the state of public discourse

As an educator, I am constantly overwhelmed by how little my students (in college courses) know about history and how much they want to believe we live in a colorblind world. These two are related - the lack of knowledge about history, or the watered-down version of history they learn in high school and college, feeds the belief in colorblindness and the idea that everyone is equal now. Many of them seem to believe there is no such thing as racism or sexism - and even when I provide examples and talk about these as systems of oppression, they are still unable to discuss these issues in any critical way. I am mystified at how much they don't know and how resistant they are to new or progressive ways of thinking. But then I read mainstream news headlines and reports, and I think about the state of public discourse. There is such a lack of critical engagement in most public discourse, especially mainstream news. Thankfully, there are alternatives, like Democracy Now, Left Turn Magazine, Inter Press Service, and others. But often we have to seek out alternative news media, whose perspectives are deemed by the mainstream as "too radical" which keeps certain voices on the margin. Mainstream has become really conservative, so much so it now the norm. 

Most mainstream news outlets, and by extension much of public discourse, lack the language and tools to discuss issues around race, gender, class, and sexuality. It is amazing the gap that exists between academic discourse and public discourse. The language/embrace of multiculturalism, diversity, and colorblindness seems to trump so much of the work done in the humanities, social sciences, and alternative news media that exposes various systems of oppression and reveals how they operate. The moment of political correctness and belief in post-race, post-feminism, just-work-hard-and-you-will-make-it, everyone is equal has completely disrupted our abilities to talk about identity politics and social justice. It is no wonder my students can't talk about race, much less gender, class, and sexuality, and forget global and sexual politics or feminism and feminisms.

If we do talk about race, especially if one is a person of color, we are "playing the race card"; if we talk about gender and sexism, its because women are being overly sensitive; and when white people are asked to think about white privilege, they look confused. This leads to the ridiculous notion of equal opportunity racism and how anyone/everyone can be "a racist" -- this undermines real discussions about racism as systematic and prevents conversations about class and gender dynamics that complicate race. There is no public language to discuss racism and sexism as systematic, but rather people obsess over individual prejudices; there is no public language to really dialogue about racial, class, and gender oppression or privilege; there is no public language to expose interlocking systems of oppression. This is why people of color have been assaulted lately, from attacks on Sonia Sotomayor and President Obama to outright smear campaigns on community organizations like ACORN. This is why we are fearful of the "R" word.

We live in a moment of intense belief in "my opinion"; a moment where dichotomous logic in terms of politics reigns supreme in most news media, in which debate means representing two opposing points with no clear analysis of either side; a moment where there are just two sides (yes/no, for/against) to any & every debate. How did we come to this? When did we loose a grasp of multiple sides, critical analysis, support for one's point of view, evidence to support one's argument that is biased? What happened to the U.S. news media and mainstream journalists who called upon/relied on scholars, researchers, and organizers to clarify and complicate issues of concern from multiple perspectives -- not just two very biased and polar opposite sides that seem to only incite further controversy as opposed to real integrity-driven debate?

The state of public discourse is scary, and speaks to how difficult it is to have real public dialogue and critical reflection. It doesn't help that the first African American President of the United States refuses to really talk about race or admit the extent to which his race affects how people in this country see him. In fact, it makes our jobs as educators, community and intellectual workers, writers, artists, activists, and so on even harder. His presidency is continuously held up as the sign of a "post-racial" america. Thankfully, there are still some journalists who are willing to take the risk and talk critically about race. Recently, Democracy Now covered the issue of President Obama and race when talking with journalist Naomi Klein. Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein discuss Klein's article in Harper's Magazine where she talks about the various ways in which President Obama has avoided dealing with race during his presidency. She connects the Obama Administration's decision to not attend the UN Durban Review Conference on Racism this past April with other big silences concerning race. A shorter version of Klein's article is available online through The Guardian.

The show and article reminded me of how many disappointments we've seen these past few months with President Obama: from not attending the UN Conference on racism to his troubling response to Former President Carter's assertion that racism remains an issue and concern in this country. Carter astutely and clearly stated the obvious -- that the health care "debates" and attacks on President Obama are rooted in racism. This could have been a perfect opportunity for Obama to engage in a conversation about race; it could have been a beautiful moment of critical reflection, and what better person to do it with than someone who is well-respected, a former U.S. President, and active in human rights issues! But alas, no... instead Obama "disagrees" with Carter - in what I see as a very dangerous move. He could have simply said that Carter was entitled to his opinion (which would have been fine, since we live in "opinion happy" moment). He could have said nothing. I suppose I would rather have silence than a response that simply panders to the right wing and the notion of colorblindbess.

