lainad's blog

Post-Halloween Commentary....Whassup With Blackface?

2009-11-05T06:54:37-06:00

Warning: Rant alert

First, I have to say that I had a lovely 'Halloween.' Because I live in a high-rise, all the kids are regulated to going to the mangement office to pick up their candy, so no knocking on my door. I went out for a couple of drinks with friends, talked about business journalism and American politics, went home, did a bit of writing and was in bed by 10. At my age and because I do not have a house to throw a party, I find dressing up kinda pointless.

On Monday, I was tagged via Facebook by a friend who urged me and some of her other friends to check out a post she had written. Entering a rather large drugstore chain in Canada, she noticed that one of the costumes that she noticed the store was selling was a "Rasta Man" outfit:

Retailers have been selling dreadlocks wigs, Bob Marley costumes etc for years, but I found the image on this packaging to be particularly offensive. Why is the Black man wearing the wig also wearing a bone necklace? Why does he have tribal markings on his face? If you went to a Halloween party and saw a person dressed up as this "Rasta Mon" would you not be offended? Prince Harry dressed up as a Nazi soldier a few years ago, and he was publicly rebuked.

I believe that the costume that ________Mart is selling is just as offensive as it would be to squint one's eyes and be "Asian grocer" or wear a prosthetic nose and be "Jewish banker". They wouldn't dare sell an image with a swastika on it so why is it acceptable for them to sell an image such as the one in the picture above? It's just not ok. It's not about the locs, the bone necklace or the "tribal" markings, it's about the way in which they've been put together to represent a "rasta mon". Sell a "dreadlock" wig, but why one with that particular image?
I contacted _______Mart to voice my concern and was less than impressed with their response. (see below).

Here is the response:

Thank you for writing to us....... One of the great underlying perils of merchandising and retailing, regardless of diligent testing for possible hidden, offensive, or unintended messages, it may be interpreted that a product is unsuitable for the general public. To refuse to sell a product that one takes issue with would clearly be a form of censorship on our part which is a position we will not take.

Thank you for your feedback. We will continue to monitor your concern and make any necessary adjustments.

Say what?

They don't sell Porn, do they?

One of the things ( many things) that continues to boggle my mind is how the opinions (or facts) that people of color raise when they object to offensive images, are always symbolically trumped by people who most likely, have never had any personal experience with being objectified because of their ethnicity.

In essence, we do not have control over stopping hyper-characterized images. There is this assumption that we can be mocked and we do not have any say over the mockery. In essence ( and because of the vitriol that we get after a public complaint), we are supposed to bend over and take it up the.....If the, ahem, 'majority' thinks it's funny and not offensive then gosh golly gee, I guess 'dat whut it is, massa.

But this shit happens every Halloween. After all, Halloween is no longer an evening where kids dress up and get some free junk food, encouraging the onset of juvenile diabetes; it signifies a time when grown-ass men and women can act out their ignorant and racial resentment. White girls can act "ghetto" and people laugh. And some sorry fools feel that they can dress up like President Obama and Michael Jackson.

It's not funny.

We are supposed to guffaw and brush it off our shoulders, but when a large store essentially says 'f$%k you' when you make a legitimate complaint, Halloween doesn't seem so much like fun anymore.

However, there have been a number of pre-Halloween incidents that lead me to believe that this blackface is not just about 'Trickin' and Treatin' but more about how 'post-racial our world has become. Umm, no so much.

Minh-Ha T. Pham over at Threadbared writes about a photo layout in the October 2009 issue of French Vogue. Now to be fair, any publicity is good publicity is good for those who need to sell their overpriced garments. But this 'ish is tired, yo:

".....(S)ome are defending French Vogue for its provocativeness ("creative images . . . can sometimes [be] off-putting") and for its postracialism (arguing that it is "sort of beautiful in that having a person of one ethnic background look convincingly like she might be of another race shows the interconnectedness of us all"). But what is on display in French Vogue and on Diez's runway is not beautiful black bodies, but what Nirmal Puwar describes as "the universal empty point" that white female bodies are able to occupy precisely because their bodies are racially unmarked: "[Thus] they can play with the assigned particularity of ethnicized dress without suffering the 'violence of revulsion.'"

Yeah, okay. In a time when black models struggle to find work, they take a white chick and throw some paint on?

Harry Connick got a mixed response when he put his foot down in Australia, who pleaded ignorance:

Dr Anand Deva, the frontman of the Jackson Jive act, which also included a man with white make-up on his face playing Michael Jackson, said they had not meant to cause offence.

"We've spent so much time trying to not make black people look like buffoons, that when we see something like that we take it really to heart." Harry Connick Jr .

I see where Connick was going with this, but even this quote is questionable.

And Tyra, Tyra, Tyra, who as an African-American should pick up a history book, also put her foot in a pile of....when her show, America's Top Model foolishly decided to 'darken up' her model contestants.

I added a comment to my friend's Facebook page that she should publicize the costume situation. Contact a reporter or pitch a story yourself, I urged. However, Halloween is over and people are concerned about Christmas- and most likely, people will not be outraged by this story. I am going to stop shopping at the drug store out of protest, and I'm sure many of her friends will, too. I don't think this is enough. But if we scream from the rooftops, will anyone really listen?

Or care?

I don't think so.

Newsweek Targets Angelina and Brad's Daughter Zahara.......Over Her Hair?

2009-10-29T18:56:05-05:00

Ahh, black hair.

Why there is so much pain and frustration surrounding not just how a black woman chooses to wear her hair, but how other's perceive us because of our hair, it really makes me wonder about human beings.

I'm not being dismissive, because I have to check myself from judging others everyday. After putting in a weave earlier this year and taking it out a few months later, I have realized how much how you wear your hair really says to the outside world. You might dismiss it, declaring 'It's my choice' and yes, it is, and no you shouldn't care what other's think. But it does matter.

Recently two great examples of how black hair is viewed in the larger society became present in the media. The first was Chris Rock's documentary Good Hair and the second was an article that came out a couple of weeks ago and a follow-up article a couple of days ago from Newsweek's Allison Samuels, who took actor Angelina Jolie to task because apparently Jolie is letting her adopted 4 year-old daughter Zahara's hair go 'nappy':

In recent pictures it's clear Angelina Jolie hasn’t taken the time to learn or understand the long and painful history of African-American women and hair. If she had I can’t imagine she would continue to allow Zahara to look like she has in the past few months. Photos of Zahara show the 4-year-old girl sporting hair that is wild and unstyled, uncombed and dry. Basically: a “hot mess.’’

Now before I go on to the thousands of blogs who have tore Samuels a new one for this article, from reading the first piece, what Samuels seems to be saying is not what I expected when I first heard about this story. She is not suggesting that Jolie straighten Zahara's hair, just run a comb through it. Is that bad? No.

What is a bit suspicious is that Samuel's takes the position that it what is other's think, is more important than Zahara. Also, as Samuel's starts off the article with a story about Tom Cruise's son Conner, who is biracial, she seems to hint that the real problem is white parents adopting black children and then conveniently forgetting that the child's ethnicity differs from theirs. I agree with her on the Cruise issue, as I feel that Cruise and probably the mother of Conner, Nicole Kidman, are both in a fantasy world. Or just narcissists who feel that if they view the world a certain way, the world will follow in their footsteps. "We don't see colour." Give me a goddamn break.

When I was a kid, my hair looked even worse than Zahara's but I don't think her hair looks particularly unkempt - mine really was. I know though, that when someone touches your hair and they don't realize the texture, it is going to be painful. Perhaps Jolie has had a screaming toddler on her hands who cried when Jolie came towards her with a fine-tooth comb. I know I did.

I must also add that Samuels backs up her argument using other blogs who scorn Jolie for allegedly not taking care of Zahara's hair. And she is right. People are skeptical that this beautiful white rich actor couple adopted not only an African child, but other children of other ethnicities. Instead of applauding her for adopting, we are critiquing her when many people would never even think of adopting at all. But it's okay when black bloggers critisize; it's not okay when a black journalist does it in a publication in which is geared towards a white audience.

Tami from What Tami Said brought up a great point: Maybe Jolie simply wants Zahara to be comfortable in her own skin. Maybe she wants to celebrate the inner beauty of her daughter instead of educating her that her hair as to be 'done' in order to be accepted by the westernized standards of beauty:

Instead of teaching Zahara to conform, as Samuels would advocate, I suspect her mom and dad are teaching her to love herself, including her hair, the way it is--whether in multiple braids and beads or flying free. Later, Zahara can wear her hair however she pleases--a bald fade, an asymmetrical bob, dreads, or long, flowing and bright red. If her parents are successful, she will make those decisions free of feelings of hatred for her natural hair and without the pressure of judgement from people like Samuels who seek to impose their own hair "issues" on another.

Samuels responded to the furor over her first piece by stating that she was not backing down from her initial post. My initial opinion that her post was more about transracial adoption still stayed with me, as she doesn't bother to clarify her earlier remarks. Gina from What About our Daughters responded to Samuels argument about why young black girls need to have 'presentable' hair:

Samuels said this: Hair that is nice, neat, and cared for also gives African-American girls the confidence that they can fit into the world at large without being seen as completely different.

