Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts

Thursday, September 16, 2010

On Being Black, Female, and Queer

When you first came out in college, you used to wonder what was harder: being black, being a woman, or being queer (specifically, bisexual). You quickly decided that your answer to that question would depend on the day someone asked you. Sometime later you decided that the question was useless and a waste of time. In your mid-twenties now, you’ve long realized that what’s hardest is being all three of those things.

You’re writing this post not to whine or call for pity but rather to add another voice to queer women of color, an identity and large group of individuals often unheard and overlooked in American culture.

You can’t say that it’s harder being black, or that it’s harder being a woman, etc. because, in many ways, it’s all situational. For instance, in a mostly white environment, your identity as a black person is on display and, subsequently, causes you significantly more stress, making you vulnerable to everything from overt racism to covert racism. Living in Iowa City, dealing with a mostly intellectual and college-educated crowd of northern white folks, you’ve encountered much less overt racism, although the sometimes constant barrage of covert racism makes you prefer the overt sort. It’s made you realize that perhaps, as Dave Chappelle said, you prefer racism that’s out and in the open, just so you know where you stand with someone upfront.

Your identity as a female obviously finds itself on display when you’re surrounded by men, when you walk alone at night and feel that oppressive fear for your safety. Yet you’re rarely very wary of walking alone at night if the area is well-lit, as you’ve always felt that you can probably handle yourself pretty well. You consciously carry yourself with an obvious sort of seriousness and strength, so as to prevent yourself from being viewed as an easy target. And that strategy has worked so far. During the few run-ins you’ve had, however, you’ve learned that going completely apeshit – all 13 curse words – usually works well, as far as getting aggressive men off your back.

For instance, one night you were out and about, heading toward your car, and some random guy came up to you and started trying to be aggressive. You happened to be wearing slightly provocative clothes that night, and this guy decided that meant it was okay for him to get all up in your personal space. He actively followed you for a block, until you turned around, faced him and released an abundance of swear words on him, beginning with, “What the fu@k is your fu@king problem?” He promptly mumbled some half-assed apology and turned and walked away, after you concluded by telling him you would fu@k him up if he didn’t walk away. Whether or not you could’ve effectively fu@ked him up is beside the point: the point is you would have certainly tried, meaning, this man would have been in for a serious fight. He understood that, and moved on.

On the other hand, your identity as a queer person becomes a problem usually whenever you find myself surrounded by conservative black people — or conservative people of any race. Not because black people are more homophobic. But because you’ve simply had more run-ins with overt homophobia from black people than from anyone else. However, typically, you surround yourself with open-minded folks, black or whatever color, so you experience very little homophobia, overt or covert, in your daily life. Iowa City is apparently the third gayest city in the country, so your experience with homophobia here is significantly lessened, so much that you forget that Iowa City is kind of an anomaly in that way. You only receive that jolt back to the reality of life outside Iowa City when you see threads on Facebook where people unleash all their homophobia unabashedly, or when you hear yet another story about your sister (who is married to a woman) and her trials with homophobic co-workers constantly plotting to make her life miserable on account of her sexuality. She is not one to hide her sexuality, and you don’t blame her. But it makes her an easy target to homophobic folks around her in good ole Little Rock, Arkansas.

While you don’t hide your sexuality, you don’t necessarily display it either. Furthermore, you tend to operate from the belief that your sexuality is your business and that you don’t owe anyone disclosure (besides a potentially intimate partner). Like your sister, you look ostensibly heterosexual to most folks. But unlike your sister you don’t have a wife, and, as such, you have the ability to pass for hetero, whether you choose to do so or not. Because you’re bisexual, you’re often dating men so no one assumes that you’re anything other than heterosexual. As far as dealing with homophobia, your life is significantly easier because of all these factors. However, you’ve had to deal with biphobia a lot from both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Meaning, you’ve had to deal with all those silly and oppressive commonly-accepted labels that people attach to bisexuals: confused, slutty, indecisive, greedy, potentially diseased. In other words, you’ve had to deal with the intense alienation and sense of inferiority that comes with being viewed that way by so many people. To be bisexual is often to feel that you have no real allies.

