Okay, for the small corner of the tubes that comes here to see what I have to say, I want to apologize for the absolute lack of posts lately. I got caught up in moderating a new LJ community devoted to anti-racism. There aren't enough mods, too many members, too many faux-pas to be away from it for long, too many uncomfortable realizations of my own and as a result my blogging, as well as my energy and patience levels, have suffered. I haven't even checked my blog roll in almost a week!
I will probably be back up soon, once we get some more moderators over there.
I haven't forgotten about this place, I just need time to come up with more material :D
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Illegal People
I have been stewing about this for weeks. Its more conceptual than specific event-based, so its harder to articulate.
Have you ever thought about how we talk about people?
There are a lot of discussions in various social settings where certain words and phrases are dismissed as being "just a word" or "meaningless" when their problematic nature is discussed. This is a fight that I have had with even the most progressive of folk, many of whom will not acknowledge that words have power. Words define the world around us. What words we use, and what they mean to different people is vitally important, because even if a word means nothing to you, this doesn't mean it has no meaning ever. How we talk about people and things shapes our conceptions of those people and things. How we talk about them also shapes our discourse in regards to these things, and allows us to define people, often without their input.
Which brings me to what I want to talk about here: immigration, immigrants, the words we use when we discuss them and how that perpetuates racist stereotypes and myths about immigrants, and specifically immigrants who are also POC. As Liss pointed out the immigration dialog in this country is usually based in racism and she quotes Professor Ojito of Columbia University:
First, there is the list of assumptions that come with the word "immigrant." For the most part, in a societal context and in political discourse, when the word "immigrant" is used, it indicates "those" people. You know what I'm talking about, the brown people who just need to "learn English 'cause this is America, dammit!" and are "taking our jobs away and draining our health care system and contributing to rising crime, and...and DESTROYING OUR PERFECTLY WHITE WAY OF LIFE GODDAMMIT!" Nevermind that pretty much all of this vitriol is a mythical brown boogieman cooked up in the fevered imaginations of paranoid white people.
The thing that gets me the most, is the term "illegal immigrant." Its a term that can be heard all over US conservative talk radio, and it seems to have joined the popular lexicon here. This creates a serious problem, by describing people as illegal instead of describing their actions which were illegal. People can't be illegal, and to position them as such is dehumanizing and leads to easy justification for violence and other atrocities.
And make no mistake, a good deal of this discourse in the US can be traced directly to white supremacist groups. (Seriously, if you click no other link in this entire post, click this one!)As much as there seems to be a habit of dismissing words as "just words" in conjunction with an apathetic handwave, words mean things, and rhetoric can have deadly consequences. I have linked to only one recent instance, but there are many more every day, encompassing crimes against humanity including rape, torture and gruesome death.
So, for discussion sake, how do you see racist rhetoric in discussions about immigration in your country? What are some of the myths surrounding immigrants?
Have you ever thought about how we talk about people?
There are a lot of discussions in various social settings where certain words and phrases are dismissed as being "just a word" or "meaningless" when their problematic nature is discussed. This is a fight that I have had with even the most progressive of folk, many of whom will not acknowledge that words have power. Words define the world around us. What words we use, and what they mean to different people is vitally important, because even if a word means nothing to you, this doesn't mean it has no meaning ever. How we talk about people and things shapes our conceptions of those people and things. How we talk about them also shapes our discourse in regards to these things, and allows us to define people, often without their input.
Which brings me to what I want to talk about here: immigration, immigrants, the words we use when we discuss them and how that perpetuates racist stereotypes and myths about immigrants, and specifically immigrants who are also POC. As Liss pointed out the immigration dialog in this country is usually based in racism and she quotes Professor Ojito of Columbia University:
"The debate, as it is framed now, has become a strictly anti-Hispanic immigration battle cry. And nothing rallies this nation quicker and more efficiently than the presence of an alien. Particularly one who is also considered ``illegal.''"
First, there is the list of assumptions that come with the word "immigrant." For the most part, in a societal context and in political discourse, when the word "immigrant" is used, it indicates "those" people. You know what I'm talking about, the brown people who just need to "learn English 'cause this is America, dammit!" and are "taking our jobs away and draining our health care system and contributing to rising crime, and...and DESTROYING OUR PERFECTLY WHITE WAY OF LIFE GODDAMMIT!" Nevermind that pretty much all of this vitriol is a mythical brown boogieman cooked up in the fevered imaginations of paranoid white people.
The thing that gets me the most, is the term "illegal immigrant." Its a term that can be heard all over US conservative talk radio, and it seems to have joined the popular lexicon here. This creates a serious problem, by describing people as illegal instead of describing their actions which were illegal. People can't be illegal, and to position them as such is dehumanizing and leads to easy justification for violence and other atrocities.
And make no mistake, a good deal of this discourse in the US can be traced directly to white supremacist groups. (Seriously, if you click no other link in this entire post, click this one!)As much as there seems to be a habit of dismissing words as "just words" in conjunction with an apathetic handwave, words mean things, and rhetoric can have deadly consequences. I have linked to only one recent instance, but there are many more every day, encompassing crimes against humanity including rape, torture and gruesome death.
So, for discussion sake, how do you see racist rhetoric in discussions about immigration in your country? What are some of the myths surrounding immigrants?
Thursday, March 05, 2009
"Conscience": Its Like "caring" but ...not.
Obama administration is working to repeal DHHS regulation that prevents health care organizations that receive federal funds from firing or refusing to hire health care workers who refuse to dispense medical care for "moral" reasons. Still wishy-washy on actual "conscience" clauses which allow health care workers to refuse medical care in the first place. Important distinction: what is being repealed is the idea that a clinic that provides family planning services could fire someone who refuses to dispense birth control for their refusal. What is not being repealed is their supposed right to refuse care. This concept of conscience clauses and right to refuse care can and does apply to much more than reproductive health. Doctors could refuse to see or touch gay or trans patients, pharmacists could refuse to dispense medications to people who are transitioning, EMTs could withhold lifesaving measures from someone they found "repulsive" and claim conscience.
What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience? When does your right to feel good about yourself become more important than someones life!? How the bleeding burny fuck CAN you feel good about yourself knowing that you harmed someone and/or actively contributed to their death?!
The only answer I can come up with to explain it is hate.
You hate anyone who lives a life you don't agree with. You hate them to the point that possibly letting them die is a-okay for you because they aren't really people anyway. Women who want to make their own decisions about their reproduction? Not people. Queer folk who live openly? Not people. Transpeople who just want the chance to be themselves? DEFINITELY not people. Multiply these sentiments by several hundred if the aforementioned women/queers/transpeople are not white, or are poor, or live in a "developing" country, or don't fucking speak English, or don't try REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to be as "normal" as possible or any number of things that add to your smug feeling of superiority that masks insecurity, fear and hate.
This is the difference between you and me, you so-called "moralists." I want everyone to have the right to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent others from doing the same. You? You only want people like you to have that chance. In my perfect world, you would be allowed to have your life, and your opinions still. The only difference is that you would not be able to dictate the life of anyone besides yourself.
In your perfect world, I wouldn't even exist.
I refuse to lay down and die so you and yours can live in your perfect world.
What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience? When does your right to feel good about yourself become more important than someones life!? How the bleeding burny fuck CAN you feel good about yourself knowing that you harmed someone and/or actively contributed to their death?!
The only answer I can come up with to explain it is hate.
You hate anyone who lives a life you don't agree with. You hate them to the point that possibly letting them die is a-okay for you because they aren't really people anyway. Women who want to make their own decisions about their reproduction? Not people. Queer folk who live openly? Not people. Transpeople who just want the chance to be themselves? DEFINITELY not people. Multiply these sentiments by several hundred if the aforementioned women/queers/transpeople are not white, or are poor, or live in a "developing" country, or don't fucking speak English, or don't try REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to be as "normal" as possible or any number of things that add to your smug feeling of superiority that masks insecurity, fear and hate.
This is the difference between you and me, you so-called "moralists." I want everyone to have the right to live their lives as they see fit provided they don't prevent others from doing the same. You? You only want people like you to have that chance. In my perfect world, you would be allowed to have your life, and your opinions still. The only difference is that you would not be able to dictate the life of anyone besides yourself.
In your perfect world, I wouldn't even exist.
I refuse to lay down and die so you and yours can live in your perfect world.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Why I am a purist
I love sci-fi and fantasy. I was raised in the era of movies like The Dark Crystal, Legend, Labyrinth, The Neverending Story, the Princess Bride, The Last Unicorn...My parents helped. We always had sci-fi books laying around the house (I still read the entire original Dune series once a year or so) and my mom would tape things like Red Sonya or Neverending Story for us to watch over and over again.
As I got older, I started getting a little pickier about my books. There were some tropes that seemed ever-present in fantasy specifically that bugged me to no end, the handsome hero swinging his phallus replacement around to protect the fragile but oh so beautiful princess from being touched. If I was lucky, the fragile princess would have power of her own, but it was almost inevitably magic of some kind, which allowed her to stay on the fringes of any battle and usually was the excuse for her weak constitution. Even female heroes would end up saved by the man yet again, regardless of her own strength.
Eventually, my mother (who can be seriously awesome) introduced me to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. This series seems to fall victim to some of the usual tropes at first, but very quickly it is revealed that not all is as it seems in that regard. The series is full of strong female characters, and by that I don't mean "Strong Female" characters, but strong characters that happen to be female. Its not a perfect series, but it does amazingly well in the gender department. Goodkind displays an amazing depth of insight into female perspectives, experiences and realities.
Can you imagine my joy when I found out they were making a TV series?
Absolute. Pure. Bliss.
Then I watched it.
I've read Backlash, I should not have been surprised. I should have expected that the entertainment industry would sap all individual personality from the female characters and insert tired old tropes about how women "really are." It doesn't matter if the character is essentially in charge of an entire council of nations and is the highest authority in the land. Underneath it all shes just a weak little girl who needs men to save her. She still has her amazing power, but now using it ONCE makes her faint like a delicate fucking wilted flower!
Additionally, the racial characterization is unbelievable. Why, pray tell, is the one character which was written with a specific speech pattern ie "I am" becomes "I be" (meant to indicate her native language's grammatical structure conflicting with the language she currently speaks) cast as a woman of color? Especially when this character was not originally written so? To make it worse, shes a sorceress who lives in a hut full of bones, and uses bones to ward off the underworld. Cue the "mystical POC/ voodoo preistess" stereotype. Tia Dalma anyone?
Theres more, but frankly, it isn't even worth addressing in some ways, cause we have heard it all before.
In all honestly, I wish I could even be anything other than bored and disappointed.
In short, don't bother with "Legend of the Seeker" As usual, the Western entertainment industry took perfectly good source material that actually portrays a complex world and boiled it down to the things that make white guys feel most comfortable.
As I got older, I started getting a little pickier about my books. There were some tropes that seemed ever-present in fantasy specifically that bugged me to no end, the handsome hero swinging his phallus replacement around to protect the fragile but oh so beautiful princess from being touched. If I was lucky, the fragile princess would have power of her own, but it was almost inevitably magic of some kind, which allowed her to stay on the fringes of any battle and usually was the excuse for her weak constitution. Even female heroes would end up saved by the man yet again, regardless of her own strength.
Eventually, my mother (who can be seriously awesome) introduced me to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. This series seems to fall victim to some of the usual tropes at first, but very quickly it is revealed that not all is as it seems in that regard. The series is full of strong female characters, and by that I don't mean "Strong Female" characters, but strong characters that happen to be female. Its not a perfect series, but it does amazingly well in the gender department. Goodkind displays an amazing depth of insight into female perspectives, experiences and realities.
Can you imagine my joy when I found out they were making a TV series?
Absolute. Pure. Bliss.
Then I watched it.
