Originally delivered Aug. 16, 1967, at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Atlanta. Transcript courtesy of the Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Education Institute

Dr. Abernathy, our distinguished vice president, fellow delegates to this, the tenth annual session of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, my brothers and sisters from not only all over the South, but from all over the United States of America: ten years ago during the piercing chill of a January day and on the heels of the year-long Montgomery bus boycott, a group of approximately one hundred Negro leaders from across the South assembled in this church and agreed on the need for an organization to be formed that could serve as a channel through which local protest organizations in the South could coordinate their protest activities. It was this meeting that gave birth to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

And when our organization was formed ten years ago, racial segregation was still a structured part of the architecture of southern society. Negroes with the pangs of hunger and the anguish of thirst were denied access to the average lunch counter. The downtown restaurants were still off-limits for the black man. Negroes, burdened with the fatigue of travel, were still barred from the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. Negro boys and girls in dire need of recreational activities were not allowed to inhale the fresh air of the big city parks. Negroes in desperate need of allowing their mental buckets to sink deep into the wells of knowledge were confronted with a firm “no” when they sought to use the city libraries. Ten years ago, legislative halls of the South were still ringing loud with such words as “interposition” and “nullification.” All types of conniving methods were still being used to keep the Negro from becoming a registered voter. A decade ago, not a single Negro entered the legislative chambers of the South except as a porter or a chauffeur. Ten years ago, all too many Negroes were still harried by day and haunted by night by a corroding sense of fear and a nagging sense of nobody-ness.

But things are different now. In assault after assault, we caused the sagging walls of segregation to come tumbling down. During this era the entire edifice of segregation was profoundly shaken. This is an accomplishment whose consequences are deeply felt by every southern Negro in his daily life. It is no longer possible to count the number of public establishments that are open to Negroes. Ten years ago, Negroes seemed almost invisible to the larger society, and the facts of their harsh lives were unknown to the majority of the nation. But today, civil rights is a dominating issue in every state, crowding the pages of the press and the daily conversation of white Americans. In this decade of change, the Negro stood up and confronted his oppressor. He faced the bullies and the guns, and the dogs and the tear gas. He put himself squarely before the vicious mobs and moved with strength and dignity toward them and decisively defeated them.  And the courage with which he confronted enraged mobs dissolved the stereotype of the grinning, submissive Uncle Tom.  He came out of his struggle integrated only slightly in the external society, but powerfully integrated within. This was a victory that had to precede all other gains.

In short, over the last ten years the Negro decided to straighten his back up, realizing that a man cannot ride your back unless it is bent. We made our government write new laws to alter some of the cruelest injustices that affected us. We made an indifferent and unconcerned nation rise from lethargy and subpoenaed its conscience to appear before the judgment seat of morality on the whole question of civil rights. We gained manhood in the nation that had always called us “boy.” It would be hypocritical indeed if I allowed modesty to forbid my saying that SCLC stood at the forefront of all of the watershed movements that brought these monumental changes in the South. For this, we can feel a legitimate pride. But in spite of a decade of significant progress, the problem is far from solved. The deep rumbling of discontent in our cities is indicative of the fact that the plant of freedom has grown only a bud and not yet a flower.

And before discussing the awesome responsibilities that we face in the days ahead, let us take an inventory of our programmatic action and activities over the past year. Last year as we met in Jackson, Mississippi, we were painfully aware of the struggle of our brothers in Grenada, Mississippi. After living for a hundred or more years under the yoke of total segregation, the Negro citizens of this northern Delta hamlet banded together in nonviolent warfare against racial discrimination under the leadership of our affiliate chapter and organization there. The fact of this non-destructive rebellion was as spectacular as were its results. In a few short weeks the Grenada County Movement challenged every aspect of the society’s exploitative life. Stores which denied employment were boycotted; voter registration increased by thousands. We can never forget the courageous action of the people of Grenada who moved our nation and its federal courts to powerful action in behalf of school integration, giving Grenada one of the most integrated school systems in America. The battle is far from over, but the black people of Grenada have achieved forty of fifty-three demands through their persistent nonviolent efforts.

Slowly but surely, our southern affiliates continued their building and organizing. Seventy-nine counties conducted voter registration drives, while double that number carried on political education and get-out-the-vote efforts. In spite of press opinions, our staff is still overwhelmingly a southern-based staff. One hundred and five persons have worked across the South under the direction of Hosea Williams. What used to be primarily a voter registration staff is actually a multifaceted program dealing with the total life of the community, from farm cooperatives, business development, tutorials, credit unions, etcetera. Especially to be commended are those ninety-nine communities and their staffs which maintain regular mass meetings throughout the year.

Our Citizenship Education Program continues to lay the solid foundation of adult education and community organization upon which all social change must ultimately rest. This year, five hundred local leaders received training at Dorchester and ten community centers through our Citizenship Education Program. They were trained in literacy, consumer education, planned parenthood, and many other things. And this program, so ably directed by Mrs. Dorothy Cotton, Mrs. Septima Clark, and their staff of eight persons, continues to cover ten southern states. Our auxiliary feature of C.E.P. is the aid which they have given to poor communities, poor counties in receiving and establishing O.E.O. projects. With the competent professional guidance of our marvelous staff member, Miss Mew Soong-Li, Lowndes and Wilcox counties in Alabama have pioneered in developing outstanding poverty programs totally controlled and operated by residents of the area.

Perhaps the area of greatest concentration of my efforts has been in the cities of Chicago and Cleveland. Chicago has been a wonderful proving ground for our work in the North. There have been no earth-shaking victories, but neither has there been failure. Our open housing marches, which finally brought about an agreement which actually calls the power structure of Chicago to capitulate to the civil rights movement, these marches and the agreement have finally begun to pay off. After the season of delay around election periods, the Leadership Conference, organized to meet our demands for an open city, has finally begun to implement the programs agreed to last summer.

But this is not the most important aspect of our work. As a result of our tenant union organizing, we have begun a four million dollar rehabilitation project, which will renovate deteriorating buildings and allow their tenants the opportunity to own their own homes. This pilot project was the inspiration for the new home ownership bill, which Senator Percy introduced in Congress only recently.

The most dramatic success in Chicago has been Operation Breadbasket. Through Operation Breadbasket we have now achieved for the Negro community of Chicago more than twenty-two hundred new jobs with an income of approximately eighteen million dollars a year, new income to the Negro community. But not only have we gotten jobs through Operation Breadbasket in Chicago; there was another area through this economic program, and that was the development of financial institutions which were controlled by Negroes and which were sensitive to problems of economic deprivation of the Negro community. The two banks in Chicago that were interested in helping Negro businessmen were largely unable to loan much because of limited assets. Hi-Lo, one of the chain stores in Chicago, agreed to maintain substantial accounts in the two banks, thus increasing their ability to serve the needs of the Negro community. And I can say to you today that as a result of Operation Breadbasket in Chicago, both of these Negro-operated banks have now more than double their assets, and this has been done in less than a year by the work of Operation Breadbasket.

In addition, the ministers learned that Negro scavengers had been deprived of significant accounts in the ghetto. Whites controlled even the garbage of Negroes. Consequently, the chain stores agreed to contract with Negro scavengers to service at least the stores in Negro areas. Negro insect and rodent exterminators, as well as janitorial services, were likewise excluded from major contracts with chain stores. The chain stores also agreed to utilize these services. It also became apparent that chain stores advertised only rarely in Negro-owned community newspapers. This area of neglect was also negotiated, giving community newspapers regular, substantial accounts. And finally, the ministers found that Negro contractors, from painters to masons, from electricians to excavators, had also been forced to remain small by the monopolies of white contractors. Breadbasket negotiated agreements on new construction and rehabilitation work for the chain stores. These several interrelated aspects of economic development, all based on the power of organized consumers, hold great possibilities for dealing with the problems of Negroes in other northern cities. The kinds of requests made by Breadbasket in Chicago can be made not only of chain stores, but of almost any major industry in any city in the country.

And so Operation Breadbasket has a very simple program, but a powerful one. It simply says, “If you respect my dollar, you must respect my person.” It simply says that we will no longer spend our money where we can not get substantial jobs.

In Cleveland, Ohio, a group of ministers have formed an Operation Breadbasket through our program there and have moved against a major dairy company. Their requests include jobs, advertising in Negro newspapers, and depositing funds in Negro financial institutions. This effort resulted in something marvelous. I went to Cleveland just last week to sign the agreement with Sealtest. We went to get the facts about their employment; we discovered that they had 442 employees and only forty-three were Negroes, yet the Negro population of Cleveland is thirty-five percent of the total population. They refused to give us all of the information that we requested, and we said in substance, “Mr. Sealtest, we’re sorry. We aren’t going to burn your store down. We aren’t going to throw any bricks in the window. But we are going to put picket signs around and we are going to put leaflets out and we are going to our pulpits and tell them not to sell Sealtest products, and not to purchase Sealtest products.”

We did that. We went through the churches. Reverend Dr. Hoover, who pastors the largest church in Cleveland, who’s here today, and all of the ministers got together and got behind this program. We went to every store in the ghetto and said, “You must take Sealtest products off of your counters. If not, we’re going to boycott your whole store.” A&P refused. We put picket lines around A&P; they have a hundred and some stores in Cleveland, and we picketed A&P and closed down eighteen of them in one day. Nobody went in A&P. The next day Mr. A&P was calling on us, and Bob Brown, who is here on our board and who is a public relations man representing a number of firms, came in. They called him in because he worked for A&P, also; and they didn’t know he worked for us, too. Bob Brown sat down with A&P, and he said, they said, “Now, Mr. Brown, what would you advise us to do.” He said, “I would advise you to take Sealtest products off of all of your counters.” A&P agreed next day not only to take Sealtest products off of the counters in the ghetto, but off of the counters of every A&P store in Cleveland, and they said to Sealtest, “If you don’t reach an agreement with SCLC and Operation Breadbasket, we will take Sealtest products off of every A&P store in the state of Ohio.”

The next day, the next day the Sealtest people were talking nice, they were very humble. And I am proud to say that I went to Cleveland just last Tuesday, and I sat down with the Sealtest people and some seventy ministers from Cleveland, and we signed the agreement. This effort resulted in a number of jobs, which will bring almost five hundred thousand dollars of new income to the Negro community a year. We also said to Sealtest, “The problem that we face is that the ghetto is a domestic colony that’s constantly drained without being replenished. And you are always telling us to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps, and yet we are being robbed every day. Put something back in the ghetto.” So along with our demand for jobs, we said, “We also demand that you put money in the Negro savings and loan association and that you take ads, advertise, in the Cleveland Call & Post, the Negro newspaper.” So along with the new jobs, Sealtest has now deposited thousands of dollars in the Negro bank of Cleveland and has already started taking ads in the Negro newspaper in that city. This is the power of Operation Breadbasket.

Now, for fear that you may feel that it’s limited to Chicago and Cleveland, let me say to you that we’ve gotten even more than that. In Atlanta, Georgia, Breadbasket has been equally successful in the South. Here the emphasis has been divided between governmental employment and private industry. And while I do not have time to go into the details, I want to commend the men who have been working with it here: the Reverend Bennett, the Reverend Joe Boone, the Reverend J. C. Ward, Reverend Dorsey, Reverend Greer, and I could go on down the line, and they have stood up along with all of the other ministers. But here is the story that’s not printed in the newspapers in Atlanta: as a result of Operation Breadbasket, over the last three years, we have added about twenty-five million dollars of new income to the Negro community every year.

Now as you know, Operation Breadbasket has now gone national in the sense that we had a national conference in Chicago and agreed to launch a nationwide program, which you will hear more about.

Finally, SCLC has entered the field of housing. Under the leadership of attorney James Robinson, we have already contracted to build 152 units of low-income housing with apartments for the elderly on a choice downtown Atlanta site under the sponsorship of Ebenezer Baptist Church. This is the first project [applause], this is the first project of a proposed southwide Housing Development Corporation which we hope to develop in conjunction with SCLC, and through this corporation we hope to build housing from Mississippi to North Carolina using Negro workmen, Negro architects, Negro attorneys, and Negro financial institutions throughout. And it is our feeling that in the next two or three years, we can build right here in the South forty million dollars worth of new housing for Negroes, and with millions and millions of dollars in income coming to the Negro community.

Now there are many other things that I could tell you, but time is passing. This, in short, is an account of SCLC’s work over the last year. It is a record of which we can all be proud.

With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there’s almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him. For more than half of his American history, he was enslaved. Yet, he built the spanning bridges and the grand mansions, the sturdy docks and stout factories of the South. His unpaid labor made cotton “King” and established America as a significant nation in international commerce. Even after his release from chattel slavery, the nation grew over him, submerging him. It became the richest, most powerful society in the history of man, but it left the Negro far behind.

And so we still have a long, long way to go before we reach the promised land of freedom. Yes, we have left the dusty soils of Egypt, and we have crossed a Red Sea that had for years been hardened by a long and piercing winter of massive resistance, but before we reach the majestic shores of the promised land, there will still be gigantic mountains of opposition ahead and prodigious hilltops of injustice. We still need some Paul Revere of conscience to alert every hamlet and every village of America that revolution is still at hand. Yes, we need a chart; we need a compass; indeed, we need some North Star to guide us into a future shrouded with impenetrable uncertainties.