BWHAHAHA Are you reading what the heck you’re writing? Combing, brushing and SLATHERING you hair every night is a sign of pride dignity and self respect? NO, its a sign you’re jacking up your hair. Where did you get you hair styling expertise? Don King and Al Sharpton? Oh yeah right, you got it from Media Take Out’s comment’s section. To support her broadside of a Black toddler, Ms. Samuels relied on such reliable sources as the comments section of Media Take Out. Are you serious? Media Take Out? Even the people who comment on Media Take Out don’t take MTO as seriously as Allison Samuels did.I mean would a White reporter try to pass off the comments at the National Enquirer as credible commentary?The reason why our hair is breaking off is because we do to much to it.

Latoya Peterson wrote at Jezebel about the pain of criticism from other black people - and I would argue that most of the OVERT criticism does come from other black folks - other people just won't give you a job. But from your 'own' it hurts the most:

Are her memories scarred with the taunts of other children? My cousins came home crying after being teased about their "beady-beads" and their "kitchens." And who did the taunting? Many times, it was other black students. We need to stop encouraging conformity and hair hatred, because there is a logical end to the path we are walking down. Instead of fighting each other when someone's hair doesn't conform to our specific ideals, wouldn't it make more sense to fight against a racist system that penalizes and politicizes certain hair styles?

Peterson has a valid point. There are two black kids that live in my building and while I have seen them being escorted home from school / daycare by a young black woman, I do not think that she is related to the children. The summertime was the first time I saw one of the kids, a cute little girl around 8, playing with another girl in front of my building. It was hot that day, yet the little girl was wearing nothing but an old, oversized dirty men's trenchcoat and pink flip-flops. The trench was tied around her waist with a raggedy belt.

But it was her hair that first alarmed me: Her natural, short afro was matted beyond reason. Matted pieces were sticking up all over the place and it looked filthy. Honestly? I was quite shocked. And my first thought was, Lord have mercy, who would let their child in public with that hair? But it was pretty obvious that the girl needed help. While the thought of interrogating the little girl - who, or were where her parents, was she okay?.....I felt that it was not my place and didn't want to embarass the kid.

A couple of days later I saw the girl again, with a little boy who was about 2 or 3 and the young woman. The kids seemed to love the woman, and while even to this day the little girl's hair is in the same, ahem, 'state', I have briefly (and secretly being nosy) talked to the woman and the kids are getting some support.

The point is, I judged this girl...and it was my first reaction. And honestly? Samuels does have a point. Black folks do not let their little black girls out in the world without their hair done. It doesn't have to be hot-combed or chemically straightened, but it always looks like someone spent some time on it. And I do think that it is because we are too concerned about what other people think. What are white folks going to say? Are we going to embarass the Whole Race?

And I understand Samuel's consternation about Jolie, yet I don't buy the whole cow. My mother did not know what to do with either mine or my older sister's hair. I remember screaming in pain and learning to hide when she would come looking for me with a fine-tooth (white people) hair comb. My hair was a total mess. While my father will never admit it, I think he was embarrassed of us and finally found a black woman in town to do our hair.

Non-black folks who adopt black children need to learn how to manage black hair. Period. Not any amount of love is going to change that. I might not totally agree with Samuel's overall argument, but she does have a point. We do care what other people think.

Too much.

CNN's Latinos in America: Hey, Isn't that the same station with Lou Dobbs as an anchor?

2009-10-22T06:54:40-05:00

I've actually been anticipating this two-part, four-hour program with glee since it was first announced that CNN would follow up it's controversial Black in America this summer. But what interested me most about the Docs is what bloggers are saying.

As a Canadian, I believe that because of the Immigration debate, y'all Yanks will have a different perspective on the program, so it is Wednesday night, and I'm searching to see what bloggers are saying. And it didn't take me too long.

Immigration Impact raises an important question, one that I have certainly thought about, since I hate his guts: How can you show a program on Latinos in America on the same station that employs Lou Dobbs?

.......(B)ut how exactly does CNN intend its viewers to interpret CNN’s inherently contradictory message? CNN advertises Latinos in America (which airs in two parts October 21-22 at 9 p.m. EST) as a “documentary that discusses immigration and discrimination issues.” If CNN’s documentary discusses discrimination issues, shouldn’t it also discuss the role media plays in propagating discrimination against immigrants? It’s dishonest to suggest that Latinos in America, the majority of whom are first or second generation immigrants, are not adversely affected by viewers who support Lou Dobbs—whose inflammatory rhetoric is televised nationally on their own network.

The Associated Press also raised this issue and noted the organization Basta Dobbs (which unlike my initial thought...'Basta' isn't short for 'Bastard' it means 'enough') which has gathered up an impressive list of activists and bloggers to try and get Dobbs off the air (and strangely enough, Dobbs' wife is Latina and her parents live with them. I'd love to be around the dinner table and eavesdrop on the conversation that MUST have happened when this program was announced.....).

Melissa Morales, a Stanford University graduate who was born in the United States but grew up mostly in the Mexican border town of Juarez, said she’s pleased CNN is airing the documentary and hopes as many people as possible will watch it.

But Morales, who works at a nonprofit group promoting emerging women leaders, said CNN is trying to have it both ways by airing a nuanced view of the Latino community at the same time it provides a nightly platform for Dobbs.

“Lou Dobbs creates a venomous atmosphere for all immigrants, particularly Latinos,” she said. “His sources are questionable at best, unquestionably racist at worst.”

Dobbs, on his radio show, has called Lovato delusional and “one of my fleas.”

“You’re trying to deny my rights while turning over this country to those who have no regard for our laws, our rules, our customs, the legal foundation of our country,” he said.

Pontealdia not only questions the legitimacy of the program - is it just a trap to get more Hispanic viewers? Are the Latino CNN anchors really Uncle Tom's?

The use of Latino journalists and Latino stories (Soledad O’Obrien, Rick Sanchez, Juan Carlos Lopez) as a convenient prop will not change the fact that “Latinos In America” is a daring attempt by CNN and Time Warner to feed Hispanics with one hand,while abetting the hatred of xenophobes through Dobb’s daily rant.

Under the guise of interest in Hispanics, now CNN shows a belated concern for them and decries Latinos in America “have been misreported or, in some cases, neglected by the media,” in words of its vice president and senior executive producer Mark Nelson. When asked, Mr. Nelson was unclear on whether “Latinos In America” would even be translated into Spanish.

“We’re in the business of weighing the important issues of our time and the fascinating people and stories that impact those issues,” claimed the same spokesperson while selling “In America,” which turns out to be one of many CNN franchises featuring minorities.

Guanabee takes my Afro/Cuban/Irish sista to task for this:

“We don’t do Afro Latinos, at all. We don’t do gay Latinos. It’s only four hours.”

Having an anchor (whose job it is to deliver the news and not push his personal agenda / opinions) on a major news network and have a program on the same people that he is critisizes ( even though he says otherwise) is indicative of the issue we have in even discussing race and racism in larger society: Hidden under the guise of 'Freedom of Speech' - which seems to be okay for some but unacceptable for others - the network doesn't seem to want to do anything about this. You cannot let someone insut someone and then celebrate and investigate their experinces at the same time.

(Update: Thurs, Oct 22) I've been watching Dobbs since like, forever, and I think he is an intelligent, seasoned journalist, but I cannot accept his attitude about immigration and while he probably brings CNN a lot of money, his attitude about this issue is disgusting and offensive. I really enjoyed the first part of the program, but I still have to question whether the execs seen the contradicition. Or do they simply not care?

By the time y'all read this, Latino in America will be airing the 2nd part this evening. Tell me what you think.

Did Jon & Kate Split Because of Race?

2009-10-08T05:53:39-05:00

Okay, this is one of those posts that even moi - race baiter that I am - is on the fence.

Like everyone and their dog, I have actually....willingly turned the channel to Entertainment Tonight to watch the real-life soap opera of the Jon & Kate + 8 saga. Unlike probably many women, whom undoubtedly feel sympathy for a middle-class single mother with 8 kids, I actually side with Jon.

Yes, he has acted like a jerk, but I have to think: If I were him and decided to leave, wouldn't I immediately want to get my party-on? Eight kids? A cold, unreasonable, controlling wife? Dude, I'd want to get a piece on the side, too ( maybe that's why I don't have kids and no husband!)

Over the past few years, I have caught a few minutes of the show, and had always thought that Jon was a brow-beaten man who secretly hated his domineering wife. Perhaps it was the stress of having so many children, but regardless, I wasn't suprised when I saw on TV that they had separated.

Anyway, a few weeks ago I came across this interesting post from Nadra Kareem at Sociological Images on how Jon's Asian heritage (and the kids) plays out. I'd always wondered how it did, but according to Kareem, the one episode where they tried to address it didn't turn out so well:

In the episode, we also learn that the children don’t understand who in their household is Korean.

