For those of you who saw Monday's post, you'll notice that I closed with a video from the Brooklyn Comedy Company and their show/blog/website, "This Week in Blackness."
Editor-in-chief and chief talking-head, Elon James White, is featured in a series of videos discussing different aspects of "black" America. I have been going through their archive all weekend and found myself laughing out loud at times and at others shaking my head and saying "Yes!"
So check out their site (click here) and let me leave you with this particular piece from early on in Season 1, where they talk about white privilege and encourage someone to give Tim Wise a hug (and I whole-heartedly agree--someone SHOULD give Tim Wise a hug!):
Showing posts with label white privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label white privilege. Show all posts
Friday, July 17, 2009
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Reading about race
Since yesterday's post was devoted to fun summer reading and fiction, I thought I'd focus today's post on some more meaty material--books about race and anti-racism.
I confess that this post is really inspired by the one at Anti-Racist Parent "If I Was in Charge of Revising MEPA: Some Books for White People Adopting Black Children." Lots of folks ended up writing in their own recommendations in the comment section.
So here are my own "Must Reads" for anyone interested in good books that cover issues of race and racism and anti-racist work. Some of them are theoretically dense, others are really a collection of excerpts from longer works. But all are really good at tackling issues of race.
*Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. Michael Omi & Howard Winant. Second edition. New York & London: Routledge (1994).
--I was assigned the first edition of this work as a freshman at UCSB taking my very first Asian American studies class. It is required reading in any class I teach on race. There is supposed to be a third "Millennium" edition coming out, but the second, like the first, is solid work--especially Chapter 4 on "Racial Formation."
*"Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?": A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity. Beverly Daniel Tatum. Revised edition. New York: Basic Books (2003).
--A great book for anyone who has ever asked this question or been asked this question (or its variation) for why kids cluster along ethnic/racial lines (with the questioner sometimes implying that there is something wrong with this). Beverly Tatum is the current president at Spelman College and is an amazing scholar and speaker. And this book is foundational reading on child development and race in America. In many ways, it complements Omi & Winant by literally fleshing out the theory that they propose by looking at the actual adolescents and young adults going through the process of racial formation.
*White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism. Paula S. Rothenberg, editor. Second edition. New York: Worth Publishers (2005).
--This is a great collection of essays on white privilege. And any discussion of race and racism should also be a discussion of white privilege. The list of contributors reads like a "Who's Who" of race reading and writing: bell hoooks, George Lipsitz, Tim Wise, and many others. One of my favorite essays is by Peggy McIntosh "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" (it's in Part III). In fact, the collection is dedicated to her as one "who led the way."
*We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity. Tommie Shelby. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (2005).
--This is probably the most dense reading in this recommended list, but it's also very thorough in its discussion of the history of black racial identity--its political and philosophical roots linked with the history of the U.S. and the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. One of the things Shelby is trying to do is to talk about black identity as a social identity and viable group identity that isn't always commensurate with Black Nationalism. Shelby is careful not to dismiss Black Nationalism, but in the world of postmodernist philosophy and race, the dismantling of any ethnic-national groups is part of the status quo--Shelby is trying to show how group racial identities are still important while also acknowledging the fictive qualities of race and the problematics of relying solely on a Black National identity and political agenda.
*Honky. Dalton Conley. New York: Random House (2000).
--During the fall semester a few years back, I literally had a student in my "Mixed Race America" class chase me across campus and hand me this book. He had heard Conley speak at his high school and had been so impressed and thought that the issues we were discussing in class--ones about racial identity, cross-racial identifications, allies across color lines, class, race, gender, sexuality, and most importantly racism and white privilege, were all encompassed in Conley's autobiography. He was right. I finished the book in a weekend and was sorry that I had discovered it too late to put on my syllabus. Dalton Conley is a social psychologist at NYU, and his autobiography is informed by his social psychologist's eye. But it is also a raw, engaging, entertaining, thoughtful, and thoroughly honest look at race and white privilege through the eyes of a man who grew up the only white kid in a black-Latino housing project in NYC.
*Disoriented: Asian Americans, Law, and the Nation-State. Robert Chang. New York: New York University Press (1999).
--I'd be remiss not to include a work by a legal scholar who works in critical race studies, especially one as good as Chang. At a slim 180 pages (and that includes the footnotes and index) this book is a must-read for anyone who wants to be able to argue for affirmative action, especially because as Chang knows all too well, Asian Americans have been used as that wedge group to argue AGAINST those policies (and I've written about Chang and this issue before). The book, however, isn't only about affirmative action--it's also about the history of Asian Americans in U.S. jurisprudence and the primacy of placing Asian Americans into any discussion of race in the U.S.
