“Slave Earrings” are in Vogue. Literally. According to the Italian fashion outlet, “Jewellery has always flirted with circular shapes, especially for use in making earrings. The most classic models are the slave and creole styles in gold hoops.”

Emphasis mine, ridiculousness… all theirs.

Two weeks ago, Vogue Italia found itself under a deluge of criticism for declaring “Slave Earrings” in fashion. Originally, they thought to qualify the name they gave them. “If the name brings to the mind the decorative traditions of the women of colour who were brought to the southern United States during the slave trade, the latest interpretation is pure freedom. Colored stones, symbolic pendants and multiple spheres. And the evolution goes on.” Does it go on to declare “necklaces with detachable chains,” “hillbilly slingbacks,” and “Holocaust tattoos” in fashion? None of that is me, by the way, this is taken from the 21 pages of comments, nearly all chiding the wording choice in English and in Italian.

Allow me to fill you in on the latest: Vogue Italia gave an apology earlier last week that was more like an “Oops!” than anything. The style bible’s editor, Franca Sozzani released a statement Monday that said, “We apologise for the inconvenience. It is a matter of really bad translation from Italian into English.” Again, emphasis mine, but let’s be honest, the emphasis should have been theirs. They continued, “The Italian word, which defines those kind of earrings, should instead be translated into ‘ethnical style earrings.’ Again, we are sorry about this mistake which we have just amended in the website.”

From the myriad of complaints, tweets, and articles that has inspired this fashion nightmare, it was pointed out the word “ethnic” translates to “etnico” and slave is “schiavo” in Italian. Completely dissimilar words.  So obviously, Sozzani’s statement needs to be taken with a… grain of salt. My thought is, in the surprise this wording… mistake… caused, they had to say something. Like equate ethnicity to slavery. Oops! I think Iman said it best to Style Bistro: “Slave does not make it ethnic. Mind you, it’s not lost in translation–the word slave, we know what it is. They might as well have called them n***** earrings.” Snap. We should know by now that it’s best not to anger Iman. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannson would be none too pleased, either.

Really, these earrings do originate from the time of slavery, however… let me throw out an example. Right now, I’m wearing a Calvin Klein buckled leather bracelet. I am not wearing a Calvin Klein shackle cuff. See the difference, Franca? I know this all may be confusing, but maybe the word should have been edited out before released to the public, as editors are wont to do. And what if, (and this is completely hypothetical of course) the model on the site was black?

Now do you see why that term shouldn’t have ever, ever, ever have been used? I felt wrong even cutting and pasting another face into this. Imagine how we feel knowing that you wrote, edited, approved, coded, and posted the article without even so much as a “Uh… guys?”

As of last Wednesday evening, the post holds a message saying, nay, shouting:

“WE’VE DECIDED TO REMOVE THE ARTICLE FROM THE SITE TO PROVE OUR GOOD FAITH AND TO SHOW IT WASN’T OUR INTENTION TO INSULT ANYONE”

Now, there’s a real apology. I think.

I so want to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, this isn’t their first language. Ignore the fact that it appeared in Italian as well. But, this is the same team that came up with mainstream fashion’s first all black issue. And they also started Vogue Black, even though I side-eye the name a little bit. I was talking to Sexual Correspondent Andrea Plaid about this, and she bought up something rather interesting:

“Vogue Italia is doing the post-racial mulitple-oppression sell: under the guise of thinking they’re being all ‘We did the Black Issue, so we’re cool in doing this’ using the myriad of oppressions of women of color to sell some damn gold-tone hoop earrings named after…WoCs’ oppression! And that oppression, in many cases, melded sexual oppression (Antebellum US, the Japanese and Korean “comfort women,” etc.) This, coming from the magazine whose brand is all about the sexy framed as stylishness.”

Though they may not deserve it, as a gesture of good faith, I took a peek around Vogue Italia’s trends section. Maybe this was just a one-off terrible mistake. And I found another post about… Jungle Bracelets. My first inclination was to shout “Why!?!” But, false alarm, as I read, there was nothing really- “…manchettes in python for a night marked by tribal rhythms,” huh? “Turn your evenings into “jungle nights” characterized by tribal music, wild dancing and a bit of aesthetic rebellion,” you say?

Less malevolent, sure. But I’m uncomfortable anyway, and while relatively tame, is this something to be angry about? Maybe. But, to be honest, should I be bracing myself for racism on their website now? Slave Ethnic Earrings should be completely gone from the site as that “gesture of good faith.” As of Wednesday afternoon, the Ethnic Earrings post is still up, complete with the slide show.

It shouldn’t be, so let’s all just face the fuc— I mean facts. Face the facts. I’m sorry, it was a really bad translation. But I caught myself.

Image credit: Vogue Italia and Joseph Lamour

It’s common practice for a blog to time a post in conjunction with a notable movie release. But a post on Latina Magazine’s blog might have been too on the nose for its’ own good.

Late last week, this post by Lee Hernandez featured “10 Latinas Who Have Played ‘The Help,’” a tie-in, of course, with the recent release of the film of the same name.

“Latinas have a long history of playing ‘the help’ in movies and on television,” Hernandez wrote in the introduction. “Here are 10 of our favorite Latina ‘help’ roles of all-time!” Among the actresses mentioned in the ensuing slideshow: Jennifer Lopez in Maid In Manhattan; Adriana Barraza, who was nominated for an Oscar and Golden Globe for her work in Babel; and Lupe Ontiveros, who, Hernandez mentions, “estimates that she has played a maid between 150 and 300 times in her career.”

The problem is, Ontiveros’ experience has been radically different than Barraza’s: as she told Soledad O’Brien on CNN’s Latino In America about playing “the help” for most of her career:

It’s disturbing, let me tell you. After 30-someodd years over and over and over again. I’m an educated person. I speak five languages. I am very capable of a lot more than they think I am.

Reached for comment Monday, Hernandez said in an e-mail:

Maids are some of the hardest-working people in this country, and the actresses we spotlight do a wonderful job of capturing the strength and dignity of the job. While we look forward to the day when there are more of us portraying doctors and lawyers and political leaders, there will never come a day when we ignore an entire group of Latinas who are trying to support their families—or the actresses who do a brilliant job of portraying them.

While Hernandez’s sentiment comes from a good place, including Ontiveros with the likes of Consuela from Family Guy – who’s not even voiced by a Latina – undermines it. The way the Hollywood Shuffle has operated for Ontiveros and other Latino actors for decades wasn’t lost on Latina Fatale:

How many lead roles have Latinas played? How often do hit movies feature Latinas in strong roles, as opposed to roles such as maids, gangsters, and other stereotypical roles? I can bet that Latinas play maid roles more often than not, because other roles are not offered to them.

By Guest Contributor Jorge Antonio Vallejos, cross-posted from Black Coffee Poet

Being mixed race always has its challenges: isolation, language barriers, not fitting in, not being ‘enough’, and the many forms of racism that come with all that.

Every time I tell people that my mom is Peruvian and my dad is Lebanese I get:

1. Exotic!
2. Interesting.
3. How did that happen?
4. You look more…

One time a famous playwright of colour stroked my cheek and whispered “exotic” in my ear after I identified myself to him.

When I break it down even more (Mom: Indigenous/Spanish/Chinese + dad: Arab, moved to South America in his teens) I get the insult that people think is funny and acceptable: “you’re a mutt.”  It gets worse when I say my dad isn’t in my life, but I really don’t want to go there right now.

Reading Fireweed #75: “The Mixed Race Issue” was not only fun it was refreshing.  Its contributors wrote about a lot of what I have experienced over the years; and they wrote from the heart, holding nothing back, and well.

Published in 2002 and guest edited by Lisa Amin, Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, and May Lui, all mixed race women, Fireweed # 75 was a follow up to a similar anthology, Miscegenation Blues, published in 1994.  Amin writes in the intro, “This one is for the beige babies.”  It’s that and more.

“Heinz 57,” by Anne-Marie Estrada, is my life story.  Except, I’m not Anne-Marie and she isn’t writing about me, she’s writing about herself.  A very short piece, “Heinz 57″ speaks to many of us mixies. Broken down into two sections, “HERE.” and “THERE.”, twelve questions Anne-Marie constantly gets are displayed throughout, many of which a lot of mixed race people get:

1. Where’s your accent from?
2. Are you…?
3. Did you go to school in…?
4. What do you speak at home?
5. What do you eat at home?
6. What do you know about your family?
7. How did she come to marry a man from…?

Marie writes:

When someone sees my name they think one thing.

When they hear my voice they think another.

Then they see my face and are mildly confused.

Marie ends her short, fast paced, punchy piece with: “Because you just can’t tell by looking.”  True!

Jesse Heart has two pieces in Fireweed #75: “Pinky Rant” and “Really/Not Really.”  “Pinky Rant,” a non-fiction piece – short essay really, possibly an Op-Ed, goes deep in a small space.  Heart explores race and gender and colonialism better than most academics in a concise, cutting manner.  Heart starts off with a solid slap to the ear:

I think I am reaching a point of exhaustion.  I am tired of explaining…explaining my orientation…my identity as trans, as butch, as boi, as dyke.  Explaining my “origin”…?

The explaining is tiring but not as bad as what Heart so beautifully calls “Colour f-cking adjectives.”  Heart is referring to comments like “drunken native” when people find out about their Indigenous ancestry.  And then there’s the ogling on public transit:

And if it’s not my “origin”, it’s the public debate I must witness, like on a fucking subway, “is that a man/dude/guy…or woman?…**giggle, giggle**.

Heart shines again in their simple yet poignant statements in “Really/not really:”

In her untitled essay, Lisa Weiner-Mahfuz (a half Arab and half Jewish woman) explores hypogamy, racism, the intersection of Zionism and racism, and the ever present racism in feminist/activist circles.  It’s deep, hard, honest, and sad.

As a half Arab who doesn’t fit in with the Arab community I love Weiner-Mahfuz’s essay.  And I can see why it’s untitled; some things can’t be named or labeled such as many experiences in mixed race life.

Being a different shade of brown, speaking Castellano (the Spanish dialect) and not Arabic, raised by a single mom, eating South American food my entire life, and using my mothers Spanish-colonial surname has left me outside of the Arab box.  Trying to explore my Arabness in university I joined the Arab Student Club (really a Palestinian solidarity movement that has gone through many names and is now Toronto’s biggest Palestinian activist group).  Although I met some good people, every problem written in Fireweed #75 surfaced: questions and explanations, lateral racism, misogyny toward female members, colour f-cking adjectives, tokenism etc.  Weiner-Mahfouz had similar experiences in feminist activism and at a race conference.

While recently talking with another mixed race friend (Native American and Black) about not fitting in with the Toronto Arab activist scene she said, “You’re too Indian for them.”  I prefer the word Indigenous, and I identify my indigeneity as Mestizo (Indigenous and Spanish; read Gloria Anzaldua for a much more detailed explanation).  But I got what she meant.  How can I relate to middle to upper class Arabs, who speak francais and Arabic, and hang mainly with other academics involved in activism, many of whom are white skinned and pass in the white world?  I grew up with Blacks and Latinos and Persians, all of colour, who’s parents, like my mom, worked in factories, restaurants, hotels, and as delivery people and taxi drivers and janitors.  I’m one of two in my crew who have gone to university; more of us have been incarcerated!  I don’t think that’s a coincidence.  And most of the friends I have, old and new, mainly of colour, have never heard of Edward Said, Ward Churchill, bell hooks etc.  And they don’t care too.

