Quick something I noticed.

When the Democrats took power, I remember the conservatives wondering whether the Democrats would respect the minorities voice and not try and impose their "iron will" on everyone else. 

Now, the Republicans are pointing to select polls as evidence that the majority doesn't want a public option. 

I thought that the majority never took complete precedence over the minority? Why then should the GOP's argument over polling numbers be taken seriously? Or should their past comments about the Dem's majority power be forgotten, in which case they'll also have their way?

The GOP is full of morons. 

"I wish I was ethnic..."

(Influenced by a post on 'Stuff White People Do')

Seldom, but every so often, I hear a white person say to me or to a person of color, "I wish I was [ethnicity here]...", or some variation of it. It usually is something more to the tune of, "Man, it must be so cool to be Hispanic", or, "I wish I was Japanese so we would eat with chopsticks". 

It seems fairly innocuous: they're just admiring the other person's identity, right? I don't think so, to be honest. I really do think there is a symptom of social ignorance here. It's not a malicious thing so much as a lack of perspective. 

Anyone who is non-white knows, to some degree at least, that being non-white means a lot more than your skin color or your second language. It signifies a place or role in society as a member of a group, whereas being white tends to mean being seen as an individual, and having that ability to self-identify as such without the strictures of having to think of how you're seen as a member of a race.

This is where I get frustrated. When white people say things like that, it makes me think that they see ethnicity only as a surface value thing: food we eat, skin complexion, music, etc. They discount the one thing that forms ethnic identity in the long haul, the facet that shapes why and how all of the surface attributes form to begin with: experiences.

In ignoring the experiences of others and wishing to be ethnic to have some voyeuristic, cool attribute, they also do harm to their own identities. They not only ignore that they do have culture and ethnicity them selves, but they do have experiences that shaped those things too. In talking about ethnicity this way, it allows them to ignore both experiences that the person and themselves have experienced and focus only on the "cool, different, exotic" ethnic traits of the "other", and ignore the "boring, average, normal" (so to speak) traits of themselves. It is in this way that whiteness becomes less and less visible to everyday society.

Would the same white person making those wishes still be inclined to do so if they know what other ethnicities had to think about, act around, and keep in mind when performing activities that "average" white folks take for granted? I would say most likely not. This aspect of ethnicity and identity goes ignored in this regard. 

The next time you feel inclined to say, "Gee, I wish I could be ethnic", think hard about what that really means, and decide instead to say "Man, I think that the music from Mexico is really cool", or "I really enjoy eating Japanese food". It's fine to identify and embrace other ethnicities, but we shouldn't ignore other aspects of what makes people who they are just by simply exoticizing the "cool" and ignoring the deeply relevant. 

Kids DO pick up on things...everywhere.

Check out this video. It's a study done on racial attitudes picked up from the media amongst children.

Here's the embedded video:

It's kind of hard to swallow, but it's reality. 

Something else...

I heard someone at work say something to a hispanic worker that I felt was notable for an entry.

"I don't see you as Hispanic, really. You're pretty white".

This was said due to the person in question being educated, well-spoken (English, that is), and bright. The white person saying this did not see anything wrong with their statement, and to the contrary felt it was some kind of compliment. The compliment being, "You're smart, therefore you're white". Does this mean that the norm is of white people smart and eloquent? What if a white person isn't? Are they less white somehow and a part of some other racial group? Oh yeah, that's right, we already have done that! When whites act like black people, we call them 'wiggers' to insult them.

So just to get the connotations right: white=good, non-white=bad.

Jeez. Everytime I hear something like that, these are some of that sentiments that I gather from it:

"You're better than those OTHER [read: bad] people that are [racial group here], in fact, you're kinda like ME [read: good]."

"Seeing as race isn't important to my life [HA!] and you're in it, I'm going to have to ignore that you're [racial group] so that I don't have to think about such unimportant things as race and racism, and correcting my preconceived notions about other racial groups. mkay?"

"Wow, you are an actual human being...therefore, it's simply not possible for you to be [racial group]!"

Please, utilize some tact the next time you run into a person of color whose personality has "gone above and beyond" some preconceived notion you have of their 'racial group'.

BTW, two entries down I've put "Stranger in the Village" by James Baldwin, as well as the link for the text, as a suggested reading. I think it would do any visitors of my site good to give it a read. :)

The way politicians use racist code words to fan racial anxieties...

I'm going to compile a list of code words I've heard politicians utilize to speak about race issues without coming off as bigoted.

White

Average Joe

Joe six-pack

Moral voters

Independent voter

Evangelical voter

Hockey Mom

Soccer Mom

The southern vote

blue collar workers

Black

welfare recipient

Poor people

inner-city

affirmative action supporters

These are just a handful of examples of how our media and politicians (not to mention everyday people) use racialized language to refer to groups of Americans without sounding like they are mentioning anything overtly bigoted. They can use these words and say "the southern vote looks high for McCain" without saying that most southern whites will vote McCain. They can say "I don't support just handing out welfare to recipients while hard working Americans bust their asses" without saying "I think blacks are lazy and whites are industrious".

"We're past all that!"

I hear so much talk about how much better we are in terms of racism in our country. Yes, we've gotten rid of terms such as 'nigger', 'spic', 'gook' from our daily vocabulary, but have we done much in the way of conditioned messages? I don't think so, and many seem intent on keeping things this way by claiming "racism's over", "that stuff ended long ago", "get past it", et cetera.

It seems to run in common with a white tendency to not have to feel bad. I see it with mentions of Obama very frequently. "Hey, Obama's President! We have a black man in office, so now we're all equal!" It's almost like saying, "Look, we white people feel bad when race discussions come up, and we shouldn't have to feel bad (unlike everyone else who has had to endure the shit end of the stick for centuries on this continent), so here - we gave you a black president, now STFU and accept that racism is over."

It's funny how ready most liberal whites were to vote for Obama in the name of change and hope, and not to mention the fact that he's black and how this would "end racism" or some shit like that. However, a year later, when the country is back to debating issues and race becomes an inevitable facet of the discussion, we get ads like this:

which totally misrepresent quotations (the Jackson quote was referring to a specific senator, not every person who voted against healthcare), deny racism in the healthcare industry (well documented), and play on white racist anxieties by invoking the word 'racism' ad nauseum, using it as an ad hominem attack word rather than referring to the well-documented system of racial inequality that exists in our country.

And look, they even put some non-Whites in there! So it *must* be legit, since we know one black person solidifies their entire groups identity, regardless of whether there is a pattern in the group or not! (rolls eyes)

Days like today are days that make it hard to be positive about race discussions in our country.

Reading suggestion...

In my previous entry, I alluded to Stranger in the Village by James Baldwin, an African-American novelist and essayist. It's an essay written in the early 1950's, before the Civil Rights legislation tearing down segregation. It's message, however, is just as strong today as it was then. It presents a truth about not only Black people, but White people as well. 

The text can be found here.

I highly recommend setting aside some time to read this work and take in it's meaning. It is one of my all time favorite essays, as it is very personally written with viewpoints that most honest readers can identify with. 

Here are three small excerpts, though it can do no service to the essay in it's entirety:

"For this village, even were it incomparably more remote and incredibly more primitive, is the West, the West onto which I have been so strangely grafted. These people cannot be, from the point of view of power, strangers anywhere in the world; they have made the modem world, in effect, even if they do not know it. The most illiterate among them is related, in away that I am not, to Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Aeschylus, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, and Racine; the cathedral at Chartres says something to them which it cannot say to me, as indeed would New York's Empire State Building, should anyone here ever see it. Out of their hymns and dances come Beethoven and Bach. Go back a few centuries and they are in their full glory-but I am in Africa, watching the conquerors arrive."