Anyway, these are my recommendations for key books on race, racism, white privilege, and anti-racist practices. Feel free to leave your own in the comment section.
I confess that this post is really inspired by the one at Anti-Racist Parent "If I Was in Charge of Revising MEPA: Some Books for White People Adopting Black Children." Lots of folks ended up writing in their own recommendations in the comment section.
So here are my own "Must Reads" for anyone interested in good books that cover issues of race and racism and anti-racist work. Some of them are theoretically dense, others are really a collection of excerpts from longer works. But all are really good at tackling issues of race.
*Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. Michael Omi & Howard Winant. Second edition. New York & London: Routledge (1994).
--I was assigned the first edition of this work as a freshman at UCSB taking my very first Asian American studies class. It is required reading in any class I teach on race. There is supposed to be a third "Millennium" edition coming out, but the second, like the first, is solid work--especially Chapter 4 on "Racial Formation."
*"Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?": A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity. Beverly Daniel Tatum. Revised edition. New York: Basic Books (2003).
--A great book for anyone who has ever asked this question or been asked this question (or its variation) for why kids cluster along ethnic/racial lines (with the questioner sometimes implying that there is something wrong with this). Beverly Tatum is the current president at Spelman College and is an amazing scholar and speaker. And this book is foundational reading on child development and race in America. In many ways, it complements Omi & Winant by literally fleshing out the theory that they propose by looking at the actual adolescents and young adults going through the process of racial formation.
*White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism. Paula S. Rothenberg, editor. Second edition. New York: Worth Publishers (2005).
--This is a great collection of essays on white privilege. And any discussion of race and racism should also be a discussion of white privilege. The list of contributors reads like a "Who's Who" of race reading and writing: bell hoooks, George Lipsitz, Tim Wise, and many others. One of my favorite essays is by Peggy McIntosh "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" (it's in Part III). In fact, the collection is dedicated to her as one "who led the way."
*We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity. Tommie Shelby. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (2005).
--This is probably the most dense reading in this recommended list, but it's also very thorough in its discussion of the history of black racial identity--its political and philosophical roots linked with the history of the U.S. and the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. One of the things Shelby is trying to do is to talk about black identity as a social identity and viable group identity that isn't always commensurate with Black Nationalism. Shelby is careful not to dismiss Black Nationalism, but in the world of postmodernist philosophy and race, the dismantling of any ethnic-national groups is part of the status quo--Shelby is trying to show how group racial identities are still important while also acknowledging the fictive qualities of race and the problematics of relying solely on a Black National identity and political agenda.
*Honky. Dalton Conley. New York: Random House (2000).
--During the fall semester a few years back, I literally had a student in my "Mixed Race America" class chase me across campus and hand me this book. He had heard Conley speak at his high school and had been so impressed and thought that the issues we were discussing in class--ones about racial identity, cross-racial identifications, allies across color lines, class, race, gender, sexuality, and most importantly racism and white privilege, were all encompassed in Conley's autobiography. He was right. I finished the book in a weekend and was sorry that I had discovered it too late to put on my syllabus. Dalton Conley is a social psychologist at NYU, and his autobiography is informed by his social psychologist's eye. But it is also a raw, engaging, entertaining, thoughtful, and thoroughly honest look at race and white privilege through the eyes of a man who grew up the only white kid in a black-Latino housing project in NYC.
*Disoriented: Asian Americans, Law, and the Nation-State. Robert Chang. New York: New York University Press (1999).
--I'd be remiss not to include a work by a legal scholar who works in critical race studies, especially one as good as Chang. At a slim 180 pages (and that includes the footnotes and index) this book is a must-read for anyone who wants to be able to argue for affirmative action, especially because as Chang knows all too well, Asian Americans have been used as that wedge group to argue AGAINST those policies (and I've written about Chang and this issue before). The book, however, isn't only about affirmative action--it's also about the history of Asian Americans in U.S. jurisprudence and the primacy of placing Asian Americans into any discussion of race in the U.S.
Anyway, these are my recommendations for key books on race, racism, white privilege, and anti-racist practices. Feel free to leave your own in the comment section.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Honor Dr. King by speaking your truth
Today marks the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's assassination. The Root has a great series of articles reflecting back on the state of race relations, poverty, African Americans, and continuing a theme of this blog and Senator Obama, the need to continue talking and tackling race issues, "Dr. King's Challenge: We're not all guilty but we're all responsible."