I've read Backlash, I should not have been surprised. I should have expected that the entertainment industry would sap all individual personality from the female characters and insert tired old tropes about how women "really are." It doesn't matter if the character is essentially in charge of an entire council of nations and is the highest authority in the land. Underneath it all shes just a weak little girl who needs men to save her. She still has her amazing power, but now using it ONCE makes her faint like a delicate fucking wilted flower!
Additionally, the racial characterization is unbelievable. Why, pray tell, is the one character which was written with a specific speech pattern ie "I am" becomes "I be" (meant to indicate her native language's grammatical structure conflicting with the language she currently speaks) cast as a woman of color? Especially when this character was not originally written so? To make it worse, shes a sorceress who lives in a hut full of bones, and uses bones to ward off the underworld. Cue the "mystical POC/ voodoo preistess" stereotype. Tia Dalma anyone?
Theres more, but frankly, it isn't even worth addressing in some ways, cause we have heard it all before.
In all honestly, I wish I could even be anything other than bored and disappointed.
In short, don't bother with "Legend of the Seeker" As usual, the Western entertainment industry took perfectly good source material that actually portrays a complex world and boiled it down to the things that make white guys feel most comfortable.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Fame and victim blaming
Unless you have been living under a rock in the States recently, you have probably heard of the case of musical artist Chris Brown facing charges for beating the stuffing out of his girlfriend, Rhianna who is actually more widely known than he is.
Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.
I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.
No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.
As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:
This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.
Fuckers.
Cue the inevitable cries of "What did she do to make him act like that?" There is unsupported conjecture that she cheated on him and/or gave him herpes being give as justification for his actions, or the usual suggestions of "but hes so NICE!" that are being offered as proof that the bitch must be lyin'.
I will never understand how someone can rationalize the idea that because you like someone's artistic expression that you know who they are and how they would act. Famous people are still PEOPLE and some people are assholes. Just because you like his music/think hes pretty/hate her for her fame/looks/relationship with him, does not mean you know fuckall about who they are.
No, I don't want to hear any, ANY justification for domestic violence. I have heard that he was abused by a child, and if it is true then it is awful that he was. This does not excuse violence he commits in any way. Aileen Wuornos was sexually and physically abused throughout her life and no one excused her for her crimes.
As far as the incursion into Rhianna's privacy in this case, I get so enraged that someone not only released her name, which is against law enforcement protocol, but a motherfucking picture of her after the attack that it is all I can do not to fucking walk to LA to verbally tear the shit out of whoever did that and their boss until this person is unceremoniously and publicly fired and shamed. I will instead quote Uppitybrownwoman:
I don’t want to open up any dialogue right now. I don’t want to teach you. I don’t want to explain to you how women of colour are shoved in all directions when it comes to violence against women. I don’t want to teach anyone about sexism and racism in the media. I don’t want to tell you about my experiences so that you can satisfy your voyeuristic curiosity that we have been trained to have. I don’t want to make any woman, WOC or not, into a model victim. I don’t want to tell you why it’s wrong to expect that of any survivor. I don’t want to have to argue again and again why it is downright bullshit to try to take away agency from the survivor. I don’t want to explain that “the personal is political” doesn’t mean no one has a right to privacy.
I want to yell. I want to scream. I want to rage. I want to extend a hearty ‘fuck you’ to a lot of people.
I don’t give a fuck how your life has been fundamentally changed by seeing a sensationalized photograph of a domestic assault survivor.
I don’t give a fuck about her fame.
I don’t give a fuck that you want to see it too.
I don’t give a fuck that you think she has no right to privacy because she’s a celebrity.
I don’t give a fuck how lucky you now feel to have never experienced intimate partner violence just because you’ve seen it.
I don’t give a fuck that you can see the ‘upside’ of this because it’s “raising awareness.”
I don’t give a fuck about you making her into an example.
I don’t give a fuck about what you think she should and should not do about her life.
I don’t give a fuck about her abuser’s career.
I don’t give a FUCK if you think she deserved to be abused, or to have her photos spread around like a fucking Christmas card.
Fuck the people who have turned this into entertainment.
Fuck the people who have turned this into an after-school special on VAW.
Fuck the people who published it on news sites and displayed it on television (I am looking at you Entertainment Canada).
Fuck the people who posted it on their blogs, their journals, their Facebooks, MySpaces, and other social networking sites so that EVERYONE else can see it.
I give a fuck about her dignity and I am yelling about it. I give a fuck about her choices that only SHE has a right to. I give a fuck about her life. I give a fuck about her rights. I give a fuck about her privacy. I give a fuck about her, so why don’t you?
This woman and her injuries are not gore porn for anyones amusement. No one has a right to see these photographs just because she makes a living in the public eye. If you need to see a picture of a battered woman to "show you the REALITY" of domestic violence, I suggest instead volunteering at a local homeless or battered women's shelter or just fucking right the hell off. If it takes something like that to "prove" to you that shit like this is a problem, then you have some serious soul searching and questioning of your humanity to do.
Fuckers.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Veiled Contempt-Part one: "Hijab" (aka The "Mythnomers and Impervections" edition)
(go here for an explanation of the title)
So, we are finally gonna start with this conversation, mainly because it seems to be the hugest issue that your average non-Muslim westerner will bring up regarding women in Islam. This took forever to actually put together, so pay attention.
Welcome to the first section of Part One in my Veiled Contempt series.
The veil.
This particular subject in itself is huge, and how it is addressed is rarely unproblematic for the people actually faced with the prospect of wearing something that has so many shades and degrees of meaning from place to place.
Very often, at least in a good deal of the popular culture that I have seen, the concept of veiling is either painted as absolutely oppressive, all the time, no matter what, or as an object of ridicule.
This part of this series will serve as a sort of primer on basic veiling names and facts, as well as dispelling some myths about the practice itself. I will add a disclaimer, this information should not necessarily be considered comprehensive. It is based on a few years of research on my part but there is a huge wealth of information on this topic. This piece barely scratches the surface.
First thing that must be understood: not every Muslim women veils. Not every predominantly Muslim country requires it either. Most don't require anything in the way of head covering for women, in some Muslim countries the practice is discouraged or outright banned in certain areas and even in the countries where it is required, veiling as it is recognized by non-Muslim westerners, and even some Muslim westerners, is a largely urban and recent phenomenon that has a huge variance from country to country, ethnic group to ethnic group.
Next thing that must be understood: there are many different variations of veil, all of which have their own name, and their own history, locality and meaning.
The headscarf, or hijab, is the most ubiquitous symbol of female Muslim identity to outsiders. There is no doubt in your mind when you see a woman wearing any one of the possible variations of the veil as to how this woman identifies herself. However, there are a multitude of questions as to why a woman would identify herself so openly in this way. In response to that, there is a multitude of reasons for wearing it, dependent on factors such as location, culture and interpretation of religious texts. Depending on where the woman is currently located, and where she is originally from, the veil can have many meanings, many purposes and many “why’s” attached to it. In today’s world, the veil has significant social, religious and political implications.
There are different variations of the veil, each of which has a slightly different implication. To list them fairly quickly, there is the hijab or headscarf, which can be found throughout the Middle East as well as in Turkey; there is the jilbab, often associated directly with the hijab; the niqab, which is not only the jilbab and the hijab but also a covering for the face which leaves only the eyes showing; the chador, or “sheet” which is a large piece of fabric, or a cloak that is wrapped around the body and head and is found mainly in Iran and Pakistan; the burqa, which is usually a large tent-like garment with a screen to allow the wearer some vision, and is found mainly in Afghanistan; and lastly the abaya, a flowing garment which is normally black that covers from the head to the ankles and can be found all over the Middle East. The style which is used to wear and decorate the various different methods of veiling can be an indicator of regional origin. The niqab can be as simple as a black outer garment worn when one goes out, to an elaborately decorated headdress made with leather and sewn on metal decorations. The simpler version generally indicates an urban dweller, whereas the more elaborate niqab is an indicator of a smaller, more rural village dweller. The style in which a hijab is wrapped about the head is also an indicator of regional origin. Hijabs in Egypt are very different from hijabs in Turkey.
The obvious meaning of the veil is to establish visual evidence of differentiated roles for males and females within Islamic culture. The actual source of the veiling tradition pre-Islam is unclear, but there are many theories. One theory is that women would cover themselves in the desert to prevent the dust and sand from ruining their clothing, or to prevent them from being made a target for raiders. In a strictly Islamic interpretation, it indicates something quite different. There are clothing and headwear prescriptions for both men and women within Islam, but they have one major difference. In every mention of men covering their heads it is with some reference to the divine. Men were to cover their heads to show a relationship to God, whereas women were to cover their heads as an indication of separation from certain aspects of social interaction and as an indication of modesty.
There are religious writings that have been used by many different groups and individuals to enforce a version of the veil on women. Two Surahs specifically indicate that a woman should cover. Surah An-Nur (24:31) advises women to “draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons or their sister’s sons, or their women or the slaves whom their right hands possess or male servants free of physical needs or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex.” Essentially, this Surah dictates that women should only show their “beauty” to their husbands or to those who are ineligible to be their husbands. This Surah has been used to not only make the argument for veiling, but to make the argument for nothing more than modesty. It has been taken to the other extreme as well, and has been used to justify extreme examples of veiling, which will be discussed later.
There is also Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59), which delivers a more direct command: “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast heir outer garments over their persons [when abroad]: that it is most convenient that they should be known [as such] and not molested: and God is Oft-forgiving, most merciful.” In this passage, the word “outer garments” used here is jalabeeb, plural of jilbab, which is a long gown covering from the neck to the ankles. This Surah is also used to justify extreme veiling.
The current trend of young, second generation Muslim women in western countries beginning to veil when it had not been a well observed practice in their families has been attributed to these two Surahs, the translations of them in English and the interpretations thereof. Many of these young women are interpreting veiling as fard, or religious duty. This has become more important in recent years as the popularity of multiculturalism has expanded. There has always been an attitude of assimilation for immigrants to America due to how recent immigrants ahve been and are treated as "other" and marginalized, and in the late 80’s/early 90’s it wasn’t seen as very “cool” to be anything other than mainstream, so immigrants to places like north America were more likely to try and assimilate in order to gain social recognition and reduce the “otherness.” In the last decade or so being ethnic in some way has become more fashionable and therefore more desirable. With the idea that asserting ones ethnic identity is a way of gaining social status, it has become important to some women to assert a specific part of their identity. Since it is a bit more difficult to assert a specific ethnic identity and still maintain a fairly decent social circle without being deemed racist, it has become easier to bring a religious identity more to the forefront and to still be inclusive. It has even gotten to the point where instead of trying to blend into the usual social hierarchies in school, or in public, it is easier to carve out a specific social niche in which everyone who is part of the group shares some visible evidence of their identity. This particular evidence has become so popular that there is a fairly brisk market for these culturally specific garments and businesses have sprung up amidst the demand.
The veil also has social implications, which are very dependent on the location and culture of the veiler. The most common social implication of the veil is the protection from harassment. Many women who choose to veil have found that by asserting their identity as a pious Muslim woman, they are either left alone when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, or they are able to take a higher moral ground because of it. In my own experience of wearing a veil her on the streets of Philadelphia, I did notice a difference in the way I was treated by men. I found that I was stared at less, and the cat calls that have been a fact of my life since the onset of puberty had all but stopped. It has been stated in several different studies on the choice to veil that many women witnessed a reduction in how much they had to deflect unwanted advances once they assumed the veil.
However, this does not always apply. In a conversation on NPR that I had with Azar Nafisi, the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, I asked her about this in regards to the forced veiling of Iranian women. She said that while that was used as the official justification for enforcing the veil, in her experience it only made street harassment worse. According to her, this was mainly because the assumption of the veil was compulsory and had many different veins of logic behind it, not the least of which being the assumption that women were inherently a temptation to men and had to be covered to protect men from their “seductive powers.” This mindset, even under the guise of protecting the women, only served to put them at greater risk. Mrs. Nafisi emphasized that the important part of this was the choice to veil. When veiling no longer becomes a choice and is compulsory, it loses any moral high ground or credibility because it is no longer a sign of the individual woman’s piety, but a social mark of inherent licentiousness.