Now, in order to answer the question, “Where do we go from here?” which is our theme, we must first honestly recognize where we are now. When the Constitution was written, a strange formula to determine taxes and representation declared that the Negro was sixty percent of a person. Today another curious formula seems to declare he is fifty percent of a person. Of the good things in life, the Negro has approximately one half those of whites. Of the bad things of life, he has twice those of whites. Thus, half of all Negroes live in substandard housing. And Negroes have half the income of whites. When we turn to the negative experiences of life, the Negro has a double share: There are twice as many unemployed; the rate of infant mortality among Negroes is double that of whites; and there are twice as many Negroes dying in Vietnam as whites in proportion to their size in the population.

In other spheres, the figures are equally alarming. In elementary schools, Negroes lag one to three years behind whites, and their segregated schools receive substantially less money per student than the white schools. One-twentieth as many Negroes as whites attend college. Of employed Negroes, seventy-five percent hold menial jobs. This is where we are.

Where do we go from here? First, we must massively assert our dignity and worth. We must stand up amid a system that still oppresses us and develop an unassailable and majestic sense of values. We must no longer be ashamed of being black. The job of arousing manhood within a people that have been taught for so many centuries that they are nobody is not easy.

Even semantics have conspired to make that which is black seem ugly and degrading. In Roget’s Thesaurus there are some 120 synonyms for blackness and at least sixty of them are offensive, such words as blot, soot, grim, devil, and foul. And there are some 134 synonyms for whiteness and all are favorable, expressed in such words as purity, cleanliness, chastity, and innocence. A white lie is better than a black lie. The most degenerate member of a family is the “black sheep.” Ossie Davis has suggested that maybe the English language should be reconstructed so that teachers will not be forced to teach the Negro child sixty ways to despise himself, and thereby perpetuate his false sense of inferiority, and the white child 134 ways to adore himself, and thereby perpetuate his false sense of superiority. [applause] The tendency to ignore the Negro’s contribution to American life and strip him of his personhood is as old as the earliest history books and as contemporary as the morning’s newspaper.

To offset this cultural homicide, the Negro must rise up with an affirmation of his own Olympian manhood. Any movement for the Negro’s freedom that overlooks this necessity is only waiting to be buried. As long as the mind is enslaved, the body can never be free. Psychological freedom, a firm sense of self-esteem, is the most powerful weapon against the long night of physical slavery. No Lincolnian Emancipation Proclamation, no Johnsonian civil rights bill can totally bring this kind of freedom. The Negro will only be free when he reaches down to the inner depths of his own being and signs with the pen and ink of assertive manhood his own emancipation proclamation. And with a spirit straining toward true self-esteem, the Negro must boldly throw off the manacles of self-abnegation and say to himself and to the world, “I am somebody. I am a person. I am a man with dignity and honor. I have a rich and noble history, however painful and exploited that history has been. Yes, I was a slave through my foreparents, and now I’m not ashamed of that. I’m ashamed of the people who were so sinful to make me a slave.” Yes, yes, we must stand up and say, “I’m black , but I’m black and beautiful.” This, this self-affirmation is the black man’s need, made compelling by the white man’s crimes against him.

Now another basic challenge is to discover how to organize our strength in to economic and political power. Now no one can deny that the Negro is in dire need of this kind of legitimate power. Indeed, one of the great problems that the Negro confronts is his lack of power. From the old plantations of the South to the newer ghettos of the North, the Negro has been confined to a life of voicelessness and powerlessness. Stripped of the right to make decisions concerning his life and destiny he has been subject to the authoritarian and sometimes whimsical decisions of the white power structure. The plantation and the ghetto were created by those who had power, both to confine those who had no power and to perpetuate their powerlessness. Now the problem of transforming the ghetto, therefore, is a problem of power, a confrontation between the forces of power demanding change and the forces of power dedicated to the preserving of the status quo. Now, power properly understood is nothing but the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political, and economic change. Walter Reuther defined power one day. He said, “Power is the ability of a labor union like UAW to make the most powerful corporation in the world, General Motors, say, ‘Yes’ when it wants to say ‘No.’ That’s power.”

Now a lot of us are preachers, and all of us have our moral convictions and concerns, and so often we have problems with power. But there is nothing wrong with power if power is used correctly.

You see, what happened is that some of our philosophers got off base. And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites, polar opposites, so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love. It was this misinterpretation that caused the philosopher Nietzsche, who was a philosopher of the will to power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It was this same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject Nietzsche’s philosophy of the will to power in the name of the Christian idea of love.

Now, we got to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best, power at its best is love, implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love. And this is what we must see as we move on.

Now what has happened is that we’ve had it wrong and mixed up in our country, and this has led Negro Americans in the past to seek their goals through love and moral suasion devoid of power, and white Americans to seek their goals through power devoid of love and conscience. It is leading a few extremists today to advocate for Negroes the same destructive and conscienceless power that they have justly abhorred in whites. It is precisely this collision of immoral power with powerless morality which constitutes the major crisis of our times.

Now we must develop progress, or rather, a program— and I can’t stay on this long— that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income. Now, early in the century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual’s abilities and talents. And in the thinking of that day, the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber. We’ve come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed, I hope, from our conscience today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.

The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold: We must create full employment, or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available. In 1879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote in Progress and Poverty:

The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves driven to their tasks either by the, that of a taskmaster or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who somehow find a form of work that brings a security for its own sake and a state of society where want is abolished.

Work of this sort could be enormously increased, and we are likely to find that the problem of housing, education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor, transformed into purchasers, will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes, who have a double disability, will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he knows that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts between husband, wife, and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated.

Now, our country can do this. John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God’s children on their own two feet right here on earth.

Now, let me rush on to say we must reaffirm our commitment to nonviolence. And I want to stress this. The futility of violence in the struggle for racial justice has been tragically etched in all the recent Negro riots. Now, yesterday, I tried to analyze the riots and deal with the causes for them. Today I want to give the other side. There is something painfully sad about a riot. One sees screaming youngsters and angry adults fighting hopelessly and aimlessly against impossible odds. And deep down within them, you perceive a desire for self-destruction, a kind of suicidal longing.

Occasionally, Negroes contend that the 1965 Watts riot and the other riots in various cities represented effective civil rights action. But those who express this view always end up with stumbling words when asked what concrete gains have been won as a result. At best, the riots have produced a little additional anti-poverty money allotted by frightened government officials and a few water sprinklers to cool the children of the ghettos. It is something like improving the food in the prison while the people remain securely incarcerated behind bars. Nowhere have the riots won any concrete improvement such as have the organized protest demonstrations.

And when one tries to pin down advocates of violence as to what acts would be effective, the answers are blatantly illogical. Sometimes they talk of overthrowing racist state and local governments and they talk about guerrilla warfare. They fail to see that no internal revolution has ever succeeded in overthrowing a government by violence unless the government had already lost the allegiance and effective control of its armed forces. Anyone in his right mind knows that this will not happen in the United States. In a violent racial situation, the power structure has the local police, the state troopers, the National Guard, and finally, the army to call on, all of which are predominantly white. Furthermore, few, if any, violent revolutions have been successful unless the violent minority had the sympathy and support of the non-resisting majority. Castro may have had only a few Cubans actually fighting with him and up in the hills, but he would have never overthrown the Batista regime unless he had had the sympathy of the vast majority of Cuban people. It is perfectly clear that a violent revolution on the part of American blacks would find no sympathy and support from the white population and very little from the majority of the Negroes themselves.

This is no time for romantic illusions and empty philosophical debates about freedom. This is a time for action. What is needed is a strategy for change, a tactical program that will bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible. So far, this has only been offered by the nonviolent movement. Without recognizing this we will end up with solutions that don’t solve, answers that don’t answer, and explanations that don’t explain.

And so I say to you today that I still stand by nonviolence. And I am still convinced, and I’m still convinced that it is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for justice in this country.

And the other thing is, I’m concerned about a better world. I’m concerned about justice; I’m concerned about brotherhood; I’m concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about that, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can’t murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can’t establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can’t murder hate through violence. Darkness cannot put out darkness; only light can do that.

And I say to you, I have also decided to stick with love, for I know that love is ultimately the only answer to mankind’s problems. And I’m going to talk about it everywhere I go. I know it isn’t popular to talk about it in some circles today. And I’m not talking about emotional bosh when I talk about love; I’m talking about a strong, demanding love. For I have seen too much hate. I’ve seen too much hate on the faces of sheriffs in the South. I’ve seen hate on the faces of too many Klansmen and too many White Citizens Councilors in the South to want to hate, myself, because every time I see it, I know that it does something to their faces and their personalities, and I say to myself that hate is too great a burden to bear. I have decided to love. If you are seeking the highest good, I think you can find it through love. And the beautiful thing is that we aren’t moving wrong when we do it, because John was right, God is love. He who hates does not know God, but he who loves has the key that unlocks the door to the meaning of ultimate reality.

And so I say to you today, my friends, that you may be able to speak with the tongues of men and angels; you may have the eloquence of articulate speech; but if you have not love, it means nothing. Yes, you may have the gift of prophecy; you may have the gift of scientific prediction and understand the behavior of molecules; you may break into the storehouse of nature and bring forth many new insights; yes, you may ascend to the heights of academic achievement so that you have all knowledge; and you may boast of your great institutions of learning and the boundless extent of your degrees; but if you have not love, all of these mean absolutely nothing. You may even give your goods to feed the poor; you may bestow great gifts to charity; and you may tower high in philanthropy; but if you have not love, your charity means nothing. You may even give your body to be burned and die the death of a martyr, and your spilt blood may be a symbol of honor for generations yet unborn, and thousands may praise you as one of history’s greatest heroes; but if you have not love, your blood was spilt in vain. What I’m trying to get you to see this morning is that a man may be self-centered in his self-denial and self-righteous in his self-sacrifice. His generosity may feed his ego, and his piety may feed his pride. So without love, benevolence becomes egotism, and martyrdom becomes spiritual pride.

I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about “Where do we go from here?” that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, “Who owns the oil?” You begin to ask the question, “Who owns the iron ore?” You begin to ask the question, “Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that’s two-thirds water?” These are words that must be said.

Now, don’t think you have me in a bind today. I’m not talking about communism. What I’m talking about is far beyond communism. My inspiration didn’t come from Karl Marx; my inspiration didn’t come from Engels; my inspiration didn’t come from Trotsky; my inspiration didn’t come from Lenin. Yes, I read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital a long time ago, and I saw that maybe Marx didn’t follow Hegel enough. He took his dialectics, but he left out his idealism and his spiritualism. And he went over to a German philosopher by the name of Feuerbach, and took his materialism and made it into a system that he called “dialectical materialism.” I have to reject that.

What I’m saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social.  And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say questioning the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.

And if you will let me be a preacher just a little bit.  One day, one night, a juror came to Jesus and he wanted to know what he could do to be saved. Jesus didn’t get bogged down on the kind of isolated approach of what you shouldn’t do. Jesus didn’t say, “Now Nicodemus, you must stop lying.” He didn’t say, “Nicodemus, now you must not commit adultery.” He didn’t say, “Now Nicodemus, you must stop cheating if you are doing that.” He didn’t say, “Nicodemus, you must stop drinking liquor if you are doing that excessively.” He said something altogether different, because Jesus realized something basic: that if a man will lie, he will steal. And if a man will steal, he will kill. So instead of just getting bogged down on one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, “Nicodemus, you must be born again.”

In other words, “Your whole structure must be changed.” A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will “thingify” them and make them things. And therefore, they will exploit them and poor people generally economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and it will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together.

What I’m saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, “America, you must be born again!”

And so, I conclude by saying today that we have a task, and let us go out with a divine dissatisfaction.

Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds.

Let us be dissatisfied until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort from the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice.

Let us be dissatisfied until those who live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security.

Let us be dissatisfied until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history, and every family will live in a decent, sanitary home.

Let us be dissatisfied until the dark yesterdays of segregated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality integrated education.

Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity.

Let us be dissatisfied until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not on the basis of the color of their skin. Let us be dissatisfied.

Let us be dissatisfied until every state capitol will be housed by a governor who will do justly, who will love mercy, and who will walk humbly with his God.

Let us be dissatisfied until from every city hall, justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Let us be dissatisfied until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid.

Let us be dissatisfied, and men will recognize that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth.

Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout, “White Power!” when nobody will shout, “Black Power!” but everybody will talk about God’s power and human power.

And I must confess, my friends, that the road ahead will not always be smooth. There will still be rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. And there will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted. We may again, with tear-drenched eyes, have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs. But difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future. And as we continue our charted course, we may gain consolation from the words so nobly left by that great black bard, who was also a great freedom fighter of yesterday, James Weldon Johnson:

Stony the road we trod,
Bitter the chastening rod
Felt in the days
When hope unborn had died.
Yet with a steady beat,
Have not our weary feet
Come to the place
For which our fathers sighed?
We have come over a way
That with tears has been watered.
We have come treading our paths
Through the blood of the slaughtered.
Out from the gloomy past,
Till now we stand at last
Where the bright gleam
Of our bright star is cast.

Let this affirmation be our ringing cry. It will give us the courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows.

