Recently I've been having lots of thoughts about the South. I grew up in a Southern state, living there until I was 14. Since then I've rarely been back except for miserable summers and holidays with my parents who still live there. Christianity is a huge part of that Southern fear for me and is intimately related to my horrible experiences. It drives my parent's lives--providing a convenient excuse for my mother's depression and makes it impossible for them to see me as anything other than hellbound and in desperate need of salvation. I was born again a few times in my life--or at least that's how I experienced it.
So I haven't thought about the South as anywhere but a place to flee for years. Then I started working on this piece about growing up and went to Creating Change and had the chance to meet some folks from Southerners on New Ground (SONG). Recently I had the chance to hear The Blind Boys of Alabama perform. It reminded me of all the things about the South I do appreciate and what I found so moving in the work SONG is doing--I felt the spirit.
When I was a little kid I believed in the holy spirit. I actually used to pray to the street light outside my window because I though it was the Star of David and the holding place of God and spirit. I don't believe in that version of the spirit anymore, but I do believe in the need for a connection and for that emotional and communal moment of celebration and release and love. Gospel music, bluegrass music, classical, a really pretty day, great art, awesome activists and community, love--I've found it all these places, but it's been a long time since I let myself think about how Christian worship music used to do it for me.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
African Americans have an extra leg tendon, you say?
I dislocated my kneecap recently and now spend multiple hours a week in physical therapy. Today while I was on one of the machines, I started talking with J, the receptionist, about subtle forms of racism within the LGBTQ movement because she asked me about what kinds of conversations I had at the NGLTF conference. I brought up the idea that lots of people expect every African American man on a college campus to be there to play sports as one example and asked rhetorically why people thought that. J responded, "Because of genetics." I waited a second before I realized she wasn't joking and then we had a fairly coherent conversation about how that's not scientifically true. Despite what it said in J's physiology book, published admittedly 15 years ago, African Americans do not have an extra or longer tendon in their legs. In fact there is no biological basis for race. We talked briefly about how science has been used over the years to prove all kinds of things that we as human beings wanted to believe was so in order to justify certain worldviews. "Yes!" J nodded-- "Like evolution?" I was trapped. Besides I was leaning against a rubber ball on a wall and kind of thought my legs might fall off, so I said "Maybe, kind of" and left it at that.
Appropriatory Fashion: The Stuff Nightmares Are Made Of
Having just gotten back from the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce's annual conference, Creating Change, there's quite a lot I need to process. There's a lot of information and emotional processing to do. There's this bizarre new and amazing person in my life that I have no explanatory system for. And then there are my nightmares, which may be the weirdest bit.
I rarely remember my dreams. I can count the number of times I've remembered anything at all from my dreams in the past six months without removing my shoes. That said two of those times have been nightmares about bad haircuts. One was a mullet, and then last night there was the nightmare about having a mohawk. Well more accurately the nightmare was about appropriation, and I was well aware in the dream of having committed appropriation not only of the mohawk, but also of something else I can't remember. When your white guilt starts surfacing in your dreams, something proactive around it has to be done.
Now I've had a mohawk before, and as recently as last year I didn't feel guilty about that, but recently I've recognized that while I don't really know that much about the history of the mohawk, it's probably not a fashion statement I have the right to make. Fauxhawks, I'm more okay with, and still occasionally sport--rightly or wrongly. I don't even know what brought the issue up. Sure lots of white queers have mohawks and I certainly took note of them at the conference and every white gay boy was wandering around all fauxhawked up but I didn't think too much about it--until I woke up this morning all anxious.
I'm not normally all white guilting everywhere. I took the get off your butt and do something philosophy and generally try to my work around white privilege and anti-racism. So I'm not sure what to make of this nightmare or what it means I need to be working on within my psyche. Maybe I just need to be chilling with more white folks who are doing their work--there aren't enough of them in my life right now, I acknowledge.
I rarely remember my dreams. I can count the number of times I've remembered anything at all from my dreams in the past six months without removing my shoes. That said two of those times have been nightmares about bad haircuts. One was a mullet, and then last night there was the nightmare about having a mohawk. Well more accurately the nightmare was about appropriation, and I was well aware in the dream of having committed appropriation not only of the mohawk, but also of something else I can't remember. When your white guilt starts surfacing in your dreams, something proactive around it has to be done.
