lainad's blog

Racializing Michael Jackson's Legacy: It Does Matter if You're Black or White

2009-07-02T06:55:55-05:00

“We want to celebrate this black man,” Mr. Foxx said of Michael Jackson. “He belongs to us and we shared him with everybody else.” - Jamie Foxx, (from the New York Times)

I recently received a comment on my Facebook page from a relative, who seemed confused (and somewhat angry) as to why African-Americans were making a 'racial issue' of Michael Jackson's death. I didn't respond. It was early in the morning and I didn't feel like serving as a spokesperson for the entire black population that day.

The evening before the BET Awards had aired. Some people (yes, black folks too) were annoyed at the buffoonery of the show, criticizing that their tribute to MJ only consisted of 23 minutes of the three and a half-hour show. Also, some (like myself) were puzzled as to why Michael's father (and his physical and emotional abuser) Joe Jackson, was seated in the front row, smiling and basking in the attention. Some wondered why singer (and spousal abuser) Chris Brown did not take part in the tribute.

Now to be fair, the organizers of BET had only two days to pull this together. They are far from perfect, not a whole lot of people I know even watch the channel, so what's the big deal?

Race is an extremely sensitive issue. So sensitive that even what you might think is the most innocuous conversation can turn to a heated, bloody fistfight in a second. On the other hand, there is also is discomfort when people from ethnocultural communities - most often, black folks - discuss race. There are some that have such a hard time interacting with others who do not look like them, that when these people assert a differing opinion or a perspective that is 'uncolonized', they lose their minds: I.E Sonya Sotomayor.

When you raise an issue concerning race, has someone ever said "You are raising the issue. I don't see anything wrong with it?" It means that the person, like many others, would simply prefer that the issue remains unspoken and that it is your issue for raising it.

Some of the ire comes from (all communities) Jackson's appearance. His bleached skin, wig / weave of Caucasian hair and his altered appearance seemed to translate that he didn't like his afrocentric features. There is also the undeniable fact that his music, transmitted and celebrated globally was not specifically geared towards one ethnic group. He had white, Latino, Asian, South Asian fans. It did not matter what color he was to them, so why does it to us?

Blogging for CNN, Racialicious founder and the president of New Demographic ( a consultancy firm), Carmen Van Kerkhove wrote this:

Whatever drove this apparent self-loathing, I don’t believe we can separate race from the equation. Race cannot be separated with precision from body dimorphic disorder, hatred of his tyrannical father, or any potentially relevant theory being discussed right now.

Why?

Because if he hated his body, he was hating a black man’s body. If he hated his father, he was hating a black man. Race ran through it all; we cannot and should not dismiss its effect.

Does that mean we should take the alterations he made to his appearance as evidence that he hated being black?

Not necessarily.

The Daily Voice's Pamela D. Reed chose to - as many other did - to remember what Jackson's image in popular culture meant to her as a child growing up in rural Louisiana:

Yes, I know about his later years, his eccentricity, and all the accusations. But right now, I choose not to remember that--and how he was savaged by the media, who treated him like he was not flesh and blood, with human feelings.

What is bothering to some is that some view African-American communities as having a selective memory. Accused murder and current convicted felon O.J Simpson, accused pedophile R. Kelly and most recently, abuser Chris Brown have all received an uncomfortable amount of support from black communities. Critics now see the tearful brown faces on television, the cries that the "King of Pop" is dead, the confessions from blacks who wax poetic about how much he meant to them and are puzzled.

Constructive Feedback at Politics, Policy, Pathology and HOPE Within the Black Community posted a picture of Jackson's two older (white)children and questioned the denial that they feel many have had about Jackson's allegiance to his ethnicity and culture:

Keep in mind, however that - this post AIN'T about Michael Jackson. Its about YOU. How long are you going to be selective in your judgments regarding those who "offend" your racial dignity with their actions? We know that the wrong "thoughts" can get you excommunicated. What about the wrong actions in which a certain genetic market is extinguished from a man and those beings that come from his seed? Is this worthy of banishment?

So why is this a racial issue? Why are we seeing so many black folks support Jackson? Here's an example. I was speaking to a good friend about Jackson's 1993 trial and she was skeptical at why director Roman Polanski, who admitted to having sex with an underage girl, was never prosecuted for his actions. Granted, he fled the country but years later, received an Oscar Award. He has also had Americans petition for him to be allowed to enter the US and to be pardoned of his crime. She listed off the white actors and politicians whose sordid pasts included sex with underage girls and boys, and questioned why it seemed to be acceptable to white people that these men walk free, yet black men are (figuratively) hung and quartered.

Whether you like it or not, race and racism not only plays a huge factor on who we choose to love or hate, celebrate or scorn, how justice is laid. Justice is not blind, and for some, that is enough for them to be selective in their memories.

R.I.P MJ and The "Only Ones" - African-Americans in the Hamptons

2009-06-25T19:45:15-05:00

RIP Michael Jackson. My thoughts go out to his family.

Admittedly I was never a huge fan, post the Jackson 5 era. My favorite song is "Ben" which always brings tears to my eyes. I actually disliked the man immensely, because as a little black girl I, like probably many others, fantasized about marrying one of the brothers. They were our princes....through a 9 year-old's eyes. But when the plastic surgery and the skin lightening appeared, and much later, the allegations of sexual abuse of young boys, that childhood fantasy seemed distorted. How could I have a crush on a man who clearly hated himself, his blackness.....the same blackness that I had? If he hated himself so much, he would never love me. I felt betrayed, as I imagine other black girls did. As a kid ,when the white boys my age called me an animal and never gave me the time of day, it was the Jackson boys and the fantasies that there were boys, that one day, might like us, was destroyed.

He was a talented man, and a very disturbed man. It's unfortunate that his life was cut short.

Will the Obama's choose the 'Inkwell' in the Hamptons?

There is a buzz among tony New Yorkers who are fortunate enough to escape NYC's blistering summers and retreat to their mini-mansions in the Hamptons: The Obama's are coming? Yea!......or Nay?

According to the recent issue of New York Magazine, it is likely that the Obama family will spend a good portion of August among the elites. Sure, on the President's salary they might not to be able to afford a place of their own, but trust me, there will be someone willing to open their home. After all, it is pretty guaranteed that their charity will be well compensated. Pictures included in luxury publications, Page Six and the society papers? it's all worth it.

But the real question is, on what part of the Island will the Obama's stay? the White side(West Chop) or Oak Bluffs, a town where several prominent African-Americans reside? What has started off as a somewhat pedestrian news item has actually opened a discussion that despite being previously discussed, is still hidden: Self-imposed racial segregation in The Hamptons.

As liberal as it is, the Vineyard is about as racially integrated as a college dining hall—blacks and whites get along fine, but they generally don’t socialize. “There’s not a lot of overlap between black and white,” says radio executive Skip Finley, who started vacationing in Oak Bluffs in 1954 and has been living there full-time for the past decade. “I don’t think anybody’s insulted by it. I’m certainly not.” It’s an arrangement that springs largely from the self-segregating impulse among black Vineyarders, who have come to the island to connect with each other. “We have people here who are black and upscale and racist,” Finley continues. “They don’t want to be around white folks, and they don’t have to.” By choosing to vacation in and around Oak Bluffs, the Obama's would be throwing a spotlight on one of the most demographically unusual towns in America.

What I found really interesting about the article was the discussion of "The Only Ones" - African-Americans who find themselves - and monetarily benefited from - living, working, and being educated in all-white environments, being the the only black face in a sea of white. In doing so, they have been able to gain success in ways that many other blacks have not. But being an 'only one' has it's emotional and psychological price, which is partly why they (allegedly) self-segregate from the rest of the Hamptons:

The Only Ones deal with glass ceilings at work, unfortunate misunderstandings in their neighborhoods, condescension from blacks who think their education or class makes them inauthentic, and identity crises in their kids. When they get to their Vineyard vacation homes, they want to escape that casual, institutional, and intra-black racism and be around people who help them feel less anomalous.

