the motherlode

i am fully aware i haven't blogged in well over two months. maybe i'm getting better at managing my anger, and have less of a need to blog? heh. well anyways, yesterday i hit the motherlode, if you will, as far as things that make me angry enough to rant about for pages. its called the motherlode blog on the new york times. or more specifically, this post by guess blogger "nicole sprinkle" (more on ludicrous last names in a bit).

so to summarize as briefly as possible. this is an "essay" (scare quotes to indicate that its neither well-written nor well-argued) by a white woman who married a colombian man, had a child, and began to systematically destroy her child's life by filling her with self-loathing. or, to put it in the words of so many of the commenters on the blog, it is a "brave and courageous" essay which takes an "honest" look at race, and should be applauded. apparently now the standard for decency when it comes to race relations is something along the lines of "i'm a huge fucking racist, but as long as i admit it, i'm being progressive." die.

ok i digress. so i was originally planning on just pointing out some of the horrifyingly racist things the author throws out in this essay as though they're no big deal (hoping her child will be just hispanic enough to get a scholarship, exoticizing her american-raised husband by expecting him to speak to their child in only spanish, worrying about the negative effects dominican nannies might have on her child's upper-class development, etc etc etc barf). As i went through the blog listing "things i found terribly offensive," though, the list grew so long i began to suspect i might be there forever. so i'm scratching that, and i'm just going to try to make a very broad point about this essay, and the incredible sadness i feel for this poor, poor child.

the main point of this essay, and the crux of my anger, is the idea that as a wealthy, white, straight parent, you are within your rights to try to mold your child's life to look more like your own to 'protect them' from adversity. Parents want their children to be happy, and for some reason they think the only road to happiness is the one lined with silver spoons which they themselves traveled. I doubt there are any such parents reading this right now, but i'll throw out some advice anyways: your child will never be happy if she knows her parents only love the white part of her, the straight part of her, or whatever other part they might most identify with. This "Sprinkle" woman (henceforth known as Cupcake McWhitey) seems to think that if she micromanages every aspect of her child's development, teaching just enough spanish to be charming and exotic, but not enough that anyone would question her whiteness, not enough that anyone might EVER discriminate against her, her child will have a great life. this is incorrect. if no one ever discriminates against her, that child will have a terrible life because she will grow up to be a person of color who is completely unaware of the racism that permeates the society in which she lives. this is tragic, because it means she won't CARE, and won't contribute to changing society in a positive way. it is also dangerous, because it means she won't be aware of the potential that someone WILL eventually discriminate against her. since of course, despite her mother's best efforts, she will still NOT BE WHITE.

i don't know that many new mothers, but i have known one too many gay friend whose parents rejected their gayness because they don't want their child to have any more hardship in life. parenting fail. in a big way. the moral of the story is, you can't change who your child is, but as a parent it is your responsibility to raise that child not to be the person you wish they were, but to be healthy and happy being the person they are. obviously raising a healthy and happy child is hard work, but if you can't even attempt to do that, you really should not have had children.

smile for the colonizer

so one of my friends called me today with a story (calm down, this is not just frivolous: i have a point to make here). I am going to relay that story to you. then i'm going to relay a story of my own. then i'm going to bitch about both of them, and if we're all lucky, i'll come to some sort of conclusion. ok, so now that you have an outline, let's begin:

Story 1: two of my friends (both black) were having brunch at a restaurant in harlem. a few tables over was a french couple taking a break from their bike tour of the city, very excited to be in historic harlem! there was no one sitting in between them. In my friend's words,

"a mariah carey song came on. it might have been vision of love. (friend 1) put his hand up in the air, and i started to do a little jig in my chair. next thing you know, this french woman LEAPS out of her chair and snaps a picture of us."

dang. and of course, the french woman thought nothing was wrong, and was THRILLED to have gotten a picture of the harlem natives, celebrating their people's music over sunday brunch.


Story 2: i was recently in India on a work trip (i like this story already because it misleads the reader into thinking i have a job that pays me enough to live in this crazy city). It was just me, my boss, and someone we shall henceforth refer to as "the colonizer," even though technically my boss is british, and she is not. anyways, we were in this like, for lack of a better word, botanic garden (long story. it was made mainly of rocks.), and we had stopped to take pictures by a waterfall. the colonizer took a lot of pictures, we milled around for a while, and then got ready to move on. as we were leaving that particular area, we passed by two indian children splashing in the water. their mother and father were nearby, and the father was trying to get them to hold still for a picture. my boss commented that it was going to be a cute picture, and the colonizer, agreeing and giddy with excitement, ran up and snapped a picture of the children. as the mother turned her shocked face towards the colonizer, i quietly fled the scene and pretended like i was not traveling with anyone that day.



Commence the bitching: ok so here's the thing - what is WRONG with people? and i guess more to the point, what is wrong with Western culture? the whole world doesn't have enough fingers to count the number of pictures Americans and Europeans have snapped of people and children of color while on their travels, thrilled to get a picture that really captures the exotic nature of whatever place they happen to be in. and i can bet you about one bajillion dollars that not a single one of those picture-snappers has ever had the desire to photograph a white stranger eating brunch, standing by a waterfall, or just standing still enough to be secretly photographed. I don't think i need to explain to you why this is a problem. what i do want to know, though, is how can so many people continue to be so incredibly ignorant of their own privilege, and of their constant exoticization and other-ization of anyone who is not white? How can you, an american visitor in another country, go through the whole physical motion of spotting a complete stranger, taking our your camera, aiming, focusing, and shooting without ever thinking "i wonder if what i'm doing might make that person uncomfortable." seriously, how? and for those of you reading this who really enjoy doing that, imagine it happening to you. you're sitting at brunch, and a tourist walks up, snaps a picture of you, and then coos over how positively AMERICAN it is! god. its offensive, degrading, and frankly just shocking that so many people continue to think its just normal.


so i guess the point is, i wish people would learn some respect. i don't photograph you and your children without asking (and frankly, i don't ask, either), and i hope you'll do me the same courtesy. because i'm not a fucking landmark, or a cultural experience, i'm a person who doesn't need you ruining my day by reminding me i'm actually an 'other.' i get reminded of that enough without having a permanent record of it stored on your camera's memory card.

