The Enigma of Madam Mim

Thanks to the wonders of Facebook, today I was provided with a situation ridiculous enough to coax me out of my blog posting hibernation. While glancing over the stalker-ish News Feed, I noticed a comment one of my friends had made on a photo for some Facebook event. I didn’t even pay attention to the event name, but something about my friend’s tone and the fact that his comment mentioned race got my attention pretty quickly. As it turns out, the photo was an image of a t-shirt being sold to support the event known as ‘White History Month 2009.’

The shirt reads:

“’We are not turning the tables. We are leveling the scales. We do not have the NAACP, Affirmative Action, the United Negro College Fund, race/skin color based scholarships, or any other interest groups working towards our race’s betterment, let alone the privilege to have our own month without having it deemed unconstitutional. We do however still have race based grudges against us. We should not continue to have to justify our actions or alleviate our responsibilities for taking part in this country’s disenfranchisement which had been abolished almost 150 years ago. In this day and age I cannot say I have contributed to slavery throughout the course of my life, but then again, no one can say he or she had been victimized by it.

Enough is enough. We’re done kissing the feet of those who haven’t endured the pain we never inflicted.

Black Americans have their month…now join me in mine’
–Steven C. Manausa,
Creator of White History Month”

What a doozy, huh? It’s pretty damn ignorant and out of touch with reality, but what really got me were all of the comments that people made about the shirt.

Here are some of my favorites (I’ve left their typos as they appear in the original posts):

“Being white rules. I don’t get scholarships because affirmative action deemed that all white people are rich, can’t get government aid that I desperately need for the same reason; I am constantly bombarded with racist comments about myself and the white race, though I am forced to be quiet about it. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: All men are created equal…’ If you can’t accept it, get the fuck out of my country.”

“when can i buy one?”

“I agree with EVERYTHING on this shirt, regardless of your opinions and thoughts on the subject. And I’m so sorry I turned out to be part white (mixed). In a way, it’s kind of a disadvantage? hmm? I think so. Most scholarships DO go out to most races OTHER than whites. But when whites decide to make a scholarship based on the white race, RACIST! Absolutely ridiculous. I’m just going to celebrate a race that I happen to genetically be apart of, among another one, regardless. Steven C. Manausa, I thank you and wholeheartedly agree. It takes one to stand up and make a change. You took this role.”

“if you don;t like the white race then git of our country, and go back to ur little shithole that no one cares about”

Thankfully, there were a few people who tried to point out how stupid this shirt and its message actually are. But unfortunately, only one person (as of writing this) has been able to present a logical and coherent case against Mr. Manausa:

“I’m mixed and this is a dumb argument. I’m spanish white and caribbean and no one calls me white and I don’t pick one culturual background. There’s no need for ignorance fighting ignorance. We should strive for months where white and black history are taught interlockingly along with native americans, hispanics, and other minority groups.
There is a racial bias in this country towards whites that inclusively allows mainly white families to live in upperclass suburbias and attain high positions that is how we got the establishment of Minoritiy laws. Also don’t forget that these were protective laws created at the turn of the civil rights movement. Minorities have only had rights for about 50 . . .60 years making most of us second- third generation with these new rights. U guys shud strive for a world where people aren’t hyphenated. Every white black hispanic person in America is the product of an immigration. Ireland, Africa, Mexico. . .Spain . . all foreign countrys. I’m not a mixed-American. . .hispanic-black american. . .I’m American, I moved here from another country and Im a citizen just as much as anybody here. Stop ssaying white-americans. . . black-americans. . .native-americans. . .wat defines these conclusive terms that we use to distinguish people with. . .why distinguish people aren’t we all breedin more racism?”

Sadly, I feel that the others who tried to protest, my friend included, were so overwhelmed with the blatant stupidity they were being attacked with that they got frustrated, got too upset. Don’t get me wrong, such unfounded biases make me upset too, but in my experience, when a black person allows him or herself to get visibly upset over something offensive a white person has done, it only makes things that much easier for the offensive party to write them off simply as a “crazy/angry black person” and completely disregard anything they have to say, no matter how much of it is founded in truth. Hence, my approach has always been more analytical in nature. Instead of allowing yourself to be stereotyped and shoved in some bullshit category they created, use their so-called tools against them. Metaphorically speaking, give an ignorant asshole enough rope and he’ll hang himself for you.