"For the history of the American Negro is unique also in this: that the question of his humanity, and of his rights therefore as a human being, became a burning one for several generations of Americans, so burning a question that it ultimately became one of those used to divide the nation. It is out of this argument that the venom of the epithet:Nigger! is derived. It is an argument which Europe has never had, and hence Europe: quite sincerely fails to understand how or why the argument arose in the first place, why its effects are frequently disastrous and always so unpredictable, why it refuses until today to be entirely settled. Europe's black possessions remained-and do remain-in Europe's colonies, at which remove they represented no threat whatever to European identity. If they posed any problem at all for the European conscience, it was a problem which remained comfortingly abstract: in effect, the black man, as a man, did not exist for Europe. But in America, even as a slave, he was an inescapable part of the general social fabric and no American could escape having an attitude toward him. Americans attempt until today to make an abstraction of the Negro, but the very nature of these abstractions reveals the tremendous effects the presence of the Negro has had on the American character." 

"Americans have made themselves notorious by the shrillness and the brutality with which they have insisted on this idea, but they did not invent it; and it has escaped the, world's notice that those very excesses of which Americans have been guilty imply a' certain, unprecedented uneasiness over the idea' s life and power, if not, indeed, the idea' s validity .The idea of white supremacy rests simply on the fact that white men are the creators of civilization (the present civilization, which is the only one that matters; all previous civilizations are simply contributions" to our own) and are therefore civilization's guardians and defenders. Thus it was impossible for Americans to accept the black man as one of themselves, for to do so was to jeopardize their status as white men. But not so to accept him was to deny his human reality, his human weight and complexity, and the strain of denying the overwhelmingly undeniable forced Americans into rationalizations so fantastic that they approached the pathological."

Strangers and Outsiders.

My last trip in 2008, to Europe, opened my eyes to a reality I had never considered about my identity in the United States. I don’t suppose it’s impossible to arrive at this reality without leaving the states, but I do think doing so, especially for a trip to Europe, accentuates the understanding of it. It is a reality that very few Americans arrive at in their lives, and if they do realize it, keep themselves at a periphery of it, for this reality has very stark and real connotations for the identity they’ve been ascribed in their country.

Arriving in Europe, I thought of myself as an American in Europe. This, after all, is what my passport said and how many in Europe would likely see me upon first encounter. I spoke with an American-English accent, knew little to nothing about the area, and would have to dig back multiple generations to find a direct descendent from this part of the world. I was, indeed, and am a stranger to the continent.

I went through my first several days wrapped up in the excitement of being in England, taking with locals and sharing with them any information they wanted to know about me. It wasn’t until I arrived in France, walking amongst the sea of people in Paris, that I arrived at one of the biggest realities of my young adult life.

I stepped off of a bus to take my picture, like everyone else, in front of the Eiffel Tower. When I was heading back towards the bus, a couple of men approached me selling mini-Eiffel towers, 5 for a dollar (equivalent). It is useful for this essay to note that the men were of Sub-Saharan African origin, or black. That, however, is not the reality I arrived at. It was their general approach and attitude in dealing with me that caused the change. Of the three of us, it seemed as if I was the only one acting as if there were even a hint of tension. Let me note that I’ve never been into a fight with a black person, never been the victim of a crime by the hands of a black person, and have generally gotten along with black people in my life. By tension, also, let me clarify that I did not get tense physically, but sensed a tension from myself, as well as a distance, neither of which did I get from these two men. In their interactions with others, I noticed that the European onlookers that were approached seemed to wave them off as they would any white tourist or European stranger.

It was here that I realized what James Baldwin had written about in his essay ‘Stranger in the Village’: the white Americans identity is, in some ways or others, undeniably linked with the identity of the black Americans identity. Continental Europeans did not create the black man as a facet of European society for their purposes, no more than they created the concept of a European. White Americans created the Black American for specific purposes. But it was here that I noticed a bigger reality, Americans created the White people for an entirely different set of, but equally as important, reasons.

White Americans depended on the subjugation of the Black Americans for so long and in such a diverse number of ways that their very identity became intertwined as such. It is in understanding this that one understands the actions of white people in the overturning of those paradigms in the past and present. If Black Americans as the subjugated class were the creation of White Americans for the purposes to protect themselves from the darkness (no pun intended) and impossibility of salvation of the Black man, then White identity would therefore be shaken, disfigured, and redefined when Black people were freed, integrated, and granted equal opportunity. White people needed Black people to remain below them to feel like they had an identity. It is in understanding this that one sees the desperation in the faces, voices, and rhetoric of so many right-wing attacks on Barack Obama. Behind the vitriolic attacks of 2008 were not just anti-leftist words. These words paled in comparison to John Kerry, an equally as liberal candidate of 2004. Beyond the surface of these words lied the slipping away of white identity in the U.S.

Europeans did not rely on the African to identify themselves. And if they did, it was in a colonial sense that could be easily made abstract and replaced by their regional identification. As Baldwin remarks, gone were the days of the European in America setting eyes on the African as a stranger or familiar outsider. Europeans in America were replaced in identity as Whites, and the outsider African became the Black person they were dependent upon in identity.

It is this distinction, not some gap in genealogical history, which sets White Americans from Europeans in the context of identity. The White man needs the Black man as a subjugated person socially to find comfort with himself. Does this mean that Black people must perennially be at the lower end of the totem pole of White people, or that White identity must be removed in order to arrive at a more just social reality?

Anti-intellectualism in the United States

Every election or so, I tend to hear some person, be it a pundit or a person in everyday life, remark that they think "X candidate" is too book smart, not enough like him/her, too smart for their own good, too boring, etc. The implied message is that we, as in most Americans, should want someone close to our intellectual level, not one of them 'book readin' types'. 

Where do we go when we want a question answered about our health, our teeth, our investments, our appliances? People who have studied it a lot, people who are educated on the subject, no? Why is it, then, that when the science world releases something that is contrary to the idyllic world we've created in our own minds, we excuse away our critical thinking by saying "Well, they're just'a bunch of elist, book readin', fancy, college educated types who don't know anything about real life", or something to that effect? Don't we want our scientists to be book reading, researching, and somewhat removed from the biases of everyday life that might otherwise put them in a complacent funk? Isn't the point of everyday life to be the opposite from book reading, researching, gruelling scientific inquiry? Why then would we not listen to them when they are doing this?

I thought of this because as I decided to put my radio on conservative talk today, I heard about 10 minutes of a spiel on the "myth" of global warming. I'll first state that I do believe that human action does not cause increased global temperatures, but it seems blatantly obvious that they do facilitate and exacerbate the problem. Therefore, I'm open to hearing what scientists diagnose and prognose in that respect. 

As I listened to the conservative pundit, however, I couldn't believe the asinine content spewing out of the radio...

"These 'scientists' want us to believe that an increase in Co2 is going to mean the end of times! I mean, come on now folks! CO2, that which we breathe out every second of the day, that which is necessary for plant life on this planet, is going to be what kills us? It's now a TOXIN? What's next? Too much oxygen is toxic too?"

I'm not a scientist. I'm not even a biology major (I major in both Anthropology and Spanish Literature). But, I have taken 3 classes in biology, am a former licensed nurse, and I do know that both CO2 and O2 above certain level can and will cause toxicity and eventual organ death. I'm sure the pundit might have changed his tune had he (wait for it...) consulted a BOOK on the matter before opening his mouth. He might have found that oxygen is eventually what does most damage to humans in the long run, that excess levels of oxygen cause collapse of alveoli in the lungs (which is why doctors prescribe and nurses keep oxygen tanks at set levels, not leaving it up the clients personal discretion, ya'know), and excess levels of carbon dioxide also do similar damage. There have been scientific studies that show that excess CO2 in controlled environments could actually hinder plant growth.

It's this same type of anti-intellectual populist rhetoric that fuels the anti-evolution movement, claiming it's "just a theory", setting aside the fact that had they cracked the first chapter of an introductory biology/chemistry/physics/geology/astronomy (i.e., science) book, they would note that a scientific theory (as opposed to a layman's theory) is not simply "a hunch" as they would have you believe it. It is quite another matter, one involving repeated observation and recording of repeatable and valid results. But, they won't be letting that get in the way of keeping life "normal" and "comfy" for themselves. 