on a similar note...

i know, i know, i wrote that other post a while ago so i cant just pick up where i left off as if a week hasn't gone by. wait, yes i can. this is my blog and i do what i want.

so like i mentioned, my "pet peeve" (and by pet peeve, i mean thing that makes me go into a blind rage) is when people are completely lacking self-awareness and/or the desire to think self-critically. one of the areas of life where this seems to be coming out more and more (and thus bothering me more and more) is of course the presidential race.

reading blogs is like, the new fun thing with kids these days, and since i quit celebrity gossip, my attempts to be cool have mainly revolved around various politically-minded blogs. recently, however, i've begun to run out of blogs to read because i've had to delete them from my favorites, one by one, as they become too frustrating to enjoy. here is the conundrum: all of the black people blogs i read support obama and hate clinton to the point where they refuse to acknowledge any sexism in the race, or any flaws in obama's campaign or his politics. the feminist-type blogs i read support clinton and hate obama in a conveniently mirror-image approach.

to anyone who fits one of those descriptions, i would like to pose a question: what the fuck is wrong with your brain? or, in the words of one of my friends from work, "its like a brain trauma ward in here." is it that you just want the other side to see your point SO badly that you exaggerate to the point of untruth? do you think you'll look weak if you admit that they're right on certain points? newsflash: this is not middle school, its real life. racism and sexism both exist. fucking deal with it, get over yourselves, and stop pretending like you have some sort of moral high ground when you KNOW you don't.

or more disturbing: perhaps you really don't know. maybe i'm just reading the opinions of a lot of black men who have never in their lives thought about or cared about the privilege they get from being male, and who have never bothered to notice sexism, and a bunch of white women who've done the same thing with their privileged status in this society as white. possibly the only thing that makes me more angry than a rich white male who is comfortable in his privilege is a minority who thinks that this one thing that makes him/her different from that rich white male is the most important thing in society. which brings me back to my point from my last post: not all of us have that luxury.

anyways, its late and it would be unwise for me to start lecturing you on intersectionality because frankly my spelling is deteriorating as we speak. but my point i guess is this: if the so-called 'liberals' in this country can't even open their eyes wide enough to see each other, we deserve another 8 years of bush.

also i'm expatriating.

Dizzaaammmn

Best video I've seen in 2008.  Most gangster old white man I've ever seen.

Fox Reporter Owned by White Priest

economics can bite me.

i'm sure it has its benefits, but at harvard, "economics" means you don't have to learn anything EXCEPT economics. aka you will turn out an idiot with a fancy degree to make you think you're smart.

i'm trying to blog less about harvard because, well, i've moved on. and i think its best if harvard knew that and stopped trying to call. but its sort of difficult to let go completely when harvard just keeps making an ass out of itself. every once in a while i'm inspired (aka someone points me to a crimson article) and i feel compelled to say something about it. this is one of those times.

the subject: "a crack in the glass ceiling" written by, surprise surprise, someone without much experience, knowledge, or writing skill.

ok so as usual i have too much to say. i will try to break it down into a brief summary, followed by bullet points (or maybe numbers. i have yet to decide). that way you can just read the ones you want, but i still get to say everything i feel like saying.

summary: in an attempt to spin the democratic primary race in a new way (admittedly hard to do these days), sophomore brian j. bolduc has written an article which (possibly unintentionally) is really quite racist and sexist. the point he is TRYING to make (i think?) is actually one i kind of agree with: that electing a black man or a white woman president will probably not end racism or sexism. the points he actually manages to make with the body of his article are that jim crow wasn't a big deal, black people are oppressed because they don't get married enough, japanese people have superior work ethic to blacks and whites (but no political will/skills), and women would have equal standing in society if they would just stop having babies.

ah. i love it when people try to make complex arguments without even thinking at all, much less reading anything outside of the ec assignment that clearly inspired the article. it makes my job almost TOO easy. i almost don't even want to argue with this dude. but i will.

ok point 1 (say, i decided to go with numbers!): the pregnancy thing - no duh women have babies. and yes, the fact that they often have to take time off from work to do this contributes to their earning less/getting promoted less/getting fired more. congratulations on figuring this out, i don't think anyone has ever thought of it before. no, no wait, that can't be right. oh yes, its all coming back to me now: turns out there are actually ways to NOT punish a woman for giving birth. there are also ways of allowing the husband or partner of a new mother to participate in the whole "taking care of a baby" process so the woman who physically gave birth is not the only person legally able to take time off work. wow. crazy. i'm not even going to get into the fact that i think this dude referred to procreation as a "lifestyle choice" in his article. i guess i'm just glad that for once he wasn't talking about the gays?

2: for someone who seems so gung-ho about economics and statistics and empirical proof, i feel that this sentence feel somehow a tad short: "Married couples share certain qualities that make them more likely to succeed." ah. so when barack obama says “…many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” that's a generalization and a confusing of the facts. but when you say married couples are more likely to succeed, that just makes sense. the consistency literally astounds me. i'm speechless. i need to go lie down.

3: i realize i could go on for days about these little things, so let me address the major problem in the article - its complete incoherence. he's trying to make a distinction between political success and economic success, but is confused. pointing out that the economic situation of blacks improved before civil rights legislation was passed is an interesting factoid, but what does it mean? is he trying to suggest that there is no relationship at all between economic standing and social standing? is he confusing "politics" to mean pretty much anything that is not economics? does he believe that proving two things are not directly correlated proves that they are completely separate? honestly, i'm asking. because nowhere in the article does he make this clear. if i were to guess, i'd say he's trying to say that "political" forces, aka social forces, aka racism, have nothing to do with economics. and in order to prove that fact, he's tried to reduce the complex history of race in this country to an interaction (or lack thereof) of two very narrowly defined forces. obviously there's more going on - education, the economy of the nation, various social and political movements, and changes in the housing economy to name just a few things, but to try and address the interplay of these issues would be impossible in a one-page article. so instead, just write something that makes no sense!


the most irritating thing about this article really, is just that its another in a string of articles for as long as i've been reading the crimson that are just bad: they don't make sense, they're poorly written, and they contain various forms of racism and misogyny lightly veiled as 'science.' i get that its a college newspaper and that people without that much education are writing for it, and i get that learning how to be a journalist is just that - a learning process. but i fail to see how anyone can become a better writer through producing shit like this and having an editor just give it the green light with no criticism. the crimson needs to really start holding its writers to higher standards - the paper would improve, and the writers would actually learn something. which, clearly, they're not doing in class. so it may be their only hope.

penalty on the court

Damn. I'm not even going to begin to comment, this article says it all. Please read and comment what you think.