Each of these separate experiences (as black person, as woman, as queer) on their own only slightly capture the wholesale alienation that your identity as a black female queer (be it bisexual or lesbian) entails. To have all these separate experiences of alienation is to experience an alienation so severe that it is practically incomparable. The invisibility is unimaginably intense. You’re sure any queer woman of color (be she black, Latino, Asian, or whatever) will echo your sentiments on this point. It goes like this:

Many people of the dominant group inadvertently or intentionally dismiss your humanity on account of your color, so you try to align yourself with people who look like you, black folks in your case. But you find your humanity questioned by so many of them, on account of your sexuality – many of them dismissing queerness as a “white thing” and, thus, in their rhetoric inadvertently erasing the existence of queer people of color. So you try to align yourself with queer culture so as to find some respect and community, but you quickly realize that the queer community is most often not only white-oriented but male-oriented, not to mention anti-bisexual in large part. Nonetheless, you – black, female, and queer – find your identity dismissed at every level.

In summary, you find yourself made invisible – within white culture, within your ethnic culture, within gay culture. The luckiest of you manage to live in cities where there are thriving lesbian and gay communities of color. While you are not that lucky, you are fortunate enough to have been able to find a group of open-minded friends, most of them black and straight, who are not tolerant – you hate that word, as it implies that one is simply “putting up with” someone they believe, at heart, to be inferior on some level, as such still viewing that person as an “other.” Instead, these friends are human beings who in no way “other” you because of your sexuality. You and your friends are all simply people trying to keep it moving in this crazy world.

****

I’m writing this post because, as I intend to embark on a legal career and devote my energies to improving the conditions of African-American life, I have been thinking about how troubling it is to ally myself with people, half of whom hate or look down on me because of my sexuality. Few things hurt my heart more than being literally or rhetorically spat upon by people who look like me, simply because my sexuality happens to differ from theirs, because of something I simply can’t (and wouldn’t) change. I can deal with receiving hate (or belittling pity) from white people, but it truly hurts to receive hate from people I consider my own, from people with whom I share such a unique historical legacy. But, at the end of the day, none of that hate deters me from wanting to dedicate my life to African-Americans (be they queer or straight) in our constant struggle for respect and freedom in this country. Despite receiving all that hate, my love for my people never fades. And, hopefully, it never will.

Pictured above: Queen Latifah and long-time girlfriend Jeanette Jenkins; Wanda Sykes and her wife.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Back to the Future Series - "The Problem"

The last time we got together, we began dialoguing about the lasting effects slavery has had on America. As we continue, let's dig a bit deeper...


Before attempting to solve any problem, you have to first define it. Only then will you have adequate information to determine its effects and find a solution.



THE PROBLEM: "Mentacide"



For African-Americans, we have had to endure physical abuse - everything from hundreds of whips on our backs to our necks hanging in nooses, while swinging from trees - the likes of which society urges us to forget. As grotesque (and unwarranted) as these actions against the black race was, I am inclined to argue that the lasting mental effects slavery has produced are far worse than the temporary physical results. Carter G. Woodson, known as the Father of Black History, stated, "when you control a man's thinking, you do not have to worry about his actions." The most devastating impact slavery has had on African Americans is not physical, but rather, psychological. Centuries after slavery has ended, many African Americans are still mentally chained to the plantation.



However, as mentioned in my intro blog to this series, MENTACIDE not only affects African Americans, but also affects White Americans as well. How naive to think that we (blacks, whites, and other races) all live together, but are unaffected by the same things. The impact of how events affect us all can be likened to a city that is shaken by an earthquake. The rumblings of the earth show no favor in the foundations of the homes they shake, destruction of bridges and roadways, or lives they happen to take - but at the end of the disaster, the damage is undeniable. Just as a natural disaster can devastate an entire community, a social tragedy (such as slavery), can leave a society in shambles.








African Americans are bombarded with negative pieces of information that conveniently highlight our inability to...for lack of better terminology, GET IT TOGETHER - BUT, are our white counterparts as together as some would like to believe? In my opinion, the answer is simple. NO.


