or disabled? Or disfigured? Or for some other reason? And what if no one cared?
Oh I know, I know. Some of you can't imagine it. Because of the privilege that you may not even be fully aware of, you think this will NEVER happen to you. You can't imagine YOUR child ever being treated like a worthless piece of meat. So you don't really put yourselves in the shoes of Trayvon Martin's parents, and you don't TRULY feel the pain of Trayvon Martin's parents. You go on with your lives, knowing that this will NEVER happen to me. But just for a moment, imagine if this happened to YOUR child:
YOUR child is walking home from going to the local convenience store to pick up some Skittles and an iced tea for his/her younger sibling. You live in what you believe to be a "safe" neighborhood. A gated community.
YOUR child, who is only 17 years old, is followed by a 28-year-old. He/she is scared. The adult is following him/her. YOUR child runs. The adult pursues him/her. There is an altercation. YOUR child screams for help. And YOUR child is shot in the chest.
The police department does a cursory investigation.
The police department tests YOUR child for drugs and alcohol, but does not test the shooter.
The shooter is released because he claims self-defense, although he is the one who pursued YOUR child, and he is 100 pounds heavier than YOUR child, and it was YOUR child that was screaming for help.
The police department waits THREE days to inform you that your child is dead. YOUR child is laying in the morgue dead.
The police department withholds 911 tapes that provide important evidence.
The shooter is not a registered neighborhood watch captain, but a self-proclaimed neighborhood watch captain.
The shooter has been told not to pursue YOUR child, but ignores the orders and continues to pursue YOUR child. And this shooter is not a police officer, nor a registered neighborhood watch captain, but a regular citizen.
How would YOU feel?
Now if you don't already feel empathy for Trayvon Martin's parents, your blood must run ice cold.
But there is the additional element of racial animus in this case. George Zimmerman had a history of calling 911 46 times and being obsessed with looking out for young black men in his neighborhood. He stated in the 911 tapes that Trayvon was "up to no good" (he was walking home from the convenience store) and that he looked like he was on drugs. Then he also stated that "they always get away" and there is a portion of the tape that sounds like he says "f**king coons".
Why didn't the Sanford Police Department arrest George Zimmerman? How is this police department complicit in this case? Is this their brand of southern justice? If George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin had been white, would George Zimmerman have been arrested? (I think we all know the answer to that.)
A million people have signed the petition to fully investigate this case. This is about justice. In the public school system, we say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. We recite the words, "with liberty and justice for all". Those words do not ring true if things like this still happen in America.
If you don't care about this, and speak out about it, who is going to speak out when YOUR child is marginalized in some way? What if your child ended up being killed because he or she was gay? Or lesbian? Or disabled? Or disfigured? Or for some other reason? And what if no one cared?
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin case
As I follow the media coverage on the Trayvon Martin case, I am disgusted by the inaction by the Sanford Police Department. I am glad there is now a federal investigation into the case, and I pray that charges will be filed against George Zimmerman.
Not surprisingly, FOX News has only one article covering this story. I guess it doesn't fit with their narrative that everyone has the right to own a gun.
Thank God for social media. If it were not for social media, no one would have known about this story. But because millions of people have been so outraged by this case, it has become a cause, and people will not be quiet about it until a full investigation is done and justice is served.
For those who think racism no longer exists, I think it is sad commentary on our society that a young black 17-year-old boy cannot walk home with a bag of Skittles without being considered suspicious. I find it pathetic when people assume that if you are a young black man, you are automatically considered suspect, but if you are a young white man, you are automatically given a pass. I am irritated beyond belief when there is a newspaper story about a black person committing a crime and tons of comments are made about how ALL black people are thugs, yet when a white person commits a crime, it's attributed to his mental status, not his race. Ever. And the gun rights defenders continue to scream about the 2nd amendment. Even when something like this happens.
How about the white sergeant who killed all of those Afghan civilians? The narrative is still about wondering if he was mentally stable, trying to find an excuse for why he did it. How about those civilians who died? What if an Afghan soldier opened fire on a bunch of white American civilians, including women and children? Would Americans be trying to find out if he was mentally stable? Probably not. They would want him executed. Just saying. No one would care why.
Today on the Thom Hartmann radio show, there was a great discussion about how the NRA and the media panders to the fear in white men, and as a result there's this love of guns in this country, which has resulted in deaths of innocent people. There's even a law in several states in which a person can "stand their ground" and can kill someone if they come into their home, and they have a feeling that they're being threatened. Is this a law that gives white people a license to shoot young black men if they feel "threatened" by them, without threat of legal action? And why do I have the sneaking suspicion that if a black man felt threatened by a white man, and shot him, the law would have no problem arresting that black man and charging him with a crime--and the "stand your ground" law would not ever come into play? Anyway, from witness accounts, Zimmerman was NOT the victim here--Martin was the one crying for help, and Zimmerman was the one on top of Martin--he had a good 100 pounds on Martin.
Not surprisingly, FOX News has only one article covering this story. I guess it doesn't fit with their narrative that everyone has the right to own a gun.
Thank God for social media. If it were not for social media, no one would have known about this story. But because millions of people have been so outraged by this case, it has become a cause, and people will not be quiet about it until a full investigation is done and justice is served.
For those who think racism no longer exists, I think it is sad commentary on our society that a young black 17-year-old boy cannot walk home with a bag of Skittles without being considered suspicious. I find it pathetic when people assume that if you are a young black man, you are automatically considered suspect, but if you are a young white man, you are automatically given a pass. I am irritated beyond belief when there is a newspaper story about a black person committing a crime and tons of comments are made about how ALL black people are thugs, yet when a white person commits a crime, it's attributed to his mental status, not his race. Ever. And the gun rights defenders continue to scream about the 2nd amendment. Even when something like this happens.
How about the white sergeant who killed all of those Afghan civilians? The narrative is still about wondering if he was mentally stable, trying to find an excuse for why he did it. How about those civilians who died? What if an Afghan soldier opened fire on a bunch of white American civilians, including women and children? Would Americans be trying to find out if he was mentally stable? Probably not. They would want him executed. Just saying. No one would care why.
Today on the Thom Hartmann radio show, there was a great discussion about how the NRA and the media panders to the fear in white men, and as a result there's this love of guns in this country, which has resulted in deaths of innocent people. There's even a law in several states in which a person can "stand their ground" and can kill someone if they come into their home, and they have a feeling that they're being threatened. Is this a law that gives white people a license to shoot young black men if they feel "threatened" by them, without threat of legal action? And why do I have the sneaking suspicion that if a black man felt threatened by a white man, and shot him, the law would have no problem arresting that black man and charging him with a crime--and the "stand your ground" law would not ever come into play? Anyway, from witness accounts, Zimmerman was NOT the victim here--Martin was the one crying for help, and Zimmerman was the one on top of Martin--he had a good 100 pounds on Martin.
The only crime Martin committed was walking around a white neighborhood while being young and black and having a stupid moronic policeman wannabe like Zimmerman see him.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Why President Obama Tiptoes Around Race
I was in the car tonight, driving to pick my son up from Tae Kwon Do. I almost exclusively listen to talk radio in the car, and tonight was no exception. I turned to KOMO News Radio and was listening to an excerpt of an interview of Barack Obama by Diane Sawyer.
Somehow the conversation turned to the issue of the GOP debates. Sawyer asked President Obama if he felt that the candidates were saying things to gin up racial resentment. I found it interesting, but not surprising, that President Obama avoided talking about race. He didn't answer the question in racial terms, but rather redirected the answer and said that it would be up to the voters to decide what type of President they wanted. Sawyer kept asking the President the same race-related question in different ways, and in fact even said, "Don't want to go there, huh?" And he didn't go there. Ever.