Now I've had a mohawk before, and as recently as last year I didn't feel guilty about that, but recently I've recognized that while I don't really know that much about the history of the mohawk, it's probably not a fashion statement I have the right to make. Fauxhawks, I'm more okay with, and still occasionally sport--rightly or wrongly. I don't even know what brought the issue up. Sure lots of white queers have mohawks and I certainly took note of them at the conference and every white gay boy was wandering around all fauxhawked up but I didn't think too much about it--until I woke up this morning all anxious.
I'm not normally all white guilting everywhere. I took the get off your butt and do something philosophy and generally try to my work around white privilege and anti-racism. So I'm not sure what to make of this nightmare or what it means I need to be working on within my psyche. Maybe I just need to be chilling with more white folks who are doing their work--there aren't enough of them in my life right now, I acknowledge.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Competence Proves Scary in People of Color
In talking with friend X today, they mentioned that a white co-worker had informed them that they find X scary. In explaining their fears, co-worker said that X is so good at their job and so smart and that is intimidating. I can see why X might be intimidating. X is certainly amazing, very smart, and very together, but the implication seemed to be that it was not these things alone which were so intimidating. Rather X's superb job performance combined with their intelligence, combined, I would argue, with their racial identity were the key factors.
X is a person a color. If X were a white individual, I don't think the comment would have been made in quite the same way although co-worker might still find X scary. Nor do I think if X were bad at their job, lazy, or stupid would they be scary. I think co-worker finds competent intelligent people of color scary--however, unconsciously. Obviously I can't prove it based on the one comment, but it reminds me of the ways "articulate" is thrown at African Americans--as if there's some shock there. Is that because co-worker subconsciously thinks if a person of color outperforms a white person, then the white person is ridiculous because how else could such a thing occur? Is that because X threatens co-worker's sub-conscious assumptions about people of color? Is it because co-worker fears X will see through them and discover some secret flaw?
X is a person a color. If X were a white individual, I don't think the comment would have been made in quite the same way although co-worker might still find X scary. Nor do I think if X were bad at their job, lazy, or stupid would they be scary. I think co-worker finds competent intelligent people of color scary--however, unconsciously. Obviously I can't prove it based on the one comment, but it reminds me of the ways "articulate" is thrown at African Americans--as if there's some shock there. Is that because co-worker subconsciously thinks if a person of color outperforms a white person, then the white person is ridiculous because how else could such a thing occur? Is that because X threatens co-worker's sub-conscious assumptions about people of color? Is it because co-worker fears X will see through them and discover some secret flaw?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Hillary Clinton has a CUNT?
Why yes, in fact, she does, and it will continue to be held against her. In perfect illustration of one of the less nuanced ways in which misogyny will play out in the upcoming election, there is a campaign out there to "educate" United States voters on Hillary Clinton's role as a cunt (and I don't mean the empowered happy kind). Referring to her euphemistically as a "special flower," interviewer and Weekly Standard senior writer Matt Labash seeks to avoid the offensiveness of the word cunt, thus also foreclosing any potential discussion about the word's power or value. Founded by Roger Stone, long-time political operator, C.U.N.T's education campaign consists almost entirely of this t-shirt and C.U.N.T. website which contains a count of those who sign their agreement with the statement. For more check out the The Weekly Standard's interview with Stone, in which Labash neatly explains, Stone "is trying to tap into deep-seated sentiments about [women, I mean] Clinton." The real fear after all is not just Clinton but possibilities for shifts in gender equity (at least for white women) because as Stone notes, should Clinton win the nomination, "a thousand special flowers will bloom."
Picture downloaded from: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2223264496&size=s&context=photostream
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Pop Culture and Empowerment
I've been watching a lot of television and movies lately--probably more than is good for me. The sheer fact that I've seen that damned comcast commercial twice tonight indicates a fair amount about my blood pressure and my viewing habits. As I was watching Cashmere Mafia this evening and getting my cheap thrills out of the developing lesbian relationship, I started thinking about visibility. I wrote an entire thesis bitching about the mainstream lgbtq movement's championing of visibility of the homo/transnormative, but Willow's relationship with Tara in Buffy the Vampire Slayer still got me through the summers at my parent's house in rural uber-red state as a kid. And now in a new rural place, I'm enjoying the lesbian plot line far more than it deserves. What is that? It's not like when I was a younger and Buffy gave me hope. The only answers I'm coming up with verge on psychoanalytic theory, which in all honesty I don't really understand and certainly can't articulate lucidly. Perhaps I'm learning how to better balance enjoyment with critical thinking--which brings me to the most interesting moment in the episode I watched tonight: "Dangerous Liasons."