LeBron James first Black man to pose for cover of Vogue magazine. Find out why this is ass after clicking the link.

extremely on point

Star Jones own'd Bill O'Reilly.

reimagining the coloreds

If you know me then you probably know that I really enjoy fashion, not in the sense of "oh I look so good" but in watching the industry's trends, consumption patterns and news and such (also sometimes I look good ;). I'm not as on top of it as I'd like to be, but I keep up with the generally informed, and sometimes I stay ahead of the game, as I was with one of the season's newest trends- 'ethnic-inspired' prints and silhouettes.
So why am I mentioning this, and why didn't I mention it before? I was trying to not be nit-picky-because you know that's something I tend to do- and just be quiet about it. Let's face it- fashion is one of the most superficial, frivolous industries in existence, and part of why I like it is that it's straight up with that, and has no qualms about not saving lives on a daily basis (although sometimes unique ways to help others are found). But this is where that had to stop, for me.
I'm sure I'm not the only person of color who cringes when the word "ethnic" is used in design- a two-syllable shortcut for piling all the nameless cultures east of the pacific into one amorphous blob. "Chunky bangles," "bold geometric patterns," and "rich colors" are a few of the descriptors used for this, and designers and editors are eating the shizz up. And I know it probably isn't something to really get myself worked up about, but I can't help but be annoyed when designers rip off styles of dress and pattern from people and places that they rarely make an effort to actually see or understand, not to mention the fact that these aesthetics were rarely recognized as universally beautiful before white designers "adapted" them for their own collections. What's more annoying? The fact that the runways filling up with these dresses, accessories and, yes much to our dismay, headdresses, are overwhelmingly filled with lily-white models. Of course it'd be problematic to have only Black/Asian models in only these fashions, but you'd think that the one industry that to this day remains primarily segregated would try a we are the world approach during this particularly colorful season.
I guess you can't give people too much credit, though.

he's an idiot, but y'all knew that

da big boss coon, yeah he had to do that...

i hate to even give it publicity, but i saw this on one of my favorite blogs, and i couldn't NOT pass on the info. in fact, i won't even explain it. just watch this:




and this...




i guess he couldn't let flava flav take ALL the coonery. that would just be unequal distribution of coonin'.

i'm making a list

i might not bother checking it twice. but the list of people who are "dead to me" just grows by the hour.

admittedly today's subject, sarah silverman, has been dead to me for quite some time. ever since i saw her feature-length special...what was it called again? oh yeah, "jesus is magic." anyways, that such a huge waste of life that i wrote her off forever. but lately i've been seeing her face on the train a lot, apparently because she has her own show. now answer me this: why would comedy central devote a whole show to sarah silverman? perhaps equally important, why would they then let her do a whole show in blackface?

yes, you heard right. sarah silverman is doing blackface now. you can check out a clip of it here (even though i hate giving her publicity), or click "older videos" on this list to find all of them.

so i shouldn't even have to say much more than that, but i will say just a couple things:

1 - blackface is never funny. people like sarah silverman and those who watch her show think "oh but dave chappelle did it that one time, so why can't i?" they clearly only watched the preview of chappelle's show, because any time blackface appears in the context of socially context black comedy or film, its not FUNNY. its uncomfortable, and its commentary. when spike lee made "bamboozled," i don't think he wanted you to laugh. when dave chappelle did "whiteface" on his show, he wanted you to think. sarah silverman doesn't even know HOW to think. which is how this show came into being, apparently.

2 - there is like, some kind of epidemic spreading of people doing ridiculous shit on tv and then claiming free speech, or that they didn't mean to offend, or blaming "pc culture" for making them the victim of some kind of "high-tech lynching" (thats right clarence, you get a shout-out). i don't really get that argument. like if you want free speech, take it. but if you say or do something hateful, "free speech" does not mean "no one can get mad." it means "you can't get arrested and thrown in jail for saying that." so congratulations, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. etc. etc. people: you're not in jail. but your show still fucking sucks. and i'm not going to watch it, and also i hate you.

3 - on a personal level, sarah: you are not funny. ever. obviously this blackface thing wasn't funny, but also you are never funny. how did you get a show? like seriously. anyone who has ever seen her perform for more than like, 30 seconds can probably back me up on this: she must have learned in some class that "incongruous" is a small component of comedy, and then dropped out. so she says and does stupid shit and then looks at you like "isn't it funny that a small white jewish girl said that?" and you're like, "no..." and then she does it again. anyone on the planet could do a better job at comedy than sarah silverman just by getting drunk and standing on a table. she's ridiculous. she's dead to me. oh and sarah, in case you're reading this, in addition to the blackface, i also didn't think your immigrant jokes were funny, and i thought your rape jokes were in poor taste too.

well isn't this typical

I mean come on, it's not like you weren't expecting it:

James Watson Retires After Racial Remarks

James D. Watson, the eminent biologist who ignited an
uproar last week with remarks about the intelligence of people of African
descent, retired today as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on
Long Island and from its board.
In a statement, he noted that, at 79, he
is
“overdue” to surrender leadership positions at the lab, which he joined
as
director in 1968 and served as president until 2003. But he said the
circumstances of his resignation “are not those which I could ever have
anticipated or desired.”

Story Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25cnd-watson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
You know, people just run their mouths all crazy nowadays. I'd feel more of a sense of justice being served if it weren't for the fact that he'll just comfortably settle back on all of the investments and just made-it-nesses that he's got going on in his life.
What a prick.