Because President Obama doesn't benefit from white privilege as other presidents did, he cannot talk about race without being accused of playing the race card. While former President Clinton often talked openly and honestly about racial issues, and was often referred to as the first "black" president because he was very in tune with the African-American community, President Obama has had to essentially pretend that race is never an issue in any circumstance in order to appease white voters. President Clinton, because he benefited from white privilege, was able to talk about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking. When he declared there was a racial issue at hand--in fact, when any white person declares there is a racial issue at hand, their race lends them more credibility for that position than a person of color will have. ("White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh, 1988). Tim Wise says it best in this essay from March 6, 2008:
"More importantly, to the extent Obama’s success has been largely contingent on his studious avoidance of the issue of race–such that he rarely ever mentions discrimination and certainly not in front of white audiences–one has to wonder just how seriously we should take the notion that racism is a thing of the past, at least as supposedly evidenced by his ability to attract white votes? To the extent those whites are rewarding him in large measure for not talking about race, and to the extent they would abandon him in droves were he to begin talking much about racism–for he would be seen at that point as playing the race card, or appealing to “special interests” and suffer the consequences–we should view Obama’s success, given what has been required to make it possible, as confirmation of the ongoing salience of race in American life. Were race really something we had moved beyond, whites would be open to hearing a candidate share factual information about housing discrimination, racial profiling, or race-based inequities in health care. But we don’t want to be reminded of those things. We prefer to ignore them, and many are glad that Obama has downplayed them too, whether by choice, or necessity."
Monday, June 20, 2011
Thoughts on the First Day of my Ninth Year Teaching EDUC240
For nine years now, I have been teaching EDUC240 at Green River Community College, "Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias Issues in Education". When I first started teaching this class it was geared towards preservice Early Childhood Education teachers. We discussed diversity in the framework of an Early Childhood Classroom. Over the years, I redesigned the course to accommodate preservice K-12 teachers--about half the students now are those who already have their Bachelors Degree and are taking the course as a prerequisite to the Masters in Teaching Program at the University of Washington and other universities.
Over the course of these nine years, I have seen some major changes in attitudes. I think these attitudes reflect some of the attitudes in our society. In general, I think that the students coming into the class have been more savvy about diversity-related issues which has made the conversations much more deep and meaningful.
In 2003, when I first started teaching the course, no one had heard of white privilege. I think possibly that may have been due to the fact that most people only hear about the concept of white privilege in academic environments, and most of my students in the early years were coming from owning their own daycares or coming from high school. Because of this lack of knowledge, and because of the nature of white privilege, most white people are oblivious to their own privilege and therefore deny its existence, this was a very difficult subject because of all of the resistance. Once we opened up the class to those who had already been to college, many had heard of white privilege in a sociology class. This made the discussions about it much easier, as there were many people aware of its existence and able to share concrete examples of it from their own lives. Also, having white allies in the classroom who confirmed the existence of white privilege, rather than having just me (a person of color) claiming the existence of white privilege went a long way in bolstering the argument (which just goes to show how white privilege works). Another helpful tool was the addition of the video, "White Privilege 101" in which dozens of people, whites and people of color, talk about what white privilege is and give concrete examples of how it manifests itself in their lives. This year, anti-racist activist Tim Wise came to University of Washington Tacoma to speak about white privilege and he is a white male who speaks eloquently and powerfully about white privilege from a white male's point of view. He is quite aware that because of his privilege, as white AND male, people listen to him about the concept of white privilege. He has said that when people of color can fill rooms and will be listened to when talking about white privilege, maybe then we will have arrived. That time has not yet come though. So until that day comes, I have my students watch YouTube videos of Tim Wise.
The other area in which I saw a change in attitude was sexual orientation. I actually first co-taught the class in 1996 with the director of the Early Childhood Education department. I remember talking about issues around sexual orientation and the pushback we got. Most of it was from those who were opposed to bringing up anything around sexual orientation because of their own religious beliefs. Now when we talk about sexual orientation issues, most people are quite aware that there are many LGBT people with children and that they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other parent. There is also much awareness of the tragic situations around anti-gay bullying and the resultant suicides that have happened. I believe that people have become much more intolerant of homophobia in the school environment. It's not that homophobia doesn't exist, I just think that someone who is outwardly homophobic now is going to be persona non grata in an educational environment, so it is not something I am seeing among my students.
Anyway, I love teaching this class. What I particularly love is when I see students of mine who I run into a year later who tell me that they were so inspired by the class that they changed their major. One of my students who really struggled initially with the content of the class ran into me at the latest Diversity Conference. She is now majoring in Early Childhood Education with a focus on Diversity Issues! She is committed to Social Justice and recently had some racist images taken off of the wall at a school in Auburn! Woohoo! This is why I love doing what I do!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
"Ghetto" is not an adjective
One of the projects I assign my students in my Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias Issues in Education Class is to research articles on diversity issues in education and compile them in a Resource File that they can refer to later in their careers as educators. One of my students found this article and shared it with me. I found it very interesting because over and over again, I've heard subtle (and not so subtle) comments about the different schools in the Federal Way School District, and most recently, the school we are sending our child to.
The article my student sent me was written by a woman in Kent whose daughter chose to go to Kent-Meridian High School because of the International Baccalaureate program there. The mother admitted to having trepidation because she had limited experience with people of color and heard that it was "scary". Some would not send their children there because of the way it "looked". Yet once the mother went to the school, she had a completely different attitude, and is thankful that her daughter has experienced being with such a diverse student body. She feels that her daughter is more prepared for the reality of a more diverse society and she found that the school is very respectful in the way that people treat each other, not the place of horror stories that everyone assumed it was.
Just recently, someone questioned why we were sending our son to Federal Way High School, calling it a "ghetto" school. It is amazing to me that this person said this, given the fact that of all the Federal Way high schools, it is ranked the highest on Newsweek's list of top high schools in the United States. Yes, it has a high number of students on free and reduced lunch and a high number of students of color. But it also has the only center for the Cambridge Academy on the West Coast, a highly rigorous curriculum developed by Cambridge University. It has the highest percentage of students taking advanced classes. Do people assume a school is "ghetto" just because of the high number of black and brown students? Do people not realize the ramifications of using that word?
People who commit to anti-racist behavior realize that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If you think the world is a better place without racism, then do your part and stop using racially loaded words like "ghetto" as an adjective. And if you think this is just about being politically correct, well if not using racist language is being politically correct, then I guess I'm guilty. I'd rather be politically correct than a bigot.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Finally - Light at the End of the Tunnel!
So it looks like President Obama has come up with his own proposal of a health care reform bill. It also looks like the Senate is headed towards using reconciliation to avoid a filibuster. About time! How the Democrats could hold the majority in the Senate and allow the Republicans to hold them hostage on health care was disgusting.
The Republicans' nickname as the "Party of No" is well-deserved. They clearly have no desire to support anything that Obama proposes, or that will be perceived as a victory for the Democratic party. Where this is the most apparent is when Republican Senators co-sponsor bills, then when it comes time to vote for those same bills, they vote against them. It absolutely boggles the mind.
So now, President Obama has come up with his own proposal of a health care reform bill and has asked the GOP for their input (just like the GOP has said--they want to have input). Yet John Boehner has already called the wahhhhhhmmmbulance, complaining that the bill is a combination of the current House and Senate bills which are primarily Democratic and doesn't have any GOP ideas in it (not true). The whole point is Obama has reached out and asked for GOP input, yet all Boehner wants to do is whine.
One more thing--WHEN health care reform passes, the GOP will bitch and moan and say that the Democrats will have ignored the American people. But the fact of the matter is, every poll that has been conducted on health care reform says that the vast majority of people WANT health care reform and AREN'T happy with the current health care system and skyrocketing insurance costs. Republicans torpedoed Clinton's attempts at health care reforms, then did NOTHING for 15 years, and now they are trying to torpedo Obama's attempt at health care reform too.
My prediction is that health care reform will pass and the Republicans will again be seen as the party who voted against what's best for the American people. History repeating itself.
The Republicans' nickname as the "Party of No" is well-deserved. They clearly have no desire to support anything that Obama proposes, or that will be perceived as a victory for the Democratic party. Where this is the most apparent is when Republican Senators co-sponsor bills, then when it comes time to vote for those same bills, they vote against them. It absolutely boggles the mind.
So now, President Obama has come up with his own proposal of a health care reform bill and has asked the GOP for their input (just like the GOP has said--they want to have input). Yet John Boehner has already called the wahhhhhhmmmbulance, complaining that the bill is a combination of the current House and Senate bills which are primarily Democratic and doesn't have any GOP ideas in it (not true). The whole point is Obama has reached out and asked for GOP input, yet all Boehner wants to do is whine.