Another social implication of the veil is the reactions of western non-Muslims to women who veil in their midst. There are a great many assumptions about the veil and the purpose of it in the west, and there have been some recent negative reactions to veiled women in supposedly “liberal” countries.
The first and most obvious example is the French ban on obvious religious clothing or symbols in public schools. This ban states that religious headwear is not allowed in a publicly funded institution. The argument is that because France is so secular, and assumes that a great deal of its citizens are also secular, they do not want to be seen as endorsing any particular religion. There is also the argument that the veil is something that is forced on women by their fathers, husbands, or other family members and the government has to be willing to protect them from that. This is an understandable desire, however, the premises that it is based on are false. The vast majority of women who live in western countries who veil do so by choice. Their families often resist them in their decision to veil, as a part of not wanting to stand out as ethnically different and because of the implications of identifying openly and visually as a Muslim in a world where there has been a great deal of violence attributed to Islamic fundamentalism and where many people assume that “Muslim” and “terrorist” are synonymous.
Another case is Britain. A few years ago a British elected official began to insist that if any of the veiled Muslim women in his constituency wished to speak to him, they would have to remove their face veil. He called it a “visible sign of difference” and insisted that he would not accept people trying to separate themselves from the rest of the world. If they wanted his attention, they had to remove their veils. It was obvious that he had no idea what he was asking and had no idea about the significance of the veil. He too, assumed that it was something forced on these women by possessive husbands and exclusionary cultures. It did not cross his mind that perhaps this woman chose it for herself and sees it as a sign of her devotion to God. He assumed, like so many others, that he was “saving” these women and giving them a chance at being “free.” Quite often, as I mentioned earlier, veiling is chosen. There are only a few countries that require women to veil and even in those countries there are rural areas where it is not observed as extremely as it is in the city centers. Some cultures that have a large Muslim population do not allow women to veil, so when they come to a western country that prides itself on freedom to worship, they choose to worship in a way that was denied them before. If a woman is from Indonesia or Turkey and chooses to veil when in a western country, this is most likely because in her country of origin, she is either socially discouraged, or outright denied the choice.
Possibly the largest implications connected to the veil are the political implications. Politically, the veil can function in many ways, but the ones that I will discuss here are the uses of the veil as a sign of either obedience or defiance of the government, and the veil as a sign of protest against the West.
There are at least three major countries in the Middle East that strictly enforce a veiling policy for their female population, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Each of these countries policies has their roots in various political and religious justifications. In Saudi Arabia, the niqab is the required form of veiling for any time that a woman leaves her home. The restrictions go much deeper than that, and extend to women’s ability to travel alone or obtain anything without the permission of a male guardian. The source of this proscription for veiling is the very conservative Wahabi Islam that is integrated with the power of the monarchy. In Afghanistan, the burqa is the proscribed form of the veil. In the past this was instituted by the Taliban which went as far as to prevent women from going to school, and would have morality police that would beat women and punish their husbands if their veiling was deemed insufficient. There is still an on-going issue in Afghanistan regarding the behavior of women that some groups find to be "impious," leading to horrible actions, like throwing acid on women who dare to attend school. Finally, in Iran, the chador was introduced as a required dress for women whenever they left their homes. This began as part of the movement that eventually led to the Islamic revolution. It was considered to be a way of rebelling against the influence of the west on Iranian culture and the sexualization of women for profit. It later became a way of showing ones obedience to the government. If a woman is not veiled properly, she can be arrested on indecency charges and be given a years-long prison sentence. The severity of how this is enforced waxes and wanes depending on current political tides.
These three locations have a few obvious things in common, the first of these being the government enforcement of dress using the excuse of “morality,” the second being the penalties for violating the dress code. All three use the previously discussed religious texts to justify these policies. The second two have one more thing in common. In both Iran and Afghanistan, these policies came as a reaction to the increasing encroachment and interference of the west on these specific countries.
On the flip side, there are countries that have outlawed the veil in the past and continue to actively discourage against it now. One is Turkey, a country that is based in Ataturk’s vision of a completely secular state. Ataturk himself put legal limits on religious dress during his lifetime. These laws have been revoked for the most part, but one is still hard pressed to find a woman in a position of political or social power in turkey who actively veils in public. Here have also been several movements in Egypt to block the veil, and in response veiling has grown as a sign of political protest.
In conclusion, it is obvious that with the complexity of the practice of veiling it is foolhardy at best and completely ignorant at worst to make assumptions about a woman who veils or doesn’t and about her impetus for doing so. As far as my personal opinion on the practice, I feel that it can be an important form of identity assertion and a way to express oneself socially, politically and religiously. That being said, I support the practice, provided it is a choice. If it is forced it loses all meaning except the political and that does nothing but cheapen the religious and cultural reasons for choosing it. In the flip side of that argument, forcing a woman to remove it when she does not wish to shows the same disregard for her agency as forcing her to wear it does, and as a double strike, is able to be couched in supposedly progressive rhetoric which, under the surface, has very little to do with "progress" and has everything to do with control. In the next section of this series I will address a deeper analysis of this practice, and the western equivalents thereof.
So, we are finally gonna start with this conversation, mainly because it seems to be the hugest issue that your average non-Muslim westerner will bring up regarding women in Islam. This took forever to actually put together, so pay attention.
Welcome to the first section of Part One in my Veiled Contempt series.
The veil.
This particular subject in itself is huge, and how it is addressed is rarely unproblematic for the people actually faced with the prospect of wearing something that has so many shades and degrees of meaning from place to place.
Very often, at least in a good deal of the popular culture that I have seen, the concept of veiling is either painted as absolutely oppressive, all the time, no matter what, or as an object of ridicule.
This part of this series will serve as a sort of primer on basic veiling names and facts, as well as dispelling some myths about the practice itself. I will add a disclaimer, this information should not necessarily be considered comprehensive. It is based on a few years of research on my part but there is a huge wealth of information on this topic. This piece barely scratches the surface.
First thing that must be understood: not every Muslim women veils. Not every predominantly Muslim country requires it either. Most don't require anything in the way of head covering for women, in some Muslim countries the practice is discouraged or outright banned in certain areas and even in the countries where it is required, veiling as it is recognized by non-Muslim westerners, and even some Muslim westerners, is a largely urban and recent phenomenon that has a huge variance from country to country, ethnic group to ethnic group.
Next thing that must be understood: there are many different variations of veil, all of which have their own name, and their own history, locality and meaning.
The headscarf, or hijab, is the most ubiquitous symbol of female Muslim identity to outsiders. There is no doubt in your mind when you see a woman wearing any one of the possible variations of the veil as to how this woman identifies herself. However, there are a multitude of questions as to why a woman would identify herself so openly in this way. In response to that, there is a multitude of reasons for wearing it, dependent on factors such as location, culture and interpretation of religious texts. Depending on where the woman is currently located, and where she is originally from, the veil can have many meanings, many purposes and many “why’s” attached to it. In today’s world, the veil has significant social, religious and political implications.
There are different variations of the veil, each of which has a slightly different implication. To list them fairly quickly, there is the hijab or headscarf, which can be found throughout the Middle East as well as in Turkey; there is the jilbab, often associated directly with the hijab; the niqab, which is not only the jilbab and the hijab but also a covering for the face which leaves only the eyes showing; the chador, or “sheet” which is a large piece of fabric, or a cloak that is wrapped around the body and head and is found mainly in Iran and Pakistan; the burqa, which is usually a large tent-like garment with a screen to allow the wearer some vision, and is found mainly in Afghanistan; and lastly the abaya, a flowing garment which is normally black that covers from the head to the ankles and can be found all over the Middle East. The style which is used to wear and decorate the various different methods of veiling can be an indicator of regional origin. The niqab can be as simple as a black outer garment worn when one goes out, to an elaborately decorated headdress made with leather and sewn on metal decorations. The simpler version generally indicates an urban dweller, whereas the more elaborate niqab is an indicator of a smaller, more rural village dweller. The style in which a hijab is wrapped about the head is also an indicator of regional origin. Hijabs in Egypt are very different from hijabs in Turkey.
The obvious meaning of the veil is to establish visual evidence of differentiated roles for males and females within Islamic culture. The actual source of the veiling tradition pre-Islam is unclear, but there are many theories. One theory is that women would cover themselves in the desert to prevent the dust and sand from ruining their clothing, or to prevent them from being made a target for raiders. In a strictly Islamic interpretation, it indicates something quite different. There are clothing and headwear prescriptions for both men and women within Islam, but they have one major difference. In every mention of men covering their heads it is with some reference to the divine. Men were to cover their heads to show a relationship to God, whereas women were to cover their heads as an indication of separation from certain aspects of social interaction and as an indication of modesty.
There are religious writings that have been used by many different groups and individuals to enforce a version of the veil on women. Two Surahs specifically indicate that a woman should cover. Surah An-Nur (24:31) advises women to “draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons or their sister’s sons, or their women or the slaves whom their right hands possess or male servants free of physical needs or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex.” Essentially, this Surah dictates that women should only show their “beauty” to their husbands or to those who are ineligible to be their husbands. This Surah has been used to not only make the argument for veiling, but to make the argument for nothing more than modesty. It has been taken to the other extreme as well, and has been used to justify extreme examples of veiling, which will be discussed later.
There is also Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59), which delivers a more direct command: “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast heir outer garments over their persons [when abroad]: that it is most convenient that they should be known [as such] and not molested: and God is Oft-forgiving, most merciful.” In this passage, the word “outer garments” used here is jalabeeb, plural of jilbab, which is a long gown covering from the neck to the ankles. This Surah is also used to justify extreme veiling.
The current trend of young, second generation Muslim women in western countries beginning to veil when it had not been a well observed practice in their families has been attributed to these two Surahs, the translations of them in English and the interpretations thereof. Many of these young women are interpreting veiling as fard, or religious duty. This has become more important in recent years as the popularity of multiculturalism has expanded. There has always been an attitude of assimilation for immigrants to America due to how recent immigrants ahve been and are treated as "other" and marginalized, and in the late 80’s/early 90’s it wasn’t seen as very “cool” to be anything other than mainstream, so immigrants to places like north America were more likely to try and assimilate in order to gain social recognition and reduce the “otherness.” In the last decade or so being ethnic in some way has become more fashionable and therefore more desirable. With the idea that asserting ones ethnic identity is a way of gaining social status, it has become important to some women to assert a specific part of their identity. Since it is a bit more difficult to assert a specific ethnic identity and still maintain a fairly decent social circle without being deemed racist, it has become easier to bring a religious identity more to the forefront and to still be inclusive. It has even gotten to the point where instead of trying to blend into the usual social hierarchies in school, or in public, it is easier to carve out a specific social niche in which everyone who is part of the group shares some visible evidence of their identity. This particular evidence has become so popular that there is a fairly brisk market for these culturally specific garments and businesses have sprung up amidst the demand.
The veil also has social implications, which are very dependent on the location and culture of the veiler. The most common social implication of the veil is the protection from harassment. Many women who choose to veil have found that by asserting their identity as a pious Muslim woman, they are either left alone when it comes to unwanted sexual advances, or they are able to take a higher moral ground because of it. In my own experience of wearing a veil her on the streets of Philadelphia, I did notice a difference in the way I was treated by men. I found that I was stared at less, and the cat calls that have been a fact of my life since the onset of puberty had all but stopped. It has been stated in several different studies on the choice to veil that many women witnessed a reduction in how much they had to deflect unwanted advances once they assumed the veil.