In the new book, Sag Harbor author Colson Whitehead chronicles the story of Benji, an upper middle-class teenage social misfit (his passions and hobbies are deemed as 'uncool' by both his black and white peers) coming of age in the all - black enclave of Sag Harbor, an area on Long Island that has a long history within the African-American population. The book discusses the loneliness and isolation of being different, yet longing for acceptance. The realization that just because one shares the same ethnicity does not mean that we will find similarities.

But blogger Raving Black Lunatic points out the problems within the NY Magazine article, suggesting that in discussing self-segregating blacks in the Hamptons, it actually tries to paint blacks as racist and is slanted towards labeling them as intolerant and classist:

I was also treated to an explanation of how hard life is for bourgie black kids. Apparently, other black people don't want to be your friends when you refuse to hang out with them because they are poor, dark-skinned or too religious. These black folks have the nerve to question your "blackness," which is always an affront even if you admit that you are doing your best to distance yourself from the popular stereotypes about what represents blackness. Imagine that, people don't like you because you think they are inferior. That's a novel concept indeed.

And there is evidence of that in the article that the Only Ones discriminate amongst themselves. Even The Obama's have been scrutinized:

“Obama is more a man of the people,” says a Vineyarder who’s part of black high society. “He doesn’t seem to identify with affluent black people. His wife definitely doesn’t; she is basically a ghetto girl. That’s what she says—I’m just being sociological."

To read some interesting comments, head over to The Huffington Post.

For even more interesting comments like this: "I wonder if HUD has any plans of putting in low income housing and giving Section 8 vouchers." Head on over to American Renaissance.

Looking For My 'Barak' - The Root Examines if Black Women Can 'Catch' the Ideal Man

2009-06-18T10:07:28-05:00

Recently The Root.com posted two very interesting commentaries about the state of black relationships in the post-Obama era. The first, written by Jeneé Desmond-Harris argues that one of the reasons why 45% of black women are unmarried, versus 23% of white women, is because black women are too picky. Using the example of the apparent mismatch of the union of Michelle and Barack Obama, Desmond-Harris believes that Michelle must have deliberately chosen to look beyond President Obama's social ineptitude's and questionable class status in order to see his potential:

She must have focused on an abundance of goodness instead of his hint of goofiness and fixated on a warm smile instead of a pair of oversized ears. It’s easy to see now that he was a great catch, but how many of us would have been open to this guy who strayed so far from the black Prince Charming ideal, starting with his very name?

Later in the article, Desmond-Harris gives examples of how black women nitpick over alleged imperfections to the point that they overlook the potential that can lie underneath the surface:

The point is simple. Given the numeric and historical facts, those of us who do seek to have relationships with black men of similar circumstances might need to open up a little. That doesn’t mean giving up on attraction. Attraction cannot be faked or forced. But we must start to question our assumptions about what our ideal really is.

The first commenter on this post said this:

Wake up and smell the coffee, Black woman: You are competing with a younger opened minded generation of Black woman and women of other races. Stop being so picky, recognize the competition, and look at the good vs. the bad in men.

This week writer David Swerdlick, while partly agreeing with Desmond-Harris, added an interesting observation. Maybe black women should stop trying to find 'their' Barak Obama. Stop being (he doesn't say this so bluntly) - a golddigger. Using an example from the original commentary of a woman being turned off because a potential suitor chose Hot Chocolate over coffee he suggests not to focus on trivial issues as to what they can potentially do for you:

We’ll do what we have to do to get your phone number, but in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a recession going on. If you start sizing up a man for all he’s worth right now, you’re letting him know up front that if things get too far, he’s on the hook for a three-karat rock and a mortgage on a beach house in Oak Bluffs. And if he knows that already, he might flee.

Now, up until recently, I never fully acknowledged the power of the image of a successful black couple meant to the general public until seeing grownwomen on the verge of tears when talking about the emotional significance of seeing an attractive and successful black couple rise to a political and social prominence in society, something that they never imagined would happen in their lifetime. But Swerdlick also raises an issue that those in black populations would say are ' fighting words:'

And know your own limitations, ladies. I mean, you’re intelligent and sexy and all, but unless you’re a female equivalent to the Dos Equis guy—the most interesting woman in the world who smells like Chanel No. 5 24 hours a day—accept the possibility that it’ll take more than pilates and a master’s degree to snag the next Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, both these commentaries signify an even more problematic situation that arises when writers delve into the shark-filled waters of discussing black relationships: the blame game.

Reacting to both commentaries, Tami from What Tami Said said this:

Conversations about heterosexual black relationships seem always about what black women need to do better. And now there seems to be a popular new class of dating article bearing the message: "Don't go thinking you are worthy of a man like Barack Obama."

Danielle from The Black Snob has an issue with Desmond-Harris's take on whether a woman would - or should - be turned off at a 'funny sounding' name:

If names were an issue, no black people would be dating anyone. Everyone born from the 1970s on either knows someone, loves someone or has some form of an African, Muslim, African-American made up fancy-pants name. I was the only Danielle I knew growing up, but I knew about 15 Keishas and God knows how many Hakeems, Dantes and Dontrelles. Barack wouldn't have caused most folks to blink any more than a guy named Kenyatta.

Raving Black Lunatic believes that Desmond-Harris's article was accurate, that black women's quest for manly, aggressive qualities and men who have the educational and career pedigrees that they find signify quality, usually do not go hand-in hand:

In fact, if black women only had the the aforementioned qualities along with some basic additions like honesty, intelligence and maturity on their wishlists for potential mates, well black folks would be marrying like Mormons. Unfortunately that ain't life.

Tami also raises an interesting point. When these issues are discussed, no one seems to question why black men are never taken to task about what she says are "unrealistic beauty standards." This might be a bit off topic, but I found this blog, Beautiful Black Woman - Thoughts From a White B'woy in my Google search, created by a Swedish dude who seems to think that he is doing a humanitarian service for black women. Tell me what you think.

The Rise of Hate-Based Activity in our "Post Racial" Society

2009-06-11T12:18:23-05:00

A couple of months ago, a conversation I had with an employment counselor brought about an issue that in hindsight, was an eerie premonition to the violence from extreme right-wing factions that have plagued America over the past few weeks. We were discussing the dismal economy and how people were reacting to the thousands of job losses in Canada within the month of March. She was talking about other times in history where an economic recession had unwittingly brought about an issue that it seemed, people never liked to discuss.

She is Jewish, and has relatives whom (only a few) had survived the Holocaust. She discussed what it was like for them in post-World War II Canada and the simmering resentment that her relatives had faced when trying to find employment. "When the economy dips, you see more sexual, class and racial - targeted discrimination," she surmised.

In addition to the presence of the first African-American president, people who already harbor racist ideologies are going to be even more incensed. that might be translated into more difficulty for women and minorities to land jobs, she added. After all, if employers are hiring a smaller percentage of people than they ordinarily would in better economic times, there are going to be some selections based on things outside of whether the person has the skills or not.

But despite the economic crisis and the social issues that become polarized because of it, there is also a level of extreme violent activity that has ensued.As BlogHer CE Nordette reported yesterday, the shooting of Security Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns at the U.S Holocaust Memorial Museum by white supremacist James von Brunn, shocked the world. How could this 88 year-old man (who had previously been convicted and spent time in jail for attempted kidnapping ) procure a gun and, seemingly working alone, walk into the museum and shoot a security guard? People were stunned, rightly so, but not entirely surprised at the shooting of Dr. George Tiller a well-revered doctor, mostly known for performing late-term abortion.

While sadness and disgust over these events is a natural emotion to have, what do we do next? Or are we willing to do anything about it?

