Trackbacks & Pings

1. Corcoran Imagines the Perfect White House / Jossip on 22 Apr 2008 at 1:29 pm

   [...] Interracial couples, ooooh! [Racialicious] [...]

2. Givin’ Some Link Love « Aaminah Hernández on 22 Apr 2008 at 2:15 pm

   [...] Wendi Muse has some deep questions about “Multiculturalism” in advertising. [...]

Comments

1. Mickey wrote:

   I had the same thoughts you did! I thought couples like this didn’t exist in advertisement.

   I think this company is starting to realize that in the future more families are going to look like this. I think what ad is trying to convey is that regardless of race, all families want the same thing: roots and a sense of community.

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 10:31 am ¶

2. Chris wrote:

   Don’t forget there was a TV advertisement for Ikea which featured an Asian-American man with an African-American woman and their child snuggling together with each other in bed.

   That’s the only other example of a mixed race couple being featured in an ad where the woman wasn’t Asian-American and the man wasn’t white, though.

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 11:01 am ¶

3. DivergentDana wrote:

   I was thinking about this the other day…I think it’s a kind of shorthand way to show diversity where you get to spend less on actors than the “Outback Steakhouse” model where you have to have two or three sets of monoracial couples. I know, cynical me. AF/WM couples are shown the most because they’re less “threatening” than any of the others and probably because they’re also more common. Note that you hardly ever see a WF featured with a man of color.

   “That’s the only other example of a mixed race couple being featured in an ad where the woman wasn’t Asian-American and the man wasn’t white, though.”

   Not quite true. There’s the Heineken ad with the WM and the BF where he told her he loved her to get to the beer, and I’m sure there’s some others that escape me at the moment. You’re mostly right, however.

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 11:49 am ¶

4. Autonym wrote:

   The copy is great when linked with this image – I mean, it touches me as a mixed race person (and consumer) way more than the same ad with an all white, all black, all latin@, all (pan) asian family would.

   I think the line “Live who you are.” is also striking when put next to this ‘family’.

   It might just be Cocoran appealing to people they think would be attracted by an “unusual” couple like this one, whether they are interracial, black, white, or other.

   Of course, high end real estate brokers are not looking at me as a customer anyhow, so my opinion is pretty moot on that front. As a general consumer of media, however, I am pleased to see this one.

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 11:57 am ¶

5. McJumpguez wrote:

   There were also the Verizon ads (I think) that featured a mixed Latino and White couple. Also, as much as I hate it, Walmart does it too, white mom with Asian baby, etc. I think you *may* be over thinking it just a bit. “Built to last” I assume is the company’s slogan, which means, it is a campaign and thought up before the people were cast . . ? But then again, I’m not in advertising.
   I did see an ad for a cooking show on Food Network featuring an African-American couple called “Down Home with the Neelys” which seemed to play up the fact that not only were they married, had a restaurant together and cooked, they were in love too and having a grand old time cooking and being in love, but there was a kind of disclaimer for the show “family friendly”. Ok, what is *that* supposed to mean? Now, am I reading to much into it? Seriously, are cooking shows already “frisky”? It just seemed to be that since they were a “sassy” African-American couple that displayed love and affection on television while cooking, it implied that it is would some how inappropriate? Looking at the line up, all the cooking shows are on Saturday morning, kid time. How is this one to be singled out as “Family Friendly”? It *could* also be that fact that it’s something fun that the kids would enjoy watching versus say The Naked Chef. But I don’t know, I just got a funny feeling when I saw the ad … And I don’t watch Food Network at all so I know know the “feel” of the channel.

   I was trying to find a video of their commercial, but instead here is a link to their show.

   http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_ny/

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 12:09 pm ¶

6. Fat Lady wrote:

   Make a trip to NYC and head uptown to the northern tip of Central Park. There’s a playground there, about 11 blocks away from a Corcoran office – and the playground is FILLED with couples and children that look like the people in this ad, as well as other biracial couples of various mixes – mostly Black/White but others as well.

   My guess is that Corcoran knows who its market is, and it’s playing to it.

   I would also guess that the copy in the ad is not making any kind of statement about the picture above. I bet if you find a Corcoran ad with a White couple in it or a Black couple – that it will have the same copy. I would guess that the copy is part of a campaign and the pictures change with the target audience. They probably wrote the copy broad enough that it can work with different scenarios – which, of course, leaves it open to all kinds of interpretation.

   As I stare at the ad, I realize that anything – if you look at it close enough – can be analyzed or over analyzed. I notice that the woman and the child who is standing against the pole are the only ones looking at the camera. If I want to read into it – I would say that indicates that the two of them are a family now – and that the other people in the ad are the family they are dreaming of having in the future. Is that a correct interpretation? Who knows? From my experience in advertising, I would guess that they weren’t going that deep.

   I think it all boils down to the fact that Corcoran – from doing business in the southern part of Harlem – saw a market and decided to go after it. I wouldn’t read anything more into it than that.

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶

7. Black Ivy wrote:

   I must dissagree with DivergentDana. You never see black women with white men–in life or on tv. If black/white pairs are presented, its always a black man. ALWAYS. Just like that horrible sitcom with the girl from Sister Sister. . .

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 12:44 pm ¶

8. Jay wrote:

   Also, as much as I hate it, Walmart does it too, white mom with Asian baby, etc.

   White mom with Asian baby doesn’t necessarily code as “interracial couple” though because of the number of adoptions of Asian babies by white couples.

   I only remember the commercial vaguely so I have no idea whether this is the case here.

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 1:15 pm ¶

9. Anonymiss wrote:

   You have to acknowledge every demographic. Monoracial couples aren’t the only ones who look to buy property.

   Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 1:21 pm ¶

10. wendi muse wrote:

    i agree with black ivy here…maybe not so much in ads, but on tv, definitely. i rarely see a black woman paired at all, much less with a non-black partner

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 1:29 pm ¶

11. DivergentDana wrote:

    I’m exclusively talking about ads… TV and film are a different story.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 1:33 pm ¶

12. Karl wrote:

    This posting is amazing in how succinctly it sums up whats wrong with “progressives” of color. You all are hopping up and down screaming “free at last” cause of an ad with a dark skin woman and a white man (look at the history of this country and countries of the global south…that pairing makes up like 80 percent of the interracial pairings in the world…wasn’t white women sleeping with rickshaw drivers//or zulus/slaves/coolies/Natives//thai fisherman// etc in any real numbers-there were laws against that…as opposed to the wink wink nature of the opposite) and you completely overlook the giant gentrification juggernaut represented by corcoran et al (Harlem locales, and Bklyn) and the poor people of color whose lives are demolished by said companies. I suppose the increased police presence, landlord harassment, and evictions are worth it if assorted P.O.C flavoured yuppies can can cream and shout “a white man thinks I’m pretty…truly the world is a magnificent and wonderful place”

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 1:42 pm ¶

13. FranSky wrote:

    Davis Bowie & his wife Iman Abdulmajid, Roger Ebert & his wife Chaz, Robert De Niro & his wife Grace Hightower. Those are high profile couples that have a Black woman & white man. And those are just off the top of my head.

    I dig the ad & Wendi I think you rock but I think it’s possible this on this one there is a little over thinking. If I had seen an ad like this as a little girl I would have -possibly- much sooner in my life known that mixed race families were possible & even probable.
    Thanks for the food for thought on this!
    ~F

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 1:52 pm ¶

14. Michelle wrote:

    Gotta co-sign above. I hardly ever see depictions of BW/WM in the media. And usually, in day-to-day life I encounter BM/WM. Most celebrity couples that are IR are the latter mentioned pairing. I think that Black (esp. darker) women being seen as beautiful, and “the marrying kind” is far more threatening to the status quo of our American narrative.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 2:03 pm ¶

15. atlasien wrote:

    I don’t see a lot of BW/WM pairings in the media, but I have a feeling they’re represented a lot less than they actually exist in real life.

    It’s sort of like AM/WW. It’s so rare in the media that I did a double-take last week when I saw a Quaker Oats commercial showing a white woman married to an Asian man. But in real life, I see a lot more AM/WW couples (including, for example, my own parents).

    I’m not saying that there aren’t major disparities in interracial couples. I just think the existing disparity is really enhanced and exaggerated by the media.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 3:23 pm ¶

16. wendi muse wrote:

    karl
    how am i screaming “free at last” here?
    i raise several questions at the end of the piece regarding possible problems with the ad
    yay for representation, but when paired with some of the text, i’m not as happy

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 3:24 pm ¶

17. Jenn wrote:

    Concorans is saying that you are gonna need a white husband to help you pay a mortgage this high!!! Ain’t nothin progressive about those gentrifiers.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 3:56 pm ¶

18. Ailurophile wrote:

    I would imagine that, because IR couples are an increasing share of the demographic, and many are highly educated and well-off – advertisers would want to make them feel included.

    It’s true one hardly ever sees a WF as part of an advertising mixed-race couple (ironic considering WF marry out slightly more than WM). I think it is because those that are in power and produce the ads are mostly white men.

    However, I did see an example of that rara avis one day – on the back cover of my “Cat Fancy” magazine! It was an ad for Purina Cat Chow, with one of the illustrations being an AM and WF (or light-skinned Latina, it was hard to tell in the ad) sitting in their city penthouse playing with their cat. The same ad also featured a black woman cuddling a kitten and an elderly white man lounging around with his cat. Pet food manufacturers seem to understand that pet owners are a diverse demographic.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 4:13 pm ¶

19. bertie wrote:

    I think people tend to see what they want. If you think you NEVER see black female/white male pairings in tv, movies or ads and only black male/white female pairings are shown it’s because the latter is all your looking for.

    Whether it’s tv/movies specifically about BW/WM pairings like something new, Monsters Ball, Zebrahead, Bronx tale, Girlfriends, and even the old school jeffersons or movies/tv where the pairing isn’t essential to the story, like Something we lost in the fire, Last King of Scotland, Alfie, or the tv show Big Shots, etc. the black female/white male pairing has been shown in the media. The same of course is true of black male/white female pairings–there is plenty of that in tv and film too.

    The point is both pairings are found in the media and to say you NEVER see one and only see the other likely means you just haven’t been paying attention or you only see what you want.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 4:28 pm ¶

20. FranSky wrote:

    @ bertie
    Amen!
    ~F

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 4:52 pm ¶

21. taxi wrote:

    WM/BF are not as common anyway according to marriage demographics, there are a lot more BM marrying WF than WM marrying BW.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶

22. Tasha wrote:

    I’ll have to agree that there is a disparity between the percentage racially mixed coupling that actually occurs BM/WF and what is shown WM/BF, but someone pointed out that the former makes for a less threatening image for the dominant WM advertisers…just makes me go hrrrm

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 5:52 pm ¶

23. Bianca wrote:

    I don’t really care about the representation of this couple… I live in a section of Brooklyn where the craziest thing you’ll see is a monoracial couple.
    What surprises me is that we’re supposed to believe she has *that* figure after four kids.