However, this does not always apply. In a conversation on NPR that I had with Azar Nafisi, the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, I asked her about this in regards to the forced veiling of Iranian women. She said that while that was used as the official justification for enforcing the veil, in her experience it only made street harassment worse. According to her, this was mainly because the assumption of the veil was compulsory and had many different veins of logic behind it, not the least of which being the assumption that women were inherently a temptation to men and had to be covered to protect men from their “seductive powers.” This mindset, even under the guise of protecting the women, only served to put them at greater risk. Mrs. Nafisi emphasized that the important part of this was the choice to veil. When veiling no longer becomes a choice and is compulsory, it loses any moral high ground or credibility because it is no longer a sign of the individual woman’s piety, but a social mark of inherent licentiousness.
Another social implication of the veil is the reactions of western non-Muslims to women who veil in their midst. There are a great many assumptions about the veil and the purpose of it in the west, and there have been some recent negative reactions to veiled women in supposedly “liberal” countries.
The first and most obvious example is the French ban on obvious religious clothing or symbols in public schools. This ban states that religious headwear is not allowed in a publicly funded institution. The argument is that because France is so secular, and assumes that a great deal of its citizens are also secular, they do not want to be seen as endorsing any particular religion. There is also the argument that the veil is something that is forced on women by their fathers, husbands, or other family members and the government has to be willing to protect them from that. This is an understandable desire, however, the premises that it is based on are false. The vast majority of women who live in western countries who veil do so by choice. Their families often resist them in their decision to veil, as a part of not wanting to stand out as ethnically different and because of the implications of identifying openly and visually as a Muslim in a world where there has been a great deal of violence attributed to Islamic fundamentalism and where many people assume that “Muslim” and “terrorist” are synonymous.
Another case is Britain. A few years ago a British elected official began to insist that if any of the veiled Muslim women in his constituency wished to speak to him, they would have to remove their face veil. He called it a “visible sign of difference” and insisted that he would not accept people trying to separate themselves from the rest of the world. If they wanted his attention, they had to remove their veils. It was obvious that he had no idea what he was asking and had no idea about the significance of the veil. He too, assumed that it was something forced on these women by possessive husbands and exclusionary cultures. It did not cross his mind that perhaps this woman chose it for herself and sees it as a sign of her devotion to God. He assumed, like so many others, that he was “saving” these women and giving them a chance at being “free.” Quite often, as I mentioned earlier, veiling is chosen. There are only a few countries that require women to veil and even in those countries there are rural areas where it is not observed as extremely as it is in the city centers. Some cultures that have a large Muslim population do not allow women to veil, so when they come to a western country that prides itself on freedom to worship, they choose to worship in a way that was denied them before. If a woman is from Indonesia or Turkey and chooses to veil when in a western country, this is most likely because in her country of origin, she is either socially discouraged, or outright denied the choice.
Possibly the largest implications connected to the veil are the political implications. Politically, the veil can function in many ways, but the ones that I will discuss here are the uses of the veil as a sign of either obedience or defiance of the government, and the veil as a sign of protest against the West.
There are at least three major countries in the Middle East that strictly enforce a veiling policy for their female population, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Each of these countries policies has their roots in various political and religious justifications. In Saudi Arabia, the niqab is the required form of veiling for any time that a woman leaves her home. The restrictions go much deeper than that, and extend to women’s ability to travel alone or obtain anything without the permission of a male guardian. The source of this proscription for veiling is the very conservative Wahabi Islam that is integrated with the power of the monarchy. In Afghanistan, the burqa is the proscribed form of the veil. In the past this was instituted by the Taliban which went as far as to prevent women from going to school, and would have morality police that would beat women and punish their husbands if their veiling was deemed insufficient. There is still an on-going issue in Afghanistan regarding the behavior of women that some groups find to be "impious," leading to horrible actions, like throwing acid on women who dare to attend school. Finally, in Iran, the chador was introduced as a required dress for women whenever they left their homes. This began as part of the movement that eventually led to the Islamic revolution. It was considered to be a way of rebelling against the influence of the west on Iranian culture and the sexualization of women for profit. It later became a way of showing ones obedience to the government. If a woman is not veiled properly, she can be arrested on indecency charges and be given a years-long prison sentence. The severity of how this is enforced waxes and wanes depending on current political tides.
These three locations have a few obvious things in common, the first of these being the government enforcement of dress using the excuse of “morality,” the second being the penalties for violating the dress code. All three use the previously discussed religious texts to justify these policies. The second two have one more thing in common. In both Iran and Afghanistan, these policies came as a reaction to the increasing encroachment and interference of the west on these specific countries.
On the flip side, there are countries that have outlawed the veil in the past and continue to actively discourage against it now. One is Turkey, a country that is based in Ataturk’s vision of a completely secular state. Ataturk himself put legal limits on religious dress during his lifetime. These laws have been revoked for the most part, but one is still hard pressed to find a woman in a position of political or social power in turkey who actively veils in public. Here have also been several movements in Egypt to block the veil, and in response veiling has grown as a sign of political protest.
In conclusion, it is obvious that with the complexity of the practice of veiling it is foolhardy at best and completely ignorant at worst to make assumptions about a woman who veils or doesn’t and about her impetus for doing so. As far as my personal opinion on the practice, I feel that it can be an important form of identity assertion and a way to express oneself socially, politically and religiously. That being said, I support the practice, provided it is a choice. If it is forced it loses all meaning except the political and that does nothing but cheapen the religious and cultural reasons for choosing it. In the flip side of that argument, forcing a woman to remove it when she does not wish to shows the same disregard for her agency as forcing her to wear it does, and as a double strike, is able to be couched in supposedly progressive rhetoric which, under the surface, has very little to do with "progress" and has everything to do with control. In the next section of this series I will address a deeper analysis of this practice, and the western equivalents thereof.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
More Privileged Whiners
Apparently there can't be one damn day that isn't about us white folk:
Now, for something completely different!
Oops, sorry...
Now for some Context!
Rev. Joseph Lowery delivered the closing benediction at the Inauguration ceremony (full text is here) and the line that has some white people all in a tizzy is at the end:
Apparently, some of the privileged want cookies just for not being complete and total assholes.
Some, like a commenter at Transgriot, neeed to prove that they are soooo discriminated against because Rev. Lowery clearly thinks that we are all just evil people because of the vanilla of our skin (some by writing novels for comments.)
Nevermind that the whole section was a play on a common phrase during the Jim Crow era, when black people had to face more obvious discrimination (which, please note, is not gone, but is only more subtle now) as well as a play on a blues song of the same era. Nevermind that it in no way blames white people for anything, or is accusatory.
The reactions to this is a classic display of white privilege. We live in a culture where the default is us, where discussions are designed around our world view and way of thinking. The assumption that a black man is calling us evil by implying that whites are privileged and ignorant of the ways in which they benefit from the color of their skin is a natural conclusion when you assume that its all about YOU, which your privilege allows, nay, encourages you to do. Sounds more like a guilty conscience projecting than anything else.
Seriously, how hard is it to acknowledge that as a white person, or a person who fits within boundaries of acceptable whiteness, you get benefits that non-whites don't? How hard is it to acknowledge that a great deal of white people don't accept this and continue to benefit from the marginalization of POC?
Fucking hell. The whole world, for the most part, is catered to white people. Why exactly do so many of us lose their shit when someone dares not to pander in our direction? That is equality people. No one is demonizing you unless you are saying and/or doing something racist, or you are benefiting from someone else's marginalization. Saying shit like "well why does color HAVE to matter?" is showing your privilege yet again. It has to matter because racial inequalities still effect peoples lives, and the fact that you think it should not matter shows how little you truly know about the experiences of POC.
(from Incertus)
The discussion seems to focus on the line I used as the title for this post, the final rhyme that Lowery threw out there. Some commenters said that the line made them or friends of theirs feel slightly alienated, as though Lowery were calling out white people as the problem that all other races and ethnic groups should point fingers at in blame and accusation.
Now, for something completely different!
Oops, sorry...
Now for some Context!
Rev. Joseph Lowery delivered the closing benediction at the Inauguration ceremony (full text is here) and the line that has some white people all in a tizzy is at the end:
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.Cue the hysterical screaming, accusations of "reverse-racism" and self-righteous harrumphs.
Apparently, some of the privileged want cookies just for not being complete and total assholes.
Some, like a commenter at Transgriot, neeed to prove that they are soooo discriminated against because Rev. Lowery clearly thinks that we are all just evil people because of the vanilla of our skin (some by writing novels for comments.)
Nevermind that the whole section was a play on a common phrase during the Jim Crow era, when black people had to face more obvious discrimination (which, please note, is not gone, but is only more subtle now) as well as a play on a blues song of the same era. Nevermind that it in no way blames white people for anything, or is accusatory.
The reactions to this is a classic display of white privilege. We live in a culture where the default is us, where discussions are designed around our world view and way of thinking. The assumption that a black man is calling us evil by implying that whites are privileged and ignorant of the ways in which they benefit from the color of their skin is a natural conclusion when you assume that its all about YOU, which your privilege allows, nay, encourages you to do. Sounds more like a guilty conscience projecting than anything else.
Seriously, how hard is it to acknowledge that as a white person, or a person who fits within boundaries of acceptable whiteness, you get benefits that non-whites don't? How hard is it to acknowledge that a great deal of white people don't accept this and continue to benefit from the marginalization of POC?
Fucking hell. The whole world, for the most part, is catered to white people. Why exactly do so many of us lose their shit when someone dares not to pander in our direction? That is equality people. No one is demonizing you unless you are saying and/or doing something racist, or you are benefiting from someone else's marginalization. Saying shit like "well why does color HAVE to matter?" is showing your privilege yet again. It has to matter because racial inequalities still effect peoples lives, and the fact that you think it should not matter shows how little you truly know about the experiences of POC.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Hope Over Fear
Its finally happened...
Its over.
The nightmare is over.
For eight years I have been watching a sad, petty little man and his friends destroy everything this country has that can be good for the world and laugh in the process like some immature freshman frat-boy giggling that he got away with defacing a memorial to those not as privileged as himself.
I have few illusions about Obama. I voted for him, but I do have some concerns about his actual progressivity cred. However, I truly believe that we have a chance now. We now have a president who listens to the people, even those we wish he would not listen to (Rick Warren, anyone?) Even so, this inauguration heralds the end of Christo-fascist (hey, if they can make up insulting terms, so can I)control of a country that has the potential to be so much more than it is. I trust this man, and I will expect as much of him as he has promised.
It is not lost on me that we are facing one of the most historic moments I can ever hope to see, the end of the white male dominance of the highest office in the land. We have someone with a perspective shaped by a society that constructs him, his family, and those who share his ethnicity as worth less as our commander in chief. I don't pretend that this is the end of racism and oppression, but my god it is a step I never thought I would see.
Don't let us down sir.
The only thing I can say has been said better by Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay episcopal clergyman:
(h/t to Monica @ Transgriot)
Its over.
The nightmare is over.
For eight years I have been watching a sad, petty little man and his friends destroy everything this country has that can be good for the world and laugh in the process like some immature freshman frat-boy giggling that he got away with defacing a memorial to those not as privileged as himself.
I have few illusions about Obama. I voted for him, but I do have some concerns about his actual progressivity cred. However, I truly believe that we have a chance now. We now have a president who listens to the people, even those we wish he would not listen to (Rick Warren, anyone?) Even so, this inauguration heralds the end of Christo-fascist (hey, if they can make up insulting terms, so can I)control of a country that has the potential to be so much more than it is. I trust this man, and I will expect as much of him as he has promised.
It is not lost on me that we are facing one of the most historic moments I can ever hope to see, the end of the white male dominance of the highest office in the land. We have someone with a perspective shaped by a society that constructs him, his family, and those who share his ethnicity as worth less as our commander in chief. I don't pretend that this is the end of racism and oppression, but my god it is a step I never thought I would see.
Don't let us down sir.
The only thing I can say has been said better by Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay episcopal clergyman:
A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama
By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire
Opening Inaugural Event
Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC
January 18, 2009
Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.
O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…
Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.
Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.
Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.
And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.
Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.
Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.
And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.
AMEN.
(h/t to Monica @ Transgriot)
Friday, January 16, 2009
Fuck You, You Fucking Fuck
President Bush declares January 18th to be "Sanctity of Human Life Day".
