It began when Activist X posted a link to this article about the Mixed Roots Film and Literary Festival and noted with some irritation that despite the festival’s claims to inclusivity, there were no Latin@s mentioned in the article. X asked: if Latin@ people are the largest group of multiracial people in the Americas and the festival is supposed to be open to everybody, why weren’t Latin@ people included? A few people agreed with X, and some people who had been at the festival said that they thought Heidi Durrow and the festival were great, but that they could see X’s point.

Enter Activist Y: after expressing some trepidation, Y said that the festival was using the term “mixed race” or “multiracial” to refer to people who had parents of two or more different racial categorisations. Activist Y said that if your whole family shared the same ethnic identity, then you were not mixed in the way the festival intended.

Dear Racializens, I am sure you can imagine what happened next: a veritable Facebook wall brawl — albeit one that was highly intellectual and restrained. Most people sided with X (it was X’s wall to begin with) and Y, after making several long attempts to explain themselves, eventually left in a digital huff.

This exchange brought back some of the most difficult writing that I have ever done on Racialicious: where readers challenged my right to call myself, as a mixed race person with parents of two different races, mixed in a separate way from those who are mixed race but share the same identity as their whole family, for e.g. folks who are mestizo, Creole, African American, Metis, Peranakan…

(From here on in I will refer to people who come from mixed lineage as MRs, and people who have parents of two different and separate racial categorisations as MR2s.)

So here is one of the most important things I have learned from all my years of toiling in the anti-racist trenches here at Racialicious: when you are talking about race with anti-racist people of colour, you are speaking from a place of pain, to a place of pain. (Ok obviously we are about more than pain, but pain is always on the table.) Many of us come to anti-racism through struggle. We are used to having things taken away from us, and we turn to anti-racism to try and arm ourselves against the corrosion of racism. We are sensitive, and we come by it honestly.

Both of my parents are – to the best of my knowledge – the first members of generations and generations of their families to marry outside of the race. When I first started writing about mixedness on Racialicious, I had never heard of mixed race being used in any way other than to refer to people who had parents of two different races. I grew up in Canada and Singapore, and while, as a postcolonial nation, there are many MR communities in Singapore, they refer to themselves as Eurasian, Peranakan or Straits-born Chinese, not mixed race. It was never suggested to me that I might have a similar experience to these folks, and neither did the Eurasian friends I had seem interested in me as an identity buddy. More than this, in Singapore the term “mixed race” was restricted not simply to “a person with parents of two different and separate races”: it was used to specifically refer to people who had one white parent, and one parent of colour. (Obviously, this happens not just in Singapore.)

Through some big f-ups (which you may read here and here and here, though I am sorry to say the comments might be missing on some of those), I learned that many Americans of colour — often African Americans and Latin@s — have a problem with “mixed race” being used solely to refer to MR2s.

Using the term “mixed race” in this narrow way is to systematically erase ethnic histories that bear witness to slavery and colonization; or simply, to erase ethnic histories, period. To do so can be read as an act of white supremacy: it covers up the fact that many Americans, regardless of skin colour or the stories elders are willing to tell, have mixed lineages. To do this silences a whole community’s right to express their experience.

And another thing: it is grating to hear the term “mixed race” applied solely to MR2s, as if we invented mixedness. Cultural forces (usually — though not always — powered by white folks) that select MR2s as somehow unique, or the antidote to racism, or hybridly vigorous, or exquisitely beautiful, are just pouring salt in the wound. After generations of MR folks being ostracised or having to commit violent contortions to have a peaceful life, being mixed is all of a sudden hot – and this is the very moment that the label is being rescinded from MRs. You don’t even get invited to speak at the damn mixed race festival.

And let us note that a lot of this friction gets even hotter when we are talking about MR2s who have a white parent and a parent of colour, because we are talking about people of colour who also have white privilege and/or light-skin privilege.

There are other reasons why MRs get angry when MR2s say that being MR2 mixed is different from being MR mixed – and you are welcome to chime in in the comments, if you are so inclined – but these are the ones I have come across, time and again.

After my Racialicious education, I tried to be sensitive to the fact that “mixed race” can mean MRs or MR2s. To acknowledge this widening of the category, in a post I was writing about Alicia Keys and her warped presentation of historic racial relations, I referred to Alicia Keys as a first generation mixed race person. To my dismay, this language was deemed just as offensive as my original ignorance. Because, a commenter said, the language of generations is offensive and recalls such awful categories as quadroon and octoroon, and because, why, after everything, did I have to keep on insisting that there was a difference between mixed race people from long lines of mixedness, and mixed race people who were racial anomalies in their families?

It wasn’t, I started to realize, that MRs were solely mad that MR2s and the dominant culture didn’t recognize them as mixed. They were mad that a distinction was even being made between themselves, and MR2s. (Perhaps my very decision to say “MRs” and “MR2s” is aggravating this tension right now.)

When you are dealing with sensitive people who are reeling from cultural rejection, distinctions feel like rejections. Why do MR2s think they are so special that they can’t possibly be in the same club with MRs?

So I will dig deep into my horrible well of childhood pain to explain what this distinction business is about.

I come from a nation of two. There’s me, and there is my sibling. When I was growing up, I had no language to explain my experience. I did not know people who were mixed. And these problems were exacerbated by the fact that I was a TCK in a postcolonial nation that was still dealing with a lot of (justifiable) anger towards Westerners, and I was read as white, and I was given a hard time because of that. This was all without a real knowledge of race or racism, but simply a sinking feeling that I was hopelessly and sometimes offensively different from everyone around me, and that those gaps could never be bridged. Until I was in my mid-20s, this was what being mixed was for me. In my family of origin I  did not know a single person — not my grandparents, cousins, my mother and father, or even my sibling (who, thanks to the genetic lottery, came out looking a different race from me and so had their own experience altogether) — who could understand my ethnocultural identity.

Note: I am not saying that only MR2s understand true isolation. Pulllease. I am just saying that this was my experience, and I am sure, sadly enough, that there are many other roads to that kind of loneliness.

So when I meet MRs who come from long and often proud lines of family members who share the same ethnocultural experience as them, I can’t imagine that they could have shared my particular brand of racial isolation. It is not about thinking myself better or even, as some people have alleged, more authentically and mixedly mixed than folks who share a more complete heritage with their family. It is simply that I can’t imagine they could have had the same experience.

Part of this has to be the emo-as-heck tragic mixie inside of me who is too terrified to hope that, after all this time, my nation of two is a nation of millions. I swear, that stupid Blind Melon video where the weird little bee finally finds all the other little bees gets me every time.

I know I could be wrong that there is a yawning distance between MRs and MR2s; but we can never get past the front door of fighting over what I should call myself and what I should call them, to find out. Like I said at the beginning, I’m a sensitive brotherpucker.

Like so many other things, some of this is about the amount of space the dominant culture is willing to allot the people it has marginalized: we are fighting for table scraps because we know the right to tell our own stories is in slight supply. It both frustrates and saddens me that my attempt to assert my identity causes pain to other people who are just trying to do the same thing.

We become possessive over our suffering. There is something that MRs and MR2s definitely have in common: we are fighting over the right to this label and the right to make distinctions, because any concession feels like giving up the history that we fought so hard to survive. I can only wonder at the experience of mixed race people who are both MRs and MR2s. Again, chime in from the comments if you’d like to weigh in.

I guess what I am giving you here is my thought process so far. I have no conclusions when it comes to this fight. Do I think that folks who come from a mixed lineage are mixed? Of course I do. Do I think that they should have the right to call themselves mixed, without qualification? Definitely. Do I believe that we are mixed in the same way? This is something I still struggle with. Do I want to be allies? Do I want to search for kinship where I never thought to look before? Do I want to have a mixed race festival and invite everyone?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Chris Rock seemed to be, indirectly, suggesting there were or could be laws against Tract Morgan’s right to free speech, which there aren’t. Morgan had the legal right to say what he did, just as the millions who stand against him, including Sykes, have the right to condemn his speech, and even to classify it as hate speech, which, as the Westboro Baptist Church (aka, “God Hates Fags,”) proved in the supreme Court earlier this year, is still protected by our Constitution.

Wanda Sykes response was simple and elegant, and she opted to not mention Chris Rock by name.

“Ok, piss’d reading, “I don’t want 2 live n a world where Tracy can’t say…” I Do! U Keep the world, just break me off an evolved country,” Sykes tweeted Friday night.

- From a post in The New Civil Rights Movement, June 11

By Guest Contributor Ay-leen The Peacemaker, cross-posted from Beyond Victoriana

Native steampunk has been presented in many different ways and, like the comic Finder (which had been reviewed here a couple of weeks ago), The West Was Lost is another drawn tale that speaks in layers and plays with the concept of linear storytelling.

The creators Beth Aileen Lameman (née Dillon) and her husband Myron Lameman are both Native (Beth has Irish/Anishinaabe/Métis heritage and Myron is from the Beaver Lake Cree Nation) and passionate about indigenous representation in their creative projects. Beth Aileen’s past work includes her comic Fala–which is described as a Native “Alice in Wonderland”–, the urban fantasy animated series Animism, and the games TimeTraveller–about a time-hopping Mohawk man from the 22nd century– and Techno Medicine Wheel. Myron is an independent filmmaker whose previous work includes his recent documentary made with support from National Geographic All Roads called Extraction, about the Beaver Lake Cree people’s fight against the Canadian federal government over tar sands expansion on their land. He has also done the short films Blue in the Face (also working with Beth Aileen), Indigenous Streets, and Shadow Dances and Fire Scars.

The comic itself is a one-shot 24-page piece, but the story it contains weaves in and out of time, consciousness and space. The summary of The West Was Lost is probably the most linear way to describe it:

The cold north wind brings with it chaos and harsh reality when decisions are made by Nezette, who leads members of the Sovereign to rid the west of the intruding Zhaagnaash people by putting flame to oil. Nezette must confront her worst enemy: the temptation of Windigo in herself.

What struck me most about this comic is how much of it was sparsely told with very little dialogue. Nezette as the group leader is both strong and capable, but, as with any one-shot comic, it leaves you wanting just a bit more afterwards. What happens to these characters? They succeed in their mission against the Zhaagnaash, but what awaits them next?

The comic also boasts wonderful, engaging artwork, and the character designs and art are bold, colorful, and striking. This was purposely described by the creators as Native steampunk, and I appreciated how both Native and steampunk imagery wasn’t stereotyped. The layouts aren’t spilling over with a thousand gears and brass bits; there is a steampunk train that runs on water vapor (green and steamy!) and really interesting arrows they use. Additionally, the characters are dressed in understated but distinctive clothing that both emphasizes their heritage without succumbing to an overload of the “buckskin, beads, and feathers” trap.

What interesting in the response this comic has gotten about its time-jumping storyline is Beth Aileen’s emphasis that non-linear storytelling is part of Anishinaabemowin oral tradition. The purpose behind this framework is not something done for “experimental” sake, but as a new form of listening which relates to how Anishinaabe people understand their language. In response to one review, she explains how a “word is not only a single word but also a description,” and asks “Ultimately, are you curious? Do you want to know more? Listen again, and keep listening, until how to listen becomes clearer.”

Compiled by Arturo R. García

The difference between the right word and the almost right word is really a large matter – it’s the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
- Mark Twain, author, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Seems to me I’m doing something constructive by simply eliminating a word that’s a clear barrier for many people.
- Dr. Alan Gribben, Twain scholar, Auburn University.

We’ve got our first official race flap of 2011—and it involves something published in 1884.
- Kai Wright, editorial director, Colorlines

All it does is feed the American aversion to history and reflection. Which is a shame. If there’s anything great about this country, it’s in our ability to account for and overcome our mistakes. Peddling whitewashed ignorance diminishes America as much as it does our intellect.
- Ta-Nehisi Coates, senior editor, The Atlantic.