“They have arguments in the car about who is Asian and who is not, and it boils down to me and Alexis are the only non-Asians in the whole house,” Kate remarks. But, on the flipside, one of the children tells Kate, “I’m Asian just like you.”In response, Kate laughs and says, “You are?”

Some of the children even wonder if their stuffed animals are Asian.

And Kate (God help her) isn't the best person to teach her children about their half-Asian heritage. in the episode the Gosselin family tries to cook an authentic Korean dinner:

Kate not only tries to prepare the food how she thinks is fit, she attempts to correct Jon’s pronunciation of Korean food, telling him that he shouldn’t shorten bulgogi to “gogi.” When he tells her that this is the equivalent of shortening hamburger to burger, she stands corrected, responding with a simple, “Oh.”

In these exchanges between the couple, it’s difficult to know what force is at play. Is Kate assuming the role of culturally superior Westerner or simply being a controlling wife? At one point, she even tries to kick Jon out of the kitchen, arguing that she needs the space.

You Offend Me You Offend My Family (funny blog, BTW) points out an interesting fact. Jon is probably the most visible Asian-American man on television - not in the way that many of us would like to see, but unfortunately - or maybe not - , this situation has also broken some negative stereotypes about Asian people - specifically Asian men:

I’m not going to criticize a brotha who’s experiencing his first taste of freedom. If he wants to be a douchebag and party like a frat boy, hell, he probably earned it. Let him enjoy it. And if he wants to go around and fuck every young white chick he can get his hands on? More power to him. Aren’t we always bitching that Asian American men are only portrayed as asexual eunuchs in the mass media? Well, now we have an Asian brotha who’s out there fucking up a storm so shouldn’t we consider him a pioneering stereotype-buster?

There is an interesting post over at the Christianity-oriented The Thinking Housewife where they debate interracial marriages and the Gosselin family. After a commenter argued that the marriage broke up over their cultural differences, many refute this, saying that Jon was "all American:"

In this case, Jon is not a pure “Other” to Kate – he is, as Laura notes, half-Korean, half-white. But culturally-speaking he’s as American as any blonde-haired surfer dude. Just listen to the way he talks, how he carries himself. I see the inversion of gender roles in their marriage as far more relevant to their breakup than any racial differences. I don’t share Karen’s view of the “higher moral and spiritual purpose of marriage [as] preserving racial, cultural and religious tradition.” While certainly important in themselves, race and culture do not line up with morality and spirituality. And as for religion tradition, Jon & Kate professed to be “Christians,” albeit of the popular American variety. They had enough to work with to save their marriage.

But apparently not the same for Black / White interracial marriages (WTF?):

I’m always skeptical about black/white marriage because I understand from observation that the gaps are likely to be so huge as to be nearly insurmountable. Even where there is not a significant IQ gap between the two, there may well be a psycho-social chasm in the way each perceives the world, where the white is universalist in outlook while the black is almost invariably into black identity. Add to this the fact that both sets of relatives will always look suspiciously on the other person, and you’re building the whole thing on a mountain of potential tension.

I'm laughing here because otherwise I'd cry over their not-so-thinly-veiled ( by Christianity) racism.

Anyway, what do you think? I don't believe that race was a factor in why the marriage (and later, this media whoredom) broke up. I do believe that If their marriage wouldn't have ended this year, it might have down the road because of race. Just because the children are half-white and "American" does not mean that they are going to avoid idenity issues when they get older.President Obama, anyone?

From early accounts, it seems as though Kate is not going to handle those conversations well. It is an elephant in the room, one that might break down the walls in the future, especially with the Gosselin's attitudes. We will have to wait and see - but hopefully, it will not play itself out on TV.

The Decision to Give Up an Adopted Child: An Adoptee's Take

2009-10-03T07:09:01-05:00

Like many other people, I was mildly horrified at the thought of a woman who would take the responsibility of taking care of a child, and then when times got tough, abandon the child. But unlike many others, the first thought that didn't come to mind was "monster."

Anita Tedaldi's husband was perfectly rational in his reluctance to have his wife tell their story to a high-profile television network and to have it posted on the Today website. He knew that while the family might have made the right decision for them, many who have not either faced the same situation would judge. And oh boy, we did.

We judge because we are under the delusion that love conquers all, that if we love hard enough, it will quell all the harsh and difficult realities we face: What happens if we have a hard time bonding with a child? What happens when the child, who does not have the same ethno-cultural background as us, comes to us with questions we do not know how to answer?

While I'm still not that comfortable with Tedaldi's decision, in the long run, she did that child a huge favor. As an adoptee, a black woman who was raised by a white family, I have been on the receiving end of bonding difficulties, of cultural confusion and the harsh reality that even though you might be legally bound to your family members, the fact that you are not their 'blood' makes a huge difference.

First, I have to say that I love my parents. My parents, despite their confusion with my penchant for metal music culture, tattoos and my lack of desire to get married, love me. I have always been very opinionated and very fervent in my political beliefs and even though every time my dad and I get together we can talk about politics for hours and hours, there is a distance.

I love spending time with my mom, and even though I am going to be 40 this year, I am still in awe about how much I love spending time getting to know her - not as "Mommy," which I still call her - but as a woman. A woman who adopted two black children before she was 30. A woman whom I believe, made a big mistake.

They always went out of their way to make me and my older sister, who is biracial and was adopted a couple of years before me, their daughters. Despite having two boys of their own, and when I was ten, a little sister, they made us feel like we were their 'own.' But the distance was always there.

I do not have a relationship with my extended family on either side. They never made me or my older sister feel like we were part of the family. When I was about eleven, my grandfather, my dad's father, called us 'savages.' When I was thirteen, an uncle told my parents that they should have never adopted me and that I was never to step into his house again. I never spoke to either of them again. My grandpa died about 15 years ago and I couldn't even cry at his funeral. I have another uncle whom I realized a couple of months ago, I had never even had a conversation with. He has never directly spoken to me.

My parents never defended me. They never spoke up for me or my sister. They never considered the environment in which we grew up in, which was in a rural environment in Eastern Ontario, Canada with neighbors who hated us - partly because my parents had more money than they did, partly because my parents were not riddled with alcohol problems and were together, but also because they had two black kids.

They never encouraged us to question or to fight back when we were called racial epithets, or school 'friends' who told us that their parents did not want me in their house, or when we couldn't be friends anymore, had things thrown at us / beaten up at school, racist teachers that dismissed me as 'slow' and encouraged my parents to put me in a Special Education class. I wasn't slow, but it took until I was in my twenties, applied and got accepted into University to prove them - and myself - otherwise. I also learned at a very early age - five, I believe - that my parents were incapable of helping me. That I had to learn how to defend myself.

So no, love is not enough.

You can love a child and bring a child into your home, but you have to realize your weaknesses. I believe that the Tedaldi's family thought that love was enough - they could get past the emotional incapability the child had by being abandoned on the side of the road, but they couldn't. They thought that there would be no resentment from their children from bringing a child into their home, a child from another culture, but it didn't happen. Again, I'm a grown-ass woman and I wonder if my older brothers, both whom I have had a good relationship with, resent me and my sister.

Because I write about Race & Ethnicity for BlogHer, I'm going to riff on the race factor. I had a conversation with a lovely woman last weekend who is also a Trans-racial adoptee, and I admitted that while I genuinely love my parents, I did not think that white people should adopt non-white children. Because......

Love is not enough.

We live in a society where as much as we would like to be deluded that it doesn't, race is a factor in our everyday interactions with people. I've had people on BlogHer try to tear me a 'new one,' try to tell me that I am racist because I will not hesitate in pointing this fact out to them. Besides, having somewhat supportive, eccentric and funny as hell parents, I have learned that while they love me......

They do not know me.

Unless you have walked in a person's shoes, you cannot understand what happens to them when they walk out of your house every morning. Love is not going to ease the pain that your child feels because their parents do not look like them, and cannot understand them. Love, while yes, provides a good home, food on the table and an opportunity to discover things in life that had they not been adopted, most likely they would have never experienced, is not enough.

My childhood is a contradiction. I remember playing with my eldest brother, who went out of his way to create games and stories to keep me and my other siblings occupied while my mom needed some time to herself. I remember the cross-country car trips across Canada we used to take as a family. I remember my grandmother teaching me how to bake bread and when she babysat us, and every afternoon we would have an English 'tea' like she used to have as a child growing up in London. I cherish those times, and I am lucky to have them.

But the pain from my childhood is what I remember the most. Not because I want to, but because it has impacted the most vulnerable, emotional parts of my adult life. I feel alone, even though I have tons of cousins, nieces and nephews. My nieces and nephews look at me with their big blue and green eyes and their blond hair, treat me as though.... even though on paper I am supposed to be related to them, they know, and I know, that we are not.

I do not trust people, I do not really love anyone. I cannot commit to even buying a carpet, for goodness sake, thinking that it will suddenly be taken away from me. Or even worse, it will abandon me.

That, despite my guilt for writing this - why I cry while writing this - is why I think that even though we might judge the Tedaldi's decision, perhaps it was the right one for them. Life is not fair, especially for the sweet boy D, but also for his parents. And perhaps they learned that despite what society tells us, love isn't enough.