One more thing--WHEN health care reform passes, the GOP will bitch and moan and say that the Democrats will have ignored the American people. But the fact of the matter is, every poll that has been conducted on health care reform says that the vast majority of people WANT health care reform and AREN'T happy with the current health care system and skyrocketing insurance costs. Republicans torpedoed Clinton's attempts at health care reforms, then did NOTHING for 15 years, and now they are trying to torpedo Obama's attempt at health care reform too.
My prediction is that health care reform will pass and the Republicans will again be seen as the party who voted against what's best for the American people. History repeating itself.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Four Years Later - Where Are We Now?
I started this blog in September of 2005 in response to the tragedy in New Orleans. The botched response to Hurricane Katrina exposed the racial divide in our country in the most extreme of circumstances. I felt so many emotions around what I was witnessing and I couldn't keep them bottled up or I would have exploded. So I started a blog to express what I felt was the playing out of privilege, oppression, institutionalized racism and classism--all in front of our eyes at the New Orleans Convention Center day after day in the aftermath of the hurricane.
I have facilitated workshops for the Anti-Defamation League and I teach a college class called "Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias Issues in Education". This is something I do for a living, so these issues permeate my thoughts on a daily basis. The events of the last few months have me very concerned. Where is our country headed, that someone can post a poll on Facebook that asks if President Obama should be killed? I'm absolutely appalled that our society has come to this.
I believe that Jimmy Carter was right in his assessment--some of this vitriol comes from the fact that there are those that absolutely cannot accept the fact that our President is African-American. There are those who will argue that it is about Obama's policies. There may be some who truly are only against his policies. But I truly believe that there are those who even subconsciously may feel uncomfortable with the idea of an African-American president. Those who say, "I don't see color," yet by their actions it is very apparent that they, in fact, are prejudiced.
For example, take a look at the demographics of the 9/12 rally in Washington, D.C. 99% of the people attending that rally were white. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it was not a place that people of color were likely to attend. Particularly when there were signs showing Obama as a witch doctor as well as other signs that were overtly racist.
Everywhere you turn, there has been an attempt to marginalize and make Obama appear as an "other". During the election, there were attempts to paint him as a Muslim by highlighting his middle name. Not only was this untrue, but it was offensive to Muslim-Americans because it suggested that there was something wrong with being Muslim. There was an attempt by Fox News to make an innocent fist bump between President Obama and his wife into some sort of sinister "terrorist fist jab"--again an attempt to paint them as "dangerous". Finally even John McCain realized how out of control it was getting, when at a rally a woman called Obama an "Arab" and McCain had to defend him, although while doing so, he inadvertently offended Arab-Americans.
On Election Night, my husband Tom and I celebrated like the rest of the country. I had never seen people SO happy! I had volunteered all day in my hometown of Des Moines, Washington and at the end of the day we went to downtown Seattle to celebrate at the Westin with the governor and the other elected officials at the big Democratic Election Night party there. On the way in, people were out in the streets drumming, dancing, screaming, yelling--everyone was so ecstatic! Our kids also had watched it on TV and called us up, screaming and yelling, "OBAMA WON! OBAMA WON!" It was so unbelievable. I remember being at the Westin when Clinton won and we were happy, but it was not anything like this!
But there are some Republicans that just will not accept Obama as President and are doing everything to delegitimize him. The birther movement has already been debunked yet attorney/dentist/real estate agent (you've gotta be kidding me) Orly Taitz continues on her quest to prove that President Obama was born in Kenya and therefore his presidency is not valid. And the pathetic thing about it is you have certain right-wing congresspeople willing to support the birther movement. What happens is the low-information voters who are unable to think critically buy into this crap and then a movement is perpetuated.
Nancy Pelosi made a speech about the danger that is fomented by this hateful rhetoric. I completely agree. And it's not necessarily the loudmouths that you see at the town halls or 9/12 rallies. All this hatefulness that is being spewed by Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs and all the other right-wing conspiracy theorists is fodder for those loners (think Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber) who have absolutely no morals or boundaries. This has got to stop. If there is someone who has the audacity to put up a Facebook poll asking if Obama should be killed, who knows what kind of other nutcase is out there?
When the White House is asked if they feel it is a racial issue, Obama cannot say, "Yes, I believe it is about race." Why? Because as an African-American, he will be accused of playing the race card. Whenever a person of color says that race is an issue in any particular incident, he/she will ALWAYS be accused of playing the race card. Therefore, Obama HAS TO say that race is not an issue. What has to happen is that other people, particularly, white people, need to make that observation. And other people HAVE made that observation. In fact, many people have.
What is ironic is that for people in the dominant culture, if you do not live in a racialized world where race is not part of your day-to-day existence, you can never know how that might impact your life. So what happens is that in any given situation, it's difficult for you to empathize how race might be a factor in that situation, because it is never a factor for YOU. So when a person of color expresses how race might be a factor in a life situation for them, someone from the dominant culture automatically DENIES that as a possibility and says they are "playing the race card" when in fact they are just sharing their life experience as a person of color.
It's the same as if a person has a disability. If a person is disabled and shares a difficulty they have in their life because of their disability, do you automatically say they are "playing the disability card". Probably not, right? So why do people always bring up this race card thing? I think it's because people of the dominant culture do not want to talk about race. They want to pretend that race is not an issue.
Funny, I have NEVER heard a person of color say, "Oh, you're playing the race card." Never ever. Because when I talk to my friends of color, whether they're black, Asian or Latino, when we talk about how our race might be a factor in a situation, there's always an understanding that yes, that is a possibility. We can all empathize with that.
In our society people of the dominant culture really are socialized not to talk about race. They're fascinated by it, but don't want to talk about it at the same time. The class I teach is great because I teach students who are planning to become teachers. We talk about all kinds of differences--race, gender, class, disabilities, sexual orientation. Are they uncomfortable at the beginning? You betcha. And for the most part, almost every class I teach I am the only person of color. Most of my classes are all white. But I provide a safe environment where people can say whatever they want to say without feeling judged.
I'll give you an example. Every quarter, there is someone who inadvertently uses the term "colored person". Rather than act shocked that the person used the term, we talk about the history of the term, how that term was used back in the 1950's to refer to African-Americans during the Jim Crow era in the South, and how it really harkens back to an ugly time in American history. I also draw the distinction between the term "colored person" and "person of color" because some people are confused by that.
And by the end of the class, the students come away with a completely new way of looking at the world. They are able to see the world with their eyes wide open and that the media perpetuates a lot of stereotypes. They are able to see the world through different perspectives and realize that their perspective of the world is not the only one. And they are able to talk about race without fear and in a more objective manner.
I have facilitated workshops for the Anti-Defamation League and I teach a college class called "Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias Issues in Education". This is something I do for a living, so these issues permeate my thoughts on a daily basis. The events of the last few months have me very concerned. Where is our country headed, that someone can post a poll on Facebook that asks if President Obama should be killed? I'm absolutely appalled that our society has come to this.
I believe that Jimmy Carter was right in his assessment--some of this vitriol comes from the fact that there are those that absolutely cannot accept the fact that our President is African-American. There are those who will argue that it is about Obama's policies. There may be some who truly are only against his policies. But I truly believe that there are those who even subconsciously may feel uncomfortable with the idea of an African-American president. Those who say, "I don't see color," yet by their actions it is very apparent that they, in fact, are prejudiced.
For example, take a look at the demographics of the 9/12 rally in Washington, D.C. 99% of the people attending that rally were white. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it was not a place that people of color were likely to attend. Particularly when there were signs showing Obama as a witch doctor as well as other signs that were overtly racist.
Everywhere you turn, there has been an attempt to marginalize and make Obama appear as an "other". During the election, there were attempts to paint him as a Muslim by highlighting his middle name. Not only was this untrue, but it was offensive to Muslim-Americans because it suggested that there was something wrong with being Muslim. There was an attempt by Fox News to make an innocent fist bump between President Obama and his wife into some sort of sinister "terrorist fist jab"--again an attempt to paint them as "dangerous". Finally even John McCain realized how out of control it was getting, when at a rally a woman called Obama an "Arab" and McCain had to defend him, although while doing so, he inadvertently offended Arab-Americans.