At NewSouth, we saw the value in an edition that would help the works find new readers. If the publication sparks good debate about how language impacts learning or about the nature of censorship or the way in which racial slurs exercise their baneful influence, then our mission in publishing this new edition of Twain’s works will be more emphatically fulfilled.
- Suzanne LaRosa, publisher, NewSouth Books.

Yeah, it’s a tough book. Which is an excellent reason for teaching it.
- Millie Davis, Anti-Censorship Representative, National Council of Teachers of English

If some teachers have the audacity to believe that Mark Twain’s work is still meaningful, even absent the words “nigger” and “injun,” more power to them. If other teachers think keeping those epitaphs in is worth the pain they will cause students of color, I understand that too. This isn’t about censorship, it’s about choice. Either choice will have unfortunate consequences.
- Professor Paul Butler, associate dean and Carville Dickinson Benson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University.

5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
- Ranking on 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000, American Library Association.

If a teacher is not prepared to have a social and historical conversation, and place this masterpiece in context, is she prepared to teach that text? Should it be to those students? So, when we get into changing words, unwriting history, rearranging art, we start to put our democracy in danger.
- Michaela Angela Davis, former fashion editor, Essence magazine.

We recognized that some people would say that this was censorship of a kind, but our feeling is that there are plenty of other books out there—all of them, in fact — that faithfully replicate the text, and that this was simply an option for those who were increasingly uncomfortable, as he put it, insisting students read a text which was so incredibly hurtful.
- Suzanne LaRosa.

The idea that we can somehow make any of these cultural products clean and nice is foolish. The whole point of culture and of literature is to challenge us.
- Professor Melissa Harris-Perry, associate professor of Politics and African-American Studies, Princeton University.

For a single word to form a barrier, it seems such an unnecessary state of affairs.
– Alan Gribben.

By Guest Contributor Avon Snarksdale, cross-posted from Postbourgie

In rushing to dismiss the DEA’s call to hire speakers of Ebonics, a lot of people are getting a small but important thing mixed up.

Here’s the Black Snob:

Ebonics, depending on who you ask, is either a real or a completely imagined thing. Proponents argued that some black people were speaking a whole different language independent of English. Others argued that augmented or “bastardized” English is not a whole other language. For example, I don’t always understand what British people are saying because I don’t understand most British slang, but I still agree that British people obviously speak English and I would be able to communicate with a British native without too much difficulty. Slang is slang. Colloquialisms are colloquialisms. But it’s all still in English, just with a different accent, different idioms, sayings and affects.

Meaning: My Arkansas-born Granny Snob is not speaking a different language from me. We communicate just fine even though she uses a different dialect, slang, affect and terminology at times because … we’re both native English speakers.

So, yeah, I fall on the side of “Ebonics is not a real thing.”

Let’s get this out of the way first. Saying Ebonics is “either a real or a completely imagined thing” is sort of like saying that “Barack Obama may or may not be a Muslim with terrorist sympathies.” Um, no. Just because one of those things is a popularly held belief doesn’t make it true. Ebonics, or  African American Vernacular English, has long been recognized by most linguists. And its loudest opponents were not linguists, but cultural conservatives who worried that the recognition of Ebonics — which first became a controversial part of the national conversation in the 1990s when Oakland’s school district tried to use it a tool to teach kids Standard American English — granted new legitimacy on what they felt was “inferior” English, or thought that it suggested that black people spoke some funky foreign tongue and were incapable of  learning how to speak “proper.” Culture of failure, and all that noise.

No one, of course, is suggesting anywhere that The Black Snob’s grandmother isn’t speaking English; speaking in a different dialect is not the same thing as speaking in a different language. Ebonics is also distinctly different from slang, as it’s less about alternative  nouns and verbs and more about syntax. In other words, Ebonics is less about what words you employ to say you’re “driving your car” and more about where and how those words fit in a sentence and how you pronounce them.

At TAPPED, Gabriel Arana breaks it down a bit more.

I’d like to point out that African American Vernacular English (AAVE) — like all languages and dialects — doesn’t just refer to vocabulary differences. For some background: Linguistic differences tend to arise when groups are socially isolated. Over time, these difference can diverge so much from the original they are considered a different dialect or language (the litmus test is mutual intelligibility, so depending on whom you talk to, AAVE is either a dialect of English or a separate language). AAVE shares many features of the Southern dialect of American English, though as with standard English, there are regional differences.

Unfortunately, discussions about AAVE are generally limited to slang terms — in the case that Jamelle’s addressing, terms related to the drug trade. But in fact, there are a lot of other linguistic features that characterize AAVE.

On the syntactic front, AAVE speakers have a more granular tense-marking system. In standard English, for instance, “James is happy” can mean either that James is happy at the moment or that he is habitually happy. AAVE uses the verb “to be” to mark the habitual form, but omits it otherwise:

James happy = James is happy right now

James be happy = James is usually happy/a happy person

In terms of pronunciation, many speakers of AAVE have replaced the sound “th” — as in someTHing — with “f,” so you get “roof” instead of “Ruth.” AAVE speakers also pronounce vowels higher in the mouth when they precede an “m” or “n,” leading “empty” to sound more like “Impty” (this is common throughout the South).

These are just some of the features of AAVE that have been widely studied by linguists (for a look at others, you can go here). Not every speaker of AAVE needs to exhibit all of them, nor do they only occur in AAVE. For instance, in Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, you can hear him omit the “r” from the word “later” — a common feature of AAVE — but he otherwise uses the syntax and vocabulary of Standard American English. And omitting the verb “to be” is common in the world’s languages, including Hebrew, Russian, and Hungarian. Furthermore, speakers can switch between standard English and AAVE, a common phenomenon among bilinguals called “code-switching.”

When I surfaced from my all-weekend media training workshop to talk to my moms, she briefed me on the Latest Racially Shocking Statements from a Conservative’s Mouth.  The conservative in question: radio talk-show therapist Dr. Laura Schlessinger.  The question: a caller, a Black woman named Jade, asking for the best way to handle her White husband not responding to the racism from their familial and social circles.

Let’s just politely say the doctor spewed some hateful shit.

Dr. Laura’s N-word Filled Answer

The highlights for those who need to catch up like I did:

A self-identified Black woman named Jade called Dr. Schlessinger for advice on how to deal with her White husband failing to handle the racist comments coming from family and friends.  Schlessinger asks for a two examples of these commentst because “sometimes people are hypersensitive.”

Jade complied, offering a situation where a neighbor asks generalizing questions about “you Black people.”  To which Schlessinger said, “That’s not racist,” and added:

[W]ithout giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply ’cause he was half-black. Didn’t matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that.

Schlessinger offered her own example of how not-racist she is….and yes, it involved her best Black friend (and bodyguard!).  She told said friend that she wanted him on her backyard-basketball team because “white men can’t jump.”

Jade then talked about the n-words she hinted at being called at in her encounters, and the talk-show host responded:

Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is n*****, n*****, n*****….I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it’s a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it’s affectionate. It’s very confusing. Don’t hang up, I want to talk to you some more.

At this point, if I was Jade, I’d run screaming from the phone.  She hung in there, though, in an attempt to engage Dr. Laura in a discussion about race (and, I’m thinking, to bring the conversation back to the original reason for her call).  The exchange:

Jade: I was a little caught back by the N-word that you spewed out, I have to be honest with you. But my point is, race relations –

Schlessinger: Oh, then I guess you don’t watch HBO or listen to any black comedians.

Jade: But that doesn’t make it right.

The doctor’s rejoinder was Jade had “too much sensitivity” and “not enough sense of humor”…and then proceeded to try to school her on when it’s OK to use the n-word. When Jade tried to correct her, Schlessinger retorted:

Oh, I see. So, a word is restricted to race. Got it. Can’t do much about that.

When Jade attempted to express her upset that Schlessinger even used the n-word on the air and at her, the talk-show host came out her neck with:

Don’t take things out of context. Don’t NAACP me.”

Come again, Dr. Laura?

Can’t have this argument. You know what? If you’re that hypersensitive about color and don’t have a sense of humor, don’t marry out of your race. If you’re going to marry out of your race, people are going to say, “OK, what do blacks think? What do whites think? What do Jews think? What do Catholics think?” Of course there isn’t a one-think per se. But in general there’s “think.”

And what I just heard from Jade is a lot of what I hear from black-think — and it’s really distressting [sic] and disturbing. And to put it in its context, she said the N-word, and I said, on HBO, listening to black comics, you hear “nigger, nigger, nigger.” I didn’t call anybody a nigger. Nice try, Jade. Actually, sucky try.

Need a sense of humor, sense of humor — and answer the question. When somebody says, “What do blacks think?” say, “This is what I think. This is what I read that if you take a poll the majority of blacks think this.” Answer the question and discuss the issue. It’s like we can’t discuss anything without saying there’s -isms?

We have to be able to discuss these things. We’re people — goodness gracious me. Ah — hypersensitivity, OK, which is being bred by black activists. I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop, but it seems to have grown, and I don’t get it. Yes, I do. It’s all about power. I do get it. It’s all about power and that’s sad because what should be in power is not power or righteousness to do good — that should be the greatest power.

 

Just aren’t enough cusswords in the English language.

The next day, Schlessinger apologized, complete with good intentions:

I talk every day about doing the right thing.  And yesterday, I did the wrong thing.

I didn’t intend to hurt people, but I did.  And that makes it the wrong thing to have done.

I was attempting to make a philosophical point, and I articulated the “n” word all the way out – more than one time.  And that was wrong.  I’ll say it again – that was wrong.

I ended up, I’m sure, with many of you losing the point I was trying to make, because you were shocked by the fact that I said the word.  I, myself, realized I had made a horrible mistake, and was so upset I could not finish the show.  I pulled myself off the air at the end of the hour.  I had to finish the hour, because 20 minutes of dead air doesn’t work.  I am very sorry.  And it just won’t happen again.

Yeah, well…it was a little too late for that because bit a bit of the online-verse blew up over Schlessinger n-wording Jade, more specifically who has the right to even use that loaded word.  Jam Donaldson says at BV Black Voices:

When will white people just accept the fact that black folks can use the N-word, but they cannot. Why is this such a complicated life rule for them?

It’s actually quite simple. Jews can say things about other Jews that non-Jews can’t say. Gays can say things about gays that straights can’t say. Latinos can say things about Latinos that non-Latinos can’t say. I have an Asian friend who referred to new Asian immigrants as FOBs (fresh-off-the-boats). But she probably would have kicked my ass if I had referred to them that way. And I respect that. You can talk about your own mama, but no one else can. It’s really easy, white people.

….

Look, white folks, I’ll break it down for you: Black folks don’t call each other “nigger”; we say “nigga.” And whether you accept it or not, there is a huge distinction.

As an African American woman, I can’t ever remember using “nigger” in my life in referring to another black person. Though, on a bad day at my DMV, I may say “nigga” in my head several times.

Dr. Laura and other white folks who put forth this “well, black people use it, why can’t I” argument seem so tied to their own supremacy that they just can’t accept that there are things we can do that they can’t — and it bugs the hell out of them.

…

This is not a debate on the infamous N-word. Some people say no one should use it; others say it’s fine. Frankly, I couldn’t care less. Either way, this is not about that.

It’s about respecting a culture’s right to its own intracultural norms. If your use of the word offends me, that’s really all you need to know.

We don’t have to explain why you can’t say it, we don’t have to defend our use of it and we don’t have to tolerate you saying it. You just can’t. It’s like family. You can talk about each other, but no one else can. And as long as everyone remembers that, we should get along just fine.