Many people have wondered, "What would Dr. King make of the current state of America? What would he think about the fact that for the first time we have a viable African American candidate running for the President of the United States? What would he make of the racial divide, the economic divide, the ideological divide that, at times, seems to be widening in America?"
I don't know what Dr. King would say, but if you want to read some eloquent and powerful words from an African American perspective on the state of race in the U.S., let me direct you to the blog What Tami Said and her post "Dear America: A few things this black woman would like you to know about race."
Here is a small sampling of Tami's provocative and forceful observations on race:
In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., please head over to What Tami Said and read not only this remarkable post (when I read it I literally was sitting up in my chair nodding vigorously and saying "Yes! Yes! Yes!") but also take the time to read through Tami's other posts. I've had the pleasure of getting to know her as a fellow blogger who writes about race in America. Although we've never met, I feel like I've found a real kindred spirit and am so glad that her voice, speaking her truth, is out in the world for all to hear.
Many people have wondered, "What would Dr. King make of the current state of America? What would he think about the fact that for the first time we have a viable African American candidate running for the President of the United States? What would he make of the racial divide, the economic divide, the ideological divide that, at times, seems to be widening in America?"
I don't know what Dr. King would say, but if you want to read some eloquent and powerful words from an African American perspective on the state of race in the U.S., let me direct you to the blog What Tami Said and her post "Dear America: A few things this black woman would like you to know about race."
Here is a small sampling of Tami's provocative and forceful observations on race:
Why is the very mention of our country's racist past and its lingering prejudices anathema to some? Why does discussing racism so often result in defensive bravado? It's as if pointing out racial challenges negates the progress the country has made and condemns every member of the mainstream as an irredeemable racist. That is not the case.
If you are willing to listen, here are some other things that this black woman would like the mainstream to know about racism and the relationship between black and white Americans:
Racism and prejudice aren't about white sheets and Jim Crow anymore. Black Americans know that. Only an idiot would claim that our nation has not made tremendous gains in racial equality.It is just that we know that racism and prejudice still exist, because we live with it every day. Unlike the naked racism faced by our grandparents and ancestors, the bias most of us face today is covert or institutionalized.
In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., please head over to What Tami Said and read not only this remarkable post (when I read it I literally was sitting up in my chair nodding vigorously and saying "Yes! Yes! Yes!") but also take the time to read through Tami's other posts. I've had the pleasure of getting to know her as a fellow blogger who writes about race in America. Although we've never met, I feel like I've found a real kindred spirit and am so glad that her voice, speaking her truth, is out in the world for all to hear.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Defining Racism
If anyone has been following the comments in my last post, "If only we could take it back..." (January 11, 2008) then you will see that I have been asked the question:
"How do you define racism?"
Which is an important question to ask, given the topic and given a blog called "Mixed Race America."
And I have actually answered this in various forms in previous posts:
"Can I be racist?" (August 28, 2007)
and
"Individual Bigotry vs. Institutional Racism" (November 11, 2007)
And I've also acknowledged the difficulty of talking about race--why it's hard and why it can be so emotionally exhausting:
"Talking about race" (July 9, 2007)
And about my idealized vision of getting rid of the analytic category of race and replacing it with an anti-racist praxis and philosophy:
"Getting rid of race" (December 14, 2007) and "Living the Anti-racist Praxis" (December 14, 2007).
I don't expect anyone to go back and re-read all of these posts, unless you really do want to know what I think about all of this and how I define racism. I included these posts to show that I have blogged about it before but what I really want to know is, how do YOU define racism. I didn't get a lot of responses when I blogged about these issues in the past, so perhaps if I withhold my own definition, people will be more willing to give your opinion in the comment section--and of course if you then want to read what my definition is, you can and we can have a dialogue about it.
Or perhaps if it would help to know my own thumbnail belief, the cocktail party definition I would give is that racism is about an institutional system that upholds a racial hierarchy; in the U.S. this has meant those of European descent having access and privileges unavailable to non-European Americans.
I also think if we are going to talk about racism, we should also talk about white privilege--and one person who really talks about this in a very clear way is Peggy Macintosh, whose essay "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is available by clicking on the title of the essay.
So another heavy topic--and here I was planning to tell you about some films I've recently seen featuring Paris as a little lighter blogging. C'est la vie!
"How do you define racism?"