Getting back to the ill-conceived quote on the t-shirt, anyone who goes to a liberal arts school and actually pays attention should have evidence readily available to him or her to discount the sentiments behind that quote. Basically, I think what we have to address is the feeling certain white people have about their current roles in American race relations. They understand slavery was bad, but because our nation’s educational system is in the business of heroification and making mainstream Americans feel good about themselves instead of encouraging real critical thinking skills, white people grow up thinking the world is peachy keen, that things are fair and good, that if anybody tries hard enough, they should be able to pull themselves up by their ‘bootstraps.’ They learn nothing about an honest American history, about the interplay between politics and economics, about how their choices impact people here and around the world in subtle and indirect ways. They know nothing of their privilege because they are shielded from reality. In fact, their ignorance serves as proof of how well off they are, because that brand of nescience is only possible for those never exposed to the harsher side of life in America.

Yeah, slavery officially ended in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but its effects still reverberate today. Compared to the rest of the industrialized Western world, the United States is a very racially tense country, and our nation’s nasty relationship with slavery and racial oppression are at the foundation of that. Racial tension and conflict have been a part of U.S. history from the beginning. So not only is it false to assume that racism, and the general implications of race, have been eradicated from our society, it’s dangerous. Without that key part of the story, it’s guaranteed that we won’t fully understand many of the problems our nation faces at home and abroad.

So for those who might think that white people should be “done kissing the feet of those who haven’t endured the pain [whites] never inflicted,” lets take a quick trip to reality and look at the facts.

An easy example of the difference between being white and black in the U.S. is the academic achievement gaps between racial and ethnic groups, which are quite large and persistent. The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) states on its website that these academic achievement gaps “mirror gaps in life and school conditions that have been found to be closely related to cognitive development and school achievement,” and that:

In mathematics, the average black fourth grader is likely to be able to “subtract whole numbers with regrouping”; the average Hispanic fourth grader can “identify cylindrical shapes and measuring instruments”; and the considerably higher-scoring white fourth grader can “represent a situation algebraically.” Four years later, when the same students are in the eighth grade, the black student is likely to be able to “round decimals to the nearest whole numbers”; the Hispanic student can use “multiplication to solve problems”; and the white student can “use a pattern to draw a path on a grid.” The contrasts in reading are similar. For example, while the average black and Hispanic fourth grader can “recognize a story type as an adventure,” the average white fourth grader can “use story evidence to support opinion about a character” (Coley 2003).

What should we do about this? Surely the gap stems from more than just poor parenting carried out by minority parents. Again, what do the people involved with education say? The NAESP comments that, “the available research provides no way to compare the effects between school and non-school factors, or to determine how much ground can be made up on one front that was lost on another. Many of the [influential] conditions, such as birth weight and lead poisoning, are out of the principal’s control, although others, such as parent involvement and reading to young children at home, can be encouraged. But the principal does have varying degrees of control over six of the factors, and moving to address them will help reduce or significantly eliminate achievement gaps. Most important is the need for a broad understanding—by educators, families, communities, and legislators—of these factors and the many fronts on which the effort to close achievement gaps must be made.”

The six factors the NAESP mentions include the rigor of the curriculum, the extent of teacher preparation in the subject matter being taught, the amount of teachers’ experience, class size, the availability of technology-assisted instruction, and safety in school. Unfortunately, the public education system in our country is slowly being dismantled, piece by painful piece, and so it’s difficult to stay optimistic about issues like the achievement gap which require not just widespread theoretical support, but substantial financing.