While many African Americans live in an irrational belief of inferiority and fear, just as many White Americans live in a state of superiority and denial. This flawed thought process on both parties' parts is directly related to the master/slave relationship blacks and whites had during slavery. The dynamics and resulting actions of this defective bond has been ingrained in all of our brains and behaviors over many generations...and of course, it will take more than one generation to reverse its effects.



Speaking of 'its' effects, that is the subject of our next conversation. So, let's meditate and let this marinate. Until next month, speak your piece...







"In order to liberate the [Black] mind, we have to change and fundamentally transform the consciousness of the [Black] individual." - Gershom Williams



This liberation applies to ALL minds.


Contact Ms Qui at: msquivive@gmail.com






Thursday, July 29, 2010

President Obama and the “Cool Black Man” Persona: Roundtable



From President Obama's college years
Ever since the primaries, many black people accused him of not being black enough, but they were quickly silenced (consider this season’s episode of The Boondocks that focused on the black community’s silencing of black critics of President Obama). Now, after the President’s cool response to the oil spill, we even have some white liberals (i.e. Bill Maher) accusing him of not being black enough. These accusations have one thing in common: they stem from a disapproval of Obama’s coolness, or, in other words, his refusal or inability to display anger. Do we want him to get heated, for a change? What's the problem with his cool approach? Why is this an important topic of discussion in terms of race


I think the Black male is often associated with violence, and it's difficult for people to see a mixed race President (named Barack Hussein Obama) who doesn't live up to that age-old stereotype. I think one of our readers mentioned in an earlier post how people like to categorize one another. Clearly, people don't know what to make of him 'cause he is cool. Just think about that strut across the lawn at Pennsylvania Ave. and the calmness he exuded during the debates that led him to the presidency. He's a BAD man! But no matter what he does, it won't be right in the eyes of everyone else. Long after he's out of office, people will still be talking. Guess what, they aren't the President either! So why should it matter? To me, Obama is doing just what he should be doing, which is all he absolutely can do in his power.


You're right, Ms. Mashari, he IS a "BAD" man (shut yo mouth!). But, see the problem is, he's not bad in that Shaft/Gangsta/Samuel L. Jackson sort of way. Obama ain't the kind of negro that's going to snap all of a sudden on the Republicans and be like, "Look, muthaf@%kers, I don said it once and I ain't saying it twice! Ya'll gon pass this health care bill!" I admit, even I am guilty of wanting Obama to get angry once in a while, to display some emotion, to be a little less cerebral and a little more emotional. (It's not because I have no other way of understanding black masculinity, however. It's more so because I understand people in general better when I see them display emotion. People who are always always level-headed, no matter what the crisis, simply vex me; I feel like I can never really understand such a person).

White America (and maybe even black America) is used to the angry black man image I just mentioned: white Americans both love it and fear it. Unfortunately, the worse thing President Obama could do politically is get angry, because it's a guarantee he'll lose some much-needed support from whites (while he might regain some steadily waning support from brown and black folks in this country). It's a guarantee that you'll have white America shouting several things:

1) "That's right! That's right!," white liberals will shout, and from then on expect the angry Obama to make appearances occasionally, especially in favor of their causes.

2) "That's just incredibly unprofessional and not a good look for our country," white moderates will groan, from then on expecting the man to never ever exhibit the slightest emotion, for even the slightest emotion will hark back to angry Obama,

3) "See, I told you they are all angry and violent," white conservatives will say, and proceed to search for violent past behavior from Obama's youth in order to further invalidate his humanity and turn him into a stereotype of black masculinity

Sigh. The man is in a precarious situation. If I were him, I would choose my moments carefully, but I would not choose to remain always completely calm so as to avoid the stereotype. Ultimately, being stereotyped as a black person is unavoidable. Any wise person knows that, and I would hope that he knows it. Look, his wife merely said she was for once proud to be an American, when he won the primaries, and they painted her as a fist-in-the-air-afro-wearing black panther sort (I wish) and Michelle couldn't be further from that.


Is it just me...or aren't there more important things at the White House (and in the world) to worry about?? Clinton was known for his charm, Bush was known for his, well...lack of intelligence, and now, Obama is known for being “cool.” What's the big deal? I happen to appreciate and have mad respect for anyone who can remain tactful under extreme scrutiny and pressure...