I wrote here on conscious vibration back in November that I did have hope in President Obama; that I believed this could be a time of change. I wrote how in spite of my hope I still had fears and concerns. But now my hope is lost...  what belief I did have during the first days and months of his presidency have been dimmed through the continued wars, the bank bailouts, and the no-public-option health care plan. And even though on some level, I knew he wouldn't be able to rock the boat that much - after all he is part of the system, particularly one that perpetuates U.S. hegemony and imperialism - still I hoped he would do some of the things he promised.

I know change must begin on the ground, and that we must all take responsibility for creating and sustaining movements. But we also need to hold leaders and governments accountable. And we must also hold those who do work in the name of "public service" accountable. We need to expect something better from those who engage in public discourse, especially the mainstream news. We need to break down the divides among what is deemed "intellectual" and "academic" and what is deemed "public" and "community" -- these divisions only reinforce the hierarchies that already exist. We need public language and new voices to talk about issues of race, gender, class, and sexuality. We need honesty and real dirty talk. We need folks to be able to express their anger in useful ways and channel these energies into change.

Audre Lorde talks about the issue of anger and racism in her 1981 essay titled "The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism" - her keynote address to the National Women's Studies Association Conference. Her theories about the uses of anger in an early 1980s moment in which Black feminist scholars and organizers were calling out white women about their racism can be useful for us now - given the lack of public discourse on race, class, and gender. Lorde explains why her response to racism is anger, how it should make us all angry, and how we can use this anger:

My response to racism is anger. I have lived with that anger, ignoring it, feeding upon it, learning to use it before it laid my visions to waste, for most of my life. Once I did it in silence, afraid of the weight. My fear of anger taught me nothing. Your fear of that anger will teach you nothing, also. Women responding to racism means women responding to anger; the anger of exclusion, of unquestioned privilege, of racial distortions, of silence, ill-use, stereotyping, defensiveness, misnaming, betrayal, and co-optation. ... Anger expressed and translated into action in the service of our vision and our future is a liberating and strengthening act of clarification, for it is in the painful process of this translation that we identify who are our allies with whom we have grave differences, and who are our genuine enemies. Anger is loaded with information and energy.

So many of us are angry, and yes people of color are angry, women of color are especially angry, and as a Black queer migrant women, I'm hella angry... we have a right to be angry - there has been so much backlash and so much regression...  we are livin in scary times... so let's continue to fight and use our anger, express it, and transform it into action.

Black Women and Violence

The theme of this year's International Women's Day (March 8th) was focused on domestic violence and sexual abuse against women and children. So I wanted to take some time to reflect on how different forms of violence are connected - domestic violence, hate crimes, sexual abuse, and homophobic violence. It is disturbing to think about how much violence is enacted by men because of what they perceive as a threat to their masculinity, sexuality, or authority. I remember growing up and seeing MOST of the men in my family hit their wives and girlfriends. I remember watching my mother deal with abusive men till she passed. I remember how much we accept violence as normal, and how some can sit with a straight face and ask "what did she do" in cases of domestic violence.

These thoughts ran through my head as I read about Chris Brown and Rihanna, and when I heard about young teen girls creating a website and saying in online forums that they support Chris Brown no matter what. On Bossip, the writers painted Rihanna as "the problem" - she gave him something, she was too needy, and other such nonsense. What was striking to me in all the news reports and the gossip sites is that people were looking for "the reason" why this particular event happened, as opposed to any real discussion of domestic violence (and for instance how it crosses class lines). People seemed to sympathize more with Chris Brown and his loss of endorsements, while obsessing over the pictures of Rihanna and whether or not she would take him back (invasion of privacy). Granted they are both public figures and celebrities, so one could argue that they have no privacy. But I have to wonder how much of this invasion has to do with her being a Black female. Certainly, she has much more protection than others because of her celebrity status and her money. Still I have to wonder how the reporting would have gone down if she was white or if she were not extremely popular. If she had no status or money, it would not have received the same kind of media attention, of course, or it may have been painted differently.