Until it did turn into an argument over the n-word. The Loop 21′s Keli Goff says:

By no means am I a fan of Dr. Laura, (as she’s known), but I’m even less of a fan of the n-word, which I find more offensive, more harmful, and more poisonous to our community than Dr. Laura will ever be. So the reason I’d like to thank her is because I’m hoping that her recent on air meltdown will finally help settle a philosophical debate over the n-word that has raged for years. On one side of the debate are those of us who believe that no one should say the n-word — not a white racist and not a black comedian — ever. On the other side are those who believe that if you’re black, you essentially get an n-word lifetime free pass. (I don’t recall ever receiving mine in the mail, but I am black so I must have one lying around somewhere.) But Dr. Laura reminds us why such logic is not just flawed, but dangerous.

…

Now I happen to consider Dr. Laura’s laughably flawed logic more offensive than her use of the n-word, but considering her doctorate is actually in physiology and not psychology like many believe, it’s really not that surprising that she knows so little about people or race relations. But the fact that she felt justified saying what she did confirms a fundamental reality: Arbitrary rules about who can say the n-word and who cannot simply do not work. Dr. Laura felt justified saying what she did because a host of rappers and comedians continue to validate her perspective.

The Grio used Schlessinger’s n-word controversy to say this:

Although Dr. Laura’s use of the n-word has received the bulk of the coverage, the real interest rests in the observations that Jade and Dr. Laura shared regarding the nation’s racial temperature, especially since the election of Barack Obama Since the election, Jade noted, “racism has come to another level that’s unacceptable.” She is not alone in her observation, at least not within the black community.

Many African-Americans have either directly witnessed or heard family members and friends mention how emboldened some of their white co-workers have become in expressing their racist views since Obama’s election. The rationale seems to be that, since there’s a black man leading the nation, it’s okay to say almost anything. On black-oriented radio shows like The Tom Joyner Morning Show and Rev. Al Sharpton’s Keeping It Real, African-American callers feel the disrespect President Obama receives from the Tea Party, conservatives in Congress and on the Internet is tied to his race and not his politics.

And it roiled onward, to the point that Schlessinger announced last night on Larry King Live that she’s ending her radio show.

Well, I’m here to say that my contract is up for my radio show at the end of the year and I have made the decision not to do radio anymore. The reason is: I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what’s on my mind, and in my heart, what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent, and attack affiliates and attack sponsors.

I’m sort of done with that. I’m not retiring. I’m not quitting. I feel energized actually, stronger and freer to say the things that I believe need to be said for people in this country.

The one thing subsumed in all of this is Jade’s original question: how to deal her racially clueless White husband.  Renee Martin at Global Comment says:

Dr. Laura’s advice should have been very simple. She should have told this woman to speak candidly to her husband about how these comments made her feel. She should have supported this woman, firm in the knowledge that her husband’s silence made him complicit in the many difficulties that his wife faced. What person who truly loves another desires to hurt them so deeply? Perhaps what this woman really needed was the courage to be forthright and to question the nature of commitment between the two of them. White Americans are already the least likely to participate in interracial relationships, and to pretend that the issue is the hyper-sensitivity of people of colour is to completely ignore the White hegemony in any and all interactions.

The media has fixated on the N word, because quite frankly, it is easy to say that a racial slur is wrong. Even those that are extremely uncommitted to challenging their racial privilege will think twice about publicly uttering a slur because that is what racism has come to mean. Society is far more willing to ignore and even encourage covert forms of racism. Not saying the N word is enough for many to consider themselves above race, however, unfortunately this is far from the truth. Speaking about Black/White relationships is far more difficult and this is specifically why no one is addressing the issues of the covert racism that people of colour often face.

To acknowledge that even situations that Whiteness thinks are benign are loaded with at a very minimum racial insensitivity means a challenge to White supremacy. There cannot be interracial love without accountability and this is something that Whiteness has been avoiding for generations.

Twanna Hines says at Huffington Post:

Additionally, when an interracial couple seeks advice from so-called marriage counselors — like Dr. Laura — it would be helpful if such professionals treat the request with the respect it deserves.

Your thoughts?

For all my friends in the Bay Area, don’t miss the theatrical premiere of Eric Byler and Annabel Park’s 9500 Liberty, a documentary on how Prince William County, Virginia became ground zero in America’s explosive battle over immigration policy. Here’s the synopsis:

Prince William County, Virginia becomes ground zero in America’s explosive battle over immigration policy when elected officials adopt a law requiring police officers to question anyone they have “probable cause” to suspect is an undocumented immigrant.

9500 Liberty reveals the startling vulnerability of a local government, targeted by national anti-immigration networks using the Internet to frighten and intimidate lawmakers and citizens. Alarmed by a climate of fear and racial division, residents form a resistance using YouTube videos and virtual townhalls, setting up a real-life showdown in the seat of county government.

The devastating social and economic impact of the “Immigration Resolution” is felt in the lives of real people in homes and in local businesses. But the ferocious fight to adopt and then reverse this policy unfolds inside government chambers, on the streets, and on the Internet. 9500 Liberty provides a front row seat to all three battlegrounds.

Here’s the trailer:

It’s a powerful film, telling a very real story about one community’s culture war over immigration — a struggle more relevant than ever with what’s happening now in Arizona. Here’s a scene from the film:

The film opens this Friday, June 11 at Rialto Cinemas Elmwood and Landmark Lumiere in San Francisco. Some details:

“9500 LIBERTY” Bay Area Theatrial Premiere

Berkeley, CA
Starts Friday, June 11
Rialto Cinemas Elmwood
Daily Showtimes TBA
2966 College Avenue at Ashby
Berkeley, CA 94705
(707) 539-9771
Co-director Eric Byler in person at Friday, June 11 evening shows.
Co-director Annabel Park in person at Saturday, June 12 evening shows.

San Francisco, CA
Starts Friday, June 11
Landmark Lumiere
Daily Showtimes TBA
1572 California St. (at Polk)
San Francisco, CA 94109-4708
(415) 267-4893
Co-director Annabel Park in person Friday, June 11 evening shows
Co-director Eric Byler in person Saturday, June 12 evening shows and Sunday, June 13 afternoon shows.

Think what’s going down in Arizona is crazy and insane? Guess what? It already happened in Prince William County, and it tore apart an entire community. For more information about the film, go to the 9500 Liberty website here. Also read this piece by Eric in the Huffington Post: Arizona, Immigration, and the Coming Shake-Up.

I’m mixed. Chinese mother, white father. I don’t particularly look like either of them (nor do I look definitively “Chinese” or “white”). Ethnically-ambiguous mixed kid. In a country (U.S.) that likes to think of “race” as an either/or thing (and usually just “black” and “white”). Hmmm.Now there are a lot of ways I could have handled this growing up. Being the smart-ass that I am, I chose to make a game of it. I now know that it is a game that many other mixed folks have played, as well (probably since the dawn of racial categorization), but here I’d like to introduce it to those who have yet to play: The “What are You?” Game.

This game has its origins in the common way in which people across this country try to figure the race of ethnically-ambiguous “others” such as myself: by asking the oh-so-polite question, “What are you?” (*1)

As a kid, when I was first asked this (probably long before my first conscious memories), it was up to me to figure out the true meaning behind it; because (most of the time) the asker was fully aware of my species and gender, and they had no interest in my religion, position on the football team, or any other possible answer to this question other than my racial background. But why did they ask it like that?

Okay. For those of you non-ethnically-ambiguous folks out there, just try to imagine, for a moment, how you might start to react to this question when asked regularly over the course of your life:

You’re a child and – over and over – people come to you (adults, children, teachers, whomever) and ask you what you are, with no context clues suggesting that you are playing “let’s pretend.” It’s not Halloween. You’re not wearing an elaborate costume. No, they are honestly questioning your identity in a way that so thoroughly strips you of pride, humanity, and belonging – and doing so as if it’s just a matter of course, and fully acceptable to do.

They are not asking about who you are – your interests, what you do, the important people in your life. They are simply asking you what you are, and in such a self-entitled manner that turning you into a thing like that comes with the expectation that you’ll give them the answer they want without any negative reactions.

Imagine what that does to a kid’s sense of identity, their self-esteem. Imagine the message it sends them about their place in the world. It’s no wonder that the majority of mixed folks I have known have – at some point – considered themselves isolated and without community.

An ethnically-ambiguous kid (or adult) will never be able to avoid this question (or similar variants). It’s going to come at them throughout their lives, often at the most unexpected times. Most ambiguous people have to figure out how to deal with this on their own through trial and error – seldom does anybody else help them navigate this particular aspect of their lives. However, as an experienced player, I now believe that there are some general rules that apply any time we’re asked this question. Whether it’s at a club, at work, or while waiting for the bus, it pays to be prepared. And I’d like to do my part to help folks skip as much of the “trial and error” as possible by giving just a little bit of simple guidance. (*2)

So – for all those mixed and other ethnically-ambiguous folks (and/or parents of mixed kids) out there playing at home, I bring you:

The “What are You?” Game (U.S. Edition) Rules and Regulations

Minimum 2 players, no maximum.

Object: You.

Goal: Retain as much dignity as possible while dealing with racial ignorance.

Materials: All you need is yourself – an ethnically-ambiguous human being – and somebody else’s lack of respect.

GAME PLAY

Be born into this world. Interact with other human beings. Game-play should ensue shortly.

When to Play/Who to Play With: The “What are You?” Game can be played at any time, anywhere. It can be played with friends and family, but is best played with casual acquaintances and outright strangers. Any time another human being asks you the question “What are You?,” the Game has begun, and your humanity can be earned or lost. Again, it is important to stress that this can happen at any time, as ignorance has no concept of appropriate boundaries and/or timing.

GETTING STARTED

Game-play is commenced once another person (“the Asker”) asks you (“the Person”) “What are You?” It is then your turn.

POSSIBLE PLAYS

- “Just Deal” – this technique entails humoring the Asker and just giving them the response they are looking for (i.e. your racial/ethnic background); least time-consuming, but will cost you 5 Humanity Points (HPs), paid to the Asker

- “Go Off” – if you give in to anger and let your Asker know exactly what you think about their questioning, you have elected to “Go Off;” “Going Off” usually involves expletives, loud volume, and possibly aggressive physical movement; “Going Off” might feel better at the time, but it costs 8 HPs, paid to the Asker, as they leave the situation believing that you are “oversensitive,” “irrational,” or “dangerous,” possibly reinforcing their own racial and/or gender stereotypes

- “Play Dumb” – choosing to act like you don’t know what the Asker is getting at means you are “Playing Dumb;” “Playing Dumb” involves asking questions like “What do you mean?” or giving answers like “Pisces,” “a lawyer,” “the Queen of Dance,” or “a carbon-based life-form;” a “self-entertaining” tactic, “Playing Dumb” can leave you with 0 to 5 HPs, depending on the Asker’s reaction: a confused look allows you to break-even at 0, while having your Askers explain themselves and possibly understand the disrespect inherent in their question can earn you 5 HPs

- “Flip the Script”* – this tactic involves turning the question back on the Asker (similar to the “Playing Dumb” technique of asking questions); “Flipping the Script” involves a response of “What do you think I am?” which subsequently changes the power-dynamic, as your Asker will now feel uncomfortable, wanting to make the right “guess” without exposing the obvious ignorance that caused them to ask in the first place; also “self-entertaining,” “Flipping the Script” earns 2 HPs.

- “Create-a-Play” – players are not limited to the above tactics; creating your own plays not only increases your problem-solving skills, but can also increase the richness of the overall game; “Create-a-Plays” are self-scoring -  earning up to 5 HPs for plays that enhance self-dignity and/or cause the Asker to become aware of people outside of themselves; losing up to 5 HPs for plays that decrease self-pride and/or cause the Asker to feel “right”

*Game-Note: “Flipping the Script” can also lead to playing other Ethnically-Ambiguous-based games such as: The “What do You Think I Am?” Game (make note of all the different responses to the question you get, see if you can guess other people’s assumptions based on environment, other person’s background, etc.) and the “What Can I Convince Them I Am?” Game (try different body-language, outfits, etc. to see if you can elicit a specific, incorrect guess).* (*3)

CONTINUATION

New “Askers” or “Persons” can join in at any time. Game play continues indefinitely, “Persons” and “Askers” taking turns playing tactics or responding until physically separated or “understanding” occurs.