More substantial (but not political lol) post coming up soon. Just you wait.

entitlement in U.S. reaches all-time high

I don't usually make it to the "fashion and style" section of the new york times, shockingly enough, but today i was directed there by a friend. specifically, i was directed to the "modern love" article today: a terribly-written little essay by a girl named Alexis Wolff, entitled "Too Bad for Me That She Was So Well-Loved."

I'd really recommend that you read the article to get the full effect, but just in case you don't want to/don't have time, here's the quick summary: this girl (Alexis Wolff, henceforth known as ms wolff or possibly the big bad wolff) spent a semester abroad in Niger. there, she fell in love (modern love) with a little 2 year old child, despite the child's rotting teeth and oversized features (features which reminded her of underprivileged children she's worked with right here in the us!). not speaking the language (because studying abroad in west africa is fun even when you have no idea what the fuck anyone is saying to you), she chose to hang out with this two year old and her shockingly young grandmother instead of getting to know some people her own age. now comes the bad news: she had to leave Niger and return to her life of privilege in the united states. and all she wanted was to just be able to take that child with her. its too bad she's not one of those orphaned kids you see on the news all the time, because then it would be easy and totally unproblematic for ms wolff to just take her. but alas (and now, she takes a quick little side-trip to remember her terrible childhood of a wealthy but dysfunctional family. tears well in my eyes as i read about her father's drug problem, which made even her pony-filled birthdays somehow less perfect) alas, the young child has a family who loves her. and ms wolff can't "just have her." she has to go home emptyhanded.

i could go on, but it would just be embarrassing for poor ms wolff. she sees no problem, apparently, with announcing in a national forum her horrifying amount of privilege and entitlement. sees no problem with the racialized words she uses to describe the people she met in Niger. apparently doesn't even see a problem with wanting to have a black baby of her own. too bad for her slavery is over. and luckily for that baby, and every other baby, there are some rules about adoption.

now according to the times, Alexis Wolff lives in New York, New York. I happen to be a member of that facebook network, so in the spirit of investigative journalism, i searched her name and found an unrestricted profile. there i learned that young ms. wolff attended Yale undergrad and Columbia to get an MFA in nonfiction writing. some cross-reference with my former roommate who is now getting an MFA confirmed that columbia offers no funding, so apparently her family's hearbreaking dysfunction did not extend to denying her limitless funds to pursue her educational dreams. and apparently columbia's MFA program is not all its cracked up to be.

what really made me sad, though, was not that someone could think that this article was good (more than someone, as evidenced by all the praise she's receiving on her facebook wall). i mean i think we all know there are plenty of fucked up people in this country who think that they're liberals because they're not scared to go to africa. what bothered me most was that this was published in the new york times. i kind of hoped when i graduated harvard that i'd finally be free of the kind of culture where complete ignorance is rewarded and praised. but the sad realization i've been coming to is that the real world is actually just one big harvard.

if that's not enough to depress you, i don't know what is.

oh no please, don't get up...

so yesterday was the big march in Jena protesting the injustice of the whole Jena 6 fiasco. Today, surfing my new favorite blogs, I came across a few very interesting posts that I thought were worth sharing...

the field negro posted yesterday, following on the heels of good ol' pam, to question the silence on a lot of the major progressive blogs when it came to the Jena 6 case. To be honest, I hadn't even really thought about it until those two posts pointed it out to me, and then I was mad embarassed that I hadn't. Recently I've kind of been in the mindset that its not such a terrible thing that all the major news outlets are shitty as hell, because hey, we've got the blogosphere so now it doesn't matter what fox news reports. but that's a little stupid, isn't it? i mean don't get me wrong, blogging is cool, and blogs are way more fun to read than the new york times. but it seems like we run into all the same problems in the blogosphere as we do everywhere else. things like Jena 6 get swept quietly under the carpet. its kind of fucked up, no?

anyways, just a friendly reminder that racism is still everywhere. kudos to everyone who made it down to Jena for the march. and kudos to all the bloggers who have been keeping up with the case. when i think about how many people jumped up to defend the lacrosse team during the Duke rape case, and how much publicity THAT got... well all i'm saying is its a lot more clear that the Jena 6 are innocent. but i'm not seeing a media frenzy on the horizon. :-/

black tie means white lady

sometimes i hear things about harvard that make me feel amazed i came out of that place alive. this is one such time.

a friend pointed this posting on craigslist out to me (in case the link goes dead, here it is):

Harvard senior seeking female companion - 22

My final club has a reunion this fall, and my relationship of two years ended disastrously earlier this summer. I have an invitation for myself plus one, and am willing to show you a great time. It is a private party, in an extremely classy setting. There is no real way to describe how ornate the club is, but I guarantee that it will be the most upscale experience of your life. Think back to your high school prom, take away the terrible music, and multiply the experience by ten.

You must be white, 5'6" - 5'9", young, blonde, attractive, and intelligent. You must be in school, preferably Tufts or Wellesley but BU and BC are acceptable (definitely not MIT).

You should be able to hold a conversation, know when to be quiet, and polite in all your behavior. I have seen unruly guests embarrass members before, and I hope this won't be a problem. This event is black-tie, and I am willing to procure an evening gown for you.

I hate to sound so harsh, but I have expectations to live up to. No Black, Asian, overweight, or unattractive women please. Ages 18-22 only.

Picture required.

so... what to say, what to say?

i mean this can't be only a harvard problem, and i'm not trying to say it is, but i WILL say that harvard was the first and thus far only place I have ever had to live in which you are surrounded by the kind of people who think this kind of thing is in any way ok. to begin with, you should already be ashamed of yourself for being a member of a final club - for those readers who don't know, they're all-male, predominantly white (no matter what anyone might try to tell you) remnants of those glory days when harvard didn't let in poors, women, or minorities. so you're in this club that just promotes all kinds of inequality and throws parties which are frankly often unsafe for women, and you're so fucking pleased with yourself for being a part of that fucked-up world that you'll do anything to stay in it, even solicit an "appropriate" date off of craigslist in that shameless way only the most privileged of assholes could ever think is ok.