Weiner-Mahfouz writes of the exclusion she experienced in family circles for being both Arab and Jewish.  And she painfully writes of literally having a door slammed in her face at a race conference in Boston titled “Race and Racism in the 90s:”

I raised my hand and asked where mixed race people were to go…The white women in the room, including the white facilitator, said they felt I should caucus with them because  I could pass for white.  Most of the women of colour concurred with this…

The discussion proceeded with the facilitators spending ten minutes talking to the group about the privileges of being able to choose—as if I were not in the room…Finally, the group resolved that I could choose where to go…

It was not resolved for me.  I felt alone.  I felt that regardless of where I chose to go it would be the wrong choice.  I felt like the illegitimate bastard child that no one wanted and/or knew what to do with.  Many of the women of colour were angry with me.  Many of the white women felt as if they had made an anit-racist intervention by challenging me on my racism.  Still as the group broke up, I made a choice and walked towards the room that the women of colour were to meet in.  As I approached the door it quickly slammed in my face.

Not only do I believe that most of the contributors to Fireweed #75, and most mixed race people, have felt like Weiner-Mahfouz, but they’ve probably had real doors slammed in their faces like her.  I understand where the women of colour were coming from but that was cold.  Weiner-Mahfouz’s experience at the conference was horrible and one that continues today.  And so do all the problems laid out in the journal.  How far have we come along?

Weiner-Mahfouz poetically states that as mixed race peoples we are feared:

“We are feared because interracial relationships are still taboo in our culture.  We are feared because our mere existence often calls into question the status quo and the way that race is constructed in our society.  We are feared even by people on the Left who propose to be working to challenge these deeply rooted beliefs and constructs…We are not considered whole just as we are.”

The Mixed Race Issue has many brave, honest, entertaining and emotional pieces.  Karleen Pendleton Jimenez writes an erotic piece exploring her life as a white skinned Chicana and the complexities of skin politics in her dating life; Billie Rain’s essay title explains her piece: “The Myth of the White Jewish Race;” Lisa Amin writes about passing and failing as a mixed race person; Kim Trusty writes about her white mom; and there is so much more in this extraordinary and important collection.

Although we mixed race people are not considered whole, we are.  And this issue of Firewood shows that.

By Guest Contributor Restructure!, cross-posted from Restructure!

“‘Too Asian’?” was not the first racist Maclean’s article lamenting the quantity of racialized people displacing white people and white power.

In 2006, Maclean’s published “The future belongs to Islam” by Mark Steyn, who assumed that Muslims all over the world were primarily focused on a shared goal of imposing Islamic law globally, and tried to bring to everyone’s attention that the birth rates of Muslim-majority countries were higher than the birth rates of European countries. Steyn also pointed out that although “Africa” has a high birth rate, it is “riddled with AIDS” and “as we saw in Rwanda, [Africans'] primary identity is tribal”. Steyn then invoked a white colonialist narrative by describing Muslim-majority areas as “Indian territory”, “lawless fringes of the map”, and “badlands” that needed to be “brought within the bounds of the ordered world.”

He waxed nostalgically about “the old Indian territory”, when “no one had to worry about the Sioux riding down Fifth Avenue”, “the white man settled the Indian territory”, and “the Injuns had bows and arrows and the cavalry had rifles.” His complaint was that “today’s Indian territory”—i.e., Muslim-majority countries (!)—now have nuclear weapons, and “the fellow from the badlands” can now ride planes and travel quickly. Later, Steyn recounted a story in which some youths in Belgium assaulted a bus passenger, alleging that it was not at all surprising that the youths were “of Moroccan origin.”

In other words, Maclean’s has already published an extremely racist (and Islamophobic) article in the past. Four years later in 2010, Maclean’s “‘Too Asian’?” article expresses the same fears about an “Asian invasion” and dismay at the increasing numbers of racialized people in relation to white people within a given population. Not only is Maclean’s “‘Too Asian’?” a repeat of the W5 “Campus Giveaway” program in 1979 that griped about Asians taking up space in Canadian universities, but it is also a repeat of Maclean’s 2006 article that bemoaned the changing of demographics from white to racialized.

While Maclean’s “‘Too Asian’?” is another manifestation of Canadian society’s stereotypes about and discomfort with Asians, it reveals a larger pattern in which most white people are simply uncomfortable with racialized people gaining power. The underlying issue is white people’s beliefs that the world is just, that the world is just because white people are running it, and that if racialized people take power, the world would fall into disarray. That is, most white people unconsciously internalize the idea of white supremacy. If black people were the largest racialized group in Canadian universities, white people would still complain.

Canadian Muslims in Toronto had filed a Human Rights Complaint against Maclean’s in 2007, because the magazine would not allow them to publish a response to Steyn’s “The future belongs to Islam”. However, because of Islamophobic confirmation bias, the Canadian media and public erroneously assumed that the Muslims were attempting to stifle freedom of speech and debate. Unlike the situation with Maclean’s “‘Too Asian’?” article, the general public (including most non-Muslim Asian Canadians) was supportive of Maclean’s and feared that the Muslim law students were trying to change Canadian law to follow Islamic law. Against the allegation that Steyn’s article was “flagrantly Islamophobic”, CBC’s Rex Murphy sarcastically replied, “Maclean’s magazine? Well, we all know what a hotbed of radical bigotry and vile prejudice Maclean’s magazine has been. Go away,” while using dramatic pauses and his middle-aged white male demeanour to shroud his logical fallacies in the semblance of wisdom. Sadly, when Canadian Muslims launched the Human Rights Complaint against Maclean’s, it caused an Islamophobic backlash and reaffirmed the Canadian public’s stereotypes of Muslims, despite evidence to the contrary.

Maclean’s fails to recognize the humanity of racialized people when its writers complain about our existence. The “‘Too Asian’?” article in particular fails to recognize our Canadianness and belongingness in Canada. We cannot win when those in power require us to prove our own humanity or Canadianness, because when they debate our belongingness, they question and deny our right to equally participate in the debate. However, what we can do together as racialized people is recognize that this is not a “Muslim problem” or an “Asian problem”, but rather a whiteness problem. Yesterday it was Muslims, today it is Asians, but tomorrow it can be any other racialized group.

By Arturo R. García

After our post on Friday regarding first post regarding Maclean’s Magazine’s “Too Asian?” article, we got an e-mail from Victor Wong, president of the Chinese Canadian National Council:

“Too Asian = Not Canadian”
We need to reject this concept.
There are also issues with using essentially a racist argument to justify
(white) entitlement ie. I don’t want to go to U of T because it’s too Asian
- a killjoy.
It bothers me that a national weekly of Maclean’s reputation would publish
such a headline and poorly written/researched article.
Most parents – of all backgrounds – enjoy a white-knuckle anxiety moment as
their child opens up an admissions letter from U of T. They’d never think to
bypass an excellent school because it’s “too Asian.” Many students of all
backgrounds have criticized the article – check out the comments under the
Maclean’s article online – there’s more than 700 comments.

As of late Sunday night, the number of comments had grown to exceed 1,500. And the story has led not only to responses like the Asians Not Studying tumblr, but it’s been picked up by other sites. From Wild Unicorn Herd:

… Like, “we” realized that racism is wrong so we abandoned the policies that kept out the Jews…which meant we were forced to let in the Asians! God damn you, political correctness! Because we have nothing to fear from a lot of Jews (who are all white Europeans, of course), but a majority of Asians (who may not even be born in Canada! who may *clutches pearls* speak Mandarin!) is a problem that needs to be fixed.

I also love how Asian students associating mainly with other Asian students is a HUGE PROBLEM HOW CAN WE STOP THIS but White students who go to Western because there’s too many icky Chinese at U of T is understandable, y’know?

And by “love” I mean SMASH WITH RAGE.

For its’ part, Jezebel took exception to the reporting choices by Nicholas Kholler and Stephanie Findlay, who wrote the article:

Thanks to the group of readers who tipped us off to this: apparently Maclean’s Magazine is saying Canada’s a nice place to visit for people from China – just as long as they don’t stick around and have kids who attend college there.

Wednesday, the magazine released an article originally titled“‘Too Asian,’” with the sub-headline, Some frosh don’t want to study at an ‘Asian’ university. The article opens by introducing us to a group of white students put off from even considering going to the University of Toronto in part because of its’ reputation for being “too Asian.” Of course, this is followed up by the explanation that the sentiment is “not about racism”:

Many white students simply believe that competing with Asians— both Asian Canadians and international students— requires a sacrifice of time and freedom they’re not willing to make. They complain that they can’t compete for spots in the best schools and can’t party as much as they’d like (too bad for them, most will say).

As one reader noted via e-mail, these fears are nothing new: In 1979, the CTV network aired a news piece called “Campus Giveaway,” that misrepresented Chinese Canadian students as foreigners, and inflated enrollment statistics. The story led to protests against both the network and W5, the program on which the story aired. The controversy was cited as the impetus for the formation of the Chinese Canadian National Council.

After being taken off the magazine’s website, a edited version of the story resurfaced Thursday: some paragraphs in the story were re-arranged; the headline had been changed to”‘Too Asian?’” – note the question mark – and the sub-headline was changed to a more sedate-sounding, Worries that efforts in the U.S. to limit enrollment of Asian students in top universities may migrate to Canada. The CCNC will reportedly meet today with Maclean’s management and Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Koller, who wrote the article.

In the wake of the Reggie Bush controversy and this month’s Vanity FAIL, it’s worth spreading the word that magazines like Giant Robot & Hyphen are still in need of aid in order to stay afloat. As Jessica Lum notes::

Many of the organizations that were started to reach out, broadcast, and appreciate the amazing work of Asians and Asian Americans (or Asian Canadians, Asian Brazilians, etc.) are struggling under the financial burdens of the economic environment, especially in the journalism and print media industry.

So, while encouraging you to help those magazines out, I ask: what culture mags – Asian or otherwise – are you reading these days? What should we be reading?

Reader Sanni sent us a link to this article by Joanna Douglas, “Vanity Fair’s “New Hollywood” issue completely lacks diversity“:

While we’d like to think celeb bible Vanity Fair puts a great deal of thought and planning into its annual “New Hollywood” issue, this year the editors really limited their scope when it came to choosing the next big stars. (Or perhaps they overemphasized the “Fair”? ) Every woman on its new cover is extremely thin and very, very white. Unless Vanity Fair considers one redhead to be diversity, we feel the need to cry foul.

Surprising? No. Depressing? Yes.

Douglas makes the excellent point there’s no lack of rising stars of colour for VF to choose from:

We can think of a slew of non-white, non-rail thin actors who made a splash this year (Gabourey Sidibe from “Precious” anyone?). In the accompanying article, Vanity Fair writer Evgenia Peretz calls out the young cover stars by their best attributes: “downy-soft cheeks,” “button nose,” “patrician looks and celebrated pedigree,” “dewy, wide-eyed loveliness,” “Ivory-soap-girl features.” Roles for black, Asian, and Latin actors are scarce in Hollywood, but surely Sidibe, Zoe Saldana of “Avatar” and “Star Trek,” and Freida Pinto of “Slumdog Millionaire” are having their moment.

Sigh.

We got a request from reader Nafis to cover the Essence magazine controversy that is heating up the black blogosphere.  But the comments included with the tip made me laugh a bit.  Nafis writes:

i know it might go against parts of the racialicious agenda, but i feel like you should talk about the ”cycle of ignorance” that leads to racism. The comments that the author highlights are very derogatory, and it speaks a lot about the situation within the black female community.

Our agenda is to fairly clear – to provide an anti-racist perspective on pop culture.  And regular readers know that we are a feminist-minded site, and generally work to incorporate other anti-oppression principles into what we do.  So talking about “the situation within the black female community” isn’t really what we do since most of those perceptions are based in stereotypes about black women.  However, what is compelling about the whole situation is how conversations about interracial dating play upon stereotypes and deeply held convictions, that tend to drown out any other type of commentary.