Which is an important question to ask, given the topic and given a blog called "Mixed Race America."
And I have actually answered this in various forms in previous posts:
"Can I be racist?" (August 28, 2007)
and
"Individual Bigotry vs. Institutional Racism" (November 11, 2007)
And I've also acknowledged the difficulty of talking about race--why it's hard and why it can be so emotionally exhausting:
"Talking about race" (July 9, 2007)
And about my idealized vision of getting rid of the analytic category of race and replacing it with an anti-racist praxis and philosophy:
"Getting rid of race" (December 14, 2007) and "Living the Anti-racist Praxis" (December 14, 2007).
I don't expect anyone to go back and re-read all of these posts, unless you really do want to know what I think about all of this and how I define racism. I included these posts to show that I have blogged about it before but what I really want to know is, how do YOU define racism. I didn't get a lot of responses when I blogged about these issues in the past, so perhaps if I withhold my own definition, people will be more willing to give your opinion in the comment section--and of course if you then want to read what my definition is, you can and we can have a dialogue about it.
Or perhaps if it would help to know my own thumbnail belief, the cocktail party definition I would give is that racism is about an institutional system that upholds a racial hierarchy; in the U.S. this has meant those of European descent having access and privileges unavailable to non-European Americans.
I also think if we are going to talk about racism, we should also talk about white privilege--and one person who really talks about this in a very clear way is Peggy Macintosh, whose essay "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is available by clicking on the title of the essay.
So another heavy topic--and here I was planning to tell you about some films I've recently seen featuring Paris as a little lighter blogging. C'est la vie!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Womb for Hire
A friend of mine told me about an Oprah Winfrey show (air date: 10/9/07) about surrogacy, specifically a white American couple who hired an Indian woman to be the surrogate for their egg&sperm (unclear why woman can't carry the baby to term--and I didn't watch the show).
For a description of the Oprah show, click here:
My friend was very upset about the repercussions of all of this--the exploitation of women's bodies in developing nations (yet another instance of outsourcing to India?), the racial aspects of a relatively wealthy white American couple hiring an Indian woman living in poverty, the premium on biology and birth over adoption (and transracial adoption especially), and just the overall problematics of commercial surrogacy--especially when these Indian women, who all have children of their own (a condition of their being surrogates is they have to have a proven track record of successful fertility and birth) must leave behind their children and live in a "surrogacy center" in another part of India until they have the babies for their hired Moms. Apparently there were a few Indian women they brought to Oprah's show and they actually cried when they talked about being away from their children.
I did a little digging and commercial surrogacy is apparently against public policy in India but not technically illegal (here's the abstract written by an Indian law professor). And I also found a chatboard (for families adopting babies from Guatemala) and according to one poster, commercial surrogacy is illegal in many countries.
I hope someone is doing research on this. What is particularly disturbing to me are the comments on the Oprah discussion board about this topic. It just seems that NO ONE is really disturbed at the implications of hiring out another woman's womb--and doing it for commercial profit. And more specifically than just the issue of surrogacy (which, I have to say I have less of a problem with, within an American context--perhaps because of the choices we, as Americans, have) is that it seems like it's predominantly white European and American couples hiring Indian women--the first world imposing on the third, a colonizing of the womb. The lack of examination of privilege--white privilege, American privilege, and the privileging of biological children--whether birthed by you or not--the privilege of one's genes,the possessiveness this implies...Isn't anyone else disturbed??? Why do we, as Americans, feel so entitled???
And is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale?
For a description of the Oprah show, click here:
My friend was very upset about the repercussions of all of this--the exploitation of women's bodies in developing nations (yet another instance of outsourcing to India?), the racial aspects of a relatively wealthy white American couple hiring an Indian woman living in poverty, the premium on biology and birth over adoption (and transracial adoption especially), and just the overall problematics of commercial surrogacy--especially when these Indian women, who all have children of their own (a condition of their being surrogates is they have to have a proven track record of successful fertility and birth) must leave behind their children and live in a "surrogacy center" in another part of India until they have the babies for their hired Moms. Apparently there were a few Indian women they brought to Oprah's show and they actually cried when they talked about being away from their children.
I did a little digging and commercial surrogacy is apparently against public policy in India but not technically illegal (here's the abstract written by an Indian law professor). And I also found a chatboard (for families adopting babies from Guatemala) and according to one poster, commercial surrogacy is illegal in many countries.