i don't even want to touch how offensive the qualifications are in this guy's mind for who makes a "classy" date to a black tie event. i mean i guess the sad thing is its true. remember that scene in borat when he brings a pile of shit to the table and they're all like, "oh he's foreign he doesn't understand," and then he brings a black woman to the table and the party's over? yup. they probably all went to harvard. and hopefully you didn't miss the part where he said you need to know how to be a nice quiet woman. ugh. still want YOUR kid to get an ivy league "education?"

the new (york) minstrel show

i know what you're thinking and no, this is not a post about hip-hop. good guess though. no, this is about an experience i had today in central park. maybe experience is the wrong word. this is about a spectacle i saw today in central park. the story unfolds...

it was actually my first time IN central park (i know, i'm slow to do the touristy things. what can i say?) and i was psyched to go see the Bethesda fountain. ever since Tony Kushner introduced it to me in "Angels in America," i've felt like its a place i would really like. my plan was to go see the fountain, maybe sit in the shade for a bit and ponder it's beauty, and then move on. of course the HBO mini-series probably closed off the park for shooting, so in my head i was gonna have the place all to myself, and obviously my head was wrong. when we arrived at the fountain, there was a huge crowd covering the steps and spilling out into the plaza in front of the fountain. the crowd was clapping and cheering to what, from a distance, appeared to be three young black teenage boys dancing. as we got closer, we discovered a much more fascinating and problematic scene.

if i were to guess, i'd say the performers were around twenty years old. the three young black men were dressed in matching basketball shorts, nikes, and white tank tops. they had three members of the audience standing next to each other in the center of the "stage:" two european women and an asian man, all young. the performers were speaking - shouting, rather - in unison and encouraging the audience to cheer. we stopped, intrigued by what seemed like an increasingly likely probability that one of the performers was planning on leaping over all three of them. they made several racist jokes that received uneasy laughter from the audience, which further drew us in to watch the unfolding scene: "if you have a camera, now's the time to take pictures," they proclaimed to an already photo-happy audience. "if you are japanese with a camera, take-photo-now," they continued in a generic "asian" accent, clapping their hands together and bowing. i had to wonder: was the audience laughing because they were amused by the "joke," or because black men were saying it? if a black man makes a racist joke, does a white man feel obliged to laugh? does he feel that he's been given license to laugh?

what made me stick around for the second show, though, was the money-collecting. before the big jump everyone seemed to be waiting for, the performers wanted to get audience donations. they turned it into a strange game, challenging the audience to give as much as they had in their wallets. They took a large bill from a black man and turned to the white people asking if they were going to let a black man be the biggest donor. Then they started asking people where they were from. "The last donation came from New Jersey," they yelled. "New York, are you going to let that happen?" the fact that I didn't think it would work clearly means that I'm no businesswoman, because within five seconds a new yorker was waving two twenty dollar bills at them. when a couple from montreal threw $40 more into the bag, the same man pulled out another $40. he continued to rep new york until he was down to his last seven dollars, and then tried to pull out a credit card. I saw a child get $20 from her parents to rep new jersey, and i saw a man give $100. i figured the show up til that point must have been something to see, and decided to stick around.

he did his jump, which was impressive, and several more jokes were made, all either intensely racist or completely degrading to women. the show ended, and the performers waited about five minutes for the crowd to disperse, then turned on their speakers and started to dance. that's when i realized just what was going on.

there was no show at all. i had actually already seen the entire thing. the boys put red shirts on over their tank tops, and each shirt had a nickname written on the back. the jumper was "skillz," the one with all the jokes about women was "meek da freak," and the one with the charming but uncomfortably wide smile was "sugar ray." they didn't even have to try. they let the speakers continue to blast a mix of old school and new hip-hop while they pranced around and grinned huge empty grins, and within five minutes they had a crowd of almost a hundred. that crowd was 99% white. these black men were making money by simply displaying themselves to white tourists. i'd like to say it wasn't as dirty as that just sounded, but within twenty minutes, they had taken off their shorts as part of a "joke."

"there's a naked indian in that tunnel over there. so you've seen a naked indian and a naked cowboy, now see the naked negro." and the shorts came off. by this time, the crowd was more like 300. they jumped and danced from audience member to audience member, cracking jokes in unison and objectifying the women in a way that was really uncomfortable. "hey baby, you like chocolate?" was a favorite phrase, followed closely by "you know, it doesn't always have to be money," and the implication that if you were a young white female in the crowd, they'd just as soon have sex with you as take your cash.

the pointed way in which these men used their race to entertain the white audience was shocking. they made jokes about being in jail, they made jokes like "ladies, i'm single...with five kids." they played hip-hop. they objectified women. they smiled. they pretended to steal their volunteer's purses. they danced (badly). they shucked. they jived. they did everything the worst stereotype of a black man would do. and the audience just lapped it up. scanning the audience, you saw middle-aged wealthy white men and women in their polo shirts and khakis, young twenty-somethings with their sundresses, and families with children. almost all white, almost all having the best time of their lives. these people were thrilled. so thrilled, they thought that $40 was a reasonable amount of money to pay for the privelege of watching these boys act a fool and then do one admittedly impressive jump.

so the question is, what's going on here? i stopped one of them after the second show and asked him how long they'd been doing this. since they were six, he said. and today was a pretty small crowd. a "small" crowd of no less than 400, i'd estimate.

i know the description of this scene doesn't portray the three performers in a great light. and it's true, the performance wasn't "great" by any stretch of the imagination. but i'm not trying to vilify them here. if i could make a thousand bucks a day by pretending to dance in front of a fountain, don't think i wouldn't do it. my question is, why does it still work? why is it that a black man in the year 2007 can still make more money by shucking and jiving than he can working for a living? why is it that a middle-aged white man from connecticut sees three black men making fools of themselves and gets excited for the show to come? looking at those fake smiles flash across the perfomers faces, i couldn't help but see a cartoon sambo in my head. and i couldn't help but feel that they knew that just as well as i did. how could they not? remember, they've been doing this since they were six. now i'm no mathematician, but i think that might mean they've been a spectacle for longer than they've known what a spectacle is. and now that they know, it's still their best bet for a paycheck. the fact that this kind of complete debasement and prostitution of the self is still considered entertainment says to me that we are not much closer to "solving" america's "race problem" than we were a century ago. and that, my friends, is a tragedy.

intel-ligent responses? pretty much, kind of.