The Murder of Derrion Albert: Do we pay more attention to digital documented crimes?

2009-10-01T06:35:22-05:00

The recent murder of an innocent teenager who happened to be – or to live – in the wrong place at the wrong time, resonated with a number of websites and bloggerss. Young black men are killed and kill each other every day in some North American city, yet this one has resonated with many of us. Why?

Because someone caught it on YouTube.

Now, there is a lot of crap on YouTube, and while many people will rightfully complain that this brutal depiction of what is happening on our urban streets should not have been captured on someone’s cell phone, maybe it will eventually do some good – albeit in a very sick and disturbing way. But this raises a number of questions:

1. What kind of person records a violent act instead of offering to help the victim? (I am also disturbed by the number of websites and blogs who have posted the video, labeling it as "Uncut" and providing no commentary).

The significance of capturing this horrific crime on digital camera phone is twofold. First, it says that because digital footage can be easily transferred onto the Internet more people can . It’s free to post, relatively easy to navigate. But people, have some common sense!

On the other hand, did this cellphone ( because apparently there are hundreds of teenagers that are killed on the streets of Chicago every year that do not get this attention) recording actually raise awareness? Would we have paid attention otherwise?

From This Black Sista:

Frankly, I wish the video hadn’t been seen over and over again. People are focusing too much on the bestiality. I’m sure some people are getting off on it, too; and for some others, it must confirm something sinister about black people. Whatever. I’ve got some apartheid massacres to compare with this. All in all, watching the video means that most people are not focusing on answers: about how to get these children out of gangs, and if they’re too incorrigible, getting them out of everyday society, incarcerated and rehabilitated, if possible.

2. Who is to blame? The victim, the arrested kids’ parents? Society? Lack of opportunities? My man Rob over at Bold as Love who has a young son, says this:

I'm not sure when I'll be comfortable letting him walk out into a world where people who look like him might hate him because he may represent opportunities that they feel are not within their own reach.

Valerie Elverton Dixon at Sojourners writes this about the recent aftermath:

A community memorial to Derrion Albert was burned, another act of violence that denies a community its expression of grief. Our calluses thicken. Our shields go up yet again, higher and faster this time. What is the biochemistry of the calluses that harden around our consciousness? What is the physics of the shields around our hearts? What happens to our compassion, to the capacity to suffer with the Other from the core of our being? Do we lose a portion of our own humanity when our capacity to care weakens?

People have discussed the mentality that drove these children to kill an innocent boy. While many point to the fact that yes, Derrion was in the wrong place at the wrong time, they wonder if it was because he was a good kid, in a good school and wasn't involved in a gang or any other activity that made him a target. If he was a friend of one of the killers, or at least on good terms, would this have happened?

Not that it is an excuse, but should we start paying attention to the factors as to why these kids are sociopaths? How much responsibility should we put on the parents? Why do these kids have no value for human lives, including their own? Some, like Rikyrah at Jack & Jill Politics say that these discussions are pointless and we need to stop making excuses for bad behavior. Period:

I don’t wanna hear anything about the what THE WHITE MAN has done.

The WHITE MAN had nothing to do with these lowdown dogs.

They’re preying on Black children who are about doing something with themselves.

I believe that we need to help those who want to help themselves. when that kid came and said that he was being threatened by the gangs, THE ADULTS HE TOLD THAT TO SHOULD HAVE STEPPED IN.

as for the animals that killed him – FUCK THEM. I don’t give a shyt if they don’t have a daddy, a mama, or if they were raised in the forest preserve by wild dogs. put their asses in jail – PERIOD.

What do you think about the YouTube video? Has the video raised awareness about the problematic situation of youth violence, or just glorified it?

Do you think that this horrible incident should impact Chicago's bid for the Olympics? I think that President Obama needs to at least say something that acknowledges this incident in not only his hometown, but the city that if they get the bid, will probably destroy low-income neighbourhoods - like the one Albert was murdered in - to build buildings for the Olympics.

A fund has been created to help Derrion Albert's family pay for funeral expenses. Please head on over to The New Licious for more information.

Obama on Letterman: "I Was Black Before the Election"

2009-09-24T06:01:07-05:00

The was President Obama's weak-ass excuse to defend the charges of racist rhetoric (via President jimmy Carter's assertion last week) by "Birthers" Town-Hall crackpots and extreme-right wingers whom...yes, you guessed it, are using 'creative' ways to basically say that they have a problem - and some flat-out deny - that their President is an African-American. From Racialicious: (you can watch the interview here).

What are the chances that Obama actually DISAGREES with Carter? Sure “I was black before the election” is quintessential Obama (witty! charming! irreverent!) but it’s also, well, snarky. It’s just a wee bit dismissive of what Carter had to say, and what many of us believe.

Definitely the comment is meant to emphasize Obama’s continuing faith in Americans – a cornerstone of his presidency – but to me it also has the effect of essentially making fun of Carter’s very real claim.

From Racewire:

“It’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election,” Obama pointed out. “That tells you a lot, I think, about where the country is at.”

I think Barack Obama agrees with Jimmy Carter’s statement, but can’t say so because it would fuel even more animosity against him. If he were to say he agreed with Carter we’d probably see him forced to take his words back, just like he “could have calibrated” his words more carefully in the racially-charged controversy over the arrest of a Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.

To be honest, I think that (and I've said this before on this site) that President Obama is in a conundrum. He cannot say what he personally thinks ( and I really do believe he is flat out lying here) for fear of starting a race war. Yeah, I said it - a RACE WAR. Or getting his ass shot. But in doing so, he is not only disrespecting President Carter's courage in standing up and stating how he feels; for becoming the spokesperson on racism and its effects ( because you need a white man to say it for assertions of racism to be seen as valid in the public eye), but he also has probably disenfranchised millions of black voters and supporters ( like me) by 'playing it safe.'

What Obama is saying with the above statement ( if you don't mind me paraphrasing) is that, 'hey, these crazy nuts weren't around during the election, so it doesn't make any sense that they are causing a ruckus now.' And he is, to a point, right. Where were these people? Hell, even Dan Savage thought something smelled funny:

So our first black president can't call clearly racist insults or acts or motives racist. He needs a crazy ol' cracker like Jimmy Carter to do that for him—and then he needs to go on TV and dismiss and downplay Carter's comments. And Americans are simultaneously upset with Carter because he's right and grateful to the president for letting them—and the country—off the hook.

Crazy.

The crazy nuts weren't voting for him, which is in their right. But perhaps these people were also hidden, not wanting to make a statement until after the elections were over. Or they could be like this guy, whom I was told about this weekend.

There is this man, who is very well-known and well-respected in certain circles, who armed his wife and his 7 year-old son with loaded AK-47's and 9mm's and told them to place them in the front of their house, and to shoot any black people that came on their property. He felt that there would be a race war if Obama was elected and felt that all the blacks would come gunning for innocent Americans like him. The person that told me this story was with him when he told his family this, and I believe this person. And yes, the guy taught his 7 year-old son how to load the rifles.

But let's look on the flip side - what does Obama's assertion on Letterman say about black people? Does it say that we should dismiss racial discrimination that we face, or that other's face? Should we just conveniently ignore it, stop fighting for equality and justice? Stop trying to publicize racial inequalities via social networking because mainstream media doesn't care?

Thembi Ford from What Would Thembi Do? doesn't believe it either:

You’d think that living with the knowledge that there are millions of people who’d love to put a bullet in your black socialist hide would make you a little less prone to brushing your shoulders off, but Barack is just fine and doesn’t have much to say about racism at all. Am I bad Democrat/black person/American for being mad that he’s cool as a cucumber? Am I the only person who wants to grab him by the shoulders and shake a some gangsta into him? Of course he’s saying what he has to say and the political climate requires compromise, but can we just fast forward to the end of his term when he uses his last few days in office to just wile out with Congress to give us reparations and establish International Wu-Tang Clan Day and stuff like that?

One of the issues that I think causes former Obama supporters to be disgruntled ( and no, this is not an excuse for racist / racially-coded bad behavior) is the 'Magic Negro" syndrome, where if a black person is to hold a position generally regarded as a white-dominated profession, they had better work ten times harder to please the Master...um, masses. There are a lot of people who are angry that Obama hasn't fixed the ails of...well, essentially everything wrong with the world in three days. I can't help but think, did Bush get this much criticism, even after the date to pull out of Iraq was delayed over and over again? From La Macha of VivirLatino:

I can’t help it. I know that Mamita and others have said that they’ve gone their separate ways with Obama. And that’s a position I respect–but maybe it’s because I never had any hope for Obama to begin with that he still has my interest. I don’t see him doing anything amazing, I don’t see him changing the world, hell, I don’t even see him fixing immigration. But it is really interesting to me how he is negotiating racism. And it makes me wonder if his negotiating (rather than his policies or legislation) will make a difference for average people of color.