As another example we might take a look at the ghettos of the country. That’s relevant to a discussion on race relations in America, right? - especially considering that blacks are over-represented in urban, impoverished demographics. I wonder how many white adolescents are taught in their civics classes that it was white people that created ghettos as we know them and actively segregated inner cities. White real estate agents, knowing they only stood to profit from increased sales, encouraged white flight into the suburbs, claiming that blacks moving into white neighborhoods would decrease property values and upset harmony in their communities. Even the Federal Housing Agency supported these discriminatory practices. In 1938, the FHA’s Underwriting Manual boldly suggested that housing regulations “should include provisions for: prohibition of the occupancy of properties except except by the race for which they are intended… Schools should be appropriate to the needs of the new community and they should not be attended in large numbers by inharmonious racial groups.” This is, of course, not to mention the violence more financially advantaged blacks experienced along the edges of ghettos as they dared to reside on the fringes of these white neighborhoods.

Even today, blacks receive higher interest rates on their mortgages compared to their white counterparts with similar income levels. The difference is so much that even lower class whites get lower interest rates than upper middle class black families. And the housing market isn’t the only arena in which discriminatory practices continue. It has been documented that blacks still face discrimination at dealerships when buying cars, when purchasing insurance, when encountering police profiling, and in employer hiring practices - just to name a few. We could also talk about the racialization of the prison-industrial complex. Or about the effects of so-called welfare reform. Or what about our country’s criminal sentencing practices? Taking a look at the difference in sentencing for crack versus coke demonstrates the racial trend quite nicely.

A couple of years ago, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy published a paper titled “The ‘Crack/Powder’ Disparity: Can the International Race Convention Provide a Basis for Relief?” They summarize their findings with the following:

The federal criminal penalty structure for the possession and distribution of crack cocaine is one hundred times more severe than the penalty structure relating to powder cocaine. Blacks comprise the vast majority of those convicted of crack cocaine offenses while the majority of those convicted of powder cocaine offenses are white. This disparity has led to inordinately harsh sentences disproportionately meted out to African American defendants that are far more severe than sentences for comparable activity by white defendants.

Indeed, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that revising this one sentencing rule would do more to reduce the sentencing gap between blacks and whites “than any other single policy change,” and would “dramatically improve the fairness of the federal sentencing system.”

Racial discrimination is alive and well in the grand ol’ U.S. of A. As Larry James of Everyday Citizen concludes,

“People who continue to argue that racism is no longer a factor in American politics, culture, law or community relations are simply blind to a continuing reality. Systemic racism like that found in our sentencing practices remains unaddressed in our nation. The fact that these findings have been recognized for many years and that no remedial action to establish justice has been taken should be of urgent concern to everyone who desires fairness and justice in our nation.”

Those people that walk around acting as though blacks and whites are on an even playing field are sadly mistaken. Such ignorance is a slap in the face to any person of color who has felt first hand the sting of racial discrimination. There’s no need for an official White History Month, because in reality, no matter what we call February, every month is devoted to white history, culture and privilege. So don’t complain about us having the NAACP, or the United Negro College Fund or interest groups that are simply trying to fight for our betterment. Maybe try asking the rest of us to accede to living in a colorblind society once mainstream white America actually means it.

Disclaimer: Even though I find the following clip of Paul Mooney’s stand up material to be hilarious and thought provoking, I know many have found him to be controversial, to say the least.

Considering the time of year, my family has been trying to get into the holiday spirit, so much that my mother sent me a nice little Christmas e-card:

Sweet, isn’t it? She said that she thought I might be able to “relate.” She hears one story about me getting sick from drinking too much and now I’m an alcoholic. Well, cheers to that.

Speaking of Christmas, I hope Tila Tequila gets a big ol’ lump of coal this year for breaking America’s reality-TV-obsessed hearts when she picked Hellraiser-wannabe Bobby over lesbian firefighter (with dimples) Dani in the season finale of a Shot at Love that aired last night. What were you thinking, Tila? Even straight girls love Dani. Oh wait. For a second I forgot we were talking about an MTV reality show focused on a woman who got famous for having an absurd amount of “friends” on Myspace. The cynic in me always knew there was no way Dani was going to win.

Aw, fuck. And to think the only thing about genetics I was really worried about had to do with the gays (check here and here). Not to mention that Madison just had to get a shout out in this article…

November 11, 2007
The DNA Age: In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice
By Amy Harmon

When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.

But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.

Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.

At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.

Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.

“We are living through an era of the ascendance of biology, and we have to be very careful,” said Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University. “We will all be walking a fine line between using biology and allowing it to be abused.”

Certain superficial traits like skin pigmentation have long been presumed to be genetic. But the ability to pinpoint their DNA source makes the link between genes and race more palpable. And on mainstream blogs, in college classrooms and among the growing community of ancestry test-takers, it is prompting the question of whether more profound differences may also be attributed to DNA.

Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.

No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors. Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means “the egalitarian theory,” that all races are equal, “is proven false.”

Though few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behavioral traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races. They say that studying the differences, which arose during the tens of thousands of years that human populations evolved on separate continents after their ancestors dispersed from humanity’s birthplace in East Africa, is crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease.

But many geneticists, wary of fueling discrimination and worried that speaking openly about race could endanger support for their research, are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings. Still, some acknowledge that as their data and methods are extended to nonmedical traits, the field is at what one leading researcher recently called “a very delicate time, and a dangerous time.”

“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”

Dr. Feldman said any finding on intelligence was likely to be exceedingly hard to pin down. But given that some may emerge, he said he wanted to create “ready response teams” of geneticists to put such socially fraught discoveries in perspective.

The authority that DNA has earned through its use in freeing falsely convicted inmates, preventing disease and reconstructing family ties leads people to wrongly elevate genetics over other explanations for differences between groups.

“I’ve spent the last 10 years of my life researching how much genetic variability there is between populations,” said Dr. David Altshuler, director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small.”

But on the Half Sigma blog and elsewhere, the conversation is already flashing forward to what might happen if genetically encoded racial differences in socially desirable — or undesirable — traits are identified.

“If I were to believe the ‘facts’ in this post, what should I do?” one reader responded on Half Sigma. “Should I advocate discrimination against blacks because they are less smart? Should I not hire them to my company because odds are I could find a smarter white person? Stop trying to prove that one group of people are genetically inferior to your group. Just stop.”

Renata McGriff, 52, a health care consultant who had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists, said she and other African-Americans have lately been discussing “opting out of genetic research until it’s clear we’re not going to use science to validate prejudices.”

“I don’t want the children in my family to be born thinking they are less than someone else based on their DNA,” added Ms. McGriff, of Manhattan.

Such discussions are among thousands that followed the geneticist James D. Watson’s assertion last month that Africans are innately less intelligent than other races. Dr. Watson, a Nobel Prize winner, subsequently apologized and quit his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island.

But the incident has added to uneasiness about whether society is prepared to handle the consequences of science that may eventually reveal appreciable differences between races in the genes that influence socially important traits.

New genetic information, some liberal critics say, could become the latest rallying point for a conservative political camp that objects to social policies like affirmative action, as happened with “The Bell Curve,” the controversial 1994 book that examined the relationship between race and I.Q.

Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important in preparing to address them politically.

“Let’s say the genetic data says we’ll have to spend two times as much for every black child to close the achievement gap,” said Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wis., who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression. Society, he said, would need to consider how individuals “can be given educational and occupational opportunities that work best for their unique talents and limitations.”

Others hope that the genetic data may overturn preconceived notions of racial superiority by, for example, showing that Africans are innately more intelligent than other groups. But either way, the increased outpouring of conversation on the normally taboo subject of race and genetics has prompted some to suggest that innate differences should be accepted but, at some level, ignored.

“Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist.

“When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?” he asked.

“To say that such differences aren’t real,” Dr. Clark later said in an interview, “is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by.”

Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead.

One white-skinned student, told she was 9 percent West African, went to a Kwanzaa celebration, for instance, but would not dream of going to an Asian cultural event because her DNA did not match, Dr. Richards said. Preconceived notions of race seemed all the more authentic when quantified by DNA.

“Before, it was, ‘I’m white because I have white skin and grew up in white culture,’ ” Dr. Richards said. “Now it’s, ‘I really know I’m white, so white is this big neon sign hanging over my head.’ It’s like, oh, no, come on. That wasn’t the point.”