So okay, I know I just posted something .3102 seconds ago, but I was looking through stuff and saw that I got 2 interesting responses to my post on the racially awkward Intel ad and I definitely wanted to respond to them, like a responsible blogging responding internet person. First off was this comment from underwayent:

"Hey Brittany, Black people do work at Intel and some of us are proud of it. Although the ad does prove to be insensitive, It was not Intel's intent. Intel is a very diverse company and African Americans play a very important role within the company. It seems that most people are always looking to play the race card at the drop of a dime. We need to start throwing the races cards at each other."

So in response I'd like to say that you know what? I'm glad that you responded defending your company, I totally respect you and would probably do the same if I were in your shoes. That being said, my question of whether or not Black people work at Intel was purely smart-ass-ness, and not really serious. If Intel employed zero Black people that would be fodder for an entirely different kind of post. Anyway, I don't doubt that Intel (as a major technological company who definitely provided the processor on which my little HP pavilion is buzzin' right now) makes strides at effective diversity and inclusion within their company, in addition to dedicating its resources (people, technology and money alike) to socially-aware initiative. However, clearly that doesn't mean that they can't make (and didn't make) mistakes, or that people high-up/in creative roles (or the ones coordinating with any ad agencies, whose mistake this probably was more than Intel's) weren't racially insensitive when creating, approving and rolling out this ad. If anything this goes to show that companies need to put more energy into educating associates of all races, backgrounds and on all levels, about these sorts of issues (i.e. what is taboo, what is racist, and what's just plain awkward).
Here's the other little gem from a Richard that I'd like to respond to as well:

"And, what if the colors were revered? Is that not also racism in your eyes? There have been several ads of late showing a cool black dude letting us know how dorkey, lame, or dumb the white guy was. This is racism. "White Men Can't Jump" is also racist. If you can't see it, I'd suggest you open your eyes and think about it."

Um.. okay, so why are you telling me to open my eyes? Does the fact that you'd find this ad offensive if the races were flipped make it any less offensive? I absolutely cannot stand when I air some grievance I have with a racially charged issue, somebody comes at me with some stuff like this, basically saying "well Black people can be racist too."
..So? So what?
Does that mean that it's not worth me being upset about? I'd have to say... No, it doesn't. Yes, you are right, white people can be the ones on the bad side of a racially offensive ad/situation, but that doesn't mean that when Black people are (as we so luckily get to be so often, huzzah!) that we should not complain about it or not be upset. And no, I don't know whether or not you (or anyone agreeing with you) is white, or male, or shizz, if you're even named Richard, but your post lead me to believe that. Anyway, the fact that you got upset about my pointing out that this was a race issue instead of being annoyed that this is happening to any race (if it had been a bunch of Latinos I'd be annoyed, too) just points to white privilege in the matter of not having to think about race until it is presented to you. Open your eyes and think about it!
Okay, smart ass again, sorry.
Or am I?
Maybe 35%

Oh the anonymity of the net- I just noticed that many posts like that are linked to (surprise!) unviewable profiles. Most interesting. Well not really, but still.

just a friendly reminder from your new york times..

racism.

more racism.


yup.



...oh update: the guy in texas is no longer being sentenced to death - his sentence was commuted to life in prison. sucks when those are your two options. damn.

intel: processors for the man

While browing the net I saw this gem of an Intel ad on a forum:

Yeah. That's right. Let it sink in real good.
Anything pop out at you? Anything at all?
Okay, so clearly you guys are smart enough to see what's incredibly problematic about this ad, but I'll go ahead and say it anyway, just to make sure that it's clear: RACISM.
So when I first saw this, other than the flaming anger that began to rise inside of me (with a fair bit of vomit in my throat, as this sort of thing just plain makes me sick) I was a bit confused at how it at all related to computers and technology. So not only is it problematic that these men (all conveniently Black men) are bowing down (yeah I know it's a stance in racing/track but clearly you see the imagery) to a white man, but even the copy that 'justifies' the imagery is itself problematic:
"Multiply computing performance and maximize the power of your employees."
Wow, so much to unpack. So first of all, even though "power" in terms of meeting deadlines and maximizing resources would be a relatively beneficial result of having really good processors, but to me the word power combined with the image of the men (strong, hunched and athletic, muscles very clearly sculpted, highlighted by shadows and even sort of glistening in the lighting) really connotes more of a brute, physical sense of power. In a sense, nothing about the image gives me the idea that the processors complimented the intellect and ability of the workers.
Which brings me to another problem that I have- the men very clearly represent the Intel processors and not the workers. Let me tell you why.. The print reads that "multiply computing performance" (clearly through Intel processors) but that you "maximize the power of your employees," nothing about the power of these men looks maximized. Instead, it really just looks like the same man (generalizing Black people, how nice) multiplied over and over again, ready to out perform (because he's about to run really fast, you know why? Because he's Black, and boy can those n*ggers run, huh?) those crappy old other processors. When it comes down to it, Intel equates these Black men (or even this Black man, since he really seems to be just copy/pasted onto the ad because of the lack of attention and detail given to his seemingly unimportant face) to technology, to machines- to tools that white men (read: corporate America, controlled by white men, obviously) can buy, sell, use and control and with no tough feelings- I mean look at the smug smile on that guy's face.
I mean damn, you'd think that after the ole 3/5 thing was in history that we'd actually start to be seen as human beings and not as property anymore, but I guess you really shouldn't overestimate the power of racism and the ignorance (i.e. ignoring racial issues) of white America. Damn. Like come ON- who let this ad run, and how many people approved it? Do Black people even WORK at Intel?
If you are Black, working at Intel, and you somehow saw the concept for this and had a hand in approving it before production then you suck ass and are a failure for letting this get out.

In closing, what does this mean for good ol Brittany?
The next computer I get will have an AMD processor.
Thanks.