Let us realize that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Let us realize that William Cullen Bryant is right: “Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again.” Let us go out realizing that the Bible is right: “Be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” This is our hope for the future, and with this faith we will be able to sing in some not too distant tomorrow, with a cosmic past tense, “We have overcome! We have overcome! Deep in my heart, I did believe we would overcome.”

Martin Luther King – Where Do We Go From Here? (Conclusion) from MLK Speeches on Vimeo.

By Sofia Quintero, cross-posted from Black Artemis

Who spiked the Evian? Lately, there’s been a rash of White women using the n-word – including self-professed liberals and progressives. As if that were not bad enough, they act shocked, defensive and even downright nasty when told by women of all races that they should cut that shit out.

First example: a few White women made and carried signs that stated Woman Is the N***** of the World for Slut Walk in New York City on October 1^st. (We found out it was two women carrying the same sign.–Ed.)

While some White women including those among Slut Walk NYC’s organizers and participants have stepped up to condemn these actions, there are too many who have come to their defense, ranging from the naively privileged to the unapologetically hostile. I’m talking Facebook posts such as, “It is NOT racist, and anybody who thinks so is a fucking idiot” to a White woman telling an African American woman to go fuck herself. (I’d post links, but in no surprise to me, the posts have conveniently disappeared.)

A few days later, Barbara Walters used the word and then played victim when told by her The View co-host Sherri Shepherd that she was hurt by it. Acting as if her journalistic integrity was called into question instead of hearing the pain of her so-called friend, Walters exploited Shepherd’s struggle to concretize her discomfort with Walters’s use of the word and attempted to make Shepherd feel unreasonable for taking offense. (I’ll save my musings on why Walters will never have a woman of color – least of all a woman of African descent – who is capable and willing to hand her ass to her on The View for another time.)

Then last night I learned that at Occupy Philadelphia, two Black women were called n****** by volunteers. Now the actual details of the incident remain sketchy, but from what I understand, the fact that these women were slurred is not in dispute. Apparently, charges of racism against the organizing group predated the incident.

Many women of all races such as Stephanie Gilmore, Sydette Harry, and the Crunk Feminist Collective have issued thorough, incisive and poignant analyses as to why it is never appropriate for a self-proclaimed White feminist ally to use this racial slur. There is little more I can add to the substance of these and other responses already made. Still I have a compelling desire (which I will hereinto unapologetically indulge) to contribute to the discussion by making an attempt to make White women perpetrators and their apologists viscerally understand what exactly is the impact of their use of the n-word.

Warning: it ain’t going to be diplomatic or pretty because we’re already far past that.

So to all the White women who think it’s cool to use the n-word, y’all seen the movie Carrie, right? Recall the pivotal scene where Carrie White’s nemesis Chris and her boyfriend Billy dump a bucket of pig’s blood on her. Before Carrie telekinetically wrecks shop, she stands there drenched in blood and humiliation as people laugh at her.

That’s how that shit feels when you use the n-word.

We’re Carrie White and you’re Chris Hargensen except Chris never fronted like she was Carrie’s friend.

A few of your apologists are Sue Snell, perhaps well-meaning but ultimately ineffectual and forever haunted by the damaged to feminist solidarity that you have caused.

But your most virulent apologists are bunch of Billy Nolans who pick up the havoc where you left.

Your use of the n-word is a huge bucket of pig’s blood. When you use it and defend yourself, you’re Chris licking her lips as she pulls the cord. It’s a betrayal, plain and simple.

Stop with the defensiveness and rationalizations for just a minute and sit with that. If you’re really ’bout it, just accept that already. Recognize that the mere ability to dig your heels in – telling us we don’t get it, defending your honor like some damsel in distress (by the way, how are you OK with pulling the most anti-feminist of anti-feminist shticks), etc. – wouldn’t exist without the racial privilege you think is somehow neatly tucked away in the folds of your gender identity. You really can’t get whiter than that.

And guess what? Recasting Black women who call you out as the threat to whatever image you have constructed of yourself got you looking really patriarchal right about now. You’re doing to Black women what men of all races to do to us all the time.

It’s a betrayal when you act as if you have no clue in 2011 about what feminists of color endure within our own community when we make the decision to trust in and build with White feminists. Patriarchal men and women of color are like Piper Laurie, doing everything to derail us whenever we align ourselves with you. When we throw on our jackets to head out to the meeting, they stand at the top of the stairs yelling, “They’re going to laugh at you.”

We have faith and show up anyway only for you to pull the cord on prom night.

(Side note to those anti-feminist people of color: now isn’t the time for you to say, “I told you so.” That’s when you go from acting like Carrie’s mother to making like her gym teacher. Instead of joining the laughter, you should be standing with us as we call out the racism rather than using it as an opportunity to gut check us on our feminism. Don’t bother if for no other reason than it’s just not going to work for you. All you do when you attempt to discredit feminism by throwing an instance of racist arrogance of certain White women in our face is play yourself. We’re just not that fickle. With few exception, we’re not going to come “home” like the prodigal Carrie White because, as you’ll recall, her mother pretended to comfort her only to literally stabbed her in the back. Yeah, we’re not playin’ that.)

Now back to you n-word loving White women. You want to show how hip you are? Stop listening to Yoko Ono and Kreayshawn and read a book, read a book, read a MF book. Preferably one by a Black feminist such as Audre Lorde or bell hooks. One course in an entire women’s studies program doesn’t cut it.

What to show how down you are? Quit with the silly references to hip hop culture as some kind of permission. As mad as we may be at you, even we don’t believe you’re that dumb. You especially denigrate yourself with that one so stop it.

To all you Sue Snells, when women associated with your movements (’cause that’s what it’s looking like right about now – YOUR movements — now matter how many invitations you extend) tell women of color to go fuck themselves, call us idiots for taking offense, say they’re sorry if we’re offended as if our feelings are the problem and not the actions that triggered them and other such nonsense, how ’bout You. Just. Check. Them. Despite all the historic and ongoing treatment of men of color as menaces to White womanhood, feminists of color usually have no problem pulling a brother’s coattails when he comes for you, but y’all kinda drag your feet when a White woman does the same to us or our men. And that high school tactic of pleading, “It wasn’t me” doesn’t suffice. I don’t mean to get all vanguardist on y’all, but how about you bench these chicks when they come out of pocket? Seriously, where is the discipline in this movement? I’m not saying to immediately show her the door (although that just might be appropriate on occasion.) Struggle with her if you must, but there has to be serious and immediate consequences for racist behavior even if it’s sending homegirl to an intersectionality boot camp.

Stop confusing the fact that the n-word is still used by some black folks as license for you to use it. Many women including White feminists still use the wordbitch, but I don’t see you abiding for one second any man thinking he can do the same. In fact, if a man who identified as a feminist and/or ally still had the audacity to roll up to Slut Walk with a sign that read Rape is for Pussies, all his professions to solidarity, insistence that we focus on the “real” issue and the like wouldn’t have zilch currency for you so don’t act brand new.

And while we’re on the subject of Black folks who embrace the n-word, I don’t give a damn how many Black friends you have who don’t blink an eye or even think it’s cute when that word comes out of your mouth. You still don’t and never will have license to use that word. Accept that. If you can’t stop insisting that you be allowed to use the n-word on philosophical grounds, how ’bout you just let it go on the simple fact that you will never win this one. Trust me on that. If any woman of color – friend, comrade, stranger — tells you it is offensive to her, the only right answer of a true ally is to knock it off. This mounting any never mind excessive defense of the use of the n-word by you or any other White person then turning around and complaining that our expressing our hurt and anger is a distraction from the “real” issue at hand… how’s that working for you? It isn’t, and you know it.

And you know why despite your Cool White Chick status you weren’t at the meeting when your Black BFF was elected representative-at-large for the United Black Diaspora? It’s because the election never took place and that organization doesn’t exist. They never did and even if they ever were to, despite your CWC bona fides, you still wouldn’t be invited. Trust me on that one, too. Until we make some meaningful progress in defeating racism, White anti-racists have their own lane. You truly want to be an ally? Stay in it.

Yes, this is harsh, but in addition to being furious at the recent number of White women who think they can use this word and still front like they are our friends, I’ve been spoiled. I have meaningful relationships with White feminists who get it, and they have set the bar high. Are they perfect? No. But unlike you, they listen. Perhaps that’s why you avoid them like the plague. If you were genuinely interested in dismantling racism and forgoing the white privilege that would require, you would spend less time on Facebook defending the indefensible and more live time with them.

And for God’s sake, stop watching propaganda like The Help.

Just last month I was on a flight where I was on the receiving end of blatant racism. I have no doubt in my mind that the manner in which this particular airline employee (a white woman) spoke to me and treated me was a direct result of the color of my skin. As I am wont to do when it comes to processing the acts of racism that I am subjected to, I felt the immediate pull to name and claim my own responsibility in the situation. I know this undoubtedly is the result of being socialized from the collective culture who repeatedly and authoritatively tells me and other people of color that our experiences with racism actually have nothing to do with race at all and it’s a notion that I find imposed upon me on an all too regular basis.

Luckily, I had the good fortune of traveling with a friend who helped keep my perspective in check. My gut knew that this flight attendant’s behavior was racist, but I still found myself trying to make excuses for her. I was pissed. Both at her, and at myself for not calling her out right then and there. Then again, she did threaten to take my bag off the plane if I didn’t do what she said (although my friend heard that it was me the employee was threatening to remove from the plane), so I promptly obliged and sat down in my seat.

With a highly critical letter already half composed in my brain (which I did write when I got home), I looked across the aisle to my friend and said “Gee, I’m thinkin’ she would have never treated or spoken to S. (my husband, who is white) that way.”

Fast forward to the following month. Last week my family and I were on a return flight finding ourselves in the same predicament that I was in just several weeks before: trying to position and accommodate our airline approved carry-on luggage in the already crammed overhead compartments. Like my flight a month before, it was full and the overhead space was at a premium. Even though my husband’s luggage didn’t fit (just like mine didn’t quite fit when I was on my flight), he didn’t find himself on the receiving end of yelling, scolding and condescending behavior. Rather, two flight attendants made triple the amount of attempts on behalf of him and his luggage that I made with my mine – attempts mind you which were met with hostility and a threat to have my suitcase (or me, as the case may be) removed from the plane.

Admittedly, these events were not truly identical in that not only did we have different flight attendants, but that my family was on a completely different airline than the one I flew on last month. I get that. But that doesn’t change the facts of how I was treated and how my husband was treated. I wish I could tell you that these events happened in isolation and that our family has never experienced another situation similar to these. But of course we all know that not to be the case. I am aware of it. My husband is aware of it and our kids, ages 9 and (nearly) 7 years are fully aware of it as well.

After my incident on the plane several weeks ago, my husband and our kids had numerous discussions about it. My kids outright admitted that they didn’t think that their dad would have been treated as poorly as I was and using their own language, both were able to identify sexism and racism as part of the equation.

When this most recent event took place on our flight last week, both of my kids were quick to comment. My son especially is an astute observer of the particular behaviors people around him exhibit. Without any prompting, he matter-of-factly remarked to me that “people are nicer to daddy because he’s white and that people like to help him more. You have brown skin and people don’t like that as much as they like white skin”. My son’s daily lexicon does not include the phrase white privilege, but he witnesses it on a daily basis and is intimately familiar with the weight that it carries. (I would argue that we all bear witness to white privilege on a daily basis – some are just more adept at identifying it for what it is.)

I remember feeling such dissonance when I was about my kid’s ages regarding my white privilege by association. Like my son, I didn’t identify the way my parents and brothers were treated as “white privilege”, but I certainly knew enough from my experiences to know that I ranked a helluva lot higher as a human being when in their white presence. It did not go unnoticed that I would receive top notch treatment and be given the benefit of the doubt – all of the time, regardless of the context of the situation, whenever my parents or brothers would be with me. It continues to this day – with my family, my husband and my white friends. Alone, I am a suspicious person who is on the brink of doing something unlawful or untoward; with my dad in tow, I am suddenly transformed into a prospective client whose whims and desires are found charming and are offered to be met. Alone, I am a dispensable and barely seen customer who is relegated to waiting until the older white gentleman has been served; with my husband by my side, I am magically elevated to a more deserving status and ushered to a table straight away. Alone, I am presumed to be submissive and impervious to snide remarks and stares that suggest I don’t speak English; with my girlfriends suddenly I am a living, breathing, vibrant woman who is recognized for having a personality. Is this my dad’s, husband’s or friends’ fault that they are treated this way? No. Is it their responsibility to recognize that their white privilege affords them opportunities, access, benefits and preferential treatment that those they love as well as others of color are repeatedly denied? Absolutely.

It’s not uncommon for me to hear from white adoptive parents that it’s somehow okay to use their white privilege as long as it benefits their own child of color. But what is this really teaching their child? Whether my parents consciously used their white privilege to advance my own (or their own) best interest is irrelevant. No one is arguing that they did not have good intentions. The fact of the matter is that as a person of color, the impact is that I left the proverbial nest woefully ill-equipped to navigate this racially charged world. I may have been raised by a white family and treated as an honorary white person in their presence, but I had not been taught to anticipate how the world would treat me as an Asian woman, which is what I am. I was so conditioned to be treated as the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. X, that when I was no longer under the tutelage of two white parents, I was left unprotected, unprepared and uneducated on what to do when I was subjected to racist acts and behaviors.