CNN interviewed several people who were visiting the Washington Museum during the shooting. Many of them, if not all, were tourists who were shocked that von Brunn was so hateful that he would willingly trade the limited amount of time he had on earth (either by natural causes or being shot by law enforcement) just to harm others. But according to the Huffington Post, a report from the Department of Homeland Security warned that because of the current economic crisis that it is expected to see a surge in anti-semitic behavior:

"Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish 'financial elites,'" the report read. "These 'accusatory' tactics are employed to draw new recruits into right-wing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs."

However, some took the report as being a back-handed slap against conservatives:

When the 10-page DHS memorandum was made public, however, warnings like these largely took the back seat to charges that the department had been politically motivated in its assessments and writings. Indeed, a wide swath of voices in the conservative movement -- from Rush Limbaugh to RNC Chairman Michael Steele -- lashed out at DHS Secretary Napolitano over what they deemed an anti-Republican report.

Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center appeared on CNN's The Situation Room" to talk about the increase of web traffic from hate sites after the Obama Election last November:

We know, for instance, that immediately after Barack Obama's election the computer servers of several major white supremacist websites collapsed because they've gotten such huge amount of traffic. So, you know, I think that Obama's election has fired up at least sectors of the radical right. The economy has not helped. And, of course, continuing high levels of nonwhite immigration have been in the background for the past six or seven years.

Crooks and Liar's David Neiwert suggests that extremists are not only pissed at Obama, but are infuenced by the Liberal and mainstream media:

Violent characters like this are being driven mad with fear about what Obama and the liberals are doing to the country. A lot of that fear is being stoked by mainstream sources, and the unstable characters like this seize that as an excuse to act.

But what about race relations in general? One of the issues that continues to bother me, and something that was raised more than once via last evenings news programming, was that people need to communicate, to have an open and honest dialogue on race - whether it be via online communication or amongst a group of diverse members in your community. But it's difficult when the same evening news programs air news items that cause more pessimism than optimism, and even more difficult when people do not feel comfortable openly discussing a topic for fear of being riduculed for saying the wrong thing.

Last week, I was compelled to get off my couch and Twitter CNN's Campbell Brown while watching a provocative segment on the legitimacy of Affirmative Action in this 'Post-Racial' society (you can read the transcript here). According to Joe R Hicks, Vice-President of Community Advocates Inc,Affirmative Action is no longer needed. After all, President Obama didn't get into office because of quotas, right?

Well, I think racist is kind of a harsh term here. We often associate the word racism and racist with really insidious kinds of things, lynching's, those sorts of things. My premise is that we live in a world that I argue is the post-racial world; a world in which things like racial preferences, which is really what we're talking about here, as opposed to affirmative action are simply unneeded.

Danielle at the Black Snob posted Rev. Wright's latest foray into anti-semitism:

Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...
"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

(Note: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are approximately 925 active hate groups in America)

So because of the economy and the election of an African-American president and the spate of violence from extreme right-wingers in the past several weeks, it is too early to be optimistic about a post-racial society. what do you think that citizens need to do in order to combat the rise of anti-semitism in society? Is there anyway we can prevent another incident?

Update: Samantha Orobator Found Guilty in Laos, Sentenced to Life

2009-06-04T11:13:54-05:00

(A follow-up from my post on May 7th)

Samantha Orobator, a pregnant British woman who was arrested for drug trafficking, was found guilty and was sentenced to life yesterday. While initial reports (and my initial skepticism as to whether she was actually guilty of the charge) were quashed, as she reportedly admitted attempting to smuggle drugs out of the country.

Just like the responses to the news that Orobator, 20 had been arrested, the sympathy isn't exactly pouring out for the Nigerian-born woman. On Pearl's Window a personal remark is written under the pasted news report:

Oh well. boo boo. I don't feel sorry for you. You knew the risk, and you took it. See ya later.

Now, outside of the thinly-veiled racism and sexism that clouded the initial comments about this case, new allegations about Orobator's actions have raised even more cynicism:

According to Lao officials, Orobator initially told authorities she was pregnant by her boyfriend in England, but tests after she was arrested showed no signs of pregnancy. It was not until March 2 that a hospital test showed she was pregnant, verified by a second test April 4, police said. That meant she must have become pregnant while in prison, they said.

Orobator's mother recently said her daughter had not been raped by prison officials or fellow prisoners, as some media had speculated. The Vientiane Times quoted police as saying Orobator admitted she secretly obtained sperm from a fellow prisoner to impregnate herself to avoid the death penalty.

Do you think this is true? Apparently, Orobator was forced to sign a document that she was not raped by prison officials before she stood trial and received a life sentence. On the other hand, if I were in that situation, I'd impregnate myself too!

One of the best posts I have found on this case has come from UK blogger Agnes Agyepong, who is critical of this controversy over Orobator's pregnancy:

I have been shocked by peoples responses to this case. Comments I have read on blogs and the mainstream media seem to believe that she managed to sleep with an inmate, maybe had consensual sex whilst in prison with a prison guard for a favor, or used a syringe and impregnated herself with an inmates sperm to avoid the death penalty. In any case an overwhelming majority of the views I read point to Samantha being complicit.

Has anyone looked at the conditions of the jail she's being held? She has know contact with her family, doesn't know when her trial is, doesn't know whether she will live or die, Is in a foreign country and can not speak the language... and the first thing on her mind is to seek a lover within 16 weeks of incarceration? Yeah right!

For some interesting discussions, head on over to Huffington Post, were there are some varied comments. Here is one that I feel, sums up the entire issue:

The country has laws, and is not afraid to implement it. Foreigners MUST learn to respect other countries' laws and stop acting like they own the whole world and can do whatever they want. Then they act surprised when things like this happen and start calling the country backwards and cruel.

Essence Magazine Suggests That Black Women Troll Strip Clubs For Men

2009-05-28T10:58:55-05:00

Like just about every female-centric magazine to recently hit the newstands, the June issue of Essence Magazine was all about getting ready for the summer months. Between pages of skimpy bikinis, the latest fashion trends and weight loss techniques, writers Charreah Jackson and Niema Jordan offered a list of the best places to pick up black men. Some were suggestions that many women - regardless of ethnicity - had previously known were hot spots: The gym, the bookstore and wedding receptions ("watching their buddies get hitched has a big impact on men"). The one suggestion that stood out for me (and several other enraged black women) was that black women should troll strip clubs to find a date - or mate:

Just hear us out: Some city strip clubs have evolved into sexy social scenes. “I’ve encountered plenty of attractive, straight, and single men at strip clubs.” Says Zenitra Perry, 26 a sales executive in New York City. With seminude women walking around everyone’s guard is down. Go ahead and send a drink to the Idris Elba look-alike at the bar”

WTF?

There are so many wrongs with this suggestion. Gina from What About Our Daughters dedicated two posts to tackle this issue. After inquiring if the writers happened to be sniffing glue while putting the list together, she breaks down the article:

First of all, strip clubs don’t EVOLVE! The whole concept of strip clubs is DE-Evolution. Its a place where human beings, women, are treated like animals. No brain, no heart, no emotions, just objects dancing around.

Gina did get a response from Charreah Jackson, who defended her article by saying this:

No, every woman won’t meet the man of her dreams at Magic City, but you may meet someone who you can have a nice date with, and for a lot of sisters that’s a lot more action than they’ve had in a while.

That's nice. Really.

In reality, it is estimated that 45% of black women are single. There are a number of societal issues for this belief - one being the rate of incarceration of black men; interracial relationships (black men who prefer to mate with non-black women) and same-sex couples. More importantly is that many feel that black women are sexually and emotionally devalued, that they are single because essentially NO ONE finds them desirable. Okay, obviously this is not a fact but the crucial part of this argument is that this belief - in it's twisted and distorted manifiestations - is one that many black women - okay, the ones I've talked to - feel about themselves.