On Election Night, my husband Tom and I celebrated like the rest of the country. I had never seen people SO happy! I had volunteered all day in my hometown of Des Moines, Washington and at the end of the day we went to downtown Seattle to celebrate at the Westin with the governor and the other elected officials at the big Democratic Election Night party there. On the way in, people were out in the streets drumming, dancing, screaming, yelling--everyone was so ecstatic! Our kids also had watched it on TV and called us up, screaming and yelling, "OBAMA WON! OBAMA WON!" It was so unbelievable. I remember being at the Westin when Clinton won and we were happy, but it was not anything like this!
But there are some Republicans that just will not accept Obama as President and are doing everything to delegitimize him. The birther movement has already been debunked yet attorney/dentist/real estate agent (you've gotta be kidding me) Orly Taitz continues on her quest to prove that President Obama was born in Kenya and therefore his presidency is not valid. And the pathetic thing about it is you have certain right-wing congresspeople willing to support the birther movement. What happens is the low-information voters who are unable to think critically buy into this crap and then a movement is perpetuated.
Nancy Pelosi made a speech about the danger that is fomented by this hateful rhetoric. I completely agree. And it's not necessarily the loudmouths that you see at the town halls or 9/12 rallies. All this hatefulness that is being spewed by Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs and all the other right-wing conspiracy theorists is fodder for those loners (think Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber) who have absolutely no morals or boundaries. This has got to stop. If there is someone who has the audacity to put up a Facebook poll asking if Obama should be killed, who knows what kind of other nutcase is out there?
When the White House is asked if they feel it is a racial issue, Obama cannot say, "Yes, I believe it is about race." Why? Because as an African-American, he will be accused of playing the race card. Whenever a person of color says that race is an issue in any particular incident, he/she will ALWAYS be accused of playing the race card. Therefore, Obama HAS TO say that race is not an issue. What has to happen is that other people, particularly, white people, need to make that observation. And other people HAVE made that observation. In fact, many people have.
What is ironic is that for people in the dominant culture, if you do not live in a racialized world where race is not part of your day-to-day existence, you can never know how that might impact your life. So what happens is that in any given situation, it's difficult for you to empathize how race might be a factor in that situation, because it is never a factor for YOU. So when a person of color expresses how race might be a factor in a life situation for them, someone from the dominant culture automatically DENIES that as a possibility and says they are "playing the race card" when in fact they are just sharing their life experience as a person of color.
It's the same as if a person has a disability. If a person is disabled and shares a difficulty they have in their life because of their disability, do you automatically say they are "playing the disability card". Probably not, right? So why do people always bring up this race card thing? I think it's because people of the dominant culture do not want to talk about race. They want to pretend that race is not an issue.
Funny, I have NEVER heard a person of color say, "Oh, you're playing the race card." Never ever. Because when I talk to my friends of color, whether they're black, Asian or Latino, when we talk about how our race might be a factor in a situation, there's always an understanding that yes, that is a possibility. We can all empathize with that.
In our society people of the dominant culture really are socialized not to talk about race. They're fascinated by it, but don't want to talk about it at the same time. The class I teach is great because I teach students who are planning to become teachers. We talk about all kinds of differences--race, gender, class, disabilities, sexual orientation. Are they uncomfortable at the beginning? You betcha. And for the most part, almost every class I teach I am the only person of color. Most of my classes are all white. But I provide a safe environment where people can say whatever they want to say without feeling judged.
I'll give you an example. Every quarter, there is someone who inadvertently uses the term "colored person". Rather than act shocked that the person used the term, we talk about the history of the term, how that term was used back in the 1950's to refer to African-Americans during the Jim Crow era in the South, and how it really harkens back to an ugly time in American history. I also draw the distinction between the term "colored person" and "person of color" because some people are confused by that.
And by the end of the class, the students come away with a completely new way of looking at the world. They are able to see the world with their eyes wide open and that the media perpetuates a lot of stereotypes. They are able to see the world through different perspectives and realize that their perspective of the world is not the only one. And they are able to talk about race without fear and in a more objective manner.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Implementing an Anti-Bias Curriculum
Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Each year when I teach my class, Multiculturalism and Anti-bias in Education, my students, all of whom are studying to become teachers, go beyond the borders of their comfort zones and try to empathize with what it is like to walk in the shoes of someone different. The vast majority of my students are white, female and middle-class. Yet the children they will be teaching are increasingly diverse. The vast majority of my students view the world through a cultural lens that may be very different than the ones that their future students may be viewing the world through. It is so important that my students have the ability to empathize with other world viewpoints, and to see that other cultural perspectives are just as viable. It is important that they do not view people of color as foreign, or exotic, but as normalized. Through the class, we talk about infusing anti-bias curriculum into the day-to-day curriculum, so that it just becomes the norm, rather than "Tacos on Tuesday", or what we call a "tourist curriculum".
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
I'm Still on a High!
It has been eight days since Barack Obama was elected POTUS and I'm still beaming from ear to ear! I feel like the country has come out from an eight year hibernation in a cave and it's a new day in America!
On Election Night, Tom and I first went to Mick Kelley's Irish Pub in Burien where a contingent of people from the 33rd and 11th Legislative Districts watched the Election Night speeches on the big screen. John McCain gave a very gracious concession speech and I believe him when he says he will support Obama. When Obama gave his victory speech, Tom and I sobbed. We both grew up during the Civil Rights era. One of the first corporations I worked for after I graduated from college was under a consent decree because of systemic discrimination against women and people of color, and for years proactively hired women and people of color under court order. However, this didn't stop the discrimination that happened once women and people of color were hired. I ended up filing an EEO complaint against the company for gender discrimination and won a promotion and back pay. I consistently saw white men of mediocre talent get promoted over women and people of color of greater ability. When I filed my EEO complaint, women and people of color who rightfully should have been promoted finally got the promotions and pay increases they deserved. At the time, I was 26 years old. Another friend of mine filed a sexual harassment complaint; she too won her complaint as there was concrete evidence of the harassment. But there were many people who were discriminated against who felt powerless, who felt that if they stood up against those in power, that they might lose their jobs. So they put up with the discrimination.
That experience in a sense informed my decision to become a diversity trainer. I have always been interested in issues of social justice. I can remember as early as fifth grade reading books about civil rights and being moved by these stories. I decided rather than sit on the sidelines and bemoan the situation, I wanted to do something about. Originally I became an actor in a diversity theatre company, performing plays about institutionalized racism and facilitating discussions afterwards. Great experience. Afterwards, I worked with several diversity consulting firms and facilitated workshops in corporations throughout the country about workplace diversity. I've also worked with the Anti-Defamation League, working with schools on prejudice reduction and with Green River Community College as an adjunct instructor, teaching Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias in Education.
When I think back to the struggle of women and people of color in our society, and now look at how far we've come, with Hillary Clinton as a viable candidate and Barack Obama as our president-elect, I feel that the battles that many of us have waged have been worth it. The younger generation does not view race in the same way that older people view it, and I believe a lot of that is due to education, and how educators really are taught to not bring their biases into the classroom. There is a strong focus on anti-bias education, and has been for a long time now. And it was that all-important youth vote that was critical in Obama's victory.
I read a great article today. It talked about how Fox News is really helping the Democratic party. By preaching their hate, anti-Muslim rhetoric, and anti-intellectual rants, they push away moderates from the Republican party to the Democratic party so that the only ones left are the hard right, low education voters. Yea, Fox, keep on doing what you're doing! Here's the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111102257.html
On Election Night, Tom and I first went to Mick Kelley's Irish Pub in Burien where a contingent of people from the 33rd and 11th Legislative Districts watched the Election Night speeches on the big screen. John McCain gave a very gracious concession speech and I believe him when he says he will support Obama. When Obama gave his victory speech, Tom and I sobbed. We both grew up during the Civil Rights era. One of the first corporations I worked for after I graduated from college was under a consent decree because of systemic discrimination against women and people of color, and for years proactively hired women and people of color under court order. However, this didn't stop the discrimination that happened once women and people of color were hired. I ended up filing an EEO complaint against the company for gender discrimination and won a promotion and back pay. I consistently saw white men of mediocre talent get promoted over women and people of color of greater ability. When I filed my EEO complaint, women and people of color who rightfully should have been promoted finally got the promotions and pay increases they deserved. At the time, I was 26 years old. Another friend of mine filed a sexual harassment complaint; she too won her complaint as there was concrete evidence of the harassment. But there were many people who were discriminated against who felt powerless, who felt that if they stood up against those in power, that they might lose their jobs. So they put up with the discrimination.