Let's think about other public cases of Black women experiencing violence at the hands of Black and non-Black men. R. Kelly's acquittal and how the young Black female (on "the tape") was discussed in the media. Her body was so easily dismissed and rendered "whore," beyond rescue, a non-victim of sexual violence. The Duke Lacrosse case - while the "actual" events remain unclear and contaminated within an inept legal system, what is clear is that the accuser was demonized from the beginning as "stripper" and "whore" - Black woman's word against a bunch of white men - who then became the victims while she got death threats. Obviously these cases are very different, but they are all rooted in sexism, racism, and violence.

Audre Lorde argues this very point in her essay "Sexism: An American Disease in Blackface," and she supports an open dialogue between Black men and Black women about sexism, one that confronts sexism and racism in order to abolish violence in our communities. Published in 1979, this essay by Lorde is still very relevant, particularly in her analysis of the connections between different forms of violence:

"But the Black male consciousness must be raised to the realization that sexism and woman-hating are critically dysfunctional to his liberation as a Black man because they arise out of the same constellation that engenders racism and homophobia. Until that consciousness is developed, Black men will view sexism and the destruction of Black women as tangential to Black liberation rather than as central to that struggle. So long as this occurs, we will never be able to embark upon that dialogue between Black women and Black men that is so essential to our survival as a people. The continued blindness between us can only serve the oppressive system within which we live." (64)

While her context for the essay is the United States, her analysis is useful for other communities of color and post-colonial societies. In other words, her words ring true for me as I think of the Caribbean context and the Bahamas in particular. While things have changed since I was growing up, we still have a huge problem with domestic violence and sexual abuse in our communities. Certainly, this is not only a problem in communities of color; in fact, we know that domestic violence crosses racial and class lines. But what I am pointing out here is exactly what Lorde argued almost 30 years ago – to discuss violence and the abuses that Black women experience must include a dialogue about racism, sexism, and homophobia within the larger context of white capitalist patriarchy. We still experience what Lorde describes as “the systematic devaluation of Black women within this society” (65); and I would include other societies and communities as well, in which Black women and other women of color remain marginalized (economically, politically, and socially).

Lorde suggest that in order to stop the abuse, we must begin the dialogue. And we cannot accept some forms of violence and condemn others. In other words, we can’t fight against domestic violence and sexual abuse and do nothing about homophobia. So now that the media attention on Chris Brown and Rihanna has “renewed” the issue and perhaps reminded the public that domestic violence crosses class lines, let’s use this moment as another spark. Let us push the dialogue forward, change the conversation, break the silence, and hold the media accountable for what it chooses to focus on. Let us search for and promote organizations that hold men accountable for violence (Kevin Powell was recently on Oprah talking about his work on this very issue and his new organization for men). Let us spread the word about the important documentary NO! by Aishah Shahidah Simmons. Let us talk in our own families and communities about violence. Let's make everyday International Women's Day.

rants on race & gender

so it's been a while - spring blues haven't gotten the best of me - I'm still here in the struggle. The past few months have re-confirmed how much conversations about race, racism, gender, sexism, sex, sexuality, and class (among others) are needed in public discourse. Since the aftermath of Katrina, along with other incidents like the Kramer racial tirade, the Duke lacrosse case (which still has yet to be discussed and dealt with in a decent way & the larger issues of race and class are largely ignored), and the Imus madness - race has emerged in many a public debate and news headlines, but rarely engaged in complex ways. What has been made evident rather is the fear of talking about race, the denial of racism, and the belief in colorblindness as the dominant view of race in this country. This not only helps white people to feel justified in doing whatever they want and casting blame on people of color for our problems, and it also intensifies self-hate and internalized racism for people of color - and/or we just don't want to talk about it either - easier to deny and pretend that everything is equal... We are living in dangerous times - an' still no reparations (and when I say reparations - let's be clear - I don't mean cash, I mean supporting Affirmative Action and structural adjustments that will create social and economic equality for those who have been systematically and institutionally denied equal access).