    And Jenn… thank you for saying what I was thinking.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 6:22 pm ¶

24. Harry Allen wrote:

    Hi, Racialiousites: Harry Allen, from Media
    Assassin (harryallen.info), here.

    The reason one typically sees white males sexually involved with non-white females in mediated contexts, and less the inverse, is because whiteness represents power within the system of racism (white supremacy).

    So does sex, both actually and symbolically. As such, the idea of a non-white male *occupying* the body of a non-white female is less desirable to the system of white supremacy (racism).

    An illustration, here, might make this more clear.

    Consider this Ikea “Moo Cow Milker” ad, from 2002:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52FVcN-yKzo

    Now, imagine this ad shot with people of the reverse racial classification; with a Black male, ravaging a white female.

    Or, in 2002, in the near days of 9/11, imagine this commercial with bearded Middle Eastern man, ravaging a white female.

    The result would not be advertising. The result would be *trauma*. For the most part, those white people who, directly and/or indirectly, benefit from racism would see the commercial as a documented *assault*.

    The Corcoran’s ad, above, in a similar manner, has no *saleable* meaning with models of reverse racial classifications in the photo.

    Indeed, given historical roles non-white males have played in homes run by white females, there is the distinct possibility that some viewers would mistake the Black male for hired help; a cook, for example. This would be undesirable to the advertisers, also.

    As a resident of the rezoning and gentrifying neighborhood of Harlem NY, who passes a Corcoran office every week on my way to church—one with a banner renaming the southern part of Harlem with the neologism **SoHa**—to me, what the ad says is, “This is the way the occupation is going to take place, sexually, and geographically.”

    As such, it makes perfect sense.

    HA

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 6:46 pm ¶

25. evd wrote:

    Try to catch the new Miracle Gro commercial…it also features a white man with a black woman. Maybe its a trend? (see Halle Berry).

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 6:57 pm ¶

26. Megahan wrote:

    What about the Old Navy commercial? It’s weird have people claim to see sooo many BM/WW in the media when i honestly always see the opposite. If anything, i don’t think they show this coupling as often as the opposite..which is ironic in a sense because in the United States, it tends to be more common right? I live in Toronto though, and i do see many BW/WM. On my street alone there are two married couples with young kids.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 7:57 pm ¶

27. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @Bianca and Jenn–see, I disagree that the ad is saying that a Black woman needs a white husband to pay Concoran’s high mortgages. That’s just edging towards white people=affluence stereotype. Can’t hop on board that ship, friends…

    I’m with wendi and some of the other commenters in regards to rarely seeing BW/WM or Black women in other IR combos, especially dark-skinned Black women, *in ads.* Movies and TV shows and real life, comparatively speaking, are farther ahead of print, web, and broadcast advertising in such representations. That’s not just selective “seeing,” but simple, casual observation.

    With that said, I think the Corcoran ad, for its perfection-in-affluence unattainability (perfect hetero couple, perfectly cute kids, perfectly lived-in space), did an all right job as far as presenting a interracial family as a possible family construct. A cooler idea would be to present a 4-panel with, along with the photo above, different familial combinations, say, an interracial gay couple with twins, a multiracial group of roommates, a monoracial straight couple, an interracial polyamorous trans trio. I think the copy is trying to appeal to the hopefulness around getting a home and what it means. I think, if anything, the ad leads its target audience to believe that Corcoran can provide a thing–a physical space–to gain perfection. Which, to me, is the overall insidiousness of advertising.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 7:59 pm ¶

28. lowercase tasha wrote:

    @ Harry Allen

    So, you’re saying that by marrying white men, black women are going to be the unwitting agents of the white establishment in taking over Harlem? Aren’t there more black men with white women than vise versa?

    I for one think the couple in the ad has too many children. Don’t they know what keeps causing that?

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 8:20 pm ¶

29. dramelyrique wrote:

    Do we consider ads or shows with young interracial couples to be the same as ones with very serious interracial couples or families?

    I’m not so sure about advertisements but many popular television shows will occasionally have their protagonist date someone of another color to make their character appear hip or cool with the other folks, but in the end, the relationship rarely lasts and the protagonist ends up with someone of his or her own race.

    This advertisement seems really refreshing, not only because it is a BF WM couple, which we rarely see, but because they also seem to be in it for the long haul.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 9:40 pm ¶

30. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear lowercase tasha:

    To your questions:

    Q: “So, you’re saying that by marrying white men, black women are going to be the unwitting agents of the white establishment in taking over Harlem?”

    A. I’m not saying this. Nor am I saying this isn’t the case. “Unwitting agents of the white establishment” is not a term I would ever use.

    I would say, however, that the sexual domination of non-white people is part of the racist system. As such, one may expect to find non-white people sexually dominated in contexts where they are also being politically dominated, educationally dominated, dominated in labor, economically dominated, etc., etc.

    Q. “Aren’t there more black men with white women than vise versa?”

    There may be.

    However, that there may be has little to do with an advertisement. E.g., Black females cook spaghetti and use skin cream, but rarely do in commercials.

    It also has little to do with whether those non-white people, i.e., “Black males, in real life,” are being dominated sexually, or not.

    HA

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 9:43 pm ¶

31. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear lowercase tasha:

    I overlooked your last question:

    Q: “I for one think the couple in the ad has too many children. Don’t they know what keeps causing that?”

    A: I suspect that they do.

    HA

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 9:45 pm ¶

32. Jha wrote:

    Chris: I thought about that Ikea ad too! (I remember really liking it a lot since it featured several other racial minorities as well.) As an Asian, I’d love to see more inter-racial mixups.

    I understand Wendi’s concerns about the woman in the picture not looking “matronly” but the thing about commercial modeling is that it’s “like real life, only better looking”. So whether it’s selling unrealistic expectations really depends on what those expectations are. There’s no way to tell that the ad is selling unrealistic expectations, though – I imagine they’re simply aiming for a target market that [wants to see] interracial coupling as a norm.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 10:12 pm ¶

33. lockedwithpatience wrote:

    Really when reading this ad I don’t get the same message as the author. I think the ad is at is. I don’t believe that there is no other double take.

    I mean, sure the man is white and woman is black. But I feel that if they were really trying to make a point about “racial harmony”, the photo wouldn’t have been as casual, or “real life” as it was. It would have at least been somewhat of a portrait in my opinion.

    This is real life.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 11:05 pm ¶

34. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    Big ups to Corcoran Group for having a multiracial family in this ad – an ad that, very significantly, ran in New York Magazine, a very White mainstream publication.

    It’s nice to see a family like the one I grew up in [that is, White dad, Black mom, biracial kids] represented in the media – I think this is literally the first time in my 39 years on this planet when I’ve seen an ad that showed a family that looked like the one I grew up in!

    And it’s an extra special bonus that they had a dark skinned model as the mom (usually, as you pointed out, the media – even Black publications – prefer to use lightskinned women).

    Considering Corcoran’s heavy presence in Harlem, it’s even more appropriate that they had a biracial family in their magazine ads.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 12:54 am ¶

35. lowercase tasha wrote:

    It’s a mixed bag, if you ask me. I think that lately, the MSM is showing more WM/BF couples in film and on tv shows. Nia Long was Michael Vartan’s love interest on that show “Big Shots.” As someone alluded to above, there was the film, “Something New” and Toni’s husband on “Gilfriends” etc.. On the flip side, Alfre Woodard’s son was with Brie Van de Camp’s daughter on “Desperate Housewives,” and Jason (one of the black football players) is with Kelly (a white woman) on “The Game.”

    I think that while you may see more black women with white men, these days, on scripted tv and ads, the media showcases BM/WF couples in pictures. So, you’ll see black athletes married to white women in snapshots, and the reason why it seems so conspicuous is because when it comes to media coverage, black athletes get the most exposure.

    @HA

    ‘”There may be” (more black men with white women than the opposite)

    There’s no maybe about it. there are more black men with white women than the reverse.

    “Unwitting agents of the white establishment” is not a term I would ever use.”

    Yeah, but isn’t that what you implied in your first comment? I see what you’re saying in terms of keeping your critiques focussed on the ad, but I’m always leary of those(particularly men) who offer up that criticism (the sexual domination of WoC, in this case black women in IR’s by white men), without acknowledging the other side of the scenario which is that there are indeed far more black men with white women than black women with white men. So, do you believe that only MoC or in this case BM, by virtue of being male, are the only ones who can dismantle racism by taking up with WW because WoC, or in this case BW, who take up with a white men are perceived as contributing to a tenant of racism by being sexual subjugated by white male patriarchy?

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 7:42 am ¶

36. gatamala wrote:

    I’m always leary of those(particularly men) who offer up that criticism (the sexual domination of WoC, in this case black women in IR’s by white men), without acknowledging the other side of the scenario which is that there are indeed far more black men with white women than black women with white men. So, do you believe that only MoC or in this case BM, by virtue of being male, are the only ones who can dismantle racism by taking up with WW because WoC, or in this case BW, who take up with a white men are perceived as contributing to a tenant of racism by being sexual subjugated by white male patriarchy?

    good, good question

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 8:25 am ¶

37. Jenn wrote:

    To the Cruel Secretary- It was just a little joke, but keep it real when a black woman dates interracialy black people are gonna expect the male to be at least financially sound. If not, many friends and family are gonna say-you should just be with a black man and not deal with all the IR drama

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 8:50 am ¶

38. bertie wrote:

    Lowercase tasha: I agree with your last post 100%. I also think the media’s skew towards black athletes helped foster the sky is falling notion that all “successful” (and non DL) black men are running after white women and that there is an epidemic of black male theft by white women.

    I think it’s probably true that athletes have a higher percentage of IR marriage/dating than the general pop (money & fame tend to widen a man’s dating options while being broke and unknown limits), but I doubt it’s anywhere near as prevelant as folks think. But because black male pro athletes (and to a lesser degree entertainers) get the most mainstream media attention of any black folks on the planet, they become proxies for all black males in general.

    I definitely get where the author is coming from even though I disagree somewhat with the assesment that IR relationships with BW are never represented in the media. It’s always nice to see your reality reflected and acknowlegded in the media.