The Situation

BET’s entertainment blog gives a good summary of what is going on:

When Essence editors chose to put Reggie Bush on the cover of their February 2010 “Black Men, Love & Relationships” issue, I’m sure they thought they were just giving their readers a little dose of sexual chocolate eye candy (those abs!), but instead all hell broke loose!

The Essence.com boards are flooded with seething comments from people who can’t understand why a magazine geared towards Black women would make the NFL player who is dating a non-Black woman, Kim Kardashian, the cover choice for an issue that celebrates Black love.

A lot of hateful comments were posted to the Essence boards, some even saying that Bush was a “white supremacist” and anger that a magazine dedicated to celebrating black women would put a man dating a non-black woman on the cover.

The vitriol on this one is fierce – but what is really the issue here?

The “Dating Out” Controversy

A large factor in the controversy revolves around the idea of black men dating outside of their race – but not in the way it seems to be interpreted. A lot of the existing analysis looks at black women and their issues with men who date interracially. But most of the comments on the Essence site are not objecting to Reggie Bush dating Kim Kardashian – they are protesting him being on the cover of an issue about “black men, love, and relationships” targeted to black women. Now, there were quite a few comments on either side of the pole, either saying the Bush cover isn’t a big deal because interracial love is a part of our landscape, or saying that Bush is a sell out – but the vast majority of the comments seemed less concerned with who Bush is dating and more concerned with the message Essence is sending to its readership about who desires black women. Many of the readers felt that Bush’s selection for the cover (over black men who are involved with black women) reinforces the idea that black men are generally uninterested in dating black women once they hit the big time, and many commenters vocalized the desire to highlight some of the other men in the issue who have been seen publicly with black women. (Interestingly, a few people on the Essence site and elsewhere said they would have preferred covers with Robin Thicke or Robert DeNiro, since they were in interracial relationships with black women.)

Very Smart Brothas posted a response to the controversy looking at one of the major underlying assumptions – that successful black men are flocking to nonblack women in droves, and that is why the Bush cover feels like a slap in the face.

the friend thought that this was just another example of how often high-profile african-american men choose to be with non-black women (nttawwt). (half)jokingly she remarked “i won’t say that half of ya’ll run out and get white chicks, but at least 49 percent of ya’ll do”

when i replied that her perception was way off, she cited the study that was bouncing around the web last year about black men being almost three times more likely to marry outside of their race than black women as proof.

i then showed her the actual numbers from that study (3.7% of married black american women and 8.4% of married black american men had a non-Black spouse), proof that while it’s technically true that african-american men are more likely to marry outside of their race than african-american women, the difference between 91.6% and 96.3% is hardly worthy of any “all ya’ll n*ggas is playing in the snow” hysteria.

The Champ goes on to detail people in the spotlight, noting his shoddy research, but ultimately concluding that there is more scrutiny on interracial relationships which makes them appear more prevalent, particularly among celebrities.

The Kardashians and Our Current Black/White Binary

The most interesting aspect of this whole controversy is how Kim Kardashian has been framed. Some people have called her non-black – others have called her white. (And many just pointed to the sex tape.) Kim Kardashian is actually Armenian, Scottish, and Dutch. Our current limitations on the entire concept of “race” make it hard to come up with a term that would accurately describe the Kardashian sisters, but there are two things that stand out. One, all of Kim Kardashian’s publicized relationships have been with black men. Her first marriage was to Damon Thomas, a record producer, her relationship with Ray-J went into infamy, and she is currently with Reggie Bush. So it doesn’t appear that her sole motivation is to chase fame, as is often alleged.

Two, I am not sure if the Kardashian sisters themselves identify as white. One of my close friends is an avid watcher of Keeping Up With The Kardashians, and she asked me my opinion on the racial content of a recent episode, which we think is from season 4, episode 4. (YouTube has pulled everything but the E! authorized clips.) This one didn’t involve Kim, but rather Kourtney Kardashian and her sister Khloé Kardashian Odom (who recently married Lamar Odom of the LA Lakers). The clip has been removed from YouTube, but on this particular show, Kourtney and Khloé went to a breast feeding class, while Khloé’s slacker ass boyfriend Scott Disick (who appears to be white – not much information is known about him) decided he wanted to chill by the pool. When Kourtney arrives at the breastfeeding class, she turns her nose up at the white cabbage patch kid in front of her. “I don’t like this baby,” she says. Khloé, asks her if she prefers “her black baby” and offers to switch dolls. Kourtney agrees, happily.

I have no idea what to make of this reverse doll test, but it does make me think that the Kardashian’s relationship to race is a little more complicated than people assume.

The “Black Women Hate Interracial Relationships” Meme

This article hasn’t hit the mainstream quite yet – it is still only a topic of conversation in the black blogosphere. And to me, that’s a benefit, because what will be taken from this conversation (black women hate interracial dating!) isn’t what we are actually reading. The number of opinions within the black online community are immeasurable, especially as each of the four or five articles I’ve read about the controversy received more than 50 comments (and an excess of 300 on the VSB and Essence sites). So what are people saying?

• Some are using the controversy to reinforce stereotypes about black people, in general. (“While I did have a best friend thats black we mostly hung out with 2520s.  [Note: 2520s means "whitey"]. And you know what?…We had FUN! There wasnt someone always clocking what you wore, who you were dating, or what car you drove…”)
• Some use it to reinforce stereotypes about overly picky black women (“Every guy on here, myself included, knows at least one single, eligible brother that is looking for love, from a black woman. But he’ll get zero play …”)
• Some use it to reinforce stereotypes about evil black women (“The truth is black women are spoiled beyond belief.”)
• Some say it’s not about the relationships, but standards of beauty that shortchange black women (“I don’t think anyone really cares about the race of Joe NBA Blow’s wife, but rather “is anyone attracted to me? will I ever fit into the conventional & more popular standard of beauty? and will this definition ever be broad enough to include my image?””)
• Some discussed flawed expectations of racial solidarity (“Black women have NO obligation to support Reggie Bush b/c he is a “brother”. You know, the same way he’s not obligated to date a black woman b/c she is a sista.”)
• Others mention it’s about the elevated hoops black women have to jump through to be considered on-par with her white counterparts (“I’ve known men who had impossible standards for the Black women they dated, only to settle for the most marginal of women when they were of another race.”)
• Some brought up that it wasn’t Kardashian’s race, but her exploits that caused the controversy (“for the black men that are dating white strippers and hoes, if they are willing to go that route, do you think you would really want to be with them anyway.”)
• Some say the fact that Kardashian isn’t racially identified is a bonus (“Kim Kardashian may not be black,and shes not white either.At least he didnt go get a waifer thin white girl like many of them do.Shes beautiful and thick!”)
• Quite a few people said they expected this of Essence (“WHAT are you mad about? Requiring Essence to be anything more than superficial or topical would be like standing over a glass bowl expecting a gold fish to articulate the Theory of Relativity.”)
• Some think it’s just celebrity drama (“Reggie Bush is a mediocre football player and Kim’s famous for no viable reason. They seem like each other’s equals to me.”)
• Some want to give Bush the benefit of the doubt (“how many people have ever heard Reggie Bush speak about how he feels about black women? Or examined his dating past? Just wondering. Maybe he wanted to try something new.”)
• Some say the cover is just eye candy (“He was chosen for the cover for his sex appeal, not his cultural relevance to Black women”)
• Many are indifferent (“In conclusion, was Reggie Bush the best choice for the Essence cover? No, probably not. But should we freak out or get mad about it ? No. Why get your blood pressure up?”)

Clearly, there is not one, unified opinion from black men and women, but rather a reflection of where each individual begins to approach the issue.

Here’s to hoping that the mainstream continues to miss this story.

My boyfriend brought home the GQ with a three-quarters naked Rihanna on the cover (for obvious reasons), but warned me against reading the articles.  (He’s a staunch Esquire man.) Ignoring his advice, I decided to flip through the magazine – and the first article in the “Grooming” section immediately catches my attention. In “Say It Loud – Keep It Short and Proud,” Knox Robinson reveals early on in the piece that he sported dreadlocks for close to 14 years.

He describes cutting off his dreads as the acceptance of a life transition:

I was at the start of my thirties and dutifully undergoing the transitions of that age—the arrival of a son, new career moves. With a radically new appearance, I felt distinctly like a man who’d escaped through the back door of a burning building and used the second chance to set out on a completely new path. Old acquaintances stared right past me on the train, and at parties women who once denied my advances wondered who I was.

Which is cool – people tend to use their hair as markers of transitions.  Growing the hair long, chopping it short post-break up, altering it with dye, eschewing dye for the natural color, giving up relaxers or embracing lacefronts, these are all parts of the personal choices (informed by our politics and society) that are small tiles in the mosaic of our identities. And indeed, the transformative aspects of a dramatic hair change cannot be underplayed – a friend of mine recently cut off the locks he had been growing for more than a decade.  But that reason was wrapped up in feeling stagnant in a life and a relationship he no longer wanted.  So the cut, to him, symbolized moving away from the person he used to be, toward the person he wants to become.

However, Robinson takes his piece into strange territory when he starts his analysis, completely disregarding the politics of hair and instead concluding (emphasis mine):

We’re now experiencing a restoration of black cosmopolitan glamour last witnessed fifty years ago, and the guys who define that sensibility are dudes like Usain Bolt, Lewis Hamilton, LeBron James, and yes, Obama. I see their close-cropped hair as marks of men singularly focused not on rebellion but on changing the game, or more acutely: results. It’s hair for the man with a job to do rather than a comment to make.

I am amazed that the conversation around natural hair still focuses on the idea of “sticking it to the man” instead of an expression of culture or just a personal preference.  And I am also amazed that so many people still see natural hair as a barrier to professional progress, or a lack of professionalism or focus. I’m often fascinated by the attempted control of people through their hair (see: teachers cutting children’s hair; indigenous children being barred from school for wearing their hair long, the contempt shown to men who wear their hair long because it isn’t “‘masculine”) and how this control is often dressed in the language of “growing up” or “being professional.”

Articles like this one just remind me of how far we actually have to go.

Alongside the tragic mulatto myth, the idea that being mixed is somehow “futuristic” or modern, and the idea that mixed people will be better, faster, and stronger (also called the “hybrid vigor” myth), one of the enduring features about discussions of mixed race individuals is that “hotness” always surfaces.

Allure serves up a double dose of stereotypes, weaving hotness and hybrid vigor into one creepy, objectifying article  called “Faces of the Future.”  In their November 2009 issue, writer Rebecca Mead fawns over biracial superbabies and more specifically, the wonderful aesthetic of mixed race people. After starting off with statistics about the 6.8 million Americans who self-identified as mixed on the last census, the article launches right into dehumanization:

Take, for example, Alicia Thacker, a 27-year-old public-school teacher whom Marilyn Minter has been photographing for nearly a decade, ever since Thacker completed a painting class that Minter was teaching in New York City. Thacker, who has pale skin, freckles, full lips, and a vast cloud of curly hair, is part Barbadian, part German, part Irish, part Creole, part Scottish, part African American, and part Blackfoot. (People usually think she is Hispanic, the one thing she isn’t.) In short, it didn’t take a melting pot to create Thacker – more like a full scale chemistry laboratory.

A chem lab? Really? She’s a human being, not a compound. And I’m not sure that sex counts as biological tinkering.

The photographer, Minter (who also provided the photos to Allure to accompany the article) also shares some of the fetish-based zeal as the writer:

Minter thinks women like Thacker “are more interesting looking humans – they are extraordinary-looking, and so much more beautiful than the flawless blue eyed blonds,” [...]

That was revealing. Minter adds a double reinforcement of the ultimate beauty standard – blue eyed blonds are “flawless” but mixed people are “interesting.” I stopped that quote early, but Mead picks up with:

[...] says the photographer, whose other subjects in the portfolio include Victoria Brito, who is Brazilian and Austrian – and looks as blonde as an Alpine maiden and at the same time as sultry as the girl from Ipanema; Melissa Kurland, who is part German and part Filipina; and green-eyed Nell Robinson, whose name is English sounding but whose heritage is also Jamican, Portuguese, and Hispanic.