Although Obama DOES seem to keep his cool, I wouldn't expect anything otherwise from a person with his leadership responsibility of ANY race...

Though it WOULD be funny to me if he gave the masses what they were looking for one day!


LOL, Miss Berneta! I remind you that Obama's campaign slogan was a "Change We Can Believe In," and that change meant a new attitude, a new swag, and a "NEW BAD." Think about it, he's mixed race and was raised by his Caucasian mother, having been exposed to a multitude of cultures and raised in Hawaii and overseas until middle school or so, and people really want to see Obama go Black Dynamite a time or two. Yeah, right! It seems like some of us signed up for the change, but weren't quite ready for just what the change meant. A cool dude that just happens to be brown skinned, wears his trousers a little high but looks just dandy doing it, and remains calm under a world of pressure. Miss Qui, like you, I'm enamored by the man we call Mr. President and I applaud him for what LL Cool J calls "doin' it well.


I don’t know about the you guys... but I am kinda tired of these age old stereotypes just because he’s a black man... now you’re telling me that there are white liberals saying "he’s not black enough." That just sounds way too ignorant to me. What is Not Black Enough?? Exactly? How do you act "black" ( or as i use to ask as a child... " how so you act a color?")? Just because he’s African American does that mean he has to be Angry, short tempered? Etc, etc? To me, this really just boils down to ignorance. Personally, I like a strong yet cool demeanor, which is how Obama comes across to me. There are other ways of showing strength, and it’s not always blowing up and showing emotion all the time... actually... he probably displays more strength in NOT letting his emotions get the best of him.

Miss Berneta

I agree with your sentiments entirely, Mz. Kewe. Although, I have to say that whenever I hear a black person indignantly ask, "How do you act black?" in debates like this, I automatically shake my head. Lol. No matter how bourgie we all are, we ALL know what it means when someone says you're acting black (and, likewise, that you're acting white). Let's not even pretend.

But like you said, Mz. Kewe, there are other ways of showing strength. Personally, I think all the hubbub about his temperament distracts us from some of the real work (for better or for worse) that President Obama is doing and also neglecting to do.

Positive stuff he's done: health care bill (albeit it's a watered-down version);
executive order to protect queer individuals’ right to see their partner when/if his/her partner is hospitalized; loan forgiveness for individuals who have dedicated 10 years to public service; extending unemployment benefits.

Negatives (stuff he's done or failed to do): hasn't repealed the anti-prostitution clause in our HIV/AIDS funding program (
which basically prevents any organization that supports sex workers from received funding from the program); the huge corporate bailouts; merit-based teacher's program; took abortion coverage out of the health care bill; he put Elena Kagan, yet another Harvard (inexperienced) law professor, one of his buddies, on the Supreme court (now, all but one of the justices is a Harvard or Yale graduate).

I could go on and on with this second list for sure. But all this…this is the stuff we should be talking about. And the whole focus on Obama's temperament is a mere distraction that's working in his and his administration's favor and not in our, the people's, favor.

Mz. Kewe

Do we really all know the "what acting black or white” is? Even if so...does it not change the ignorance, given the fact that defining what is black and what is white varies from each individual to the next? For me, I feel that characteristics of an African American male would be Pride, egotistical, protector and strong. I, personally, never associated angry or temperamental behavior exclusively to a black man. (Actually, I hear it more associated with black women.) Now these are my personal opinions about their characteristics, not to say I'm right or not to say I'm wrong, but this goes to show that not everyone has the same idea of how a person of a certain race should act. If I were to judge a black man and say that he's "not acting black" according to MY belief of what a black man should act like, that's total ignorance because his beliefs may differ from mine. What do these white liberal believe characteristic of a black man should be? Do all of them agree? I'm sure we could find some individuals out there that would say " oh yea... he's definitely a “n*66a" just because he does have a cool calm demeanor. I heard an interview he did for a radio show in NY while he was campaigning and one of the hosts asked jokingly " so Mr Obama, do you still have sex with your wife?" And Obama replied jokingly as well: " as for my wife, that's none of your business" and all the hosts of the show laughed and said "he IS a BLACK MAN Y'ALL!" So, according to their definition... Obama meets it. I know I'm rambling and probably over stressing my point (as usual) but the fact is everyone’s definition of how a certain race of people acts varies from person to person, so in essence saying someone isn't acting the way they should according to what race they are IS ignorance.