Anyone who is even remotely aware of current events in this country has probably heard about the Jena Six. It’s crazy, and ridiculous and infuriating. But there’s another case, just concluded in June, that is also deserving of our attention. It’s the case of the New Jersey Seven (or Four, depending on who your news source is).

But my guess is that you haven’t heard of the New Jersey Seven. Don’t worry, most people haven’t. Blogger Francesm, from QWOC, posted last month that, “I googled the key words Jena 6. And get pages of links. I googled New Jersey 7. Nothing. New Jersey 4. Nothing. New Jersey four. Zip. New Jersey seven. One link to an NY post titled ‘Attack of the Killer Lesbians.’ WTF?”

Lucky for me, I have access to LexisNexis. Still, my search of that comprehensive database revealed a sparse thirteen hits, many of which had objective titles such as “Lesbian Wolf Pack Guilty,” “Girls gone wilding,” and “Hard time for the wolf pack. Lesbians rip sentencing in ‘06 attack.” Wowza. I’m not sure if we’re talking about crazy lesbian wolves, feral children or lesbian gangs. So what really happened in this story?

From what I’ve read so far, an article from the Workers World website gives the most comprehensive account (though it does come from an activist perspective).

Lesbians sentenced for self-defense
All-white jury convicts Black women

By Imani Henry
New York
Published Jun 21, 2007
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World.

On June 14, four African-American women—Venice Brown (19), Terrain Dandridge (20), Patreese Johnson (20) and Renata Hill (24)—received sentences ranging from three-and-a-half to 11 years in prison. None of them had previous criminal records. Two of them are parents of small children.

Their crime? Defending themselves from a physical attack by a man who held them down and choked them, ripped hair from their scalps, spat on them, and threatened to sexually assault them—all because they are lesbians.

The mere fact that any victim of a bigoted attack would be arrested, jailed and then convicted for self-defense is an outrage. But the length of prison time given further demonstrates the highly political nature of this case and just how racist, misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-youth and anti-worker the so-called U.S. justice system truly is.

The description of the events, reported below, is based on written statements by a community organization (FIERCE) that has made a call to action to defend the four women, verbal accounts from court observers and evidence from a surveillance camera.

The attack

On Aug. 16, 2006, seven young, African-American, lesbian-identified friends were walking in the West Village. The Village is a historic center for lesbian, gay, bi and trans (LGBT) communities, and is seen as a safe haven for working-class LGBT youth, especially youth of color.

As they passed the Independent Film Cinema, 29-year-old Dwayne Buckle, an African-American vendor selling DVDs, sexually propositioned one of the women. They rebuffed his advances and kept walking.

“I’ll f— you straight, sweetheart!” Buckle shouted. A video camera from a nearby store shows the women walking away. He followed them, all the while hurling anti-lesbian slurs, grabbing his genitals and making explicitly obscene remarks. The women finally stopped and confronted him. A heated argument ensued. Buckle spat in the face of one of the women and threw his lit cigarette at them, escalating the verbal attack into a physical one.

Buckle is seen on the video grabbing and pulling out large patches of hair from one of the young women. When Buckle ended up on top of one of the women, choking her, Johnson pulled a small steak knife out of her purse. She aimed for his arm to stop him from killing her friend.

The video captures two men finally running over to help the women and beating Buckle. At some point he was stabbed in the abdomen. The women were already walking away across the street by the time the police arrived.

Buckle was hospitalized for five days after surgery for a lacerated liver and stomach. When asked at the hospital, he responded at least twice that men had attacked him.

There was no evidence that Johnson’s kitchen knife was the weapon that penetrated his abdomen, nor was there any blood visible on it. In fact, there was never any forensics testing done on her knife. On the night they were arrested, the police told the women that there would be a search by the New York Police Department for the two men—which to date has not happened.

After almost a year of trial, four of the seven were convicted in April. Johnson was sentenced to 11 years on June 14.

Even with Buckle’s admission and the video footage proving that he instigated this anti-gay attack, the women were relentlessly demonized in the press, had trumped-up felony charges levied against them, and were subsequently given long sentences in order to send a clear resounding message—that self-defense is a crime and no one should dare to fight back.