The whole “Just stick by me, kid, and you’ll be fine” mentality does a child of color NO FAVORS. Because God willing, our kids will grow up to be adults and the world WILL see them not as your son or daughter, but as a person of color. Here’s a newsflash: The world already sees them as people of color because that is who they are. And like it or not, that means something in this society. We owe it to our kids to acknowledge this and to empower them with the language, the skill set and the permission to talk about race, racism and white privilege. My kids need and deserve to have their experiences validated in a way that mine were not. To recognize that yes, they are my kids and that of course I love them unconditionally, but to get over myself and to help my husband get over himself to know better that the greater world will first and foremost see them as a bi-racial female and an Asian male. And that those identities mean something in how they will be received by many. I harbor no illusions that they will be afforded the same privileges, benefits and unearned rights as their father and I challenge my husband at every turn to check his privilege at the door and to see the world from the eyes of his children. . . to acknowledge and observe that the standard of treatment he has come to expect often far exceeds what his wife, kids and other people of color are offered in identical situations.

To paraphrase the words of a white, male adoptive parent from Pact Camp who I admire and respect so very much, it is incumbent upon white parents of children of color to be intentional about NOT using their white privilege to their advantage and especially not cashing it in for their children’s benefit. In essence the message being relayed is “You, as a person of color, will never be worthy enough to stand alone as the person you inherently are and without the rightness of my whiteness, you are and always will be seen and treated as less than.”

To my son I say, yes, honey, you are right. Many people do treat your mom differently than they treat your dad and that is not right. I am worthy enough to stand alone. YOU are worthy enough to stand alone. We are not less than and we will not allow to be treated as such.

(Image Credit: Sxc.hu)

Over at the Click the Toad Blog, the Chief Toad explains how the MLK Jr. official legacy site was outranked by white supremacists with a good grasp of SEO:

My hands are shaking with anger as I type this. A sick, cowardly, and racist website (hereafter referred to in insult-laced bold type) that trashes the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr is outranking the official Martin Luther King Jr website on Google. I will not provide a link to the racist site, as I will not directly contribute a single visit to them. However, I will show exactly how the official Martin Luther King website (found at http://www.thekingcenter.org) got beaten in the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) battle. My dream to improve The King Center‘s SEO and Google Rank may not be as lofty and inspirational as Martin Luther King Jr’s, but I do have a dream. [...]

One of the best ways to beat a web competitor is to look at their metadata and their successful keywords… and then outdo them at their own game. So here is what The Racist Pukes have going on for their SEO (and the official Martin Luther King Jr website could simply borrow and improve upon all of these):

Racist Pukes’ Homepage Title: Martin Luther King Jr. – A True Historical Examination
Racist Pukes’ Meta Description: The truth about Martin Luther King: Includes historical trivia, articles and pictures. A valuable resource for teachers and students alike.
Racist Pukes’ Meta Keywords: Martin Luther King Jr, Civil Rights, Black History, Slavery, Reparations, Kwanzaa, Anti-Defamation League, ADL, anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry, hatred, prejudice, bias, Holocaust, Israel, democracy, terrorism, militia, Jews, Jewish, diversity, anti-Semitic incident, racist, discrimination, Holocaust denial, neo-Nazi, Nazi, Nazis, tolerance, civil rights, Black, extremism, extremist, hate crimes, skinheads, Middle East, Islamic Extremist, education, White supremacy, minority, bias, religious freedom, tolerance, religious right, Martin Luther King Jr., free speech, MLK, school prayer, religion, justice

We often talk about the legacy of civil rights being hijacked to suit the needs of those who would undo those gains in a heartbeat – this is a literal manifestation.

Activists need to up our tech game. Because this is just ridiculous.

(Spotted on Chris Rabb‘s facebook wall)

So look, David: Chinese people eat weird food. There is a saying that “Chinese will eat anything with its back to the sky,” and another that says “Chinese will eat anything with legs but a table and anything with wings but an airplane.” These are Chinese sayings, I might point out — a sign that Chinese aren’t exactly unaware that the “delicacies” that send prim Westerners to their fainting couches are a little off the beaten path.

But Chinese are far from the only culture that eats weird food, and fuck, given that you’re from North Carolina, have you looked at what American Southerners traditionally eat? No? Chitlins! Possum! Muskrat! Bull testicles! Oh wait, you’re from suburban Raleigh, so probably not, given that most of the more exotic dishes in Southern cuisine, like in many culinary traditions, was the offspring of necessity — invention midwived by destitution. If you’re hungry enough, rodents will start to look tasty, as will chicken claws, stray innards and balls. And once you’ve eaten them long enough, all these things evolve into nostalgic signifiers — especially after you’ve pulled yourself out of poverty. They go from things you have to eat all the time to things you choose to eat once in a while, to remind yourself you don’t have to eat them all the time.

And this is what’s truly ugly about your piece, David: For someone who’s spent a lot of your career puncturing middle-class aspiration and self-delusion, your essay is unpleasantly blind to the fact that all of China is just a few generations removed from dire, desperate want, and that many people, like the peasant family you had such a bad experience sharing a meal with, continue to subsist on an annual income that’s a tiny fraction of what a sophisticated awesome American literary superstar like you loses in his sofa. And in a country of 1.3 billion people, even having braised pig’s stomach to occasionally go with your daily rice is a fucking luxury.

–From David Sedaris Thinks Chinese People (and Food) Are Repulsive, Which Makes Me Sad, Because I Used to Like David Sedaris

With all of the jokes about “Birthers” and Donald Trump’s toupee as well as the leftysphere excoriating the mainstream media for not taking Trump to task for his antics, Jack and Jill Politics’ Baratunde Thurston breaks down what we lost due to Trump’s BS.

Transcript after the jump.

It’s been a very difficult morning for me. Got the news that President Obama released his long-form birth certificate due to the increasing media circus surrounding claims that he is not one of us. That he is not an American. And it comes at a very interesting time for many reasons, one of which is, it’s April 27 2011 and this just happened. So that’s really interesting to me. Also because I’m reading, right now, a book by Manning Marable called Malcolm X a life of reinvention and he unearths a lot of amazing detail and correspondence around this exceptional American. But through this book you also get a window into the civil rights movement throughout this country’s history – especially the 40s 50s and 60s and you are reminded if you read this book or see a documentary special or know anything about the complete history of the United States, you’re reminded of the extraordinary level of sacrifice that has been involved in allowing all Americans to exist as, be treated as, participate as Americans. To be that which they are took a lot of work. A lot of tears, a lot of pain, a lot of death.

There were people who dropped out of their ordinary lives, sacrificed their personal safety, their reputation, their ability to earn money, to intervene on behalf of those who they also saw as American. They got on buses and Freedom Rides. They sat in, they died in waves and waves of domestic terrorism so that someone like me could go to a voting booth and not be asked by some racist poll worker to pay a tax or prove that my grandfather wasn’t a slave or pass a literacy test that got increasingly difficult the more I passed it. And today, the President of the United States had to prove that he was an American, to the satisfaction of the 75 percent of Iowa republicans who doubt that or the 43 percent of National Republicans who believe that or the one heinous low-class individual who took credit for it after: Donald Trump.

A man who was given every advantage – who inherited millions and lost it all twice but had that opportunity because no one’s ever had to ask him to prove anything. A man who lacks intelligence, compassion, common sense, respect, decency, or an understanding of WHAT THE FUCK it means to be an American that he would come out moments after the President of the United States – and I stress that: the President – released his long-form birth certificate – and Donald Trump comes out moments later and says, “I’m really proud of myself – but it shouldn’t have taken so long. I wanna see the birth certificate for myself. I want to test it for authenticity. I don’t want the press asking me about birth certificates anymore.”

I find it hard to summarize in mere words the amount of pain and rage this incident has caused. It’s humiliating – not just to Barack Obama, not just to the office of the President, not just to Black Americans who died and those who supported our quest for freedom. It’s embarrassing to the entire nation that we would sit and let this nation. We have all been debased by this incident. By a charlatan, by a con man, by a mere promoter of himself. And for him to take credit for this, and for him to revel in it, and yet not be satisfied makes him no better than a Klansman. No better than a Bull Connor. No better than an anonymous, privileged white man in the 1950s who, regardless of his position in society, knew his position was higher than that of a common nigger. And that is what the fuck Donald Trump has done to the President of the United States. To the office of the President of the United States. To me. And to you.

I am disgusted. I have cried, because I know my own ancestors paid a very high price, and never would have imagined that we might have the President that we do, but certainly, part of their joy in the ancestral, celestial skies right now has been greatly diminished by what has happened here today. I hope that eventually, not just in the post-mortal world of karma and spiritual justice, Mr. Trump pays an exceptional price. I hope that price comes during his life. To then be able to walk around, a super-free, super-white, super-privileged man lording over all who would pay attention – which is far too many – at what you have done has got to cost you something in this life, as well.

I don’t wanna hear about The Apprentice. I don’t wanna hear about your new cologne. I don’t wanna hear about the new tower you’re building in whatever fuckin’ town. That cologne smells of racism. That tower is built on the blood of disrespected slaves and freedom fighters, and that show is merely a showcase for the dishonor you have brought among anyone who would call themselves an American.

My name is Baratunde Thurston. I’m heartbroken over this.

This is the second installation of Pierre Bennu’s Black Moses Barbie series.  In this ep: Black Moses Barbie has to use her Motivational Freedom Rifle…but not on whom you’d think.

Black Moses Barbie commercial #2 of 3 from pierre bennu on Vimeo.

Transcript after the jump.

Music: Mmmmmmmm (woo woo woo)….Black Moses Baaaar-bieeeee.

(Doorbell rings)

Slave Catcher 1: Hey, Cat Lady.  Sorry to barge in unannounced, but we’re looking for some escaped slaves that may have popped through here. You know the type: big, brawny, built like a stallion–

(Cat meows)

—golden-brown skin, and they absolutely hate to do work.  We need them to build this country’s infrastructure, of course, but they can’t seem to get their savage minds around the concept of working for free under inhumanly brutal conditions. They hate it.

I hope you don’t mind if we take a look around, do you?

(Cat meows)

Cat Lady: Feel free to take a look around, boys. But there’s nobody here–

(Cats meow randomly)

–but me and my cats.

(Cat purrs)

Runaway Ken: (murmurs) Oh my gosh!

Runaway Christie: (murmurs) Oh my gosh!

Runaway Ken: Oh my gosh!

Runaway Christie: Oh my gosh!

Runaway Ken: Oh my gosh!

Runaway Christie: Oh my gosh!

Runaway Ken: Oh my gosh!

Runaway Christie: Oh my gosh!

Runaway Ken: Oh my gosh–

Black Moses Barbie: Sh!

Slave Catcher 1: You know, there’s one thing I loathe more than cats, and that’s the n-word: “non-truthtellers.”

(Cat purrs)

Now if I were to find you were harboring slaves on the premises, that would make you an nnnnon-truthteller.  And the penalties would be quite severe. Quite!

(Cat hisses)

Slave Catcher 2: Hey, boss, I think I smell something.

Slave Catcher 1: Nyeah, I smell somebody.

Slave Catcher 2: Yeah, or maybe three-fifth of somebody. Heh heh heh.

Black Moses Barbie: Kiss three-fifths of this!

Slave Catcher 1: Why, it’s Black Moses herself!

Slave Catcher 2: (simultaneously) Harriet Tubman!

(Rifle cocks. Cat screeches. Gun shots.)

Slave Catcher 1: Nyeah.

Cat Lady: Ahhh, Harriet? What is that scent you’re wearing, dear? I absolutely love it.

Black Moses Barbie: It’s the sweet scent of freedom.

(Black Moses Barbie and Cat Lady laugh)

Black Moses Barbie: You really need to change that kitty litter.

Music: Mmmmmm mmmm mmmmmm.

Announcer: Black Moses Barbie Underground Dream House comes complete with Cat Lady Abolitionist. Scent of Freedom fragrance sold separately.

As soon-to-be-former UCLA student Alexandra Wallace packs her stuff and leaves the university due to fear for her life, I’ve watched how some people and the press reacted to her.  As Colorlines and other blogs noted, combating her anti-Asian racism with life-threatening misogyny really wasn’t the best social-justice idea:

Nor combatting racial stereotypes with…racialized sexual stereotypes:

and

Or even having a “yeah, you’re racist, but I’d still fuck ya” vibe, a la the guitar-strumming crooner, in an otherwise witty comeback song:

As blogger and GRITtv ‘s senior writer/web manager Sarah Jaffe said, the move of some Asian American men who “stereotypically not seen as sex objects, putting the white woman in her proper place AS sex object or, ‘Shut up bitch, you’re just there to be fucked’ in essence…”–which the Black woman expounds on in her clip–is just a kyriarchal pile-on.

I do believe is Wallace could have been criticized in terms of one of the most taboo—yet most needed—conversations: white female privilege.