You see, I'm sure this 'Johnny hayseed' pundit doesn't mind book readin' intellectuals when they're doing his taxes, altering chemicals to produce the medicines saving lives, or any other non-controversial use of education. But when it comes to the environment and the possibility of having to alter his lifestyle and way of viewing the world, he becomes indignant due to the 'elitist' intellectualism in science. 

Why are Americans this way, so much so that we even have to have large scale discussions on these 'debates' over whether something as widely agreed upon as evolution is taking place, or whether human actions have some effect on the environment? That is quite the question and one I'm keen on looking into. 

To be 19...

I'm going to take a break from politics, race, and controversy to discuss what I believe to be an interesting phenomenon that I used to take part in. 

Some time ago, when I was around the ages of 18 and 19, I was went through a period of interest in metal music. I can't say it's completely gone, but it definitely is not my main musical interest in any way these days. There was something about it that made me feel very alive. It brought out a lot of the frustration and angst I felt in ways that everyday society couldn't allow me to do. When I would hear it, it seemed like a good way for me to express my feelings of rebellion against what I thought was a cruel, fucked up system at a time when I didn't quite have the knowledge and capabilities to take on issues like I do now. 

To access this music, you went one of two ways: the conventional, everyday way, which was a CD, or shows. At shows one would witness a spectacular display, brimming as a mixture of brutality, harmony, brute expression, and solidarity. From an onlooker, it looks like a large mess, a convoluted jumbling of angry bodies thrown into each other by the hand of the music of some equally as angry people: a mosh pit. There was, and is, however, much more to it.

An onlooker only gains so much, whether they enjoy it or not. To be inside the pit while the band delivers a break-down that everybody in the pit anticipates and clings on for is to truly understand what it means to be chaotic and in harmony at once. Nothing one person really does directly creates a chain motion with another to form something to that of a chorus line, River-dance routine, or anything similar. It is rather in fragmented consciousnesses of the mosh-pitters that binds them together. How so? Mutual understanding and solidarity, despite the anger, brutality, and confusion. 

When you get in for the first time, you will be leaving an owned man/woman. Seriously, someone is going to fuck up some part of your body, leaving you sore and ready to collapse. It is only with repeated exposure to the pit that you see where you fit. You come to establish a pit identity; "that guy" who "does that". This is not an assigned role, but an expectation that can often change but usually into something that is called for at the moment. In acting out the expectation, two pitters may see someone fallen and actively break ranks from their place and pick him/her up. One may see an intruder getting out of hand in the pit and join ranks with others to take him/her out of the scene. 

The pushing, corralling, punching, grabbing, throwing, kicking, and slinging of the pit is where one determines their place. Where am I comfortable? What should I do? What can I do? Though it may appear to be a mess, a pit is actually a place where one can discover their level of fear, courage, and abilities - all the while breaking free from those limitations and expanding on them. This is not done without rhyme, rhythm, or reason. It was the flow of the music that determined your actions and force of them. I, personally, did a lot of pushing, throwing, and slinging my elbows. This was where I fit after much experimentation of what to do and when to do it.

During post-break down periods, one tends to stop short and catch ones breath, often times grabbing a quick drink of water and pouring the rest down ones face and hair, falling onto the back and chest in the case of a male, whose shirt has probably been ripped off, torn off, or taken off by the pitter himself. 

Upon awakening the next day, one may find a series of bruises, scrapes, welts, or even cuts/busted lips. Broken teeth are not uncommon to find. These are battle scars, reminding the person that they, in their quest to get rid of their pain, agony, angst, and confusion, had to take a little brutality as a trade off. It was amongst these people that I found some semblance of balance in my daily, stressful, and confusing life from the years 2003 to 2004. I don't regret a second of any of it. Soreness and aesthetic imperfections be damned, at least it stopped me from becoming where I would have likely landed without it: blank inside. 

Is it a guy thing? Primarily. I don't recall many women partaking in the ritual stress-relief seminar. Does this mean it is a macho display of brutality. I don't think so in all cases. I think it's a way for 21st century men to take out their frustrations of being raised by one paradigm of manliness, being taught another by society and the media, and bridging the two gaps while trying to figure themselves out. Are there some that use it as a tool to just be violent? Yes. But I wouldn't use that group to condemn the entire practice any more than I would a few bad eggs that ruin the good vibes and energy at a hip-hop club, which is an entirely different but good experience. 

Well, that's that. Example? Watch at 0:37 to the inciting of the pit, one of the most exciting times in the event.

"You Lie!"

Something I've not touched on for some time is some of the racist undertones used by some against President Obama, save for a recent blog I did on a Washington Times article over his trip to Japan. I have criticised Obama on many occasions regarding foreign policy, health-care, and green energy. However, there is a way to do it that doesn't cut down to racist pandering. 

Here are a few examples of racism towards Obama:

This is what I call "stopping short". Read some on Joe Wilson, the guy who shouts "You Lie" at the 1:22 mark.

He is an unapologetic, racist 2.0. I'm surprised he didn't yell "You LIE, boy!"

The following is a compilation of McCain/Palin supporters in 2008. You tell ME if there isn't an atmosphere of

"White Pride" teaming up against that "damn Muslim, foreigner" who's going to "help the blacks"...

How about the two folks from 0:12 to 0:29? "A second stringer?"

And the woman at 0:55? "The whole, uh, Muslim thang"...

Yep. Big group of winners we have here.

Seriously, this is what a lot of middle America is like. I know, I live and deal with many of these people on a daily basis. 

That's why when I hear "Obama is hurting with independent voters", I know a lot of those voters are people

like the ones represented in some of those videos. 

Sigh...

Obama's Afghanistan Speech

I'm not going to put up a transcript of Obama's speech, as it can be found by a simple google search for anyone interested. 

First, the general Obama plan is as follows: go in with 30,000 troops for 18 months and try to clean house and watch the Pakistan border as much as possible. Around this same time we'll have pulled most of our Iraq troops out as well.

One thing I noticed during the speech was how much Obama mentioned Pakistan about as much as he did Afghanistan. This tells me that it is an integral part in how Obama made this decision. I feel that if it weren't for Pakistan, Obama may not have added more troops into the region. He has carried out drone attack around the border in hopes of disturbing Al Qaeda cells, so the connection makes sense. 

However, I'm still not sold. Obama spoke inspirationally about the conflict and made me want to get behind him, but I'm not. Obama, like Bush and many others, has failed to convince me how our military presence in the region is going to somehow reduce the effectiveness of terrorist propaganda about us being an occupying enemy in the area. I also don't know how Obama is going to do the job in 18 months, unless he expects to return Afghanistan to what it was before we entered (corrupt guys running the joint with no terrorist influence), in which case I don't see it as much better. 

In the end, my doubts don't lie specifically with Obama per se, but rather with the whole notion of the War on Terror and our reasons for being there to begin with. Of course we were attacked on 9/11 and those organizations are still out there. However, they were formed and carried out based on beliefs with our interventions in their lands and our support of occupying people in the region (Israel). Why are we not looking at the attacks in context? Why do we simply react without being pensive about the entire ordeal? I guess that's the essence of America's tradition: view ourselves and act as if we live in a world where our actions have no consequences but others actions towards us hold deep consequences. 

I hope Obama proves me wrong. Really, I do. I'd like to think he's got a team running better logistics than that of the Bush Administration. That said, I don't think Obama's efforts are going to stand up for the long haul, nor do I believe that our conflicts in the region have anything to do with some sort of 'stabilisation effort' for peace and democracy. I can only watch, stay actively informed, and wait to see how I vote in the elections.

Thanksgiving: What does it mean? (Cliche alert)

Yeah, go ahead, make fun. I'm trying hard not to reek of a 7th grade essay; but in economic times like these and with a social confusion the likes of which are unprecedented, I think it's a fair question to ask: What does Thanksgiving really mean, anyway?

Seriously, I won't accept what I was taught in kindergarten that I now know to be false: the nice English "settlers" (read: oppressors) had lunch with the Indians (read: the guys who taught the incompetent intruders how to live on the land they would later take by force, all in the name of liberty and freedom). Sorry, a bunch of white males denying rights to women and non-whites, socially stigmatizing non-Christians, and displacing indigenous people more and more as time went on, is not what passes for me as a national pastime. So, as an American, the day doesn't mean terribly much other than a reminder of who we (as an institutional nation) really are.