HOW TO WIN

Unfortunately, due to the unending nature of this game, there is no way to achieve a final, decisive “victory.” However, if you can keep your head up and realize that the other players are doing so out of ignorance, and that it has nothing to do with you personally, then you are a “winner.” Being however you feel best in the world – no matter other people’s ridiculous opinions and/or questions – also results in a “win.”

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Contact an ethnically-ambiguous role model in your life, or e-mail the CVT at “choptensils AT gmail DOT com.”

© 4000 BCE Ethnically-Ambiguous, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

–

(*1) I have since learned that this question (and specific terminology) isn’t particular just to the U.S. I have been asked “What are you?” (in those words, directly translated from the asker’s native language) referring to my ethnic background in Malawi and China, as well.

(*2) I would also love for any readers to chime in with further rules and/or regulations that I may have missed.

(*3) These games can be dangerous, however, as they may be misconstrued as attempts at “passing,” which is often interpreted as a “self-hating” maneuver.

(*4) For the record, I’ve been thought to be all of the following (and probably more I don’t remember; most common to least): Hawaiian, Samoan, Native American, mixed-Asian, Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Puerto Rican, East-Indian, Inuit, Maori, Persian, Tanzanian, mixed-African-American, Russian, Greek, Italian, Spanish, and a whole lot of “how should I know!!???”

(*5) Regarding the image – as far as I know, Vin Diesel neither endorses nor condemns this particular Game, but I bet he’s had to play it before.

Canada is an officially multicultural country, but multiculturalism does not address racism.

The Continuum on Becoming an Anti-Racist Multicultural Institution shows six stages from being a monocultural institution to becoming an anti-racist multicultural institution. Canada appears to be at Stage Three:

3. Symbolic Change: A Multicultural Institution

• Makes official policy pronouncements regarding Multicultural diversity
• Sees itself as “non-racist” institution with open doors to People of Color
• Carries out intentional inclusiveness efforts, recruiting “someone of color” on committees or office staff
• Expanding view of diversity includes other socially oppressed groups

But…

• “Not those who make waves”
• Little or no contextual change in culture, policies, and decision making
• Is still relatively unaware of continuing patterns of privilege, paternalism and control

Stage Four is “Identity Change: An Anti-Racist Institution”. As Canada has never thought of itself as an anti-racist country, it remains at Stage 3 of this model.

In Canada, there is the mistaken belief that racism is caused by cultural differences, and that if multiculturalism is embraced, then there would be no racism. However, when Canadians face discrimination when we travel while black, go fishing while East Asian, protest while brown, or seek medical care while indigenous, the problem is not “cultural differences” to be solved with “cultural sensitivity”. This “cultural” problem formulation still insists that people of colour must have done something differently from white people to provoke discrimination. It ignores the possibility that people of colour might do the same things as white people and still be treated differently due to our race.

A clear example of people of colour being discriminated against because of race—not culture—is the fact that children of colour adopted by white (American) parents and raised as white still experience racial discrimination. In the past, white adoptive parents adopted Chinese children and raised them as if they were white biological children, cutting their ties to Chinese culture, under the same false belief that racial discrimination is caused by cultural differences:

Americans have adopted an estimated half-million children from overseas in the last four decades. During the early period of international adoptions, most parents believed their children’s lives would be easier if they shed their native culture, said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit that focuses on improving adoption practices.

Parents believed that their children were a “blank slate” that should be filled in exactly the same as biological children, Pertman said. This sort of evenhanded treatment would be a buffer from any possible discrimination — or so parents believed.

Of course, this turned out to be false and harmful. People of colour raised as white people and raised in their white parents’ culture still experienced and experience racial discrimination.

It is not culture—or cultural intolerance—that causes racial discrimination. It is racism. Race and culture are two different things. Multiculturalism is not the same as anti-racism.

Multiculturalism does not stop White Canadians from assuming that I am a foreigner to Canada. In fact, the multicultural narrative tends to confuse racial diversity with cultural diversity, encouraging White Canadians to assume that Canadians of colour are culturally different and culturally other, based only on our racial appearance.

Canada’s problem mirrors the problem of white adoptive parents, who are now celebrating “Chinese” culture with their adopted Chinese children, falsely believing that multicultural celebration will protect against racial discrimination:

“They are trying their best,” she said, “but the truth is, no one likes to talk about race or acknowledge race.

–

Photo courtesy of Mollena, who sells actual race cards.

(An African Methodist Episcopal Church and stop on the Underground Railroad)

On his blog at The New Republic,  John McWhorter argues that “African American” does not accurately describe the descendants of African slaves who live in the United States today.  He suggests that the term should be reserved for “actual Africans” who emigrate to the United States; but for those whose ancestors were brought to the North American mainland in chains, “black will have to do,” McWhorter says.  There are several reasons why his logic in the post (as well as that in this Bloggingheads with Glenn Loury) is flawed.  If one takes the time to understand the historical, geopolitical, and ethical ramifications of the term “African American,” he might realize that it is the most precise signifier for the people whose ancestors endured the traumatic encounter with European enslavers in the North American colonies and United States.

First off, it bears noting that if someone has a personal aversion to the term “African American” there is no need to try to convince her otherwise.  (Indeed, people do not like the names a parent gives them and change them as a result.)  Yet McWhorter’s argument does not rest on personal predilection, but rather it is an attempt to reason and eventually settle on the most exact designation for black people native-born to the U.S.  As such, the first concern is one of history.  (And McWhorter recognizes this, as his title suggests: “Did ‘African American’ History Really Happen in Atlanta, Cleveland, Philly, and Detroit?  Listening to the Census.”)  That most black Americans have not been to Africa, do not speak an indigenous African language, and/or cannot trace their ancestral line to a particular tribe or region is beside the point.  The “African” in African American is not that grounded; it is does not signify the particularities of Africa.  Instead, the “African” in African America refers to a very distinct historical process of acculturation, trauma, and community building.  As historian Ira Berlin puts in his definitive text on slavery, Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America:

When the captives boarded ship in Africa, they did not think of themselves as Africans.  Their allegiance was to a family, clan, community, or perhaps–although rarely–state, but never to the continent itself.  By the time they reached the American shores, that had begun to change; as they disembarked, the process by which many African nations became one had already gained velocity.  The construction of an African identity proceeded on the western, not the eastern, side of the Atlantic, amid the maelstrom of the plantation generation. (104)

It is this historical activity that “African”  connotes.  That these people and their descendants would eventually lose the distinctiveness of their native clans, and instead merge strategies of survival and elements of culture means that only a term as capacious and ambiguous as “African” can forcefully capture them.  Paradoxically, the “African” in African American has everything and nothing to do with the places of Africa.

However, one might argue, as McWhorter does, that “African American” is a better label for a person who emigrated from an African country, the so-called “actual African.”  Today, over 1 million black people in the United States are from Africa; and yet, I argue, the term “African American” is not the most accurate signifier for these subjects.  Why?  Because “African” is too abstracted for them.  That is to say, an immigrant from Nigeria is a Nigerian-American, just as one from Ireland is an Irish-American.  Because the immigrant from Nigeria knows he is from Nigeria, he should be hailed accordingly.  This recognizes two realities of geopolitical modernity: one, the importance of the formation of nation-states; and, two, that most black people born in the United States do not know precisely from where they come.  This is how one distinguishes a descendant of slaves from an African immigrant from, say, Kenya: the former is an African American, the latter is a Kenyan American; whereas the Kenyan knows he from Kenya, the African American is from everywhere and nowhere in Africa at the same time.

Of course, a person from Kenya is also an African, but so too is someone from Cameroon or Lesotho.  What I am after is the most precise and utilitarian of terms.  (The cultural and social politics of locating such specificity accounts for why white people say they are “Italian Americans” or of Anglo Saxon heritage, as opposed to the broader “European Americans.”)  The problem with calling the descendants of slaves simply “black American” is that it doesn’t do enough to separate them from black African immigrants in ways that “African American” can.

Just as McWhorter (and others) disavows the term “African” because he finds little of Africa in his way of being, so too should he dismiss “black” because, as his headshot shows, he is far from the color.  (I think both African American and black serve their respective purposes; but I am trying to point out the lapse of a logic that on the one hand relies on absolute preciseness, while on the other hand, does not.)  Moreover, McWhorter claims that we need to get away from “African American” because it too easily evokes a kind of false pride, couched in Africa, that has little to do with the American experience.  As he puts it, “Among black Americans in 2010, true black pride does not call itself ‘African.’”  Well, tell that those who worship in the African Methodist Episcopal or the African Methodist Episcopal Zion churches.  Tell that to those who trace their educational pedigrees back to the Free African Schools of the antebellum North.

Overall, what bothers me most in the disavowal of the term African American is the orientalist projection that many, including McWhorter, thrust on African people.  McWhorter says at one point: “In truth, a black man from Jacksonville has more in common with a white one from Tucson than he does with a man three years out of Senegal.”  Unfortunately, I cannot grant this truth.  While the black man from Jacksonville and the white one from Tuscon might share a first language, there is no guarantee that their similarities go beyond this one.  Especially after the time of colonialism, Africans share a great deal with their black counterparts native to the United States.  What must be asked is this: What does that man from Senegal look like to McWhorter?  Indeed what do the African people look like to African Americans in general?  If we, African Americans, shutter our own imperialist gaze we might find more in common with Africans than we thought.  We are too quick to say “I’m not African” without knowing what “African” is in any sense of the word.

And, to answer McWhorter’s question, African American history happened all over the United States.

As if independent bookstores don’t already have enough to worry about, Fidel Martinez at Guanabee writes about a language controversy at Atticus Bookstore in New Haven:

Atticus Book Store and Cafe, located in New Haven, Connecticut, has caused a controversy over a recent policy decision to require all Hispanic employees to only speak English within a customer’s earshot.

The staff is allowed to speak Spanish, but only in restricted areas.

A document from the bookstore states:

Spanish is allowed in the prep area, the dishwasher area and the lower level. Let’s make our customers feel welcome and comfortable.

“Let’s make our customers feel welcome and comfortable”? Yeeeeouch. (And yes that stuff about “the dishwasher area” is plain unfortunate.)

I’m sure I’m not the only one on this site who feels happy, or even relieved, when I hear multiple languages being spoken in a space – even though I’m a filthy monolinguist myself.   Places where people are welcome to bring their culture with them, are places where I feel comfortable.  So you have to wonder just who Atticus is referring to, when they imagine customers who feel uncomfortable when they hear Spanish.

And despite when I might’ve been led to believe by The Great Gatsby, it doesn’t sound like New Haven is some enclave of pearl-grabbing ethnocultural anglo purists.  Martinez goes on to report:

This new directive has pissed off members of Yale University (Atticus is located next to Yale’s British Arts Center) and the New Haven Workers Association. The latter sent out an email to local community groups like the New Haven Labor Council and Unidad Latino En Accion protesting what they deem to be racism in the workplace.

Apparently though, Atticus is within their legal rights to demand its employees speak English.

This is just a little news piece, but I can’t help but feel discouraged by things like this, because they seem to evidence to me how wide the gaps are, when it come to how different folks think about race and culture in America.  I imagine that the body responsible for the language rule at Atticus has no concept of the fraught history of language bans.   It just seems like good business sense, right? An English bookstore should have English-speaking employees.  Even though Martinez says

From our own personal experience, the Hispanic waitstaff at Atticus speak English well enough that it doesn’t impede them from taking an order properly.