"welcome to physics 101: negroes not allowed."

so a good friend over on quench was clever enough to pick up on something really awkward during the whole crimson/quad/racism fiasco. that something was that one of the more offensive posters (who i do have to give some respect to for not posting anonymously) is actually a professor of physics here at harvard. Lubos Motl has posted several comments on the crimson website, including this one:


Dear Lucy,

I agree with you and admire your courage. Many reactions above make it very clear that your courage is highly non-trivial.

Someone said that there was racism because it was assumed that the people couldn't have been students. I think that it is indeed sensible to think that people who behave a little bit like animals could be someone else than Harvard students, after all. While this assumption may occasionally fail, it is still more reasonable than to assume that someone must be a Harvard student just because he or she is black.

If the party were white and the noise were similar, police would arrive, too. The intercultural foundation would complain that it is a proof of apartheid that the white people were not instantly dismissed from Harvard.

Keep on smiling and writing so well,
Lubos Motl

Posted by Lubos Motl | 5/21/2007 3:42:22 PM |

------------------
he also posted THIS on his own blog about the incident:

Wow. If someone makes a huge mess in front of the buildings where some of the smartest young people on the planet are supposed to study, it is illegitimate to call police because it is a black people's party and everyone - the whole community of Harvard students - is instantly accused of racism and the director of the "intercultural foundation" is black, too.

Counter's "foundation" is clearly meant to be a tool to intimidate students and other members of the community, politicize all questions, and make sure that a pathetic hypocritical ideology is more important than a tolerable atmosphere during the reading period and other values that used to be associated with the world of Academia.

-----------------
and on the quench post about him, he left these gems:

Don't worry. I couldn't live with far left-wing pseudointellectual garbage like yourself for more time so I will be leaving.

You know, I have lived in a country where this ideological trash has intimidated people for 45 years. It has transformed the 10th most prosperous country in the world to a country that was nearly outside the really developed world. It has destroyed the economy and people's moral values.

I know how people like you think, how complete power over the society people like you want to have, I know why people like you are so dangerous, and I don't want to live in a society where scum like yourself is intimidating fair people on a daily basis.

Let me say that I think that your mode of thinking is identical to the Gestapo informers. If it were up to you, you would be instantly trying to create personal problems for someone because he or she disagrees with your idiotic ideology.

Informing departments, Gestapo, or PC police at all levels - that's what you like to do, isn't it?

Sorry but I have always considered people like that to be moral trash, I still consider them to be moral trash, and I will always consider such people to be moral trash.

This is not just about your believing an idiotic ideology. It is also about the methods you choose to defend it.

----------------------

whew. alright, there's a lot there to take in, i know. i mainly just wanted to blog this to get the word out, because i think this is a little bit preposterous. aside from the fact that his comments are wildly offensive, ignorant, racist, etc. etc., his posts are also extremely unprofessional. as a harvard PROFESSOR, it seems like a fairly terrible move to post such strong views on common community forums for a couple of reasons.
1. any black, female, or otherwise minority students in his classes will no doubt feel very unwelcome (more unwelcome than they already do) after reading the things he's written here.
2. as a professor, you are expected to hold yourself to a higher standard of professionality than students. just as dr. counter responded to the article about the foundation in a carefully thought out op-ed, any other professor or administrator at harvard wishing to express his/her opinions about the subject has avenues other than the anonymous comments section of the crimson, and should use them

ok now on to a couple of quick comments about what he actually SAID

so a) i cannot BELIEVE that a harvard professor just claimed that a group of black students he has never met nor interacted with "behaved like animals." like honestly, i just can't even believe it. this goes WELL beyond unprofessional into the "horribly offensive" "criminally racist" "extremely damaging" sort of categories. would you want this man teaching you?!?

b) (if you haven't noticed by now, i'm a fan of lists) little did i know that a "tolerable atmosphere during reading period" was higher on the list of Academia (with a capital A)'s values than intercultural and race relations. well damn. let's just cancel all the social sciences and turn william james into a library for physics majors. why dont we also cut out everyone's voiceboxes so as not to disturb the math. i assume tolerable atmosphere is also more important than human rights, yes?

c) ooooh. a Gestapo reference. how original. now all of a sudden i see that i am so wrong i'm practically a nazi, whereas you are right. oh wait...

d) the whole "i've experienced the oppressive forces of the left because of communism" argument is like, really old and really ridiculous. i'd like to think that intellectuals at one of the most esteemed universities in the world would be able to think critically enough to know that being against racism is not the same thing as being for dictatorship. but um...clearly that would be expecting too much.

ok this post is going on too long. so in conclusion, i am wildly pissed at how much racism has been going on at harvard lately, i find it ridiculous that a harvard professor would think it was appropriate to act in this manner, and i think that regardless of your field, if you accept the position of professor at ANY university, you need to hold yourself to certain standards in terms of how you present yourself to the public. that includes respect for your students and peers and respect for the other disciplines within the university.


ADDENDUM: upon further research, it seems (although i don't know that this is confirmed) that he has "resigned" slash been asked to resign from harvard because of unprofessional attacks on other professor's writing. so that's awkward for him. but gives me a little more faith that harvard DOES in fact hold its faculty to some standards of respect.

Malakim, back in action!

**NOTE: I wrote an entire freaking post and then my crazy computer shut down! As a result, this will be shorter and less eloquent. But I guess you wouldn't even have known that unless I pointed it out. Sigh. Anyways-HP, I WILL be coming after you, soon, you can count on it!! *angry face* **

I'll start this by saying that normally I'm really glad when a person chooses to engage with a difficult issue (in this case race) that most other people shy away from. Good job! However, I really hope that they didn't think they could just blast my/our methods without getting a reply. :)
So, here are a few excerpts from Mal's (I like that nickname, don't you? It's so splendidly gender-neutral) latest reply to my reply to the reply to Kaya:

"Look, I’m angry too. I’m angry that as a white person you can’t see this from my perspective. I’m angry because I don’t think you have the slightest clue of what 95% of white people think when they read your blog post...
Did you stop and think that maybe whites and so-called “model minorities” will look upon your words and go, “Oh god, another angry black person"? Did you stop and think that the vast majority of whites will look upon the content of your blog and use it to reinforce all the damaging and subjugating stereotypes that they have internalized about black people—that many of them are angry, loud, prone to violence and have a stick up their ass?
...I’m angry that every time I try to convince my woefully ignorant white friends that they’re being irrational, insensitive, and just plain dumb, they allude to blogs like this one to affirm why they are right and I am wrong.
It’s time for you two to get over yourselves and really confront this topic, instead of merely continuing to validate your own feelings. I am on your side here, dammit, and this is NOT the way to make headway on this issue."