After spending a few paragraphs trumpeting the soon to be dominance of the mixed-race aesthetic, Mead ends, saying:

Perhaps a time will arrive when faces such as hers are seen not so much as beautifully extraordinary, but simply as extraordinarily beautiful.

I know it seems a little counter-intuitive to be upset about an article that highlights a type of beauty outside of mainstream ideal, but the overemphasis on mixed race beauty is both a fetish and a positive stereotype.

Also, the tone of the article starts to become a bit more sinister when you like at what type of beauty is highlighted. Almost all of the models featured would easily pass the paper bag test (Victoria Brito is a possible exception), and most boast small noses and full lips, and lots of hair (both curly and straightened), things that still fit into standard beauty ideals. A while ago, Carmen and I discussed body image and race on ATR, and Carmen mentioned something that always stuck with me. She said that one of the things she noticed growing up mixed race in Hong Kong was that many of the compliments given to her were based on her features that were closer to white. In many ways, this article reinforces that idea, especially given the common misconception that mixed race equals white plus other. Not only does Mead erase mixed race people who do not fit these paradigms of beauty, but also feeds the idea that mixed race people are apolitical beings whose main contribution to society is their appearance.

I don’t think its too much to ask to work toward a beauty standard that is inclusive of all types of beauty – not a half-assed acceptance based on fetishes and stereotypes.

(Pictured: Melissa Kurland)

More Myths About Mixed Race People, from the Mixed Media Watch Vault

20/20 Gimme a Break (Tragic Mulatto Myth)
ATR 5 (Carmen’s Rant on the Tragic Mulatto Myth)
Exotic: Nicole Scherzinger (On the overuse of the word exotic)
When mixed race identity is used to further racism (How our discussions about race are inadequate)
What’s black and white and sad all over? (Tragic Mulatto Myth)
Are we all going to be latte? (Representations)
Zadie Smith is ‘not that multicultural’ (Zadie Smith confronts stereotypes)
Cashing in on a mixed kid’s fair skin (Colorism)
“Mixed” = advantageous (On assumptions that mixed people are trying to deny their “dark side”)
Mixed people will fix racism, right?
“Real people” = mixed people? (on ideas of representation)
Half Asian is the new white? (Hybrid Vigor)
Hyphen takes a look at “the Multiracial Dream”
Hybrid vigor in Sports Illustrated
Scientifically beautiful!? (Using “science” to promote positive stereotypes)

And Carmen’s talk, Cute But Confused: Myths and Realities About Mixed Race Identity:

Remember a long, long time ago – it almost seems like a recession and a half ago – when Barack Obama first came (via Kenya, of course) to power?  Remember how certain hope-doped commentators predicted that his election would finally allow Americans to have a frank discussion about race?

Something different and less hope-inducing has happened.  His presidency has allowed us to talk around race,  to talk about it constantly and subliminal, without ever truly discussing it.  And by doing so, we’re proving how much distance we have to grow up.

I held up a hand to stop him.

“Wait, that’s in GQ? The one with the Michael Jackson cover?”

Oh yes. Jim Nelson, GQ Editor, dedicated his editor’s letter to discussing how far conversations about race have fallen. And stranger still, there aren’t any articles specifically dedicated to race in the issue. Perplexed, I checked out the letter for myself. After all, isn’t this Jim Nelson of “Asian Whores” fame? Back in 2007, he raised some ire by using the term twice in his editor’s letter. Later, he told Page Six he was merely ” skewering a Western attitude that one ought to find noxious. The notion that Westerners can have and exploit whatever they want.”

Hmm…not quite there with that one.

Yet, while reading over the letter, I was struck by how much Nelson seemed to just get the roots behind racial hysteria.  (Or at least, when the issue is reduced into discussions of black and white.)

Here are some of Nelson’s greatest hits:

[The birthers] do not seek documents; they seek time travel, a machine to shoot them back to the magical time when black men could not get elected. For them, this supremely white fantasy of No Change is more important than silly matters such as health care.

Everywhere you look, people keep making batshit-crazy comments about race and ethnicity, stream-of-consciousness-style, as if the election had unleashed some Freudian anxiety in the cultural air.

Then [Pat Buchanan] made his more ignorant racist claim yet: “This has been a country built basically by white folks.” Which, apart from ignoring the entire history of slavery, is the subtext of every song I’ve ever heard by Toby Keith.

Fox News commen-hater Brian Kilmeade, while chatting about a Swedish study that shows marriage can delay Alzheimer’s suddenly went all Third Reich on his co-hosts: “We keep marrying other species and other ethnics. The Swedes have pure genes, because they marry other Swedes…They have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody. So we’ll marry Italians and Irish. [This study] does not apply to us.

My Irish-English-German-American head spun. Does that mean I’m definitely getting Alzheimer’s?

[I wish Obama would] address the nation like [he did in the race speech] more frequently, to resolve to move and persuade us. Maybe he could even address the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

Otherwise known as the U.S. Senate.

Readers, it was like Christmas.

More proof that GQ decided to give us all a Christmas present?

John Cho, in various suits:

Ryan Kitwaten Jason Stackhouse, in tight clothes:

And attractive men receiving job interview make-overs:

I don’t know what’s going on over there at GQ, but I like it. And if Jim Nelson keeps improving, I may be persuaded to give his magazine another chance.

(Image credits: GQ)

Some folks (including me, sometimes) quibble over whether the blog Jezebel qualifies as “feminist.” Having lurked around the joint for awhile, I would say it definitely has a third-wave feminist ethos. That means the site’s bloggers regularly lay a smack down on media that exploits women. So, I was surprised to find an endorsement for “Straight Stuntin’” magazine among today’s posts. For those who have blessedly not been exposed to the hip hop booty fest that is SS, click over to Jezebel for a gallery of images from the pub. (Probably NSFW–Be prepared for plenty of thonged asses, weaves and bling) Jezebel writer Dodai says of the pin-up rag:

Straight Stuntin is a hip-hop/pin-up magazine I stumbled on, and I probably should be completely offended by it, but I’m absolutely fascinated instead.

Most commenters to the post share the OP’s fascination, marveling at the pneumatic gleuteus maximi rather than railing against exploitation. And that makes me uncomfortable. As I write this, I’m trying to parse exactly why.

Venue

I have to admit that I might not be so bothered by this post if it had, say, been posted by my blogsister Professor Tracey on Aunt Jemima’s Revenge. Why? Because as a blog with a predominantly black readership, AJR feels like a place where “we” can discuss black pop culture without the judgment or generalizations of the mainstream. Something feels icky about a readership of mostly white women evaluating a black magazine that objectifies black women and, for the most part, deeming it acceptable. The amazed ogling of black behinds in a mainstream has shades of Sarah Bartmann:

Some of these women’s asses seem to defy gravity. I am actually dumbstruck by them. I know, I know we aren’t supposed to relegate a woman to her parts, but I just feel kind of humbled by the two asses in the third picture. Kind of like being in ass church. I feel reverence and awe.

Do these women have cellulite that was Photoshopped away? Or do darker skin women just not get cellulite the way my white ass does? Or is that one model onto an anti-cellulite secret with her cupcake diet?

Even among other women–among other so-called feminists–our physicality is deemed freakish, something to be weighed and pondered and questioned. And I do realize that the OP is a biracial/black woman and several black women, including a model who will appear in a future SS issue, participated in the comments thread. The fact remains that for the majority of readers, this post represented a bit of cultural tourism, as evidenced by the comments and questions about black beauty standards and black women’s bodies that the piece elicited.

The Celebration of Exploitation

I mentioned that I might have been less bothered by the SS post if it has appeared on a black feminist blog. But the truth is, I’m fairly certain that Aunt Jemima’s Revenge or Womanist Musings or What About Our Daughters or any of the myriad black women-run blogs would never write a positive post about “Straight Stuntin.’” Black feminists have long spoken out against hip hop’s degradation and objectification of black women, and we have seen first hand the results of this brand of sexism on our communities, on black relationships, on young black girls’ self-esteem, on sexual violence. Of course, the positioning of black women as sexual objects did not start with hip hop. The Sapphire stereotype is at least as old as the slave trade. This is the baggage–baggage that our white sisters don’t share–that we bring to analysis of magazines like “Straight Stuntin.’” This is a know your history moment. How can you analyze “Straight Stuntin’” outside of the aforementioned context?

I should add that I believe in sex positive feminism (though I suspect that the Jezebel writers and I might disagree on what exactly that is) I am not zero-tolerance on pin-ups or porn. (Far from it.) But there is a difference between finding enjoyment in sexuality and the female (or male) form and viewing another human being as an inaminate receptacle–a “trick,” “ho” or a “chickenhead.” The SS view of women is not about celebration, but almost Biblical disdain and distrust of women as anything beyond sexual tools. Consider this advice from a SS article “10 Model Commandments:”

Ladies, one of the worst things in the whole wide world has to be a [sic] unsanitary female. Body odor or not being shaved at the right time in the right places are definitely not a go. Your parents should have taught you about hygiene when you were younger or you should’ve learned it in hygiene class when you were in school.

Ah…yes…I remember well when my mother and I had “the talk” about Brazilian waxing…

“Unsanitary female?” WTF? Other “commandments” caution women not to steal, lie, have “attitudes,” or use “your coochie with everyone who makes you a promise.” How novel an idea–black women as dirty, tricky whores!

The Double Standard

This is what really rankled about the Jezebel post: The crimes against women that I mentioned above are almost always derided on the site, but in this case they are basically ignored. Many commenters praised “Straight Stuntin’” for showcasing thick women with big butts rather than the usual lithe, model types. But is that the point of criticism against the objectification of women–that the objectification isn’t broad enough? One commenter pegged how I am feeling:

so, if it is a black magazine featuring a fetishized body part ( ass..) then …IT IS OK? And the fact that the men are dressed and the woman reduced to their body image..that is ok?

I am speechless…………This magazine is like many others of the same genre,…exploiting and degrading……..regardless if the “ladies” are NOT white and/or size zero.

Indeed.

Why so little criticism of “Straight Stuntin’” on Jezebel? Is it because readers believe the magazine has been endorsed by the black OP? (In a reply to the above commenter’s post, the OP said she does not endorse the magazine, but finds it “intriguing,” which I think is kind of a hedge.) Is it because white feminists don’t “get” objectification of black women? (Like how many black feminists were turned off by Hillary Clinton’s embrace of BET founder and black woman exploiter Bob Johnson, while white feminists overlooked it?) Is my baggage coloring the way I respond to this post?

Oh, man. As if we needed another reminder as to why cartoon art is a medium that can be used for evil as easily as good, comes now the next installment in a series of racist National Review covers trafficking in Asian stereotypical imagery.

You’ll remember, of course, that back in March 1997, the National Review released the infamous “Manchurian Candidates” cover seen here (which, due to the fact that the Internet was just a tot when that slice of tripe hit the newsstands, I was only able to find in greyscale — embedded in a journal article written by Darrell Hamamoto, w00t!)

Asian Americans understandably reacted with stunned rage at the depiction of then-President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton, and Vice-President Al Gore in stereotypical Chinese garb, their features warped into exaggerated Asian caricatures (slanted eyes, buck teeth).

The National Review was unrepentant in the face of charges that the cartoon was offensive and inflammatory, responding, in part, that:

“Caricatures and cartoons … require exaggerated features and, where a social type is portrayed, a recognizable stereotype. Thus, a cartoonist who wants to depict an Englishman will show him wearing a monocle and bowler hat, a Frenchman in beret and striped jersey, a Russian in fur hat, dancing the gopak, etc.”