    I also think Mr. Allen’s assetment of how the ad would look if the roles were reveresed is spot on. Unless there was an explicit signal that the kids belonged to the black husband–a black husband in the kitchen with a white wife sitting in the forefront would probably be misinterpreted as a black domestic, caterer, repairman, etc. working on behalf of a white employer.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 10:16 am ¶

39. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Jenn–ummm…I’m keeping it real: I really want to know what monolith of Black people has that stereotype of the financially sound, IR-dating white man, friend. Did I miss the meeting or the memo where the 12% gathered and decided this was a point of belief?:-D

    @ gatamela and lct–you asked and co-signed in asking HA this:

    “I’m always leary of those (particularly men) who offer up that criticism (the sexual domination of WoC, in this case black women in IR’s by white men), without acknowledging the other side of the scenario which is that there are indeed far more black men with white women than black women with white men. So, do you believe that only MoC or in this case BM, by virtue of being male, are the only ones who can dismantle racism by taking up with WW because WoC, or in this case BW, who take up with a white men are perceived as contributing to a tenant of racism by being sexual subjugated by white male patriarchy?…”

    I’m with y’all on this one because I can’t get with the assumption of the lack of free sexual will, or free will in general, on the part of Black women in IR relationships nowadays and, yeah, even back in the day–in rare cases, formerly enslaved Black women chose to stay in sexual and familial relationships with their former white owners. (”Sexual domination?” “Sexual subjugation?” I know, lct, you were rephrasing what HA said, but still.) There’s a smell of “sleeping with the enemy” (”enemy”=white men) that I can’t get with.

    What’s also being assumed that only women can be subjugated and dominated in the white male patriarchy, which isn’t necessarily so. MoC’s are also sexually dominated and subjugated by white male patriarchy by being seen as having a deviant sexuality, i.e. the stereotype of the hypersexual Black rapist and its twin, the sexless Magical Negro. And, some would argue, that Black men who date/marry white women are sexually subjugating to the cohort/consort of white male patriarchy. ::Eye roll::

    I’m calling BS on this one, friends. Liberation from racism doesn’t inherently come from one gender or from a certain kind of relationship.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 10:42 am ¶

40. bdsista wrote:

    great comment Tasha, I agree, according to the Dept of HHS, Black males and females are more likely to be unmarried than Whites, Hispanics, or American Indian/Alaskan Natives (AIAN) (42.2% for males, 40.8% for females, compared to 27.5% and 21.2% respectively for Whites, 38.2% and 30.3% for Hispanics, and 35.7% ad 29.9% for AIAN ).(ACS 2002)

    Having attended two HBCUs and still have accomplished girlfriends who have NEVER married, I agree with Wendy that its nice to see an ad featuring a sister that is not stereotpyical hollywood light, and a white man. It has nothing to do with sexual conquest, or the concept that we are affirmed by a white male. Its just the idea that in a culture that devalues beauty in WOC unless they look close to white, to be dark and be with an attractive member of the dominant culture in a very small way demonstrates parity if only in the realm of superficial beauty in advertising. Besides all people of all races are influenced by advertising, so since there is no shortage of WM, and men in the dating world are traditionally the initiators, perhaps that opens the options to both groups. I know for the younger crowd this is passe, but it still can be a difficult option for the 45-50+ crowd.
    I am going to stand back now……

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 10:47 am ¶

41. wendi muse wrote:

    just to echo some of the sentiments above, another reason why this ad stood out to me is because it showed a FAMILY not just some people bonking for fun, which is a lot of what we see of IR couples in the media (from tv to film to commercials)…it’s like the mesage is that it’s ok to “play” interracially, but not to get serious

    maybe i don’t watch enough tv or see enough ads, but IR families are kinda rare.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 11:36 am ¶

42. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear lowercase tasha:

    A clarification:

    You asked me, “Aren’t there more black men with white women than vise versa?”

    I responded:

    There may be.

    You responded, “There’s no maybe about it. there are more black men with white women than the reverse.”

    I may not have been clear. What I was saying is, “I don’t know. If there are, it has little to do with an advertisement. E.g., Black females cook spaghetti and use skin cream, but rarely do in commercials.

    It also has little to do with whether those non-white people, i.e., “Black males, in real life,” are being dominated sexually, or not.

    To your questions:

    I said that “Unwitting agents of the white establishment” is not a term I would ever use.

    You’ve asked:

    Q: Yeah, but isn’t that what you implied in your first comment?

    No.

    You’ve asked.

    Q: I see what you’re saying in terms of keeping your critiques focussed on the ad, but I’m always leary of those(particularly men) who offer up that criticism (the sexual domination of WoC, in this case black women in IR’s by white men), without acknowledging the other side of the scenario which is that there are indeed far more black men with white women than black women with white men. So, do you believe that only MoC or in this case BM, by virtue of being male, are the only ones who can dismantle racism by taking up with WW because WoC, or in this case BW, who take up with a white men are perceived as contributing to a tenant of racism by being sexual subjugated by white male patriarchy?

    A: I don’t see non-white males or females as different, in this regard.

    That is, in my opinion, when a non-white person, regardless of gender, engages in sexual intercourse, or sexual play, with a white person, this doesn’t dismantle racism (white supremacy). It makes white supremacy stronger.

    HA

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 11:45 am ¶

43. wendi muse wrote:

    and for the record, to clarify some of the questions asked above, yes, there are more black males in interracial marriages than black females according to statistics. as far as dating is concerned, that’s hard to quantify in a study for obvious reasons (as people define relationships differently). however, just from my observations (and no, i am not out looking for it, so those of you who may assume i am only looking for bm/non-bF relationships), it appears, at least in NYC, that more bm are in IRs than black women.

    for those who think this has nothing to do with advertising, though, i beg to differ. i think standards of beauty are dependent on media influences, and as appearance/attraction is one element in initiating dating/relationships/marriage, i think that plays a role for sure, whether we want to admit it or not.

    i often hear people say things like “i didn’t find asian guys attractive until i saw X film and the lead was so hot”…and it makes me wonder, if there were more asian leads in films or commercials, would the stereotypes of them being nerdy and emasculated be picked at until people starting seeing the physical before they saw a stereotype? i would say a big fat yes. what we see on television, in film, and in ads, esp if it’s something we see day in and day out increases our familiarity with it and even comfort and appreciation for it. i don’t think it would be too far of a leap to make to say that whiteness, esp when it comes to women, or at least closeness to it in skin color, hair texture, etc means one is infinitely closer to beauty (combine that with size as well…i.e. i don’t open up very many magazines and see women over a size four).

    it’s inevitable that we are influenced by these images whether we realize it or not, and i think they play a major role (besides just proximity…i.e. if one were to work with or go to school with x peron) in whom we find attractive and choose as mates.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 1:01 pm ¶

44. wendi muse wrote:

    oh and one more thing…i don’t think interracial relationships/pairing/sex whatever is a sign of progress. it’s a sign of progress in media representations, yes, but as far as on the ground, i don’t think so. as we often say on this site, interracial sex does not rid one of racism. i mean look at thomas jefferson! on the surface level, it just means one is willing to have sex with a person different from themselves. it doesn’t mean that person is going to be the leader of the rainbow push coalition.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 1:08 pm ¶

45. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ wendi–co-sign.

    @Harry Allen–you said: “That is, in my opinion, when a non-white person, regardless of gender, engages in sexual intercourse, or sexual play, with a white person, this doesn’t dismantle racism (white supremacy). It makes white supremacy stronger.”

    Friend, I’m befuddled. How does an act of (or acts of) sexual intercourse make white supremacy stronger? Even some PoCs who engage in “race play” don’t feel it strengthens that system and don’t feel like traitors to the race:

    http://www.alternet.org/rights/20656/

    I’m sincerely all ears …

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 4:51 pm ¶

46. Ailurophile wrote:

    Wendi – and others – great points!

    On the subject of men being initiators in relationships – it seems to me that this fact is not taken into account enough when it comes to analyzing IR’s. If there is any kind of gender disparity in who dates or marries “out” – it’s always blamed on the pickytude of women who are cast as relationship gatekeepers.

    The fact is that even now it’s men who take the initiative in relationships so if there is a gender disparity – it’s not because women (of whatever race) are so fussy.

    Which leads me to my second point – Wendi @43 notes that advertising plays a part in what is considered attractive – physical attractiveness doesn’t matter that much to women, and it does to men. So while positive, attractive images of (example) black women might well have an impact – I don’t know if it would matter that much with AM *as far as relationships are concerned*; for self-esteem and justice reasons of course it matters, everyone deserves to be seen as attractive.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 5:11 pm ¶

47. lowercase tasha wrote:

    @HA

    Thanks for clearing that up. I now understand your POV.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 5:43 pm ¶

48. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear lowercase tasha:

    Thank you. I appreciate you considering what I’ve said.

    Dear The Cruel Secretary:

    I wrote:

    That is, in my opinion, when a non-white person, regardless of gender, engages in sexual intercourse, or sexual play, with a white person, this doesn’t dismantle racism (white supremacy). It makes white supremacy stronger.

    You wrote:

    “Friend, I’m befuddled. How does an act of (or acts of) sexual intercourse make white supremacy stronger? Even some PoCs who engage in “race play” don’t feel it strengthens that system and don’t feel like traitors to the race:

    http://www.alternet.org/rights/20656/

    I’m sincerely all ears …”

    Thanks, and thanks for the link. I’d not seen the article and will pass it on.

    To your question:

    Q: “How does an act of (or acts of) sexual intercourse make white supremacy stronger?”

    The short answer is that, by having sex with a non-white person, the white person is increasing the strength of white supremacy, because they are adding to the total number of non-white people that white people have power over.

    How clear is my response?

    If it is unclear, what is unclear?

    HA

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 7:03 pm ¶

49. cvalda wrote:

    So we go beyond what matters now. We listen to what will matter tomorrow

    I think it’s kinda promising a future world of mobility where race, culture, class; personal history in general; “don’t matter.” So to some degree it’s doing that US capitalist thing of intentionally denying history. “Betterness” involves a Cosby-looking suburban house.

    But it does positive things within that tradition; only so much you can expect when it’s mortgages being sold, and this does pretty well. I like that this ideal family doesn’t rely on “light skin = female beauty” and that they’re sharing tasks.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 7:33 pm ¶

50. Bianca wrote:

    cruel secretary:

    To be honest, I’m not aboard that ship either. But I do think cynical, tongue-in-cheek thoughts whenever I see a major company receive a pat on the back for something not all progressive. I’m a skeptic. My thought stems more from a serious distrust of any “message” a major corporation tries to give me. Barbara Corcoran and her firm especially irks me, since they work, (alongside developers, city officials, whoever) to displace long-time residents of certain neighborhoods and replace them with yuppies, while making no effort to help restore or preserve the culture that made the neighborhood great in the first place. Most likely, she does not deeply consider the weight of identity and sexual politics in an ad. She’s sees a trend in a gentrifying neighborhood and pounces. So I don’t buy any of these happylala messages folks are coming up with over this ad.