That experience in a sense informed my decision to become a diversity trainer. I have always been interested in issues of social justice. I can remember as early as fifth grade reading books about civil rights and being moved by these stories. I decided rather than sit on the sidelines and bemoan the situation, I wanted to do something about. Originally I became an actor in a diversity theatre company, performing plays about institutionalized racism and facilitating discussions afterwards. Great experience. Afterwards, I worked with several diversity consulting firms and facilitated workshops in corporations throughout the country about workplace diversity. I've also worked with the Anti-Defamation League, working with schools on prejudice reduction and with Green River Community College as an adjunct instructor, teaching Multiculturalism and Anti-Bias in Education.
When I think back to the struggle of women and people of color in our society, and now look at how far we've come, with Hillary Clinton as a viable candidate and Barack Obama as our president-elect, I feel that the battles that many of us have waged have been worth it. The younger generation does not view race in the same way that older people view it, and I believe a lot of that is due to education, and how educators really are taught to not bring their biases into the classroom. There is a strong focus on anti-bias education, and has been for a long time now. And it was that all-important youth vote that was critical in Obama's victory.
I read a great article today. It talked about how Fox News is really helping the Democratic party. By preaching their hate, anti-Muslim rhetoric, and anti-intellectual rants, they push away moderates from the Republican party to the Democratic party so that the only ones left are the hard right, low education voters. Yea, Fox, keep on doing what you're doing! Here's the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111102257.html
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sarah Palin Does Not Value Diversity
One thing that really struck me when watching the two political conventions was that the Democratic Convention was very inclusive. You had young and old, all different ethnicities, people with disabilities. Forty-four percent of the delegates were people of color. What a great representation of our country!
As I watched the Republican Convention, I really had to search the crowd to find a person of color. I also had to search the crowd to find someone under 55. Seriously. It looked like a senior citizen's convention. A white senior citizen's convention.
I remember one Republican pundit saying that they don't have quotas and that's why the Democratic Convention has more people of color. Well, I was part of the caucuses here in Washington State, and we do have goals in order to be more inclusive but guess what? We met most of our goals during the regular caucuses. Meaning, during the Congressional District Caucuses, when the national delegates were elected, we voted for a diverse delegation. Diverse in terms of age, race, sexual orientation, gender and disability status. You see, Democrats are inclusive! We don't limit our delegates to a select group of European-American, upper-middle-class 60-year-olds.
So what does this have to do with Sarah Palin? Apparently, she has absolutely no relationship with the African-American community in Alaska and has not returned any phone calls from one of the African-American leaders in Alaska. She doesn't feel it's important. Check out these two blogs:
http://freerangewriting.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-and-divesity-representation.html
http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-african-americans-in.html
Clearly, we can see where she stands in terms of her relationship with people of color.
As I watched the Republican Convention, I really had to search the crowd to find a person of color. I also had to search the crowd to find someone under 55. Seriously. It looked like a senior citizen's convention. A white senior citizen's convention.
I remember one Republican pundit saying that they don't have quotas and that's why the Democratic Convention has more people of color. Well, I was part of the caucuses here in Washington State, and we do have goals in order to be more inclusive but guess what? We met most of our goals during the regular caucuses. Meaning, during the Congressional District Caucuses, when the national delegates were elected, we voted for a diverse delegation. Diverse in terms of age, race, sexual orientation, gender and disability status. You see, Democrats are inclusive! We don't limit our delegates to a select group of European-American, upper-middle-class 60-year-olds.
So what does this have to do with Sarah Palin? Apparently, she has absolutely no relationship with the African-American community in Alaska and has not returned any phone calls from one of the African-American leaders in Alaska. She doesn't feel it's important. Check out these two blogs:
http://freerangewriting.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-and-divesity-representation.html
http://electronicvillage.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-african-americans-in.html
Clearly, we can see where she stands in terms of her relationship with people of color.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Politics of Spin
This morning I was watching "Meet the Press", as I do every Sunday morning at 6:00 AM. Boy, the Republicans sure know how to spin an answer.
Rudy Giuliani was being interviewed by Tom Brokaw, and Brokaw was hitting him with some pretty tough questions. First of all, he showed a clip of McCain promising to run a respectful campaign, followed by a recent attack ad in which the McCain campaign states that Obama's only accomplishment in education is providing sex education to kindergarteners! Which is not only patently false (Obama did not sponsor the bill, and the bill is about teaching K-12 children how to avoid sexual predators), Giuliani goes on to blame Obama for McCain's negative ads, saying that McCain wouldn't have to do negative ads if Obama had agreed to town hall meetings!
Then he defends his sarcastic and condescending remark about community organizing in his RNC speech. He turned it around by saying he was referring to how little a record Obama had in community organizing. Sorry Rudy, we all heard what you said. That is NOT what you said. You sneered. You said, "Community organizing". Then you laughed and said, "Yeah," in a mocking tone. It had nothing to do with his record. You were just being an asshole. Then he went on and on about him being the most liberal senator, blah, blah, blah.
When asked about the "bubba" vote, and the impact of those who may not be emotionally prepared to vote for a black man, he answered it very superficially, saying he knows John McCain and he knows that John McCain doesn't want people to vote for him because of race. I call BS on that comment too, because so many ads from the McCain campaign subtly and not-so-subtly paint a picture of the Obamas as "other", trying to appeal to those racist voters who are not comfortable voting for an African-American. And then there are the conservative groups and scurrilous emails that have perpetuated rumors about the Obamas--that portray Michelle Obama as the "angry black woman" or Barack Obama as a Muslim, or an innocent fist bump as a "terrorist fist jab", or the rantings of their pastor as somehow reflective of their views. What I don't understand is why isn't the media looping the story about Todd Palin's ties to a secessionist party? Why isn't the media airing the story about Sarah Palin's pastor saying that any critic of George W. Bush and his policies will burn in hell? Why is there a double standard when it comes to coverage on Republican candidates and Democratic candidates? Liberal bias, my a**! The media is owned by corporations.
We deserve to know about Sarah Palin. This sequestering of Sarah Palin is ludicrous. It should be clear to EVERYONE by now that she does not know anything about foreign policy. She is being hidden from the press because she is not able to answer questions on the fly and the McCain campaign is terrified that she is going to make a fool of herself. She already made a fool of herself in the Charlie Gibson interview when she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. Some people may argue, "Well, so what, not everyone knows what the Bush Doctrine is." Yes, but SHE is running for Vice-President. SHE should know what it is. Clearly that was not one of the things she was PREPPED on. The Vice-Presidential job is not something ygu study for like a test. You need to be prepared, and clearly she knows NOTHING about foreign policy in a time when we are engaged in not one but TWO wars! She says her foreign policy experience is about ENERGY! Give me a break! And then Giuliani tries to defend that position by skirting the issue and saying that it's about her executive experience? What, her part-time position as mayor of a podunk town of 6,000 people and governor of Alaska for less than two years, where she is under investigation for abuse of power? Come on, do you really think we're that stupid?
Please use your vote wisely. This election is way too important to waste it. The McCain/Palin ticket is not about change. The choice of Palin was a calculated move to bring evangelical Christians to the ticket and hopefully women; however, many women realize that Palin does not share their views when it comes to women's reproductive rights. Obama and Biden have a record of supporting women's rights.
This election really matters. It really matters. We can do this.
Rudy Giuliani was being interviewed by Tom Brokaw, and Brokaw was hitting him with some pretty tough questions. First of all, he showed a clip of McCain promising to run a respectful campaign, followed by a recent attack ad in which the McCain campaign states that Obama's only accomplishment in education is providing sex education to kindergarteners! Which is not only patently false (Obama did not sponsor the bill, and the bill is about teaching K-12 children how to avoid sexual predators), Giuliani goes on to blame Obama for McCain's negative ads, saying that McCain wouldn't have to do negative ads if Obama had agreed to town hall meetings!
Then he defends his sarcastic and condescending remark about community organizing in his RNC speech. He turned it around by saying he was referring to how little a record Obama had in community organizing. Sorry Rudy, we all heard what you said. That is NOT what you said. You sneered. You said, "Community organizing". Then you laughed and said, "Yeah," in a mocking tone. It had nothing to do with his record. You were just being an asshole. Then he went on and on about him being the most liberal senator, blah, blah, blah.