The first point can’t entirely be disputed: The cartoon medium often uses simplified, exaggerated features for emphasis, for satirical purpose and for ease in depicting broad emotion.

But it’s one thing to exaggerate features — Obama’s protruding ears invariably become giant jug-handles when he’s rendered, for instance. (The Mike Ramirez cartoon below actually essentializes Obama’s appearance down to his ears — and still manages to make its point clear.)

It’s another to incorporate racialized features that weren’t there to begin with: For instance, consider these images — a caricature of Obama from an “Obama Waffles” package, as gleefully sold during the right-wing “Values Voters Summit,” and a close-up of Obama’s official portrait from his days as Senator from Illinois.

Apart from being overtly racist, the caricature on the box doesn’t remotely resemble Obama — with its pop-eyed expression, darkened skin, enormous, toothy grin and thick lips, it looks a lot more like…well, the picture below can speak for itself, I guess.

Going back to the National Review “Manchurian Candidates” cover now, what you see is that there’s more going on in the images of the Clintons and Gore than the typical flamboyant exaggeration used in cartooning. In addition to Bill’s bulbous nose and Gore’s pursed, almost sneering lips (both typical of their respective caricatures), you see…hmm…narrowed eyes…oversized, bucked teeth…a Fu Manchu moustache — hey, just about every racist synecdoche in the anti-Asian propaganda library! (At least the stuff that belongs above the waist.)

Just to be clear here: It’s one thing if they were simply drawn in Chinese clothing or doing quaint folkdances, as suggested by the National Review in its disgenuous response. That would arguably be in-bounds satirically (regardless of whether you find the political point being made to be fair or accurate).

But layering yellowface-propaganda memes into the picture transforms the caricature from an act of humor into an act of war. The images above are examples of what I’m talking about.

Even if you’re insensitive enough to racial propriety to want to give white people Asian features in order to prove a political point, that simply isn’t what Asian people look like, and never has been. The squinty, buck-toothed Asian person with bright yellow skin and eyes angled at ten minutes to two does not exist in nature. However much you soften it, those false features are in fact weapons of mass destruction, artifacts of an era where it was used to dehumanize the enemy enough so they could be killed without compunction.

For that reason, there’s no acceptable way they should be invoked in a casual popular context, any more than minstrel stereotypes or anti-semitic “Elders of Zion” caricatures have a place in everyday culture. Discouragingly, they remain persistent in media today — from entertainment (see left: Rob Schneider in 2007′s “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry“) to news and commentary. Well, actually not most news and commentary — it’s really only the profoundly racist right-wing organs that still blithely fart out the yellowface imagery. Like, for instance…the National Review.

This cover to the right is the current issue of the magazine, on stands now. As you can see, it depicts Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as the Buddha. Despite the fact that Sotomayor is Catholic and a Latina woman. While the historical Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, was Hindu (before the whole Bodhi tree thing), and an Asian man.

The caption, “The Wise Latina,” frankly offers no real f*cking explanation for the image. I suppose it’s because the Buddha was wise, although you could just as easily have depicted Sotomayor as King Solomon if you’re looking for a legendary figure of wisdom; maybe it’s because to the raving radical Right, Buddha is seen as a proto-hippie and probably a pansy too, while King Solomon, that guy threatened to cut babies in half — not very pro-life, but not “empathetic” either. Badass!

But seriously: If they wanted a figure of wisdom and empathy, why not caricature Sotomayor as someone who’s of the right gender and a coreligionist, at least: Mother Teresa? That would have preserved the necessary level of corrosive offensiveness, right? Too close to home?

Whatever. As it is, the cover is just stupid and meaningless, as well as offensive — to women, to Latinas, to Buddhists of all backgrounds (note: The National Review guys are of the same ilk that went ballistic when Rolling Stone depicted Kanye as Jesus), and yes, to Asians. But it bears mentioning that it registers as EPIC FAIL even in the offending Asians category.

Because, unlike their “Manchurian Candidates” cover, where at least they picked the correct racist stereotypes to parade, the “Wise Latina” cover puts the hideously slanted eyes and bucked teeth of East Asian yellowface stereotype onto an image inspired by a Northern Indian man of Brahmin descent.

In fact, to the left here you can see the original image of Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha that the artist used as a reference (it’s actually quite a popular icon). Notice any differences?

As usual, National Review has been quick with a completely absurd and totally disingenuous retort to the appalled reactions they’ve been getting from, you know, everyone. From editor-in-chief Rich Lowry:

“I take it the theory is that we don’t think Latinas can be wise so we had to make her look somewhat Asian. Or something like that. What these people don’t understand is the entire concept of caricature (or of a joke). Caricature always involves exaggerating someone’s distinctive features, which is all that our artist Roman Genn did with Sotomayor. Oh, well. Keep it humorless, guys, keep it humorless.”

No, Rich, the theory is that you took a Latina woman and turned her into a North Indian man with horribly racist East Asian-stereotypical features because you guys are clueless morons. And actually, that’s kind of funny, in that Lowry and the National Review don’t quite get that the joke, ultimately, is on them.

This weekend, I received the following breathless entreaty through a listserv that I subscribe to:

Ebony/Jet Magazine on The Verge of Financial Collaspse (J P)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:45:31 -0400

One of the most notable permanent fixtures in every black household (back in the days), was the Ebony and Jet magazine. If you wanted to learn about your history, the plight of Black America, current issues facing Black Americans, how the political process of America affects you, how politics works, who the hottest actors were, what time a particular black television show aired, who got married recently, who were the most eligible bachelors and bachelorettes in your town, what cities had black mayors, police chiefs, school superintendents, how to register to Vote, what cars offer the best value for the buck, who employed black Americans, how to apply for college scholarships, etc., more than likely, Ebony or Jet magazine could help you find answers to those questions.

We have recently been informed that the Johnson Publishing Company is currently going through a financial crisis. The company is attempting a reorganization in order to survive. Many people have already lost their jobs with a company that has employed thousands of black Americans during the course of its existence.

In order to support this effort to save our magazine, my friends and myself have pledged to get a subscription to both Ebony and Jet magazine, starting with one year. We are urging every other club member who comes across this plea to do the same. Please post, repost, and post again, to any blog that you may own or support.

Please email this to every person that you know, regardless of their background. Let them know that Ebony and Jet magazines have been part of the black American culture for three quarters of a century, and that there is a lot that they can learn about black American culture from reading them.

We are currently discussing the idea of throwing an Ebony/Jet Party, where people can eat, drink, and sign up for their subscription on the spot. Please spread this idea around to all that you know. Your Sororities, Fraternities, Lodges, VFW Posts, Churches, Civic Groups, Block Clubs, Caps Meetings, Book Clubs, etc.

It would be a crying shame, to lose our historic magazine, during the same year of such an historic event as the election of our first black President of the United States.

Now, like a lot of other black people, I grew up with Ebony and Jet magazines on the family coffee table. I remember fondly sitting in the brown recliner in my grandparents’ back room reading a then-oversized Ebony with Billy Dee Williams, James Earl Jones and Richard Pryor on it. (Don’t know why I specifically recall that issue of the magazine, but for some reason it is one that remains etched in my mind.) I say this to illustrate that these magazines are part of my cultural history. Nevertheless, when I read the missive above, my first thought (after wondering if the message-writer understands that subscriptions generally account for far less of a publication’s revenue than advertising does) was…”Meh.” I’m not so sure that Ebony and Jet, as they stand today, are institutions worth going to the mat for.

To be sure, John H. Johnson, founder of the Johnson publishing empire that produces Ebony and Jet, represents an inspiring success story. When the 27-year-old entrepreneur launched Ebony in November 1945 (Jet was founded in 1951.), he did so in a climate of mainstreamed racial injustice. Black GIs, like my grandfather, were returning from fighting for “freedom” in World War II to find they were less than free at home in America. Real black voices and black life were obscured by stereotype in American media. Local black newspapers, such as another iconic Chicago publication, The Defender, and Johnson’s magazines were among the few places where black people could see their lives and culture reflected and read news important to them. We mattered to these news and lifestyle outlets. Forget the New York Times, these were our publications of record.

Today, Ebony enjoys a circulation of more than 1.4 million, while Jet reaches nearly 1 million people each week. But I suspect neither magazine is as ubiquitous in the homes of my generation of black folks (GenX) as they were for my parents and grandparents. The truth is, like many Civil Rights-era institutions, both publications began feeling irrelevant a long time ago. Yes, black people still need someplace to see their lives and culture reflected and to read news important to them. (Today’s media is much better in covering people of color, but far from perfect.) But are Ebony and Jet the go-to places for that anymore? No, because while black America has changed over the last 60-some years, these publications have seemed largely the same–like museum pieces. I think of them fondly (like my grandparents’ old recliner in the back room), but emphatically not as publications-of-record.

An example of Johnson Publishing’s out-of-touchness? Sunday at the neighborhood Wal-Mart, I picked up a Jet for the first time in forever, in preparation for this post. I wanted to know if it was still there. In an age when black women are fighting stereotyped images of ourselves as Jezebels, playthings and acoutrement for the latest hip hop star whose cuts are banging in the whips of white, teenage suburbanites–it couldn’t still be there. But, yeah, centerspread, there it was–that paean to black woman thickitude–the Jet Beauty of the Week, a young, black woman in a teeny swimsuit giving sexy face. Is this what I’m supposed to rush to the battlements to save?

The forefront of the black communications revolution is now on the Web, where brothers and sisters are breaking news (Jena 6), championing causes and serving up provocative opinions. Ebony and Jet, I think, have failed to keep pace with a world where there is Ta-Nehisi Coates and What About Our Daughters and Racialicious and Aunt Jemima’s Revenge and Womanist Musings and TransGriot and Something Within and Color of Change and Pam’s House Blend and The Root and Black and Married with Kids, and, hell, Bossip. Today, black readers can get superior writing about politics, black life, marriage, parenting, sexuality, pop culture, identity, racism, sexism, spirituality, finance and a host of other issues, for free, everyday, all day, online. The topics covered (or not covered) by Ebony and Jet, the lack of depth in writing, the formats, the frickin beauty of the week, make these publications seem frozen in time, while the world speeds up around them.

Beyond all that, how is Johnson Publishing going to adjust to the new digital age? It’s not the only print purveyor facing this question. Local newspapers across the country need to answer it too. America has changed the way it consumes information, and so far, print media hasn’t found a profitable way to adapt. That’s a shame, because we desperately need the Fourth Estate. We need in-depth reporting. Marginalized folks need these things more than most. God knows that black folks could use the shot to our collective self-esteem that Johnson Publishing’s products offer. But taking extraordinary life-saving measures to rescue publications like Ebony and Jet is merely stalling the inevitable unless ailing publications put strategic plans in place to innovate and evolve.

Look, the older I get the more pieces of my past mean to me. (That’s probably why I spent the weekend watching old episodes of “Columbo,” “Quincy” and “MacMillan and Wife” on Netflix.) But nostalgia isn’t enough reason for me to join the charge to save Ebony and Jet. All the Ebony/Jet parties in the world won’t make a difference if these black cultural icons aren’t making the changes necessary to save themselves.

Whether you describe it as the dawning of a post-racial age or just the end of white America, we’re approaching a profound demographic tipping point. According to an August 2008 report by the U.S. Census Bureau, those groups currently categorized as racial minorities—blacks and Hispanics, East Asians and South Asians—will account for a majority of the U.S. population by the year 2042. Among Americans under the age of 18, this shift is projected to take place in 2023, which means that every child born in the United States from here on out will belong to the first post-white generation.