Because women aren't human.
Because POC aren't human.
Because anyone of the LGBTQ, especially T, community isn't human.
Because Iraqis, Palestinians, Arabs in general, and Muslims are not human.
Only a (middle to upper-class white) fetus is human and has a right to live and this deserves a fucking holiday.
Fuck you Mr. Bush. You have overseen some of the most egregious actions and inactions by the US government resulting in the loss of human life that have happened in my lifetime, and you have the fucking nerve to pull your pud over the actions you took to treat women as incubators with legs.
Please let the door hit you on the ass on the way out the door, repeatedly if you don't mind.
Because women aren't human.
Because POC aren't human.
Because anyone of the LGBTQ, especially T, community isn't human.
Because Iraqis, Palestinians, Arabs in general, and Muslims are not human.
Only a (middle to upper-class white) fetus is human and has a right to live and this deserves a fucking holiday.
Fuck you Mr. Bush. You have overseen some of the most egregious actions and inactions by the US government resulting in the loss of human life that have happened in my lifetime, and you have the fucking nerve to pull your pud over the actions you took to treat women as incubators with legs.
Please let the door hit you on the ass on the way out the door, repeatedly if you don't mind.
The Crime of Being
Okay, this has been sitting in my head for way too long. I'm prone to depression and tend to end up in this strange fugue state where all I can do is play mindless free flash games online and try to pretend that the world is not as scary as it actually is.
What scares me?
Many things scare me; spiders, plane crashes, driving too fast (its an anxiety thing due to fear of police), losing my front teeth, water where I can't touch the bottom or see it (pools are okay, oceans and lakes? fuck that noise), getting cancer...
However, none of those things holds a candle to the fear that I feel for the lives of people that I love. I come from a position of relative privilege to them. First, my gender presentation and my body(along with the social assignment of my gender based on secondary sexual characteristics) generally match, and second, I'm white. For these people who are very dear to me, one or both of these things are not true. And what terrifies me more than the idea of driving too fast in a car filled with spiders, while on the phone with my doctor who is telling me I have cancer, just as a plane crashes in front of me, making me swerve into a bottomless lake and knock out my front teeth on the steering wheel, is the idea that for people like my friends who do not share my whiteness or my apparent cis-ness, they can be murdered for simply daring to exist, and their murderers excused because we live in a world that does not value the personhood of their victims. We live in a world that constructs my firends as mutilated freaks, sexual deviants and "faking it". They can't even lobby for laws to protect their ability to go into the bathroom that they are less likely to get assaulted in without being conflated with perverts, pedophiles, and sexual predators.
If you go back and look at the list of the dead for the Trans Day Of Remembrance, you may notice that when discussing violence against transpeople, we are talking about more that transphobia, transmisogyny, or homophobia. Considering that approximately 70% of the names on the list belong to women of color, we are also talking racism.
These cases are often treated with boxing gloves by the media and general public, with the assumption that a black transwoman must be a sex worker, and that she was probably killed when her john discovered her penis, and the persistent use of incorrect pronouns by the media, which is a basic journalistic no-no indicating more the refusal of the "journalist" to overlook their own biases while reporting. With the prevalence of the "trans panic" defense and how it seems to fly pretty well with the media and sometimes the court system, it seems pretty clear that black transwomen's lives are less valuable than the offended manhood of some schmuck that thinks that the appropriate way to react to a situation like this is killing someone. They are killed for not being the "right" kind of woman.
The media and general public opinion seems to want to construct these women as "bringing it on themselves" for "lying" about "what they really are," as if your very existence and the fact that it triggers some homophobia in the person who decided that murdering you is the only way to deal with it is your fault. When police in a city assault a black transwoman and she is later found dead, and in the same city, another transwoman is found shot three times there is clearly no official justice for these women.
In actuality, the lives of transpeople, especially transwomen of color, are in more danger than the average cis-person. Constructing transpeople as some sort of dangerous menace, beyond being insulting as hell, is factually inaccurate.
Even the cis-partners of transpeople are considered legitimate targets for this hate violence.
I have an obligation, to my friends and to my morals, to not be silent. To not let the hate of the world keep me hidden in my home, frozen and unable to act. These women were someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's lover. They could be mine, or yours. regardless of their bodies and the social constructions that others must cling to so tightly that life no longer has value, they deserve to be valued.
I will not be silent about their lives. I will not be silent about the loss of them.
What scares me?
Many things scare me; spiders, plane crashes, driving too fast (its an anxiety thing due to fear of police), losing my front teeth, water where I can't touch the bottom or see it (pools are okay, oceans and lakes? fuck that noise), getting cancer...
However, none of those things holds a candle to the fear that I feel for the lives of people that I love. I come from a position of relative privilege to them. First, my gender presentation and my body(along with the social assignment of my gender based on secondary sexual characteristics) generally match, and second, I'm white. For these people who are very dear to me, one or both of these things are not true. And what terrifies me more than the idea of driving too fast in a car filled with spiders, while on the phone with my doctor who is telling me I have cancer, just as a plane crashes in front of me, making me swerve into a bottomless lake and knock out my front teeth on the steering wheel, is the idea that for people like my friends who do not share my whiteness or my apparent cis-ness, they can be murdered for simply daring to exist, and their murderers excused because we live in a world that does not value the personhood of their victims. We live in a world that constructs my firends as mutilated freaks, sexual deviants and "faking it". They can't even lobby for laws to protect their ability to go into the bathroom that they are less likely to get assaulted in without being conflated with perverts, pedophiles, and sexual predators.
If you go back and look at the list of the dead for the Trans Day Of Remembrance, you may notice that when discussing violence against transpeople, we are talking about more that transphobia, transmisogyny, or homophobia. Considering that approximately 70% of the names on the list belong to women of color, we are also talking racism.
These cases are often treated with boxing gloves by the media and general public, with the assumption that a black transwoman must be a sex worker, and that she was probably killed when her john discovered her penis, and the persistent use of incorrect pronouns by the media, which is a basic journalistic no-no indicating more the refusal of the "journalist" to overlook their own biases while reporting. With the prevalence of the "trans panic" defense and how it seems to fly pretty well with the media and sometimes the court system, it seems pretty clear that black transwomen's lives are less valuable than the offended manhood of some schmuck that thinks that the appropriate way to react to a situation like this is killing someone. They are killed for not being the "right" kind of woman.
The media and general public opinion seems to want to construct these women as "bringing it on themselves" for "lying" about "what they really are," as if your very existence and the fact that it triggers some homophobia in the person who decided that murdering you is the only way to deal with it is your fault. When police in a city assault a black transwoman and she is later found dead, and in the same city, another transwoman is found shot three times there is clearly no official justice for these women.
In actuality, the lives of transpeople, especially transwomen of color, are in more danger than the average cis-person. Constructing transpeople as some sort of dangerous menace, beyond being insulting as hell, is factually inaccurate.
Even the cis-partners of transpeople are considered legitimate targets for this hate violence.
I have an obligation, to my friends and to my morals, to not be silent. To not let the hate of the world keep me hidden in my home, frozen and unable to act. These women were someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's lover. They could be mine, or yours. regardless of their bodies and the social constructions that others must cling to so tightly that life no longer has value, they deserve to be valued.
I will not be silent about their lives. I will not be silent about the loss of them.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Oscar Grant: Killed for being Black
I don't have the energy to make a comprehensive post about this incident, so I am offering a link round up with a note or two.
Jack Stephens at Alas, A Blog:
-Oscar Grant, young father and peacemaker, executed by BART police
-Fruitvale Bart Station Protest: The Rally
Renee at Womanist Musings:
-Oscar Grant: Black In The Wrong Space
Holly at Feministe:
-Execution style
The Czech:
-Police in CA Murder Oscar Grant on Camera
Elle at elle, phd:
-Since When...
Melissa at Shakesville:
-Oscar Grant
whatsername at The Jaded Hippy:
-On: Oscar Grant
My only note on this roundup is in regards to whatsername's view that this incident may have been an accident. Now, I love whatsername, and we agree on most things, but I had to point out that the only way this was an accident is if the officer did not intend to fire his weapon. Beyond that, he should not have been drawing his weapon in the first place, and the suggestion I have seen in a few places, that he was intending to draw his tazer, seem like a stretch. There was no real conceivable reason to reach for the tazer or the gun, and the only seeming reason for the altercation at all was that Oscar and his companons were in the wrong place and were the wrong color.
Jack Stephens at Alas, A Blog:
-Oscar Grant, young father and peacemaker, executed by BART police
-Fruitvale Bart Station Protest: The Rally
Renee at Womanist Musings:
-Oscar Grant: Black In The Wrong Space
Holly at Feministe:
-Execution style
The Czech:
-Police in CA Murder Oscar Grant on Camera
Elle at elle, phd:
-Since When...
Melissa at Shakesville:
-Oscar Grant
whatsername at The Jaded Hippy:
-On: Oscar Grant
My only note on this roundup is in regards to whatsername's view that this incident may have been an accident. Now, I love whatsername, and we agree on most things, but I had to point out that the only way this was an accident is if the officer did not intend to fire his weapon. Beyond that, he should not have been drawing his weapon in the first place, and the suggestion I have seen in a few places, that he was intending to draw his tazer, seem like a stretch. There was no real conceivable reason to reach for the tazer or the gun, and the only seeming reason for the altercation at all was that Oscar and his companons were in the wrong place and were the wrong color.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Gaza Update
The body count in Gaza has climbed to 348 Palestinians and 4 Israelis.
Israel has rejected international attempts at truce.
Israeli officials said the military blitz against Hamas targets is just the "first of several stages" of military action.
Medical officials in Gaza have also put the number of wounded at about 800. Considering the lack of medical supplies that are allowed to enter Gaza, which is little better than a walled in prison, those wounded are unlikely to survive.
What crime have these people committed that they deserve being dehumanized like this? Voting for Hamas? little light makes a point about this particular argument that I find difficult to disagree with:
I really don't care what anyone says. Inflicting this level of suffering on a group of people with as few resources as the Palestinians in Gaza have is NOT justifiable. Inflicting this kind of suffering on any group of people is NOT justifiable.
I have heard argument after argument that the Palestinians started it and therefore deserve this. Bullshit. The Palestinians are living in some of the most resource deprived, most densely populated places in the world. There are people who have been living in refugee camps for half a fucking decade. They get angry and toss some rickety rockets over the wall at the people making their lives hell, and we rush to justify their oppressors sending one of the most well-funded and equipped militaries in the world back at them.
Living in fear because your government insists on treating another group of human beings like animals DOES NOT justify the taking of lives, especially on this scale.
To add a disclaimer: No, I do not think that the violence perpetrated by Hamas is right, as it clearly leads to continuing the cycle of violence. However, Israel has the power to stop these cycles before they start, and the Palestinians do not.
To quote Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville, "...sometimes, at a certain point, being right becomes less important than doing the right thing."
Israel has rejected international attempts at truce.
Israeli officials said the military blitz against Hamas targets is just the "first of several stages" of military action.
Medical officials in Gaza have also put the number of wounded at about 800. Considering the lack of medical supplies that are allowed to enter Gaza, which is little better than a walled in prison, those wounded are unlikely to survive.
What crime have these people committed that they deserve being dehumanized like this? Voting for Hamas? little light makes a point about this particular argument that I find difficult to disagree with:
Tell me what you would do! Tell me! Who do you believe, who do you listen to, who do you rely on? You are walled into a prison with guns pointed at you all the time. Food is not allowed in, fuel is not allowed in, medical supplies are not allowed in. You lose count of family members violently dead or maimed. Your schools and hospitals and places of worship are destroyed, your neighborhood is full of rubble with few buildings intact, and you cannot expect to live to thirty. And you don't know any of the people on the other side of that wall.