What is your take on this topic?

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Black and Unwanted: Prejudice and Stereotypes in Bold Letters

By GuestBug Brittany



If you live in the state of Arkansas, specifically, Little Rock, North Little Rock, or the Pine Bluff area, you may have noticed a new billboard has popped up in high traffic areas. A photo of a Black (African American) baby, blended into a solid black background, sets a somber tone. What catches one off guard is the text. In big gold letters it reads, “Black & Unwanted”; below that in smaller letters, “Too Many Aborted.com”.

The “Black and Unwanted” billboards in Arkansas are sponsored by the nonprofit group, Arkansas Right to Life. Recently, local news stations (such as Fox 16 and Today’s THV) have covered community reactions to the signs, which have began to garner controversy. However, the signs are not the brain child of ARL. In fact, the signs began going up in the state of Georgia by the Radiance Foundation. According to ARL and the Toomanyaborted.com site, the ads are targeted toward the Black community because it has a high rate of abortion despite being the minority group. The billboards are an integral part of a movement to bring attention to the rate of abortions in the Black community.

When one delves deeper into the Toomanyaborted.com site, there are statistics everywhere. But none of them seem to support the message of the billboards. Instead, they seem to provide basic facts and figures without explanations and connections. The site includes chart after chart, divided by race in relation to the annual percentages. Most charts are based on the 2008 Arkansas statistics, which show White Americans as the primary recipients of abortions, having approximately 58% of the 4,789 abortions documented. So, does this data confirm what the ads are targeting? To really heat it up, why are they targeted at Blacks? Who is behind the ads?

Background: The Radiance Foundation, was cofounded by Ryan Bomberger. His accolades include his time advocating for adoption and foster care, mentoring and other community projects. Bomberger also has an Emmy for Creative Production. There is also Catherine Davis, Tufts University Magna Cum Laude, activist for “Operation Outrage”, a group that “educates Georgians about the holocaustic impact abortion has had on the Black community”. Both contacts are Black and appear to be pro-life, based on the information they are provide on the site.

Whether the founders of the movement are black or not is almost irrelevant. Their campaign has a targeted audience for a hot topic that is bringing attention to the current generations of the black community. It is obviously doing just that. Still there is a boldness that doesn’t seem justified.

What makes the signs controversial lies on the surface and deep within the black community. The initial response is that the wording, black and unwanted, rubs the reader the wrong way. The words spark an offensive reaction, whether for or against it. It is also odd that the sponsoring group, toomanyaborted.com, also has another ad, “Endangered Species” that is not displayed (to date) in Arkansas. This raises the question of whose perception is more important, the actual black community OR those who pay for the billboards.

Another response is that the wording is playing on the fears of others in the black community, who have for years, believed that planned parenting clinics provide ways to create population control. Ironically, one of the signs in Little Rock is about two blocks away from a planned parenting clinic (University and 12th street). Then, there is the deeply rooted taboo and stigma associated with abortions in the black community. Abortion has always been a very strong subject that you just do not bring up in a black household, regardless of how liberal it may be. It is one of those skeletons in the closet that comes out only when let out.

Personally, I think the wording works against the message (despite the statistics). “Unwanted” seems to carry the subliminal message that “black” is unwanted, a belief that has been rooted in perceptions of the black community since it came about. Sidenote: Black has been associated with bad, evil, disliked, forbidden, and exotic since cultures developed language. Some scholars believe that Africans are black because they are the descendants of a cursed race. If you remember your history lessons, in psychological experiments in the 50s and 60s, black children would pick the white doll as the prettiest, despite their own color. Fast forwarding to the modern time period, think of all the cries during Katrina (including Kayne’s infamous anti-Bush comment) in which media and advocates called foul on the treatment of blacks. So to say that Black is Unwanted is almost a blatant show of prejudice, discrimination, disrespect, and so many other forms of it.