But to some, black women visiting the 'Champagne Room' is not so bad. A Belle in Brooklyn thinks that going to a strip bar guarantees that at least the men you could meet are straight:

Here's my theory on why strip clubs are a great place to meet men: there are men there, more men than women, which tips the odds of meeting a guy in your favor. I don’t think going there is an act of desperation, more a smart way of playing a numbers game.

She adds that like for many people, she thought that the strippers were being objectified and that by going to the club, she was partakining in their objectification. But oh no, because the women looked "happy":

I didn't meet any women that looked dejected and exploited. They were friendly, bubbly even......And all manner of talented too. No one looked forced to be there.

Dr. Kyra Gaunt runs Success with the Opposite Sex: Get Related Not Dated a blog focused on black relaionships, suggests that the 'scaricty' that so many women complain about, has little to do with availability but more to do with how we see ourselves:

But I still keep hearing from nice guys that they just don’t get a chance with most women. So if we don’t begin to get at the heart of why we think we “can’t find a man” and start looking in the other direction–at ourselves and what context we are coming from–then the default future will be …we “can’t find a man.” But that’s just what we keep saying.

My single black girlfriends and I talk about our singledom quite often, but as intelligent women, it is understood that we will not compromise our personal happiness and our self-worth just for the sake of not sleeping alone at night. Essence magazine, which I stopped reading several years ago, will not impact the lives of their readers with this article, but what they have done is solidified societal assumptions that do exist - and our most secret fears. If you are not partnered up by 25, there is something wrong with you, and by trolling places that historically have objectified women that now is the time to put your personal values aside - you know, the ones that value integrity and that physical attraction should play...well an important, but secondary role in who you attract and whom you find attractive.

Tamil Canadian Protests: Do Social Demonstrations Threaten Multiculturalism?

2009-05-21T12:33:25-05:00

Last weekend, it was announced that the Sri Lankan millitary had defeated the Tamil Tigers, seizing control of the island's coastline for the first time in 25 years. Fellow Blogher CE Singdha has posted an excellent look at the relevance of what this means not only to Tamil's but the future of the relationship between India and Sri Lanka.

For the past 3-4 months, residents and commuters to Toronto's downtown core have been greatly inconvenienced by multiple rallies contesting the war in Sri Lanka demanding that the Canadian government assist in stopping the war and that the government provide financial aid to help Tamil's who were displaced and injured. Even though the war has ended, as Singdha notes, there is still a lot of work to be done.

This morning I read an interesting opinion piece by Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui on the mixed reaction by Canadian's to the multiple ( but extremely organized) protests. People were not only pissed because main thoroughfares were blocked and multiple police officers were called to corral the protesters (which by many accounts were exceptionally peaceful and respectful), they were angered because of the old Canadian adage: 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do' I.E: Shut the hell up, you ungrateful immigrants:

We want Tamil Canadians, and other minorities, to "be Canadian." Yet when they act Canadian and exercise their Charter right to peaceful protest, we call them "Tamil's," the very identity we do not want them to revert to exclusively.

Siddiqui goes on to mention that Toronto, like probably every other large, urban dwelling in North America, has had it's share of protests. My alma mater, York University seems to have a strike every year (there were three in the four years I went there). Our hockey fans are completely nutty, and actually frighten me more than any other protesters I have witnessed. There are union-organized protests and the weekly swarming of young people who block up our entertainment district every weekend (it's crazy and it is dangerous), when police officers - some on horseback - have to head downtown and stop the myriad of fistfights and attempted sexual assaults.

And the Tamil-Canadian protesters were not so self-absorbed that they didn't even think about how they were inconveniencing others. They passed out flyers during protests to passerby's, acknowledging and apologizing for the (undeniable fact) they were inconveniencing them, and even the police admitted that these were some of the most organized protests they had ever experienced - even though they later offered up a hefty bill for their services.

So what's the problem? Well, multiculturalism and Canadians' intolerance towards it. Yes, yes, as I've repeatedly said before, we brag about our policies, so much 'better' than other countries. But as witnessed by the last four months, our tolerance is subjective and wearing very, very thin.

An interesting comment from Siddiqui's article:

Canadians want the products of indentured labor, but does not want those relatives and others with a voice, to protest the inhumane treatment that makes these products so cheap. The Tamil's are only the tip of the racist iceberg.

One reason why I like posting citizen comments is that, despite the fact that most of the time they are pretty offensive, they really shed a light as to what the public thinks - good or bad. On Facebook, one of my contacts annoyed the hell out of me when annoyed that the downtown core was clogged up, thereby inconveniencing her, referred to the protesters as "terrorists." She should have known better to first, think before she speaks / writes, and also not to put that crap on Facebook.

However, Canada is not the seventh ring of hell, either. Sometimes you need another perspective to realize that there are other countries that also have challenges with multiculturalism. Amanda from Building Bridges, who has traveled extensively, notes that when in Europe, she felt that there was more of a negative opinion surrounding new immigrants, which made her appreciate her adopted country of Canada.

Fatima at Run Like The Wind says that the recent demonstrations reflect the holes in Canada's multiculturalism policies:

In order for Canadian multiculturalism to accept any given group of people as a cultural community, it must define that group by differentiating it from a supposedly mainstream Canadian identity. This focalizing Canadian identity—in effect a non-identity—is white and middle-class. Thus, when the Toronto Star publishes an editorial entitled “Protesters vs. the public” [1] it effectively notes that the protesters are not part of the public by pitting (Tamil) protesters against the (Canadian) public. Rather than focusing on the war, media outlets have focused on the inconvenience posed to commuters, thereby shifting attention away from deaths in Sri Lanka to traffic regulations in Canada.

Blogger Joanne from Blue Like You (Blue for the Canadian Conservatives, that is) believes that the demonstrations are a sign that Canadians need to take a look at their immigration policies:

The problem as I see it, is when immigrants bring their own politically-charged homeland battles here. There is a fine line between freedom of speech vs. deciding when it negatively affects other citizens and may become a security threat.

While I vehemently disagree with Joanne, she raises an issue that does explain some of the consternation from Canadian citizens. Canada regards the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group and that was one of the main issues for the demonstrators - to get the Federal Government to remove that ban, thereby making it easier for the government to send aid to the thousands of impoverished Tamil's who are being prosecuted by the Sri Lankan government.

While there is some back-and-forth as to the legitimacy of this, I think that Canadians, more annoyed because they could drive down University Avenue one day, did not carefully look at the issues at hand. Instead - as you can see from the comments on Joanne's blog - many just assumed that the protesters were 'violent terrorists.'

Canadian MP Ruby Dhalla Accused of Mistreating Nannies

2009-05-14T12:51:14-05:00

Last April, changes to Ontario's Caregiver program were announced as new legislation was passed to protect the rights of foreign workers who enter the province to work as nannies and assistants in private homes. Currently there are approximately 18,000 people working as nannies in Ontario, primarily in the Toronto area.

One of the major changes that were introduced with this legislation is the creation of a hotline, where nannies who feel that they have been mistreated by their employers, can call.

Almost immediately after the announcement of this legislation, Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla (who represents the suburb of Brampton for Parliament) was put in the hot seat. Two former employees, Richelyn Tongson and Magdalene Gordo accused Dhalla of forcing them to work up to 16 hours a day with minimal financial compensation($250 CDN per week), demanding that they perform jobs outside of their duties (they were hired to look after Dhalla's mother, that many assumed needed around-the-clock care but was in fact, relatively healthy). These extra duties included yard work, preparing meals for Dhalla, cleaning the apartment and medical offices of a relative and shining the shoes for Dhalla's brother, whom Dhalla claims is responsible for the hiring of the nannies.

Blogger Jennifer Smith questions that if it is true that Dhalla's brother was responsible for hiring the nannies, who come they haven't come forward?

If Dhalla's family has any interest in rescuing her political career, then at some point her brother and mother need to step forward and accept full responsibility for their dealings with these women. Preferably sooner rather than later. The fact that they haven't already is a little disconcerting.