Who do you listen to as a reliable source? The guys with the guns pointed at you, who took the food away and tell you you deserve to have nothing, but who the outside world tells you are decent folks acting justly? Or the people you're told are evil scumbags, but who provide you food, medicine, a little pride, a little order, and the promise to fight for you? Who among you, looking at your hungry, sick child, is going to listen to the person telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to care for them over the person handing you bread and antibiotics and a little civil infrastructure? Do you listen to the asshole who gives you food, or the asshole who takes it away? When you have nothing, no dignity, no hope, when you've got nothing to lose, who do you listen to? What do you think you would do differently? Do you honestly think that, with a gun pointed at your family, you wouldn't be grateful for even a vile human being who tells you you don't deserve it and points a weapon right back?
I don't think I'm that saint. I don't think you're that saint. You want to say you'd know better?
I really don't care what anyone says. Inflicting this level of suffering on a group of people with as few resources as the Palestinians in Gaza have is NOT justifiable. Inflicting this kind of suffering on any group of people is NOT justifiable.
I have heard argument after argument that the Palestinians started it and therefore deserve this. Bullshit. The Palestinians are living in some of the most resource deprived, most densely populated places in the world. There are people who have been living in refugee camps for half a fucking decade. They get angry and toss some rickety rockets over the wall at the people making their lives hell, and we rush to justify their oppressors sending one of the most well-funded and equipped militaries in the world back at them.
Living in fear because your government insists on treating another group of human beings like animals DOES NOT justify the taking of lives, especially on this scale.
To add a disclaimer: No, I do not think that the violence perpetrated by Hamas is right, as it clearly leads to continuing the cycle of violence. However, Israel has the power to stop these cycles before they start, and the Palestinians do not.
To quote Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville, "...sometimes, at a certain point, being right becomes less important than doing the right thing."
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Israel...I Just Can't...
Gaza body count: Palestinians-271 Israelis-1
From the linked article:
Israel is reponding to rocket attacks perpetrated by Hamas which killed one Israeli. I will repeat that, because it bears repeating. Israel's government and military is killing almost three hundred Palestinians including children in response to the death of one Israeli.
Let me put this out there right now: any violent death is a tragedy regardless of how many are killed. HOWEVER, 300 to 1 is disproportionate force. Especially considering that it is widely known that Hamas, a paramilitary organization, is responsible for the single Israeli death.
And of course, while most of the world is decrying the extraneous violence of this situation, the US is blaming Hamas.
Even the Dutch government, who tends towards virulent anti-Arab and Islamophobic policies and positions is calling Israel's actions almost a war-crime. I am so very sick of the "arab=agressor" stance of our government. Just because Israel is our friend, this does NOT put them above reproach. It doesn't change the facts. And this ignoring of the facts mainly serves to make the US look like anti-arab assholes once again. The next time someone tells me that the arab world needs to fix its anti-American sentiment before we can work with them, I might just bite their damn heads off.
Julie from Modern Mitzvoh has this to say:
I could not have said it better.
ETA: Anonymous comments will be rejected. If you want to engage in discussion, at least have the intestinal fortitude to post with a username.
From the linked article:
Israeli jets have launched a second day of airstrikes against the Gaza Strip on Sunday. Despite international condemnation over what is being called a disproportional response, Israel is not excluding a ground offensive. According to Palestinian officials, 271 Palestinians have been killed so far for only one victim in Israel.
Israel is reponding to rocket attacks perpetrated by Hamas which killed one Israeli. I will repeat that, because it bears repeating. Israel's government and military is killing almost three hundred Palestinians including children in response to the death of one Israeli.
Let me put this out there right now: any violent death is a tragedy regardless of how many are killed. HOWEVER, 300 to 1 is disproportionate force. Especially considering that it is widely known that Hamas, a paramilitary organization, is responsible for the single Israeli death.
And of course, while most of the world is decrying the extraneous violence of this situation, the US is blaming Hamas.
"The message from the United States is that Hamas is a terrorist organization that is firing rockets into Israel and they fired them onto their own people as well," Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said.
"The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement.
Even the Dutch government, who tends towards virulent anti-Arab and Islamophobic policies and positions is calling Israel's actions almost a war-crime. I am so very sick of the "arab=agressor" stance of our government. Just because Israel is our friend, this does NOT put them above reproach. It doesn't change the facts. And this ignoring of the facts mainly serves to make the US look like anti-arab assholes once again. The next time someone tells me that the arab world needs to fix its anti-American sentiment before we can work with them, I might just bite their damn heads off.
Julie from Modern Mitzvoh has this to say:
If you can’t figure out why this is unacceptable - if you insist on an eye-for-an-eye mentality, in which one Israeli eye is worth an infinite number of Palestinian eyes - then quite frankly, you’re a privileged fuck with no concept of how violence is perpetuated or what the phrase “human rights” actually means.
I could not have said it better.
ETA: Anonymous comments will be rejected. If you want to engage in discussion, at least have the intestinal fortitude to post with a username.
Veiled Contempt - Introduction ( aka The "Why I Opened This Can o' Worms" Edition)
I seriously doubt that this is a concept that has not been spoken of before, but I have never talked about it here, so it is new in one way at least.
When Islam and women in Islam are discussed in Western classrooms, or at dinner tables, or even in foreign policy discussions, what are the first things that are mentioned?
Usually, its one of two things: Hijab(often mistakenly called Burqa and generally falsely conflated with Saudi or Iranian forced dress codes) and "honor" killings. Both are pointed out as examples of exotic otherness and supposed Muslim/Arab (another false conflation, but I digress) savagery in comparison with supposed Western "liberal" attitudes towards women, gender "equality" and moral superiority. "Well, WE don't treat OUR women like THAT." Generally, much nodding of heads back patting and ego fellating ensues.
This attitude amuses me (and by "amuses me," I mean it makes me want to repeatedly bash my head into a wall) because of one underlying flaw in the rush to promote ourselves as superior whiteness/Westerness, namely that Western women are treated very similarly, the only difference being the exact way that sexism is expressed. The underlying attitudes, about a woman's place, her function, what she should look like, her responsibility for participating in the public sphere, and her punishment for violating the patriarchal demands placed upon her, are almost exactly the same and differ mainly in degree of severity. The only other major difference is the form of support that our judicial systems grant these actions. Again, the rationalizations are eerily similar, and the only difference in support is whether it is tacit, or open. Even in the law, the only differences become a matter of degree.
So, I decided that I had too much to say (no surprise there) about all of these subjects, so I would start a series. At this moment, its only this introductory post and two subsequent posts, but I'm flexible. I will be drawing from a variety of sources, including blogs like Muslimah Media Watch, news sites, feminist theory, and my own observations in both the Middle East and the US. My intention is to make clear that when it comes to sexism and treatment of women, no one has the moral high ground. This can end up opening into an on going series if the information is available.
So, be on the lookout for my first post, probably sometime next week.
When Islam and women in Islam are discussed in Western classrooms, or at dinner tables, or even in foreign policy discussions, what are the first things that are mentioned?
Usually, its one of two things: Hijab(often mistakenly called Burqa and generally falsely conflated with Saudi or Iranian forced dress codes) and "honor" killings. Both are pointed out as examples of exotic otherness and supposed Muslim/Arab (another false conflation, but I digress) savagery in comparison with supposed Western "liberal" attitudes towards women, gender "equality" and moral superiority. "Well, WE don't treat OUR women like THAT." Generally, much nodding of heads back patting and ego fellating ensues.
This attitude amuses me (and by "amuses me," I mean it makes me want to repeatedly bash my head into a wall) because of one underlying flaw in the rush to promote ourselves as superior whiteness/Westerness, namely that Western women are treated very similarly, the only difference being the exact way that sexism is expressed. The underlying attitudes, about a woman's place, her function, what she should look like, her responsibility for participating in the public sphere, and her punishment for violating the patriarchal demands placed upon her, are almost exactly the same and differ mainly in degree of severity. The only other major difference is the form of support that our judicial systems grant these actions. Again, the rationalizations are eerily similar, and the only difference in support is whether it is tacit, or open. Even in the law, the only differences become a matter of degree.
So, I decided that I had too much to say (no surprise there) about all of these subjects, so I would start a series. At this moment, its only this introductory post and two subsequent posts, but I'm flexible. I will be drawing from a variety of sources, including blogs like Muslimah Media Watch, news sites, feminist theory, and my own observations in both the Middle East and the US. My intention is to make clear that when it comes to sexism and treatment of women, no one has the moral high ground. This can end up opening into an on going series if the information is available.
So, be on the lookout for my first post, probably sometime next week.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Defining Sexism
A comment on this entry at Shakesville really tweaked my interest. First, the comment:
This poster isn't the first to make this spurious argument and zie won't be the last.
Disagree however you want, but the prejudice+power definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. Perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in scientific disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we use it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. It has also been appropriated by motivational speakers for large corporations as a term to get corporate teams to expand their way of working. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception and appropriation of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means zie has read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if zie had, zie would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and do not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct at all times is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
This poster seems to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on hir part to challenge hir own small view of how the world works.
Sexism is not in the eye of the beholder
Let it be assumed for the purposes of this space, that the definition of -isms are the power+prejudice equation.
"A little off topic, but I just wanted to jump up and down a little waving my arms in frantic protest over [another poster]'s insistence that various "isms" - sexism, racism, what have you - are monodirectional.
For one thing, it's problematic because this isn't the way the vast majority of people use these words. For just about everyone (not to mention every dictionary under the sun) racism (to choose an example) is prejudice or discrimination based on race, full stop. Limiting the word to institutional prejudice or discrimination against specific racial groups in specific cultural contexts creates all kind of confusion - not least because not all the world is made up of the kind of neat binary hierarchies of oppression this kind of definition demands.
For another, society is not a monolith. Even if racism is by definition cultural and institutional, the idea that every institution and sub-culture within a society shares the same biases isn't really tenable.
To return to sexism, far simpler to say (as the OED does, actually) that it is sex-based prejudice and discrimination almost always directed against women."
This poster isn't the first to make this spurious argument and zie won't be the last.
Disagree however you want, but the prejudice+power definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. Perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in scientific disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we use it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. It has also been appropriated by motivational speakers for large corporations as a term to get corporate teams to expand their way of working. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception and appropriation of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means zie has read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if zie had, zie would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and do not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct at all times is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
This poster seems to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on hir part to challenge hir own small view of how the world works.
Sexism is not in the eye of the beholder
Let it be assumed for the purposes of this space, that the definition of -isms are the power+prejudice equation.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
What?!
(h/t to almost every progressive blog I read)
I saw this last week and had to take a second to put my jaw back in place. Christ. How fucking EDGY is The Advocate! Conflating the black civil rights movement with the LGBTQI movement and it's oh-so-important fight for marriage equality.
Look, I'm queer. As queer as a $3 bill. HOWEVER, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my relatively privileged fight for the right to marry someone of the same legal sex as myself is the last great civil rights issue! Not when institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia (to name only a few) are issues that are causing people to live in poverty, face threats of and actual physical and sexual assault from not only other individuals but from law enforcement officers, face court battles to even have their victimizers recognized as such, and...lessee...um...oh yeah! FUCKING DEATH!
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if people like me could just hang up our activist badges and go home, if there really was something that was really the last civil rights struggle ever ever ever. However, as pointed out above, this is patently untrue.
Suggesting that "Gay is the new Black" ignores the existence of queers who are also of color, who have to face racism, homophobia and sexism. It also ignores the fact that a good deal of the queer community is not served by the fight for marriage equality, and effectively disappear their members who are in need of things that are more essential than marriage.
This cover implies that all other civil rights movements are over and unimportant. The only purpose something like this will serve will be to alienate members of the POC community as well as any other groups that are not served by the marriage fight. It doesn't help that the article that this cover is in reference to is actually a decent article. This cover is a disservice to the author, and to the queer movement as a whole.
In short, fuck whoever at The Advocate thought this would be a good idea. Nice breakin' it "hero."