So, personally, what is it? I suppose answering for everyone is out of the question. But I think I can answer what it is as a functional definition: a way to keep the American worker satisfied with his/her lot in life by giving up a day of the month for family gatherings. For most people, whether you believe in the sanctity of Thanksgiving or see the marketing as an outdated way of just getting 21st century families to get together, it's a pretty solid deal. If you're a full-time worker, you get a paid day off in many cases. If you're a student, no school for a while. For me, as a student, it's a reminder that the semester is almost over. 

In the end, I would say it's a day for me to just try and find the one person (or people) that is/are most accessibly important to me and try to enjoy time with them as well as I can. We're all strapped these days. Many of us question our place in our jobs, our future (as workers, students, etc.), and our lives in general. Where are we all headed in this quickly changing society? What validity will I have in it in 5-10 years? Will I fulfill my dreams and goals? Are they all meant to be achieved? If not, how do I know which ones to feel okay or bad about? Despite these questions, many of us know of at least one or more people we can turn to and cherish on this day. And for those who don't, maybe we can put ourselves to the side for a moment to think about them. In this 'me-centric' society, we tend to forget about what that type of message sends to those who don't have a lot of 'me' to feel good about. I think that one fact, more than any other, makes me feel the worst when I see how commercialized and fragmented our holidays, once sprinkled with some meaning perhaps, are becoming.

In the end, just value what you have. Who cares if you don't get everything you want this year? Who cares if you don't meet your goal you set 100% this year? We should be so lucky that we even have years to look forward to setting goals, achieving them, resketching them, or scrapping them, when some people only have goals of living to see the next day. Those people, more than any, only have their loved ones to value and get them through year in and out. Do you think we as a society keep that same level of focus on those we love the most? 

Have a nice Thanksgiving. 

The difference between living and learning.

Today I heard a young woman (white) tell me that since she has a Mexican boyfriend she "knows what it's like" to be treated like one vicariously in a white society. This comment is utter bullshit, for one, and insulting on another front. 

First, it's complete and utter nonsense. To demonstrate this, let me rephrase the question another way. I'm a male. If I hang out with nothing but women, will I ever know what it's like to experience life in this society as a woman? Will I ever know what it's like to be the victim of a sexist comment, mindset, or discriminatory act? No. If a black man hangs out with nothing but white people, is he going to begin to be judged as a white man? Negative. Just because one hangs out with people in mixed-race relationships does not mean they themselves know what it's like socially. 

I wanted to tell this girl so badly that "No, you don't know how it feels to be judged as a Mexican in a white society - you're white and American. You may know how it feels to be viewed as a white female who dates a Mexican male, and that is a relevant discussion for another time; but it's far from being the same thing". 

It's insulting in this way: it invalidates the unique reality a person of Mexican descent might feel in such a society. It sort of passively writes off being an oppressed situation by insinuating that watching and hearing something happen to another is the same or supreme to being the one that received the action. It's like seeing a punch thrown at somebody, seeing it connect, hearing the "pop", and saying "Man, I felt that just as bad as he/she did!"

This does not mean that white people have no valid stories or situations in society. An anti-racist white person (male or female) could very well say that non-whites do not understand how it is to be going against the institutional and social norm of white racism and experience the "traitorous" attitudes attributed to them. That is something that they can talk about and share (and it is an outlook and story that has a LOT of meaning, as white people are central allies in the fight against racism). However, nobody else can appropriate that feeling for themselves if they don't experience. 

Therein lies the difference between living and learning. It's important to do both. By living, we affirm who we are in society: your ethnicity, your gender, your religion/lack-of-religion, your class, etc. All of these things contribute in very unique and special ways to who you are and how you experience life. Women go through things daily that men do not understand. Why? They do not live it. Men experience things that women will never experience, just on a different side of the coin.

By learning, we put aside our own viewpoint to empathise with that of another. We try to view things in their lenses, to understand that our reality is not the one objective reality upon which everything else is based. The male reality is not the generic, definitive one. The American reality is not the benchmark upon which everyone else in the world should be judged. People are a result of their biography and history, and those histories are shaped in their status and classification in society. These things are key to understanding who we are and where we're going. 

If a person can't grasp that concept, I suspect it's going to rather hard for them to make sense out of much of what goes on in life without resorting to violence, resentment, and confusion that could be remedied and solved by simply putting their ego and vanity aside. Only when a person honestly realises that they don't know it all through their lenses do they really begin to learn about others and, in a way likely not expected, even more about themselves. 

So in the end, the next time you're thinking about how your friend or family member of a different race/gender/religion sees the world, admit to yourself up front that this is a viewpoint that you've never lived and can only learn; but to truly understand how they live their experience, you have to put your aside momentarily. Otherwise, you're just swimming in a sea of your own shit. 

Thoughts

As I get ready to write my next article, I'm wondering:

Why is it that being Christian in this country, at least in title, is synonymous with being moral? Why can you say "I have Christian values" and be considered basically good, yet saying Jewish or Muslim values falls noticeably short? Or saying I'm an atheist? Is morality tied to the Christian God only, or to God at all? Can one be without religion and automatically without morality and values?

Conservative anxieties over "Third-World" and "paradise" men.

I used to think only Pat Buchanan could say some of the most overtly and obviously racist and comments I've heard in our supposed "post-racial" society. Then I go and decide to read the news and I find this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/pruden-obama-bows-the-nation-cringes/?feat=home_headlines

The above link is of an article in the Washington Times. 

The author, a conservative, is upset because Obama recently went to China to discuss economics with their leader. Upon greeting the leader, he bowed as a sign of respect in diplomacy. Because of this, he is now ripe for accusations of being 'un-American' and 'subservient'. "What is Thomas Jefferson or John Adams had done this?" asks the author. Well, John Adams did spend many years in England learning to kneel in front of a foreign leader (much more so than a simple bow), so I guess there's that answer. But that's neither here nor there. What I'm interested in is the tangent the author goes off on towards the end.

He starts on somewhat of a personal rip of Obama and his upbringing. He says "Obama was raised in a paradise, far outside of the American mainstream", bringing up ideas of exotic living and 'non-American'-esque people (think 'non-White' for some idea of what he really means). 

He then makes it abundantly clear what the end point of his gripe is: he refers to Obama's father explicitly as Kenyan (a predominantly Black nation, and said as if his father's country of origin has any effect on how Obama is going to act with others) and says "raised by a mother who had a thing for 3rd world men". 

*GASP* - You mean...dark people? 

There are white-racial anxieties written all over this article. What does Obama's mothers "preference for 3rd world men" have anything to do with this situation? And his Dad's nationality?

I would say it's indicative of how a majority, though obviously not all, of conservatives vent their racial frustrations. They keep themselves censored and shut-up for the most part, but every so often they have to let out their antipathy towards all things non-White, non-Christian, and non-hetero.

Fort Hood massacre spurs hate crimes. What a shocker.

Why exactly do we fight the War on Terror? Well, I have my own theories. However, I'm going to entertain one of the more widely accepted (yet still asinine) reasons given by right-wing pundits and followers: that we are protecting our freedom and values here, the great western society of tolerance and justice we claim to esteem so much (as if being non-western are liberty loving are mutually exclusive). 

So imagine my surprise when I read that just the other day a Marine reservist attacked a Greek Orthodox Christian Priest when confusing him for a crazy, "Arabic speaking Muslim". He beat him with a tire iron. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/alexios-marakis-assaulted_n_353022.html

Now, the priest claims that as he was pulled over, stopping people to ask for directions, the man started to attack him after 'freaking out' over his accent. Be honest, here. What sounds more likely to you?

First, let's get something straight. At the heart of all of this lies a simple truth. The man confused Greek for Arab, and Arab for Muslim. Why? He saw it as non-white. And deep down, that scares white people. Of course, I don't mean every individual white person. As a general rule for the population, of course it does. 