When asked about the "bubba" vote, and the impact of those who may not be emotionally prepared to vote for a black man, he answered it very superficially, saying he knows John McCain and he knows that John McCain doesn't want people to vote for him because of race. I call BS on that comment too, because so many ads from the McCain campaign subtly and not-so-subtly paint a picture of the Obamas as "other", trying to appeal to those racist voters who are not comfortable voting for an African-American. And then there are the conservative groups and scurrilous emails that have perpetuated rumors about the Obamas--that portray Michelle Obama as the "angry black woman" or Barack Obama as a Muslim, or an innocent fist bump as a "terrorist fist jab", or the rantings of their pastor as somehow reflective of their views. What I don't understand is why isn't the media looping the story about Todd Palin's ties to a secessionist party? Why isn't the media airing the story about Sarah Palin's pastor saying that any critic of George W. Bush and his policies will burn in hell? Why is there a double standard when it comes to coverage on Republican candidates and Democratic candidates? Liberal bias, my a**! The media is owned by corporations.
We deserve to know about Sarah Palin. This sequestering of Sarah Palin is ludicrous. It should be clear to EVERYONE by now that she does not know anything about foreign policy. She is being hidden from the press because she is not able to answer questions on the fly and the McCain campaign is terrified that she is going to make a fool of herself. She already made a fool of herself in the Charlie Gibson interview when she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. Some people may argue, "Well, so what, not everyone knows what the Bush Doctrine is." Yes, but SHE is running for Vice-President. SHE should know what it is. Clearly that was not one of the things she was PREPPED on. The Vice-Presidential job is not something ygu study for like a test. You need to be prepared, and clearly she knows NOTHING about foreign policy in a time when we are engaged in not one but TWO wars! She says her foreign policy experience is about ENERGY! Give me a break! And then Giuliani tries to defend that position by skirting the issue and saying that it's about her executive experience? What, her part-time position as mayor of a podunk town of 6,000 people and governor of Alaska for less than two years, where she is under investigation for abuse of power? Come on, do you really think we're that stupid?
Please use your vote wisely. This election is way too important to waste it. The McCain/Palin ticket is not about change. The choice of Palin was a calculated move to bring evangelical Christians to the ticket and hopefully women; however, many women realize that Palin does not share their views when it comes to women's reproductive rights. Obama and Biden have a record of supporting women's rights.
This election really matters. It really matters. We can do this.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Register to vote! Educate yourself!
This election REALLY MATTERS this year. If you are not registered to vote, you can do so easily online at the following website:
http://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php?source=091008emailR#
It will take you less than three minutes and you'll even be able to register to vote absentee. I vote absentee because I don't have to worry about how to get to the polls, I get my voters pamphlet early, and I have time to peruse it and decide how I'm going to vote at my leisure before Election Day.
Also, it is VERY important to inform yourself. Watch the news. Read as much as you can. Educate yourself. Don't believe scurrilous rumors. Don't vote for someone because they seem like they'd be nice to have a beer with. Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who truly understands the issues. Vote for someone who you feel truly has your best interests in mind.
http://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php?source=091008emailR#
It will take you less than three minutes and you'll even be able to register to vote absentee. I vote absentee because I don't have to worry about how to get to the polls, I get my voters pamphlet early, and I have time to peruse it and decide how I'm going to vote at my leisure before Election Day.
Also, it is VERY important to inform yourself. Watch the news. Read as much as you can. Educate yourself. Don't believe scurrilous rumors. Don't vote for someone because they seem like they'd be nice to have a beer with. Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who truly understands the issues. Vote for someone who you feel truly has your best interests in mind.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
The culture wars reignited
What has become clear from the Republican National Convention is that John McCain used his surrogates to reignite the culture wars. Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin went on the attack and viciously tore into Senator Obama, throwing out the "red meat" for the party faithful in St. Paul to dig their fangs in. They were sarcastic and condescending. Mean.
Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin invoked the term "community organizing" with utter disdain--indeed, Giuliani laughed and repeated it to the crowd as if to say, "Yeah, can you believe it, community organizing." Do they care that the civil rights movement was the ultimate community organizing? Or the women's movement? Or women's suffrage? Or the American Red Cross? Or the United Way? And it takes RESPONSIBILITY? Oh yeah, it's not that they don't care, THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.
Mitt Romney went on stage and kept on drawing contrasts between LIBERAL values and CONSERVATIVE values and how we need to return to CONSERVATIVE values, and blah blah blah. Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. It is YOUR Conservative party and Conservative values that got us into this mess that we're in now by voting for Bush not ONCE but TWICE. TWICE! UNBELIEVABLE! They voted for someone with conservative values and who they were comfortable having a beer with--and he's now the butt of jokes and disrespected by international leaders. People are sick and tired of the right wing evangelicals hijacking and dividing this country by taking their extremist stands on social issues and forcing them on the rest of us. Not this time Mitt, not this time.
And Sarah Palin. The fact that she came out of nowhere, and after ONE speech, the Republicans say, "She is one of us!" Yet Barack Obama has been giving speeches for 20 months, gave probably one of the most historic speeches on race in the history of our country, and people are STILL saying, "We still don't know him." Yeah, right.
John Ridley wrote a great blog about the glaring double standards that exist in these campaigns that I have to share. You'll get a kick out of them:
The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage Vol. 2 - The People's Edition
John Ridley
This is the Vol. 2 of The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage. I'm calling this one the People's Edition because you, the people, have obviously been taking AP courses in talking Conservative. I've been slammed with responses. Enough that I can promise you there will be future volumes. Along with some of mine, I've mixed in a few of yours for everybody's linguistic pleasure.
Before we start, I'd like to note that I intimated in Vol. 1 that English is a Latin based language. Hondorf was among a few others who pointed out that English is "primarily German based, yes, but it is really a hybrid of Germanic and Romantic languages . . . by the way, I am a redneck."
Clearly, none of us should judge a neck by its color.
A reminder, we're collecting Palinisms here, and over at That Minority Thing.com. If you've got 'em, send 'em.
Ready? Let's begin!
If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you're a "phoney." Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you're "well loved."
SoyAA says: If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to "get to know you." If you're white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you're "one of us."
If you give your wife a dap on stage, it's actually a "terrorist fist jab." If your daughter licks her palm so that she can slick down your youngest child's hair on national TV it's an "adorable moment." (Seriously, forget about abstinence only, teach these folks some grooming skills).
DTD SAYS: If your pastor rails against inequality in the United States of America, you're an "extremist." If your pastor welcomes a sermon by a member of Jews for Jesus who preaches that the killing of Jews by terrorists is a lesson to Jews that they must convert to Christianity, you're a "fundamentalist."
If you're a black man and you use a scholarship to get into college, then work your way up to being the president of the Harvard Law Review, you're "uppity." If you're a conservative and your parents pay your way to Hawaii Pacific University . . . you only have four more schools to attend over the next five years before you somehow manage to graduate (it might be five more schools over the next five years. No one has yet verified whether or not Palin was actually ever registered at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. But, you know how shady people are who ever attended any kind of school in Hawaii).
SeanOcali says: If you're 18, white, and get a 16 year old girl pregnant "life happens." If you're 18, black, and impregnate a 16 year old girl, you're a "registered sex offender."
If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of "Change," it's just "empty rhetoric." If one week before your party's national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about "Change," that's "red meat."
And your last lesson for the day:
If you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a moderate Republican, if you're female, male, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, bi-racial, multi-ethnic, or GLBT, if you're a Jew, Gentile, Muslim, agnostic or atheist -- "Yes, we can!"
If you're a pitbull with lipstick from Alaska, "Yup, yup!"
Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin invoked the term "community organizing" with utter disdain--indeed, Giuliani laughed and repeated it to the crowd as if to say, "Yeah, can you believe it, community organizing." Do they care that the civil rights movement was the ultimate community organizing? Or the women's movement? Or women's suffrage? Or the American Red Cross? Or the United Way? And it takes RESPONSIBILITY? Oh yeah, it's not that they don't care, THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.