The question that arises from this type of media is whether the black community will be open to the discussions that may stem from it. The black community has been stereotyped as a group that has opinions but are not willing to address them on a public scale. Yes, there have been marches. Yes, there are groups who advocate for black rights. However, the issue of billboard that states “black and unwanted” is something that should spark smaller discussions in the community—to address those taboo issues which we continue to avoid. While the sign itself seems to cry for attention (which it has garnered), maybe it is time to use this material to have healthy debates on some of the other issues within the black community.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

So What’s Wrong With Voting for an Unemployed Black Military Veteran (Who's Facing Felony Charges)?


Apparently everything is wrong with it, according to many folks, including leaders in the Democratic Party, members of the media, and Youtubers and commentators throughout the blogosphere. After native South Carolinian Alvin Greene beat Vic Rawl, a well-known former legislator and judge in the state, the Democratic Party flew into an outrage. Immediately, accusations that the Republicans had planted Greene hit the media waves. Now, Vic Rawl and party leaders are suggesting voting machine irregularities may be to blame. See, what’s amazing is that Greene spent very little money and didn’t bother to put out campaign signs or create a website. According to Greene, with the help of his family and friends, he simply called folks and went door to door to average citizens in South Carolina and listened to their thoughts and complaints. What did he hear? That people were fed up with the unemployment situation, that they wanted better healthcare and better education. Rather than seeking to raise dollars, he sought out voters. Oldschool, grassroots campaigning.

Well, both South Carolina’s Democratic Representative Jim Clyburn and the party’s state leader Carol Fowler asked Alvin Greene to withdraw. What are their grounds? They suspect shady origins of the $10,440 Greene paid as a filing fee to the Democratic Party. Greene maintains that the money was two years of savings from his military earnings.

To make matters worse, the man has a felony charge from more than six months ago that has yet to go to court. Of course, the media is treating him as though he is already guilty or has been convicted. The felony charge stems from a case that is dodgy, at best. According to the alleged victim, 19-year old Camille McCoy, while at a campus library at the University of South Carolina, Greene pulled up some sexually obscene images on his computer screen, showed them to her, laughed, and then asked if she’d like to go back to her dorm room with him. Greene will not speak about the case.

So, now that you have all the facts, so to speak, here’s my opinion.

About the alleged crime: personally, I find the scenario creepy, but certainly not warranting a felony charge. I hardly even think a misdemeanor is appropriate in this case.

About his unemployment: so what? In some major U.S. cities, like Detroit, the unemployment rate is as high as 15% and 20% amongst African-Americans. I'd say that makes Greene a pretty typical victim of our recession.

I think that folks are most angry that an everyday, average Joe somehow managed to sneak into the election, which, like all elections, are unofficially reserved for rich and (let’s just be honest) white men with elite educations and no criminal backgrounds. Let’s face it: our Supreme court is dominated largely by Yale and Harvard graduates. Only two justices (one after Kagan is sworn in) are not from one of those universities. For the last twenty years, the White House has been dominated by Yale and Harvard graduates: George H.W. Bush (Yale), Bill Clinton (Yale), George W. Bush (Yale and Harvard), and Barack Obama (Harvard). Greene's Democratic opponent, Vic Rawl, has a law school education. We reserve politics for the wealthy and for those from elite educational backgrounds.

Greene is not uneducated though, having received a bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of South Carolina in 2000.

But he is, ultimately, the total opposite of those things we've come to expect from our politicians. He's poor, unemployed, black, average. Add to all that his less than clean criminal background, and we can see why the Democrats are so outraged.

As a result of this controversy, I've developed a new slogan for the Democratic Party: a party that stands for “the people” but which refuses to let any of the “the people” stand for themselves. In my view, Alvin Greene is one of the people, ostensibly trying to stand for himself and the people. Yeah, he may not be the most articulate. Yeah, he may not have a squeaky clean background or a fancy education. But the man is an average American. Shouldn’t average Americans have a chance to represent themselves, to enter the world of politics and make a difference?

What are your thoughts on Greene? Are folks just hating on him because he doesn't fit the typical politician profile? Or, do you think folks have a legitimate reason to be concerned?