But at schools and in the workplace, the restriction of language has a long ugly history in our country.  Almost any group of colour or marginalised linguistic group in this country has a history of their language, or access to language, being suppressed at one point, for the sake of cultural comfort and good business.  I’m sure Atticus Bookstore carries history books that could tell us all about these things.

So apart from the fact that it’s just inherently not right to restrict people’s culture, there is also a historical context for the abusive relationship that business has with language.

This just reminds me of that pretty poor episode of Seinfeld, where Elaine get’s George’s dad to spy on the Korean women who do her nails, because she knows they’re talking smack about her.  Is that why Spanish makes customers uncomfortable? Because I’m pretty sure that kind of thing only – well almost – happens on Seinfeld.

–
Photo credit: Aaron Gustafson

When Harry Reid’s remarks about Obama hit the news yesterday, Michael Steele (head of the Republican Party) said Reid ought to resign. When called out on his own language (Steele said “Honest Injun” on January 4), he said, at first, that he did not to apologize or step down from his own position. Now, he’s issuing the classic “IF” I offended anyone….. (not)apology.

There’s been a lot of spin about both men and what they said. With this post, I focus on the terms “Injun” and “Honest Injun.”

Steel says his use of the phrase was not intended as a racial slur. I imagine a lot of people were surprised to learn that “injun” is derogatory.

Surprised, because, it is, after all, quite common. You can find “Injun” and “Honest Injun” in older books that are widely read today, like:

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer – published in 1876, where “evil is embodied in the treacherous figure of Injun Joe,” (p. x of the intro to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, a Signet Classic book published in 2002) and in the oath used several times by characters.

Seems to me, in my cursory study of the phrase, that it may have been coined by Twain. In the entry on “Injun,” the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) lists Twain as the first person to use “Injun.” It also lists several other noted writers who used “Honest Injun.” Some are George Bernard Shaw in 1896 and James Joyce (in Ulysses) in 1922.

And you can find “Injun” in new books, like The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate, by Jacqueline Kelly, published in 2009. It appears twice in Kelly’s book, on page 135 and 251. In both instances, it is used as an oath. Here’s the relevant excerpt on page 135?

“Double-Injun-blood-brothers-swear-to-die-promise?”

“Double Injun.”

“It doesn’t count unless you say the whole thing,” he said.

“Saaaam.”

“Okay, okay, okay. But say it, huh?”

“Double Injun blood brothers swear to die,” I said. “Now leave me alone.”

Kelly used it again on page 251:

She swore the deepest double-Injun-blood-brothers oath for me.

I have not read Kelly’s book, so I have no idea what the two characters in the exchange are talking about. The novel is set in 1899 and the oath was in use by then. The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate is getting a lot of buzz this year. There’s a lot of people hoping it’ll get one of the top prizes (the Newberry Medal).

Given that attention, I hope that teachers are taking the opportunity to talk with students about that word, “Injun.” I wonder if Steele’s schoolteachers used Holling C. Holling’s Paddle-to-the-Sea? Published in 1941, it was awarded a Caldecott Honor Medal. In Holling’s book, a toy Indian in a toy canoe is put into the water. It makes its way downriver, and ends up in Lake Superior, where a fisherman catches it (page 23):

‘Best catch in weeks!” one man was saying. ‘And that’s not all—look! we’re even netting red Injuns in canoes!

I’ve also come across the word “Injun” in The Little House Cookbook: Frontier Foods from Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Classic Stories compiled by Barbara M. Walker, published in 1989. It includes a recipe for “Rye’N'Injun, a kind of bread. “Rye’N'Injun” appears several times in Farmer Boy, published in 1953.  Walker says that bread is known today as Boston Brown Bread. On page 86, she writes

“Its history reaches back to the first New England colonists, whose only grains were the rye they brought from Europe and the corn they got from the Indians (hence “injun” for cornmeal).

Was “Injun” a word for cornmeal? I don’t know, and I’m not going to take time right now to find out…  Staying on point with “Injun”…

It’s in Elizabeth George Speare’s Calico Captive, and Lois Lenski’s Indian Captive, The Story of Mary Jemison. I understand it being used in historical fiction. It was a phrase used in the past, but not today, and it’d be terrific if, when they come across it, teachers would point out that “Injun” is a derogatory word.

It’s in Bobbsey Twins, Nancy Drew, and the Hardy Boys.  You can find it in Lynne Reid Banks’s The Key to the Indian. But, did Benjamin Franklin use the phrase, “Honest Injun,” as suggested by Augusta Stevenson in her biography, Benjamin Franklin: Young Printer?

Another children’s book author uses it…  Joseph Bruchac. In his The Heart of a Chief, you’ll find him pushing back on the use of it and other words. His protagonist, Chris, and his friends are at a football game. His friend is Anthony, or Tony, or Pizza. Here’s the excerpt (p. 55):

People are going crazy on our side of the field. A bunch of kids are doing the tomahawk chop while others are patting their hands against their mouths to do phony war whoops.

The cheerleaders are doing cartwheels. They hold up their pom-poms and sing out together, “TONY, TONY, HE’S OUT MAN. IF HE CAN’T DO IT, NO ONE CAN!”

Just as I realize they are talking about Pizza–Anthony is his given name, which no one at Penacook ever uses–the big man in the New England Patriots jersey stands up, “Scalp ‘em, Injun, scalp ‘em!” he bellows. Other people take up his chant.

“SCALP ‘EM, INJUN, SCALP ‘EM”

I realize for the first time what it is like to be excited and depressed all at once. I look at my friends and see the same look on their faces that must be on mine. Should we laugh or cry?

In his book, Bruchac calls attention to a lot of words and to the mascot issue. For that reason alone, I encourage teachers and librarians to get and use his book, especially right now, in the wake of William Michael Steele’s remarks. You might also want to talk with students about Native response to Steele. See “GOP leader uses racist term” by Rob Capriccioso in Indian Country Today on January 12, 2010 and  “Michael Steele’s ‘honest injun’ comment sparks backlash”, in the Chicago Tribune on January 7, 2010.

Compiled by Thea Lim, with Andrea Plaid and Wendi Muse

My day job takes me into some pretty non-anti-oppressive environments. Generally I try to steer clear of conversations that deal with any parameter of power in depth (race, class, gender, sexuality, ability…) because in my environment, I find these conversations excruciating. It’s not that folks necessarily say blatantly hateful things. It’s rather that we can’t even agree on the basis for conversation. Or to put it more bluntly, my interlocutors have no concept of – or respect for – certain Racism 101 concepts.

I think what is particularly frustrating is the way that critical race theory – if I can use that term to describe the basic tenets that we and many of our buddy blogs operate off of – is treated as if it’s a loose collection of unverified opinions. It is not recognised as an actual body of thought that people of colour and allies have been writing and thinking about since Sojourner Truth gave her Ain’t I A Woman speech in 18freakin51.

If a medieval scholar engaged me in a discussion on representations of the clergy in the Lancelot-Grail cycle, I wouldn’t talk over them and contest every single point they made just because I had seen Disney’s The Sword in the Stone. Yet white folks who have absolutely no concept of the fact that there is a whole body of books, blogs, speakers, academic departments and workshops devoted to a common understanding of systemic racism, feel free to talk over my observations, as if the things I am saying are just random observations I’ve made.

So I welcome Richard Thompson Ford’s assertion that we need some kind of commonly held notion of what racism is, in his Slate article, “A primer on the word racism”.

Ford breaks down five different commonly cited examples of racism – institutional, cultural, unconscious, environmental and reverse – providing definitions for them and then evaluating whether or not they really are racism.

But. It’s clear that racism gets in the way of us defining racism. I don’t think Rush Limbaugh would be down with Racialicious’ definition of racism. But is Racialicious’ down with Ford’s definition of racism? Our correspondents weigh in.

Thea Lim

My first issue with Ford’s article is that it is confusing. It would be easier to understand if Ford started out with a clear definition of what racism entails. Because it took me a few minutes to glean from this article that Ford thinks anyone can be racist – a claim that I flat-out reject.

Ford seems to conflate racial prejudice with racism: roughly, if you treat someone according to their race, you are being racist. Meanwhile, I think that it is only racial prejudice + power that = racism. So if I yell “cracker” at a white man walking down the street (which btw I wouldn’t do and also don’t condone), my action has far less impact than if a white man yelled “chink” at me while I was walking down the street. The first scenario is an example of racial prejudice and being a jerk. The second scenario is racism and a hate crime. This is sort of 101 stuff, but there you have it.

Because Ford and I diverge on this basic tenet, I have multiple problems with certain conclusions that wobble out of his analysis.

In places in his article, it feels like Ford is trying to find short-cuts that gloss over analysis and appeal to “common sense” to get us to agree with him. The first short-cut Ford uses is “Bill Cosby.” In a discussion of cultural racism, Ford says that wariness of another’s culture is not racism because:

Bill Cosby lambasted poor blacks for contributing to their own misfortunes by using slang, dressing badly, and giving their children “names like Shaniqua, Taliqua, and Mohammed and all that crap.” Cultural misunderstanding and hostility is a serious problem in today’s increasingly cosmopolitan society. But when Cliff Huxtable can be called a racist, it’s probably time to rethink our terms.

So Ford is saying that
a) Cultural racism is not racism because Bill Cosby is a cultural racist
b) Bill Cosby can’t be racist.

In trying to rush us through this part of his analysis by assuming we like Bill Cosby – or accept him as some sort of standard for “not racism” – Ford doesn’t address the fact that saying “Mohammed and all that crap” is racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic. I am surprised that anti-racist scholar like Ford can think Cosby’s comments are ok — and not even bother to explain why they are ok.

Another short-cut “Selma, Alabama.” If Bill Cosby is the personification of “not racism,” Selma, Alabama is the personification of racism.

Ford says that unconscious racism – when your mind immediately equates a person of colour with bad traits – is not racism. Discussing a test that looked for immediate reactions to photos of light-skinned & dark-skinned faces, and concluded that 90% of white test participants found it easier to associate black faces with bad qualities than good ones, Ford quotes:

“We’ve come a long way from Selma, Alabama, if we have to calibrate prejudice in milliseconds”

Selma, Alabama – or beating and arresting black folks for sitting in the wrong section of the restaurant or cinema – is short hand for “total racism.” As long as we are not physically beating POC, it doesn’t matter if our immediate reaction to dark skin is suspicion.

Those are not the only places in the article where it feels like Ford’s thought is not as careful or thorough as it should be. In both his discussions of institutional racism and environmental racism, Ford concedes that these are two forms of genuine racism, but states that these kinds of racism are mischaracterised because in calling them “racism” the implication is that the acts are the result of deliberate bigotry (emphasis mine):

Many businesses, schools, clubs, and other organizations are racially homogenous or segregated, even though no one deliberately excludes racial minorities or tries to prevent them from succeeding. For instance, although roughly half of all college football players are black, only about 5 percent of head coaches are…And even if no one involved is a bigot, many scholars and activists would insist that this is a form of institutional racism. The term institutional racism suggests moral fault and culpability when often the racial inequity is unintentional. But, intended or not, practices that create “built-in headwinds” for minority groups are a serious injustice.

The term environmental racism refers to a serious problem, but like institutional racism, it muddies the issue by implying that bad people acting with racial animus are behind it, when poverty, bad urban design, and segregated residential patterns put in place many years ago are really to blame.

I found both these paragraphs confusing because Ford doesn’t unpack what he means by “racism.” After reading this article more than once, it became clear to me that Ford is assuming the reader thinks that racism is a) something that everyone is capable of (a belief I dealt with above) b) something that only baaad people do. And at points he seems to be implying – I think – that calling something racism when it doesn’t involve deliberate hatred, is confusing.