Mitt Romney went on stage and kept on drawing contrasts between LIBERAL values and CONSERVATIVE values and how we need to return to CONSERVATIVE values, and blah blah blah. Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. It is YOUR Conservative party and Conservative values that got us into this mess that we're in now by voting for Bush not ONCE but TWICE. TWICE! UNBELIEVABLE! They voted for someone with conservative values and who they were comfortable having a beer with--and he's now the butt of jokes and disrespected by international leaders. People are sick and tired of the right wing evangelicals hijacking and dividing this country by taking their extremist stands on social issues and forcing them on the rest of us. Not this time Mitt, not this time.
And Sarah Palin. The fact that she came out of nowhere, and after ONE speech, the Republicans say, "She is one of us!" Yet Barack Obama has been giving speeches for 20 months, gave probably one of the most historic speeches on race in the history of our country, and people are STILL saying, "We still don't know him." Yeah, right.
John Ridley wrote a great blog about the glaring double standards that exist in these campaigns that I have to share. You'll get a kick out of them:
The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage Vol. 2 - The People's Edition
John Ridley
This is the Vol. 2 of The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage. I'm calling this one the People's Edition because you, the people, have obviously been taking AP courses in talking Conservative. I've been slammed with responses. Enough that I can promise you there will be future volumes. Along with some of mine, I've mixed in a few of yours for everybody's linguistic pleasure.
Before we start, I'd like to note that I intimated in Vol. 1 that English is a Latin based language. Hondorf was among a few others who pointed out that English is "primarily German based, yes, but it is really a hybrid of Germanic and Romantic languages . . . by the way, I am a redneck."
Clearly, none of us should judge a neck by its color.
A reminder, we're collecting Palinisms here, and over at That Minority Thing.com. If you've got 'em, send 'em.
Ready? Let's begin!
If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you're a "phoney." Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you're "well loved."
SoyAA says: If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to "get to know you." If you're white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you're "one of us."
If you give your wife a dap on stage, it's actually a "terrorist fist jab." If your daughter licks her palm so that she can slick down your youngest child's hair on national TV it's an "adorable moment." (Seriously, forget about abstinence only, teach these folks some grooming skills).
DTD SAYS: If your pastor rails against inequality in the United States of America, you're an "extremist." If your pastor welcomes a sermon by a member of Jews for Jesus who preaches that the killing of Jews by terrorists is a lesson to Jews that they must convert to Christianity, you're a "fundamentalist."
If you're a black man and you use a scholarship to get into college, then work your way up to being the president of the Harvard Law Review, you're "uppity." If you're a conservative and your parents pay your way to Hawaii Pacific University . . . you only have four more schools to attend over the next five years before you somehow manage to graduate (it might be five more schools over the next five years. No one has yet verified whether or not Palin was actually ever registered at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. But, you know how shady people are who ever attended any kind of school in Hawaii).
SeanOcali says: If you're 18, white, and get a 16 year old girl pregnant "life happens." If you're 18, black, and impregnate a 16 year old girl, you're a "registered sex offender."
If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of "Change," it's just "empty rhetoric." If one week before your party's national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about "Change," that's "red meat."
And your last lesson for the day:
If you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a moderate Republican, if you're female, male, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, bi-racial, multi-ethnic, or GLBT, if you're a Jew, Gentile, Muslim, agnostic or atheist -- "Yes, we can!"
If you're a pitbull with lipstick from Alaska, "Yup, yup!"
Friday, September 05, 2008
Sarah Palin amateur hour
I just finished watching a video on MSNBC of Sarah Palin giving a speech in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. She did not have the luxury of a teleprompter while giving her speech. This woman was not only READING her speech, but she was using her finger to follow where she was on the page!!!! WTF? And this is what we want from a Vice-President? If she is so ready, shouldn't she just be able to speak about why she feels John McCain is the best man for the job? I don't recall Joe Biden looking at notes when he was introduced in Springfield. When I saw Senator Obama in Seattle, he spoke for at least an hour at Key Arena and he had NO NOTES. If she is being handed a piece of paper to read, hell, any news reporter could do that! I've done a ton of voice over and acting work--I could do that! Anyone who can read without making a mistake and make it sound halfway decent (which is more than I can say for John McCain) can do that! But Sarah, please, please don't use your finger to keep your place on the page! It looks so, so very elementary school!
It's clear why the McCain campaign isn't allowing Palin to go in front of the press by herself. They are deathly afraid she will say something wrong, not be able to answer questions, make a fool of herself. They know that she knows nothing about foreign policy. They know she is not ready. They are playing games and they know it. The only people who love her are the right-wing evangelicals. Even the mainstream Republicans think she is the biggest risk in political history.
It's clear why the McCain campaign isn't allowing Palin to go in front of the press by herself. They are deathly afraid she will say something wrong, not be able to answer questions, make a fool of herself. They know that she knows nothing about foreign policy. They know she is not ready. They are playing games and they know it. The only people who love her are the right-wing evangelicals. Even the mainstream Republicans think she is the biggest risk in political history.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Obama Arrogant? No, McCain is the Arrogant One
The media narrative now is that Obama is "arrogant" and "presumptuous". He is being compared by the McCain campaign to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton--as a mere celebrity, shallow with nothing of substance inside.
Of course, many of us see the barely veiled meaning in these code words...Obama does not know his place. How dare he go to Berlin and speak as if were president! Who does he think he is? Who is this uppity young black man? HOW DARE HE?!?!
I decided to share one of the best articles I've read about this whole phenomenon. It's by Paul Jenkins and it really lays out what I believe has been going on for the past 18 months--first of all in the primaries and now in the general election in terms of the way Senator Obama has been treated and also how he has been perceived.
Obama Still Does Not Know His Place
Paul Jenkins
When Barack Obama started running for president, he was widely described as arrogant for daring to take on the Clintons after just two years in the Senate, despite the fact that polling at the time showed him to be the only threat to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
Eighteen-months later, we are told by the McCain campaign and its traditional media parrots that Obama is at risk of looking "presumptuous" for his recent trip abroad, even as he has registered a small but significant bounce in the polls upon his return, presumably for doing what most of us expect of a presidential candidate.
The man who slayed Democratic royalty, who has raised more money than any political campaign in US history, drawn record-breaking crowds in the US and abroad, who has been ahead of John McCain since widespread general election polling began four months ago, this man is presumptuous for thinking he has a good shot at becoming president and should therefore get to know his potential counterparts and visit the sites of US military activity?
Most candidates Obama's age will be charged sooner or later with youthful conceit for taking on their elders, no matter how guilty those elders are of mismanaging the country. It happened to some extent to Bill Clinton, and surely to others before him. However, it is hard not to see in the ongoing attitude towards this presidential frontrunner, just three months before the election, something more uncomfortable that is not simply a matter of age, but one of race.
Throughout the primary there was a growing sense of disbelief in the Clinton camp that this young'un (older than Bill was in 1991 when he started running, mind you) really thought he had a shot at this. Bill, in particular, showed little patience for Obama's "fairy tale" campaign, eventually going ballistic because, in his own version of "some of my best friends are," he did not understand that even he, whose office is in Harlem, may be condescending towards African-Americans, and towards this African-American in particular. Perhaps more perniciously, some long-time African-American political and business leaders joined in with some of the worst stereotyping of the campaign, seemingly upset at the upstart who dared to go where most of them had not.
Now McCain is recycling some version of this superciliousness, heavily aided by a traditional media still so easily scared into thinking it is not tough enough on Obama. McCain can hardly hide his rage at this uppity kid who thinks he can hobnob with world leaders just as he does -- who thinks he has more judgment than a septuagenerian war-mongering former prisoner of war. And who sees no reason to wait his turn when barely 1 in 10 Americans think the country is on the right track, thanks to his elders' enlightened leadership. In a weird echo of the Clinton attacks, McCain smirks his way through one sarcastic comment after another, his face twisted in hatred and disbelief. Not only is Obama "presumptuous," he also "doesn't understand." It is never clear what Obama doesn't understand since he actually has not gotten his facts or, so far, his analysis wrong, as opposed to McCain whose errors in fact and in judgment are so numerous as to make one wonder where he has been for the past 20 years (poring over Cold War era reports on Czechoslovakia? Hanging out at the Iraq-Pakistan border? Plotting to bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran?). McCain is the most arrogant of Senators (not a light charge), yet even by his standards the tone he adopts towards Obama is so densely patronizing that here too it is hard to dismiss it as purely a matter of age gap. McCain's joke of an economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, is now also laying it on thick: she is glad that Obama is consulting with experts. This from the woman who nearly ran a Fortune 100 company into the ground and whose candidate knows so little about economic issues after three decades in Congress that Fiorina is reduced to repeating that McCain "has been understanding [economic issues] for months."
