I found this article on alternet a week ago and posted it on feminist but ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
i_dreamed_i_was suggested I post it here too. Many Westerns Are Adopting Children Bought or Stolen from their Parents
I raises some intense questions for me: How do we stop the myth that adoption is a selfless act of child saving? How do we create a structure for adoptions that serves the needs of childless people in a way that isn't exploitive...is that possible? What would that structure look like?
( full text of article under the cut )
Something I've been meaning to ask, and it just came up again in response to a discussion of the apparent rioting in Oakland. Backstory here and here.
Setting aside the white hipster/anarchist element here...
It seems to me that, in general, oppressed people riot when they feel they have nothing left to lose and privileged people riot to show how much sh!t they can get away with. Which is why you usually see oppressed people riot when they've been further disenfranchised by the powers that be and privileged people are more likely to riot (though it's usually not called a riot, and it's not as escalated by police) when their sports team wins, etc., like rock stars trashing a hotel room.
Is there any truth to this hypothesis? Historians?
I know it's been slow around here and there are more urgent things to discuss, but I just had to share this:
Real words, and what ends up in the dictionary
A nice reference for discussions of vernacular and What the Almighty Dictionary Says.
Some highlights:
TNC: If a word isn't in the OED, does that mean it isn't actually a word?
JS: No, not all. No dictionary can include all words. The OED can only cover a small fraction of all the words out there. There's nothing official about the OED or any other dictionary out there. People sometimes think that it is, or pretend that it is.
...
Our goal is to include things that are in widespread use. We don't care about things like whether they are acceptable, ungrammatical, or offensive. There are times when we have many, many words for the same concept. People say, "We don't need conversate, we have converse." Well then, we don't need hip because we have cool. We don't need illness because we have malady.
TNC: Will conversate be included after the next revision of the OED?
JS: It's very likely to go in.
I'm really not trying to be lazy here, but my Googling skills seem to be on the fritz.
Is there a reliable source for religious affiliations by race? That is, X% of such-and-so-race people identify as Christian, Y% as atheist, Z% as Jewish, etc.
I can find a fair bit of info on what percentage of Christians (including denomination breakdowns), Jews, Muslims, are black, white, etc., but not the other way around. At least, not easily.
The info I am looking for is US-centric, but if you have non-US data, I (and, I'm sure, other community members) would love to see a link to that, too.
Overheard in DC:
White Woman #1: OMG OBAMA ETC ETC!!!!! SQUEEEEEEEEEE CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!?!?! A BLACK PRESIDENT ETC!!!
White Woman #2: I heard there were tons of people out on U Street*! Don't you guys live right there? Did you go out and celebrate?
White Woman #1: Not really...
White Woman #2: Why not?
White Woman #1: Well, you know... It seemed kinda dangerous... A lot of people came up from... 14th Street and stuff... You know, like... It was kinda ghetto...
*Historically black area being quickly gentrified by white yuppie-hippie types (but still, by my observations, more or less half POC).
...but this sure feels sweet.
Has anyone seen Tropic Thuder??
what do you think of it?
On this Friday's episode of Dr. Phil, they're having:
"The N-Word Debate"
This two-syllable expression is arguably the most divisive word in society. Dr. Phil tackles this touchy topic with help from a panel of outspoken luminaries: civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton; legendary comedian and writer Paul Mooney; CSI actor and author Hill Harper; comedian Sheryl Underwood and conservative radio talk show host Michael Graham. First, is there a double standard that allows African-Americans to use this sensitive word, while non-blacks are forbidden? The debate heats up when Rachel, a white guest, says she calls her husband the N-word all the time. Then, should hip-hop artists be censored or fined for using the N-word in their songs? Becky says rappers promote negative stereotypes with their lyrics, but find out who Rev. Al Sharpton thinks should face the music. Plus, does tone or intent make a difference when using the N-word? See what Dr. Phil thinks.