That is why a Greek (European) man of Mediterranean origin can be attacked for confusion with a "Muslim" (which is a religion, not a race, by the way). That is why there is no movement amongst white people to be paranoid over Christians after the death of Dr. Tiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Roeder) by an anti-abortion extremist. Why is this? The reservist and Scott Roeder are white. Therefore, according to the laws of white privilege, they're a couple of "troubled individuals", not a representative sample for white christians. Don't expect this same standard to be held for dark-skinned Muslims after a handful of domestic incidents.

It is this kind of conditioned exceptionalism that allows White-males to get by with no sweeping generalizations of themselves after the terrorist attacks by Ted Kazinsky, Timothy McVeigh, and Scott Roeder, yet the acts of a handful of Muslims lead to this type of nonsense: 

The link above shows footage of Fox anchors seriously advocating the idea of interrogating Muslim-Americans serving in the military to "make sure" they're 100% on board. Imagine if the tables were turned, and all Christians were being interrogated for the actions of Scott Roeder. What kind of outrage would we see from the right-wing in this country? The thing is, the latter won't happen nearly as quickly as what we've seen happen with Muslims.

Now, let's see how fast the right-wingers move to decry the violence and abhor the actions this Marine took against an innocent man. I'm guessing little to no commentary over it in the news. However, had this been a Muslim man attacking a Christian man for "speaking the language of infidels", we would label it a terrorist attack. Interesting set of standards we hold here in the high and mighty, 'secular', and tolerant West.

Anti-racist white guy punks an anti-immigrant protest!

This is a bad-ass video. A white anti-racist activist gives an interesting speech at an anti-immigrant rally. He puts a spin on the speech, turning the rhetoric around on European-immigrants (present and past) to give a little perspective on the asinine feel of the anti-immigrants arguments. 

What is even more interesting is that the right-wing dickheads attacked the kid afterwards when he was riding his bike home. http://www.bluestemprairie.com/bluestemprairie/2009/11/ruthiehendrycksfail.html

Things like this are what worry white anti-racists. You see, there is one downside to being a white anti-racist: White people, in their lack of ability to claim your playing the race card, end up taking their irrationality out in violent outbursts, vocally or physically (the latter being less frequent). When they are in groups, it can get ugly, as we see here. 

Good for him to stand up to those fucks, though. 

Criticisms of a thinking man in a drastic situation.

Obama, being pressed by top officials in the military for more troop presence in Afghanistan, has been pondering the decision for a few weeks. Because of this, he has been accused of being "indecisive", "lacking leadership skills", and a barrage of unfounded insults. 

Let me get this straight: Obama, knowing that any surge in troops will take a year to complete, is supposed to rush this decision in order to look competent to those who oppose him? How do we know the situation will even be the same in a year? What if the troops were a waste in a year? Is it that urgent? What if they are not enough? Then it was a waste. I think Obama is unique in that he understands that an occupation of Afghanistan has been tried by two countries before us. Both have failed. Come to think of it, our occupation efforts have not often been incredibly successful. 

After 9/11, Bush wasted no time hurling our troops into two countries to replace their leaders with ones we found "worthy". Look at the mess it has caused. Maybe Obama has learned a thing or two from this quagmire created by Bush.

Please, don't take this as another Obama apologist. I have my own criticisms of Obama (his way of dealing with Israel/Palestine, his way of handling Cap & Trade/Healthcare). I am simply educated and aware of how our past attempts to displace leaders to insert our own regimes has backfired every time in ways the "experts" somehow "never expected" (anybody now remembering  Cheney telling us that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, that it would be a quick and easy war?).

So, again, let Obama take his time. Get off his ass. If months have passed and no decision has been made or even discussed publicly, let the criticisms begin. Until then, conservatives, shut the hell up and let the guy think. 

Uneducated people about Hispanic culture.

I met a guy recently at my job who is a Spanish-immigrant worker in the U.S. His name is Felipe Arrabal. He usually comes in and speaks Spanish to me since his English is less than fluent and he plans on returning home in about 2 years. Usually, though, he's given funny looks when he speaks to me in Spanish. It's probably because he has light-brown hair, fair skin, and blue eyes. I'm usually asked questions such as, "I didn't know a White guy could speak Spanish so well!" or "He must have a Hispanic wife to know it so well". Such comments are not only ridiculous sounding, but ignorant as well.

Hispanic does not equal, "Dark skin, brown hair, brown eyes". Many mestizos and indigenous speakers share those characteristics, but it would take a pretty ignorant person to not know that the origin of the Spanish language and Hispanic culture is Spain, on the Iberian Penenisula of Europe (which, unless one doesn't know, is the origin of "white" people).

It tends to be predominantly (though not always) White people making these observations. What shocks them even more is when they learn that a light-skinned Hispanic is from Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Mexico, or Cuba. Aren't those where the dark-skinned people are from? I guess that's what happens with American education and a pop-culture-centric society.

For the record: hispanics can be of any skin color, hair color, or eye color. Please do not open your mouth and make yourself look a fool by thinking and saying something contrary and asinine.

Another good article.

http://www.cwsworkshop.org/pdfs/WIWP2/4Underst_White_Priv.PDF

It has to do with 'Understanding White Privilege'.
Interesting read.

Essential reading #1: Barriers to Clarity.

I've not felt like writing in a while. I study a lot for school, work quite a bit, and have other things going on. However, I will not leave this blog unattended. I will continue to read and educate myself on racism, sexism, classism, and other topics. In doing so, I will post up things I find interesting and important for myself and anyone else interested in educating themselves on the topics here.

My first one to show is a reading called "Barriers to Clarity" discussing the various ways in which Whites often try to assuage themselves, evade, or make unimportant the seriousness of institutional racism in this country.

http://www.cwsworkshop.org/pdfs/WIWP_Analysis/9Barriers_to_Clarity.pdf

Hard to know what you're feeling sometimes.

As much as I educate myself on race/ethnicity related topics and do what I can to encourage and ferment an anti-racist mindset, it is really fucking tough sometimes in the society I live in. Some days I barely notice it, if at all. Others, however, it is really easy to see how one can go throughout most of (if not all) their entire life not having to give a shit, other than a token comment here or there, about the problems and concerns of others who are not White. And every time I remember that it really feels sort of discouraging for a moment.

Then I think to myself "Man, there's gotta be more people out there that give a shit on a real level about this stuff". So I run into some progressive minded people, but their lack of nuance on the topic and propensity to say things like "Oh yeah, I totally know about ethnic issues. My friend is black, so...yeah", as if having a black friend were the be all/end all of understanding race/ethnic relations in the country.

Now and then I run into people who are in tune on the topic, but seldom is it a White person. I can think of 4 or 5 people that I know semi-close to very close who are aware of racial/ethnic relations on a real level, and all are non-White. 

It really sucks the most, actually, to meet someone who is very nuanced and well-read on other important issues like global warming, religious propaganda, class issues, or gender problems, but still remains largely ignorant on race related topics and doesn't seem to get why I "get on that topic" as opposed to some other one. 

I expect most these days to be uninformed on the issue. But maybe I shouldn't let that make me more complacent. Maybe it's time for me to stop seeking out people who do know more about it and start looking for those who don't. 

Vamos a ver.

In the quad at school today there was a short Asian-American kid being eccentric, waving to people from a tree and shouting, "I love you!" in a cutesy voice. He ended up climbing down from the tree to interact with people up front. Most people just said it back or waved. 

One girl, however, took it upon herself to live into the worst damned situation I see happen to people of Asian descent in the U.S. As he strolled by she asked what his name was, to which replied "Tim". Afterwards, almost immediatley, she asked "So where do you come from?"...

*Palm to face*

Now, waiiiiiit a sec! Isn't it possible she just meant what town in Texas he was from, or part of the U.S.? Aren't I being just a *little too PC*? 

Nope. Since when the fuck do white people go around to other White people, or Black people, etc. asking "Where do you come from?"

Phrasing the question in the way that she did only perpetuates the idea of Asians as the "foreigner", "stranger", "outsider", somehow less authentically American than 'the rest'.