I hope someone is doing research on this. What is particularly disturbing to me are the comments on the Oprah discussion board about this topic. It just seems that NO ONE is really disturbed at the implications of hiring out another woman's womb--and doing it for commercial profit. And more specifically than just the issue of surrogacy (which, I have to say I have less of a problem with, within an American context--perhaps because of the choices we, as Americans, have) is that it seems like it's predominantly white European and American couples hiring Indian women--the first world imposing on the third, a colonizing of the womb. The lack of examination of privilege--white privilege, American privilege, and the privileging of biological children--whether birthed by you or not--the privilege of one's genes,the possessiveness this implies...Isn't anyone else disturbed??? Why do we, as Americans, feel so entitled???
And is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Duke Lacrosse--The Exonerated?
Today I heard that Mike Nifong, the disgraced D.A. who mis-handled the Duke Lacrosse rape case, apologized to the three men he originally accused and said that there was not substantial evidence to link them in the rape case. And as various magazine and newspaper articles, and even a book written by the former Duke Lacrosse coach all emphasize, these young men were all victims of "racial profiling" and are, instead, innocent of the charges brought against them.
And in the wake of this media storm, I'm not sure what to think with respect to the woman who brought these accusations against the men. I certainly feel sympathy for her, because regardless of whether she made up her story or she was, indeed, sexually assaulted, she more than likely did not bargain for the reception she received at the house party in which the lacrosse players were present and she more than likely did not think when she was a little girl that she wanted to earn extra money to support herself through college by taking off her clothes for drunken college boys.
If she did lie, well, then that's a topic for another post--because it is damaging for women to lie about rape--there are so many women who are raped every day, many by people they know. And they are afraid to come forward because of the criticism and judgment they will face--most especially the idea that they are lying. And in some cases (a few I know personally) the man in question probably didn't think that he was raping a woman who was crying or saying no, as incredible as that is to believe. There were two such cases of women I went to college with, who told me their stories of male friends raping them, while they were sleeping, even after they had said no--but because they were drunk or because they were making out, or because they were friends, the idea that they could accuse these men of rape never entered their minds, and they were both clear that they were sure that these men had no idea that what they had done was rape, even though the women just lay there, and in one case, she cried the entire time. So if this woman did lie, well, she's doing a lot of damage for a lot of people.
But putting aside the veracity of her story--the larger problem I have with the exoneration of the Duke lacrosse team is over issues of race, class, and sex. There are the facts of the largely white team members and the two women, one African American, the other half-black, half-Asian. There is the overheard racist remarks outside the house ("Thank your grandaddy for my cotton shirt") and the racist comments that the women reported went on inside the house. There is the privilege that comes with wealth and with attending an elite university like Duke and with playing for an elite sport like lacrosse. And then there's the fact that this group of young men, athletes, who ostensibly represent their school, didn't think twice about hiring women to take off their clothes for them. Strippers, exotic dancers, whatever language you want to use, it's women who, I believe for the most part, are doing this to gain money, a lot of money relative to the labor involved, although perhaps not a lot of money relative to one's mental and emotional well-being. I don't know. I have acquaintances who have worked in strip clubs before, and they talk about a feeling of empowerment, but mostly they talk about how good the money is, and that the cash flow outweighs the crap they have to put up with.
What I'm trying to get at is that regardless of whether or not these men sexually assaulted this women--I don't feel the Duke lacrosse team is fully exonerated. Yes, they may not have perpetrated rape, but are they totally innocent of the white privilege, the class privilege, the very male privilege that they wear as casually as they wear their uniforms? And Duke students who support these players, do they stop and think about the larger picture--that rather than seeing themselves as embattled victims of a corrupt legal system--as victims prosecuted by the media, perhaps they need to really think about what it means to have the privilege of attending Duke University or any four-year university--of having a college degree, something only 25% of the US population has. Shouldn't Duke students, lacrosse players and non-lacrosse players alike, owe it to themselves to question the kinds of privilege they walk around with and the ways in which subtle promotion of white male superiority gets produced around not-so-innocuous parties involving dark skinned women taking off their clothes at the command of white men?
And in the wake of this media storm, I'm not sure what to think with respect to the woman who brought these accusations against the men. I certainly feel sympathy for her, because regardless of whether she made up her story or she was, indeed, sexually assaulted, she more than likely did not bargain for the reception she received at the house party in which the lacrosse players were present and she more than likely did not think when she was a little girl that she wanted to earn extra money to support herself through college by taking off her clothes for drunken college boys.