I may have to actually sit down and watch his show on purpose for once.
x-posted to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
ap_racism and debunkingwhite
Vogue’s Fashion Photos Spark Debate in India
The New York Times
September 1, 2008
By HEATHER TIMMONS
NEW DELHI — An old woman missing her upper front teeth holds a child in rumpled clothes — who is wearing a Fendi bib (retail price, about $100).
A family of three squeezes onto a motorbike for their daily commute, the mother riding without a helmet and sidesaddle in the traditional Indian way — except that she has a Hermès Birkin bag (usually more than $10,000, if you can find one) prominently displayed on her wrist.
Elsewhere, a toothless barefoot man holds a Burberry umbrella (about $200).
Welcome to the new India — at least as Vogue sees it.
( More on Vogue India )
I feel like this brings up a lot of issues re: colonialism and its internalization, and on the other hand, the differing perspectives/motivations of POC WRT these kinds of problematic images vs. those of white folks. But one of the things that really stands out to me is the idea of the poor being made to identify with the rich via a sort of aspirational consumerism, and how damaging that is.
Thoughts?
Please forward widely, especially to those you know in Mississippi!!!!!
X-posted widelyFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, August 22, 2008
TO: Editor/News Director
Contact: Patricia Ice—office 601-354-9355
Bill Chandler—office 601-968-5182
JACKSON, MS—A series of preparations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the Gulf Coast has local advocates on edge about the possibility of yet another worksite raid, and yet another devastating blow to businesses, families and communities in the name of immigration enforcement.
“The preparations we are seeing ICE make are alarmingly similar to what occurred immediately prior to the raid on the Agriprocessors, Inc. Kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, a few months ago, “ said Patricia Ice, an immigration attorney and spokesperson for MIRA. ICE has reportedly booked dozens of rooms in hotels on the Gulf Coast. They may be checking in as early as tonight.
Perhaps even more worrisome are the reports that the federal court in Hattiesburg is being readied for a response similar to the response to the raid in Postville, when nearly 400 plant workers were arrested on trumped up identity theft charges, and slammed through criminal prosecution and judicial removal (being forced to waive all their criminal defense and immigration claims) within just days of the raid. “What happened in Postville was an absolute travesty of justice that must never happen again,” said Ms. Ice. “ICE must assure that any future enforcement actions are conducted in a humane manner and that detainees are permitted their constitutional rights to due process and to legal counsel.”
With all the signs pointing to an impending raid, Ms Ice, other staff and local leaders are working quickly to identify possible targets, educate workers and assemble a team of attorneys to offset the burden on public defenders and provide immigration advice.
The Plight of Mixed-Race Children
By Steven D. Levitt
What’s it like to grow up with one parent who is black and another who is white?
In a recent paper I co-authored with Roland Fryer, Lisa Kahn, and Jorg Spenkuch, we look at data to try to answer that question. Here is what we find:
1) Mixed-race kids grow up in households that are similar along many dimensions to those in which black children grow up: similar incomes, the father is much less likely to be around than in white households, etc.
2) In terms of academic performance, mixed-race kids fall in between blacks and whites.
3) Mixed-race kids do have one advantage over white and black kids: the mixed-race kids are much more attractive on average.
The really interesting result, though, is the next one.
4) There are some bad adolescent behaviors that whites do more than blacks (like drinking and smoking), and there are other bad adolescent behaviors that blacks do more than whites (watching TV, fighting, getting sexually transmitted diseases). Mixed-race kids manage to be as bad as whites on the white behaviors and as bad as blacks on the black behaviors. Mixed-race kids act out in almost every way measured in the data set.
We try to use economic theory to explain this set of facts. I can’t say we are entirely successful. If we had to pick an explanation that best fits the facts, it would be the old sociology model of mixed-race individuals as the “marginal man”: not part of either racial group and therefore torn by inner conflict. One reason this model is largely consistent with our facts is because it makes so few strong predictions that it is hard to falsify, which isn’t really fair to the competing models.