However, Tongson and Gordo claim that Dhalla was the one responsible for hiring the nannies. According to their recent testimony in front of Parliament, the women claim that Dhalla repeatedly asked to hold on to their passports and failed to apply for Federal approval to legally hire the nannies. The nannies, fearful because they knew they were working illegally, quit their jobs. But getting their documentation from Dhalla was difficult and eventually they sought help to not only get their passports back, but their compensation.

Dhalla, of course - as her reputation and her political career are on the line - refutes the claims, alleging that this is a political smear campaign and her former employees are in cahoots with politicians that want her to take the fall. She has already resigned from her position as Liberal critic for Youth and Multiculturalism.

There have been other issues that have caused Dhalla to face some public consternation in the past, such as her trying to block a 'Bollywood' movie that she appeared in prior to her winning the MP seat. More seriously though, were the accusations leveled against her when in India on a business trip, her aide's purse was stolen by two young children . When the purse was retrieved by the police, the children, ages 9 and 5, were beaten by the police. Dhalla responded to the news that the thief's had been beaten by allegedly saying, "I cannot control what the police do and I hope that those young kids learn from this incident."

Sara from Choice for Childcare says that regardless whether Dhalla is found to have had illegal caregivers working for her, she should step down:

I do not believe Ruby represents women's rights in an equal fashion. Whether this is true or not, makes no difference to me. Any Women who says they represent all women then lie and try and put in a National Daycare Scheme is not fit to be an MP.

How does race factor into this issue? Or does it at all? Dhalla, who is Sikh, is accused of abusing two Filipino women. Race has not factored into media reports but Dhalla has said that she is deeply offended by these accusations because as a child of immigrants, she has tirelessly worked on behalf of immigrant women in Canada. There are some in the Sikh community who would like more media reports from the Sikh communities perspective. From Jodha at The Langar Hall:

Perhaps much more interesting would be perspectives by Sikh-Canadians, especially those in Brampton that could comment on the case, but more particularly about Ruby Dhalla as their representative.

Basically, all the Canadian media outlets are carrying this story, but I suggest you check out the Toronto Star for more coverage.

Pregnant British Woman Jailed in Laos

2009-05-07T09:30:15-05:00

Samantha Orobator is a 20 year-old Nigerian-born British woman who was arrested last August on suspicion of trafficking heroin in Laos. If found guilty, she could face execution by a firing squad. It took months for British officials to learn that she was in jail and currently, the prison has not allowed her lawyer to visit her.

Laos is known for its harsh anti-drug laws and unlike other countries, there is no difference in the severity of punishment based on the type of drugs. If one is found with a pound of marijuana, they would receive the same punishment as if they had a pound of heroin. (Edit: I've updated the above link. Sorry!)

There have been numerous cases of travelers who have been arrested in neighbouring countries and have received severe punishments for trafficking drugs. Currently, two Canadians have been sitting in an Indonesian jail for almost four months for allegedly possessing and using 3.6 grams of pot.

So why is this case so different? In January, the imprisoned Orobator told her mother that she is pregnant. But luckily for her, on Tuesday the Indonesian government announced that they will not execute a pregnant woman. But what happens if she is convicted after her September due date?

And how exactly did she conceive while in prison? What About Our Daughters wonder the truth will ever get out.

How exactly do you become impregnated in a women’s prison? And how exactly does a 20 year old get her hands on 1.5 pounds or heroin? We don’t know the facts of this case, however, there is many a federal prison bed filled by a Black woman who got involved in the drug trade because of “love”. Paging Kimba Smith. Paging Kimba Smith!

Huffington Post reports that officials say that she told a doctor that she was impregnated before she landed in jail, by her boyfriend. but she has been imprisoned since August. And due in September. Do the math.

Melissa McEwan from Shakespeare's Sister was perturbed at the lack of national media coverage:

Despite all that, this story has received almost no attention whatsoever in the US media; USA Today, which is possibly the only US news org besides CNN and HuffPo who's addressed it at all, merely linked to the Telegraph's coverage.
Since when does a Western woman with no history of drug involvement who has nonetheless been arrested and detained as an alleged drug mule, was quite likely raped and forcibly impregnated while being held, and faces a kangaroo court trial not warrant news coverage? I dare anyone to tell me it has nothing to do with the fact that Samantha Orobator is black.

Some people are not so sympathetic. Here's a comment from MomLogic:

How much you wanna bet she was sleeping with whatever she could to get pregnant in there, and probably at the suggestion of a legal advisor trying to spare her life and drum up some sympathy with a baby, and now putting a spin on it as a rape. Uhhhh huh, so at 20 years old she can find herself subject to exploitation in a prison, yet she’s completely innocent to her situation? I think not. Judging by the answers her mom gave, this girl sounds like a skeezy, manipulative liar whose only actions are meant to serve her. She knew the crime, she should do the time. Baby or not, I think she still deserves a punishment, whether or not that be death is not up to my discretion. But if death is the penalty they truly want to give her, it doesn’t be reduced just because she had a baby. Honestly, it’s not like the thing was conceived in love, or she’s got a great career/life/moral fiber that she’ll be able to raise a child with. This girl is pretty pathetic if you ask me. She wanted to get preggers in prison, I’d bet on it.

For more information on this case,check out the Facebook page for Samantha. You can also head over to Reprieve, the UK human rights organization that is working as Samantha's legal counsel.

When a Black Family Adopts a White Child - A Different Twist on Transcultural Adoption

2009-04-30T07:11:21-05:00

Chitlun's and greens for dinner?

Malt Liquor in the baby bottle?

Fried chicken for an after-school snack?

Many of the discussions surrounding transracial adoption center on white families who adopt children of color. Conversations about international adoption and the emotional toll that adoption can cause for adult adoptee's and their parents are common and usually based on how to maintain one's cultural identity yet adapt to a new and sometimes hostile environment.

But what happens when the roles are reversed? In this case, black families that adopt white children?

First, this isn't about that horrible Steve Martin movie. According to a recent article in Newsweek this situation might be one that we will see more often in the near future. The article is centered on 9 year-old Katie O'Dea-Smith, a white girl whose parents are African-American. This case is a bit confusing as the mother of Terri Riding, who is the adoptive mother actually has legal guardianship of the girl, who came to her home as a troubled 3 year-old foster child. Her daughter and her husband serve as parental figures to the girl - and also have guardianship rights:

As a black father and adopted white daughter, Mark Riding and Katie O'Dea-Smith are a sight at best surprising, and at worst so perplexing that people feel compelled to respond. Like the time at a Pocono Mountains flea market when Riding scolded Katie, attracting so many sharp glares that he and his wife, Terri, 37, and also African-American, thought "we might be lynched." And the time when well-intentioned shoppers followed Mark and Katie out of the mall to make sure she wasn't being kidnapped. Or when would-be heroes come up to Katie in the cereal aisle and ask, "Are you OK?"—even though Terri is standing right there.

Brave from Mother Talkers who has two children from Guatemala, says that pervasive racial stereotypes in the media about black folks is a symptom of this kind of behavior:

The roots of this reaction probably lies in racism and the history of African Americans in the US. We have plenty of media images of African Americans as gangstas, drug dealers, maids and caretakers of white children, but not as many media images of them as parents, adoptive parents, successful corporate CEOs, teachers.

Mollie from Get Religion seems more concerned about the analogy describing Katie as 'pale as a communion wafer' than the adoption story. But she is correct in looking at the present demographics of children that need homes in the States:

I have neighbors of various races who have adopted children of various other races — including a black mother with a white child. But while it’s acceptable and increasingly popular for white families to adopt black children, the opposite scenario isn’t as prevalent. While both white and black families prefer to adopt children of their own race, black families have a better chance of adopting a same-race child because of the current demographic situation in foster care. So this makes for a great idea for a story — particularly since we learn in this Newsweek piece that Congress might reinstate race as a salient consideration in adoption cases.