Political backdrop of the case

Why were these young women used as an example? At stake are the billions of dollars in tourism and real estate development involved in the continued gentrification of the West Village. This particular incident happened near the Washington Square area—home of New York University, one of most expensive private colleges in the country and one of the biggest employers and landlords in New York City. The New York Times reported that Justice Edward J. McLaughlin used his sentencing speech to comment on “how New York welcomes tourists.” (June 17)

The Village is also the home of the Stonewall Rebellion, the three-day street battle against the NYPD that, along with the Compton Cafeteria “Riots” in California, helped launch the modern-day LGBT liberation movement in 1969. The Manhattan LGBT Pride march, one of the biggest demonstrations of LGBT peoples in the world, ends near the Christopher Street Piers in the Village, which have been the historical “hangout” and home for working-class trans and LGBT youth in New York City for decades.

Because of growing gentrification in recent years, young people of color, homeless and transgender communities, LGBT and straight, have faced curfews and brutality by police sanctioned by the West Village community board and politicians. On Oct. 31, 2006, police officers from the NYPD’s 6th Precinct indiscriminately beat and arrested several people of color in sweeps on Christopher Street after the Halloween parade.

Since the 1980s there has been a steady increase in anti-LGBT violence in the area, with bashers going there with that purpose in mind.

For trans people and LGBT youth of color, who statistically experience higher amounts of bigoted violence, the impact of the gentrification has been severe. As their once-safe haven is encroached on by real estate developers, the new white and majority heterosexual residents of the West Village then call in the state to brutalize them.

For the last six years the political LGBT youth group FIERCE has been at the forefront of mobilizing young people “to counter the displacement and criminalization of LGBTSTQ [lesbian, gay, bi, two spirit, trans, and queer] youth of color and homeless youth at the Christopher Street Pier and in Manhattan’s West Village.” (www.fiercenyc.org) FIERCE has also been the lead organization supporting the Jersey Seven and their families.

The trial and the media

Deemed a so-called “hate crime” against a straight man, every possible racist, anti-woman, anti-LGBT and anti-youth tactic was used by the entire state apparatus and media. Everything from the fact that they lived outside of New York, in the working-class majority Black city of Newark, N.J., to their gender expressions and body structures were twisted and dehumanized in the public eye and to the jury.

According to court observers, McLaughlin stated throughout the trial that he had no sympathy for these women. The jury, although they were all women, were all white. All witnesses for the district attorney were white men, except for one Black male who had several felony charges.

Court observers report that the defense attorneys had to put enormous effort into simply convincing the jury that they were “average women” who had planned to just hang out together that night. Some jurists asked why they were in the Village if they were from New Jersey. The DA brought up whether they could afford to hang out there—raising the issue of who has the right to be there in the first place.

The Daily News reporting was relentless in its racist anti-lesbian misogyny, portraying Buckle as a “filmmaker” and “sound engineer” preyed upon by a “lesbian wolf pack” (April 19) and a “gang of angry lesbians.” (April 13)

Everyone has been socialized by cultural archetypes of what it means to be a “man” or “masculine” and “woman” or “feminine.” Gender identity/expression is the way each indivdual chooses or not to express gender in their everyday lives, including how they dress, walk, talk, etc. Transgender people and other gender non-conforming people face oppression based on their gender expression/identity.

The only pictures shown in the Daily News were of the more masculine-appearing women. One of the most despiciable headlines in the Daily News, “‘I’m a man!’ lesbian growled during fight,” (April 13) was targeted against Renata Hill, who was taunted by Buckle because of her masculinity.

Ironically, Johnson, who was singled out by the judge as the “ringleader,” is the more feminine of the four. According to the New York Times, in his sentencing remarks, “Justice McLaughlin scoffed at the assertion made by … Johnson, that she carried a knife because she was just 4-foot-11 and 95 pounds, worked nights and lived in a dangerous neighborhood.” He quoted the nursery rhyme, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” (June 15)

All of the seven women knew and went to school with Sakia Gunn, a 19-year-old butch lesbian who was stabbed to death in Newark, N.J., in May 2003. Paralleling the present case, Gunn was out with three of her friends when a man made sexual advances to one of the women. When she replied that she was a lesbian and not interested, he attacked them. Gunn fought back and was stabbed to death.