If she did lie, well, then that's a topic for another post--because it is damaging for women to lie about rape--there are so many women who are raped every day, many by people they know. And they are afraid to come forward because of the criticism and judgment they will face--most especially the idea that they are lying. And in some cases (a few I know personally) the man in question probably didn't think that he was raping a woman who was crying or saying no, as incredible as that is to believe. There were two such cases of women I went to college with, who told me their stories of male friends raping them, while they were sleeping, even after they had said no--but because they were drunk or because they were making out, or because they were friends, the idea that they could accuse these men of rape never entered their minds, and they were both clear that they were sure that these men had no idea that what they had done was rape, even though the women just lay there, and in one case, she cried the entire time. So if this woman did lie, well, she's doing a lot of damage for a lot of people.
But putting aside the veracity of her story--the larger problem I have with the exoneration of the Duke lacrosse team is over issues of race, class, and sex. There are the facts of the largely white team members and the two women, one African American, the other half-black, half-Asian. There is the overheard racist remarks outside the house ("Thank your grandaddy for my cotton shirt") and the racist comments that the women reported went on inside the house. There is the privilege that comes with wealth and with attending an elite university like Duke and with playing for an elite sport like lacrosse. And then there's the fact that this group of young men, athletes, who ostensibly represent their school, didn't think twice about hiring women to take off their clothes for them. Strippers, exotic dancers, whatever language you want to use, it's women who, I believe for the most part, are doing this to gain money, a lot of money relative to the labor involved, although perhaps not a lot of money relative to one's mental and emotional well-being. I don't know. I have acquaintances who have worked in strip clubs before, and they talk about a feeling of empowerment, but mostly they talk about how good the money is, and that the cash flow outweighs the crap they have to put up with.
What I'm trying to get at is that regardless of whether or not these men sexually assaulted this women--I don't feel the Duke lacrosse team is fully exonerated. Yes, they may not have perpetrated rape, but are they totally innocent of the white privilege, the class privilege, the very male privilege that they wear as casually as they wear their uniforms? And Duke students who support these players, do they stop and think about the larger picture--that rather than seeing themselves as embattled victims of a corrupt legal system--as victims prosecuted by the media, perhaps they need to really think about what it means to have the privilege of attending Duke University or any four-year university--of having a college degree, something only 25% of the US population has. Shouldn't Duke students, lacrosse players and non-lacrosse players alike, owe it to themselves to question the kinds of privilege they walk around with and the ways in which subtle promotion of white male superiority gets produced around not-so-innocuous parties involving dark skinned women taking off their clothes at the command of white men?
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Is Tiger black?
I was in the gym the other day reading a special issue of Sports Illustrated--one primed for the US Open (it was an old copy). And there was an editorial from an African American sports journalist about Tiger Woods--specifically, lamenting Tiger's lack of political activism around issues of race (and I would add gender). The gist of the editorial was that this black journalist was, like many African Americans, initially enthused and supportive of Tiger's golf career--seeing him as someone who had made it into the most hallowed and whitest of institutions--the PGA--and that he could lead a race revolution in the world of golf. And yet, it hasn't happened. Tiger remains the only black PGA golfer in the tour, there are no up and coming new African American golfers set to rival Tiger's record--there are not scores of African American golf athletes infiltrating lily white university golf programs, and Tiger has not taken a stand on key race issues in the public domain. In other words, he's no Jackie Robinson.
And I know I've had similar critiques about Tiger's lack of politicization--and also speculating about how fair that is--for me to want and to demand that Tiger become a political spokesperson for racial justice and gender equity. After all, we are not making these demands on Ernie Els or Jim Furyk or Phil Mickelson. Or even Vijay Singh. They get to be "just golfers" and they have their respective charities and corporate sponsors, and yes they are under scrutiny, but none of them have the pressures to be a symbol in the way that Tiger so clearly is under a media and world microscope.
Yet there was something else about the editorial that troubled me. The dismissiveness of Tiger's claim to be "Cablinasian." There was much "to-do" made when he first coined the word and when he tried to show that he was not simply an African American golfer but a person who had many different racial and ethnic strains in his ancestry. And there have been many people who have called him on his apparent lack of black pride for not claiming a mono-racial African American identity. But Tiger himself said it best when he explained that to claim a black identity would be to disavow his mother and her life, her influence, on him. His Thai mother. Which makes Tiger as much Asian American as African American.