Of course, when this phrase is put into the public square of ideas, quite a few white women, both feminist and non, will storm in with their vociferous exceptionalizing  to this privilege—more specifically, how their individual selves are the exceptions to this because of mitigating identities and circumstances: they aren’t able-bodied; they don’t fit the blonde-and-blue phenotype; they aren’t slender and/or or buxom; they are poor or come from poverty; they are not educated and/or hipsters; they are in interracial relationships; so on and so forth.  Usually, the exceptionalizing derails the conversation into silence.  But for a person without that privilege, especially if the privilege is based on that person’s degradation or erasure, the mitigated advantage is still an advantage.  The mitigation(s) shape(s) the privilege as that of gradation, not kind. 

But, as Audre Lorde said, silence doesn’t protect … in this case, the privilege getting read.

So, if I had to unpack the White Female Privilege, it would look something like this (and I’m citing and paraphrasing heavily from Alienation, Peggy McIntosh, Mary Dee Wenniger, Nsenga Burton, and ballgame, and this list isn’t exhaustive):

• Can benefit from their association with white men as a wife, daughter, sibling, and mother.
• Have all their faults and flaws into perfect imperfections.
• Easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children’s magazines featuring women like them.
• Can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes, or not answer any communications without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of their race.
• When told about our national language or about “civilization,” they are shown the people of their color made it what it was.
• Can turn on the television, open a newspaper, or go online and see people of their race widely represented.
• Can remain oblivious of the language and of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in their culture any penalty.
• Are feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.
• Can use the “sheer fear of tears” to their advantage. (Sarah Jaffe calls this “White Lady Tears.”)
• Are not compelled by the rules of their gender to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.
• Are allowed to be vulnerable, playful, and “soft” without calling their worthiness as a member of their race being called into question.
• Are seen as the embodiments of value and purity and, due to their phenotypes (especially if it’s close(r) to the blonde-and-blue-eyed ideal), be considered worthy of protection—including having nations go to war over this purity and piety–and instantly become the objects of universal desire.
• They are seen as the default and the ideal embodiment of physical beauty and sexual attractiveness.  This idea(l) is replicated, despite the efforts of visual diversity, in all form of media, from paintings to plays to porn.

But don’t just take my word for it. As a couple of people pointed out on Tumblr a while ago:

we here on tumblr have found every single way imaginable to admire white girls. soft white girls, fat white girls, dreadlocked white girls, naked white girls, bicycling white girls, hairy white girls, clean white girls, white girls in shower, white girls catching butterflies, white girls cooking, white girls cooking naked, white girls with babies, white girls with kittehs, white girls with tats, white girls in catholic school girl dresses, white girls with hippy clothes….what fucking other ways in heavens green earth and jesus can we find to admire white girls?

… and yet i still see a whole lot of “admire my hotness” white girl shit. and a whole lot of it involves white girls appropriating ish and acting innocent while doing it.

Or, in Wallace’s case, post a virulently anti-Asian rant (complete with her “innocent” claims of having hometraining and how her rant isn’t about her “Asian friends”) on YouTube then fauxpologize with some nonsense about “not knowing what possessed her to do it.” To that, I’ll say here what I said in a comment section regarding this: “At some point, even the Devil would roll up and say, ‘That one’s on you, homie.’”

And what’s on her is her unchallenged white female privilege.  To me, Wallace’s tirade pivots on Jaffe calls the Sarah Palin Thing, “where you can say more outrageous shit because you’re a pretty white lady.”  Wallace visually presents as the physical and sexual ideal of the “all-American” blonde white girl-next-door doing something so not-PC, the “pretty white lady” who thinks she can get away with this verbalized racism—which Wallace attempts to get across as some sort of racial “truth-telling”–because it would be more “palatable.”  I also wonder if she thought—since she seems to deeply believe in some anti-Asian stereotypes, like they function in “hordes” bent on “taking over” her beloved UCLA with their familial “ways”—that Asian Americans wouldn’t push back because of the stereotype of their being “quiet.”   (She found out quite differently.)

Combine all this with, at the time, what Wallace may have perceived as having a platform for more of her racist views due to her newfound “internet fame” with her first clip and the revealed bikini photos—her father admitted on his Facebook page that she was creating a vlog of similar rants–probably reinforced something Arturo observed about the photos: “After all, there’s a certain sector who’s perfectly willing to forgive/accept her views because she’s ‘hot.’”  Again, Wallace found out quite differently, with UCLA Chancellor Gene Block speaking against it in a video as well as in an email along with other people responding to it with sometimes life-threatening viciousness.

At this point, though, this particular saga seems over: even though UCLA stated Wallace was within her free-speech rights as a student, she is gone.  But that doesn’t mean that white female privilege left with her.

Image courtesy of You Offend Me, You Offend My Family

Full disclosure: I met Loretta Ross at a Women’s Media Center’s media workshop for progressive women last summer, and we’re connected through the New York City chapter of SisterSong, which reshaped the reproductive-rights fight to reproductive justice. And I just think she is an incredible activist and living historian.

I saw this clip of her explaining to another generation of feminists where the term “women of color” came from and wanted to share.

Transcript after the jump.

Loretta Ross: Y’all know where the term “women of color” came from?  Who can say that?  See, we’re bad at transmitting history.

In 1977, a group of Black women from Washington, DC, went to the National Women’s Conference, that [former President] Jimmy Carter gave $5million to have as part of the World Decade for Women.  There was a conference in Houston, TX.

This group of Black women carried into that conference something called “The Black Women’s Agenda” because the organizers of the conference—Bella Abzug, Ellie Smeal, and what have you—had put together a three-page “Minority Women’s Plank” in a 200-page document that these Black women thought was somewhat inadequate.

(Giggles in background)

So they actually formed a group called Black Women’s Agenda to come [sic] to Houston with a Black women’s plan of action that they wanted the delegates to vote to substitute for the “Minority Women’s Plank that was in the proposed plan of action.

Well, a funny thing happened in Houston: when they took the Black Women’s Agenda to Houston, then all the rest of the “minority” women of color wanted to be included in the “Black Women’s Agenda.” Okay?

Well, [the Black women] agreed…but you could no longer call it the “Black Women’s Agenda.”  And it was in those negotiations in Houston [that] the term “women of color” was created.  Okay?

And they didn’t see it as a biological designation—you’re born Asian, you’re born Black, you’re born African American, whatever—but it is a solidarity definition, a commitment to work in collaboration with other oppressed women of color who have been “minoritized.”

Now, what’s happened in the 30 years since then is that people see it as biology now.

(Murmurs of understanding, agreement)

You know? Like, “Okay…” And peopleare saying they  don’t want to be defined as a woman of color: “I am Black, “I am Asian American”…and that’s fine. But why are you reducing a political designation to a biological destiny?

(Murmurs of agreement)

That’s what white supremacy wants you to do. And I think it’s a setback when we disintegrate as people of color around primitive ethnic claiming. Yes, we are Asian American, Native American, whatever, but the point is, when you choose to work with other people who are minoritized by oppression, you’ve lifted yourself out of that basic identity into another political being and another political space. And, unfortunately, so many times, people of color hear the term “people of color” from other white people that [PoCs} think white people created it instead of understanding that we self-named ourselves.  This is term that has a lot of power for us.

But we’ve done a poor-ass job of communicating that history so that people understand that power.

I think the question, “Who the **** Is Esperanza Spalding?” is getting a rather thorough answer since her Grammy win: incredible jazz instrumentalist/vocalist whose game is recognized by Prince, POTUS Obama, and the Portland Jazz Festival.

And, Best New Artist nominee/competitor Justin Bieber’s answer to the question is: “…and a mixed-race woman who has a pettable afro.”

I first saw the offense on my Tumblr dashboard–and reblogged it: (click on the link if the animated GIF below doesn’t work):

Which came from this source (the “petting” starts at :21):

I guess Usher and nem (yeah, I’m considering Bieber’s mom as a part of “nem”) didn’t school young Bieber on this cardinal rule:

Let alone on the Presumptuous Hand Action, which is what he did.

I thought Spalding was rather gracious about the incident but, as quite a few of us afro-rocking Black women have had to be after such a personal space-invading move least, as one Tumblizen remarked, we “get pegged as an Angry Black Woman”…but in that animated GIF, Spalding looked like she made a split-second decision not to cut Bieber.

Of course, the media has made much of the fact that some of Justin Bieber’s fans hacked Spalding’s wiki page due to the upset. And she was a trending topic on Twitter, much of it from said Bieber fans–and perhaps fans of the other artists who lost to Spalding–who were fuming over it three days later.  Though no one’s articulated it yet, the attacks have a  strangely racialized element to it, namely that the vitriol around a white man losing to a woman of color and how quickly those who identify with that privilege come to defend it by shredding those who challenge it. Just has a certain Tea-Party, “they’re taking our…” contour in the shade-throwing.  So, Bieber’s touching Spalding’s hair–regardless of the complimentary intention behind it–and the vituperations towards her win are linked in the exercise of white privilege: both attempt to made Spalding an object to touch and to dismiss (if not erase) her as a talented person.

In light of this incident, the “who the **** is Esperanza Spalding” question gets replaced with simply with “what the ****?”

…[Loughner's] acts cannot be fully divorced from the current political moment either, and specifically that part of said moment dominated by reactionary and right-wing voices, among which are included many whose speakers adhere to Tea Party thinking. It is not that Loughner is, literally, a devotee of the right or its organizational edifices. In all likelihood he is not. Rather, it is pertinent — and should not be ignored by those in the media who are trying to de-politicize his crimes — that his paranoid lunacy, the contours of which one can explore thanks to the wonders of the internet, transpired in a nation where paranoia and its peddling have become common fare. In such a place, the Jared Loughners of the world become ever-more dangerous. And it is this about which we should be rightly concerned.That said, his acts cannot be fully divorced from the current political moment either, and specifically that part of said moment dominated by reactionary and right-wing voices, among which are included many whose speakers adhere to Tea Party thinking. It is not that Loughner is, literally, a devotee of the right or its organizational edifices. In all likelihood he is not. Rather, it is pertinent — and should not be ignored by those in the media who are trying to de-politicize his crimes — that his paranoid lunacy, the contours of which one can explore thanks to the wonders of the internet, transpired in a nation where paranoia and its peddling have become common fare. In such a place, the Jared Loughners of the world become ever-more dangerous. And it is this about which we should be rightly concerned…

After all, there are many people in any society who suffer from mental illness. Many, indeed, who battle the kinds of demons that appear, from all evidence, to afflict Jared Loughner. Yet hardly any of them act upon their delusions by lashing out at political figures. Most often, when mentally ill individuals become violent, their rage is either focused on persons close by in their lives whom they feel have hurt them (family, colleagues, fellow students, a therapist, a former boss), or it is entirely random and without any seeming pattern or purpose (think Charles Whitman at the University of Texas in 1966, or Mark David Chapman shooting John Lennon). That Loughner’s derangement led him to kill a judge and attempt the same with a lawmaker is unlikely a mere coincidence. Events such as this happen at particular times for a reason. There is a reason that Tim McVeigh’s bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building happened in 1995, amid the last national bout with reactionary paranoia: a time in which the right was bubbling with theories about black UN helicopters planning midnight raids on patriotic Americans, gun grabs and a supposedly liberal president who was gearing up for the mass persecution of tax protesters and Bible-believing Christians, among others.

It is not necessary to show that Loughner is a follower of Glenn Beck, or Michael Savage, or any of a hundred or more local variants of the same. It is not, in the end, all that important whether he spent time on right-wing websites, or is (as a Department of Homeland Security memo seems to suggest) a follower of the white nationalist group, American Renaissance, or whether he believes (as some of his otherwise hard-to-decipher internet postings hint) that the Constitution is being usurped by the current government because of its reliance on paper money: a prominent meme among the far-right. What matters is that Loughner, like all of us, has been exposed day in and day out, for several years, to the unhinged and paranoiac ravings of persons who believe America is in its “end days,” and that the sky is falling, at least metaphorically — and not because of global warming, which is just one more piece of the left-wing conspiratorial plot to confiscate all wealth in the name of nature-worship — but because of the communist/socialist/fascist/Marxist/Nazi/Muslim/Kenyan/terrorist/anti-Christ who occupies the White House.

It is that daily stream of poisonous vitriol from which it is nearly impossible to escape.

Read the rest here.

By Arturo R. Garcia

Verily, these be dire times for the brave souls at the Council of Conservative Citizens: not only is Marvel Comics once again publishing a comic book starring an African character, but at least one member of the overall ensemble cast in the upcoming Thor movie adaptation will be – gasp! – black! You can almost hear the call ring out:

Idris Elba as Heimdall? Forsooth! THEY TOOK OUR GODS! Robblerobblerobble …

Mind you, this is par for the course for the CCC, which, as Comics Alliance’s David Khouri reported, is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. A glance at its’ “Statement of Principles” reveals that it believes the U.S. to be (spoiler alert) “a Christian country” and “part of the European people.”

Elba’s casting, while the impetus for the CCC’s organizing a boycott of Thor – complete with website and Facebook group, of course – isn’t the group’s only bone to pick with Marvel. Not only were they outraged at the perceived slight of the Tea Party movement depicted in the pages of Captain America (which the company quickly apologized for), but the mere existence of the Black Panther character is proof the company is in the business of publishing “extremist ‘Black Power comics.”