    I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have underlying issues surrounding interracial relationships, power and sex, and thin dark-skinned models. Though I find something funny, I don’t inherently subscribe to it.

    Posted 23 Apr 2008 at 11:06 pm ¶

51. SerenityNow wrote:

    My apologies if this one was noted:
    There is a current Lowes commercial with a white woman and (arguably) latino man. They’re looking at gardening stuff.
    And the woman is also taller than the man! lol

    Posted 24 Apr 2008 at 12:35 am ¶

52. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Harry Allen–what I’m befuddled by is your underlying premise that every IR sexual encounter and sexual play involving a white partner is the equivalent of a body count in a war. (No, wait–I’m not befuddled, I simply disagree with you, friend.)

    Though 1) sexualized violence has been used for several centuries by some whites to subjugate PoCs and 2) consensual IR sexual encounters and play have the potential to be fraught with underlying, unaddressed, and/or unchallenged racial power dynamics, that doesn’t mean, therefore, every IR sexual act and play *inherently is so.* Consensual sex, be it monoracial or interracial, doesn’t always equate to power.

    Posted 24 Apr 2008 at 9:40 am ¶

53. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear The Cruel Secretary:

    You wrote:

    “@ Harry Allen–what I’m befuddled by is your underlying premise that every IR sexual encounter and sexual play involving a white partner is the equivalent of a body count in a war. (No, wait–I’m not befuddled, I simply disagree with you, friend.)”

    In response:

    1. I understand, and I accept your disagreement.

    2. I did not say “that every IR sexual encounter and sexual play involving a white partner is the equivalent of a body count in a war.”

    I said that, by having sex with a non-white person, the white person is increasing the strength of white supremacy, because they are adding to the total number of non-white people that white people have power over.

    3. The *words* are very important, which is why I have said what I’ve said.

    It’s also why I’ve said it the way I’ve said it.

    The way I’ve said it, in part, is even why, unfortunately, my posts have, what I realize is, a somewhat formal, disembodied “tone.”

    I use words this way in order to enable the reader to focus on the meaning of what I’m saying, and less on how I say it…”as such.”

    4. Under conditions dominated by racism (white supremacy), such as those anywhere on Earth presently, the use of metaphorical expressions like “a body count in a war” can encourage disbelief and ridicule, especially when discussing *race* combined with *sex*.

    It’s akin to saying something is “a conspiracy.”

    Conspiracies happen, and they do exist. However, people are inclined to disbelieve in them. As such, to even call a conspiracy “a conspiracy” is to invite disbelief.

    As such, had you written this…

    “What I’m befuddled by is your underlying premise that every IR sexual encounter and sexual play involving a white partner increases the strength of white supremacy, by adding to the total number of non-white people that white people have power over.”

    …I would not have to address this subject. I could merely clarify or explain what I’ve said.

    I’m not saying that you should have said something different, nor am I telling you, or saying, what you should write.

    I’m merely talking about *words*, because they are the key materials with which we’re working here.

    You wrote:

    “Though 1) sexualized violence has been used for several centuries by some whites to subjugate PoCs and 2) consensual IR sexual encounters and play have the potential to be fraught with underlying, unaddressed, and/or unchallenged racial power dynamics…”

    In response:

    To the degree that I understand what you’re saying, I agree.

    You wrote:

    “that doesn’t mean, therefore, every IR sexual act and play *inherently is so,*” i.e., “fraught with underlying, unaddressed, and/or unchallenged racial power dynamics…”

    In response:

    I haven’t said that sexual intercourse and sexual play between white and non-white people, under conditions dominated by white supremacy (race), are “fraught with underlying, unaddressed, and/or unchallenged racial power dynamics.” I don’t even know what this means.

    I’ve said sexual intercourse and sexual play between white and non-white people, under conditions dominated by race (white supremacy):

    1. Increases the strength of white supremacy, by

    2. Adding to the total number of non-white people that white people have power over.

    You wrote:

    “Consensual sex, be it monoracial or interracial, doesn’t always equate to power.”

    In response (speaking, here, with the generic “you”):

    The person with whom you have sexual intercourse has “say” over you, of a unique and distinct kind.

    The person with whom you have sexual intercourse can “say,” “I don’t think that you should take that job,” and you will give this statement consideration that you would not give it, if offered by a close friend or trusted advisor.

    The person with whom you have sexual intercourse can “say,” “I want to move out of this city,” and you will give this statement consideration that you might not give it, if you came up with it yourself.

    The person with whom you have sexual intercourse can “say,” “I don’t want you talking to that person any more,” and you will weigh this statement heavily.

    Indeed, if you disobey, you may concoct elaborate schemes, in order to keep them from knowing that you’ve gone against them. Though you are disobeying them, the fact of your attempt at deception, itself, shows that they have “say.”

    In effect, what you are doing is giving them a form of *power* over you.

    You wrote:

    “Consensual sex, be it monoracial or interracial, doesn’t always equate to power.”

    Some would say that, “Consensual sex, be it monoracial or interracial, that doesn’t equate to power is *really, really bad* sex.” Not I, but some.

    Some would say, “Tell it to the law partner having a sexual relationship with a competitor at another firm.” Not I, but some.

    In other words, what you’re saying, above, isn’t true. It isn’t even what people tend to believe. It doesn’t make sense. The “social mathematics” of the following is widely and commonly understood:

    i) Take any two people having a relationship of some kind:

    Student/teacher.

    Parent/child.

    Realtor/client.

    Policeman/suspect.

    Clergy/layperson.

    Brother/sister.

    Neighbor/next-door neighbor.

    Worker/co-worker.

    Farmer/hired hand.

    Lawyer/client.

    ii) Now, add sexual intercourse, or sexual play, to these relationships.

    What’s commonly understood is that, in all of the above situations, the relationships would change. They would *warp*. In some cases, the change would be so drastic many would say that sexual activity has *distorted* the relationship.

    This would *especially* be the case in those relationships where the original difference in power is greatest between the participants. Indeed, in some of the above scenarios, sexual relations are forbidden *at all times* because of this very effect.

    For example:

    Few would object to a male policeman having sexual intercourse with his female next-door neighbor. However, were that next-door neighbor to be arrested by him, either his policing over her, or his sexual intercourse with her, would come under intense scrutiny *immediately*.

    In most instances, his bosses—his “superior officers”—would tell him to “remove himself from the case.”

    They would say this, because of the widely-held, common understanding that it is impossible to impartially administer justice to someone with whom one is having sexual intercourse, especially when one has substantially more power than they do.

    **But this is exactly the position in which such white and non-white person find themselves, under race**: One needing justice, one having more power than the other, having sexual intercourse.

    You used the term “sexualized violence” earlier. In fact, what I’m describing is a form of *rape*, of overpowerment via sex.

    The question that is not usually addressed, however, is this one: Between white and non-white people, under conditions dominated by white supremacy, what does the term “consensual” actually *mean*?

    Sex is not just a physical act. That is what one would have to believe, in order to agree that “Consensual sex, be it monoracial or interracial, doesn’t always equate to power.”

    Sex is also a *mental* act. To put it one way, under racist conditions, when a non-white person has sexual intercourse with a white person, that non-white person will then tend to weigh any thought, speech, or action against white supremacy in terms of how these might affect that white person.

    So, to put it in the most brutal terms possible, just for the purposes of this thought experiment, and to make it plain—in other words, I’m not advocating this:

    Let’s say that at some anti-racist meeting, Black people are meeting. One of them is a Black female who has regular sexual intercourse with a white male. She calls him “her boyfriend.”

    Anyway, the meeting is going along. Emotion is building. She’s feeling good, too. She enjoys meetings where we can talk about our issues. Suddenly, to loud cheers, one of the Black people says, “To end racism, we need to kill all the white people!” Everyone erupts.

    The first thing that non-white female is going to think is, “Protect. Brian.”

    Or, here, on this comments list: Based on experience, I’d say that the people who probably are most likely to object to what I’m saying, here, are either

    a) Non-white people who are having sexual relations with white people, or

    b) People who are the offspring of such unions,

    for this very reason.

    Finally:

    I say that, as long as racism (white supremacy) is dominant, non-white people should not be *increasing* the power that white people have over us. We should be *decreasing* that power.

    This idea seems to be widely and commonly understood in most areas of people activity: Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, and War. Indeed, voicing the same would be uncontroversial in any of these areas.

    It is only in the area of *Sex* that this becomes, somehow, offensive or outrageous.

    It is only in the discussion of white and non-white people refraining from sexual intercourse, during the existence of racism, that the unjust power relationship between white people and non-white people somehow, mysteriously, disappears, while it does not do so in any other instance.

    This is absurd. This is why I say that the chief weapon of a racist is deceit, and the chief tools of deceit are words.

    Any white person, who engages in sexual intercourse with a non-white person, under conditions dominated by White Supremacy, has done more to promote the maintenance, expansion, and/or refinement of White Supremacy, than he or she could have done by any other means, in any other area of activity. Anything that a white person says or does that helps to promote such behavior, and/or anything that a white person says or does that helps to promote sexual confusion of any kind, among non-white people, is, by so doing, practicing Racism (White Suprewmacy) in its most destructive form.

    Please: what are your thoughts?

    Thanks, in advance, for them.

    Produce Justice,
    Harry Allen

    Posted 24 Apr 2008 at 7:31 pm ¶

54. Alston wrote:

    Media Assassin,

    First of all, I can’t believe that I am actually in a position to talk to you. I remember your involvement with early PE, and I thought that you were a very cool cat then.

    I am a black Canadian male who is not well-read in race issues (that is slowly changing) and even less well-read in areas of sexism. But I do recall Andrea Dworkin saying that heterosexual sex, consensual or otherwise, is an act of rape, or something close to it. Is what you are saying in your last comment the racial equivalent of Dworkin’s theory?

    Posted 25 Apr 2008 at 12:34 pm ¶

55. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear Alston:

    Thanks for your kind words.

    You asked:

    Q: “…I do recall Andrea Dworkin saying that heterosexual sex, consensual or otherwise, is an act of rape, or something close to it. Is what you are saying in your last comment the racial equivalent of Dworkin’s theory?”

    A: I do not know. I’m not familiar with Dworkin’s theory.

    I used the word “rape” because it is, by definition, sexual intercourse without consent.

    In rape, the sexual intercourse can be forced, or unforced. But consent–its presence or absence–is the arbiter of whether or not rape has occurred.

    But to give one’s consent, first of all, one needs “parity,” or, I say, *balance* between the people involved.

    This is why, for example, some classes of people are held to unable to consent, even if they say “Yes”; e.g., children; certain kinds of mentally ill people; the senile, etc.