This Week in Race(ism): Serena, Kanye, Joe, Mark and The Bad Lieutenant

2009-09-17T17:08:13-05:00

I think we can all agree that this has (well, the past couple of weeks...hell maybe this year) has been a difficult one. Things have been said that cannot be undone - even on this website. People have showed their ass, and the phrase 'forgive and forget' seems to leave a bitter taste in our mouths.

A couple of days ago, I wrote a post on Serena Williams and Kanye West over on my blog. Before these two incidents of "bad behavior" there was Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst and later, last Monday night, "Tea Party" leader Mark Williams lost it on CNN when it was revealed that despite his consternation that people were calling the Tea Party organizations racist, seemed to think he was perfectly just in calling President Obama a Indonesian Muslim and a welfare thug (damn, you can go to Harvard on Welfare? Become the President of the United States? I gotta check that...).

But that's not racism, is it? Because white people can't be racist unless another white person says they are. Like President Jimmy Carter. And hell, even then a white person...or in this case, the White House can refute it and then we can all go back to our merry lives in denial and self-imposed ignorance. Free at last!

But some white folks don't like the fact that Carter shared his opinion. Here's a (very scary) comment from Hot Air:

This “racism” business is not off-the-cuff idiocy by a deranged anti-semite and supporter of terrorism, it is a planned and orchestrated campaigne to radicalize the American electorate and incite political violence.

By morphing political dissent into racism it makes hatred of political opponents not only acceptable but lauditory, thereby radicalizing democrats. It also provokes a strong backlash among dissenters, thereby radicalizing conservatives.

Violence is certain to follow.

The next demonstation in Washington will surely be larger and angrier than the last. Radicalized leftists will show up, shots will be fired and the ball will be rolling. Dissenters will be “enemies of the people” and everyday Democrats will cheer their incarceration. The American Republic will collapse as darkness descends on the continent.

Jimmy Carter knows exactly what he’s doing.

Mr. Obama nods in agreement.

Now, while Kanye - whom to be honest, nobody really cared about his previous media-whoring escapades, jumping on stages and pulling temper-tantrums when he didn't win awards, until he embarassed a white female country singer. He did not pull a racist act (even though some opinions will differ) and people were justifiably annoyed, but I was still disappointed when a number of hashtags appeared on Twitter, such as #Kaynenigger and #Kayne_is_nigger. So, let me get this straight...it's not okay for a black or person of color to accuse people of racism but it's okay to do it yourself? On the other hand, there was a swift action by primarily black Twitters to block all attempts at these people from "friending" them.

Yesterday, a man was arrested after he allegedly beat a black woman in front of her daughter a restaurant, calling her a "black nigger bitch" for um...asking the man to 'watch it' when he opened a door to a restaurant, nearly hitting her daughter. I just watched CNN and Rick Sanchez interviewed her, and - yes, I know, he is doing his job - actually asked her if she thought he punched and kicked her because she was black.

As part of the Toronto International Film Festival, I attended the Gala screening of The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans and my bad week got worse. Sure, I saw Nicolas Cage in the flesh - he's taller than I imagined, and more importantly, I saw Director Werner Hertzog whom I greatly admir(ed), as I had caught a few of his films.

But the movie? It was awful. Bad acting, weak writing and while Hertzog applied his signature weird 'artistic' touches in the form of hallucinations of Iguanas (don't ask) it didn't work. It was instead confusing and lame. However, a bad movie is a bad movie, but what bothered me was the audience response to the scenes of blatant racial stereotyping.

Granted, I walked in knowing that when you are doing a film on New Orleans, you are bound to see things that you don't really want to see, but what I was disappointed was the uproarious laughter when the stereotypical images of black people came on the screen. A handful of people got up and left, and I would have too, if I hadn't been persuaded to endure that bullshit by my friend.

I did get up and leave when during the question and answer period after the movie, the idiot host described Cage's character of having to navigate 'the jungle' - i.e the black neighborhoods in New Orleans. Hertzog refuted that description, but I had enough. Surprisingly though, the movie had really nothing to do with the city and barely touched upon Hurricane Katrina - it was more about the white male protagonist - a drug-addled loser whom despite being hopped up on drugs and forcing suspects to have sex with him - while their boyfriends were forced to watch by gunpoint - seemed to be able to get one over on those stupid, stupid blacks.

The reviewers seem to love this movie, and that concerned me. It got me thinking about my fellow Canadians and their racial ignorance, the social politics of the 'artsy' and self-described 'liberal' folk who were sitting in the theatre and whether it was wilful ignorance on the part of people who laughed when the baby mama's appeared on screen, the scenes of Africans performing a traditional funeral ritual or when Cage's character calls an elderly white and black woman 'c&*ts." Does anyone really care, or were they laughing (it wasn't a comedy, btw) because a Hollywood actor was in the room? Who knows, but that film was the cherry on the proverbial rotten cake of my week.

Damn, there's even racism in my escapism.

(Edited 1809/09)

Black Male Journalist Tells Black Women to "Get Real".....Again

2009-09-10T06:31:53-05:00

Jimi Izrael is one smart M#$%f%^&er.

Wasn't that provocative? did I grab your attention? After all, on the blogopshere, there are now millions of blogs and websites that are clamoring for your attention. People post shocking and to some, controversial topics to get page views and for those who depend on the 'Net to butter their bread, advertising dollars.

Because of this, I am a bit weary of commenting on this post as in my opinion, it was written in order to gain attention to Mr. Izrael's book, The Denzel Principle: Why Black Women Can’t Find A Good Black Man that will be published next year. But on the other hand, Izrael has already built a reputation for his...umm, 'questionable' opinions on black women. I must say, that while I think that Izrael is an opportunist and has deep-seated problems with black women, his blog was one of the reasons why I started blogging about seven years ago. He is a good writer and can be funny and yes, insightful and I did admire him for 'keeping it real' when during the early days of blogging, many played it safe.

In the above post, after claiming his own inadequacies (as a buffer, methinks) Izrael argues that there is a problem in the way how single black women think: that if we get a career, are educated and take care of ourselves, we should get a brother like 'Denzel Washington. But we don't necessarily deserve it:

Black women seem to resent black men because, with all the educated black women, we seem to have choices in mates that they don't. I promise you, quantity and quality are different. Please trust that it takes more than an education and a successful career to be wife material. And women think if they wait long enough, they will find their own Denzel Washington.

He then goes on to generalize four types of "men" as common players in the game and three types of women, whom, unlike the men, seem totally screwed. From Amanda Hess at Washington City Paper:

Apparently, black men and women are just not supposed to go to college. Make sense? Of course not. It makes no fucking sense. Perhaps, you think, Izrael is simply engaging in an ironic exercise in order to remind singles men and ladies that no one is perfect, and stereotyping the opposite sex can be damaging to everyone? Nope: He’s pretty much arguing that while the stereotypes of no-good black men are bunk, the stereotypes of overachieving black women have got a grain of truth to them. The argument, in a nutshell: everyone still sucks, but all these sucky people could, at least, suck together, within the context of marriage, as long as one set of sucky people—specifically, educated black women—take one for the team, quit their jobs, and lower their standards.

On the other hand, this "bitches ain't shit" thing is tired. It's been done. Steve Harvey recently published his book Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man and got on Oprah, ( and fellow Blogher Suzanne wrote about it here) and unfortunately this push-and-pull between black male and female bloggers has been going on for years...hell, since the dawn of time. I had emailed Jimi and asked for a sample chapter for this post, but since I did not receive it I thought that I would just do a blog round-up since there have been a few really amazing, insightful posts on his original piece on The Root.

Acts of Faith and Love is also tired:

This also feeds into the indoctrination of black women only being available for black men and not considering men by CALIBER and AVAILABILITY. This "Black Love" myth needs to be slayed and I have to thank Izrael for helping do so. Does he think he's doing himself any favors with his hurt boy throwing rocks routine? Race cannot be the main thrust of the tie that binds people together. We already know by sheer statistics there simply aren't enough black men to go around anyway. So black women can either hope for the miracle of that one black man, be alone, settle for less or LOOK ELSEWHERE and find a man who's able to love and protect them. I go for the last option.

Fellow CE Blogher Nordette passed on this interesting post from Single Girl Boot Camp, who made the fatal mistake by trying to take Izrael on via an interview through Facebook:

SGBC: why isn't it? JI: But it also depends what you call "eligible." The Dizzle (The Denzel Factor) gets at that. SGBC: I guess I don't know what eligible means JI: Just because someone is on the way to class doesn't mean they will make you a good mate. SGBC: all of these beautiful, educated and forward women out here JI: That criterion, on it's face, doesn't work. SGBC: what's missing? JI: Education and beauty don't make you eligible SGBC: a lot of black women seem to think that they do JI: They Are Wrong. SGBC: why? JI: If they were right, they would be married.

From Girl, It's Just Not You UK Blogger Abena notes that lumping black women ( and black men) into stereotypes is simply not.the.best. thing.to . do - don't we complain when white folks do that?

So there we go. According to Izrael, that's Black people for you. Nicely packaged and arranged into groups. Nothing good about any of us really...
He ends on a rather sweet note (not sweet enough to redeem him of his depressing, pessimistic and false statements though), saying that the aim should be love and not marriage and that's how Michelle Obama got her man (like he was in her head when she was making decisions).