Questions about Elba’s playing Heimdall (sometimes called “The White God” according to legend) predate the CCC’s efforts, of course. But it’s curious to see many fans who treated issues like the Last Airbender debacle and the Runaways controversy earlier this year as “just movies” or “no big deal” raise a flag over this casting, or Michael Clarke Duncan playing The Kingpin years ago. Elba discussed the complaints in The Guardian a few months back:

There has been a big debate about it: can a black man play a Nordic character? Hang about, Thor’s mythical, right? Thor has a hammer that flies to him when he clicks his fingers. That’s OK, but the colour of my skin is wrong?

Not just that, but consider: in the comics, Thor hangs out with a character who looks like a space horse! He takes orders from a guy who wears wings on his head! And, in the movie, somebody let an Asian guy onto the set!

The dumbest – though not surprising – part of the CCC’s woe-is-me attitude is their perception that Marvel “doesn’t think whites should have anything uniquely their own.” It’s the comics industry, for goodness’ sakes, where even getting a black Nick Fury is seen as a boost, if only because we get images like this that aren’t completely lily-white:

But, when you’re hell-bent on believing this country is “European,” any slight will do. The Thor boycott, by the way, had just under 200 “likes” on Facebook as this column was finished. Assuming those folks in fact don’t go see the movie, hey, plenty of good seats will be available!

By Arturo R. García

So, what to make of Mark Eliseuson (as ID’ed on Angry Asian Man), who chose to show the holiday spirit at his Idaho home with this hooded snowman and accompanying noose? Racist? Idiot? Racist Idiot? Or, as suggested on NPR’s story about him, Misunderstood Patriot?

Here’s a comment, printed verbatim, from “Betsy,” who identified him or herself as an in-law:

Mark is my Brother-in-law. He is not a racist!

He just loves America and doesn’t like what IS HAPPENING to our nation…bailouts, abortions, tax increases.

He helped me form GrandmaGrizzly.ORG, to help elect candidates who will stop socialisms, terrism, and create FREEDOMS.”

That site is real, by the way; and besides boasting the kind of design magic not seen since the heyday of Geocities, Grandma Grizzly features bon mots like these:

Trained in Voter Fraud-Spotting..so LOOK OUT ACORN, Black Panthers and Homosexuals!! join us!

I have my niece coming up from a “Peace Corps” -type trip where she was digging holes for some darkies in some awful mexican hell-hole in Ecuador but I would love to give her a taste of Real America and have her help make phone calls or make copies or something over there in the office with me. She leans left but I’m not done with her yet and Marv ain’t even got started! Seems like you can’t let kids leave the sanctity of the home/church community and go to college and other countries anymore! They come back talking nonsense about “Privatizing gains and socializing risk”. We’ll give her a taste of our Judeo-Christian Reaganomics!

Of course, the NPR thread also had someone complaining that “liberals” reporting on this only “made race relations worse,” conveniently ignoring Eliseuson’s history: flying Aryan Nations and SS flags in front of his home (when asked about this in July, he defended his right to do so while adding, “I’d rather not live amongst people who are not of my race and culture”) and handing out bullet casings at Halloween when he ran out of candy. This in a town that isn’t too far from the AN’s old headquarters. Maybe it’s just me, but these are the kinds of folks I think we’re better off keeping an eye on, should they start feeling “nostalgic.” Just saying.

UPDATE: Thanks to the readers for correcting me; apparently Granny is a fake. Whew. That said, these comments from the KXLY story on Eliseuson in July appear not to be:

I will have to agree with this man’s neighbors. He is entitled to his beliefs, even if others do not agree. I do not agree however, that whites cannot have an equivalent to the United Negro College Fund or any club or organization that excludes others based on their color, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Even in DC we have the Congressional Black Caucus. The day a white, christian male is treated equally with everyone else in this country, will truly be a day to celebrate.

Nothing wrong with sticking -up for your race, the other races do it. I’m sick of ” politically correct ” whites wetting their pants every time someone mentions colored people being offended. What about the 2 black panthers who hovered around a polling place, with clubs ??? If they had come around the polling place I was working at I would have called the Sheriff and the State Police !

There’s worse in the thread. Way worse.

If someone asked me what is it about Wise that makes me so swoony, I’d say—besides his sleepy, brooks-no-bullshit blue eyes, his Southern-gentleman smile, his Baptist-preacher rumbly voice, and his precise facial hair—that he does quite a bit of the heavy lifting on handling whiteness, especially white privilege and racism, so I don’t have to.  To have someone like him on my side in this nastily trippy Mobius strip called Race in America is, frankly, quite endearing to me.

His latest book, Colorblind: The Rise of Post-racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity, is full of win because he succinctly takes apart the Obama Age meme of “post-racial” as well as its progenitor, the ableist term “colorblind(ness),” as the fallback retorts when race—and particularly racism—is discussed and/or called out.

In fact, as I will argue, colorblindness not only fails to remedy discrimination and racial inequity, it can actually make both prob­lems worse. To begin, if the rhetoric of racial transcendence gives the impression—as it does, almost by definition—that the racial injustices of the past are no longer instrumental in determining life chances and outcomes, it will become increasingly likely that per­sons seeing significant racial stratification in society will rational­ize those disparities as owing to some cultural or biological flaw on the part of those at the bottom of the hierarchy. In other words, ra­cial bias would become almost rational once observers of inequity were deprived of the critical social context needed to understand the conditions they observe. Whereas a color-conscious approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of racial inequities and how they’ve been generated, colorblindness encourages placing blame for the conditions of inequity on those who have been the targets of systemic injustice. Ironically, this means that colorblind­ness, often encouraged as the ultimate non-racist mentality, might have the consequence of giving new life to racist thinking.

–From Colorblind: The Rise of Post-racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity

Andrea Plaid: In your book, Colorblind, you explain what it is.  What is the difference between that and “race neutrality” (if there is a difference) and why doesn’t either work, specifically in the POTUS Obama’s case?

Tim Wise: I use them pretty interchangeably here. Basically, my argument is that post-racial colorblindness  fails on two levels: 1) it fails to solve problems that are race-specific and caused by racism and discrimination, and 2) it fails to help build support for broader progressive social policy (contrary to the claim made by its proponents), because even when you put forth “colorblind” policy (like universal health care, more money for schools, a jobs bill, etc), it is perceived by whites as a racial transfer, because of the way social policy has been racialized for 40 years. So whites hear “black people” when you talk about any policy to help the have-nots or have-lessers. Which means that the right is going to use race as a weapon anyway, to push those buttons with whites, and when the president refuses to punch back, even against the most blatant and absurd examples of that racism and race baiting, it emboldens the bullies and makes him appear weak. Obviously, he has to be careful how he engages race, but the evidence I present in the book (which is based mostly on research from the field of social psychology) has found that allowing race to remain sublimated and below the surface actually makes it easier for people to act on subtle biases, because they can do so without ever having to confront the contradictions between who they claim to be (open-minded, non-racist, etc) and who they really are.

AP: If “colorblindness” doesn’t work, then why use it?

TW: Well, I think post racial liberals really believe in it. Post racial liberals acknowledge racial disparities, unlike lots of conservatives, and unlike most white folks, period. And they want to eliminate those disparities. But they really believe that the best way to solve them is with race-neutral, universal programs of economic uplift for all, which they say will disproportionately help folks of color, since folks of color are disproportionately on the bottom of the class ladder. But this misses the fact that folks of color who aren’t poor still face substantial race-based barriers too. It also ignores that one of the reasons we can’t seem to pass big universal programs (like real universal health care or massive investment in the areas that need it most) is precisely because of the racial resentment that leads whites in the public to believe any such effort is just thinly veiled racial redistribution. That’s what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and others have said, for instance, about health care reform or the stimulus: that it was just reparations. And they said this as a way to discredit those things in the eyes of people who would have benefitted from those efforts, but who won’t support them if they can be convinced that it’s some racial redistribution scheme. So unless we tackle the white racial resentment issue, we won’t be able to get the big programs that the post racial liberals believe we need (and which I too think are important, albeit not in a vacuum). But I think they really believe in these efforts: Obama believes the colorblind model works. William Julius Wilson believes it. Jim Sleeper and Richard Kahlenberg believe it. Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed in it. They can’t provide any evidence to demonstrate that it works, but they believe in it.

AP: It seems to me that some on the Left attempt to code “colorblindness” as “class” and are quick to say that “race is a construct.”  Yes, class has a definite place in some conversations about race and racism, but why does the Left employ this so quickly in many of the discussions?

TW: Well, the left tradition is a class based tradition, historically. So Marxists, for reasons of their own, or those whose understanding is informed by Marxism, obviously prioritize class (especially white Marxists). And liberalism, though it is different from Marxism, in huge ways, still has grown out of a tradition that has always looked at society as being divided between haves and have nots, and liberals are on the side of the have nots, in theory. But that tradition developed, remember, in the U.S., in a society of white supremacy. So even as FDR was pushing liberal social and economic policy, we were an apartheid state. Which means American liberalism, early on, was forged around class analysis, while still being subservient to white domination. I think that tradition lives on. We remember the New Deal as this great moment of progressivism, and in some ways it was. But it also excluded blacks from many of the key programs, from Social Security at first, to the FHA loan program, to certain of the jobs programs, and the labor law protections for workers that were part of the New Deal, allowed unions to remain segregated if they wanted to be. All of this was how FDR got it passed: by capitulating to racism and white supremacy. So to try and tackle class injustice without directly addressing race too is to almost always marginalize people of color.

Just because something isn’t real doesn’t mean it won’t cause harm.  It impacts.  Class is also a construct, but it plays out in real ways.  Class politics is seen as ‘more pure’ but we’re always dealing with constructs.  It has to be both class and race, in order to build successful coalitions.

AP: Another way some liberal/Left people scuttle conversations about race and racism is by calling it a form of irrationality, if not downright a form of mental illness, as Alternet did in a post a while back. It’s dismissiveness through ableism.  Why is that?

TW: Racism is irrational from a scientific perspective, but makes perfect sense from a narrow, short-term self-interest perspective. Marxists and Libertarians don’t’ understand that because they think of it in material terms only. So even though I insist white supremacy and privilege are detrimental for all, including whites, in the long run, in the short run, it elevates us over POC considerably. Which means, adhering to racist thinking or cleaving to racist structures that allow for the maintenance of a system that elevates us, makes sense. It pays. In order to trump that short term thinking, we have to redirect the notion of self interest, first to a broader more collective understanding of the concept, but secondly, to an understanding that privilege itself can be detrimental: it can set the privileged up with a mentality of entitlement and expectation, and when that mentality goes unfulfilled, or privileged folks bump up against obstacles, we often lack the coping skills to deal with them. Privilege can keep us from seeing the interconnectedness of the society, economically. So, for instance, when the sub-prime mortgage mess was starting off, 15 years ago in communities of color — and lenders were taking advantage of black and brown poor folks — most Americans and politicians paid no attention. It wasn’t affecting “Main Street” (meaning where white people live), and so it was ignored. So the lenders realized, what the hell, if they’re not going to to regulate our actions (in fact they were being deregulated at that time), we’ll just spread out to the ‘burbs too, and small towns, and rural areas, and make even more money. So now we see the cost: the problem spread and has engulfed the whole economy. Privilege and lack of racial empathy contributed to that mess. So in the long run it is irrational to stick with that system, but in the short run (which is how we’ve been trained to think in this culture) it is frighteningly logical.

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

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

Dr. Laura’s N-word Filled Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jade: But that doesn’t make it right.

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

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

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

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

Come again, Dr. Laura?

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

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

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

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

 

Just aren’t enough cusswords in the English language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twanna Hines says at Huffington Post:

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

Your thoughts?

The Color of Beauty is a documentary film that follows aspiring top model Renee Thompson as she attempts to take on the New York Fashion industry. (A partial script is posted after the jump).

The ultimate conclusions will not be new to regular readers of Racialicious – most fashion houses express an explicit preference for “white faces,” features, and a certain type of frame. However, I wanted to focus in on one particular idea put forth by Justin Peery, fashion photographer:

The girls that are really just being featured in everything, they really have unique features for African-Americans. You know, the very skinny nose, the very elegant faces. They really look like white girls that were painted black. It, that’s beauty, you know, to the industry’s perspective, to agents’ perspective, when they see that, you know, when they see a girl that, that can look different, you know, by a skin pigment, and, and still have great features like that, it’s, it is sellable. You know, when you, when you come in with, you know, big eyes, big nose, big this, whatever, big lips, things that are common traits in African Americans, it doesn’t work. But for those lucky few girls that, like Renée, they have white girl features, and it’s kind of messed up, but that’s just the way the, the industry is.

Peery, later in the documentary, is the photographer that ultimately gives Thompson a shot. But what my mind keeps coming back to is the use of certain types of words.

Like elegant.

It is always fascinating to see code words at work. And the idea of white faces as “elegant” implies that those who do not carry those features cannot have an elegant face. I’d love to see a list of fashion codewords. Readers, what do you think?

10.00.22

Renée I think sometimes it is blatantly racist,it’s disgusting.

10.00.30 No black girls allowed on a lot of the break-downs for castings or things like that. Like, we’re not looking for black girls, we want white girls only, or brunette, white girls.

10.00.45 You’re constantly under this scrutiny that you, of something you can’t do anything about. This is the skin I was given, this is who I look like, this is what I look like, you know…I’m sorry. 10.00.56

10.01.20

Renée Thank-you.