Can White identity exist without non-White identity?

Ponder this:

White identity cannot, would not have, and will not exist without the existence of non-White identity. So what does that say about being White? That being white is less about being something, and more about not being something else. What is that something else?

What do we give those who are considered "non-White"? Well, ethnic identity, for one. We call them Hispanic-American, Asian-American, African-American, etc. We attribute different types of music to them. If a White man goes to an Asian restaurant, there is a consensus that he's eating "ethnic food", in contrast to "normal food" (of course, such as Hamburgers, hot dogs, sandwiches, etc.)

We give them "foreign language". Hispanics are tied to Spanish, Asians to a multitude of languages, etc.

We give them 'other-worldly' attributes, such as "natural dancers" (black people), "great at math and science, breed like rabbits" (Asians), etc.

It seems that everything that has to do with being non-White is about having ethnicity or culture. Being white is defined by it's neutrality. One is 'normal', a 'person', an 'individual'. One can judged as such, as evidenced by the 100 or so Supreme Court justices before Sotomayor whose personal experiences didn't call into question their impartiality. You can miss a basketball shot and not have it reflected on you that there's something not normal about you. You can show up late for class and not have being lazy ascribed to your tardiness, as well as your racial behavioral characteristics.

Being race-neutral, the "norm", the benchmark means that you are what everyone else is judged off of. Obama being called "race transcendent" did not mean he did what other Presidents did. It means he rose above being black. John McCain never transcended being white, nor will he ever be asked to. This is a privilege, to be considered the norm so as to never have to "overcome" a racial status.

In essence, being a white-American (and in many ways, a white-American male) means more in what you are not rather than what you are. Blacks, Asians, Hispanics - THEY have a race and a racial identity. Whites are just people. It means not having to conform to anything outside of a comfort zone. It means being given the benefit of the doubt, being judged as an individual.

Without Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or any other group, White would not exist. There would be nothing for it to exist in contrast to. There would again be Irish, Dutch, Spanish, French, Swiss, Polish, Germans, or any other European ethnic group. Asians do not call themselves yellow or identify themselves with others of East Asian heritage unless they live in a White centric society, like America. This is just as Europeans did not identify as such until their arrival into the New World and the creation of it's power structure.

Knowing all of this, what does it say about those who choose to self identify, consciously or subconsciously, with the term "White-American"?

"I always feel like"...no, wait, someone is watching me.

More and more these days I'm noticing stares. I don't tend to get these stares when I'm alone, so I've scratched out (for the most part) the notion that the stares I refer to come as a result of having not brushed my hair, worn a shirt that may attract attention, or some other reason. I notice I tend to get the stares when I'm with my girlfriend.

She at times notices it less than I do, and sometimes seems to notice it as much as I do, but nonetheless, I can't count on any specific number of hands how many stares my girlfriend and I both get when walking in public, particularly holding hands.

It's not a stare with any kind of rude look (well, 85% of the time, let's say). It's usually a blank stare, but with a hint of an invesitagtive look. It's almost as if the person is asking themselves, "I wonder what that's all about?" I only assume this internal possibility because of certain questions I've been asked in the past (and to which I've referred in a recent post). I'll get questions, questions that the asker feels are innocuous but to me reveal an ignorant mindset. I've been asked whether I'm "into Mexican girls", "just not that attracted to white girls", etc. These kinds of questions tell me that we're not seen as "normal" in the person's eyes.

Before I go on, let me make clear: I am not saying that everybody that I make eye contact with while in public with my girl is giving me the afforementioned stare. I am only referring to instances in which I am certain an obvious prolonged glare has taken place.

Now, here's where apologists rush in. "Come on. Interracial couples are not the norm, so why would they view you as one?" If the asker were truly inquisitive about our social status as a rarity situation, wouldn't the questions be less directed at my motives (or hers) and more about our situation? For instance, I'm seldom asked whether we are subjects of racist comments, stares, or actions, or whether we face or have faced pressure from society, family, or friends to date "within our race". Those would be questions pertaining to our social situation.

The subject matter of questions asked pertaining to my relationship and the frequency and nature of the stares given tell me that there is a good likelihood that they are less an expression of social curiosity and more one of preconceived ideas about who we are and why we date.

To review shortly, a couple of tips on speaking to people in interracial relationships:

1. If it is a non-verbal environment, don't stare unless they are giving you a reason to stare (like, anything your "average" couple would do: making out in public, for instance).

2. Instead of revealing yourself to be someone of limited social couth, please don't ask ridiculous questions or make stupid comments like "So you don't think Mexican guys are cute?", "Got jungle fever, eh?", or "Have you always liked (insert racial group here)?" It presumes that the person dating chose that person on the foundation of a skin color grouping and not based off of personal traits. It's insulting. And no, I don't give a shit if you have some interracial couple friends that "don't mind" having been asked that. Having self-respect isn't a pre-requisite for living in our society, sadly.

Now, go out there and don't fuck this one up. :)

That's just how it was, right?

While sitting in a lecture, my professor is discussing the history of the theory of Evolution. Once she gets around to discussing Darwin and his contemporaries, she mentions that Darwin (like many Anglo men of that time) was "a bit racist, sexist, etc." but that we can't judge him based off of that criteria due to his being a product of his time. This was said by someone with a Masters degree. 

This is quite a common tendency in race based discussions on the side of apologists, isn't it though? To take up the side of historic figures and excuse their philosophical short-comings (that we would normally chastise others for) in the name of them being a "product of their times". Funny, Darwin is considered "revolutionary" with Evolution, yet "a product of his time" in terms of racism, sexism, etc. Funny how we cherry pick how and what he was a product of when it suits certain agendas. 

I've always found this line of thinking pretty ridiculous. The truth is that it isn't that he was a "product of his time", as though all men in notable positions thought as such. Thomas Paine, one of the biggest names of the American Revolution, wanted to do away with slavery altogether, yet many of his contemporaries were quite the opposite. 

Bartolome de Las Casas witnessed the brutality enacted against the indigenous Arawak people of what is now Puerto Rico and wrote an extensive essay to the Spanish royalty asking for this behavior to be condemned and punished. Again, contrary to Spanish feelings of superiority and Catholic dominance, he was unlike other contemporaries. What product was he of, exactly?

The next time someone attempts to justify a publicly well-renowned figures actions that might tarnish an otherwise impeccable reputation, remind them that they might just be products of their own experiences, not their "time". 

Yet again!

As I work steadily in my department at work, I notice a conversation begin. A dark skinned Hispanic-American worker (named Will) begins talking with a light skinned, European looking hispanic named Juan. They speak to each other in Spanish for the entire conversation about the upcoming semester of school. 

In the middle of the conversation, unnoticed by me and the two gentlemen talking, a white Anglo woman was listening in on the conversation. She approaches the two of them and says "That's so good that you're giving him lessons!" (She was speaking to Will about Juan). When Juan said "No, ma'am. These aren't lessons. We're just speaking.", she replied, "Oh, so he's practicing then". At this point, Will said "No, ma'am. I'm just speaking it with him".

The details after this point are pretty irrelevant to the point of the story. 

The woman saw the two speaking Spanish. She makes the assumption, for whatever reason, that the light skinned guy must be getting taught by the darker skinned one. In her mind, light skinned equals one thing, dark skinned another. 

Now, I know what the responses to this might be. "Maybe she listened to how the light skinned guy spoke and assumed his was less fluent, therefore being a student of the language". To this I say nay, that as being  fluent speaker myself, I can vouch that this young man is as fluent as one gets. 

"Most Hispanics in Texas are darker looking, so isn't it just natural to assume he would be teaching him?" Again, this is wrong. It might very well be true that most are "darker looking", but why would that assume that the other person was a student of the language? Doesn't that comment imply ignorance as to the origins of the language to begin with? Is Spanish not of European origin? Do we know where Spain is? 

It is ridiculous colour coded assumptions like these that create issues in society. Issues that are never spoken about. To the onlooker, the person not involved, or the person making the assumption, it may seem pedantic or "too PC" to get bothered by something like this. But isn't that what puts the monogot majority in the U.S. in the privileged position?