Jae Ran Kim from Harlow's Monkey who has dedicated her blog to transcultural adoption( I highly suggest checking it out) recently spoke at the Iowa Foster and Adoptive Parent Association's Cultural Connections Conference and posted her guidelines on Things to think about when parenting a child transracially or transnationally.

So what do y'all think about this? As a transcultural adoptee, I certainly believe in adoption as despite the cultural background of the child, there are parents who are willing to dedicate their lives to those who need it. On the other hand - as dad Mark Riding says, there is a lot of caution and concern from (not so?) well-meaning people who are...let's face it - not used to seeing that family dynamic.

Self-Segregation in the City - "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist?"

2009-04-23T10:26:21-05:00

(Warning: rant alert)

Last Monday, my best friend invited me to a book launch / benefit concert that celebrated a very well-known Canadian author. My friend (whom I refer to online as 'Homegirl') is an excellent makeup artist and had done the makeup / styling for the author for her book photo. Because of their shared passion for animals - the benefit concert consisted of esteemed Canadian actors / journalists / playwrights reciting a story / poem about their passion for their pets - she had invited Homegirl to the event.

After getting slightly lost, we got to the downtown theatre late and even though we had tickets to the sold-out event, we were seated (after waiting 20 minutes for the usher to get us) separately, after the woman behind the ticket counter asked us why were were there. I was seated between a group of white women who glared at me when I sat down. At first I shrugged it off, thinking that they were probably annoyed because a stranger had been seated in their group.

As we were both seated in the balcony, I could easily observe the crowd of around 1,000. I noticed that besides three of the presenters, a young black opera singer, an actor and the head of the shelter that all of the proceeds of the event were going to, my friend and I were the only people of color there. That didn't really bother me, even though I did think that was kind of odd. About an hour in, a family of four got up to leave and because there were more seats available, I moved so I could sit beside Homegirl.

In doing so, the group of people seated beside us looked us over and frowned. And continued to do so for the duration of the event. After the presentations ended and people were invited to the bar area for a drink and to buy the book, we hung around to talk to the author. As we waited, we went to talk to a young man and woman who were representatives from an animal rights group and were seeking signatures for a petition. The couple, while polite, seemed stunned to see us there. After I explained that my mother was a volunteer at animal shelters and I could take some of the petitions for her to distribute, the woman said, "I just wanted to know. What are you doing here?"

I was taken aback. Doing where? Homegirl explained her relationship with the author, and the two nodded their heads and gave us these cold smiles. I was speechless. Why ask us that question? Did we inadvertently walk into a Klan rally? We left and went to talk to the author, who was talking to a group of people who then looked over at us, clearly wondering why we were hovering. The author, seeing my friend, came over and gave her a hug and started chatting. I backed away and saw the surprised looks of her friends. How did she know her?

During the cab ride home, I said to Homegirl, "what the hell was that?" These things bother me. Homegirl, whom previously has also experienced similar situations can shrug it off, dismiss the attendees as 'ignorant' and move on. But for me, I can't because I see no logic and refuse to let people off the hook for their ignorance.

When talking to black friends and acquaintances about incidents where we are made to feel like illegal occupiers in the cities where we were born and reside, there is a sense of weariness, just another burden that we are expected to tolerate and not discuss - or question. There is a sense that it is okay for some to not want us in their spaces, that they want to socialize 'among themselves' and we should let them have their time. We are not supposed to talk about it, question it - it is what it is.

But beside my own observations, what does it mean? Are there spaces in which all 'political correctness' is off-limits? a free for all? You cannot force people to socialize with people that they do not want to socialize with. But within urban dwellings, what should you expect?

Is self-segregation okay? Just a natural expression of wanting to be around like minded - or skinned - people?

Over at The Angry Black Woman writer Nojojojo writes about attending Broadway's Avenue Q a few years ago. Quoting the lyrics from one of the more popular songs in the play, "Everybody's a Little Bit Racist" she writes that while she didn't find it funny, many in the audience did. Here are a portion of the lyrics:

Everyone’s a little bit racist
It’s true.
But everyone is just about
As racist as you!
If we all could just admit
That we are racist a little bit,
And everyone stopped being
So PC
Maybe we could live in -
Harmony!

Nojojojo writes that the song conveniently ignores the voracity of racism and how it erodes a person's psyche and the song basically dismisses it by saying, 'that's okay. Because isn't it a natural thing?' With the notion that if everyone is a 'little bit racist' it is saying that racism is okay, thereby denying how it affects people and avoids the importance of getting rid of racism in general.

I know, I know it's a song. But as Nojojojo adds - as well as the commenter's do - people in the audience laughed and enjoyed the song. Out of relief? An involuntary reaction to the acknowledgement that they felt that they were somehow being persecuted from all these meddlesome minorities that 'cry' racism?

Can I 'cry racism' because of the above incident, and if I did what would they do? There was a certain prejudice that dictated that for some reason, blacks were not expected to be concerned about animal rights or to be associated with a high-profile author. To mingle with white folks. To be able to afford the tickets - which Homegirl paid for. The beliefs that some people held was questioned with our presence, but will they take the time to re-evaluate their prejudices? We'll see.

Black Male Sexual Abuse - What No One Wants To Talk About

2009-04-16T15:00:35-05:00

Did anyone know that Rapper L'il Wayne was sexually abused as a child?

Do we even care? I do.

In March, Lisa from Sociological Images posted a video clip from the Jimmy Kimmel show where L'il Wayne was a guest. The rapper, covered head to toe in tattoos, piercing and had quite an impressive mouthful of diamond-encrusted teeth, was there to promote his new album. The questions that Kimmel's producers, whom clearly did a half-ass research job, provided a glimpse into what middle America thinks about Rappers - all about the bling, dumb as f$%k, and basically a throwback from the good o'l minstrel days. Kimmel did not take the man seriously, and it showed.

So when Kimmel asked Wayne (who was sitting with fellow guest, journalist/reporter Charles Gibson) about reports that he lost his virginity at 11 to an older teenager, it was centered on the black male stereotype - black men are hyper-sexual, sexual animals whose morals around their sexuality are loose - if they exist at all. When posed with the question, Wayne first laughs it off, but as you can see in the video, he is clearly uncomfortable when asked if what he experience stayed with him.

Excerpt from video (courtesy of Sociological Images:)

Kimmel: I didn’t know you could lose your virginity at 11-years-old.

Gibson: Well, we can’t, but he did.

I had head of the story before but the conversation between Kimmel and Wayne made me feel uncomfortable. It was like the 'joke' wasn't really a joke - that Kimmel had made a mistake in assuming that Wayne's first sexual experience was something that to brag about, but was actually an experience that had had negatively shaped Wayne's thoughts about his sexuality.

After sensing Wayne's hesitation to the questions about his first sexual experience, Kimmel then asks Wayne about the virginity status of his four-month old son.

Feministe writer Cara Kulwicki wrote a provocative post on her blog The Curvature which investigates the difference in public perception between male and female sexual assault reports:

In the majority of sexual assault cases, where a woman is the victim of a man’s violence, rape apology is rooted primarily not in the denial that male violence exists, but in the denial that male violence means something and needs to be stopped. Conversely, in cases where a man is the victim of a woman’s violence, rape apologism is strongly rooted in the denial that women’s actions can count as violence at all — and especially that their actions can count as sexual violence against men, who are routinely construed as incapable of being victims.

In the comment section from Lisa's post:

I also know two men who were sexually assaulted by women at a young age, and both were traumatized by the experience. I too feel for Lil Wayne to have been forced to relate his story on national television and have it trivialized. I think this reflects a lack of acknowledgment in mainstream society that 1) men can be raped by women and 2) losing your virginity is not always voluntary. With the second point, I’ve often felt the inquiry into someone’s virginity status is intertwined with privilege, as well as race and class (and gender, of course).