“I think white people feel like they’re under siege right now—like it’s not okay to be white right now, especially if you’re a white male,” laughs Bill Imada, of the IW Group…“There’s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment,” Newman-Carrasco observes, describing the flak she caught after writing an article for a trade publication on the need for more-diverse hiring practices. “I got a response from a friend—he’s, like, a 60-something white male, and he’s been involved with multicultural recruiting,” she recalls. “And he said, ‘I really feel like the hunted. It’s a hard time to be a white man in America right now, because I feel like I’m being lumped in with all white males in America, and I’ve tried to do stuff, but it’s a tough time.’”

“I always tell the white men in the room, ‘We need you,’” Imada says. “We cannot talk about diversity and inclusion and engagement without you at the table. It’s okay to be white!”

“But people are stressed out about it. ‘We used to be in control! We’re losing control!’”

So this roundtable has been a long time coming. In mid-January the team started to take a look at Hua Hsu’s Atlantic Monthly article “The End of White America?” And we had a lot of pissed off things to say. And yes it did take us more than a few weeks to corral all our righteous indignation together. But we hope you’ll think it was worth the wait.

On the Cover

Andrea: This is the impression I got from the cover and the article: screamingly alarmist. The half-face of Obama juxtaposed with heavy-block sans serif capital letters that can be seen half a long Barnes & Noble check-out line away. As if to say this single man–a bi-racial man who self-identifies as Black–is single-handedly ruining white people, whiteness, and, most importantly, white privilege. It seems to play off the fear-mongering miscegenation fantasies of yore: the “receding” of the “white” phenotype, that “beiging” of America that Hsu refers to in the piece. Then, before anyone gets any ideas about the writer’s race, in smaller red letters, is the scribe’s name. Sorta like, “Ha! You can’t accuse The Atlantic of being racist ’cause the name can’t be ‘read’ as white.” Doesn’t matter, IMO. The zero-sum game that is US racism is visually in full effect.

Actually, The Atlantic cover reminds me of another cover from a magazine about twenty years ago, when “coloredness”–coded as “identity politics” and “political correctness” back then–was also “threatening to tear the country apart.” From Time magazine, April 9, 1990:

Just some visual perspective on these kinds of articles.

On Alarmism

What happens once this is no longer the case—when the fears of Lothrop Stoddard and Tom Buchanan are realized, and white people actually become an American minority?…Today, the arrival of what Buchanan derided as “Third World America” is all but inevitable. What will the new mainstream of America look like, and what ideas or values might it rally around? What will it mean to be white after “whiteness” no longer defines the mainstream? Will anyone mourn the end of white America? Will anyone try to preserve it?

Thea: Hsu argues that mainstream culture has turned against white people and the way he talks, it’s as if the colored hordes of P Diddy fans and ethnically ambiguous Latin@s who’re snapping up all the commercial parts have somehow sneakily gotten hold of “culture” and orchestrated this shift. First, we’ll make fun of you for not being able to dance! Then, WE’LL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!”

Andrea: This alarmist angle covers what really bugs me about the piece–it’s offers no analysis of structures and execution of racism itself in the US. What Hsu seems to ostensibly and sloppily attempts to get at is once whiteness–and those white people and PoCs who adhere to it–fall back, racism itself will disappear. Hsu says:

There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.

And there is Hsu’s “we gonna be post-racial, y’all–if we’re not already” statement–which can also be a another read on this article.

But.

This article makes me go back to Tim Wise and Vijay Prashad, who I think would have made better touchstones/springboards for Hsu’s piece because they both have more nuanced understandings of the mechanics of racism in the US. Tim Wise said about whiteness, from his book, White Like Me:

…from the mid-1600s to the early 1700s a series of laws were promulgated in Virginia and elsewhere, which elevated all persons of European descent, no matter how lowly in economic terms, above all persons of African descent. The purpose of such measures was to provide poor Europeans (increasing called whites) with a stake in the system, even though they were hardly benefiting in material terms from it. In other words, whiteness was a trick, and it worked marvelously, dampening down the push for rebellion by poor whites on the basis of class interest, and encouraging them to cast their lot with the elite, if only in aspirational terms. White skin became, for them, an alternative form of property to which they could cleave, in the absence of more tangible possessions.

And from Vijay Prashad, from his book, Everybody Was Kung-Fu Fighting: Afro-Asian Connections and the Myth of Racial Purity (which gets to Thea’s point about whites as immigrants and the internecine racial conflicts among some PoCs):

Since blackness is reviled in the United States, why would an immigrant, of whatever skin color, want to associate with those who are racially oppressed, particularly when the transit to the United States promises the dream of gold and glory? The immigrant seeks a form of veritcal assimilation, to climb from the lowest darkest echelon on the stepladder of tyranny into the bright whiteness. In U.S. history the Irish, Italians, Jews, and –in small steps with some hesitation ont he part of white America–Aisans and Latinos have all tried to barter their varied cultural worlds for the privileges of whiteness….

Yet all people who enter the United States do not strive to be accepted by the terms set by white supremacy. Some actively disregard them, finding them impossible to meet. Instead, they seek recognition, solidarity, and safety by embracing others also oppressed by white supremacy in something of a horizontal assimilation…

When people actively or tacitly refuse the terms of vertical integration they are derisively dismissed as either unassimilable or exclusionary. We hear, ‘Why do the black kids sit together in the cafeteria’ instead of ‘Why do our institutions routinely uphold the privilieges of whiteness?’ There is little space in popular discourse for an examination of what goes on outside the realm of white America among people of color.

Hsu certainly didn’t expand this space. He’s just screaming, “Fire!” in a crowded theater of racial anxiety.

Fatemeh: Hsu’s “The End of White America?” (cue scary music) essentially aims to hash out the following: “Hey, white people are freaked out that people of color are becoming the majority in the U.S. Why’s that? Don’t worry, guys. It’s cool.” But instead of just sticking to this outline, it feels like Hsu tries to condense several books on hip-hop culture, racial history of the U.S., market trends, and race theory into one article. Because all of these subjects need extensive background, he fails in his attempt to mash them together.

Hsu hints at a “white panic” caused by the racial demographic shift, but doesn’t explore it, question it, or even attempt to assuage it (except for a few paragraphs in the last section). He quotes Bill Imada, who states that whites are worried about “losing control,” which is the reason for all this “white panic” over shifting ethnic demography. But instead of analyzing this point (“What do they mean by ‘losing control’? What do they think this means for them?”), it serves as a transition at the end of a section, and is quickly glossed over in a comparison of different “types” of whites (the seemingly conservative and liberal camps) that still doesn’t tell us what white people are afraid of.

Fear can’t be assuaged or overcome without an assessment of what it is you’re afraid of, which Hsu hints at in the next section but never actually plainly states: “The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted…” As if people of color will suddenly disenfranchise whites, confiscate their assets, and force them into slavery.

Arturo: It’s hard to read this article without laughing at first, and then getting angry. Hsu’s piece, much like Diddy’s White parties he talks about, is high in concept but crass in execution.

Ask me about “the end” of whiteness when I don’t have to read “reassurances”in the New York Post that minorities are advancing on television because there are more black supporting characters. Ask me about it when Bruce Springsteen isn’t playing the Super Bowl halftime show because white people are scared of Prince’s guitar and Janet Jackson’s cleavage.

On Hsu’s Use of Language

Obviously, steadily ascending rates of interracial marriage complicate this picture, pointing toward what Michael Lind has described as the “beiging” of America. And it’s possible that “beige Americans” will self-identify as “white” in sufficient numbers to push the tipping point further into the future than the Census Bureau projects. But even if they do, whiteness will be a label adopted out of convenience and even indifference, rather than aspiration and necessity.

Fatemeh: Hsu presents terms that he doesn’t define, like “whiteness,” “racial transcendence,” and “beiging.” He also makes several terms synonymous that aren’t so:

…the dawning of a post-racial age or just the end of white America…

and

…we can call this the triumph of multiculturalism, or post-racialism.

These conflations are even more problematic because of Hsu’s undefined terms; it’s up to the reader to guess what he means by terms such as “post-white” or “post-racial”. Undefined terms like this are unclear and often alarmist; I can just imagine a reader trying to figure out what “post-white” means: “Does that mean there won’t be any more white people?!”

Hsu not only presents the “white panic” without a full explanation of what it is, but often feeds it with alarmist rhetorical questions like, “Will anyone mourn the end of white America?” and sympathetic constructions of white people who can’t get jobs in advertisements because all the advertisers want “beige” people.

Andrea: Yeah, the word “beiging” is wrong on at least 30 different levels. Here are 4: Inaccurate, creepy, twee-rude (nasty with pinkie in the air), and asinine.

Thea: Let me just say that as a mixed race person of colour I OBJECT to the word “beiging.” Pullease. I am not beige! More of an off-yellow, really.

This is a long-ass article, but Hsu never finds space to define some key, and rather obvious terms. Like “white.” Or “post-white.” Or “multicultural.”

Hsu talks about how white people feel “culturally bereft” and want to distance themselves from “whiteness.” And that seems an accurate representation to me – the word “white” has become a bad word. In some circles if you point out that Gary is white, everyone will act like you called Gary’s mom a ho.

But what drives me mad about that is that it was the white colonisers who came up with the term “white” in the first place, to distinguish themselves from everyone else as more pure and biologically superior. Says Dr Gregory Jay of the University of Wisconsin in his article “Who Invented White People?”:

It was white people who invented the idea of race in the first place, and it is white people who have become obsessed and consumed by it…[Whiteness] emerged as what we now call a “pan-ethnic” cateogry; as a way of merging a variety of European ethnic populations into a single “race,” especially so as to distinguish them from people with whom they had very particular legal and political relations–Africans, Asians, American Indians–that were not equal to their relations with one another as whites.”

So it’s hard to have sympathy for “white folks on the run” or white folks who get their backs up when you point out that they are white, when it was the forebears of said white folks who set up racial categories in the first place.

Perhaps one of the most infuriating things about this article is Hsu’s expectation that we will have pity for these white folks who no longer know how to define themselves in a demographically shifting America. Because in order to have pity we’d
1) have to agree that this demographic shift was equivalent to a power shift, which as far as I can tell it is not, first African American president notwithstanding,
2) have to feel bad that white folks are feeling the pinch of a segregation that they have benefitted from for 100s of years – the segregation they started, and the segregation that many white folks only begin to notice and fuss about when it is perceived to threaten their power and identity.

Not to be all puerile and get into who started it, but uh, they started it. And to loop back to 1), I don’t really care if you’re being segregated. When you do a) become a minority race b) become politically marginalised as a minority race, then I’ll come and talk to you.

And anyways. What really has changed? Sure, I know lots of angry young people of colour who do see the word “white” as a bad word and use it that way. But I don’t think they’re the ones who are greenlighting films, owning the companies that can make or break a recording artist (like Sony or Virgin), or making the final decision on H&M’s Spring Collection.

On Hip Hop

Andrea: I think Hsu uses hip-hop as a played-out shorthand for (and two of its proprietors, Russell Simmons and P. Diddy, examples of) “authentic Negritude,” which is the image of Black folks struggling in the hard-scrabble, poverty-stricken, school-system-and-city-government-failed, inner-city streets. I’m not saying that this isn’t *a* reality for some Black folks (and other PoCs as well as some white people here and abroad) but it also became the mythic standard of what being an African American in the late 20th century and into the 21st century – and a commodified mythic standard at that. Hsu, then, uses hip-hop to insinuate, “See, *those* uncouth, can’t-quite-assimilate-to-”our”-middle-class-mores Negroes are taking over! Hide your (white) women and innocent (white) children!” ::horror-film scream::

But What Is This Article Really About?

Thea: The fact of the matter is that this is an article that is not simply afraid that white people will be a demographic minority, but that they’ll lose control. To me, that’s kind of a repugnant fear. Would a little more balanced distribution of power across race lines really be that bad?