And that confuses me. Again it is a bit weird that an anti-racist scholar like Ford holds the rather elementary opinion that it is only baaad people with baaad intentions who get pleasure out of seeing others in pain are racists. As our friend Jay Smooth pointed out many eons ago – and as we state almost weekly – it really doesn’t matter what your intention is. To me there is absolutely nothing “muddying” or mischaracterising about saying that academic centers of power with no POC representation or “bad urban design” are racist.  The intentions or motivations behind those barriers are irrelevant to me.  By the fact that they form barriers to quality of life for POCs, they are racist entities.

This is nearly enough out of me, but I’d like to end by saying that I’d be much more open to this article if Ford presented these terms for consideration, saying that this is a starting point for a definition of racism, instead of saying “this is what racism is.” I would like this article a lot more if it was titled “An Open Invitation to Consider how we define Racism, Starting with My Opinion” rather than “A Primer on Racism.”

The attempt to define racism needs to be a dialogue, and it needs to take special heed of how the most marginalised folks in our society (in other words, not Stanford law professors, not Slate writers, and yes, not even Racialicious deputy editors) themselves define racism. Because I think as those who bear the brunt of racism are probably best qualified to tell us what it really is.

Andrea Plaid

Remember when I said I think the new way to discuss racism in the press is the “Trojan Horse” approach, in which white media hides their racially status-quo yet we’re-too-educated-to-be-racist ideas by offering PoCs writers the perfect publishing duty to, well, write those very same ideas. Thompson Ford’s article is the latest Trojan horse, where his primer really serves as a comfort for Slate’s mostly white audience by giving a Black person’s imprimatur on what’s “real” racism and what’s not. Because, as we all know, one Black person represents the whole race because we all think alike. (/sarcasm)

Thompson Ford offers comfort by either dismissing or euphemizing the “racisms” he discusses. Institutional racism equals a “serious injustice”; cultural racism is boils down to “serious problem”; unconscious racism is untestable and, therefore, questionable; environmental racism, “like institutional racism,” just muddies up the “true” class analysis; and reverse racism is truly practiced by Louis Farrakhan. (I’m surprised Thompson didn’t drop Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s name.) As with too many discussions about race and racism, his piece falls into the Black-White binary where, except Glenn Beck and Sen, Joe Wilson, whites are invisible and Black are in high relief as the vicitims or the perpetrators. Also, Thompson Ford also reuses the word “racism” until it becomes meaningless.

But what Thompson Ford did brings up a point Carmen brought up a good point in a tweet or her blog: we need another word besides “racism” to describe the hatred and/or fear of certain people based on a person’s phenotype and all the attributes attendant to it. I’m still thinking about it; Thompson’s post makes that re-thinking more urgent.

Wendi Muse

“That’s Racist!” is the well-known tagline from the blog Angry Asian Man. It also happens to be the rallying cry behind many a social movement, particularly in the United States, where race often trumps many other facets of our identities in debates on equal rights because, well, it’s so easy to identify. Or is it? Richard Thompson Ford attempts to unpack racism’s multiple forms (i.e. institutional, environmental, cultural, etc) for the reader who may not be so well-versed in racism’s many nuances. While Ford’s attempt is noble and, in my opinion, a great start for clarifying what racism means in a modern, American context, he makes one classic mistake. Instead of explaining racism’s effect on multiple communities, Ford boils down the great racism debate to black and white.

Given, Americans of African descent have often been the most vocal players in discussion around race and racism in the U.S., particularly because of their demographic visibility and the nation’s legacy of slavery, which made even the whitest of the white, from statesmen and slave owners to every day citizens, confront the issue of race, even if the debates around it were framed differently from those of today. Contemporary discussions of race also tend to resort to the bicameral black and white system, but with time, people of color from multiple backgrounds have played significant roles in the struggle for recognition, civil rights, and equality. So why now, as Ford discusses the multiple layers of racism and its evidence in the media and political realm, would he choose to ignore the complexities of the race debate when it comes to its own diversity?

All the more puzzling is how Ford could write an entire article on racism without pointing out that in each and every subcategory, one could replace the word “racism” with the word “classism”: and find oneself in a similar conundrum. Most of the issues covered in the article are tied inherently to class, and while Ford does make mention of the money issue, he focuses the entirety of his energies on the definitions of racism, distracting his audience once more from a topic that they should be thinking about in more depth.

I agree with Ford in his assertion that sometimes talking about race by way of racism can be a roundabout way of getting at a greater issue or even a point of distraction because of its sensationalism, but I wonder if he, too, has given much thought to the glaring absences in his piece and how their presence could help foster a more sane, concise, and developed discussion about race in the United States.

–
Image via The Awl

Though the word Namaste has been a South Asian greeting for centuries, now every yoga student, celebrity (check out Al Gore’s picture in the wiki entry) and creepy guy trying to hit on an Indian woman thinks it’s fine to use it as a way of saying “hey” or “I’m so in touch with what it means to be worldy and spiritual.” It’s been appropriated, along with cultural and religious Hindu icons, saris, yoga, and Bollywood films, with no credit or recognition to the violent history of colonialism and context from which these things derived.

The presumption that I would feel flattered or respond in kind to the “Namaste” greeting is infuriating as well. After hundreds of years of British Colonialism enforcing English as the dominant language in South Asian government and schools, trying to erase the many facets of culture and history that mark the region, I’m supposed to feel flattered that the dominant culture I live in now wants to start using some sort of “authentic” greeting that doesn’t even have anything to do with them? And as a second-generation Indian-American, I’m also perturbed that people assume anything about by my relationship to “Indianness” in the first place: I’ve used “Namaste” only a handful of times, with South Asian elders who I’ve never met before.

When majority culture wants to start adopting the exotic, everyone is supposed to just come along for the ride. My mom and I wince a little when we get asked to be the voice of Indian authenticity – it may be a well-intentioned attempt to appear culturally sensitive, but to me, hearing “Namaste” from complete strangers will always be appropriating and a little racist.

—”Saying “Namaste” Will Not Make Me Want to Date You,” Wiretap Magazine

Excerpted from Whitey Don’t see that: The rising recognition of ‘white privilege’ in Western academia (PDF) by

Momoko Price at The Ubyssey, November 2006:

Laurence Berg, Canada Research Chair for Human Rights, Diversity and Identity, disagrees with the
idea that PC language and policies are oppressive. Why? Because he doesn’t really believe that PC policies existed in the first place.

“What [they]’re calling the ‘PC movement’ I would call a social movement by marginalised people and the people who support them,” he said. “[A movement] to use language that’s more correct—not ‘politically correct’—that more accurately represents reality.”

Berg is referring to a way of thinking that many of us students were too young to catch the first time around. For us, the term ‘politically correct’ survived the 90s, but the term ‘human rights backlash’ did not. Will Hutton, former editor-in-chief for the UK publication the Observer, described in his column how the term ‘PC’ was never really a political stance at all, contrary to popular belief. It was actually perceived by many as a right-wing tactic to dismiss—or backlash against—left-leaning social change. Mock the trivial aspects of human rights politics, like its changing language, and you’ll succeed in obscuring the issue altogether.

Berg believes this is what political correctness is all about: “The term politically correct is a reactionary term,” he said. “[It was] created by people who were worried by [social] changes…that affected their everyday understanding of the world in ways that pointed out their role in creating or reproducing dominance and subordination.”

According to Berg, the indignation people feel against PC ideas reflects the discomfort we feel when language and politics begin to pull away from the dominant values we grew up with—in other words, white, middle-class values. It’s no small coincidence that the concept of political correctness originated in the 80s and 90s, just after human rights concerns and visible minority groups started getting real attention in politics and the media.

Berg explains that in its original context, PC was a pejorative term used by people who felt they were losing something. Exactly what they were losing is very hard to describe, especially to them. But many sociologists and historians today have come to a consensus on what they call it: it’s a loss of privilege—and in terms of race, a loss of white privilege.

The other day I was having a drink with a friend, when he began describing a woman he was interested in. “She’s half Japanese,” he said. “Half Japanese?” I said, “She doesn’t have another half?”

At this point my friends have gotten used to my annoying linguistic nitpicking, the subtle (and allegedly annoying) ways that I make clear my thoughts on certain words. When friends tell me someone is lame, I say, “What? They only have one leg?” Or when my students tell me their textbook is gay, I say, “Oh really? What’s its stance on same sex marriage?” Or when a dude tells me another dude is a pussy, I say, “But I thought you liked those?…”

Most of the time people easily grasp the point I’m trying to make and either stop using certain words around me, or defriend me on Facebook. But when I object to the description of mixed race folks as halves, quarters and eighths, people get too confused to be irritated.

Which makes sense to me. Because even though I’ve been mixed race for almost three decades, it only occurred to me recently that perhaps I don’t really like being called a half of anything.

Apart from the fact that hey, I’m a whole person, referring to my different ethnic heritages as fractions leads to some sort of existential apartheid. When I refer to myself (or others) as half this and half that, what I am implying (whatever my intentions) is that half my body, self and experience is Chinese, and half of my body, self and experience is White.

I’m implying that the halves of my body are separately Chinese and White, that if you cut me in half you could clearly see which parts were white, and which were POC. That’s clearly untrue, even if my right hand is way better with chopsticks than my left.

It’s not like I can hold my different ethnicities separate from each other. I’m not half and half, something on this side and something else on the other…I’m both. At the same time. There are no parts of my experience that are solely white, or solely Chinese. I don’t have one compartment for Chineseness in my brain and another compartment for Whiteness, living side by side and sometimes visiting but ultimately existing separately. Every single part of me is a 100% white/Chinese mash-up, all the time. There ain’t no separating these things from each other.

I’m sure you can find me 3459876 mixed race people who don’t care if they are referred to as sixteenths or 13%s. I’m sure there are mixed race people who are gonna read this and think: Whatevs. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. And that’s ok, I’m all for people describing themselves in whatever terms they like. But I’m saying that this mixed race person doesn’t like that terminology, because of what it implies about how we think of race in general.

Which is this: potentially we like to refer to people in halves, becuase even as the entire world is an inextricable, bloody mash-up of hundreds of different ethnic groups, we still like to imagine racial groups as separate, impenetrable, sanitised entities. Even while they are simultaneously existing in one human.

Many of the issues that plague the mixed race identity have to do with feelings of inadequacy and inauthenticity. Maybe some of that has to do with the fact that people are always telling us (and we often tell ourselves) that we are half of things. I mean, that has to have some kind of impact somewhere.

So in the interests of the boiling pot, or just simply the sanity of this one mixed race person, if you know someone who is mixed race, say (for eg) “Carmen is Chinese and Dutch,” not “Carmen is half Chinese and half Dutch.”  Because the first means exactly the same thing as the second, it’s just that the first is being much more realistic.

(*I will try to keep spoilers to a minimum*)

When I started reading The Time Traveler’s Wife, I was already aware that in the movie version of the book, Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams were cast to play Henry DeTamble and Clare Abshire. So I was already aware that the two main characters were white, and I didn’t really bat an eye at it – most successful authors (particularly if their book is becoming a movie) choose white protagonists for whatever reasons (or without even considering other options).

But as I was reading, I started to notice a trend – in contrast to the white main characters, who were rich, musicians, lawyers, artists, etc – and versed in punk music as well as opera, and in German, French and English literature, the characters of color were either silent, strange, and/or did not speak English, but rather english, or slang/broken/obviously-second-language English.

Which annoyed me.

Don’t get me wrong; as an English Major, I fully enjoyed the book, and consider it possibly one of my favorites.  To deny the racism/lack of race in the “usual” favorites – Pride & Prejudice, A Tale of Two Cities, Wuthering Heights, etc, or in the general canon of English Literature is a bit ridiculous – so I have come to accept that many books I love were born out of a time of racism, or have subtle or overt racism in them themselves…(Did you know Heathcliff might’ve been a person of color??)

But the fact that representation after representation of smart, intelligent, or ‘worthy’ characters in the Time Traveler’s Wife were white…troubled me. There are flaws to the white characters, but their “flaws” are human flaws – they somehow never struck me as weird, and they never took away from their roles in Henry’s life as saviors and friends, respectable and intelligent.