Just sayin'...

I smile.

As I sit in a cafe, I'm reading a book on institutional racism. It's less of a formal non-fiction book and more a collection of racism-related essays. Point being: I'm not reading what your typical person is sitting around reading. Most are looking at the newspaper, some gossip magazine, a novel of some sort, or something else. These are all fine things in some fashion, but not for me today. I'm reading about that damned four letter word and how it fits into our society everyday: race.

It's not always race that I read about. I also often tend to read about sexism or classicism. But today the topic is racism. 

As I read, I begin to notice behavioural patterns from many passer-bys. Most of them passing by are white, and most of them smile when making eye contact. Most of them smiling look at me, look at me reading a book, and then look back to offer the smile. I'm obviously no mind reader, so I can't possibly claim to know what they're thinking. But I can tell you what they're definitley not thinking. 

They're not thinking: "Oh, look at that nice young man reading. I'll bet he's reading on some sort of pressing social topic that would make me, should I ever step outside my comfort zone to take a look, think twice or even critically about the society I live in. I'll bet he's educating himself - voluntarily - on the existence and persistence of racism, sexism, classicism, religious intolerance, or xenophobia." 

Instead, I'll bet it's something else (if anything at all). It's more like "Look at that nice young man. He seems non-threatening, likely educated (I mean, he's reading, right?), and probably has a good future ahead of him. He's going to make America proud some day. God Bless the U.S.A." Consciously I'm sure many don't take the time to think these things, but deep down we'd all be kidding ourselves if it weren't programmed into our social wiring. Every word? No. The general idea? You bet your ass.

I don't mean to say that I don't want to make America proud. The thing is that what I feel would make America a better place, a country to be proud of, that is, is effectively erasing many of our cultural "norms" present and embedded in our social fabric. Does it mean disturbing the silence, rocking the boat, making some uncomfortable, or even getting apprehensive responses? Sure. But when did any change or critical self-reflection come about without any of that?

Yet I smile, because I know that they likely have no clue how wrong the mindset is that I described (if they're even conscious of it to begin with). I smile because I've got this information and I'm not going to use it the way that "Uncle Sam" would want me to. 

The same Uncle Sam who kept Jews in quotas from entering college to protect the WASP status quo. The same Uncle Sam who steamrolled over indigenous populations to amass land and power. The same Uncle Sam who denied human rights to blacks until just a few decades ago. The same Uncle Sam who told women they didn't really matter until a few decades before that even. The same Uncle Sam who felt it acceptable to steamroll over Iraq for it's own jingoistic interests. 

No, I don't think I'll be doing anything to help that Uncle Sam. I'd like to work to create a better America, even if it's down here in the grass with everybody else. This is where things actually happen. I'm not saying that America is terrible and that I'm here to tear it down and erect some radical, unliveable place for most people living here. However, there's plenty of room for America to be not only criticised, but chastised. I love the freedom I have. Especially the freedom to gather information to initiate change that rights wrongs and calls out injustice when I see it.

But until I am able to effectively initiate that change more strongly, I'll just smile as each person walks by. 

Free Speech for all, as long as you're nice to whites.

Often times a question is posed to Americans as to whether or not a Nazi flag should be allowed to be displayed. Most will say "Yes, it's the first amendment right. They have the right to be an asshole".

Now let's not make any bones about it here: the Nazi flag is a flag used today by Europeans (or European-Americans) to signify national socialism for a White supremacy ideology. To put it more succint: it represents white racism against non-whites. This said, it is considered "okay" to be displayed. 

Now, I wondered if this reflects some type of tradition for a respect for freedom of expression, regardless of the political or social end.

Apparently not: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=57375 

When it represents Black Libertation ideology, even if taking place in a foreign country not subject to U.S. laws and regulations, U.S. officials are legally and generally socially justified in stripping the two men of their olympic medals. Media outlets call it "nasty", "un-American", and other sorts of labels. 

Any support of White supremacist hate seems to be acquiesed to by society and media at large (look at most of U.S. history for proof of this - slaver, segregation, etc.) yet historical movements against the white structure have always been suspect (Civil Rights movements and the hosing of protesters, Rosa Parks criticism, even the recent Gates situation with the police). When whites attack non-whites, it is glossed over or justified (lynchings allowed for decades on end, burning crosses in yards, churches burnt down, the plethora of youtube videos showing McCain supporters and their racist comments, or the Philadelphia private pool discrimination, "it's their private business right to discriminate").

You see, when Blacks emphasize some sort of resistance against an oppressive system, it's terms for punishment. When Whites do it, "their rights are protected".

Gotcha. 

Interesting.

In our Census here in the United States, we have the categories "Hispanic-American", "Latino-American", and "White-Hispanic/Non-White Hispanic". 

You see, I find it very telling about how racialized our government still behaves.

A brown skinned Latino man is going to be labeled, in the end, "Latino" or "Hispanic-American". This implies a non-White racial category. A light skinned Hispanic with European features is going to be considered "White-Hispanic". 

I find this curious. It's almost as if they include "White" before "Hispanic" to remind the census that "Hey, the whites are still over here in this corner too!" Nevermind that there are "Black-Hispanics". This is of less importance. As long as we know they're non-White, we can calculate them in proportion to the White ones. 

To me this is a small proof, though not the only one, of the remnants of White Supremacy in our institutions. 

So...

Pundits and politicians can pronounce Sonia Sotomayor's name as "So-duh-mire" all day long without fear of claims of sounding unintelligent, yet if someone were to say "George WashingtAN" or "Abraham Lencon", snickers and smirks of affirmation of a lack of intelligence would run amuck. 

So, just to clarify - Anglos mispronouncing names left and right, perfectly O.K. 

Non-Anglos mispronouncing things, "Learn English right!"

Gotcha.

Pues, entonces...

Joder! 

Me parece que con cada dìa que pasa, con cada libro que leo, y con cada frase de las noticias y los comentarios polìticos que oigo, me siento menos cierto de què justa es la sociedad en que vivo. Seguro - oigo bastante de comentarios que insinúan el sexismo, la intolerancia religiosa, y el etnocentrismo que componen el sistema central de nuestro paìs. Sin embargo, lo que me molesta màs es la situaciòn del racismo y su estado actual en nuestra cultura. 

Nos mentimos (como paìs) diariamente, dicièndonos que ya se ha muerto el racismo (es decir, en todas las formas grandes), pero es esto la verdad? Creo que no es asì. Creo que nos seguìmos diciendo estas mentiras con la ilusiòn y la esperanza que todos los problemas, todos los puntos de vista de los ciudadanos que no son "blancos", se van a ir asì como asì. Por esto yo escribo del racismo. Voy a seguir asì hasta que nos dejemos de mentir y hasta que podamos decir verdaderamente que este es un paìs justo para todos con respeto a "las razas". Hasta que suceda eso, no voy a dejar de comentar en estas abominaciònes. 

Bueno. Pues, ya lo dejo.

Identity Politics and Sotomayor

This is an excellent article from the Washington Post called "Whose Identity Politics"?

It calls out Whites for the "code language" that is used to cover up their "inherent objectivity".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 

An excerpt:

Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.

Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings -- as he did at his confirmation hearings -- but unforgivable for Sotomayor to mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work. Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge's work, as he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage and bereft of experience.

Pool Restrictions in the 21st Century.

So...segregation ended, right? We're all equal now. Everybody gets a fair shake. Nobody has any reason to cry racism except those victim mongering racists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Not whites. No, no, no, Whites are 'above' that type of behavior now. The U.S. is "post-racial" now. I mean, come on! Our President is multiracial, half-black, half-white! How can we have systematic racism? Get over it!

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Pool-Boots-Kids-Who-Might-Change-the-Complexion.html

Right. Sure. Well, I guess somebody had better let those kids know that. Let them know that whenever they get into the pool and the white kids get out, that's all part of our "post-racial" America they're raised in.