---
It's like one of those "how many things are wrong with this picture" comics in the Sunday paper. Can we get to 100? Who would like to start?
While Jon Justice continues to enjoy full privileges as a radio host after posting mock sexual assault videos in which he made racist comments about Latinas and immigrants while assaulting a piñata with public defender Isabel Garcia’s face pasted to it (see my original post for more), his efforts to have Garcia dismissed from her job as a public defender in Arizona have gone forward. Garcia is currently under investigation by the AZ state bar for participating in a protest against a book signing for a book that supports active discrimination against immigrants and subversion of their rights. “Justice” and others, have misrepresented the events to say that Garcia’s “toting of a severed piñata head of a police officer” constitutes violation of the bar’s code of conduct. Garcia was actually picking up the head after protesters split the piñata open in traditional form. She and others actively protested the incitement of anti-immigrant sentiment and abuse of immigrants and the Latin@ community in AZ which they felt were being exacerbated by the event and the author. Should the review board decide that Garcia is guilty of violating codes of conduct, she could lose her license to practice law in the state of Arizona and would also lose her job as a public defender.
Garcia is a decorated Human Rights Activist and strong advocate for immigrants in the judicial. She is the only US based activist to win an HR award from the Mexican government. She has spoken out against conditions in both the US and Mexico that are causing what is essentially economic forced migration and exploitation. She actively takes cases in Arizona involving immigrants whose rights may be in jeopardy or who may not know what their rights are. If she loses her job, Arizona will lose an important legal advocate for immigrants rights and immigrants will lose an ally at a time when they need her most.
The message that a decision against Garcia sends, while Jon Justice continues to be on the air, is ultimately detrimental to everyone. What it says about the rights of brown people in Arizona and brown women in particular is clear: racism and sexism are not only irrelevant in Arizona they are supported by the state. No one benefits from living in a state where this is how outsiders and insiders alike view the legal apparatus. John Justice can simulate sexual assault on two separate occasions while making derogatory comments about Latinas, immigrants, and Chican@ culture, post them on his workplace website, and defend his actions through his workplace - radio show and workplace owned blog without consequence. Garcia loses her license and her job for participating in a protest and picking up the remains of a piñata.
The conflict has already encouraged hate groups to target woc bloggers defending Garcia as well as to circulate her picture on their sites. (you can do a google image search for evidence as I am not linking to them.) This targeting makes it clear that John’s behavior encouraged listeners to lash out against both Garcia herself and women of color in general and that is part of the social definition of hate speech.
Anyone who is concerned about sexual violence, racism, and/or the place where these two things intersects needs to take action to support women’s rights in Arizona. You can make your voice heard by joining the write in campaign I mentioned in the previous post AND by doing the following:
From Brownfemipower:
VIDEO: Isabel Garcia recently pissed off local nativists because of the work she is doing. I am purposefully not going into any detail about the work she does, because I don’t want anybody to think that this clip is vile and disgusting because the woman does amazing work. I want people to see this for what it is–a white man feeling like he can control, humiliate, and imply sexual violence against a brown woman–all while be recorded for public broadcast. It’s about a white man controlling a woman who pissed him off, by mocking her race, by implying sexual control over her through the use of racist imagery and language.
She is being attacked, mocked, ridiculed, and sexually humiliated because she is brown and she is a woman.
Click here to find out how you can stand up to sexual violence on public airwaves. If you want to know more about Isabel Garcia and the amazing work she does, see the previous link and click here.
More by WOC Phd:
The connection between sexual exploitation, assault, and immigration policy is well documented. Arizona, like other border states, has “rape trees” where women’s under garments are strewn across branches presumably as a sign of the price they paid to cross the border (while some have claimed these trees, which appeared shortly after the minute men, are propaganda for the conservatives, the existence of rape on the border by all sides is well documented, including a case against Border Patrol in TX and ongoing complaints of sexual assault in detention). And stories of assault and degradation surface regularly with ever new ICE raid. It is clear there is a mentality in border towns that rivals that of the neo-nazi inspired anti-immigration beatings in Russia. They too put their videos out on the internet. And they too believe it is an important part of checking any citizen or government inspired policies supporting immigrants’ rights and inculcating a growing culture of hate. And while Jon Justice may have physically assaulted no one, his actions not only resonate with the stories of those who have but could, in the wrong hands, incite such behavior. [...]