There are two major characters of color in the book who seem to get wrapped up in stereotypes. First, there is Mrs. Kim, or “Kimy” as Henry calls her – his “crazy Korean card-playing babysitter” (28).

Kimy

The major stereotype/characterization of Mrs. Kim is arguably be a reflection of realities: throughout the 30 + years of the novel, she speaks English as a non-Native speaker, rather than English. While English is a difficult language to learn through immersion without grammar lessons, it was also, on first glance, unneccessary for Niffenegger to make Mrs. Kim to speak English. The significance that emerged, at least for me, was that Mrs. Kim’s english syntax made her ‘other’, ‘different’, and cemented her place as a person of color rather than a mother figure to Henry.

Considering that Henry “spent most of my waking hours with Kimy”, that she had been in America for over 30 years throughout the novel, that she was close friends with the DeTambles – a great violinist, and an opera singer, and that she lived in the same apartment building and frequently takes care of Henry well into his adulthood, it struck me as odd that in world of eloquent dialogue and literary/upper-class references, Mrs. Kim never stopped speaking in broken ESL-english throughout the novel. After Henry’s mother dies, and his father becomes alcoholic, it is left on Mrs. Kim to raise Henry who would become fluent in English, German and French.

Now, I’m not saying that someone who doesn’t speak standard English can’t be friends with the DeTambles of the world, or cannot (or haven’t) raised intelligent, successful children who speak multiple languages to study European literature. On the contrary, women from less privileged countries frequently raise the children of richer (often white) families, and women who don’t speak English can (and do) raise their own children to be successful, intelligent and multilingual. However, in Audrey Neffenegger’s constructed world, by simultaneously denying Mrs. Kim the eloquence of the white companions with whom she is always immersed, and by characterizing her as a “crazy Korean” – she seems to deny Mrs. Kim the equality or respect an adult would otherwise automatically demand.

Seeing how “Kimy” spoke to Henry, and how Henry refers to her, especially as an adult, made me cringe. I often felt that he was talking down to her; that somehow the dynamics of their relationship changed when he got older to a point where he was more familiar and comfortable in the world as a time-traveling librarian; but that “Kimy” would always be the “crazy Korean” who still said spoke in ‘ESL-english’.

In her middle age and Henry’s adulthood, Mrs. Kim speaks thusly: “We did have child… You guys got a baby yet?”‘; while Henry responds: “No news, Kimy. No baby. Clare and I fight about it just about every waking moment. Please don’t start on me.” Immediately, the scene struck me as Henry talking to Mrs. Kim as though she was a child: “Please don’t start on me”. And Mrs. Kim is only asking what any interested mother-figure would. Furthermore, Henry is shocked to find out that Mrs. Kim and Mr. Kim had had a child. The fact that Henry, who is obsessed with his mother and her death (when he was 5) didn’t even know such a significant event in the life of the woman who raised him for the other 30 years, made me sad. It really displayed the power dynamics: no matter how long you know him, and care for him – you, the “crazy Korean”, will never be his dead, white opera-singing mother. The dynamic shifts from son-mother, to man-elderly caretaker/ex-babysitter, etc.

I think Mrs. Kim’s dialogue would be less damning of the racism in Niffenegger’s constructed world if there was a contrasting character of color who spoke English anywhere in the book. It is not Mrs. Kim’s dialogue alone that makes her syntax troublesome, it is instead Niffenegger’s stubborn refusal to write a character of color who speaks English with the same eloquence as her white protagonists.

On another note, I was always waiting for Mrs. Kim (whose husband seems to disappear in the book, which is another question altogether – the missing man of color) and Mr. DeTamble to get together, particularly since she spent most of her adulthood taking care of him and his son.. but alas, no romantic ending there.

Celia

Speaking of interracial couples, that brings me to the next character that awed me. Celia is the book’s angry black woman who is constantly described as “beautiful”, who is a lesbian, who dislikes Henry for how he treats Ingrid (his ex; her friend/girlfriend/crush), and becomes friends with Clare. Celia doesn’t have a large part in the book, but she is certainly not normalized.

Romantically, Celia takes an alternative path – she does not outrightly hit on or date Ingrid; it all seems forced, contrived, and manipulative. Celia also becomes friends with Clare, someone Ingrid despises for ‘stealing’ Henry, despite the fact that Celia is in love with Ingrid (the book reads more like “because she is in love with Ingrid”, but I think it is in spite of…because who becomes friends with someone your lover hates!). Furthermore, Celia is the only lesbian in the book. In that alone, she stands apart from other woman characters who are perceived as the “norm” – that is, women who pursue love (Ingrid, Clare), have premarital sex (Ingrid, Clare, Shannon, Clare’s mom), and are heterosexual.

Aesthetically, Celia is described as a “small black woman with beautiful long dreads” by Clare. The fact that Clare pauses to call a black woman’s hair (dreads are a statement in and of themselves) “beautiful” kind of annoys me – it reminds me of exoticization; of declaring the appearances of “others” beautiful because they are “other”. In contrast, in the same paragraph, Ingrid’s hair is just “hair”.

Celia’s speech struck me as much as Mrs. Kim’s did. It alienated her from the white characters of the book, who in contrast become increasingly defined by their use of English. Like Mrs. Kim, Celia is never depicted with other people of color, but rather spends time with Ingrid, Henry, and later Clare. Narratively, Celia’s character, and the small role she has in the plot, does not demand, and is not enhanced by her use of english or ebonics. Nonetheless, Celia speaks like this: “Sister… A word to the wise. You are mixing in where you’re not wanted. Henry, he’s bad news, but he’s Ingrid’s bad news, and you be a fool to mess with him. You hear what I’m saying?” To which Clare responds – “What are you talking about?”.

Celia is the first color of character who we see in the book for a long time – the majority of the plot and characters before this are white, privileged, upper class, and readers are wrapped up in a wealthy world of opera, art and obscure literary quotes. However, Niffenegger seems to go out of her way to further “other” her. Celia’s hair is exoticized, her sexuality is ‘other’-ed from the book’s imaginary norm – she even ‘hates’ the characters we are supposed to love (Henry), and loves the characters we are supposed to side against (Ingrid). In this context, it seems obvious to me that her syntax and dialogue is not a stylistic, realist or creative choice; instead, Celia’s dialogue seems positioned to further ‘other’ her, to make her ‘different’ from our lovable protags, and, most importantly, suggests that she is ‘less than’.

To take it a step further, Celia is not only characterized as ‘less than’ in a world where English, music, and art are the qualities that make you “worthy”, she is an “angry” lesser-than. Celia’s aforementioned speech is aimed at Clare when she is angry at her – she wants to threaten/scare Clare off of Henry, out of loyalty to Ingrid. What does that say about ebonics, cultures of color, and english in the context of the novel? To me, it is obvious – those who don’t speak English are colored, othered, exotic, and “beautiful”, but ultimately excluded/outside of the DeTamble and Abshire households/worlds/immediate storyline.

Nell
Speaking of Clare – she is like a bastion of class privilege. First, her family is rich. Second, they live in a huge house beside a meadow where her mother spends her days gardening (or bossing around the gardener). Third, she has servants: Nell and Etta. And of course, Nell is black. When Henry visits Clare’s home, at one point he walks in on Nell “waggling her large hips” singing Christmas carols with with “a young black girl”.

Like Celia and Mrs. Kim before her, Nell is a characterization more than a portrayal of a character. She doesn’t speak English – not even to her employers or their guests, but rather says “Shoo son, get out of here and go sit in the living room and pull on the bell and I will make you some fresh coffee.. I’m gonna feed you up.” As a character, Nell reinforces the Abshire’s class and race privilege by embodying the stereotype of a black servant – doesn’t speak English, is happy to serve at the ring of a bell, and loves her employers.

Gomez

Then there is Gomez.  Gomez is not a character of colour, but he is worth mentioning because of his name. When I first saw the name “Gomez”, I admit I got excited. I thought – “Yay, a main character of color!”. But what’s interesting is the fact that Gomez is white. Gomez is not his real name, but rather a nickname.  I found that so odd – it was like having a character of color in the book without him having to actually be a character of color. On paper, seeing “Gomez said” or “Gomez laughed”; you don’t think blonde-blue-eyed, etc etc. So it allows Niffenegger to have a “different” name, while still retaining the idealized, normalized look – white. Which in turn reminds me of Celia’s exotization as a sexual, black lesbian woman with “beautiful” hair.

There are also other characters of color who are characterized by their silence. For example, I don’t recall Mr. Kim ever speaking and he is absent for most of the book (unless I missed something?).

Basically, after reading The Time Traveler’s Wife, and being pleased by the literary references (Derek Walcott? Hell yes.), the ways in which the protagonists speak (complicated and witty), and the way the story itself is crafted and written, I was disappointed by the lack of characters of color who were real, rather than caricatures.

Of course, had Henry been a POC, his time traveling problem would’ve probably been a lot more damning; his white privilege let him escape a lot. Similarly, when Clare is seen in a care with a much older man (a Henry from the future) when she is 16, no one bats an eye because Henry is white. Had either of them been black in the 70s/80s, that would’ve been something to quirk an eyebrow at; they wouldn’t have gotten away so easily. So yes, I understand the plot advantages of having Henry and Clare be white, but even if the secondary characters alone remained racialized as they are, it would’ve been nice to see some diversity of interest, speech, characteristics and class. Instead, Mrs. Kim, Celia, and Nell come off as the same formula with different stereotypes: i.e. “insert Korean immigrant stereotype”, “insert sexualized ‘othered’, angry black woman stereotype”, “insert black servant stereotype”, etc, etc.

In fact, it is not the characterizations themselves that make Niffenegger’s work particularly offensive; instead, it is the context in which the characters of color are (mis)placed – the only characters who do not speak English, who have lower-paying jobs, and who are often in service of the protagonists. The world Niffenegger constructs is one in which the privileged, white, upper class only encounters people of color who serve them (Mrs. Kim, Nell), hate/threaten them (Celia), or are actually white (Gomez). Henry and Clare never describe people they view as intellectual equals (colleagues, etc) who are also people of color.

In a world of time traveling genes, second string violinists, opera singers, lawyers, drug dealers who seek to cure, is it asking too much for the same imagination to be extended to the characters of color in the book?

Ok. That was a long rant that was long overdue. I’m sure I’ve forgotten a lot since I read the book a few weeks ago in preparation for the movie. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but when I do, I hope that whatever characters of color they choose to keep are more believable and less offensive/racially stereotyped than they are in the book.

Although, Brad Pitt produced it, didn’t he? With his “rainbow” of children, I don’t know if I should expect more.

The Austin American-Statesman reported yesterday that a local Hispanic contractors’ organization had removed a video from its website and given apologies after a local television station received complaints that it contained demeaning portrayals of gays (“Hispanic contractors’ group pulls video called demeaning to gays“).

The U.S. Hispanic Contractors Association had recently been in the news for leading a successful protest against a morning talk radio show on KLBJ-AM in which a co-host had repeatedly referred to Latino immigrants as “wetbacks”. On Monday, the parent owner of the radio station announced that the show would be canceled. That same day, though, KVUE TV broadcast the news report highlighting that the same organization that led the fight against the anti-immigrant slur had the questionable video on its website.

What’s exactly in the video and is it truly offensive to gays? You be the judge. The American-Statesman says that it consists of outtakes from a promotional ad for the Association featuring Mexican-born comedian Paul Rodriguez which were never used in the ad that actually aired. The paper described it as “Rodriguez dressed as a construction worker walking in an effeminate manner”.