Fatemeh: Hsu doesn’t ever address why there is such “white panic” by Buchanan et al. It feels like this panic is really a fear that white people will have to be treated the way they treated people of color for years. Is this what Hsu means by racial transcendence? Why doesn’t anyone just say this? I feel like that’s what is meant a lot of times, but wrapped up in the secret language and given the code “power.”

Are some white folks afraid they’ll be forced into the white slave trade? Maybe. But I think most people are afraid of “losing control”, which really means losing advantages over others because of skin color, losing skin privilege when it comes to housing or loans or job openings. People will have to actively work and participate in a community rather than assuming one exists based on race.

Andrea: Even if white folks became a numerical minority, I don’t think that’ll cause racism, especially white-centered racism, itself to cease. Unless my memory is getting rusty, a group doesn’t necessarily need sheer numbers to have a system that works favorably for them–just the silver tongue and the ammo. (Apartheid in South Africa, anyone?) So, “white America” supposedly fading away in numbers and in “culture/cultural relevance” (both demeaningly ridiculous assumptions) will not make us “post-racial” any more than PoCs shutting up about Teh Racizim that “we” seem to be “foisting” on the “innocent” white people, esp. in the Obama Age, as Thea rightly states.

Jessica: I mean, what’s with the “What does it mean to be American?” question every time White people feel like they are losing power in these perceived “race wars”. It was even in the title paragraph of this damn piece! Isn’t it really, “What does it mean to be colonized, over and over and over again?” I think that’s how one might fit in a little more with the truth of it all.

Like many people, I hate the quintessential pictorial of what a perfect, hegemonized America would look like if we all just forgot our histories and pretended like we’re getting along in perfect racial symbiosis. Diversity/equity work 101 myth dispelled for ya: Hiring people from racialized communities DOES NOT always lead to the appropriate programs and policies for people of colour. So take a chill pill about Barack, okay? (but keep on hoping for that change!)

Back to what people were actually saying for this article:

Bill Imada:

White people feel like they’re under siege now.

Christian Lander:

As a white person, you’re just desperate to find something else to grab onto.

Matt Wray:

You’re forced as a white person into a sense of ironic detachment…..We’re going through a period where whites are really trying to figure out: Who are we?

I suppose I appreciate the frankness of the opinions shared, although I’d be remiss if I didn’t in my unpolite non-Western norm discourse state that besides having had it with the same old, same old defensiveness that happens when racialized communities start reclaiming and re-asserting themselves, I’m at a loss for seeing how these various forms of wanted cultural appropriation, guilt-tripping, and blame-shifting the issues are in any way beneficial for improving race relations here.

Hsu also seems to suggest that with our increasing numbers, “armies” are going to form and White people had better watch out. Umm, yeah it’s kind of exciting that we’re populating the country as people of colour, even in Canada Aboriginal people are the fastest growing population with 50% of us under the age of 25. But are we planning to mass organize and take over the country the same way you fucked us over?

No. Because culturally speaking, we wouldn’t be Aboriginal anymore. Thanks.

And is it Still the End of White America if a (yet to be seen) White Minority Still Hold the Institutional Power?

Thea: The article is peppered with quotes and anecdotes that echo this vision of white men on the run, of white men (well, really white people, but Hsu focuses on the men) being ostracised for being “culturally bereft” and lacking in colour. But strangely enough, in a 9-page article on power and race in America, Hsu never once talks about the real marker of power in America: money. Who are the poorest people in America? According to Wikipedia:

The US Census declared that in 2007 – 12.5% of all people, [34]including
- 10.5% white people [35]
- 24.5% black people [36]
- 21.5% all Hispanic people of any race, [37] lived in poverty.

Stats on Asians and Native Americans are missing, but at a glance it is clear that while the US now has a person of colour as a president, socio-economic conditions didn’t miraculous change overnight for communities of colour the moment Obama won the election. Obviously!

Hsu says:

[Christian] Lander’s “white people” are products of a very specific historical moment, raised by well-meaning Baby Boomers to reject the old ideal of white American gentility and to embrace diversity and fluidity instead…But his lighthearted anthropology suggests that the multicultural harmony they were raised to worship has bred a kind of self-denial.

It is almost ridiculous to me that Hsu buys into the idea that Americans (and North Americans as far as I can tell) embrace multiculturalism and diversity in a real way when so much of the basic stats that measure well-being and race – the real measures of power – show that he is wrong. Here’s some more stats: rates of incarceration by race in the U.S.; and a Canadian article that states that

Although [Aboriginal people] comprised only 2% of the general adult population, they accounted for 17% of the prison population. They were younger on average than non-Aboriginal inmates, had less education and were more likely to have been unemployed.

Hsu never defines “multicultural harmony.” And because some of his examples that pronounce the dominance of non-white cultures include white kids growing dreadlocks and suburban white kids wanting to be black (i.e. wiggers), by the end of the article I started to think that maybe Hsu believes that things like the use of models of colour in American Apparel ads and last year’s popularity of the fashion keffiyeh are examples of diversity’s strength in American mainstream culture. For crying out loud. That’s not power sharing. That’s cultural appropriation. To go back to the first thing I said, I don’t think it’s people of colour who’ve directed the cultural shift that that’s got us suddenly slobbering over everything “non-white.” I think it’s white folks who are into cultural appropriation (i.e. not anti-racism or equity) have made this so.

The fact is that the popularity of Eastern Religions, sushi, Sufism, faux-Chinese tattoos, Kanye West, backpacking across Vietnam and Bob Marley has not coincided with the fair distribution of socio-economic power across the globe, or across ethnic groups in America. So call me a cynic but to me the popularity of those things – which more often than not rise to prominence as sanitised and white-washed versions of their original selves – is more of an insult than a sign of multicultural harmony.

And also, That Whole White People Are Cultural Bereft Thing is a Racist Fallacy

Arturo: Life at the Atlantic has to be tough – how does one write this stuff with their pinky so high in the air?

Hsu’s sources and examples are undermined just as easily as his argument. Really, we’re supposed to be surprised that the guy behind Stuff White People Like would attest to a sense of white self-loathing? Did Professor Wray not refer his culturally envious students to Temple’s genealogy department? Did he not teach them the meaning of the word genealogy? I’ve got news for these guys – some of the White People I know cared enough to learn about how their families emigrated to this country from Scotland, or from Ireland, or from Germany, or from Russia.

Let me repeat: they cared enough to learn. Only a narcissist (or worse, an avaricious hipster preying on the insecurities of people in skinny jeans) would dismiss culture as nothing more than a pigment; a shared history, the traditions, the customs and courtesies and the stories we learn from our loved ones help forge our respective cultures, not because they’re “cool and oppositional,” but because they come from inside us.

Hsu’s “Flight To Whiteness” section, which could have examined the paths and reasons behind the remaining vestiges of generational racism, instead seems to buy into the self-stylings of the Cable Guys and Sarah Palins of the world as a would-be Rebellion against the Evil Multicultural Empire. Instead of focusing on Smokey and the Bandit and Falling Down, he might have been better served asking how and why Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal could rise up the ranks of the Republican party to which so many of these “besieged” white people pledge fealty.

And Finally

Arturo: Instead of asking the questions he should’ve, Hsu blithely dismisses race as “a fiction that often does more harm than good” and hides behind advertising reps eager to re-code and re-demo the young people they’re probably eager to pitch cigarettes and nose jobs to before closing his note with hopeful visions of the upcoming social shifts — the same ones he and his editors had been so alarmed about. The “end of white America”? I’ll just be glad to see the end of articles like these.

Fatemeh: This article was too tangential and incredibly disappointing. Hsu didn’t need to dance around the definition of whiteness. He didn’t need to use “whiteness studies” to dissect whites into different cultural groups (this should have been an entirely different and separately interesting article). He didn’t need to compare P. Diddy to The Great Gatsby. All he needed to do was examine the white panic, deconstruct it, and let the anxiety around it float away after a clear, rational repudiation. Instead, he tried to come at it from too many angles, which just ups white America’s anxiety level and feeds the fires of fear.

Thea: This article is a bizarre and sprawling mess that suggests that just because Russell Simmons is massively successful, America has not only achieved racial harmony, but is now threatening to submerge white folks into a sea of “beigeness.” But it never answers a very basic question: what do any of the things that Hsu mentions – like Smirnoff ads, 50 Cent, Dora the Explorer or Stuff White People Like – have to do with actual rates of racial equity?

Not much.

Last summer saw the launch of ALO Hayati, “America’s Top Middle Eastern Lifestyle Magazine.” Thanks to a gracious donor, I finally got my hands on a copy of the July 2008 issue.

All lifestyle magazines have an aspirational feel to them, and this one was no different. Chock full of advertisements for Dubai hotels and Swiss watches, ALO wasn’t particularly different than any other lifestyle magazine. Considering the economic situation of magazines, it doesn’t seem like an incredibly auspicious time to launch one aimed at a materialistic lifestyle. I wasn’t able to find any updates about the magazine’s publication on the website, and as far as I’m aware, this is the only edition, though in the magazine they refer to an earlier issue in some places.

As someone who enjoys a good glossy every now and then, I delighted over advertisements with Kim Kardashian, and interview with exclusive designer Bijan, and a fluffy piece on intercultural relationships (though I did not care for the cover teaser: “Shocking Intercultural Stories”).

The magazine featured an interview with Leila Ahmed, which was a great one, likening the current western media representation of Muslim women to the same patronizing Orientalism that played out in the first wave of colonialism in Middle East. Her interview shed lots of light on the history and future of the headscarf. Despite the educational qualities of her interview, I kept thinking, “Who is this educating?”

While not every Middle Eastern person is going to be familiar with the history behind the headscarf, it seems sort of odd to have an educational feature about hijab in a magazine aimed at a demographic that has a fairly lengthy history with headscarves, even if many of them aren’t Muslim. Something about this piece tugged at me. It almost felt as if it was aimed at people who were not Middle Eastern.

Other pieces confirmed my suspicions. A photography section, entitled “Faraway Faces” (cue Aladdin soundtrack!), featured lots of “natives.” Lots of women wrapped up with only their eyes showing, lots of traditional attire, wizened old men, and even a camel. And the website isn’t any better. There are tons of shots of women wrapped up to look mysterious in glammy scarves (one such example is pictured at left).

This wasn’t even the worst part. This issue featured a special section on weddings, complete with all the typical wedding stuff (dresses, rings, honeymoon destinations). But it also contained coverage of an actual wedding. Neither the bride nor groom had Middle Eastern heritage. I assume that if they had, the magazine would have mentioned it, because otherwise, why would they be in a magazine about Middle Eastern lifestyles?

Because their wedding was entirely Ancient Egyptian themed.

(sigh)

Now, I don’t want to go dogging anyone’s special day. I know people who’ve had themed weddings of other time periods. And I can even dig that they have a lot of interest in Ancient Egypt (when I was in sixth grade, I would devour anything and everything related to the time period. It was interesting.)

But this? In a Middle Eastern lifestyle magazine? I mean, they did their homework and everything (the article mentions that the bride wore custom-made accoutrements modeled on those of ancient Egyptian queens), but the cake was in the shape of a step pyramid. Come on. It’s like attempting to have a traditional Mexican wedding with a cake in the shape of a sombrero. It just plays up the stereotypes that they’re (hopefully) trying to avoid.

The article conjured up not only some major Orientalist vibes, but reminded me of a similar craze in the Gulf: Arab brides dressing up in saris for their wedding celebrations. The dynamic is further complicated by the fact that many of them have South Asian maids, lots of whom aren’t treated well. It’s called cultural appropriation, people.

Fuckery aside, I did like a lot of the articles in the magazine. They profile not only legendary designer Bijan, but also civil rights activist and author Jack Shaheen. They interview not only Jordanian princess Sumaya bint El Hassan, but also Lebanese chef Viviane Chamieh.