    It is to this I was speaking when I asked this question: Between white and non-white people, under conditions dominated by white supremacy, what does the term “consensual” actually *mean*?

    In other words, how can a non-white person “consent” from a dominated position?

    I’m not one to quote Wikipedia, pretty much ever. However, it’s language, here, is useful.

    In the entry on “consent (criminal)” it says that the state has “an underlying policy need to limit the ability of the strong to prey on the weak. Hence, most states have laws which criminalize misrepresentations, deceptions and fraud.”

    *The strong preying on the weak*. *Misrepresentations, deceptions and fraud*. These are the substance, the very content, the *stuffing* of white supremacy.

    But plainly applying generally accepted standards of people relations to race usually makes the way it functions very obvious.

    This is what I meant when I said that, as long as racism (white supremacy) is dominant, non-white people should not be *increasing* the power that white people have over us. We should be *decreasing* that power.

    This idea seems to be widely and commonly understood in most areas of people activity: Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, and War. Indeed, voicing the same would be uncontroversial in any of these areas.

    It is only in the area of *Sex* that this becomes, somehow, offensive or outrageous.

    This is, in part, because racism works best by invisibility. So, the system, under optimum conditions, tends not to be widely and openly examined.

    Furthermore, many people think “people’s private lives,” “what happens between two people,” “what you do behind closed doors,” etc. should, as inferred, limit the discussion of *race + sex*.

    This further adds to the relative invisibility of the subject, its mystery, and its power, because it leaves the phenomena unexamined. Not here.

    Please: what are your thoughts?

    Thanks, in advance, for them.

    Produce Justice,
    Harry Allen

    Posted 25 Apr 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶

56. wendi muse wrote:

    dworkin later went back and amended that statement, saying that it was taken a bit out of context…but that as men are inevitably privileged by way of their gender, their position in sex calls for an act of violation…not exactly rape, but an acting out of male domination as it transfers from a social sense to a physical one

    Posted 25 Apr 2008 at 7:19 pm ¶

57. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Alston–actually, quite a few Second Wave feminists interpreted Dworkin’s arguments as a justification in not believing that straight and bi women couldn’t possibly be down with fighting for women’s liberation because they were sleeping with (or wanting to sleep with) men=sexing the patriarchy. The underlying premise was men=patriarchy=bad. That, and the idea of the “personal is political,” evolved into a popular in-movement phrase at that time, “Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice.”

    Which brings me to Harry’s argument.

    @ HA–Actually, Harry, what may be clear as crystal to you is clear as mud to me, and your latest answer really did befuddle me.:-D But, let me see what I can distill from it, friend, and give you my response to it.

    Ultimately, HA, as much as you disgree with my word choice in my disagreement as much as I may or may not agree with your tone, the fact remains that what I disagreed with is your *underlying premise* of your statement, “…by having sex with a non-white person, the white person is increasing the strength of white supremacy, because they are adding to the total number of non-white people that white people have power over.”

    You proceeded to define this “power over” as what is commonly thought of as influence. (”The person with whom you have sexual intercourse has “say” over you of a unique and distinct kind.”) A person can still exercise agency and consent, in this case, whether or not to be influenced by the sex. Honestly, what you’re getting at is the intention of the people having sex (your “sex=mental argument), not sex itself. That’s partly what I meant about “consensual sex, be it monoracial or interracial, doesn’t always equate to power.” All consensual sex isn’t about “pussy-” or “dick-whipping.”

    Then, in your effort to disprove what I said, you mention relationships where, in this society, power differentials, professional ethics and relationships, and social taboos (and some combinations of those) would make any sort of sexual relationship on those cases inappropriate anyway. The exception to your list is the example of the neighbors: if they’re both single consenting adults, few people would raise an eyebrow. (Heck, some of the other neighbors may even be willing to host the wedding/civil union/commitment ceremony in their backyard if the two neighbors decided to get married.) However, if one or both were married and the spouse(s) did not agree–in other words, give consent–to have a open relationship, then that would be a problem–not because they’re neighbors but *due to the lack of consent from the spouses* The proximity compounds the problem.

    But I think the linchpin of your trying to prove your argument (and trying to disprove mine) is:

    1) “the widely-held, common understanding that it is impossible to impartially administer justice to someone with whom one is having sexual intercourse, especially when one has substantially more power than they do . **But this is exactly the position in which such white white and non-white find themselves under race**: One needing justice, one having more power than the other, having sexual intercourse.”

    2) “In fact, what I’m talking about is “rape,” of overpowerment via sex.”

    3) The question that is not usually not addressed, however, is this one: Between white and non-white people, under the conditions dominated by white supremacy, what does “consensual” actually means?”

    4) “But consent–its presence or absence–is the arbiter of whether or not rape has occurred.
    But to give one’s consent, first of all, one needs “parity,” or, I say, *balance* between the people involved. This is why, for example, some classes of people are held to unable to consent, even if they say “Yes”; e.g., children; certain kinds of mentally ill people; the senile, etc.
    It is to this I was speaking when I asked this question: Between white and non-white people, under conditions dominated by white supremacy, what does the term “consensual” actually *mean*? In other words, how can a non-white person “consent” from a dominated position?”

    5) Any white person, who engages in sexual intercourse with a non-white person, under conditions dominated by White Supremacy, has done more to promote the maintenance, expansion, and/or refinement of White Supremacy, than he or she could have done by any other means, in any other area of activity. Anything that a white person says or does that helps to promote such behavior, and/or anything that a white person says or does that helps to promote sexual confusion of any kind, among non-white people, is, by so doing, practicing Racism (White Suprewmacy) in its most destructive form.

    Therefore,
    6) I say that, as long as racism (white supremacy) is dominant, non-white people should not be *increasing* the power that white people have over us. We should be *decreasing* that power.

    IMO, one of the disagreeable underlying premises is white people=white supremacy=enemy. Thus, your solution to racial justice is, along with all the other fights against institutional and interpersonal anti-PoC racism is not to have sex with them, let alone have committed relationships and babies with them. To extrapolate, any PoC who has any sexual relationship with a white person cannot possibly fight for racial justice because they’re sleeping with the enemy or, by your example of the Black woman who wants to “protect [her white boyfriend] Brian,” has divided allegiances, which still gives white people=white supremacy power. So, if I had to make a slogan of your argument, it would be: “Anti-white supremacy is the theory; not f***ing white folks is the practice.”

    Also, friend, your line of argument flattens out any IR-involved white people, *by virtue of the fact that they’re white*, as agents of white supremacy. Basically, they’re The Enemy, kind of like how the Dworkin-arguing feminists cast any man as agents by virtue of the fact that he’s a guy as the Enemy of women’s liberation–and it flattened the reasons why and how women became lesbians and feminists. Such line of reasoning alienates IR-involved (and even non-IR-involved) anti-racism whites from wanting to ally with PoCs in fighting white supremacy on its many fronts–including challenging those who want to approach PoCs sexually with a whole lot of “backstaged” racially charge sexual stereotypes.

    Also, what I find disagreeable is your argument, under the rhetoric of “justice,” “power,” and even “rape,” actually unjustly limits the relationship options for some people. Now, I’d love a good reason to love Heroes’ Sendhil Ramamurthy on down , but this one (”use that Pink Rabbit Pearl for the PoCs, dahling!”)…not so much. It plays on both fear and righteous anger. (Even the implication of white people=enemy is war-like rhetoric. Your argument may be older than both of us, going back to the days of “race men” and “race women” who interpreted their racial duty to not cross the racial line to date the “ofay” because Black folks were engaged in a pitched battle against Whitey. They saw every Black person as a soldier, every Black body produced more Black soldiers, and anyone even thinking about lusting a white person was a traitor to the race and dating and marrying was not OK. That why I said what I said about your equating IR sexual encounters to a body count in a war. It’s extraordinarily similar–and similarly limiting–thinking.)

    To sex-positive me, IRs don’t bother me because, in a post-desegregation and post-Loving v. Virginia society, it is consenting, reasonable, right-minded adults saying yes to getting their freak on and saying yes to each and every act they do each other–to me, that’s where the parity and balance rests so there’s no “rape.” (And, like I said before, even during the days of Jim Crow, some formerly enslaved Black women exercised agency and consented to have sexual relationships with the white men who used to own them.) To them I say, “Latex and lube, luvies!” (If they ask, I’ll even recommend some good sex manuals and sex-toy stores.) To my way of thinking, it becomes bothersome when they walk into it with some unexamined or unchallenged ish on both sides about their partner and how the relationship will help or hinder that ish.

    That’s my thinking about what you said, Harry. And on this, I think you and I simply have to agree to disagree, friend.

    Posted 25 Apr 2008 at 10:09 pm ¶

58. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    …and I just thought of this: if folks took your idea, Harry, of not sleeping with white people in order to decrease the power of white supremacy and lived it out, we wouldn’t have:

    1) Neo in The Matrix (no Keanu Reeves and those nice arms)
    2) any posts and comments about Keanu Reeves on Racialicious
    3) Racialicious, period. (Carmen’s parents wouldn’t have gotten together.)

    Posted 26 Apr 2008 at 6:45 am ¶

59. atlasien wrote:

    Cruel Secretary, good argument, I cosign.

    One major problem to the ethnic-nationalism anti-interracial argument is that white supremacy doesn’t even need white people to perpetuate itself. Even in countries with almost no white people, issues like colorism and colonialism still can have a huge impact on non-interracial sexual relations. Like you say, white supremacy does not equal white people.

    I also disagree about this standard of absolute power equality for sexual relationships. I used to read a lot of Samuel Delany on this subject (black, queer, seminal science fiction writer and theorist). He’s written a lot about BDSM and power play in sexual relationships. Power in itself isn’t necessarily bad, it’s the uses to which power is put. If you take all power out of sex, something which is probably impossible, it becomes a purely mechanical and reproductive act.

    Posted 26 Apr 2008 at 10:36 am ¶

60. Sewere wrote:

    Forget Obama and Clinton, Cruel Secretary for president!!!!

    I completely co-sign with what you said, and if I may add the following to Mr Allen.

    Let’s say that at some anti-racist meeting…. Suddenly, to loud cheers, one of the Black people says, “To end racism, we need to kill all the white people!”

    Dude, what kind of anti-racist meetings have you been going to?

    Next:
    “I’d say that the people who probably are most likely to object to what I’m saying here, are… People who are the offspring of such union”

    You mean people like Frederick Douglass, Malcom X, Jerry Rawlings and countless other multi and bi-racial folk who identify as black and contributed considerably to the empowerment of black folk?

    Because all you seem to be doing sounds so much like the Eric Daniels (TM) Racial Authenticity Test, where the person someone literally sleeps with or may partner with defines that person’s race loyalty? Thinking which as Cruel Secretary so eloquently states uses fear to prey and righteous anger, invariably limiting thinking” on the issue of empowerment.