The Advocate recently reported on Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, an 11 year-old African-American boy whom, after months of being taunted because of his alleged homosexuality, killed himself:

Walker said her son had been the victim of bullying since the beginning of the school year, and that she had been calling the school since September, complaining that her son was mercilessly teased. He played football, baseball, and was a boy scout, but a group of classmates called him gay and teased him about the way he dressed. They ridiculed him for going to church with his mother and for volunteering locally.

"It's not just a gay issue," Walker (Carl's mother) said. "It’s bigger. He was 11 years old, and he wasn't aware of his sexuality. These homophobic people attach derogatory terms to a child who’s 11 years old, who goes to church, school, and the library, and he becomes confused. He thinks, Maybe I'm like this. Maybe I'm not. What do I do?"

Is race an issue? Many believe that entho-cultural communities are more sensitive to homosexuality - and sexuality in general than Anglo communities. The connotations surrounding sexuality are heavily tied to social stereotypes and signifiers about one's intelligence and worth in society. Within black communities, masculinity and sexual prowess tends to be seen as important values that men use to retain their self-esteem in a society(ies) that commonly devalue their authenticity as human beings. Because of this, when black men discuss being victims of sexual abuse, the responses are more complicated than one would like to think.

But men in general, have a rough road. In Kulwicki's post, she references the Red Hot Chilli Pepper's singer Anthony Keidis, whom in his biography, Scar Tissue discusses losing his virginity to his father's 20-something girlfriend - at 12. As I read the book, I must say that I scratched my head when I read that Keidis asked his father if he could have sex with his girlfriend, and his father consented.

Now, I would say that Keidis does not see himself as a victim of sexual abuse and in the book, he romanticizes his experience. But was he still a victim and the perpetrators were his father's girlfriend and his father. Keidis's personal persona is manufactured around his perceived sexual prowess, and as a Peppers fan for many years, I cannot remember anyone who has had a problem with it.

Check out Salon's It's Only Rape if the Victim's a Girl?

Justin Timberlake and Ciara Video - Consensual Slavery or Just Plain Offensive?

2009-04-09T09:23:36-05:00

Not like everyone else, I wasn't anticipating Justin Timberlake's 2003 album, Justified. I was too old to appreciate the latest crop of boy bands and was not a huge fan of R&B or whatever you want to call it. However, when I saw his first video, "Like I Love You" I was impressed. The song was catchy, I loved the choreography but most importantly, I loved the fact that his love interest was a black woman.

Model Shakara Ledard who has also appeared in a number of other videos, played the girl whom Justin was trying to impress. I liked the fact that Shakara, whom I instantly recognized from numerous print ads and commercials, was sexy and seemed self-assured - not like the stereotypical video vixens whose tired weaves and pockmarked, cellulite-laden thighs that,despite their physical attractiveness, always seemed tired and used....and 'too realistic' for the fantasy world of music videos. At that time I silently applauded Timberlake for taking the risk in casting a black girl when he could have easily hired a white blond, which to me, would be way more palatable for the masses.

Years went by and my subtle admiration for Timberlake slowly faded. There was the notorious Super Bowl /Janet Jackson fiasco where an apparent 'wardrobe malfunction' caused Timberlake to symbolically throw Jackson under the bus. But to be fair, I thought that the whole thing was staged, as Jackson has used the suggestion of her kinky sex preferences as part of her marketing strategy for the past decade, but the way how Timberlake distanced himself from the sister of his idol, Michael Jackson, didn't sit too well.

Jackson was vilified as the slut who destroyed the retinas of the millions of kids who were watching the halftime show by exposing her sagging brown titty and odd (and from what it looked like, quite painful) nipple clamp. Timberlake came off as an innocent, naive white boy who barely escaped delving into the murky depths of black, animalistic and inappropriate sexual behavior. Poor white boy. Don't you know he has a promising career? People asked, wagging their finger at the older, African-American singer, dressed in this tacky (which seems to be a Jackson family trait) pseudo- S&M getup, whom appeared to be desperately trying to stop the downward spiral of her music career.

Fast forward to 2009. Timberlake, who received his 'Ghetto Pass' a couple of years prior, appears in a video with Ciara. In the video for "Love Sex Magic" viewers were offended by Timberlake, who pulls at a chain that is wrapped around Ciara's neck. The video provides images of the seemingly sexual objectification of Ciara's body, one in which Timberlake uses as a prop - like a piece of furniture. From Soulbounce:

The outcry against his actions from those of us in the indignant minority was quickly overshadowed by an increase in album sales, multiple music awards and an increase in his Pop stardom miming Black music and culture. Instead of subjecting his next project with trepidation--let alone dismissal--nearly every "urban" club, radio station and music channel on the planet had the masses bumping to a song with a hook that's about shackles, whipping and slavery.

The Cruel Secretary's Andrea Plaid, a frequent writer on sexuality and race, decided to investigate this matter a bit further. She discussed BDSM and race play in relation to the video, arguing in part that playing out certain sexual roles in the bedroom can be enjoyable for some:

Unfortunately, this argument gets whipped out among people of color when a PoC steps out of sexual line of "acceptable" sex practices and partners, especially in a public space, like Ciara did in her "Love Sex Magic" video.

She acknowledges that for black folks, sexual objectification conjures up the legacy of slavery, where women were routinely objectified by their white slave masters. Since that legacy has traveled down through out generations, images are usually perceived as offensive and add to the prevailing stereotypes that still exist in society.

What happened in, say, American slavery of Africans isn’t the same thing happening when Justin Timberlake, an individual white man, is pulling on Ciara’s, an individual Black woman’s, dog chain. The Black folks who got hauled over during that slave trade didn’t give white folks permission to put us in chains and drag us to the “New World." Ciara and Timberlake negotiated—again, the core BDSM idea of consent--that particular part of the video. He’s also not standing as a proxy for all white men and their enslaving fantasies no more than she is a stand-in for all Black women wanting to be on a leash. Nor is either one giving people permission to assume that all men can and will go out and do this to all Black women. Every thought need not be acted upon. And, of course, not every word means the same thing in every situation.

For a more detailed description of race play, head on over to sex blogger The Perverted Negress, who has a conversation with Plaid over the video.

While Diary of an Anxious Black Woman believes that what people do in the privacy of their bedroom is no one's business, she does think that publicized images might be taking it a bit far:

If you're white and you want to enslave somebody black because it gets you off (and there is consent), or if you're black and you want to be enslaved for the same reason (and again, there is consent), or if you want to do some role reversal, whatever! But, outside of the little BDSM role play thing, in mainstream pop acts, these bodies get read in the most conventional sense. More importantly, in mainstream arenas, certain bodies get penalized more than others. These realities, at least to me, are some reasons why I can't "fantasize" some kind of "race play" where I'm in the subordinate position in an interracial relationship. I live that reality all the time!

Now, to be fair, this was not a video for Timberlake but for Ciara's latest single. Timberlake was simply invited to be in it, and most likely was not responsible for the choreography. Also, Ciara, who is regarded as a cross between the late singer Allyiah and Janet Jackson, is known for her strong and sexually aggressive demeanor. Not a great singer, she is a dancer and previous videos and live appearances eerily mirror Jackson's choreography in her "Control" days. It is safe to say that the singer knew well in advance how this video would look and because controversy sells, why not? Times are tough in the music industry.

But should Timberlake, with his Ghetto Pass and all, be more sensitive to these matters? What do you think?

For a myriad of diverse comments, please head on over to Racialicous.

Lost in Translation? When White Critics Review Art By Ethno-Cultural Artists

2009-03-26T12:20:12-05:00

Hat tip to fellow Blogher CE Karen Ballum for this topic.