Okay, so I would normally probably try to make a really long response to this, one that's incredibly well thought out and full of references to different theorists or authors/artists/intellectuals whose words I find particularly stirring, but I think I'll err on the brief side of writing for several reasons: 1) I just got off of work and am tired, 2) I have a final to study for, 3) The Simpsons is on, which I will gladly watch as a means of procrastinating from studying for said final. As a result, I will simply be writing how I felt as I read this most recent comment, as well as the kinds of people it reminded me of. Alrighty, so let's get into it..
The first thing I want to say is that I find it somewhat disturbing that those "damaging and subjugating stereotypes" to which you allude that we (our blog and subsequent way of thinking) promote, fly off of your fingertips with such ease. I will admit that this blog definitely has a theme of anger, but being Prone to violence? Loud? Having a stick up [our] asses? I find it very interesting that you were able to pick these particular stereotypes. Any reference to violence is clearly not serious (and often unrealistic, I don't think you'll see any actual advocation of real, hurtful violence), we cannot be loud because you are reading our text (though I suppose if the entire blog was TYPED LIKE THIS YOU COULD GET SOME SORT OF FEELING OF LOUD, even though that's a bit silly), and having a stick up our asses? Well, I'm sorry if voicing my opinions makes me have a stick up my ass. Wait, no I'm not- what does having a stick up my ass do in terms of validating or invalidating my feelings or my points? Whether or not I present my feelings in a sugary song or in a five-page paper complete with bullet points and bibliography, the facts and experiences that have created those feelings all remain constant.
You are angry that I do not understand how you, as a white person, view my blog and my feelings? Well, I'm sorry, but quite frankly I do not care how you view my feelings, nor do I find any pressing reason to care if I rustle your feathers. As Gaya said in a comment, it is often through disturbance and unsettling methods or messages that change is inspired or, at the very least, can find its roots.
What seems most ridiculous to me is that you claim that I have neither an idea about nor concern for your perspective as a white person in America. I hate to present you with this newflash- but all I have ever done and ever do is consider, reconsider and consider again the perspective of white people. I was educated in public schools based around Western thought, I learned little in the way of Black History (MLK, Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman were sentences in chapters or footnotes under pictures in my history and Social Studies books) before I arrived at Harvard, as a child I grew up thinking that America was the best place to be and that capitalism was the only possible form of social structure under which humanity could flourish- in short, my entire way of thinking has been molded by a "white perspective," a particularly troublesome mode of existence for a black girl living in these United States.
It has taken most everything in me to try and break away from this. Even so, I still factor the way white people see me, think about me and speak about me into my everyday life. The way I dress, the way I do (or do not do) my hair, the way I speak, the way I carry myself, the food that I eat (as a teenager- and up until this year- I shyed away from the delicious, crisp sweetness of a ripe red watermelon, because I was too afraid to eat it in front of white people and re-create some grotesque mulatto minstrel image for the world to see).. everything that I do is influenced by how I think white people think, so do not dare to tell me that I simply do not try to consider your perspective.
You say that it pains you to have to make attempts to re-educate your "ignorant" white friends, to help them shed the stereotypes which you so readily listed from their way of thinking- to see black people as docile, friendly, non-threatening figures who they should listen to. Perhaps it is more pertinent for you to instead re-consider your friends. Or better yet, perhaps it is even more important for you, yourself, to attempt to see where this anger, this loudness, this unwillingness to compromise or to simply smile and cooperate comes from. As startling as it might seem, I have been upset for most of my conscious life. When I was very young I learned that my skin, that my existence as a brown person (let us not forget that yes, I am biracial and therefore cannot completely understand the struggle of my darker sisters and brothers) was a signifier of my alleged incapacity to be a productive member of society. I held this knowledge deep in my mind, in my heart, and it burdened me. With every step, every breath, every word I uttered my blackness seeped from my pores and consumed my very being. I was suffocating in it. My understanding blanketed me in a deep shame, and this shame made me depressed- I was sad that I was black. As a result, I would often shy away from social issues pertaining to race. Before knowing what it was I denounced affirmative action and I created some irrational aversion to activists (which I am still trying to shed today).
It wasn't until I finally learned something, until I learned that there was nothing wrong with being black, that my people have a rich, beautiful history here in America as well as in all areas where the African diaspora resides.. that I finally began to allow myself to understand that I had just cause for being angry. In embracing this anger, I was able to free myself from the shame, from the sadness that had so strongly embraced me before. In speaking out I unlock my voice and hear the richness of its tones. In raising my fist I feel the warmth of the sun on my skin and I am not ashamed. In opening my eyes I see that my thick, curly hair is a labyrinth of wonder and just as visually stunning as a straight blond coif could ever be. In short my anger is what has helped me to become who I am, and to understand where I lie in regard to my people, and where my people stand in regard to this society.
Who are you to tell me that this anger, that this feeling, is wrong?
I understand and appreciate the fact that you want to help us out. It's wonderful that you, as a white person, see the need to understand our situation, to try and help by educating yourself and your white peers. However, it is also important to understand that a white liberal, when under the impression that their philosophy is best or that they know what is best for black people, can be just as dangerous and damaging as a white conservative.

So while I appreciate where you are coming from, I cannot in good conscience silence myself once more. I will never again be complicit in my own oppression in this way. I hope you can understand. And if you cannot, I do not blame you. After all, I have no idea what it's like to be white in America nor could I ever, for I am not white, just as you are not black.
Though, if I'm honest with myself, I don't mind this all too much.




P.S. I think it's a little aggravating that a person could come to this blog (which is just that, a blog) and try to tell us how to express ourselves. Isn't it a bit problematic that one would assume that Kaya & I must bear the burden of representing every single black person in America when we are just trying to show how we feel as black people?
P.P.S. I guess this was long, after all. Sorry. :\