i want to talk about "good" racism/stereotyping, like, in the quote: "Racism works in convoluted ways. The employers who thought they were complimenting Black people by stating their preference for them over whites were arguing, in reality, that menial servants-- slaves to be frank-- were what Black people were destined to be. Another employer described her cook as '... very industrious and careful-- painstaking. She is a good, faithful creature, and very grateful.' Of course, the 'good' servant is always faithful, trustworthy and grateful. U. S. literature and the popular media in this country furnish numerous stereotypes of the Black woman as faithful, enduring servant... Thus the one woman interviewed by Eaton who did prefer white servants confessed that she actually employed Black people '... because they look more like servants.' The tautological definition of Black people as servants is indeed one of the essential props of racist ideology."
why is it still so common to think things like that are okay? to not even secondguess stereotypes in any form?
lots of references to white people's blindness on racism. any thoughts on that?
i like her tying in of capitalism as an oppresive system. thoughts on solving things by their symptoms rather than their roots?
there's the line that stanton wrote, about her mistrust of the vote of black men, because "degraded, oppressed, himself, he would be still more despotic," which is surrounded by lots of racist claims, but as a worry, what do you think? do you think that once a certain oppressed group gains power, they are necessarily going to try and stomp other oppressed groups? is that a capitalist thing? is this relevent to the discussion or just something i'm mulling about? are you reading this? what do you think the root is, and do you think women were in equal danger of doing the same thing stanton was afraid black men would do?
oh, the franchise as panacea for all things.
"Frederick Douglass remains the foremost male proponent of women's emancipation of the entire nineteenth century." t or f. thoughts? why do you think he was, if t?
i'm really interested in the whole, "we'll get to your oppression after we've finished fixing ours" thing, which i've seen happen in so many different types of situations.
then there's the way that white folks had such a hard time even recognizing black folks as people... and also men thinking of women as weaker human beings who needed to be protected by oppression. and so i'm wondering what it is in people that makes them want to oppress so badly-- fear... or what?
then there's the "heroism of white women" aspect of this chapter. after a chapter on black women's strength in slavery, it's disconcerting, though maybe it's just me. obviously, white women had more power in women's rights and also race issues, so they would have done more because of that, but it's still interesting that it's like, "black women were beaten and their lives sucked, but these white women were great!" maybe i'm just sketched out by any kind of saviour figure idea...
just finished the first chapter, and want to start posting, though i'm not absolutely sure what all to say.
things that interest me are:
if there are more comprehensive female slave histories than at the time this was written, and what people know about them.
the implications of white folks reading them.
sexual equality is presented as a yucky thing, because it's only referred to in terms of the slave experience, but then the very last line is about female slaves passing on a legacy of strength, which includes an insistence on sexual equality. so i'm wondering how those things work together and... yeah...
it's been a long time since i've critically analyzed a book, and i'm just now remembering how hard it was for me to think of discussion topics in college... but maybe someone has some thoughts about this stuff??
so unless anyone objects (and feel free to do so), this is my unofficial official announcement of women, race, and class by angela davis as our book for september, and we'll start discussion on september 5.
well, everyone who voted voted for women, race, and class by angela davis. would anyone be viciously opposed to that book?
big apologies for taking so long to post about this. i was out of commission for a few days and my computer continues to be. i was thinking we could start discussing on sept. 5, to give people a little bit of time to find the book?
first, i'd like to get a book decided on by the end of the week so that people could scrounge it up in time for september.
second, sprkid and i have been talking about the gender/sex makeup of the group and wondering if it's a problem and how to "fix" it, if it is. i'm one of the only boys here (i actually may be the only one??), and i wasn't even born one, so... i'd personally like to have some more boys in the group for their sake and for the group as a whole. blah blah blah. any other (clearer) thoughts on this, or suggestions as to where to "advertise" the group? i don't know the race or class makeup of the community, or if that's something we want to address. i'm just used to mostly dialogues between white college-educated females, and i'd like to move away from that, if possible.
third, about the books-- maybe we should start with something other than a biography in order to have a "background" for discussing those books. i think i've changed my stance from "something easy first so people will read!!!" to "something with theory first so that people will have that to work with when/if we look at bios and novels." questions, comments, concerns??
in a comment someone joked that getting us all to decide on something might be like hearding cats into a bag, but the problem is that i'm the catherd and also one of the cats.