So is Tiger black? I'm not saying he's not because the truth is, he's identified by others and perceived to be "black" because he *looks* black. In other words, if he had more Asian features, if he favored his mother's side of the family more than his father's, phenotypically, perhaps we would be calling him an Asian American or at least a mixed race, hapa, golfer and not simply a black golfer.
I actually do think that Tiger is a black golfer. It's just that he's not only black. He's also Asian American and mixed race and hapa and Cablinasian. He is a multitude and he's got a killer golf swing and so we want him to infiltrate the bastion, the fortress of white privilege--the country club--to lay waste to their belief systems and herald in a new age of racial tolerance and acceptance--to get them where they sleep, so to speak--on the fairway.
Maybe he'll do it one day. Maybe he'll stick it to "the man" and take a political stand and support a cause that is contrary to his Nike endorsement and the galleries that watch him. Maybe not. At any rate, maybe we can start by recognizing that Tiger is both black and not black and that there's nothing wrong in acknowledging the complexity of who he is, just as one day perhaps he will also recognize and embrace and act on that complexity.
And I know I've had similar critiques about Tiger's lack of politicization--and also speculating about how fair that is--for me to want and to demand that Tiger become a political spokesperson for racial justice and gender equity. After all, we are not making these demands on Ernie Els or Jim Furyk or Phil Mickelson. Or even Vijay Singh. They get to be "just golfers" and they have their respective charities and corporate sponsors, and yes they are under scrutiny, but none of them have the pressures to be a symbol in the way that Tiger so clearly is under a media and world microscope.
Yet there was something else about the editorial that troubled me. The dismissiveness of Tiger's claim to be "Cablinasian." There was much "to-do" made when he first coined the word and when he tried to show that he was not simply an African American golfer but a person who had many different racial and ethnic strains in his ancestry. And there have been many people who have called him on his apparent lack of black pride for not claiming a mono-racial African American identity. But Tiger himself said it best when he explained that to claim a black identity would be to disavow his mother and her life, her influence, on him. His Thai mother. Which makes Tiger as much Asian American as African American.
So is Tiger black? I'm not saying he's not because the truth is, he's identified by others and perceived to be "black" because he *looks* black. In other words, if he had more Asian features, if he favored his mother's side of the family more than his father's, phenotypically, perhaps we would be calling him an Asian American or at least a mixed race, hapa, golfer and not simply a black golfer.
I actually do think that Tiger is a black golfer. It's just that he's not only black. He's also Asian American and mixed race and hapa and Cablinasian. He is a multitude and he's got a killer golf swing and so we want him to infiltrate the bastion, the fortress of white privilege--the country club--to lay waste to their belief systems and herald in a new age of racial tolerance and acceptance--to get them where they sleep, so to speak--on the fairway.
Maybe he'll do it one day. Maybe he'll stick it to "the man" and take a political stand and support a cause that is contrary to his Nike endorsement and the galleries that watch him. Maybe not. At any rate, maybe we can start by recognizing that Tiger is both black and not black and that there's nothing wrong in acknowledging the complexity of who he is, just as one day perhaps he will also recognize and embrace and act on that complexity.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Paris Redux
Well apparently I'm not the only one appalled by the turn-of-events surrounding Paris Hilton's release from jail. She's been ordered back to court this morning because Judge Sauer feels the Sheriff's department was too hasty in letting her spend the remaining time under house arrest instead of incarcerated in the LA County Jail. The Sheriff's department also received over 400 email messages and more than 400 phone calls from people around the country protesting her preferred treatment status as a celebrity incarceree.
And I am wondering about justice. I mean, if Paris Hilton actually does serve jail time, does this mean that justice was served, that the penal system works? It's probably not so cut and dry, but I also wonder to what degree both the judge and the sheriff's office was influenced by public opinion, which is definitely against Hiton at this point, or at least against her release and her serving her sentence under house arrest (which, again, I have to think, how punitive is that for her? Sure she can't go out and about, but she certainly could have her picture taken by the ton of papparazzi surrounding her house if she still wants to be in the public eye and she certainly can have her handlers bring her food, news, various sundries--I mean, it's not like people can't see her, she just can't go out. And she lives in a 4 bedroom home in a very tony part of LA--really, how bad can her house arrest be? I suppose there's the potential shame factor, but considering there have been numerous photos and videos of her in various states of undress and in various sexual positions, how ashamed can she be feeling? And am I being too harsh in saying this--in not feeling much if any sympathy for this particular American heiress?)
Again, I wonder to what degree popular opinion plays into this. That my sentiments are shared by several people around the country seems fairly accurate to say at this point, given the outcry against her release to house arrest.