I guess somebody had better tell the kids with the troublesome complexion that they're the problem, that their dark skin brings bad vibes with it, as opposed to the inherently "good vibes" of the children with a lighter complexion (in the article, a fear is expressed that the black kids complexion would be a reason that the atmosphere of the pool area would change).

I guess fending the parents off with "refund money" is just fine. Nevermind the message that this sends to young children who are Black. "Hey, you're not allowed in. Here, just take your money back that you paid and go find some other pool. Your complexion is bad for the pool atmosphere and vibe."

Is this all part of our "post-racial" society?

Verdict on Iran

So, Iran is experiencing some social division over their recent election. The news hails this as a sign of good for the future of Iran and it's government. Part of me is in agreement, but another part of me is sceptical. This is certainly not the first time that the U.S. has had some vested interest in the outcome of an election, war, or conflict in the Middle East. Usually, our hope for the outcome is that which supports our hope for continued hegemony in the area and the protection of our petroleum based interests. So, forgive me if I'm not all excited and pumped for the internal conflict going on. 

I'm not saying that I support the current regime. It is plenty reprehensible for injustices it has committed. But in looking at the current regime and their attitudes towards the U.S., isn't it only fair to judge their attitudes and actions in context to their history with us?

After 9/11, there were a slew of conservatives digging into the Koran for proof that Islam was a violent, hateful religion, and that "these people" were just "that way". Liberals kept wanting to learn more about Muslims and their culture to understand the radical actions. What troubled me was not the focus on Islam for good or bad reasons, but the lack of focus on our actions that may have contributed to a mindset. There was no slew of academics or cultural movement to study our past in the Middle East, our support of regimes, and our moves to maintain hegemony in the region. 

The U.S., from the backing of the installing of the Shah, to the propping up and taking down of Saddam, to almost unconditional backing of Zionist Israel, has had it's hands in the Middle East for decades. Has the U.S. been so mentally vacant as to assume that there is something 'wrong in THEIR culture' and not ours? Do we share none of the blame and therefore none of the responsibility to change? 

In calling three countries an Axis of Evil that must be stopped, invading one, and then acting hostile to the others, are we to be suddenly shocked and indignant over the latter two's actions of self-defense in their arms industry? Again, I am not condoning nuclear proliferation, but rather attempting to open up honest discourse on our actions and our policy in regards to other countries. If we can't look at ourselves honestly, how can we honestly and fairly judge the actions of others? Not doing so is a recipe for problems, as far as I'm concerned. 

The U.S. should take up more personal responsibility for it's own actions and policies that may have lead to current conditions. Im glad Americans, not to mention our President, want to stay out of Iran's conflict. However, because I'm aware of our lack of self-reflection, I'm suspicious as to what our inaction and support really signifies. 

Misconceptions

One of the biggest misconceptions I think Whites have about 'White Privilege' is the whole idea of what is meant by 'privilege'. I gather this in that one of the most common responses I have to the idea is "But, we didn't have a lot of money!" or something to that tune. This is a response to a charge of class privilege that has been thrown into a different discussion as a red herring, whether intentional or not.

Of course not all whites are wealthy. Such a statement is indeed ludicrous. So then, if not all Whites are wealthy, and there are of course wealthy minorities, how can one say Whites have racial privilege over minorities in America?

Simple: People tend to compete in society amongst those in their own wealth class. 

If there is a poor white man and a rich black man, chances are the latter of the two is looking for a job in a different part of the city (or state/country) than the former. So here, class differences do not matter. It's a question of whether or not a rich white man coming into play with the rich black man has any bearing on the outcome of competition.

Another misconception is that after confronting an owning up to Whiteness/White Privilege, whites seek to absolve themselves of their bad feelings by saying "I renounce my privilege!"

You see, just because one isn't a signatory doesn't mean one isn't a beneficiary. Whites can't wish away their privileges by acting nice, "going ethnic" (whatever that means), or some other seemingly altruistic act of multiculturalist goodness. 

Scratch that. There is ONE privilege Whites can give up, but seldom do: the privilege to remain silent about racism and let minorities handle it. 

Whites have the ability to ignore racism and those who fight it. This is a rather large privilege that they can throw off. Simply? No. Gradually? Of course. 

Stereotypes: The fault of those being stereotyped. Right.

So I’m standing in my department at work with a fellow employee. He is of Mexican-American descent. A white female customer approaches him with some questions about a product we carry and he gladly answers, then proceeding to hold a few minutes long conversation with her.

Towards the end of the conversation, my employee friend is asked by this woman whether he can translate some Spanish that is written on a product for her. He says “No”, since he does not speak Spanish.

Blown away at the fact that this brown-skinned, Mexican-American descended young man , she replies in a more than surprised tone, “You DON’T?! Are you serious? Why not?” This is asked due to the interruption of her preconceived notion that all brown folks with Hispanic heritage ought to be able to spout off Spanish to meet her requests.

She then goes on to brag about how she is learning Spanish and how he “really ought to start”, appropriating his cultural priorities for him because she deems it necessary for all brown skinned Hispanics to know Spanish, since that's the preconception she has formed in her mind. I then step forward, translate the product phrase for her (as I am a fluent speaker myself, perhaps the person she was seeking instead) and watch her wish us "Good day" with a somewhat smug smile of self-satisfaction on her face. 

This is White Privilege. She makes a sweeping generalization, a stereotype, and when it is proven wrong, it is the fault of the generalized person and it is on them to change. Non-whites must be given critiques to fit into the mold of how Whites see society and the world at large. This is a situation that even wealthy, well-to-do dark-skinned Hispanics do not often escape. 

Thoughts on the Confederate Flag Apologists

The "Good old Days" and Selective outrage.

Whites love to revel in the past. Whites love to sit and talk about their brave forefathers, how hard they sacrificed, the brave wars they fought in, etc. But there’s a catch: Whites only like to do this when they can revel in positive things about themselves, not so much when it comes to their history of racial oppression on it’s modern day effects.

In Southern Florida, it appears that some White NASCAR fans would like to wave their confederate flag during the races. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522203,00.html
Start to talk to a white person about slavery and eventually you’ll hear “It’s in the past, nobody owns slaves today, why not just let it go?”, or something similar. Start to talk to them about why they wave the Confederate flag and you’ll hear a litany of reasons, but they’ll never think to say “It’s in the past, we lost, we were defending something (slavery) that was an abomination to humanity, let’s move on”.

White Denial and Rose-Tinted History

You see, Whites who wave that flag (particularly Southern whites) love to go on about the brave Robert E. Lee, go on about the brave men who fought for “states rights” (read that: the right for states to maintain and extend slavery). Whites like to bullshit themselves and sugar coat the past to rationalize their preoccupation with the loss and the fact that they were on the wrong side of the argument of whether humans should be enslaved based off of skin color. The ex-Vice President of the Confederate States himself claimed that White Supremacy was the cornerstone of their culture.

But today Whites rationalize the display of that flag with a number of terrible excuses. The first one being, “It’s a part of Southern Culture and heritage!”

Imagine if a German kid waved the swastika around America or his homeland, claiming it represented his heritage. Why wouldn’t he just wave the German flag? Why does he choose to identify with a flag that took on a completely different meaning from the one of his homelands culture? Similarly, why do Southern Whites not wave the American flag, or even their state flag, to display their heritage and culture? Why wave a flag that represents rebellion against the U.S. and against human rights?

WHOSE Southern heritage, exactly?

One might also notice that it is never Blacks who have generations of family in the south who are making this argument of the flag representing “Southern heritage”. I’ll bet they don’t feel a “cultural tie” to this flag anymore than German Jews feel a cultural tie to the swastika. The truth is that just as the swastika represented a false idea of “Aryan supremacy”, the Southern Flag represents the false idea of “White Supremacy” at any cost, even the rebellion against and separation from the U.S. to maintain it. The confederate flag represents a historical period of White Supremacist rebellion, not "Southern heritage".

So don’t let white people fool you. When they tell you that the Confederate flag represents their heritage, what they’re often saying is either A.) We lost; I’m stuck in the past. Or B. I’m a White Supremacist. Or both.

Just wanted to get that out there.