I saw this last week and had to take a second to put my jaw back in place. Christ. How fucking EDGY is The Advocate! Conflating the black civil rights movement with the LGBTQI movement and it's oh-so-important fight for marriage equality.
Look, I'm queer. As queer as a $3 bill. HOWEVER, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my relatively privileged fight for the right to marry someone of the same legal sex as myself is the last great civil rights issue! Not when institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia (to name only a few) are issues that are causing people to live in poverty, face threats of and actual physical and sexual assault from not only other individuals but from law enforcement officers, face court battles to even have their victimizers recognized as such, and...lessee...um...oh yeah! FUCKING DEATH!
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if people like me could just hang up our activist badges and go home, if there really was something that was really the last civil rights struggle ever ever ever. However, as pointed out above, this is patently untrue.
Suggesting that "Gay is the new Black" ignores the existence of queers who are also of color, who have to face racism, homophobia and sexism. It also ignores the fact that a good deal of the queer community is not served by the fight for marriage equality, and effectively disappear their members who are in need of things that are more essential than marriage.
This cover implies that all other civil rights movements are over and unimportant. The only purpose something like this will serve will be to alienate members of the POC community as well as any other groups that are not served by the marriage fight. It doesn't help that the article that this cover is in reference to is actually a decent article. This cover is a disservice to the author, and to the queer movement as a whole.
In short, fuck whoever at The Advocate thought this would be a good idea. Nice breakin' it "hero."
Thursday, November 27, 2008
A Turkey Called Brotherhood
(yet another hat tip to Renee @ Womanist Musings)
This is pretty obnoxious.
Basic rundown: A pair of schools have a Thanksgiving tradition of dressing one kindergarten class up as indians and one as pilgrims. They have a parade and then go have a party together. This year, a parent who is actually native, protested this event, calling out the lie that children are being forced to believe, the lie of the peaceful coming together of white settlers with native tribes. She also protested the racist stereotypes being perpetuated by the "indian"costumes.
The thing that chaps my ass is all of these white people trying to claim that this is not offensive at ALL! That these are just CHILDREN! Enjoying a holiday TRADITION! I am so glad that these privileged asswipes can conveiniently forget that by TEACHING these children this tradition, they are continuing the myth of a benevolent white man vs the gentle savage. I really wish they would blow it right out of their asses. As the member of the group that benefits from the oppression of the other, YOU DON'T GET TO SAY WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO THEM! This is Don't Be An Asshole 101 folks.
These white people wringing their hands about telling children the truth of their history reminds me somewhat of this clip:
I normally don't like South Park all that much, but every once in a while, they have a really good point. That IS how it actually happened. This idea that white people calmly showed brown people their "better ways" in the spirit of brotherhood and Christian Godliness is blatantly false, besides being obnoxious and racist as fuck.
And if we are really going to clutch our pearls and gasp about "THE CHILDREN," consider this: what about those native children, who learn their history from the perspective of people who think that it is okay to ignore the massive damage done to their people? They learn that their history doesn't matter, only the history of the white man matters. Renee says it very well:
It is further disgusting that children are being taught this falsehood as a method of maintaining white hegemony through the physical performance of revisionist history. The indoctrination of children with revisionist history is part of the way that racism passes from one generation to another.
Of course to a child this seems like a harmless tradition, they have no knowledge of history. They count on us as adults to be their guides and tell them the truth. This is an abdication of our responsibility to educate them.
Native culture has repeatedly been appropriated. We see it show up in the form of mascots for sporting teams as a normalized display. People seem to feel that it is their right to cheapen and demean the culture of another, while telling the oppressed community that they are being too sensitive.(go read her post Teaching The Young To Disrespect Indigenous Culture. I'll wait here)
The myth of the peaceful thanksgiving is regularly offered up in order to forget that the real beginning of this country was violent, painful and bloody. What happened to the native population of this hemisphere when Europeans came here was GENOCIDE. Nothing less.
We continue this heroification of the white people who came here and supposedly built this amazing civilization out of nothing, ignoring the rape, enslavement, murder, cannibalism and early germ warfare that made all of this possible.
These lands were not "discovered" by Europeans. You cannot "discover" a place where people are already living! Many of these colonies would not have survived if not for the work already done by tribes living there previously, if not for stealing from the tribes who were still there, if not for enslaving members of these tribes, if not for living off of the decomposing bodies of natives who were killed by epidemics spread from early European explorers, if not for slaughtering whole cultures.
Whole cultures, languages, ways of life are GONE, destroyed by this idea that God gave White people dominion over the Earth.
I will be using this day to teach my children about the cultures that were here already, about what happened to them, about what their lives are like now. I do not accept this white-washing of my history.
As a kid, I always wanted to do a Weddnesday Addams when confronted with this season:
Granted, a good deal of what occurs leading up to her soliloquy is offensive as hell, which is not surprising considering it is intended to show a white privileged man's perspective of the Thanksgiving myth.
In the end, I believe we have an obligation to be honest about our history. There is no excuse for ignorance, and no excuse for degrading displays of faux "brotherhood." These myths are dangerous, despite what some may think. They allow those of us who are granted white privilege to pat ourselves on the back and escape our responsibility to end oppressions that we benefit from. They create an environment where understanding of current effects that can be traced back to these event is impossible, because without honesty in regards to our history, we have no realistic idea of the true roots of injustice. These myths create an attitude that we white western people can still charge into whatever country we want and do whatever we please because we forget that we aren't the saviors of the goddamn world. They allow us to be blind to the personhood of others, and to the actual effect we have on the world. They allow us to continue to marginalize and oppress others simply for not being one of us.
National Day of Mourning for Indigenous People
(h/t to Womanist Musings)
Following are excerpts from a statement written by Mahtowin Munro (Lakota) and Moonanum James (Wampanoag), co-leaders of United American Indians of New England. Read the entire statement at www.uaine.org.
Mahtowin Munro
Mahtowin Munro
Every year since 1970, United American Indians of New England have organized the National Day of Mourning observance in Plymouth at noon on Thanksgiving Day. Every year, hundreds of Native people and our supporters from all four directions join us. Every year, including this year, Native people from throughout the Americas will speak the truth about our history and about current issues and struggles we are involved in.
Why do hundreds of people stand out in the cold rather than sit home eating turkey and watching football? Do we have something against a harvest festival?
Moonanum James
Moonanum James
Of course not. But Thanksgiving in this country—and in particular in Plymouth—is much more than a harvest home festival. It is a celebration of pilgrim mythology.
According to this mythology, the pilgrims arrived, the Native people fed them and welcomed them, the Indians promptly faded into the background, and everyone lived happily ever after.
The pilgrims are glorified and mythologized because the circumstances of the first English-speaking colony in Jamestown were frankly too ugly (for example, they turned to cannibalism to survive) to hold up as an effective national myth.
The pilgrims did not find an empty land any more than Columbus “discovered” anything. Every inch of this land is Indian land. The pilgrims (who did not even call themselves pilgrims) did not come here seeking religious freedom; they already had that in Holland.
Leonard Peltier
Leonard Peltier
They came here as part of a commercial venture. They introduced sexism, racism, anti-lesbian and -gay bigotry, jails and the class system to these shores. One of the very first things they did when they arrived on Cape Cod—before they even made it to Plymouth—was to rob Wampanoag graves at Corn Hill and steal as much of the Indians’ winter provisions of corn and beans as they were able to carry.
They were no better than any other group of Europeans when it came to their treatment of the Indigenous peoples here. And, no, they did not even land at that sacred shrine called Plymouth Rock, a monument to racism and oppression which we are proud to say we buried in 1995.
The first official “Day of Thanksgiving” was proclaimed in 1637 by Governor Winthrop. He did so to celebrate the safe return of men from the Massachusetts Bay Colony who had gone to Mystic, Conn., to participate in the massacre of over 700 Pequot women, children and men.
About the only true thing in the whole mythology is that these pitiful European strangers would not have survived their first several years in “New England” were it not for the aid of Wampanoag people. What Native people got in return for this help was genocide, theft of our lands and never-ending repression. We are either treated as quaint relics from the past or are, to most people, virtually invisible.
When we dare to stand up for our rights, we are considered unreasonable. When we speak the truth about the history of the European invasion, we are often told to “go back where we came from.” Our roots are right here. They do not extend across any ocean.
National Day of Mourning began in 1970 when a Wampanoag man, Wamsutta Frank James, was asked to speak at a state dinner celebrating the 350th anniversary of the pilgrim landing. He refused to speak false words in praise of the white man for bringing civilization to us poor heathens. Native people from throughout the Americas came to Plymouth where they mourned their forebears who had been sold into slavery, burned alive, massacred, cheated and mistreated since the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620.
But the commemoration of National Day of Mourning goes far beyond the circumstances of 1970.
Can we give thanks as we remember Native political prisoner Leonard Peltier, who was framed up by the FBI and has been falsely imprisoned since 1976? Despite mountains of evidence exonerating Peltier and the proven misconduct of federal prosecutors and the FBI, Peltier has been denied a new trial.
To Native people, the case of Peltier is one more ordeal in a litany of wrongdoings committed by the U.S. government against us. While the media in New England present images of the “Pequot miracle” in Connecticut, the vast majority of Native people continue to live in the most abysmal poverty.
Can we give thanks for the fact that, on many reservations, unemployment rates surpass 50 percent? Our life expectancies are much lower, our infant mortality and teen suicide rates much higher than those of white Americans. Racist stereotypes of Native people, such as those perpetuated by the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves and countless local and national sports teams, persist. Every single one of the more than 350 treaties that Native nations signed has been broken by the U.S. government. The bipartisan budget cuts have severely reduced educational opportunities for Native youth and the development of new housing on reservations, and have caused cause deadly cutbacks in healthcare and other necessary services.
Are we to give thanks for being treated as unwelcome in our own country?
When the descendants of the Aztec, Maya and Inca flee to the U.S., the descendants of the wash-ashore pilgrims term them “illegal aliens” and hunt them down.
We object to the “Pilgrim Progress” parade and to what goes on in Plymouth because they are making millions of tourist dollars every year from the false pilgrim mythology. That money is being made off the backs of our slaughtered Indigenous ancestors.
Increasing numbers of people are seeking alternatives to such holidays as Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. They are coming to the conclusion that if we are ever to achieve some sense of community, we must first face the truth about the history of this country and the toll that history has taken on the lives of millions of Indigenous, Black, Latin@, Asian, and poor and working-class white people.
The myth of Thanksgiving, served up with dollops of European superiority and manifest destiny, just does not work for many people in this country. As Malcolm X once said about the African-American experience in America, “We did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us.” Exactly.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Who wakes up and says, "I wish I could be oppressed too"?
I have been talking with my cousin lately. He is 15, and I have been trying to explain the mechanics of oppression, privilege and power to him in a way that doesn't make him think he is being accused of something. Frighteningly, I have had to debunk several ideas that he has picked up from Cthulhu-knows-where about how oppressed he is. After doing that, he said something really upsetting to me:
"I wish I had a struggle of my own, something to fight against."
O.o
The mind...she boggles.
Somewhere along the way, the idea that having a struggle, an oppression to fight against, was in somehow. Stylish. It got you "special rights." Either that, or the rapid loss of privileges was seen as a loss of rights.
The idea that white affluent western men are an oppressed minority is laughable. It is also a perspective that one encounters quite frequently in popular culture, and especially from so-called men's rights activists(MRAs).
Let me explain something about MRAs. These people are rarely concerned with actual rights or oppression. They are primarily concerned with maintaining the status quo, because the only way they can see the rights of men being violated is when women have those same rights.
They see rights, freedoms and opportunity as a zero-sum game, namely, if females are doing well, that means that males must be getting worse. This ties in to the problem with essentialist thinking. If one group is "naturally" better at something, but the other group is doing just as well as them in actuality, then the only way to maintain this false dichotomy, is to assume that something must be holding back the "naturally" better group.
These groups do little more than encourage the very gender essentialist notions that create the inequalities they like to scream about. They help create these structures, and then blame them on the groups that are actively trying to fight them.