As publisher, Mia (Lucy Liu) approves her magazine's, Modern Man's, cover. She struggles because the cover of this particular issue seems to violate her feminist code. It contains the picture of a woman's cleavage with a man on a plate before her. She sits fork in hand about to eat him, while he, in his business suit, seems to be squirming and very uncomfortable. His hand happens to fall exactly at her cleavage--making it appear as if he is either dangling from the v of her collar or pulling it down. The copy reads, "The New Dog-Eat-Dog World! Women Chow Down on Men!" This magazine cover storyline is backed by a storyline in which a man (business executive) fucks a woman (sales associate) and then calls off the relationship and the job privileges he'd been giving her as a result of their sexual liason. She threatens to sue and is painted as the unreasonable one--another perspective on the threat of the man-eating woman. For those of you who want to check it out, the best view of the cover is about 10 minutes into the episode and can be watched on ABC's free player.
Mia decides to keep the cover, while including a letter that tells modern men they have to get used to modern women who can and will do things as well as men and even be their bosses sometimes. While a feel good moment, the sub-texts continue to be rather concerned about those man-eating women. The cover image perpetuates stereotypes even if the copy is countered. A woman who is nothing but cleavage and power hungry? The man who somehow manages to grab hold of the cleavage despite his lunchable status? And the narrative holds with the men-visual, women-verbal dichotomy, which to the degree that is true, means that Mia's letter will have little readership. Now ya'll know I love Lucy Liu, and I thought Mia's letter and her decision to run the cover because it is what many men think good. The show is certainly taking feminist issues beyond Sex in the City to which it is constantly being compared. Like the lesbian visibility question, I'm glad that there's a show in the mainstream that's representing feminist questions, but like with the lesbians, I have to ask, what cultural values are they challenging, and which ones are they reifying? Why do the sub-texts all indicate men are actually at risk? For instance why are the most powerful women in NYC almost exclusively white? And why is the token Asian American woman the one most likely to be viewed as a ball buster? White hetero masculinity is on the defensive in our country right now, and that's playing out--even in shows currently claimed as feminist godsends.
As publisher, Mia (Lucy Liu) approves her magazine's, Modern Man's, cover. She struggles because the cover of this particular issue seems to violate her feminist code. It contains the picture of a woman's cleavage with a man on a plate before her. She sits fork in hand about to eat him, while he, in his business suit, seems to be squirming and very uncomfortable. His hand happens to fall exactly at her cleavage--making it appear as if he is either dangling from the v of her collar or pulling it down. The copy reads, "The New Dog-Eat-Dog World! Women Chow Down on Men!" This magazine cover storyline is backed by a storyline in which a man (business executive) fucks a woman (sales associate) and then calls off the relationship and the job privileges he'd been giving her as a result of their sexual liason. She threatens to sue and is painted as the unreasonable one--another perspective on the threat of the man-eating woman. For those of you who want to check it out, the best view of the cover is about 10 minutes into the episode and can be watched on ABC's free player.
Mia decides to keep the cover, while including a letter that tells modern men they have to get used to modern women who can and will do things as well as men and even be their bosses sometimes. While a feel good moment, the sub-texts continue to be rather concerned about those man-eating women. The cover image perpetuates stereotypes even if the copy is countered. A woman who is nothing but cleavage and power hungry? The man who somehow manages to grab hold of the cleavage despite his lunchable status? And the narrative holds with the men-visual, women-verbal dichotomy, which to the degree that is true, means that Mia's letter will have little readership. Now ya'll know I love Lucy Liu, and I thought Mia's letter and her decision to run the cover because it is what many men think good. The show is certainly taking feminist issues beyond Sex in the City to which it is constantly being compared. Like the lesbian visibility question, I'm glad that there's a show in the mainstream that's representing feminist questions, but like with the lesbians, I have to ask, what cultural values are they challenging, and which ones are they reifying? Why do the sub-texts all indicate men are actually at risk? For instance why are the most powerful women in NYC almost exclusively white? And why is the token Asian American woman the one most likely to be viewed as a ball buster? White hetero masculinity is on the defensive in our country right now, and that's playing out--even in shows currently claimed as feminist godsends.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Beautiful Privilege
Today a friend sent me this link:
http://thebeautifulroom.com/promo.html
The introduction to the social networking site poses the question "What if there were a place...where everyone is...beautiful, single, and like-minded." Each of these three characteristics flashes alongside the image/s of a different individual or pair of individuals. First two blonde white women, then one blonde white woman, and finally a dark haired white man. The lyrics, "You're so beautiful" play in the background to club music. "Beauty is the key" scrolls across the screen followed by a description of the room. The site is described as including "Hand selected attractive people" with "equal men to women ratios." The site intro ends with the question, "Do you have the key?" Though "meeting a level of attractiveness" is "just one of many" "component[s]," the membership application requires you to "submit at least one close-up photograph of your face and one full length photograph of your body" for review.