Hey, y’all. Okay, Yeah, I got cards, I just grabbed a whole bunch.

10.01.30

Justin Peery She had the look, you know, she had what I wanted to bring into New York.

This is the hardest market to work in in the world. Once we get her where we need her, then, Yeah, she can easily be making eight, eight grand a day, plus.

10.01.47

Renée My bust is never gonna get any bigger. Nnever… .

Justin Peery Good. 10.01.51

10.02.08

Renée The first thing I want to do is kill Fashion Week. I want to be that girl that, the new girl, the, the, the new phenomena. 10.02.15

10.02.29

Justin Peery The girls that are really just being featured in everything, they really have unique features for African-Americans. You know, the very skinny nose, the very elegant faces. They really look like white girls that were painted black. It, that’s beauty, you know, to the industry’s perspective, to agents’ perspective, when they see that, you know, when they see a girl that, that can look different, you know, by a skin pigment, and, and still have great features like that, it’s, it is sellable. You know, when you, when you come in with, you know, big eyes, big nose, big this, whatever, big lips, things that are common traits in African Americans, it doesn’t work. 10.03.10

10.03.13 But for those lucky few girls that, like Renée, they have white girl features, and it’s kind of messed up, but that’s just the way the, the industry is. 10.03.24
10.03.26

Renée It only takes one big campaign, or that one really big show to propel something for you. So, I think I’m as close to it as I’ve ever been. 10.03.38

Renée The moment of truth.

Man The moment of truth.

Renée Ahhh, is it really it? Oh, my gosh.

Woman Good show.

Renée Fabulous.

Man You wore it.

Renée Okay.

10.03.52
N. Anderson Renée Thompson is amazing, she’s a great girl, ever since she’s been, been with me, she’s been, I’ve been traveling, she’s been to Asia, she’s been to Paris, she’s been to, been, Milan, she’s been to South Africa, she’s, now she’s in New York. I’m proud of her, I think she’s an absolutely incredible model, you know what I mean? And I wish 90% of the models that could be as driven as she is, because they, she does not understand the word “no.” 10.04.12

Justin Peery I’ll touch base with you in about a hour.

Renée Okay. Fab.

Justin Peery Bye.

Renée I got my promise for good luck.

Justin Peery Good, good.
10.04.32

Renée This is what we do. This is what we do, run around like crazy chickens all day, and people staring at you.

Oh, God.

You can tell I’m relentless. I just do it.

10.04.56 I’m given it a 110% more than normally, because I know that the pressure is on, and it’s like, there’s a slim chance for me and I’ve got to grab that slim chance, and I’m gonna really like, wear the highest heels and the shortest skirt and wear the biggest smile and have that crazy bubbly personality, because I want to be remembered, I want them to say, “There’s no way we can’t pick this girl.” 10.05.19
Renée How is it going? Pleasure. Nice seeing you again. So?

Man Nice to see you too. Are you tired?
10.05.28

Renée This is a very prestigious client, one on the show level. They’re one of those people that can really get you that one job that will launch you

Maurillio Carnino So, how old are you again?

Renée Old. I’m 24, I’ll be 25 in August, so, I’m trying to keep my 18, though.

Maurillio Carnino Okay.

Renée As best as I can.

Maurillio Carnino I, I, I, I gave up on trying.

Renée Yeah. Well, you look good, though, don’t let nobody tell you different.

Maurillio Carnino Thank you So, where are you from?

Renée I’m originally from Jamaica, but I lived in Toronto, so I just moved here about a month ago. So, Yeah, now I’m officially a New Yorker.

10.06.08

Maurillio Carnino Renée, I, I saw Renée one time before, and I, what I think about her, she’s definitely very impressive, she was like, you know, this Amazon, super, and incredible fit body. Incredible face, very beautiful face. 10.06.27

So, let’s see your move.

Renée Okay.

Maurillio Carnino Now, why don’t you start over there.

Renée Okay.

Maurillio Carnino Showwise she has a, a terrific walk, she’s lively, it’s like this lively wine[?] on her hips.

10.06.52

Maurillio Carnino It’s like she, she’s, she’s womanly, she’s, so she has like, you know, a kind of woman figure, and at this moment, without being anorexic, but the girls they’re like a little bit more thin. Black models, they tend to be like a little wider the hips, and, and a little bit more like round, and so some time, you know, even though like the face is amazing, she has like a thick problem. 10.07.20

Maurillio Carnino ??? ???.

Renée Great. Thank-you.

10.07.28

Maurillio Carnino Some people say we don’t want the black model, no, I never really heard that, actually sometimes from somebody I hear the opposite, “We need to find the right black model.”

Renée Thank-you. Wish me luck for the shows, huh?

10.07.42

Maurillio Carnino One time one of my clients are like, “No, no, no, no, no, I need a black model, but she has to be a white girl dipped in chocolate.”

10.07.58

Lisa Tant A couple of years ago, you know, when this issue really exploded, the, the runway was just a sea of blond girls, with eyes at the sides of their heads, and very much like the robotic Eastern European type look that was really popular. And show after show, you wouldn’t see anybody other than a white face. 10.08.15

10.08.20

Jeanne Beker There still seems to be this crazy kind of racism, I, I hate to call it that, but a, a, a kind of consciousness in the fashion world that, you know, sometimes you do see, you know, a black girl on the runways, it’s almost out of a tokenism. 10.008.37

10.08.37

Lisa Tant The token black girl, Naomi Campbell, the token Asian girl, and real, really just the same one over and over and over and over again.

10.08.50

Renée The client will say, “I’ve got a really beautiful black girl, she’s very approachable.” “No, we’re not looking for black girls.”

10.08.55

Justin Peery Clients will hire 15 Caucasian models, they have on their roster to hire one or two ethnic models. You know, you do have some designers that will put, you know, “No African American,” you know, so on and so forth. So, that’s why it is so hard for agencies to have ethnic models. They literally have to be flawless, whereas, you know, the 15 white girls, you got three or four in there that are not flawless, you know, but in, in the African American realm, the model has to be perfect. 10.09.26

N. Anderson I don’t like how down here you look a little bit, you know, frumpy.

Model Yeah.

N. Anderson You know, the arms look good, face is not bad, but the hair is just not right.

10.09.37

Renée It’s like the expectations are really high for us, our measurements have to be absolutely perfect, the skin has to be absolutely perfect. 10.09.43

N. Anderson Even if we get only two images out of this entire shoot is fine for me.

Model Two?

N. Anderson I don’t particularly like the hair and most of this… .

10.09.51

N. Anderson Being a, a black person, as well, and, and that own the company, and I will take on a, a, a, a, a white model, and I see their success happen so fast, and you take on a black model, and you know they have the same drive and the same, the same, you, you know, commitment to the industry for themselves, and not getting the, the, the same opportunities really makes, it, it, it, it breaks your heart. 10.10.13

10.10.25

Renée It does get very discouraging, it gets to a point where you feel like you’re constantly justifying your worth and your, what you can contribute to the business. You can only take so much of beating up everyday, and constant rejection, or that fear every time you walk through a casting door that you’re gonna be reminded that, yet again, you’re, you’re a black girl. 10.10.47

10.10.56 Quitting, just to me, seems like you’re, you know, you’re giving into that racist façade, or that you’re giving into saying that’s okay that you think that. It’s not okay, it’s not okay that you think that I’m different or lesser than, it’s not, so I’m gonna stay right here and be a sore in your eye until you recognize what I’m good for. 10.11.16

10.11.29

Renée It’s time to do the show.

We’ve got to make money. Money, money, money must be made tonight. This is the opening night, and we’ve got a lot of important people coming in. We’ve got critic s from Atlanta. So, let’s give them a show. 10.11.45
10.11.56 I have heard that people say blacks don’t move product, or blacks don’t buy our clothes, or, you know, black women are not our demographic. 10.12.08

10.12.13

Dallas Logan Nobody wants to invest their money in a black model to do Gucci, Prada, and Valentino, because they’re black, and black doesn’t sell. Point blank. Money’s green, and white people have the money, white people are gonna buy from white people. 10.12.25

10.12.26

Renée They’re just like always expecting a white girl for major products, they’re always expecting that image, that Barbieish image, you know, to sell something, and that doesn’t all, it’s, it’s, it’s just something that they lean on, it’s a crutch. 10.112.39

10.12.42

Jeanne Beker Well, everyone’s pointing fingers. You know, some people might say it’s the agents are to blame, they’re not scouting these girls, they’re not encouraging them, they’re not signing them. Maybe it’s the designers, you know, right off the bat, maybe designers should insist that, you know, this is my esthetic, and for ad campaigns hire girls that just, you know, can bring a little more diversity to the table. 10.113.02

Dallas Logan Beautiful. Bring your face this way.

10.13.10

Hairstylist I think fashion is five steps behind the real America, behind real Canada, there’s been way more progress in personal and interpersonal relationships between the races and between the cultures than there has in fashion. Fashion’s stuck in 1955, and I don’t know what it’s gonna take to get them to move forward. 10.13.27

Dallas Logan I’m doing 10 shots and we’re done, baby. You ready? Let’s nail it.

10.13.31

Lisa Tant When you look at the emerging markets in the fashion industry, it’s China, Brazil, India. If we keep sending all white models down the runway, that isn’t going to speak to the consumers in those markets. And any designer who continues to do that runs the risk of being irrelevant. 10.13.46

10.13.52

Renée There was this big uprising in the industry about black girls not being on the runways that particular season in Fashion Week in Paris, Milan, New York. There was this black girl boycott for whatever reason, and it became a big, big industry discussion. 10.14.10
10.14.12

Lisa Tant What’s interesting with “Italian Vogue,” the editor there really decided to make a big statement about this. The entire issue, from the cover, all the editorials, featured black models. 10.14.21

10.14.30

Jeanne Beker Is that gonna mean that the nature of the industry is changing, as some people sort of said yes, it would, you know? I knew that it would not mean much, except, you know, yes, it was a nod to black models everywhere, but is it really gonna change the shape of things to come? No, not really. 10.14.46

10.14.48

Renée It’s them saying, let’s prove we’re not really racist, and do this, and then get everyone off our backs. And unfortunately it worked. Nobody’s complaining about it anymore, everyone’s saying, “Well, remember that one black issue we got.” Give me a break. 10.15.00
10.15.13

Renée My worries. I might not fit into the jeans, ‘cause I got a bit of a booty.

Renée These jeans are hot.
Justin Peery Well, they fit you perfect, so.

Renée Ready? Here. Thanks.

Woman You have a killer body, huh?

Renée Thank-you.

Justin Peery And really short legs, huh? Perfect, we’re all done.

Renée Thank-you so much, guys.

Justin Peery You’re awesome, thank-you.

Renée Do I get to keep the jeans?

10.15.47

Renée So, hopefully with some luck, I’ll get the job.

Woman I think she has a job.

Justin Peery I think she has a job, Yeah.

Woman I think she was awesome, so.

Justin Peery Yeah, she looks great in stuff, so she definitely has a job.

Woman Yeah.

10.15.59

Renée It’s a message from Justin, he says, “I dearly loved you, good job.” Fabulous.

10.16.08

Renée I think, I think I’ll make it. I think I have a little bit left in me. I think I’ll make it. I think I’ve been through too much not to make it. I think my making it would mean a lot not just to me but to a lot of other black models who are also still trying to make it, or other girls who are looking around trying to see what beacon of hope do I have. 10.16.31

So, I have been trying to motivate myself to write about the Jesse James – Sandra Bullock saga, but I am just not feeling it.

For those new to the situation, Jesse James is the proprietor of West Coast Choppers, a television personality, and the husband of Sandra Bullock. Fresh off her Oscar win for The Blind Side (yes, this is one big racial cosmic joke), Bullock found out through the tabloids that Jesse James was pulling a Tiger Woods, with mistresses coming out of the woodwork. The twist? Michelle McGee, one of said mistresses (who claims she isn’t racist, which is de rigeur in these situations), is at the very least Nazi tolerant.

According to Gawker:

Michelle ‘Bombshell’ McGee denies being a white supremacist: Her sexy Nazi photo shoot was for fetishists, she says, and the W P tattooed on the backs of her thighs stands not for “white power” but the revolting-in-a-different-way “wet pussy.” She says, “Jesse and I had a conversation about it and he says a lot of his friends have the tattoo.” (Is that an inside joke? That statement could use context, including an updated assessment on McGee’s believability. She has said she’s Amish as well as a third-generation French Canadian. Is that even possible?) Suing for custody of their children, her ex-husband said she had “child block magnets on the refrigerator that spell out ‘White Power’,” and that her older son from a different relationship “is Jewish and she think it’s funny that she makes the Nazi salute.” UPDATE: McGee lists Mein Kampf as a “Favorite Book” on her Facebook page. This lady is totally a Nazi.

Meanwhile, it is revealed that James’ ex-wife went on to marry “an admitted skinhead.” Gawker asks “How many neo-Nazis can you date without being one?”

Jezebel, on the other hand, looks at the US Weekly photo of James in the context of the larger scandal.