Hi everyone, you might remember I posted last month about wanting to start a community for South Asian feminism and women's issues.
It's called southasianwomen, and it's open for business!
I actually need to find someone to help or take over moderation of the community because I absolutely do not have the time to dedicate to moderating an online comm. If you're interested, please don't hesitate to ask (by PM, in the comm, or in comments here). I'm especially interested in sharing moderation with women who live in South Asia, or know about feminisms from parts of South Asia other than India.
Membership is moderated at the moment, but I'm letting pretty much everyone who seems legit in. If I've seen you around any of these comms before, you'll almost definitely be approved!
So join up and start posting, ladies!
I admit I was wary at first because I was afraid (although I don't know why) that he might say "saying racist thing X doesn't make person Y a racist," but no.
Thoughts and/or fangirl/boying are welcome.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp
Obama Camp Hammers New 'Ironic' New Yorker Cover Depicting Conspiracists' Nightmare of Real Obamas
July 13, 2008 5:46 PM
The sophisticates at The New Yorker have come up with a cover that is sure to get the magazine a lot of attention. Negative attention. From their friends.
An illustration by Barry Blitt depicts Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his wife Michelle in the Oval Office, revealing their "true" selves: Michelle is in full revolutionary garb, an enormous afro making her look like a millennial Angela Davis, holding an automatic weapon and wearing military pants.
In the cartoon Michelle is giving dap, or fist-bumping, with her husband who is wearing a turban and is dressed in garb perhaps more appropriate for a madrassa in Lahore than the Oval Office.
A painting of Osama bin Laden hangs above the fireplace, where the American flag is being burned.
ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports that when he was asked about the controversial cover during a press avail today, Obama shrugged and then said, "I have no response to that."
His campaign had a response later in the day on Sunday.
Said Obama spox Bill Burton: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
Knowing the liberal politics of the magazine, I believe the magazine's staff when they say the illustration is meant ironically, as a parody of the caricature some conservatives (and some supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.) are painting of the Obamas.
But it's still fairly incendiary, at least as these things go. I wonder what the reaction would be were it the Weekly Standard or the National Review putting such an illustration on their covers.
Intent factors into these matters, of course, but no Upper East Side liberal -- no matter how superior they feel their intellect is -- should assume that just because they're mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing.
"This is as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish," says a high-profile Obama supporter, "and I suspect that other Obama supporters like me are also thinking about not subscribing to or buying a magazine that trafficks in such trash."
But I would assume over at the Conde Nast building, they think it's droll.
I cannot imagine there aren't some angry, angry people in Chicago right now wondering if they should ever even talk to the New Yorker again.
---------
Okay, can we have a little discussion about irony, here? And, as someone in this comm so eloquently put it, exactly what is so "ironic" about white people being racist?
With a hattip to digital_femme...
Mexican Comic Book Sold at Wal-Mart Called 'Racist' by Some
I have been thinking a bit about black vs. Native positionality in the US vs. Mexico, and I wanted to open the floor up to those who surely have more education on the subject. For all the implication that Mexicans are somehow "more racist" for the kinds of things displayed above*, I am wondering if a lot of the "difference" is attributable to the fact that to some extent black folk and Native folk occupy different/complementary positions in the society across the border. That is, due to history, political power and population size, among other things, it would seem that attitudes toward black folk in Mexico are roughly comparable (in some respects only, of course**) to those displayed toward Native folk in the US. And vice versa.
Does this hold any water in your opinion or experience? How so? Resources? Links? Ideas?