I was flabbergasted when I first saw the site. I wonder exactly what values we're all supposed to share in our "like-minded[ness]." The beauty standard is certainly whiteness here, though there are a token number of people of color shown. For women, blondeness is certainly emphasized, though once again there are exceptions. And heterosexuality is implied, though interestingly enough never directly stated--perhaps indicating a desire to avoid appearances of discrimination without actually consciously acknowledging the concern.
http://thebeautifulroom.com/promo.html
The introduction to the social networking site poses the question "What if there were a place...where everyone is...beautiful, single, and like-minded." Each of these three characteristics flashes alongside the image/s of a different individual or pair of individuals. First two blonde white women, then one blonde white woman, and finally a dark haired white man. The lyrics, "You're so beautiful" play in the background to club music. "Beauty is the key" scrolls across the screen followed by a description of the room. The site is described as including "Hand selected attractive people" with "equal men to women ratios." The site intro ends with the question, "Do you have the key?" Though "meeting a level of attractiveness" is "just one of many" "component[s]," the membership application requires you to "submit at least one close-up photograph of your face and one full length photograph of your body" for review.
I was flabbergasted when I first saw the site. I wonder exactly what values we're all supposed to share in our "like-minded[ness]." The beauty standard is certainly whiteness here, though there are a token number of people of color shown. For women, blondeness is certainly emphasized, though once again there are exceptions. And heterosexuality is implied, though interestingly enough never directly stated--perhaps indicating a desire to avoid appearances of discrimination without actually consciously acknowledging the concern.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Consumerism, Capitalism, and My Sweater Obsession
There's a professor I work with who has been wearing the same outfit for the last 30 years--at least. Black jeans, white shirt, and tie--he says why should he waste money on clothes when he's working for the revolution. His clothes are sufficiently formal for most occasions and rarely overly so (I will say that one time I saw him running around the track in his uniform, I worried a little). I wish I had his conviction, but I love my clothes.
Planning what pretty thing I'm going to wear is what gets me out of bed in the morning, and to the degree that buys into consumerism, I'm afraid I'm sold. So after reading a bell hooks essay last night about consumerism and thinking about the ways my purchasing politics (GAP, Banana Republic, etc) perpetuate various systematic isms here and abroad, I guiltily but rejoicedly bought 2 sweaters that were on sale today.
What are the politics of the sale purchase? Does the fact that I greatly reduced the store's profit change anything globally? Does whether I shop there at all matter? Probably not, though I don't have the economic knowledge set to really parse the possibilities--which leaves me to think on the local effects of my fashion choices.
There's the sheer bulk of my sweater collection, which causes great fun for my kittens but little fun when I move from locale to locale. More seriously there's the very legible class and gender aspects. I couldn't look more stereotypically white gay male. I had a date accuse me of being a log cabin republican once--it was terrifying. I didn't know the axis of evil had a claim on pinstripe.
But in terms of the message my love of fashion sends, I'm still trying to figure it out. How, when, and to whom to send messages? But I'm still on the lookout for the perfect skirt--which considering my desire to avoid any risqué ankle or hip curve exposure and the tendencies of the fashion industry, may require quite the quest.
Planning what pretty thing I'm going to wear is what gets me out of bed in the morning, and to the degree that buys into consumerism, I'm afraid I'm sold. So after reading a bell hooks essay last night about consumerism and thinking about the ways my purchasing politics (GAP, Banana Republic, etc) perpetuate various systematic isms here and abroad, I guiltily but rejoicedly bought 2 sweaters that were on sale today.
What are the politics of the sale purchase? Does the fact that I greatly reduced the store's profit change anything globally? Does whether I shop there at all matter? Probably not, though I don't have the economic knowledge set to really parse the possibilities--which leaves me to think on the local effects of my fashion choices.