The Association has taken the link to the video off their site but I’ve managed to get my hands on a copy and have posted it above. The clip in question begins at the :30 second mark and lasts 35 seconds. In it, Rodriguez seems to be ad-libbing his way through the shoot and starts riffing on the gay community in Austin, speaking both in English and Spanish. Here is the transcript with translation of Spanish-language phrases:

Paul Rodriguez: Doesn’t Austin have like a gay… a big gay population?
Contractor in blue: Si, esta rogado por locas ["Yes, nellies always ask him out"]
Paul Rodriguez: So you go, you go [prances] ‘and specially for you…’ [walks and simulates grabbing contractor's butt, contractors laugh, Rodriguez goes back and simulates holding contractor's testicles]
Paul Rodriguez: Cough! [contractors laugh]
Paul Rodriguez: [prances again] Estas bien nalgón ["You're cute, big butt guy"]
Paul Rodriguez: Let’s go, let’s go…
Off-camera: [Unintelligible]
Paul Rodriguez: [prances some more] dale a tu cuerpo alegria, Macarena ["Give your body happiness, Macarena", a quote from the song Macarena by Los Del Rio]. Here we go…

At 1:57 there’s another bit in which Rodriguez addresses the two contractors as women and hands them over what he describes as invitations for them to join Jenny Craig and lose some weight.

After removing the link from the Association’s site, spokesperson Paul Saldaña, speaking to the American-Statesman, said “The video was in poor taste, and we certainly need to be held accountable to the community’s expectations.”

Frank Fuentes, the organization’s chairman, told the paper “We shouldn’t have had it up there. I personally don’t think it equates to what happened on the radio station, but I can understand why people would think that.”

Both Saldaña and Fuentes said that Rodriguez had initiated the banter and that it was never part of a script. They said they had contacted local LGBT organizations and advocates and requested a meeting with them to apologize for the incident. The meeting, they said, is scheduled for later this week.

Their immediate action to remove the link and willingness to be the ones to actively seek a meeting with local LGBT leaders speaks well for the Association despite having posted the video in the first place. I also find it suspicious that people started to complain to media only after the Association’s successful actions in shutting down a xenophobic radio show. Something tells me that fans of the show combed through the Association’s website to find anything they could pin on them and show them in a bad light.

As for the video’s content, does it offend? I guess it depends on your sensibility. To me it comes across as puerile, stereotypical, and – yes – a tad homophobic. But hey! It’s Paul Rodriguez! Does it absolutely rile me up and make me want to boycott Austin, Texas? Oh, please, there are bigger fish to fry. At least, once on notice, the organization acted swiftly and properly.

Take a look at this photo. What are your initial thoughts on this tattoo?

After being tipped by reader pinkyloveswhisky, I headed on over to the BMEZine blog to check out what all the fuss was about, and I tried to do the exercise I recommended above. What were my initial thoughts on this tattoo? First I thought, wow, this is beautiful and very well done. The colors and detailing are perfect. The necklaces are so realistically portrayed I feel like I could reach out and touch them. I thought of documentaries I had seen on television about people living in remote villages and where the origins of many of the forms of body modification we participate in today can be traced.

Then I read the statement made by the man who had requested this piece:

I, like so many of our community members, have been totally fascinated with tribal cultures and their ideas of body art and beauty. In all simplicity this tattoo is my way of paying homage and showing people what body modification means to me and showing where my roots in this industry lay.

He notes that the piece is not a reference to anyone in particular or any one specific person, but for him the piece represents a means of paying homage to the peoples to whom we owe the popularity of body modification.

I think his tattoo is beautiful and personally take no issue with it. It’s all the same if any other person got a portrait piece done of a famous entertainer or public figure. However, on the blog itself, many people took issue with Dave’s statement and his use of the word “tribal.”

Here are some excerpts:

max on June 13th, 2009 at 4:23 pm:
it’s a great piece! however, i don’t understand why people refer to body modifications as tribal. all that is doing is perpetuating racial stereotypes. take any african studies course (or any minority group for that matter) and open your eyes to the implications (direct or indirect) such terms can endorse. it simply does not do any justice for the ethnic groups it’s meant to portray.

Jon P on June 13th, 2009 at 5:53 pm:
I, too, don’t think referring to this type of imagery as “tribal” or the body modification they practice as “tribal” either. Describing an indigenous culture as “tribal” merely denotes the way they organise socially, it’s not a way of describing cultures.
It’s fine and dandy to pay homage to a particular influence you’ve had. But if you only know the culture through textbooks and National Geographic documentaries, then you can’t really know the culture at all. Seeing an indigenous person’s stretched earlobes might have sparked your interest in body manipulation and what not, but that’s not what a culture is about. An having a portrait of an indigenous person on your body just smacks of the antiquated “noble savage” concept which all of us trained anthropologists cringe at.
The tattoo itself is cringe-worthy. It’s like a piece of tourist art you’d buy on your way through Africa or something.

VOMIT on June 13th, 2009 at 6:25 pm:
I’m totally diggin it.
Max: MANY cultures participated in body modification, some just little things, others a lot. But in no way would I say that a small minority participated in body modification. I don’t see how referring to body modification as being tribal in origin is not beneficial. Why does it have to be either? It’s good to know the history of something you love and enjoy. If that thing is body modification then it makes sense to look back at past cultures and see how it all started and what form it took. I don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with understanding your own identity, not unless you are of tribal decent. Also I think the fact that you think saying something is of tribal origin will some how hurt the modified community or alienate us even more is a bit sickening. If anything, I would think proving that body modification goes back a long way in history would make people see it less as a thing just for freaks or weirdos.

The comments continued on like this for another few days, ending with the usual “you are being overly sensitive” meme:
 

Jon P on June 17th, 2009 at 4:46 am:
See, it’s a very ingrained attitude being exhibited here. The oppressors, or those who live from the fruits of oppression, will always belittle those who draw attention to, or seek to right the wrong of, their oppressive attitudes and behaviours. Call it a WASP culture or whatever you want, but the dominant White culture that controls how indigenous people live their lives will always see them as subservient and not quite equal. You can tell that by the way everyone dismisses the discussion surrounding the inherently racist/eurocentric nature of the term ‘tribal’.
Poo poo it if you will, but it doesn’t make it an less true or important.

socialcoma on June 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pm:
blah blah oppressors blah blah wasp blah blah racist blah blah eurocentric
just let the man enjoy his tattoo

As I said above, I think the tattoo is beautiful and I appreciate it for its artistic value primarily. The artist did an amazing job. From a personal standpoint as a person who has about half of her upper body tattooed (and always yearning for more body work), has had her share of piercings (from visual to well-hidden), and who is thinking about gauging her ears, you could say I am biased. I respect the personal choice to have body modification done and think this choice goes hand in hand with the art one chooses as well. My tattoo pieces, while not portraits, have incredible significance to me and tell stories of my family history and my personal growth. In terms of artistic choice, I do not think art has one specific owner. While a style of body modification may have begun in one place or another, that does not mean it necessarily belongs and must stay within said location of culture. Culture and art are mutable entities. They change drastically over time and with cultural exchange.

That said, I do not believe that borrowing elements from other cultures is a sin. I see plenty of Americans, for example, who get Japanese style tattoos, most of which became all the more popular with the introduction of shows like Miami Ink, a reality tv series that, without a doubt, led to more acceptance of body modification in American culture, and arguably may have led to its very demise as an “underground” or “alternative” choice. Many Americans have or have had some form of modification done to their bodies, and if it’s not in the form of art, it’s via nose jobs, breast implants, and Botox. Whether we like it or not, body modification is just as much a part of American culture now as earlobe stretching, neck lengthening, and disk insertion is/was for “tribal” cultures. As I note in a previous piece, “Coloured Ink: Is Body Art Just a “White” Thing?” cultural appropriation is far more a part of our culture than we realize,

“Body modification was once exclusively associated with indigenous groups in Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. The practice was, in itself, something besides skin color that assisted in the “othering” of native peoples during their first encounters with Europeans. But over time, due to influences in music, art, and pop culture, the association shifted. Once considered museum-worthy cultural oddities, mohawks, wooden disks, nose rings, and creative scarring techniques, most of which had significant religious or social meaning within certain groups, had become a popular aesthetic among whites seeking to “other” themselves as members of the “alternative” community. Young whites made a conscious decision to appropriate what was seen as foreign/different, as an homage to other cultures, and assigned new meaning to everyday objects (like safety pins) in order to distance themselves from the establishment and the dominant culture.”

Now back to the comments above and the use of the word “tribal.” I think the word has become synonymous with Eurocentrism and the imperial gaze only in recent years, as I recall “tribal” being an acceptable term in the 1980s. Much with any other word used to describe a culture different from one’s own, the word has undergone considerable changes in meaning as a result of our growing sensitivity in considering “otherness.” This, I think, is a good thing. We should be careful with the words we choose to discuss other groups, though certainly should not be made to feel self-conscious if a passé term is used. In my opinion, the man who got this piece was not meaning to demean or offend indigenous groups by using the word “tribal.” I would go as far as to say that the majority of the people who know the “right” and “wrong” terms to use in this case are people immersed in anthropological, critical race theory, or history work, not necessarily the average American.

I also do not consider this art piece an example of cultural appropriation. He had a picture permanently inked onto his skin, an image of someone else, and I judge this piece as I would any other portrait. If a white performer tattooed a portrait of Michael Jackson on his or her body as a means of paying homage to a man who influenced his or her career committing cultural appropriation or exhibiting Eurocentrism? If the performer goes on to say that black musical traditions have had a profound impact on his or her work, is he or she being offensive?

I am leaving this piece a bit of an open thread because I have already stated my thoughts on the piece. What are your thoughts, readers (on both the piece and the comments)?

I was minding my own beeswax riding the subway when I stumbled across an ad in the free subway paper for “The Ethnic Comedy Show,” an July extravaganza of touring comics who, um, are all “ethnic”?

This Hour Has 22 Minutes star Shaun Majumder hosts an evening featuring an eclectic group of hot ethnic comics, filmed to air on the CBC. Check out special guest Frank Spadone (the Italian), Steve Byrne (the Asian), Godfrey (the Nigerian), Akmal Saleh (the Arab), Rachel Feinstein (the Jew) and more! Whatever your cultural background, The Ethnic Comedy Show will make you feel right at home.

So this is one of those minor gripes – we all have them – but the word “ethnic” really gets my goat. (I mean you can tell I’m not really that mad about it, since I have now advertised this stupid show on our website. You’re welcome Shaun Majumder!)

Or to be clear, it’s not the word ethnic, but the way it’s used, that drives me up the wall.

According to my good friend Dictionary.com, ethnic means:

1. pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion,
language, or the like.
2. referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups.
3. being a member of an ethnic group, esp. of a group that is a minority within a larger society: ethnic Chinese in San
Francisco.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of members of such a group.
5. belonging to or deriving from the cultural, racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country: ethnic dances.
6. Obsolete. pagan; heathen.
7. a member of an ethnic group.

You’ll notice though, that more often than not when the word “ethnic” is dropped in conversation, it means “not white.” You know, he’s that nice ethnic fellow!

Considering that two of the comics in this show are white, we can assume that the name The Ethnic Comedy Show! means to indicate that it’s going to be a rollicking night of ethnic comedy, not necessarily comics who are “ethnic” in the, ahem, non-white sense. Which is good. AND ALSO MAKES SENSE. BECAUSE ALL FREAKING COMICS ARE ETHNIC. ALL HUMANS ARE ETHNIC.

Still, even calling it “A Night of Ethnic Comedy” rather than “A Night of Ethnic Comics” is a little off, because all subject matter that involves social mores and generalised behaviour is commenting on some kind of ethnic group – even that of white folks!

Imagine that.

For some real ethnic comedy, check out Louis C.K.’s clip on Being White, as deconstructed by the Stuff White People Do blog.

PS Incidentally that photo is just something that turned up when I Google Image searched “ethnic comedy” – it’s not the photo for The Ethnic Comedy Show this posts refers to. I guess there are lots.