I have been fortunate to attend a few excellent forums on race recently [Feb 26th - Panel Discussion - "A Series of Unfortunate Events? A Look at Race" & April 3rd - Lecture - "A Nation of Minorities: Race, Ethnicity, and Reactionary Colorblindness" - both at the Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations at UF's Law School]. These events have helped me to develop my thoughts, theories, and teaching about race and racism (especially Dr. Faye Harrison's statement on A Look at Race - which I will post in its entirety; and Dr. Ian Haney Lopez's lecture which I talk about below). And they have sparked many debates about race and gender with my friends. These have all created the following rants. I am including them here to keep track of my thoughts and in hopes of sparking more conversations and debates:

colorblind madness & Fox Attacks on Black America
So someone put a montage of Fox News clips that show Fox attacking "Black America" - meaning black issues, Barack Obama, affirmative action, and so on. What struck me was that they had a number of black folks agreeing with accusations of black people and communities being racist. One news reporter asked a conservative black politician if he thought Barack Obama's church was racist because they had in their mission statement a focus on the black community and black people and he said yes. This drove home to me how distorted discussions about race and racism are - especially in the public arena and media - and that we need explain what racism is and what affirmative action is and why it is still needed over and over again. Professor Ian Haney Lopez from UC Berkeley, who writes about race relations and law, does this in his work and talked about this in his lecture - and he gave an exceptional talk on reactionary colorblindness and why/how affirmative action is being attacked through a history of colorblindness and ethnicity in law and public discourse. He drove the point home that - We are now in this colorblind moment (that supports white dominance) where anyone can be racist - because the public sphere does not talk about structural racism - and discussions about race and racism are absent unless it is about an individual or it is based on culture and ethnicity - which are used instead of race. Professor Lopez said we have to de-legitimize colorblindness, support affirmative action, explain what it is - and describe it as "social repair" not preference or privilege - and talk about racial hierarchy and explain racism as a structural issue. If you don't know his work, you should check it out - I think his talk was one of the best discussions of race and law I have ever heard.

racialized gendered language and why imus' apology don't matter
While I am surprised and happy that Imus got fired, I am disturbed at how the media continues to spin this scandal - the discussions about race and gender are seriously problematic, rarely engaging in the history of this language or structural & internalized racism (NPR did have some better coverage) and these women have had to prove that they are "good, professional women," meanwhile discussions about Imus revolved around his "goodness." We live in a moment where people are so focused on the individual character and debates about whether or not Imus is racist and if he is a good person (same shit that happened with Kramer) - as opposed to talking about the fact that WHAT he said is racist and the language he used is racialized and gendered - the fact that an apology from him will never deal with why he was so comfortable saying what he said in the first place - his race and class privilege - on the flippin radio/internet/public sphere/public airwaves. And that he can bust out the tired excuse that - well "they say it to each other" routine - is taking us back to all the debates over the n-word - and reveals the extent to which we can't talk about race and racism in a serious way that addresses structural racism or even racialized & gendered language that's very different than "making fun of people." And the fact that these women feel like they have to (or more than likely advised to) defend themselves against this language and explain that they are not what he said shows us how powerful and loaded these racialized/gendered stereotypes are - because in the media/film/music/popular culture/etc. black women are seen as hos (thinking about the legacy of slavery and the perception that black women can't be raped and automatically thought of as prostitutes - ex. duke lacrose case). These women have been paraded around on shows, press conferences, and so on, to prove they are respectable black women - in other words, not like the "real hos" out there. And I am tired of these accusations that "the black community" has to deal with the language of hip hop and rap - as if various black communities haven't been doing this work for DECADES... as if the largest consumers of hip hop aren't white... as if the producers of the music and the videos aren't mostly white... as if we're the only ones who sustain this language... as if it doesn't come out of the history of slavery and segregation... as if we aren't talking about these issues... BUT I do agree we need to deal with our own issues - we have to talk about this ideal of black respectability and deal with the difficulty of talking about sex and sexuality - especially black female sexuality. Perhaps having these conversations will help us to deal with the aftermath of the duke case - like asking the question, what happened because something happened to this woman - who has now been rendered liar, invisible, and unimportant. So das why I think Imus' apology don't matter - cause it does nothing to deal with these deep-seeded issues of race, gender, sexuality, and class - it just helps to brush them back under the carpet - making this scandal an individual thing that doesn't reflect larger issues.

we are livin in a scary moment - It is regressive, conservative, reactionary, individualistic, capitalist, white-dominated patriarchy, fundamentalist christian... and in it - we are dealin with new kinds of racism and sexism that exist through denial and claims of equality...

stayin in the struggle,
Angelique