There's the sheer bulk of my sweater collection, which causes great fun for my kittens but little fun when I move from locale to locale. More seriously there's the very legible class and gender aspects. I couldn't look more stereotypically white gay male. I had a date accuse me of being a log cabin republican once--it was terrifying. I didn't know the axis of evil had a claim on pinstripe.
But in terms of the message my love of fashion sends, I'm still trying to figure it out. How, when, and to whom to send messages? But I'm still on the lookout for the perfect skirt--which considering my desire to avoid any risqué ankle or hip curve exposure and the tendencies of the fashion industry, may require quite the quest.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Pop Culture and Kitten Bests
Nothing relates these three thoughts so it obviously needs to be a list:
1-My kitten is such a drama princess I need to start calling her Ms. Thang instead of her actual name.
2-I loathe that Comcast commercial about the "right question" with the monk. It's orientalist bullshit combined with sexist representations of an idiotic woman. Ughh! Pick an ABC show to watch online and I'm sure you will encounter it. I searched for it on youtube to post, but alas, no luck.
3-I am totally in love with Lucy Liu in her new role and just generally. She always plays an intelligent kickass strong woman, and Lucy herself is down for the cause. She's going on strike with the writers in solidarity. Yeah there's some thought there because she recognizes how the writers' cause relates to hers, but don't we all need to be figuring out those connections to each other and our needs.
1-My kitten is such a drama princess I need to start calling her Ms. Thang instead of her actual name.
2-I loathe that Comcast commercial about the "right question" with the monk. It's orientalist bullshit combined with sexist representations of an idiotic woman. Ughh! Pick an ABC show to watch online and I'm sure you will encounter it. I searched for it on youtube to post, but alas, no luck.
3-I am totally in love with Lucy Liu in her new role and just generally. She always plays an intelligent kickass strong woman, and Lucy herself is down for the cause. She's going on strike with the writers in solidarity. Yeah there's some thought there because she recognizes how the writers' cause relates to hers, but don't we all need to be figuring out those connections to each other and our needs.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Racism No Longer Exists: How Fabulous for Us White Folks
New Jersey legislators are currently considering a resolution that apologizes for the state's role in perpetuating slavery. Four other states (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia) have already issued similar statements, and several other states have considered such resolutions. On the federal level, Tennessee Representative Steve Cohen (D) introduced a statement of apology for slavery and Jim Crow-era discrimination (Also of interest, during his first term campaign, Cohen stated that he would seek to join the Congressional Black Caucus. Only upon learning of CBC members' intentions to block his efforts, did he rethink this goal).
But getting back to New Jersey, there were some amazingly idiotic, and unfortunately standard, statements issued in response to the measure by members of the NJ legislature. Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R) said, "But, on a current note, if slavery was the price that a modern American's ancestors had to pay in order to make one an American, one should get down on one's knees every single day and thank the Lord that such price was paid" ("New Jersey Weighs..."). Is he really telling descendents of slaves to be grateful for slavery, as they wouldn't otherwise be Americans? That's perhaps the most patriotic idiocy I've read yet despite our rabid descent into patriotism. Or is he telling white America (who are the only real "Americans" in his interpretation?) to be consider slavery and African American lives a commodity well spent and the economic benefits that issued from their bodies worth whatever moral and human price? In looking back over other attempts to pass like apologies, the denial of any contemporary culpability for slavery was the most common response. There are no longer any slaveholders or former slaves, so nobody's guilty. Or another gem from NJ Assemblyman Carroll: "that debt was more than repaid through the blood and suffering of 650,000 federal soldiers who died or were wounded during the war provoked by slavery."
The continued effects of slavery and racism are, thankfully, a part of the justification for NJ's apology. It states, "the vestiges of slavery are ever before African-American citizens, from the overt racism of hate groups to the subtle racism encountered when requesting health care, transacting business, buying a home, seeking quality public education and college admission, and enduring pretextual traffic stops and other indignities." But opponents of the measure focus only on their inability to repay dead former slaves, the tacit assumption being that race no longer impacts Americans' experiences. Carroll even manages to put an exact price on the lives claimed by slavery--650,000 federal soldiers. That makes white life worth exactly how much more than every black life?