My opinion? As I mentioned before, I am tired of this shit and quite frankly, I am embarrassed at this public in-fighting between brothers and sisters. But I do not take this too personal, because I do not think that, despite being close to 40, single, childless, unabashedly ambitious and competitive I do not think that any of Izrael's generalizations really fit me. I do not want to get married to a "Denzel Washington." I am not hungry for a black man - hell, I haven't dated a brother for over 10 years and I am not willing to pander or grovel to get anyone's attention. I am not hungry to be a Michelle Obama or to be a happy housewife. Most importantly, I know that I cannot rely on anyone besides myself to truly make me happy.

Hold on, I guess that does put me into a category: "Angry Black Woman."

Canada's Refugee Board Gives White South African Status: He is a Victim of Racism

2009-09-03T19:14:21-05:00

Original title:Canada's Refugee Board Gives White South African Status: He his a victim of Racism ...WTF?

H/T to fellow CE Maria Niles for the heads up. I feel a bit foolish, actually because an American gave me a tip about a news item in a paper that is published in the city where I live.

But there is a good reason to why I missed it. I don't read the Globe & Mail, even though one of my favorite Canadian journalists is an editor there. It's too right-wing for my liking, and stories like this are usually bound to get more commenter's that would likely piss me off than agree with me:

The decision by a refugee board member in Ottawa has ignited a firestorm of controversy in South Africa, damaging relations between the two countries and denting Canada's image in a country where it was once seen as a stalwart of the anti-apartheid struggle.

The refugee board member, William Davis, ruled that South Africa had failed to protect its white citizens from robberies and muggings, which he described as the “persecution” of whites by “African South Africans.”

Brandon Huntley, a 31-year-old South African who stayed illegally in Canada in 2006, after first arriving on a work permit as a carnival attendant, was awarded refugee status after complaining that he was mugged and stabbed in seven attempted robberies in South Africa. He said he was called a “white dog” and a “settler” during these attacks, although he did not report any of the attacks to the police because he “did not trust them.”

Aww, poor privileged white man. Jesus, if someone called me a "white dog" I think I'd have a nervous breakdown. Anyone who has read my posts previous to this one probably knows my position on this, so let's just skip it, shall we? Here is what the bloggers are saying:

My Digital Life wonders what would happen if an American white dude would try this 'ish:

Let's see Canada offer a white man asylum for repeatedly being robbed by financially disenfranchised black youths in America's projects. It would never happen because crime is not a matter of policy and Canada wouldn't want to upset those old Yankees. Well this is what it means then, Canada believes that we are orchestrating and assisting the persecution of white South Africans in South Africa. Oh and it also means they have zero respect for our country unlike that moral bedrock that is the U.S.A.

Over at Citizen Alert ZA, they post some responses to the story:

Champagne: Yes it is justified. Being white in South Africa makes one a target for being attacked and reporting to the police gets a shrug of the shoulders. The attack is not criminally motivated but retribution for the past. Applying for a job gets a "don't be stupid you're white" attitude. EVERYthing in South Africa is about skin color.

Liz: The ANC wants a country without discrimination yet they are perpetuating discrimination with BEE. People should be judged on merit, not on the color of their skin. Well done Canada for seeing what is actually happening here.

Well, according to the above comment, let's look at the facts. According to the Globe and Mail article, the unemployment rate for blacks in South Africa is 27.9%, compared to whites at 4.6%. 61% of South Africa's top corporate executives are white men. But the country's population is roughly 80% Black and 20% White, 'Coloured' and other non-whites. It looks like Brandon Huntley's claim, based on stats, doesn't make much sense.

But we all knew that, didn't we? The real problem seems to lie within Canada's attitude, especially in lieu of the recent case of Suaad Hagi Mohamud's fight to get back into the country of her citizenship. Also, in July of this year, Canada's Tory (conservative) government imposed a new rule that imposed a 30-day wait time for Mexican citizens to get travel/tourist Visa's. This has caused a great headache for not only Canadians who want to travel to Mexico, but the thousands of Mexicans that want to visit or claim refugee status:

Canada's new visa requirements are hugely unpopular across Mexican society, from the highest political office to the grassroots, and widely viewed as discriminatory.

Quebec's Mexican community is strongly united against the new visa changes. Hundreds of students returning to Montreal campuses were delayed by the new visa requirements, while human rights advocates including Amnesty International are urging the Conservatives to drop the visa policy. Mexico officially opposed the change, announcing in July symbolic visa requirements for all Canadian diplomats traveling to Mexico.

My younger sister who lives in Montreal and works with refugee claimants says that one of the main refugee claims from Mexican women is domestic abuse, and is seriously concerned about how this new rule will affect them.

UPDATE: a few hours ago it was announced that Canada's Department of Citizenship and Immigration is planning to appeal Brandon Huntley's refugee status claim. I'll keep you posted.

Caster Semenya - Hmm, What Should We Focus On? Sexism, Homophobia or Racism?

2009-08-27T19:06:31-05:00

For background information on this issue, please check out PookieLocks's recent post on Blogher.

On Tuesday night I saw something on CNN that nearly made me pee my pants with laughter. On Campbell Brown's No Bias No Bull program, She had a Urologist and a sports reporter on to talk about whether the South African athlete was a man or a woman. Funnily enough - or not so funny -the Urologist, (surprisingly) a woman, Dr. Jennifer Berman, described Semenya a a possible hermaphrodite and then pondered whether she was on steroids ( she was tested and had three times the testosterone in her body than a 'normal' woman).

What made me roar was the reaction of the sports reporter (surprisingly) a man, Dave Zirin, who happens to write for The Nation and tells the story here. He had this total 'WTF' look on his face like the woman was insane. After Campbell let him respond, he quite easily dismissed her claims, challenged her use of the word hermaphrodite and then called the woman out on her sexism and...well, general ignorance.

The show then played a short clip of what was going on in South Africa. Apparently, thousands of people showed up to welcome the athletes home and the majority seemed to support Semenya, saying that what was happening to her was ridiculous and offensive...and yes, that dreaded 'R' word:

The loyalty of Semenya's friends and neighbors is striking. South Africa's rural communities are typically regarded as bastions of social conservatism divided into traditional gender roles and expectations of femininity. But there is no evidence that Semenya, an androgynous tomboy who played football and wore trousers, was ostracized by her peers. Instead, they are shocked at what they perceive as the intolerance and prurience of western commentators.

"They are jealous," said Dorcus Semenya, the athlete's mother, who led villagers in jubilant singing and dancing on Friday. "I say to them, go to hell, you don't know what you're saying. They're jealous because they don't want black people improving their status."

I'm on the fence on this one, because I really do not care what gender she is. However, today, bloggers are wondering....does race have to do anything with it? Are the organizers of the Berlin track meet where she kicked the asses of her competitors to literally walk away with the gold medal in the 800, just pissed because a black girl from South Africa won?

(Yes I know...'race, smace, always about race'. But don't hate the playa, hate the game).

Interestingly enough, while Zirin writes a compelling article, he seems to raise her sexuality in the article. But just because she has muscles and doesn't wax her eyebrows....does that make her a lesbian?

Sweet Lord Jesus. Well not really.....

There is currently no definitive information regarding Semenya's sexual orientation or gender choice. We know she identifies herself as an 18-year-old woman and she can run like the wind while not looking like a conventional pinup.

Unfortunately for women athletes, you can't be too masculine for fear you'll be called a lesbian. You can't be too aggressive for fear that you will be called mannish. You must be an outdated stereotype of a woman before you are an athlete. You must market yourself as nonthreatening and blazingly heterosexual.

Over at The Root, senior writer Kai Wright asserts that because of the confusion over her gender, sexuality and her race, Semenya is basically perceived as a 'social monster.' But he does note that this is not the first time that female athletes - successful ones, that is - have been forced to undergo public scrutiny about their gender:

Semenya is hardly the first woman—notably, never a man—forced to undergo sex testing to compete in amateur sports. From 1967 to 1999, all female Olympiads were forced to take versions of the test. The phantom menace of men gaming the system to compete as women never materialized, but athletes were nonetheless routinely deemed to have insufficiently pure femininity. Eight women were barred from the 1996 Olympics, the last at which the tests were used, the Los Angeles Times reports.

But what interest me is the similarities between this brouhaha, the public scrutiny over the physiques of Venus and Serena Williams and the recent scandal about First Lady Michelle Obama wearing shorts on VACATION. VAY-CA-TION, you idiots. Nadra Kareem, who blogs for About.com says this:

The league may not be far off the mark. Although their gender was never in question, tennis players Venus and Serena Williams have frequently been deemed too masculine by critics. First Lady Michelle Obama has faced similar criticism because of her muscular arms and 6 foot frame. Are black women in Western society unfairly pegged as masculine? In the case of Semenya, this argument is strengthened by the fact that two European female athletes publicly called her a man.