They blame feminism for all of their problems, with no knowledge of what feminists and feminist groups actually do. They tend to be against any legislation that deals with domestic violence, any legislation that makes divorce easier for women, against taking the victim's side in rape cases, against women having the choice to abort or continue a pregnancy, generally against anything that doesn't include men regardless of whether they actually need it or not and tend to support using children in custody cases to control and/or threaten ex's, support rapists, and rape apologists, and generally blame women for all of their own personal failings.
They tend to spend a great deal of time spouting off inaccurate information to support the idea that a cabal of women, queers, racial minorities and evil radical feminists control everything, and may even be responsible for the fall of Western Civilization! As a result, they paint hapless white men as the unfortunate victims of an "anti-male" society that grinds them into submission under the boot heel of the Fascist PC Thought Police.
Let us examine some of this, shall we? Not too much, lest we scratch out our eyeballs in frustration.
As far as this idea of "politically correct" (scare quotes intended) as code for "uptight" or "restrictive," I don't see why it is so important to some people to be allowed to use words that create an othering effect of specific groups. One thing that must be put out there right now: complaining about being forced to be "PC" is, in essence, complaining that you can't be a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic douchenozzle without there being consequences. I seriously don't see why treating other people like the people that they are is such a damn burden. In the US, one does have the freedom to say exactly what one wants to, however, the rest of us also have the freedom to tell you that you are being obnoxious and insulting. Attempting to shame people with the sneering at political correctness indicates that you would rather be able to hurt people because you like to. This would make you, at best, a bully, and at worst, someone incredibly dangerous.
The gentleman doth protest too much is something else I want to examine here. There is a huge discussion amongst these supposed rights activists about false allegations that lead "innocent" men to being dragged through the court system and possibly imprisoned. Yet false allegations "experts" tend to turn out to be nothing more than perpetrators who are finding ways for other perps to get away with beating and raping. There has even been evidence that false allegations are more likely to come from men:
These people want to tilt at windmills to preserve their privileges to the detriment of those they consider to be lower than them. They couch their true desires in the language of empowerment, and attempt to cast themselves as some tragic victim.
There are inequalities in this world, some of which specifically effect men, and most are rooted in constructions of masculinity. To resolve those inequalities, deconstruction of gender essentialism must occur. There are people who do this, who truly work to make sure that people are seen as equal regardless of what is in their pants.
They are called feminists, and they are not your expectation.
"I wish I had a struggle of my own, something to fight against."
O.o
The mind...she boggles.
Somewhere along the way, the idea that having a struggle, an oppression to fight against, was in somehow. Stylish. It got you "special rights." Either that, or the rapid loss of privileges was seen as a loss of rights.
The idea that white affluent western men are an oppressed minority is laughable. It is also a perspective that one encounters quite frequently in popular culture, and especially from so-called men's rights activists(MRAs).
Let me explain something about MRAs. These people are rarely concerned with actual rights or oppression. They are primarily concerned with maintaining the status quo, because the only way they can see the rights of men being violated is when women have those same rights.
They see rights, freedoms and opportunity as a zero-sum game, namely, if females are doing well, that means that males must be getting worse. This ties in to the problem with essentialist thinking. If one group is "naturally" better at something, but the other group is doing just as well as them in actuality, then the only way to maintain this false dichotomy, is to assume that something must be holding back the "naturally" better group.
These groups do little more than encourage the very gender essentialist notions that create the inequalities they like to scream about. They help create these structures, and then blame them on the groups that are actively trying to fight them.
They blame feminism for all of their problems, with no knowledge of what feminists and feminist groups actually do. They tend to be against any legislation that deals with domestic violence, any legislation that makes divorce easier for women, against taking the victim's side in rape cases, against women having the choice to abort or continue a pregnancy, generally against anything that doesn't include men regardless of whether they actually need it or not and tend to support using children in custody cases to control and/or threaten ex's, support rapists, and rape apologists, and generally blame women for all of their own personal failings.
They tend to spend a great deal of time spouting off inaccurate information to support the idea that a cabal of women, queers, racial minorities and evil radical feminists control everything, and may even be responsible for the fall of Western Civilization! As a result, they paint hapless white men as the unfortunate victims of an "anti-male" society that grinds them into submission under the boot heel of the Fascist PC Thought Police.
Let us examine some of this, shall we? Not too much, lest we scratch out our eyeballs in frustration.
As far as this idea of "politically correct" (scare quotes intended) as code for "uptight" or "restrictive," I don't see why it is so important to some people to be allowed to use words that create an othering effect of specific groups. One thing that must be put out there right now: complaining about being forced to be "PC" is, in essence, complaining that you can't be a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic douchenozzle without there being consequences. I seriously don't see why treating other people like the people that they are is such a damn burden. In the US, one does have the freedom to say exactly what one wants to, however, the rest of us also have the freedom to tell you that you are being obnoxious and insulting. Attempting to shame people with the sneering at political correctness indicates that you would rather be able to hurt people because you like to. This would make you, at best, a bully, and at worst, someone incredibly dangerous.
The gentleman doth protest too much is something else I want to examine here. There is a huge discussion amongst these supposed rights activists about false allegations that lead "innocent" men to being dragged through the court system and possibly imprisoned. Yet false allegations "experts" tend to turn out to be nothing more than perpetrators who are finding ways for other perps to get away with beating and raping. There has even been evidence that false allegations are more likely to come from men:
Are Allegations of Sexual Abuse That Arise During Child Custody Disputes More Likely to Be False?
An Annotated Review of the Research
Bala, N. & Schuman, J. (2000). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separated.
Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17, 191-241.
Canadian Family Law Judgments: Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two Queen's University law professors, reviewed judges' written decisions in 196 cases between 1990 and 1998 where allegations of either physical or sexual abuse were raised in the context of parental separation. Only family law cases were considered; child protection and criminal decisions were excluded.
The study showed that the judges felt that only a third of unproven cases of child abuse stemming from custody battles involve someone deliberately lying in court. In these cases, the judges found that fathers were more likely to fabricate the accusations than mothers.
These people want to tilt at windmills to preserve their privileges to the detriment of those they consider to be lower than them. They couch their true desires in the language of empowerment, and attempt to cast themselves as some tragic victim.
There are inequalities in this world, some of which specifically effect men, and most are rooted in constructions of masculinity. To resolve those inequalities, deconstruction of gender essentialism must occur. There are people who do this, who truly work to make sure that people are seen as equal regardless of what is in their pants.
They are called feminists, and they are not your expectation.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
TDOR
This is for the men and women and those in between and outside of that binary who have died because of ignorance and xenophobia. This is for the victims of transphobia. Remember the fallen, and work for a better world so that those we have lost will not have died in vain. Everybody is someone's child and queers are people too.
Shamelessly lifted from TransGriot.
Courtesy of Ethan St. Pierre, as of November 16, the list of people being memorialized for the 10th Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance on Thursday.
Kellie Telesford
Location: Thornton Heath, UK
Cause of Death: Strangled
Date of Death: November 21, 2007
Kellie was strangled to death with a scarf, by 18 year old Shanniel Hyatt, who then covered the body of 39-year-old Kellie Telesford with a white blanket - with the brown furry scarf used to choke her still bound tightly round her neck. Hyatt said he killer her after discovering she had a penis.
Brian McGlothin (Liked to dress in Women's clothes)
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Cause of Death: Shot in the head with an automatic rifle by Antonio Williams who is serving a six year sentence. Brian was 25 years old.
Date of Death: December 23, 2007
Gabriela Alejandra Albornoz
Location: Santiago, Chile
Cause of Death: Attacked and stabbed
Date of Death: December 28, 2007
Patrick Murphy (Found Dressed in Women's clothes)
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Cause of Death: Shot Several times in the head
Date of Death: January 8, 2008
Patrick was 39 years old.
Stacy Brown
Location: Baltimore, MD
Cause of Death: Shot in the head
Date of Death: January 8, 2008
Stacy was 30 years old.
Adolphus Simmons
Location: Charleston, SC
Cause of Death: Shot to Death (Aldophus was 18 yrs. old)
Date of Death: January 21, 2008
Fedra (a known transvestite)
Location: Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
Cause of Death: Was found lying face up in a pool of blood,
cause of death was not reported.
Date of Death: January 22, 2008
Ashley Sweeney
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Cause of Death: Shot in the head
Date of Death: February 4, 2008
The age of Ashley Sweeney is unknown, she was only described as a young transgender woman in a press release.
Sanesha (Talib) Stewart
Location: Bronx, NY
Cause of Death: Stabbed to Death
Date of Death: February 10, 2008
Sanesha was 25 years old.
Lawrence King
Location: Oxnard, California
Cause of Death: Shot to death by a classmate because he liked to wear
women's clothes. (Lawrence King was 15 years old).
Date of Death: February 12, 2008
Simmie Williams Jr.
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Cause of Death: Shot to death, Simmie was found wearing women's clothing. (Simmie was 17 years old)
Date of Death: February 22, 2008
Luna (no last name reported)
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Cause of Death: Brutally beaten to death and tossed into a dumpster.
Date of Death: March 15, 2008
Lloyd Nixon
Location: West Palm Beach, Florida
Cause of Death:Repeatedly beat in the head with a brick.
Date of Death: April 16, 2008
Lloyd was 45 years old.
Felicia Melton-Smyth
Location: Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Cause of Death: brutally stabbed to death by Francisco Javier Hollos, who said he killed her because she would not pay for sex. Felicia was an HIV activist on vacation from Wisconsin.
Date of Death: May 26, 2008
Silvana Berisha
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Cause of Death: Stabbed to Death
Date of Death: June 24, 2008
Ebony (Rodney) Whitaker
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Cause of Death:Shot (Ebony was 20 yrs. old)
Date of Death:July 1, 2008
Rosa Pazos
Location: Sevilla, Spain
Cause of Death: Was found in her apartment, she had been stabbed in the throat.
Date of Death: July 11, 2008
Juan Carlos Aucalle Coronel
Location: Lombardi, Italy
Cause of Death severely beaten causing fractures to the head and face before being run over by a car.
Date of Death July 14, 2008
Juan Carlos was 35 years old.
Angie Zapata
Location: Greeley, Colorado
Cause of Death: She was found in her home with two severe fractures in her skull.
Angie was murdered by 31 year old, Alan Ray Andrade. Angie was 18 years old.
Date of Death: July 17, 2008
Jaylynn L. Namauu
Location: Makiki Honolulu, Hawaii
Cause of Death: Stabbed to Death
Date of Death: July 17, 2008
Jaylynn was 35 years old.
Samantha Rangel Brandau
Location: Milan, Italy
Cause of Death: beaten, gang raped and stabbed numerous times before being left for dead.
Date of Death: July 29, 2008
Samantha was 30 years old.
Ruby Molina
Location: Sacramento, California
Cause of Death: Drowned
Date of Death: September 21, 2008
Ruby's naked body was found floating in the American river.
She was 22 years old.
Aimee Wilcoxson
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Cause of Death: undetermined (Police have yet to reveal cause)
Date of Death: November 3, 2008
Aimee was found dead in her bed. She was 34 years old.
Duanna Johnson
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Cause of Death: Shot
Date of Death: November 9, 2008
Duanna was found dead in the middle of the street. She was 42 years old.
Dilek Ince
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Cause of Death:Shot in the back of the head
Date of Death: November 11, 2008
Teish (Moses) Cannon
Location: Syracuse, New York
Cause of Death: Shot
Date of Death: November 14, 2008
Teish was 22 years old.
Ali
Location:Iraq
Cause of Death:executed for being transgender
Date of Death:2008, Month is Unknown
Video of Ali before she was executed: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2tDVtjQNfQ
*IMPORTANT NOTE FROM ETHAN - (In case I don't get the details posted in time) There were 2 other Iraqi transgender women who were executed at the same time as Ali. Please remember them at your TDoR event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)