To acknowledge any guilt would require white Americans and government to acknowledge responsibility after all, and that could lead to all kinds of nationally invalidating conversations. Our national mythology is Horatio Alger, the American Dream, a country founded on democratic ideals. To acknowledge the peoples crushed in the construction of that dream: Native Americans, slaves, Chinese Americans building railroads, Japanese Americans interned during WW II, contemporary migrant workers, to name but a few, would require us to relinquish the cherished conception of the U.S. as a meritocracy. Individually, it requires me as a white person to acknowledge the ways white privilege has benefited me--that all my successes are not solely because of my brilliance. And for those of us in less privileged positions, it can make life seem less within our control if hard work will not necessarily lead to successes.
Despite the acknowledgment of the continuing effects of racism upon black Americans, NJ is careful to note, that the "resolution cannot be used in litigation." The measure forecloses any possibility of demands for reparations, and ultimately is a denial of any fiscal or social responsibility. Carefully veiled under official apology is the refusal to entertain any real conversation about the ever-growing debt our nation owes to African Americans or any of its disenfranchised folks. I have no idea where that conversation might lead us. I don't know what shape reparations take or how one values the impact of dehumanizing acts, but it seems important to seriously continue and begin and rebegin the conversation.
Source:
"New Jersey weighs becoming first northern U.S. state to apologize for slavery." International Herald Tribune Press. 1 Jan 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/01/america/NA-GEN-US-Slavery-Apology.php
But getting back to New Jersey, there were some amazingly idiotic, and unfortunately standard, statements issued in response to the measure by members of the NJ legislature. Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R) said, "But, on a current note, if slavery was the price that a modern American's ancestors had to pay in order to make one an American, one should get down on one's knees every single day and thank the Lord that such price was paid" ("New Jersey Weighs..."). Is he really telling descendents of slaves to be grateful for slavery, as they wouldn't otherwise be Americans? That's perhaps the most patriotic idiocy I've read yet despite our rabid descent into patriotism. Or is he telling white America (who are the only real "Americans" in his interpretation?) to be consider slavery and African American lives a commodity well spent and the economic benefits that issued from their bodies worth whatever moral and human price? In looking back over other attempts to pass like apologies, the denial of any contemporary culpability for slavery was the most common response. There are no longer any slaveholders or former slaves, so nobody's guilty. Or another gem from NJ Assemblyman Carroll: "that debt was more than repaid through the blood and suffering of 650,000 federal soldiers who died or were wounded during the war provoked by slavery."
The continued effects of slavery and racism are, thankfully, a part of the justification for NJ's apology. It states, "the vestiges of slavery are ever before African-American citizens, from the overt racism of hate groups to the subtle racism encountered when requesting health care, transacting business, buying a home, seeking quality public education and college admission, and enduring pretextual traffic stops and other indignities." But opponents of the measure focus only on their inability to repay dead former slaves, the tacit assumption being that race no longer impacts Americans' experiences. Carroll even manages to put an exact price on the lives claimed by slavery--650,000 federal soldiers. That makes white life worth exactly how much more than every black life?
To acknowledge any guilt would require white Americans and government to acknowledge responsibility after all, and that could lead to all kinds of nationally invalidating conversations. Our national mythology is Horatio Alger, the American Dream, a country founded on democratic ideals. To acknowledge the peoples crushed in the construction of that dream: Native Americans, slaves, Chinese Americans building railroads, Japanese Americans interned during WW II, contemporary migrant workers, to name but a few, would require us to relinquish the cherished conception of the U.S. as a meritocracy. Individually, it requires me as a white person to acknowledge the ways white privilege has benefited me--that all my successes are not solely because of my brilliance. And for those of us in less privileged positions, it can make life seem less within our control if hard work will not necessarily lead to successes.
Despite the acknowledgment of the continuing effects of racism upon black Americans, NJ is careful to note, that the "resolution cannot be used in litigation." The measure forecloses any possibility of demands for reparations, and ultimately is a denial of any fiscal or social responsibility. Carefully veiled under official apology is the refusal to entertain any real conversation about the ever-growing debt our nation owes to African Americans or any of its disenfranchised folks. I have no idea where that conversation might lead us. I don't know what shape reparations take or how one values the impact of dehumanizing acts, but it seems important to seriously continue and begin and rebegin the conversation.
Source:
"New Jersey weighs becoming first northern U.S. state to apologize for slavery." International Herald Tribune Press. 1 Jan 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/01/america/NA-GEN-US-Slavery-Apology.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)