On a side note, my dad, who is a rabid Serena Williams fan told me that he had recently saw an interview where Serena admitted that she suffered from lack of self-esteem over her figure. He was perplexed. So was I. But years of negative public scruitiny will do that to you, I guess.

Siddy from Siddy in the City believes that because these women are on the top of their game, Michelle Obama included (sorry, Republicans) that people are simply playa hatin':

I always find it odd that when women are really good and dominate in a sport, their femininity gets questioned. Remember Serena and Venus? Everyone called them men and some folks call Serena fat. Last I checked having muscles didn't make a woman fat, but I guess since she doesn't look like Anna Chakvetadze, she must be a fat masculine woman. In tennis I guess you have to be blond, white, or skinny to be considered attractive. Not to mention she isn't quite dominating the sport, so I guess Anna's femininity must be in tact compared to Venus and Serena.

Monique from Fierce and Nerdy is reminded of the esteemed Sojourner Truth:

One of my favorite women in history is Sojourner Truth. If you don’t know, Sojourner Truth was an African-American abolitionist and women’s rights activist. At the Ohio Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio in 1851, she delivered a speech entitled “Ain’t I a Woman?, where she questioned stereotypical gender roles.

Because of her six-foot frame, powerful voice and independent spirit she was often accused of being a man. At a speaking engagement in Indiana, when questions around her gender were shouted from the audience she exposed her breast to prove she was a woman.

So is that what Semenya has to do? Flash her...as the wise Oprah Winfrey would say...Vajay-jay to the world?

Isn't there an economic recession and war in Afghanistan and Iraq we should be worried about?

Racism in the Health Care Debate

2009-08-20T06:35:04-05:00

A couple of weeks ago I was chillin' with some folks at a metal show in Brooklyn. I was chatting with a fellow music writer whom I greatly respect and as far as I can remember, I was telling her about my sudden fascination with the writer Cormac McCarthy. Having read The Road and at the time I had just started Blood Meridian, I was talking about my interest in the human condition. I said that it seemed as though human beings were only socially conditioned to act in a civil manner. That given the opportunity, humans would ravage, sodomize and kill each other in a heartbeat.

The writer (whom, again, I greatly admire and hoped that she liked me) looked at me as though I had just lost my mind.

However, by looking at the recent incidences at various Town Hall meetings in America, I think I was proven right. As a Canadian, living in a country where supposedly, our health care system is far superior than our southern neighbors, I cannot speak on the intricacies of the situation, I can only speak on what I have gathered, through watching countless hours of CNN and yes, reading blogs.

Thankfully, the disturbing observations I have had on what I have seen have been proven as somewhat accurate, most recently, through author Tim Wise's piece on CNN that was posted on Racialicious. Wise says that people, like the white dude who ripped up the picture of Rosa Parks that a black woman held in her hands - is not necessarily racist, "but there is a lot of background noise of the hostility that I think is about that I would call white racial resentment."

Wise discusses the above incident, noting that the majority white crowd applauded when the black protester was hauled off. Also, there were people in the crowd at the Missouri-based meeting that were carrying signs that called President Obama (yes the black man y'all voted for) a N@#ger. But, why, oh ye faithful readers, did race even become a factor in this dogfight?

And why are folks so pissed?

Well, the proposed heath care system looks at cutting the fat, the fat that doctors have been laying on thick for decades. As a doctor interviewed on CNN said quite recently, the majority of surgeries and medication that has been dolled out is 85% for aliments, that if Jim Bob got off his fat ass and put the cigarettes and the Thunderbird down and got on the treadmill, would be unnecessary. Basically, if people took care of themselves, the health care system would not be in the dire straits that it is in now.

But it also means that those who are currently paying for health care, might not get all the services they are paying big bucks for. More services would be given to low-income people and that has brought up the horrible, terrible S-word. Socialist.

And in this case, socialist=black people. After all, we are the ones who are uneducated, lazy, stupid and are always looking for handouts, right? Oh, and because your President happens to be half-black, means that the health care proposal means that he is secretly trying to revitalize the Black Panther movement! Hide your daughters! But wait a minute......he's Hitler! Yes, a biracial Hitler who will conspire with those Confederate-hatin' Liberals (umm, Democrats) to overthrow the good and pure white race!

Enough of my diatribe. You have to check out Jane Devlin's blog, where she discusses the recent events (where stupid idiots showed up at town Halls with guns) and ties them back to the gun debate:

Guns were not displayed for President Carter, who was far more liberal than Obama, and who led this country during a time of double-digit inflation, high interest rates, and oil shortages. Nor were they brought out for President Clinton, even while the right-wing was working very hard to have him impeached. And even when the majority of the country disagreed with the war in Iraq, no one brought guns to the protests. So I have to ask why now, why with Obama?

I am not a knee-jerk reactionary when it comes to issues of culture and race, but the arguments made by the mobs in defense of their atrocious behavior simply don’t wash. They seem to be using the issue of health care reform to express an anger that goes deeper than mere politics or philosophy, and there is a maliciousness to their public gun toting that goes far beyond debate and protest.

Desert Beacon who writes about politics from their Nevada perch, looks at the arguments that blame the Mex-i-cans for their troubles. After all, if they stopped having babies and entered the country legally, all would be good in the world, right?

It's evident from both the controversy over the Sotomayor confirmation and the health care reform debate, that those who hold racist views will often seek to portray themselves as the victim. “I will be castigated if I express my belief in the superior social and economic attributes of white America.” Therefore, the individual argues, that by advocating for the inclusion of non-whites in the American community, “You are a racist if you call me one.” This is an extremely untenable, illogical, and fundamentally emotional contention; but, a common one nonetheless.

Yvonne R. Davis writes via The Huffington Post that while the flames of racial hatred are high, she quotes professor John Dovidio whom believes that many white folks don't even believe what they are doing is racist.... They just scurred.

Instead, what he sees is a fight by whites desperately struggling to defend and maintain their position and status in America before it goes down the tubes to blacks and other colored people. "I don't think we are at the point of hate yet," Says the author of more than 250 academic research articles on racial discrimination. "I see it as a kind of threat. People are sensitive to being threatened and it makes them passionate. I don't think most whites articulate it as hate."

I'm not going to pontificate on that one. What I will say, is that at one time I actually had a bit of sympathy for the Republicans - no, not the extreme right-wing nut jobs that are showing up at the Town Halls crying that Obama is going to kill off old people, but I understand the frustration when you think that tax dollars - the ones that you are getting sliced off your paycheque every other week - are going towards those whom you feel are not working as hard as you are. Hell, I'd agree with that sentiment. But those people do not have a specific color.

But I also wish that people would stop being so hypocritical and just call a spade a ...um, spade. You do not have to agree with Obama's policies, but stop creating these stupid comparisons when it is obvious you haven't picked up a book since 7th grade. Obama is not Hitler. Not only is it a great insult to your President - the one that you voted in, but it is also indicative of your penchant to bend reality to your liking.

In Canada our system is pretty good, but when I lost my job earlier this year, I also lost access to medication that basically deterred me from having a hysterectomy. My new job doesn't cover it, so I'm out of luck. Do you see me heading to Ottawa to challenge Prime Minster Stephen Harper with a gun?

Canadian Woman Stranded in Nairobi....Because of Her Lips?

2009-08-13T17:10:36-05:00

Let me first say this: I sincerely hope that Suaad Hagi Mohamud sues the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for every penny they have. Granted, it might not end up to be a lot of money, but for what this Kenyan-born Canadian citizen went through, monetary retribution should be demanded.

After a short visit with her mother in early May, Mohamud went to the airport and was detained by Kenyan authorities who questioned her passport. Now, Mohamud thought that the officials at the Nairobi airport were trying to shake her down for money (a common practice) and she refused. She showed various pieces of identification that proved that not only she was a citizen, she had a residence and a ex-husband and son who resided in Toronto. But the authorities didn't believe her and took her into custody. Why? Because they felt that the passport picture didn't look like her, after all, her lips were bigger than her passport photo.

The Canadian High Commission in Nairobi was contacted and the vice-consul and first secretary, Lilliane Khadour agreed with the Nairobi authorities that Mohamud was not who she claimed to be. Luckily for Mohamud, she has good friends, a mother who bailed her out of jail, got an immigration lawyer in Toronto to take her case, and set up a DNA test for her, her 12 year-old son and ex-husband to take to prove that she was who she claimed to be.

Mohamud has been cleared, validated as a Canadian Citizen and currently is waiting for a ticket to get back to Toronto. Also fortunate is that Toronto newspapers and other media outlets have been covering this case quite carefully. Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty has openly criticized the case, but the Federal Government has remained silent, doing nothing to help Mohamud out. But Canadian Newspapers are observing what many of us brown folks thought, but were too afraid to openly discuss: Can you be a Canadian and a brown person at the same time?

Toronto Star Columnist Christopher Hume (who is white) was the first reporter to openly call Mohumed's treatment by Canadian officials as prejudiced:

Had Mohamud been a white mother from Leaside, you can rest assured that ( Prime Minister) Harper himself would have led the charge to have her repatriated.

(The reason why I point out that Hume is white is that if what he wrote was written by a writer of colour it would be dismissed and declared racist).