    Posted 26 Apr 2008 at 6:16 pm ¶

61. lowercase tasha wrote:

    i agree. forget Obama

    Posted 27 Apr 2008 at 10:14 am ¶

62. Aquarianbrass wrote:

    Cruel Secretary,
    You didn’t even have to go into all that to dismantle HA argument.
    By his reasoning, all heterosexual sex and relationships serve to reinforce sexism.
    Given that we live in a world where supposedly patriarchy reigns supreme, than any relation between a man and women that exists within this context of male supremacy serves only to increase the power the man has over the women. Any heterosexual relationship that takes place in a climate of patriarchy contributes to the further domination of women.
    Also, any friendships between whites and non-whites or males and females serves the purposes of white, male domination since friendships can create divided loyalties as well.
    The Media Assassins argument is very absolutist and sounds like the arguments made by those who lament the totalizing influence capitalism, an argument that only serves to augment the power of capitalism. Same goes for white supremacy(what is that anyway) By totalizing it, meaning assuming that it is a grounding factor in all human relations on earth, he only serves to reinforce its power. In his world, white supremacy is a given, a fact that is beyond interrogation and thus beyond giving up its secrets and weaknesses.

    Posted 27 Apr 2008 at 5:31 pm ¶

63. Aquarianbrass wrote:

    I should say white supremacy is a transcendent fact, like the force of gravity.

    Posted 27 Apr 2008 at 5:31 pm ¶

64. jalabi wrote:

    @Black Ivy: “You never see black women with white men–in life or on tv. If black/white pairs are presented, its always a black man. ALWAYS.”

    Not true. Remember the show “Half and Half” that used to be on UPN? Mona had a white boyfriend for like half of the season. (Interesting that the actress who portrayed Mona is herself the product of a WM and BF.)

    @McJumpguez: “There were also the Verizon ads (I think) that featured a mixed Latino and White couple. Also, as much as I hate it, Walmart does it too, white mom with Asian baby, etc.”

    I wish I’d seen THOSE Verizon ads. All the IR couples I’ve ever seen in Verizon ads are Asian female/white man.

    And I have to say that I was jumping up and down when I first saw that IKEA ad with the Asian guy and the black woman and their mixed child all in the bed together, I was like “AT LAST! Finally, my Asian brothers are getting some love” That was one of my favorite ads of all time, and I don’t even shop at IKEA

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 12:33 am ¶

65. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    Thanks for this response.

    Agreeing to disagree always remains an option. I accept it.

    I also appreciate that, despite disagreeing, you choose to refer to me as *friend*. I take this as a sign of good will, and an attempt to maintain balance in this discussion.

    As you have, then, I would like to offer my thinking about what you’ve said.

    However, I should clarify something I may not have yet:

    My comments are offered from the position that racism:

    1. Has a sole functional form: White supremacy.

    2. White supremacy dominates all people relations in the known universe.

    3. The only correct response to white supremacy is its elimination.

    I say this not to backtrack from anything I’ve said, but to merely put what I’ve said, and my upcoming comments, “in context.”

    You wrote:

    “@ HA–Actually, Harry, what may be clear as crystal to you is clear as mud to me, and your latest answer really did befuddle me.:-D”

    In response:

    I accept full responsibility for this.

    I’ve found that, when forwarding these ideas, most people typically find them wrong, or counter-intuitive.

    However, if you are befuddled by them, you would have to admit that this would make a coherent response to them difficult, if not impossible.

    You wrote:

    “But, let me see what I can distill from it, friend, and give you my response to it.

    “Ultimately, HA, as much as you disgree with my word choice in my disagreement as much as I may or may not agree with your tone, the fact remains that what I disagreed with is your *underlying premise* of your statement, ‘…by having sex with a non-white person, the white person is increasing the strength of white supremacy, because they are adding to the total number of non-white people that white people have power over.’”

    “You proceeded to define this ‘power over’ as what is commonly thought of as influence.”

    In response:

    Thanks for saying that.

    I will talk about this more, below, in my response.

    You wrote:

    “(‘The person with whom you have sexual intercourse has “say” over you of a unique and distinct kind.’) A person can still exercise agency and consent, in this case, whether or not to be influenced by the sex.”

    In response:

    By this, you seem to be affirming what I said: The person with whom you have sexual intercourse has “say” over you of a unique and distinct kind.

    Question 1. Are you agreeing with me? (Please answer this question.)

    In other words, if not, there would be no need to exercise the agency and consent of which you speak: “whether or not to be influenced by the sex.”

    You wrote:

    “Honestly, what you’re getting at is the intention of the people having sex (your ‘sex=mental argument), not sex itself.”

    In response:

    That’s not true. This has nothing to do with intent.

    That is, intent is not irrelevant.

    For example, courts recognize that the difference between unintended effects and intended effects. That’s basic “law.”

    However, they also recognize that unintended effects can be just as severe as intended ones; e.g., the person one runs over with a car unintentionally, and the person one runs over with a car on-purpose, are both just as dead.

    In a similar way, intent does not limit the power of the interaction; i.e., sexual intercourse.

    That’s basic COSMOPOLITAN magazine-level male/female interaction science.

    I need to stop, here. As I write this, I’m suffering a bout of disbelief.

    Based on what I am understanding from your response this far, you are writing that the “say” to which I speak, through sexual intercourse, exists. (You call it “influence.”)

    But, you then add, non-white people can offset it by just choosing “whether or not to be influenced by the sex.”

    That’s your strategy?

    I have to say: Statements like these are part of the reason I’ve argued that non-white people need to develop a *codified* response to white supremacy.

    Your statement has much of the imprecision with which, to a great extent, non-white people are saddled in our interactions with the white supremacists (racists). When those non-white people discuss the race problem, or address it, their answers, then, are all over the place.

    This response, in a similar way, seems to reflect that. Again, it doesn’t reflect the way people tend to act.

    Young Black female on the A train: “I’m going to choose whether or not to be influenced by the sex.”

    Does this sound like anything anyone would ever say?

    Let’s continue.

    You wrote:

    “That’s partly what I meant about ‘consensual sex, be it monoracial or interracial, doesn’t always equate to power.’”

    In response:

    This statement contradicts what you’ve already said, above.

    You wrote:

    “All consensual sex isn’t about ‘pussy-‘ or ‘dick-whipping.’”

    In response:

    I don’t know what you mean by “about ‘pussy-‘ or ‘dick-whipping,’” or what these have to do with sexual intercourse, or white supremacy.

    You wrote:

    “Then, in your effort to disprove what I said, you mention relationships where, in this society, power differentials, professional ethics and relationships, and social taboos (and some combinations of those) would make any sort of sexual relationship on those cases inappropriate anyway.”

    In response:

    I did that, but not “anyway.” I did that *despite*—despite what you’d said, which was “Consensual sex, be it monoracial or interracial, doesn’t always equate to power.”

    If it doesn’t always equate to power, then why are such strict lines drawn around it taking place in these relationships?

    This is the implied question you’ve not addressed. If it doesn’t always equate to power, then why don’t people simply say, ‘Well, when it does ‘equate to power,’ we’ll deal with it then”?

    The answer is simple: They don’t do that because that’s not the way people act. That’s not the way people act, or *tend* to act.

    The way people tend to act is that, when they have sexual intercourse with a person, it changes the decisions that they make, and the way that they make those decisions. They tend to “defer” to the person with whom they are having intercourse.

    If this were not the case, “power differentials, professional ethics and relationships, and social taboos (and some combinations of those)” would not make sexual relationships in those cases inappropriate.

    This is one of the main reasons many work offices, for example, even discourage sexual relations in office settings between *peers*, not just between managers and underlings.

    They say, “It affects the quality of the work.” But what they mean is that those having sexual intercourse start to make decisions *in deference* to the person with whom they’re having sex. In key ways, they start to value that person over the work they’re supposed to be doing, and start to make *different* decisions than they would have made otherwise.

    This is so widely and commonly acknowledged as to be completely unspectacular to state. Indeed, I find it bizarre that you seem to be arguing against it. But I am not surprised that, even as you do so, you *confirm* it, as you do above.

    In fact, your sole argument thus far, when one looks at it, is this: What I call *power over*, you call “influence.” (Again, more on this later.)

    You wrote:

    “The exception to your list is the example of the neighbors: if they’re both single consenting adults, few people would raise an eyebrow. (Heck, some of the other neighbors may even be willing to host the wedding/civil union/commitment ceremony in their backyard if the two neighbors decided to get married.) However, if one or both were married and the spouse(s) did not agree–in other words, give consent–to have a open relationship, then that would be a problem–not because they’re neighbors but *due to the lack of consent from the spouses* The proximity compounds the problem.”

    In response:

    This is not relevant to anything I’ve written.

    You then reprinted a number of statements I’ve made in these posts. I’ve deleted that text, as it can all be checked, above.

    You then wrote:

    “IMO, one of the disagreeable underlying premises is white people=white supremacy=enemy.”

    That’s not my premise.

    My premise is that racism has a sole functional form: White supremacy.

    This means that the first requirement one must meet to be a racist is that one be white.

    This does not mean that all, or any, given white person is a racist. Indeed, I urge that non-white people *never* refer to any white person as a racist, unless that white person says, first, that they are one.

    For example, I have never said this, or written it, until this moment: “George Bush is a racist.”

    But because racists are deceitful, primarily, it does mean that any non-white person is “within his rights” to suspect any white person of being a racist.

    They may not be one. But, presumably, whether they are or not will become clear through *the revelation of truth*.

    So, if someone asked me, “Is George Bush a racist?”, I would say, “I don’t know. I suspect he is. But I don’t know.”

    So, you say, “one of the disagreeable underlying premises is white people=white supremacy=enemy.”

    That’s not my premise.

    My premise, in fact, is that white people, any of them, are *white supremacy suspects*. The word “enemy” is superfluous.

    You wrote:

    “Thus, your solution to racial justice is, along with all the other fights against institutional and interpersonal anti-PoC racism is not to have sex with them, let alone have committed relationships and babies with them.”

    In response:

    I don’t use the term “racial justice.” I say *justice*.

    Justice covers *race*. You can’t have them both at the same time. So, the presence of one deletes the other.

    I don’t use the term “institutionalized racism,” because I don’t know what it means, and suspect that it’s a term a racist designed to confuse victims of racism about white supremacy.

    That is, what is an “institution”?

    To me, an institution is a) people + b) things.

    *Things* cannot practice racism. Only white people may.

    So, if an institution is people + things, and only white people may practice racism, then “institutional racism” merely means racist people + things.

    Or, most accurately, I suspect, racist people *hiding behind* things.