From those with whom I've discussed the subject, Native people in Mexico seem to occupy some of the same marginalized/criminalized space as black Americans, and black folk seen as more exotic or "expendable"/erasable, a tiny minority, etc. In the US, certainly racism acts somewhat differently WRT each group, with the origins based largely in whether is more beneficial for the group to be dead so you can take their land, or living so that you can exploit their labor. I'm wondering if any of this is at all analogous to the origins of racist attitudes in Mexico.
*More likely it is more attractive to pawn off "the worst racism" on perceived POC for reasons of... racism.
**Obviously Native folks are still the original occupants/owners of the land in any case.
Here's something I've been wanting to talk about/ask about for a while, and I figured this was a choice group for the asking.
What do you do when your child, other relative, self, charge, et al. is complimented for being bi/multiracial? Particularly (as it seems most common) for being beautiful?
When I was growing up (white, no siblings until I was 10), my cousins, my primary peers, were all biracial. Their looks (especially those of my female cousin) were, not surprisingly, constantly remarked upon. While I think my (white) aunts were decent about addressing issues of racism, assumptions that they were adopted, etc., I have to say that they didn't particularly discourage the belief that the kids were attractive because they were "mixed."
My (Filipino American) husband and I are planning on having kids in the next couple of years, so this has been weighing on my mind. Of course our kids will be gorgeous, just being our kids. :P For that and reasons of exotification, there is no doubt in my mind that they will be on the receiving end of "compliments" for their looks, unsolicited musings on "hybrid vigor," etc.
I don't want to make the child feel as if he or (especially) she is *not* attractive. Of course, I'm not interested in emphasizing the importance of looks in general to my children, especially any girls. But I don't want that assumption-- that he/she is attractive because of his/her "mixedness"-- to remain unchallenged. The only responses I can think of are contradictory... Either, "Yes, she takes after her father" or "You are beautiful because of who you are, not who your parents are."
The second sounds a bit colorblind, but I know I am going to have to start early and need age-appropriate responses for toddlerhood on. The first is more to the point of Fil-Am pride, but I don't know if it cuts to the heart of it, or what... In case it's not clear, my problem with this exotification lies primarily in the idea that being "part-white" is considered a step up, and if a child is not "part-white" at all, then the compliment is often for being "less-black" or at least less threatening as a "full-blooded" [insert ethnicity]. That's not something I'm trying to teach my children to celebrate, theoretical though they may be at this point. I am also not interested in overly emphasizing the idea that they are "better" or even just "special" for being some sort of "bridge between cultures." I have witnessed (and in a small way, been a part of*) the fact that while this can confer some "advantages," being "mixed" has many of its own drawbacks as well. (I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about how marrying Michelle Obama gave Barack Obama a greater sense of rootedness in black communities, etc.)
Thoughts? Suggestions? Personal experiences?
*My father is Jewish and my mother comes from a very different Southern, mostly Anglo background, and I was often held up by her family (among others) as some sort of "chosen one" because of my connection to "God's people," served as a kind of translator, etc., but was never as connected as I could be to my Jewishness blah blah blah tragic.
Unfortunately, I couldn't get the video to embed, so here's the link:
Ernest Madu: Bringing world-class health care to the poorest
Add Ernest Madu to the chorus of voices saying that the West needs to quit it with the patronizing charity, Live 8 concerts and footage of starving kids.
From The Daily Texan:
A study based on random samples of brochures and advertisements from hundreds of colleges found that some had cut and pasted faces of minority students onto the bodies of white students to depict a higher level of diversity.
The study, conducted by Minnesota sociology professor Timothy Pippert, shows what he describes as a misrepresentation of campus diversity.
Pippert's study, based on a random sampling of material from 371 U.S. colleges and universities, shows the accuracy of racial representation based on actual average percentage break-downs of the schools.
"We're not saying that the colleges are doing this with malicious intent. There is value in campuses saying that people with different backgrounds are welcome here," Pippert said.
Navigate: (Previous 20 Entries)