That Obama is actually able to listen to facts, absorb them and analyze them should be a good thing. We assume that those skills came in handy throughout his life, not least at Harvard, where he graduated near top of his law school class. This, of course, now makes him an elitist, as he would not be expected by the old DC guard to possess any such competence (charisma perhaps, analytical ability no.) Both McCain (894th out of 899 at Annapolis) and George W. Bush revel in their under-achieving school days, as if this made these scions of hyper-privilege any closer to real people. This tactic clearly succeeded well enough for Bush to be elected president twice, and McCain to be nominated once. But there is a sense that American voters may not be taken in again and that they may actually enjoy as president someone who isn't an inbred moron or a senile fratboy.
Obama's partner in elitism, his wife Michelle, is in extreme tongue-biting mode. This is a shame, but it is inevitable, as she too is under the kind of scrutiny that would make Cindy McCain's face melt back into some approximation of reality. It is widely understood that Obama is more deserving of close examination than McCain because she is more actively involved in her husband's campaign than Cindy is. This of course is a lie: McCain has campaigned extensively for her husband and, were it not for her family fortune and her private jet, he wouldn't even have come close to being nominated. The truth is that Obama is expected to play a certain role: strong, angry, overbearing, and every one of her statements is demeaningly parsed in that light. If every word uttered by McCain were analyzed and reported to fit the stereotype of the rich, spoilt, husband-stealing white woman that she is, all would be fair. But instead, we get adoring glances, little examination of her actual role and an occasional hiccup about Michelle Obama's lack of patriotism.
What angers John McCain and bemuses many traditional observers is how unflappable Barack Obama remains in public, no matter how condescending the attacks. There is little doubt that the thick skin he grew over decades came in handy as he started to run for president. The past 18 months surely were not the first time Obama was baited for being black, for being white, for being Muslim, or for not being from "here," and it must be fascinating, although not unexpected, for him to see these patronizing attitudes resurface at this stage of his life. For the rest of us, what is fascinating is to witness how these old-school mindsets are backfiring on those who hold them, making them look less wise, more prejudiced, less fit to lead and altogether completely unappealing. And to witness that in America in 2008, it is perhaps not a bad thing not to know your place.
Of course, many of us see the barely veiled meaning in these code words...Obama does not know his place. How dare he go to Berlin and speak as if were president! Who does he think he is? Who is this uppity young black man? HOW DARE HE?!?!
I decided to share one of the best articles I've read about this whole phenomenon. It's by Paul Jenkins and it really lays out what I believe has been going on for the past 18 months--first of all in the primaries and now in the general election in terms of the way Senator Obama has been treated and also how he has been perceived.
Obama Still Does Not Know His Place
Paul Jenkins
When Barack Obama started running for president, he was widely described as arrogant for daring to take on the Clintons after just two years in the Senate, despite the fact that polling at the time showed him to be the only threat to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
Eighteen-months later, we are told by the McCain campaign and its traditional media parrots that Obama is at risk of looking "presumptuous" for his recent trip abroad, even as he has registered a small but significant bounce in the polls upon his return, presumably for doing what most of us expect of a presidential candidate.
The man who slayed Democratic royalty, who has raised more money than any political campaign in US history, drawn record-breaking crowds in the US and abroad, who has been ahead of John McCain since widespread general election polling began four months ago, this man is presumptuous for thinking he has a good shot at becoming president and should therefore get to know his potential counterparts and visit the sites of US military activity?
Most candidates Obama's age will be charged sooner or later with youthful conceit for taking on their elders, no matter how guilty those elders are of mismanaging the country. It happened to some extent to Bill Clinton, and surely to others before him. However, it is hard not to see in the ongoing attitude towards this presidential frontrunner, just three months before the election, something more uncomfortable that is not simply a matter of age, but one of race.
Throughout the primary there was a growing sense of disbelief in the Clinton camp that this young'un (older than Bill was in 1991 when he started running, mind you) really thought he had a shot at this. Bill, in particular, showed little patience for Obama's "fairy tale" campaign, eventually going ballistic because, in his own version of "some of my best friends are," he did not understand that even he, whose office is in Harlem, may be condescending towards African-Americans, and towards this African-American in particular. Perhaps more perniciously, some long-time African-American political and business leaders joined in with some of the worst stereotyping of the campaign, seemingly upset at the upstart who dared to go where most of them had not.
Now McCain is recycling some version of this superciliousness, heavily aided by a traditional media still so easily scared into thinking it is not tough enough on Obama. McCain can hardly hide his rage at this uppity kid who thinks he can hobnob with world leaders just as he does -- who thinks he has more judgment than a septuagenerian war-mongering former prisoner of war. And who sees no reason to wait his turn when barely 1 in 10 Americans think the country is on the right track, thanks to his elders' enlightened leadership. In a weird echo of the Clinton attacks, McCain smirks his way through one sarcastic comment after another, his face twisted in hatred and disbelief. Not only is Obama "presumptuous," he also "doesn't understand." It is never clear what Obama doesn't understand since he actually has not gotten his facts or, so far, his analysis wrong, as opposed to McCain whose errors in fact and in judgment are so numerous as to make one wonder where he has been for the past 20 years (poring over Cold War era reports on Czechoslovakia? Hanging out at the Iraq-Pakistan border? Plotting to bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran?). McCain is the most arrogant of Senators (not a light charge), yet even by his standards the tone he adopts towards Obama is so densely patronizing that here too it is hard to dismiss it as purely a matter of age gap. McCain's joke of an economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, is now also laying it on thick: she is glad that Obama is consulting with experts. This from the woman who nearly ran a Fortune 100 company into the ground and whose candidate knows so little about economic issues after three decades in Congress that Fiorina is reduced to repeating that McCain "has been understanding [economic issues] for months."
That Obama is actually able to listen to facts, absorb them and analyze them should be a good thing. We assume that those skills came in handy throughout his life, not least at Harvard, where he graduated near top of his law school class. This, of course, now makes him an elitist, as he would not be expected by the old DC guard to possess any such competence (charisma perhaps, analytical ability no.) Both McCain (894th out of 899 at Annapolis) and George W. Bush revel in their under-achieving school days, as if this made these scions of hyper-privilege any closer to real people. This tactic clearly succeeded well enough for Bush to be elected president twice, and McCain to be nominated once. But there is a sense that American voters may not be taken in again and that they may actually enjoy as president someone who isn't an inbred moron or a senile fratboy.
Obama's partner in elitism, his wife Michelle, is in extreme tongue-biting mode. This is a shame, but it is inevitable, as she too is under the kind of scrutiny that would make Cindy McCain's face melt back into some approximation of reality. It is widely understood that Obama is more deserving of close examination than McCain because she is more actively involved in her husband's campaign than Cindy is. This of course is a lie: McCain has campaigned extensively for her husband and, were it not for her family fortune and her private jet, he wouldn't even have come close to being nominated. The truth is that Obama is expected to play a certain role: strong, angry, overbearing, and every one of her statements is demeaningly parsed in that light. If every word uttered by McCain were analyzed and reported to fit the stereotype of the rich, spoilt, husband-stealing white woman that she is, all would be fair. But instead, we get adoring glances, little examination of her actual role and an occasional hiccup about Michelle Obama's lack of patriotism.
What angers John McCain and bemuses many traditional observers is how unflappable Barack Obama remains in public, no matter how condescending the attacks. There is little doubt that the thick skin he grew over decades came in handy as he started to run for president. The past 18 months surely were not the first time Obama was baited for being black, for being white, for being Muslim, or for not being from "here," and it must be fascinating, although not unexpected, for him to see these patronizing attitudes resurface at this stage of his life. For the rest of us, what is fascinating is to witness how these old-school mindsets are backfiring on those who hold them, making them look less wise, more prejudiced, less fit to lead and altogether completely unappealing. And to witness that in America in 2008, it is perhaps not a bad thing not to know your place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)