    As for “Interpersonal anti-PoC racism,” race is both direct and/or indirect.

    Because it’s practiced by people, against people—specifically white people against non-white people—the term “interpersonal anti-PoC racism” is redundant.

    You wrote:

    “To extrapolate, any PoC who has any sexual relationship with a white person cannot possibly fight for racial justice because they’re sleeping with the enemy or, by your example of the Black woman who wants to “protect [her white boyfriend] Brian,” has divided allegiances, which still gives white people=white supremacy power.”

    In response:

    Here’s what I’d say:

    The persons who have dominant functional control or *influence*—that’s the word you used, above, and that I used before—over the sexual expressions and/or desires of other persons [animals, etc.], also have dominant control over the basic motivations of those same persons in other areas of expression, including economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, and war.

    So, to the degree that that Brian has dominant functional control or influence over that Black female’s sexual expressions and/or desires, he has dominant control over the basic motivations of that Black female in other areas of expression, including economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, and war.

    Again, it needs to be stated: This is not controversial. These are fundamental assumptions anywhere in the world. I’ve already shown this.

    The controversy, I’ve noted, because I’ve been making these arguments for a while, is when one connects what is otherwise obvious to *race*. It is only in the area of *race + sex* that this becomes, somehow, offensive or outrageous.

    You wrote:

    “So, if I had to make a slogan of your argument, it would be: ‘Anti-white supremacy is the theory; not f***ing white folks is the practice.’”

    In response:

    A slogan is only useful if it more effectively helps one get to the truth of an idea, more effectively than the idea as stated.

    What you’ve said doesn’t do this, because it garbles key aspects of my position, then further mistranslates them.

    I prefer to avoid slogans. But if I had to utter one for my position, I’d say this:

    **If you don’t understand racism (white supremacy), everything else will only confuse you**.

    You wrote:

    “Also, friend, your line of argument flattens out any IR-involved white people, *by virtue of the fact that they’re white*, as agents of white supremacy.”

    In response:

    Again, you’re mis-stating what I’ve said.

    White people *become* racists by thought, speech, or action of a certain kind. This is not controversial. It’s obvious.

    What I’m saying is that, if, under white supremacy, a white person increases the domination of non-white people by white people, they make racism stronger. This is also obvious.

    This is why, for example, many non-white people urge that more non-white people own businesses: To reduce the economic domination of non-white people by white people.

    This is why, for example, many non-white people urge that more non-white people educate themselves: To reduce the education domination of non-white people by white people.

    I’m merely urging that more non-white people act in ways that reduce the sexual domination of non-white people by white people.

    For “anti-racism” to work, it has to have a dimension for this. I’d say that the key way is for non-white people to not engage in sexual intercourse, or sexual play, with white people, as long as racism is white supremacy.

    You wrote:

    “Basically, they’re The Enemy, kind of like how the Dworkin-arguing feminists cast any man as agents by virtue of the fact that he’s a guy as the Enemy of women’s liberation–and it flattened the reasons why and how women became lesbians and feminists.”

    In response:

    I don’t know anything about this, as said earlier.

    You wrote:

    “Such line of reasoning alienates IR-involved (and even non-IR-involved) anti-racism whites from wanting to ally with PoCs in fighting white supremacy on its many fronts–including challenging those who want to approach PoCs sexually with a whole lot of ‘backstaged’ racially charge sexual stereotypes.”

    In response:

    Either my position is true, or it’s not true.

    If it’s not true, no one should follow it.

    If it’s true, but holding it will “alienate” “IR-involved (and even non-IR-involved) anti-racism whites,” I would say:

    a) There’s no such thing as “an anti-racism white person having sexual intercourse with a non-white person.”

    “An anti-racism white person” having sexual intercourse with a non-white person” is a contradiction of terms. “An anti-racism white person having sexual intercourse with a non-white person” becomes a racist by the act of having sexual intercourse with a non-white person.

    b) A strategy to eliminate racism that one applies, or not, based on white approval, submits that strategy to white domination, much as sexual intercourse with that white person does the same to that non-white person.

    c) “‘Backstaged’ racially charge sexual stereotypes” is language that comes out of “white liberal” “anti-racism” talk and thinking.

    It’s part of the way that white people who have frequent interactions with Black people speak, and the way that many Black people speak when they’re around those white people long enough.

    It’s a way those white people say, “*That* white person—the one approaching you with his geisha fantasies—is a racist. Because I participate in anti-racist work with Yasuko, I’m not one.”

    This is *fake*. It’s like the way white people say “white privilege,” but don’t say *white supremacy*. See:

    http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2008/04/avoid-term-white-supremacy.html

    It’s part of the way white people maintain white dominance over non-white people…in the area of white “anti-racism.”

    You wrote:

    “Also, what I find disagreeable is your argument, under the rhetoric of “justice,” “power,” and even “rape,” actually unjustly limits the relationship options for some people.”

    In response:

    Most charges made against victims of racism, under the system of white supremacy, are more accurately made against the system, itself.

    So, you say my argument “actually unjustly limits the relationship options for some people.”

    But if you’re honest, you’ll agree that the system of white supremacy, itself, actually unjustly limits the relationship options for some people, far more than I could on my *best* day.

    You wrote:

    “Now, I’d love a good reason to love Heroes’ Sendhil Ramamurthy on down , but this one (‘use that Pink Rabbit Pearl for the PoCs, dahling!’)…not so much.”

    In response:

    I don’t understand what you mean.

    Question 2: Is “Heroes’ Sendhil Ramamurthy” white, or non-white?

    You wrote:

    “It plays on both fear and righteous anger. (Even the implication of white people=enemy is war-like rhetoric.”

    In response:

    I feel neither “fear” nor “righteous anger.”

    “White people=enemy” is something you’ve written. I have not, nor is it my position.

    You wrote:

    “Your argument may be older than both of us, going back to the days of ‘race men’ and ‘race women’ who interpreted their racial duty to not cross the racial line to date the ‘ofay’ because Black folks were engaged in a pitched battle against Whitey. They saw every Black person as a soldier, every Black body produced more Black soldiers, and anyone even thinking about lusting a white person was a traitor to the race and dating and marrying was not OK.”

    In response:

    O.K.

    You wrote:

    “That why I said what I said about your equating IR sexual encounters to a body count in a war.”

    In response:

    Haven’t done it.

    You wrote:

    “It’s extraordinarily similar–and similarly limiting–thinking.)”

    In response:

    Most charges made against victims of racism, under the system of white supremacy, are more accurately made against the system, itself.

    So, you say my argument is “extraordinarily similar–and similarly limiting–thinking.”

    But if you’re honest, you’ll agree that the system of white supremacy, itself, actually limits the thinking of non-white people, far more than I could on my *best* day.

    So, if what I’m saying is accurate, then what’s “limited” isn’t the argument that non-white people not have sexual intercourse with white people. What’s limited is any thinking they have after they do this.

    You wrote:

    “To sex-positive me, IRs don’t bother me because, in a post-desegregation and post-Loving v. Virginia society, it is consenting, reasonable, right-minded adults saying yes to getting their freak on and saying yes to each and every act they do each other…”

    In response:

    This doesn’t really address anything I’ve said.

    You wrote:

    “to me, that’s where the parity and balance rests so there’s no ‘rape.’”

    In response:

    Perhaps.

    However, the ‘parity; and ‘balance’ you describe has no “end-game.”

    That is, it’s a cute, funky slogan, like the “Latex and lube, luvies!” catchphrase, below. But it doesn’t address the system of white supremacy.

    What it sounds like is as though you are making an argument, because I’ve asked you a question, but your response hasn’t been thought through. (As you yourself said, my position “befuddled” you.)

    Put another way, I hold that, under race, when a white person and a non-white person have sexual intercourse, the relationship changes.

    Now, either it does, or it doesn’t.

    If it doesn’t, someone needs to explain the last 100 years of motion pictures to me, not to mention every woman who has ever keyed a man’s car.

    If it does change, in what way does it change?

    I say that it changes in one critical way: The people start to negotiate *power*. They don’t negotiate architectural power, water power, or aviation power. They negotiate power *over* each other.

    For example, the woman will give the male a key to her apartment. That’s power *over* her.

    Or, the male will start to organize his time to accommodate the female’s schedule. That’s power *over* him.

    If they continue to have sexual relations, these negotiations will get more complex, extensive, and nuanced.

    At all times, however, the non-white person remains **a victim of white supremacy**.

    This means that not only are white people over them at work, on the street, or in the subway. It means white people are over them at the breakfast table.

    Where is the the ‘parity’ and ‘balance’ to which you’re speaking, then?

    You wrote:

    “(And, like I said before, even during the days of Jim Crow, some formerly enslaved Black women exercised agency and consented to have sexual relationships with the white men who used to own them.)”

    In response:

    This is not sensible.

    That is, you’re using the word “agency” in a way so tortured as to change its very definition.

    You wrote:

    “To them I say, ‘Latex and lube, luvies!’ (If they ask, I’ll even recommend some good sex manuals and sex-toy stores.)”

    In response:

    See above.

    You wrote:

    “To my way of thinking, it becomes bothersome when they walk into it with some unexamined or unchallenged ish on both sides about their partner and how the relationship will help or hinder that ish.”

    In response:

    See above.

    You wrote:

    That’s my thinking about what you said, Harry. And on this, I think you and I simply have to agree to disagree, friend.

    In response:

    In kind.

    You wrote:

    …and I just thought of this: if folks took your idea, Harry, of not sleeping with white people in order to decrease the power of white supremacy and lived it out, we wouldn’t have:
    1) Neo in The Matrix (no Keanu Reeves and those nice arms)
    2) any posts and comments about Keanu Reeves on Racialicious
    3) Racialicious, period. (Carmen’s parents wouldn’t have gotten together.)

    In response:

    This is usually the first place that people who are the offspring of sexual intercourse between white and non-white people “go,” when I make this argument.

    “Are you saying that I should have been born, or that my parents shouldn’t have had me?”

    In short:

    The value of everything has to be measured against the elimination of white supremacy *if* that is one’s objective.

    I’ve worked with Carmen, and, in my impression, she’s a thoughtful, conscientious person.

    I don’t think she’d posit her existence as more valuable than “the struggle.”

    For example, Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t.

    Neither did Malcolm X.

    Would Carmen say her contribution is more valuable, or needed, than theirs?

    Please: What are your thoughts?

    Thanks, in advance, for them.

    Produce Justice,
    Harry Allen

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 1:30 am ¶

66. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear Sewere:

    Thanks for your questions and comments:

    In response:

    You wrote:

    “Let’s say that at some anti-racist meeting…. Suddenly, to loud cheers, one of the Black people says, “To end racism, we need to kill all the white people!”
    Dude,”

    In response:

    Not “Dude,” Sewere, please.