Jessica writes:

We finally got what we wanted, didn’t we? I use “wanted” loosely — who wants these terrible things to happen to any woman? — but amidst reportage that James was a “history” buff (particularly Nazi history, I guess), we now have irrefutable confirmation of the rumors that Jesse James struck a “Heil Hitler” pose for a camera. Is there anything more powerful than visual proof? That Us photo, enraging as it may be, would hold up in any court of gossip law. And whether James regularly doffed a SS cap or was simply joking around at some party with the type of folks who find Nazi memorabilia interesting (though Us reports that the photo was taken in his own home while he was still dating Bullock) doesn’t matter. All that matters right now is that he posed for that photo.

Here’s why I am beyond bored with the trajectory of this story:

1. Jesse James is officially a “bad person” – therefore, people are more willing to believe he is racist.
2. When Kate Harding floated the question “What Did Sandra Know About This Nazi Stuff?” the response came so fast and hard that she quickly posted a clarifying follow up…which still derailed into “why are you calling Sandra Bullock a racist?” Because Sandra Bullock is a “good person” so there’s no way she would ever do anything like knowingly date and marry a white supremacist, right?

Kate writes:

All too predictably, loads of people (in Jez comments and elsewhere) are saying shit like, “It’s just one picture” and “We don’t know the context” and “It was obviously just a joke.” To which I would respond:

* How many pictures like that would you need to see to be appalled?
* What context would make it okay?
* What on earth makes it funny?

If all you mean is that it would be unfair and premature to conclude from this photo that Jesse James personally wants to commit genocide, I’ll grant you that. But I am entirely comfortable concluding from this one photo — let alone other recent revelations — that Jesse James is an epic fucking douche, and that racism is a noteworthy element of his douchiness.

That, of course, is what some people get so upset about. Heaven forbid we jump to the conclusion that someone captured on film doing a “humorous” Hitler impression perhaps has some problematic views about race. We’d better wait until we have the whole story before we go off half-cocked and say things we might regret! I mean, for all we know, he might have just been…

What? What would make that picture okay?

Hint: Nothing.

For fuck’s sake, what does a white person have to do around here before a critical mass of other white people are willing to say, “Yep, that’s some racist bullshit”?

This is why these conversations are so depressing.

It’s not so much how many people will engage in racist/white supremacist activities, but how many other people will jump to defend them.

Readers Fatima and Karla both pointed us toward an article that appeared in a student run, conservative paper run by Harvard University students. Sadly, this one doesn’t even pretend to be satirical. Patrick T. Brennan just lets the racism fly:

When the University agrees that its curriculum needs to change to address “the growing diversity of our campus” or any other imaginary concern of its students, it opens itself up to politically motivated efforts like ethnic studies. Tragically, worthwhile academic subjects like Egyptology have also been subsumed into the larger effort of emphasizing diversity and ascribing significance to the insignificant, as demonstrated by Professor Christopher P. Jones’s comments that “Egypt is a major African civilization,” and that “it is very important that Africa should be a part of what everyone thinks about the modern world.”

Egypt is a worthwhile subject not because it is an African civilization, but because it represents an incredibly sophisticated and important ancient civilization that happens to be African—let alone the fact that the Egyptians pharaohs, with the exception of 75 years of Nubian rule, were about as “African” as Ian Smith. Harvard should have an Egyptology department, or at least devote some of its resources to the study of a civilization which has had such profound influence on the world. It need not offer a course on African civilizations if there is none worthy of study. The progressive priorities of Harvard’s curriculum usually do not coincide, however, with the promotion of meaningful areas of study.

He also says:

Americans of color have undoubtedly done some things of note, but their “encounters” and “experiences” are not of paramount importance to a university education. The ethnic studies movement is motivated by an attempt to direct more attention to a topic that deserves no more attention than it already gets, and probably a good deal less. Other similarly useless departments, like Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality serve similar purposes—no one would deny that Macbeth’s wife is an interesting study in the construction of femininity, but such occasional instances of relevance do not justify an entire academic field.

The problem is that studying literature is not better than studying accounting if one is allowed, or even encouraged, to allot as much time to Latin American writers as to Latin ones. The standard work of ethics for nearly two millennia was Cicero’s De Officiis. The world has not changed enough in the past hundred years to justify its replacement with whatever pablum Michael Sandel wants to feed PBS viewers.

This post suffers from a disease characteristic of most lifestyle/entertainment news: two’s a coincidence, three’s a trend.  Blame it on my past as a reporter. It’s an illness not easily cured.

I don’t know what caused it, but white supremacy is back on television! Of course, by “back” I mean white supremacists have returned as villains in several cable dramas, most recently on FX’s new drama Justified, another FX series Sons of Anarchy and in Martin Scorsese’s forthcoming – and extraordinarily expensive – Boardwalk Empire, premiering this fall.

Color me naïve — it’s a color I’ve worn before — but I always thought serious consideration of white supremacy was a no-go for television: it would alienate liberals and minorities and doesn’t win anyone else. But the search for more provocative programming to cut through the TV clutter, along with the general tendency among certain cable networks – the premium channels, along with FX, TNT, AMC, etc. – toward “cutting edge” narratives, has allowed some room for the KKK and their ilk.

It’s not for me to say what can or cannot be filmed or represented. If it exists in society – even if it doesn’t – there’s little reason to ban it in our media. But you do wonder what makes these “bad guys” so appealing to viewers.

Justified’s Supremacists Are Bumpkins!

Justified, the latest in a decade-long string of “renegade anti-hero” dramas on cable which began with The Sopranos, gives us white nationalists who are mostly idiots. The story in the well-rated pilot is simple: Raylan Givens is a US Marshall relocated by the federal government to his home state of Kentucky after shooting, under dubious circumstances, a gangster in Miami. Upon returning home he meets some old enemies, mostly a band of neo-Nazis. Their leader, Boyd Crowder, is the most sophisticated of the band of rebels, smart enough to nearly catch our hero in an impromptu duel (Justified is a neo-western).

We doubt whether Boyd Crowder is a true believer, despite the swastikas adorning his lair and his body. Our hero Raylan (Timothy Olyphant) has us question his motives: maybe he’s just a guy who likes to shoot people and blow things up! Has our hate-mongering leader assembled a ragtag group of unemployed losers just so he has an excuse to create mayhem in eastern Kentucky? We don’t know yet.

Certainly Boyd doesn’t stir us as he recites a biased reading of the Bible (you’ve heard it before: the Edomites are the descendants of Cain and they’re evil). He delivers the ideology with a subdued assurance, more like he’s reciting talking points than preaching the gospel. True believers, though, often speak in talking points. Raylan quickly points out the falsehoods in Boyd’s “reading” of the Bible and dismisses his neo-Nazism as a boyish love for trouble. But will this be the end of it?

There’s something a bit too sexy about Boyd. He’s like Heath Ledger’s Joker, undeniably evil, unpredictable, morally bankrupt, and yet alluring in his passion and ideological rigidity. As bad as he’s supposed to be, he is a renegade like our hero, which is a very dangerous, though dramatic, narrative to follow.

Sons of Anarchy’s Supremacists Are Powerful!

Sons of Anarchy, FX’s other critically acclaimed and well-rated drama, follows the local politics and personal dramas of a gang of motorcyclists in northern California, who traffic in weapons and porn (no wonder the show is popular), but also stand for principles: justice, fairness, community, etc.

Season two focused on the powerful League Of American Nationalists, headed by a shadowy businessman named Ethan Zobelle. Unlike Justified’s country bumpkins, Sons of Anarchy envisioned a scarier white nationalism, one connected at all levels of government, rich and devious. Zobelle is looking to play an interesting game of racial warfare in California. He pits the various ethnic gangs against each other and looks to break down the mostly white, but nonetheless integrated, Sons of Anarchy through various schemes.

Unambiguously Zobelle is a bad guy, and his goons are portrayed as angry and misguided. But not completely. Wanting narrative complexity, Sons creator Kurt Sutter gives both Zobelle and his top man AJ Weston (played by uber-gay-friendly Henry Rollins) children to care for. Most interestingly, Zobelle is always a highly intelligent man. He speaks volubly about the need for America to stay true to itself and not let outside interests take hold. This is where the show enters murky waters, which are dramatically interesting and well-written, but nonetheless disconcerting.

I wonder how many of Sons of Anarchy’s viewers – I presume a large audience of white, older straight men, given the show’s focus – are subtly seduced by Zobelle’s commitment to “American” purity, his cunning and business saavy, his churchgoing lifestyle, fancy cigar shop, and, yes, even his gorgeous daughter. He has a life many American men would want. That he’s peddling drugs and guns is irrelevant – we all know from The Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad and numerous other shows that criminals often make the most relatable and interesting characters. Zobelle is so charming he’s even hard for me to hate.

Sons of Anarchy gave white supremacy a sheen of respectability and upward mobility. It’s a fascinating dramatic choice and made for solid, unsettling storytelling, but I wonder if every fan has the critical distance to see beneath the surface.

Representation: I’m Not the Police!

Will the search for ratings and headline-grabbing series motifs eventually lead to a show about a neo-Nazi group? It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds. As mentioned, cable is already having success with shows about immoral people and groups. Television is a tough market, and novelty is hard to come by.

As I said earlier, I have little interest in policing what should or should not be shown on television. I believe we create the media as much as, or more than, the media creates us. No program is going to change a significant number of people into white supremacists. Haters will hate with or without representation — research from online gaming to YouTube has shown this.

I think what I’m so fascinated by is a very public and sustained engagement with America’s dirty secret, something we ignore, hoping it will go away, something we’d rather not acknowledge for fear it be seen as “legitimate” and catch on again (or more). It doesn’t need to be said that during a time when the first black president’s lowest approval ratings are among white voters (which, for complex reasons to be sure, have been as low as 39%), and when he’s the most polarized first-year president in polling history, it does make minority TV viewers slightly more sensitive to these kinds of representations. (I’m not even going into the Tea Partiers; it’s been over-discussed).

So far, I do think FX has displayed the kind of artistry and sensitivity necessary to deflect criticism. I can only expect the same from HBO. But who knows how people read television? Decades of research, from Fiske, Hartley and Jenkins and beyond, cannot fully predict what import this particular moment holds. I’m not going to speculate on “effects.” I’m just going to sit back and take in how interesting it all is.

PS – Have I missed any recent series with recurring and extended narratives on white supremacy? There’s only so much TV I can watch! Crowdsource!

–

Photo from HBO’s Boardwalk Empire (dir. Martin Scorsese; writer: Terence Winter, Sopranos alum)

Sweet River Baines

klong | MySpace Video

Just before MLK Day, a jabrone by the name of Don “Moose” Lewis announced his intention to organize the All-American Basketball Alliance: a new hoops league open only to U.S.-born white people – you know, American natives, but not Native Americans.

As a rule, any “announcement” by self-avowed boxing and pro-wrestling promoters should be taken with not just a grain, but a whole mine’s worth of salt. Nevertheless, even for (former?) hucksters, this stunt is pretty low.

Nothing personal, says Commissioner Moose; it’s just that Those Darn POC have corrupted the game, as he told the Augusta Chronicle:

“There’s nothing hatred about what we’re doing,” he said. “I don’t hate anyone of color. But people of white, American-born citizens are in the minority now. Here’s a league for white players to play fundamental basketball, which they like.”

Damn you, Sweet River Baines, what hath you wrought? Also, while Grayson Boucher would technically be eligible to play in the Tea PartyAABA, as he is a “… natural born United States citizen with both parents of Caucasian race,” odds are he wouldn’t be welcome. Why, just look at him – playing alongside those black dudes like they’re people!

On a cynical level, Lewis’ plan for fetching $10,000 “licensee” fees makes some sense: how many times have you heard or overheard some older white guy, professing to be a basketball fan, lamenting that “all those guys don’t even have to jump to dunk anymore,” or complaining about how those guys who dress like Allen Iverson or behave like the pre-Laker Ron Artest are the norm (and while we’re at it, thanks for nothing, Gil and Javaris). This is the audience that Lewis at least claims to be playing to, as he told The Chronicle: “Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch?” he said. “That’s the culture today, and in a free country we should have the right to move ourselves in a better direction.”

Most of the online editorial response so far has been justifiable mockery for this naked attempt at a race-baiting, mockery of sport in the name of concern-trolling. And Augusta mayor Deke Copenhaver told The Chronicle he wouldn’t want this “league” in his town. But, as on seemingly any newspaper’s site, the comments section reminds us there’s a whole other constituency out there:

“Copenhaver is a wimp and pityful excuse for a leader,so who cares what he will support. Anything that is exclusively white has to be racist doesn’t it. Liberals can’t make it on thier own.”

“As many of you know we have the NAACP, No whites, We have the United Negro College Fund, no whites, We have Miss Black America, no whites, We have Quanza, no whites, so now when someone describes the new league for Whites, everyone calls this person a racist!!!! …”

“Why is this racism? Isn’t there an NAACP? Aren’t there all black colleges? What about the Miss Black America contest? What about the United Negro College Fund? Are these not racist organizations? It’s funny that every time there is mention of something all white or that whites dare say they are proud of their heritage, it’s racism …”

“Isn’t this the same thing as BETV (sic) Black Entertainment TV?”

There’s no indication the AABA is going to fly – but I just hope this doesn’t lead to similarly despicable interests rearing their heads on our playing fields.