And race may not be playing an overt factor in all of this, but I don't think it hurts that she's white and blonde and privileged. And yet, I wonder if that's part of what is being judged in the court of public opinion too. The fact that she's so much the poster child for the overindulgent, overprivileged person. In the AP story they interviewed a man who was also at the LA County Courthouse fighting a traffic ticket, Moses Baltazar, who had once parked Hilton's car when he was a valet. Apparently she only tipped a dollar, which miffed him considering (a) she's rich (b) he helped fend off the papparazzi for her. And he's miffed that she is receiving special treatment given her celebrity status.
Special treatment. This seems to be at the heart of white privilege--the fact that there is a special treatment that white Americans often receive, whether consciously acknowledged or not, that people of color don't. I really think Peggy McIntosh articulates this so clearly in the list of privileges that she has in her invisible knapsack. And it's also the thing that ruffles us, in the court of public opinion--the idea that certain people do have special privilege because of who they know, how much money they have, and where they were born.
I also know that special treatment is what anti-affirmative action people shout about--and then they quote from MLK Jr.'s "I Had a Dream Speech" where he talks about wanting to be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. But this is going to bring me into a different type of rant, so I'm just going to say that I really hate it when the neo-conservative anti-affirmative action camp does this, because I'm sure MLK Jr. would roll over in his grave if he knew that his words were being parroted back in this way and for these purposes.
As for Hilton, I don't think it's the color of her skin that she's necessarily on trial for so much as the flaunting of her privilege that really rankles a lot of people--and that if we do judge the content of her character, well, I don't think that someone who tries to have her family buy her out of her misdemeanors is someone who is showing a whole lot of character.
And I am wondering about justice. I mean, if Paris Hilton actually does serve jail time, does this mean that justice was served, that the penal system works? It's probably not so cut and dry, but I also wonder to what degree both the judge and the sheriff's office was influenced by public opinion, which is definitely against Hiton at this point, or at least against her release and her serving her sentence under house arrest (which, again, I have to think, how punitive is that for her? Sure she can't go out and about, but she certainly could have her picture taken by the ton of papparazzi surrounding her house if she still wants to be in the public eye and she certainly can have her handlers bring her food, news, various sundries--I mean, it's not like people can't see her, she just can't go out. And she lives in a 4 bedroom home in a very tony part of LA--really, how bad can her house arrest be? I suppose there's the potential shame factor, but considering there have been numerous photos and videos of her in various states of undress and in various sexual positions, how ashamed can she be feeling? And am I being too harsh in saying this--in not feeling much if any sympathy for this particular American heiress?)
Again, I wonder to what degree popular opinion plays into this. That my sentiments are shared by several people around the country seems fairly accurate to say at this point, given the outcry against her release to house arrest.
And race may not be playing an overt factor in all of this, but I don't think it hurts that she's white and blonde and privileged. And yet, I wonder if that's part of what is being judged in the court of public opinion too. The fact that she's so much the poster child for the overindulgent, overprivileged person. In the AP story they interviewed a man who was also at the LA County Courthouse fighting a traffic ticket, Moses Baltazar, who had once parked Hilton's car when he was a valet. Apparently she only tipped a dollar, which miffed him considering (a) she's rich (b) he helped fend off the papparazzi for her. And he's miffed that she is receiving special treatment given her celebrity status.
Special treatment. This seems to be at the heart of white privilege--the fact that there is a special treatment that white Americans often receive, whether consciously acknowledged or not, that people of color don't. I really think Peggy McIntosh articulates this so clearly in the list of privileges that she has in her invisible knapsack. And it's also the thing that ruffles us, in the court of public opinion--the idea that certain people do have special privilege because of who they know, how much money they have, and where they were born.
I also know that special treatment is what anti-affirmative action people shout about--and then they quote from MLK Jr.'s "I Had a Dream Speech" where he talks about wanting to be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. But this is going to bring me into a different type of rant, so I'm just going to say that I really hate it when the neo-conservative anti-affirmative action camp does this, because I'm sure MLK Jr. would roll over in his grave if he knew that his words were being parroted back in this way and for these purposes.
As for Hilton, I don't think it's the color of her skin that she's necessarily on trial for so much as the flaunting of her privilege that really rankles a lot of people--and that if we do judge the content of her character, well, I don't think that someone who tries to have her family buy her out of her misdemeanors is someone who is showing a whole lot of character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