    I prefer *Harry*, or Harry Allen, thanks.

    You wrote:

    “what kind of anti-racist meetings have you been going to?”

    In response:

    Varied sorts.

    You wrote:

    “Next:

    “’I’d say that the people who probably are most likely to object to what I’m saying here, are… People who are the offspring of such union’

    “You mean people like Frederick Douglass, Malcom X, Jerry Rawlings and countless other multi and bi-racial folk who identify as black and contributed considerably to the empowerment of black folk?”

    In response:

    I only mean the ones for whom a call to end racism by killing all the white people would make them “flinch,” because of familial relationships with white people.

    You wrote:

    “Because all you seem to be doing sounds so much like the Eric Daniels (TM) Racial Authenticity Test, where the person someone literally sleeps with or may partner with defines that person’s race loyalty?”

    In response:

    I don’t understand what you mean. Would you please re-state the question?

    You wrote:

    “Thinking which as Cruel Secretary so eloquently states uses fear to prey and righteous anger, invariably limiting thinking” on the issue of empowerment.”

    I’ve addressed this in my response to her post, above.

    Please: What are your thoughts?

    Thanks, in advance, for them.

    Produce Justice,
    Harry Allen

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 1:32 am ¶

67. Aquarianbrass wrote:

    Well Harry,
    A call to kill all whites would make me flinch even though I’ve never been with a white women simply because I’m a human who deplores the idea of genocide.
    With that said, there is a big hole in your argument that is begging to be addressed
    In short, you state that people involved in a sexual relationship have a certain power over each other, a power they negogiate over time and gets more nuanced and complex(It what ways, you don’t explain). Now, its key that you said “each other” meaning its dyadic and moves both ways. We can argue that one has more power than the other but like you said its negogiated.
    Given this, we can assume that a sexual relationship between a black and white would likewise involve such negogiation of power. So we assume that the white will have some power over the black but at the same time the black will have power over white. Will this not compromise this specific site of potential white supremacy(this is another problem because you acknowledge that not all whites are racist. Since racism serves to promote white supremacy. can we assume that a white person in power over me is not necessarily promoting white supremacy if said white person is not racist. Of course you concept of power seems to be very broad. It seems to include any stimulus that spurs me to some action).
    And note, I said potential because according to you, whites are only suspected racist.
    Now you may respond in kind that any power of a white over a non-white is special and serves WS but the potential for a white to have power over me is inherent in any relation I have with a white person.If I choose to start a business I will no doubt have to negogiate power with the whites at the bank, in the local government, etc.
    Now what in this situation necessarily leads to less white supremacy as oppossed to me having some sort of power over a white person that I’m in a sexual relationship with?
    I fail to see what is so much more special about this latter situation except that it may include compassion and love for another human being.

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶

68. Harry Allen wrote:

    Dear Aquarianbrass:

    Thanks for your response:

    To your questions:

    You wrote

    “Well Harry,

    “A call to kill all whites would make me flinch even though I’ve never been with a white women simply because I’m a human who deplores the idea of genocide.”

    In response:

    As would I, and as do I. In fact, I would reject such a call, as would most people, including, I suspect, most non-white people.

    I used an extreme example as, if you will, “a concept magnifying glass.” It was a way to quickly make the point by making it dramatic.

    That’s why when I wrote it, I said that my objective was “to put it in the most brutal terms possible, just for the purposes of this thought experiment, and to make it plain—in other words, I’m not advocating this.”

    The point, however, is not that having sexual relations with white people moves non-white people to forego their genocide.

    The point is that having sexual relations with white people extends white domination. It does this in mathematical fact.

    No one, here, has yet rejected, or disproved, the logic of this. People have talked around it, or said, essentially, it’s O.K. But no one has said it doesn’t happen.

    As well, if anyone were to say it doesn’t happen, the **planet** is against them, because, in multitudinous ways, every culture on Earth says it happens. Every human culture recognizes that, when one has sexual intercourse with another person, one comes under their power, to a degree. That’s why, in so many places, there are so many laws, or even mores, against this. (Or, in certain cases, *for* this: For example, in places where a monarch has sexual access to all the women in a given region. This, symbolically, and in reality, speaks to the monarch’s power over the people.)

    What I’ve done is connect this accepted dynamic to racism, doing so from a position that I hold to be true: That racism has a sole form—white supremacy—and that white supremacy is global.

    Most non-white people, on some level, accept this. They may struggle with the details. But, as they move around, they kind of get it.

    However, **because white people are directing The Narrative**—the story of racism, what it is, how non-white people are supposed to think about it, talk about it, and what they’re supposed to be doing about it—even in “anti-racism” circles—the idea that “post civil-rights,” “in the age of Obama”—The Cruel Secretary said, “in a post-desegregation and post-Loving v. Virginia society”—the idea that one would advocate against, what you call, below, “compassion and love for another human being” seems retrograde.

    I understand that. I felt that way about the idea, myself, initially. To many, it seems like something the Klan would say.

    The difference, however, is that, presumably, the Klan is interested in extending white supremacy into the infinite horizon, while my objective is to end it “with all deliberate speed.”

    In this way, non-white people withholding sexual relations from white people during racism is like burning someone’s skin, but doing so *with dry ice*: The element that you think should have one effect, instead, creates another.

    You wrote:

    “With that said, there is a big hole in your argument that is begging to be addressed

    “In short, you state that people involved in a sexual relationship have a certain power over each other, a power they negogiate over time and gets more nuanced and complex(It what ways, you don’t explain).”

    In response:

    In short, it gets more nuanced and complex in the ways that relations between people who are having sexual intercourse get more nuanced and complex.

    It’s what people mean when they say, “Our relationship started to get really deep,” or “I found myself getting closer and closer to him,” or words to that effect. As the male and female continue the relationship, they, as people, become more *intertwined*.

    So, at one point, if she didn’t hear from him for two days, it was no big deal. Later on, if she doesn’t hear from him “since this morning,” she worries.

    After the first time they have sexual intercourse, she hopes that she’ll see him again. After the 200th, “Of course we’re going to my parents for Thanksgiving. By the way: Did you pay the cable bill?”

    It gets more nuanced and complex in all the ways that relations between people can do when they are having sexual intercourse. It gets more nuanced and complex than any relationship can get, because that’s what people do.

    You wrote:

    “Now, its key that you said ‘each other’ meaning its dyadic and moves both ways. We can argue that one has more power than the other but like you said its negogiated.

    “Given this, we can assume that a sexual relationship between a black and white would likewise involve such negogiation of power. So we assume that the white will have some power over the black but at the same time the black will have power over white. Will this not compromise this specific site of potential white supremacy”

    In response:

    I think what you’re asking is this:

    “If, in this sexual relationship, the white person has power over the non-white person, doesn’t the non-white person also have power over the white person? If so, doesn’t this cancel out the power of white supremacy?”

    It’s an excellent question. It seems that it would be that way.

    But you’re not accounting for one thing:

    What the white person possesses that the non-white person does not is *backup*. Specifically, they possess **the backup of white supremacy**.

    An example, to clarify:

    A police officer has his gun pointed at a robber. However, at the same time, the robber has his gun pointed at the cop. As such, they have power over each other.

    What the robber doesn’t have, however, is *backup*. While the cop points the gun at the robber, the cop also has six SWAT sharpshooters, targeting the robber with laser sights. If he makes a single move, all are going to fire, and none are going to miss.

    In a similar sense, the white person has the backup of the white supremacy system. The white person may say they “hate” racism, that they “abhor their own whiteness,” that they’re “against what their parents did,” and that they “detest the mistreatment of minorities.”

    But that white person agrees with the racist system on its key, most elemental metric: White power over non-white people. They are in agreement as long as that white person is exercising such power, sexually, over non-white people, or in any other way.

    As such, particularly through sexual intercourse, that white person refines the system, extending and deepening its power.

    You wrote:

    “(this is another problem because you acknowledge that not all whites are racist.”

    In response:

    I did not acknowledge that not all whites are racist.

    I said:

    1) I don’t know which white people are racist and which are not.

    2) I suspect that any white person is a racist at any and all times during the existence of white supremacy.

    3) One should never call a white person a racist unless they say they are one first.

    You wrote:

    “Since racism serves to promote white supremacy.”

    In response:

    Racism *is* white supremacy.

    That is:

    Race = white supremacy = racism.

    You wrote:

    “can we assume that a white person in power over me is not necessarily promoting white supremacy if said white person is not racist.”

    In response:

    They become a racist in the act. They do so by extending white domination. That’s racism.

    In a very rough way, it’s like asking, “If a person doesn’t steal, can they take something and not become a thief?”

    Or, “Can you continue to consider me pro-vegan and pro-animal rights if I open, and eat at, a McDonald’s?”

    The act of opening the McDonald’s cancels your pro-vegan, pro-animal rights position. Eating there strengthens the cancellation.

    You wrote:

    “Of course you concept of power seems to be very broad. It seems to include any stimulus that spurs me to some action).”

    In response:

    In a way, isn’t that what power is?

    You wrote:

    “And note, I said potential because according to you, whites are only suspected racist.”

    In response:

    I didn’t say they are *only* racist suspects. They may be racists. I said I consider them all racist suspects, and can’t certify them racists.

    You wrote:

    “Now you may respond in kind that any power of a white over a non-white is special and serves WS but the potential for a white to have power over me is inherent in any relation I have with a white person.”

    In response:

    More or less, that it correct. I wouldn’t have said it that way, necessarily, but that’s more or less accurate.

    You wrote:

    “If I choose to start a business I will no doubt have to negogiate power with the whites at the bank, in the local government, etc.”

    In response:

    You will. *But the reverse is not true*. That’s why it’s called *white supremacy*.

    You wrote:

    “Now what in this situation necessarily leads to less white supremacy as oppossed to me having some sort of power over a white person that I’m in a sexual relationship with?
    I fail to see what is so much more special about this latter situation except that it may include compassion and love for another human being.”

    In response:

    I think I answered your question, above, when I spoke of the cop and the robber.

    If not, I’m not sure I understand your question.

    However, if you want to re-ask me the question, please do so.

    What are your thoughts?

    Thanks, in advance, for them.

    Produce Justice,
    Harry Allen

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 3:57 pm ¶

69. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    *is wondering if this is how the convos on interracial dating are going to go. *

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 3:59 pm ¶

70. Harry Allen wrote:

    Please: Why are you wondering this?

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶

71. Sewere wrote:

    Latoya wrote,

    *is wondering if this is how the convos on interracial dating are going to go. *

    *Has faith in LP’s word-smithing powers to guide the conversation BUT fears this is exactly what the majority of responders will want to do*

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 4:40 pm ¶