I like the aim of the magazine: peace, regional association (despite the region being an ambiguous Western-defined term), and intercultural and interfaith collaboration. I liked the emphasis on “Middle Eastern” rather than religion or lineage (profiling those who are both born/raised in the Middle East as well as those born in the U.S. with Middle Eastern heritage on either side of their family). I liked a piece on double standards when it comes to sex that I found on the website (yes, admittedly fluffy, but we already covered that). I liked the fact that the wedding section had designs by Middle Eastern designers (more of that, please! There are plenty of them!). I liked that ALO uses Middle Eastern Americans as their cover models. So I really wanted to like this magazine as a whole.

If ALO can cut down on the exoticizing and play up the actual Middle Eastern angle of things (wouldn’t hurt to incorporate more Middle Eastern writers on staff, would it? Or cover things actually happening in Middle Eastern countries rather than covering countries themselves as tour destinations? And profiling more Middle Eastern Americans, like you did in your interview with director Mark David?), it can fully live up to its name.

One of the beauties of surfing the Net is that from time to time, you’ll stumble across a nugget of history or some photo that you weren’t even aware existed.

I’ve mentioned that JET, EBONY and the now defunct HUE magazines when they first started back in the day served as historical chroniclers of the Black experience in America. Google just negotiated a deal in which they will be digitizing pre-1960′s EBONY and JET magazines so that you can access their content on the Net.

One of the things I discovered to my delight is that in order to fulfill their mission of documenting the Black experience, EBONY and JET also covered events and discussed Black GLBT issues.

In addition to asking pointed questions about the Black GLBT experience, they also covered the New York and Chicago drag balls as well.

The other night while searching through Flickr and other places for photos of African-American transwomen for future posts, I stumbled across some African-American transgender history.

Most of it is the coverage of Chicago’s Finnies Ball and the New York ones. I chuckled when I saw the HUE article that asks if you can tell the difference between female illusionists and genetic women.

I also noted the incorrect pronouns and the ‘her’ in quotation marks used in some of the articles.

While it was atrocious in the 50′s, I noted that by the 70′s, JET was doing a better job of discussing transgender issues with accuracy and sensitivity two decades before the AP Stylebook guidelines even were published.

But unfortunately some of the attitudes reflected in those articles are still expressed by some of my people.

Some of my peeps think that me and my fellow transpeople aren’t serious about this path we’re taking, or think it’s a joke.

It’s serious business. Why would anyone subject themselves to the amount of ridicule, physical violence and abuse if they weren’t serious about this?

The other fallacy that keeps popping up is that Black transgender people are a new phenomenon. These articles dating back to the early 50′s and the history of the Harlem Renaissance say otherwise.

(Photo Credit: Ebony, Jet, and Hue Magazines)

The September 25 issue of Time Out New York (TONY) featured a list of their favorite 40 New Yorkers who have made an impact on the city in the past 13 years. I was appalled to see that out of the 40 cultural leaders that they highlighted, only three were people of color (Jay-Z, Derek Jeter, and Junot Diaz), two weren’t even human (Spider-Man and the MetroCard), and the other 35 were white.

Right after reading the issue, I and probably hundreds of other readers wrote letters to TONY to call them out on their list’s glaring lack of diversity as it tried to represent one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world. In my letter I said, “Rather than reminding us that white people are still in power, you could have been a little more creative with this list.” And I proceeded to list several people I would have liked to see on the list: Rosario Dawson, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Jean Grae, David Paterson, Chang-Rae Lee, Rosie Perez, Majora Carter, Rosie Mendez, etc.

They must have gotten quite a number of these letters, because a week later they had posted a piece online called “Where are all the people of color?” In the article, a TONY editor basically continued to defend and justify the lack of diversity in the list, and sparked even more angry comments from readers. The response piece, in some ways, was even more appalling than the original list because it showed no sign of regret and stated even more clearly (in case we didn’t get the point the first time) that they believed that New York’s “cultural elite” was made up of mostly white people.

After commenters threatened to cancel their subscriptions and criticized the editorial staff for being clueless and lacking in diversity themselves, TONY must have started to realize the significance of their mistake. I received an email from another editor saying that they were preparing for a future issue on the topic and were looking for suggestions of more people of color that readers would have liked to see on the list. So I wrote back listing a few more people I had thought of since, such as James McBride, Pauline Park, and Nydia Velazquez. Even though my respect for TONY was waning, I was eager to see what they would do next.

The November 6 issue displays the result of their scrambling to make things right. The feature of the issue focuses on what is most essential to New York City, and the first topic they address is diversity. They asked questions about diversity and multiculturalism to a panel of 15 well-known New Yorkers including Santogold, Talib Kweli, James McBride, Vijay Iyer, and Young Jean Lee. TONY showed themselves to be naive with some of their questions; for example, “Are we a melting pot or a mosaic?” and “Is ‘color-blind’ the right approach?” But I did appreciate the fact that that they published these panelists’ responses, including some harsh criticisms of TONY, like Danny Hoch saying: “Only entitled white people who are in charge possess the cluelessness to ask these benign questions in 2008.” I get the vibe that TONY still doesn’t fully understand what the problem was in the first place, but is at least willing to host conversations about racism, gentrification, and diversity.

On the last page of the article about diversity, there’s a box that says, “Despite NYC’s diversity, it’s not often that you find yourself amid a nice racial mix. Here are some of our favorite places to break out of the monochromatic social scene.” They list 10 places you can go to hang out among a mixed crowd (like TV On the Radio concerts and the New York Public Library). It got me thinking about the places I hang out and whether it is actually difficult to find racially diverse spots. Sure, there are plenty of bars and restaurants and venues in the city that are chock full of people from similar backgrounds, but I don’t think you really have to look that far to find a place with a more diverse crowd. (I might not use Time Out New York to find it, though!)

Readers in New York and other culturally diverse places, what has your experience been? When you go out, is a diverse crowd the norm or the exception?

In this month’s issue of Vibe, Barack Obama receives a formal endorsement from the magazine. Danyel Smith’s Editor’s Letter is an impassioned plea to get involved and help push Barack all the way into the White House. She writes:

We value freedom and aspire to be better than we are, and to live in a country that will be better than it is. We must vote for Senator Obama and for Senator Joe Biden. We must make sure our friends get to the ballot box. We must reach deep for every bit of idealism we had at the beginning of rap music. We must not be cool. We must not again make manifest the “apathy” label that has been thrust upon us. This is not a moment to be reviewed or dissected, or gazed upon from an ironic distance. This moment in history is ours. Our country will not be okay if Obama loses.

The issue goes on to provide three key pieces of political commentary: Obama’s own letter to Vibe readers, Jeff Chang’s “The Tipping Point,” a piece that explores the shifting nature of our political landscape, and a compilation of 99 hip-hoppers positions on politics.

Obama’s letter cuts straight to the heart of the apathy Danyel Smith describes in her intro piece:

Now, I’ve heard people say, “My vote doesn’t matter,” “My vote won’t count,” or “I’m just one person, what possible difference can I make?” And I understand this cynicism. As a young man attempting to find my own way in the world, I faced many of the same choices and challenges facing many of you today. I sometimes doubted that my thoughts and actions really mattered in the larger scheme of things.

But I made a choice. I chose to check in, to get involved, and to try and make a difference in people’s lives. It’s what led me to my work as a community organizer in Chicago, where I worked with churches to rebuild struggling communities on the South Side. It’s what led me to teach and run for public office. And even today, I hear the skepticism. Too often, our leaders let us down, They don’t seem to do much to make our lives better. So I understand the temptation to sit elections out.

But this year, when the stakes are this high, and the outcome will be so close, I need you to choose to vote.

Jeff Chang pens “The Tipping Point,” which provides a glimpse into each convention as well as a look towards the shifting demographics of America. I was particularly interested in his description of the Republican National Convention:

John McCain has outflanked the Democrats, and the next night, he was in a taunting mood. “Let me offer an advance warning to the old big-spending, do nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd,” he said in his speech. “Change is coming.”

But the Xcel Center’s pale masses belied his message. Only 36 of the 2,380 Republican delegates were African-American, the lowest tally since 1968. Even after adding Hispanics and Asian-Americans, the Republican National Convention was a 90-percent white gathering, whiter even than Minnesota.

It’s a tough time to be a black Republican. The young ones complain that they’re still seen as Carlton Banks stereotypes – which they most definitely are not. Not Sean Conner, 24, the tall Republican National Committee staffer from East Oakland who favors freshly caught fish and piping hot sneakers; or Lenny McAllister, 36, the pinstriped political commentator from Charlotte, N.C., who multitasks interviews with radio, TV, and print outlets; or Claudio Simpkins, 23, the slim Black/Puerto Rican/Cuban Brooklynite, who is finishing Harvard Law School and aspires to become the conservative Obama.

They call themselves hip hop Republicans.

“We are the trailblazers,” McAllister said, comparing themselves to rap’s pioneers. “We’re trying to bring about political diversity.”

They all grew up with the struggles of average inner city kids and joined the party that ended slavery because their views on community and service had led them there. “Don’t let Sarah Palin know this, but I used to be a community activist,” said McAllister, who, through the Hill House Association in Pittsburgh, Pa., organized young fathers around the issues of parenting and social responsibility.

They were frustrated that their party didn’t seem to care for them. “You don’t get much of a policy platform discussion about providing adequate housing, about gentrification, about funding adequate jobs, about reforming our public education system,” said Simpkins, who worries that the party is focused on “God, gays, guns, taxes, and terrorism.”

With Obama’s nomination and the rise of anti-immigration demagogues in the party, they figure tougher times are ahead. “I personally love Barack Obama. I see him as a role model for myself,” said Simpkins. “[But] I look at the policies and values that were instilled in me through my church and my family and I think it lines up more with what McCain talks about.”

He added, with a sigh, “Like it or not, I’m kinda stuck with this party.”

Chang’s piece also briefly touches on the Green Party, non voters, the DNC, and how Will.I.Am decided to make the iconic “Yes We Can” video.

Vibe also obtained 99 quotes on the politics in the age of Obama.

Here are a few of my favorites:

I was with a girl the other night. She’s like “I just don’t vote.” Finally, I said, “Just do it for me. You like me, right? You like me enough to have sex, could you just like me enough to go vote? Do it ’cause you love me.

—Murs, rapper

Athletes should step into politics only if they know what they are talking about. I am personally handing out voter registration forms to the ‘hood, to enlighten them on what it takes to help change the United States.

—Amare Stoudemire, Forward/center, Phoenix Suns

Obama is not perfect – his ideology, what he’d like to do versus what he’s able to do are two different things. It’s not like Great, we got a black president and it’s all good. We need to hold Obama to a higher standard than most.

—Bun B, Rapper

We can’t make records calling Hillary Clinton a bitch. Every rapper should just back away until November. And then we can make any remix we want.

—Fatman Scoop, Radio personality

I hope there’s a radical shift in the image of America in the world. And the image of black Americans in the eyes of the world.

—India.Arie, Singer

I’m not a voter at all. But this year I gotta vote for Barack. And I’ll probably never vote again. For me this is one-time only. I think all these guys are the Illuminati – straight up. I’m gonna cast my vote for this member of the Illuminati.

—KRS-One, Rapper/author

I voted in 2000. Felt like it didn’t count – and I was sour to the whole process. But the past eight years have been terrible. When he gets elected, I just want Obama’s platform to come to fruition. I feel like education is the key…the fact that we have to pay so much to get degrees…living in a democratic society and being capitalists, you get to see the fruits of your work rewarded. But people should take a look around and see educational system outside of America and how they work. We need to borrow from other people’s philosophies.

—Q-Tip, Rapper/producer/actor/DJ

This election won’t be the end of anything. It may be the most important election in history. But it won’t change things by itself. It’s just the beginning.

—David Banner, Rapper/activist