Book reviewer Colleen Mondor recently found herself in a conundrum: While reading Chameleon by Charles R. Smith, she wondered if as a white woman she could adequately review the book in which the main character was a teenaged African-American boy who lived in Compton, California. For her, the main concern was not just that the protagonist was black, it was also her lack of understanding the socio-economic status of the neighborhood in which the story was set. After all, Compton is known as being a densely-populated urban dwelling, rife with guns and gangs. How could Mondor relate to living in an area where young boys had to consider the color of their shirts - to avoid being considered a member of a gang -before walking out of the house this morning?

A mini-debate ensued offline. Does it matter if the reviewer has no personal knowledge or experience to relate to the main character of the book? Will they be able to adequately write about the content, enough to inspire the interest for potential readers? More importantly, what happens if the reviewer (white) doesn't like the book? Will they be construed as racist?

What was interesting about this topic was that most likely, Mondor's situation is not a rarity. While there have been several works of art, whether it be novels, films or even music created by artists of color that has been reviewed by white journalists. Because many of the journalists who write for mainstream publications are white and it is extremely beneficial for artists of color to obtain reviews in mainstream publications, it a good thing.....innit?

At the most recent Sundance Film Festival, Director Lee Daniel's Push walked away with accolades - granted, it wasn't picked up by a major distributor, something that many film directors / producers want to garner at the festival, but people raved about it. The interesting thing about this movie is that it is based on a book by author Sapphire about a young African-American woman that is a victim of incest and abuse. Illiterate and pregnant with her father's child, Precious slowly learns to read and write and eventually gains self-esteem and self-acceptance. It is a gritty story, based in Harlem but reviewers loved it.

However, two years ago when interviewed about the book being changed into a movie, Sapphire had some reservations:

I feel good about the novel, not because it's perfect, but because it tells the truth. There are a lot of stereotypes and negative things laid out in the book, but Precious is a like a tree--she just busts through all that tired shit and we come away with a vision of a living breathing woman of intelligence and integrity. I try to think about Hollywood doing a picture of her without exploiting or sentimentalizing her. In print we can handle it. The reader processes the image and the writer and reader create reality together. But with film you're fed that reality and unless you're dealing with someone with a lot of integrity they're going to be hooked into making box office sales.

Sapphire was concerned for a legitimate reason. Did the nuances of Precious's character be accurately translated for a feature film? A film that when released, will most likely be viewed by non-black audiences?

A few years ago, I was reviewed in a number of publications for a essay I wrote for an anthology of music criticism, Marooned. As my essay was centered on Skin, a black female rock singer from the UK band Skunk Anansie, I was a bit nervous as to what reviewers would say. While the majority were positive (thank goodness) but there was one review in the Austin-American Statesman (which has since been removed) that I remember simplified my piece to the point that the writer simply because he knew of no black rock musicians ( and perhaps no black people) completely trivialized it. I wouldn't have been pissed if he said that my writing stank, but what bothered me was that it was evident that he was writing out of his own ignorance and clearly not objective or willing to 'think outside the box'. A bad review could deter someone from purchasing the book, which could lead to challenging your livelihood.

It was commendable for Mondor to raise this question that demonstrates her commitment as a reviewer and to her craft. However, instead of opening her issues up to the public, many reviewers do not, choosing to either ignore works that they feel that because they cannot 'relate' it must not be worth their while to publicly acknowledge. Despite the undeniable fact that good art will allow the reader to enter and invesigate the worlds that might not exist in reality, actually getting to that point can be strife with self-consiousness.

While I can completely understand the hesitation of artists of color who are afraid that reviewers might give a subjective critique of their work - which can translate into negative or limited publicity - I also think that the sign of a good reviewer is one whom might not publicly acknowledge their limitations, realizes and works through their own myopic view of the world to recognize that other people exist - maybe in situations that are not similar to them, but just as worthwhile.

Protest in Toronto Sparks Dialogue on Media's Responsiblity to Cultural Communities

2009-03-19T10:38:16-05:00

There is a bit of irony in this image: Sitting on a Streetcar on Monday afternoon, I whizzed through one of Toronto's busiest intersections to see a large number of Sri Lankan young men and women, standing by the side of the street holding Canadian and Tamil Tiger flags. They were chanting something that I couldn't hear (I was blasting Napalm Death on my headphones), but previously knowing that there was a huge demonstration planned to pressure the Canadian Government to lift its ban on fundraising for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, I knew that it was about that issue. The government has labeled the organization a terrorist organization, but protesters feel that if the ban is lifted, it will help stop the 30 years of war and extensive human right violations against the Tamil Community in Sri Lanka.

I was happy to see so many young people, whom despite that most likely a number of them had lost relatives in the uprising in their home country,were out to help their cause. As a former rabid protester for a variance of social ills, it made me believe that despite the overabundance of news reports that say that ' kids these days are up to no good,' it was nice to see all these young 'uns who felt passionate about their cause - even though I had / have little knowledge on the issue at hand.

But where was I going? To get hair extensions - you can blame my former hairdresser for that one.

Okay, so anyway, over the next couple of days - besides wondering whether the money I had just dropped could have been sent to Sri Lanka - I checked my hometown paper and some blogs to see what was going on. Some had wondered whether the waving of the Tamil Tigers flag was, in fact illegal and there seems to be some contention from others in the community as to whether it should have been present at the protest.

While this is the second protest that has happened in Toronto this year, It was interesting to see how the news media has handled it. At a recent event, Sri Lanka: Conflict and Coverage Toronto Star Reporter Lesley Circula Taylor, whom talked about her experiences reporting on Sri Lanka and the Toronto communities was asked by someone in the audience about the seemingly lack of stories about Sri Lanka - I'm assuming that they were specifically talking about the war. Taylor - whom admittedly I have worked with in the past as she edited a number of stories I've written about race & ethnicity for The Star, seemed a bit confused about the question.

After all, doesn't every cultural / religious / ethnic group want more coverage in a national newspaper about community concerns? Taylor started off saying that her newspaper had indeed covered several stories in the past, and admittedly said that no, the newspaper would not cover the story any more than what they had already had.

When I'm doing a story as one of the Star's two immigration reporters and I'm thinking, "I don't quite understand this," my only recourse is to find someone else and interview them. I keep talking to more and different people because every point of view helps color in the picture -- and remind me that no nationality is homogenous.

I take all the help I can get to understand the nuances. My friend and colleague, Bagashree Paradkar, who launched the Star's now-defunct south Asian magazine Desi Life, explained that a south Asian saying 90 or 99 per cent was just a figure of speech. It means nothing more than a lot.

It helps to understand my own biases, as well. My Australian mother loathed chronic whining -- whingeing, the Aussies called it, mostly by the English. Your arm could drop off and she didn't want to hear it. She would fix it -- just don't whine about it. So I find complaining peculiar, but I have to recognize that some cultures complain by habit. Canadians, for example.

We try to get inside communities and tell their stories but there is a double-standard often in play. Yes, there are real stories to be done about abuse in south Asian families. But there are a startling number of journalists my age who grew up in Scots-Irish families with one or two alcoholic and abusive parents. We've never written that story because, quite frankly, they think it was normal.

Honestly? I was really confused by the above statement and the article itself. Was she saying that there would not be any more reporting on the war because there was an assumption that people were complaining that people were dying everyday? Now I can certainly understand that a national newspaper does not want to spend more time on one issue when there are several other issues that are happening within the GTA. But on the other hand, don't Canadians, regardless of their birth country, want a newspaper that reflects the cultural diversity within the city - in a country that brags about it's multiculturalism?

Anyway, I found a couple of interesting workshops coming up in the U.S of A: In Charlotte, North Carolina, there is a Media Workshop for Community Groups, which helps activists and organizer build better relationships with the media in their cities.

There is also a 2-day workshop in NYC for New York-based journalists who report on the cultural communities within the various boroughs in the city, hosted by The New York Times and the Investigative Reporters and Editors association.

Anyway, leave your opinions on this, my fine readers at Blogher because quite frankly, I was confused.