Yesterday's editorial in the Star discussed the inactivity of the Federal Government:

But it hardly lets Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government off the hook. The shameful handling of Mohamud's case by Ottawa is a national scandal. Canadians are wondering whether they face the same rough treatment if they run into trouble abroad.

Beginning with Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Canadian High Commissioner to Kenya Ross Haynes, the authorities have some explaining to do.

This is a government, after all, that has proven only too willing to abandon citizens. Omar Khadr still faces trial before a tainted Guantanamo tribunal. Ottawa had to be ordered by the courts to repatriate Abousfian Abdelrazik from Sudan. And to seek clemency for Ronald Smith, a murderer who faces execution in the United States.

Unambiguously Ambidextrous believes that the Canadian Government is cracking down on foreign-born Canadians:

Some critics of the government are saying that there is a bias against dual-citizens in this government, but I seriously doubt that there’s some kind of endemic and systematic agenda going on. So conspiracy theories aside, it is still disturbing that the people who are responsible for helping Canadians abroad, seem to be making so many prolific and costly mistakes. It certainly has to be damaging their reputation among the voting population, or hurting the confidence that Canadians have that the government is looking out for the interests of those who travel abroad.

Kate Heartfield at the Ottawa Citizen writes about another recent case involving alleged false passports:

This is EXACTLY the same as the story of Abdihakim Mohamed, whose mother, Anab Issa, lives in Ottawa. Mohamed is a Somali-Canadian, stranded in Nairobi because Passport Canada refuses to accept that he's not an imposter, despite many affidavits from Canadians who know him. He's offered to do DNA testing; so has Mohamud. I've written about Abdihakim's case a few times, most extensively in a column I wrote last February (can't find the original online, but it's reprinted here.) You can hear a recent interview with Issa on the Current.

How man Canadian citizens are in this situation? What the hell's going on at Passport Canada?

Was Obama To Blame For The Gym Murders In Pittsburgh?

2009-08-06T10:36:07-05:00

The online journals of George Sodini, the gunman that entered a Pittsburgh gym and killed four women last Tuesday, have not only revealed a deeply troubled misogynist but also pointed to an emerging trend that has arised since the Obama presidency: Blame the Brother.

Now, it has been reported that Sodini, 48, had hadn't had a girlfriend since 1984 and hadn't been on a date for over a year (welcome to the club, son). We know that instead of looking at the reasons for his troubles within himself, perhaps investigating his own character flaws he blamed (among other reasons) women's supposed preferences for black men:

Good luck to Obama! He will be successful. The liberal media LOVES him. Amerika has chosen The Black Man. Good! In light of this I got ideas outside of Obama's plans for the economy and such. Here it is: Every black man should get a young white girl hoe to hone up on. Kinda a reverse indentured servitude thing. Long ago, many a older white male landowner had a young Negro wench girl for his desires. Bout' time tables are turned on that shit. Besides, dem young white hoez dig da bruthrs! LOL. More so than they dig the white dudes! Every daddy know when he sends his little girl to college, she be bangin a bruthr real good. I saw it. "Not my little girl", daddy says! (Yeah right!!) Black dudes have thier choice of best white hoez. You do the math, there are enough young white so all the brothers can each have one for 3 or 6 months or so.

Sigh.

Personally, I do not think that Sodini's obvious racism (and fear/envy of the mystical black penis) was the main instigator in his actions, but instead it accentuated his anxiety of losing control and that undeserving others (black men) were able to obtain what he, a deserving white man could not. Despite being an educated, handsome white man making an estimated $250,000 a year, the fear about layoffs at his job and his inability to obtain what is perceived as a conventional heterosexual relationship, drove him to the edge. Normally I wouldn't advocate prostitution, but couldn't he have just satisfied himself with a hooker? Or his left hand?

That's what a lot of people are saying, but casual sex does not come close to quelling lonliness and the desire of a committed relationship. Jill at Feministe mentions that some have said that if he used 'tricks' such as "The Game" to get women, maybe he wouldn't have felt compelled to murder:

Well… no. Sodini was clearly an unbalanced and aggressive man who fixated on women and blamed them for his problems. The same cultural misogyny that enabled Sodini to blame women for his own social ineptitude and aggression also underwrites “The Game,” and informs people like Roissey’s interactions with women. It glorifies male dominance and relies on male entitlement. And, notably, it relies on there being a class of less-dominant men to serve as contrast to the alpha males — it’s not exactly looking out for the whole of the Brotherhood.

Over at Jack and Jill Politics Jill Tubman wonders why mainstream media outlets have not mentioned this content within Sodini's posts. Is it best that this information should be swept under the rug?

This is the part of the dark secret lurking in suburbia/disturbia and should be the stuff of all our nightmares: the intense racial anxiety, confusion, fear and rage some whites are feeling & how they plan to express. The birthers and the tea parties are just more symptoms of it.

So does this case compare to the April murder of three cops (also in Pittsburgh) when Richard Poplawski, who thought that an Obama presidency meant that his rights would be taken away? There is an interesting comment on one of the two excellent posts by The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates on the case, where the commenter feels that those with a mental illness are more succeptable to racism and sexism:

I think it's also worth discussing how racism and sexism intersect with mental illness. For a lot of hate crimes, the perpetrator is not only a bigot but also has mental illness issues that are separate from his (and yes, it's usually a "he") bigotry. The bigotry is what lights the fuse, but it's the mental illness that builds the powder keg to begin with.

International Blog Against Racism Week: July 27 - August 2nd

2009-07-30T07:03:39-05:00

Over the past few years, blog 'carnivals' were all the rage but in the past year, their popularity seemed to have dropped off. In the old days, a blogger would volunteer to have entries sent to them and then they would post the links, adding a bit of commentary about the blogger.

So I was pleased to have read Karnythia's post on The Angry Black Woman's site that she had participated in the most recent one, the International Blog Against Racism Week (July 27-August 2nd) and quite soon after I came across the Delicious page they had set up, so people can just tag their site there, instead of someone having to moderate. I tell you, when you look at this page you will be pleasantly surprised....or shocked at the huge amount of blogger's participating.

So there is a bit of happiness mixed with a bit of sadness - but no surprise. Happiness that there are blogger's still writing about combating systemic, institutional, overt and covert racism and its place in popular culture; and sadness because in this, ahem, 'Post-Obama' age, there seems to be more problems than in years past. On the other hand, maybe those issues have always been there but with the advent of the Internet, we now have a place to discuss issues, share insights, and maybe change a few minds.

So here are a few of the blog posts that I suggest you check out:

Apis Cerena writes about Asian women and eyelid surgery:

What really bothers me about the ongoing dialogue about Asian eyelids are the white people who are vehemently and vocally opposed to eyelid surgery for Asians -- most of the time, they seem to think that they're trying to fit in with western beauty ideals and trying to look white, or believe the stereotype that all Asians have small, Mongoloid eyes. And the people who are most vocal about this sound like they're very new to the field of anti-racism; they still don't know about white-knighting and how they can unintentionally silence POC about topics that don't concern them (it reminds me of discussions about Black women and natural hair, and how it always seemed like more concerned white feminists were discussing it, and POC voices were silenced and ignored).

Moominmolly talks about a situation she recently had with her daughter, who wanted to use tanning lotion so she could be black. She writes that, among other issues, she realized how important her daughter is raised in a multicultural environment:

I believe right now that it's the right choice for her educationally, but what else will happen? What will she learn that she doesn't know now, and what will she unlearn? What conversations am I going to have to step up and have with her directly, and when? She will still be in a culturally very diverse environment; that's not nothing. I don't know what it all amounts to, and I might never know.

Rawles discusses the invisibility of black women in popular culture. As a Sci-Fi junkie, she uses the imagery of Lieutenant Uhura in Star Trek, countering what was commonly perceived as a 'good' representation of black feminism:

This near total invisibility is perhaps the very first thing that I think needs to be understood in any feminist discourse about Uhura, but it seems to be the last thing most people talk about. As a result, they start off from a deeply flawed premise.

Uhura being single in TOS was not empowering.

She was single because the male leads were all white and as a black woman she was less of a person than them, she was less of a person than a white woman, and the fact that this serendipitously ended up meaning that she didn't have to spend all of her time mooning pathetically after dismissive men does not make that any more acceptable.

Imaginary Circus, who lives in Cambridge, Mass, where the brouhaha with Henry Louis Gates took place, discusses the situation and gives his (surprising) two cents on the matter:

Here's the thing. The whole Gates debacle has convinced me that most white people are racists and don't know it. I'm a white person and I am more racist than I would like to think I am. "Racist" has become such a loaded word--it makes it very hard for people in the majority to admit to racism, sexism, classism or any of the other dirty little -isms that cause problems. Who wants to stand up and say, "I'm a homophobic, sexist, racist idiot?" It's not as bad as saying you eat babies, but its a lot worse than saying you don't recycle.

I implore you....read read these posts! I just stumbled across this page yesterday and I haven't had time to go through all of them. If there is a post that you think is highly relevant and/or insightful, post the link in the comments.