“You can’t help but wonder that if Sakia Gunn had a weapon, would she be in jail right now?” Bran Fenner, a founding member and co-executive director of FIERCE, told Workers World. “If we don’t have the right to self-defense, how are we supposed to survive?”

National call to action

While racist killer cops continue to go without indictment and anti-immigrant paramilitary groups like the Minutemen are on the rise in the U.S., The Jersey Four sit behind bars for simply defending themselves against a bigot who attacked them in the Village.

Capitalism at its very core is a racist, sexist, anti-LGBT system, sanctioning state violence through cops, courts and its so-called laws. The case of the Jersey Four gives more legal precedence for bigoted violence to go unchallenged. The ruling class saw this case as a political one; FIERCE and other groups believe the entire progressive movement should as well.

Fenner said, “We are organizing in the hope that this wakes up all oppressed people and sparks a huge, broad campaign to demand freedom for the Jersey Four.”

FIERCE is asking for assistance for these young women, including pro-bono legal support, media contacts and writers, pen pals, financial support, and diverse organizational support. For details, visit www.fiercenyc.org.

I would never argue that the coverage of the Jena Six should be lessened; people need to know about that case and to see that that kind of blatant racism still has a home in the grand ol’ U.S. of A. How can we expect people to work towards changing something they don’t know exists?

So what about these New Jersey women? Shouldn’t their pain and outrage be given a voice? Doesn’t their story deserve to be heard too?

I just watched the music video for Alica Keys’ new single “No One.” It’s a pretty basic video, mostly showing Keys playing the piano and singing in different locations and in different outfits. But when have I ever been one to complain about only being given the opportunity to look at Alica Keys? How about never. Check the video out for yourself; Keys is definitely trying to work the vamp/diva thing.

During certain scenes though, I was reminded of something I realized when I watched the BET Awards this summer: Alicia Keys kind of looks like the colored-folks version of Natalie Portman. Sounds strange, right? But on the not-so-rare occasion when Keys aims for (and lands) the sophisticated/chic look, I can’t help but get a little Natlie Portman vibe. Sounds like it’s time for a little exercise in comparing and contrasting:

I see Alicia Keys in a whole new way. It’s like taking Portman, stretching her out a few inches, feeding her several cheeseburgers, and giving her some color. Mmm mmm mmm. A Keys-Portman hybrid. On one hand you have the talents of an award winning actress who graduated from Havard and on the other you have a musician with street smarts (though Keys was accepted to Columbia University when she was 16, so I think she has book smarts too) who has been playing the piano since she was seven. Could there be a better combination? I think not.

I know people usually talk about how Natalie Portman and Kiera Knightley look similar (Star Wars, anybody?), but I definitely think that in the war of the hybrids, Keys-Portman has Knightley-Portman beat any day.

Being a girl who loves the “casual” look (aka jeans and a t-shirt…), I’ve accepted the fact that I am no fashionista. So I usually save the critiquing of people’s style for the Stacy’s and Clinton’s of the world.

However, there are a few fashion faux pas that burn even my retinas, such as tapered Mom-jeans. But more than anything else, I hate hiking sandals. I don’t know if they actually qualify as a fashion faux pas (though I think Stacy and Clinton probably hate them as much as I do), but I cannot express how ridiculous they are. Every day I see dumb, wannabe-hippie college kids wearing them around campus where there are no forests, no trails, NO HIKING. So why the hiking sandals? They’re fucking ugly. I don’t care how comfortable they are or how free your toes feel.

And who thought these would be good for hiking in the first place? When I go hiking, I usually aim for footwear that makes me feel secure and supported… like hiking boots. And I don’t really want my toes exposed to the elements (hello poison ivy, oak, whatever). So the concept of a hiking sandal seems a little counterintuitive to me.

I think it’s pretty obvious that I don’t like these sandals. But there must be worse fashion crimes, you say. And you’re right. I present the sandal and sock combination (”soxers” for short):

Again, I have some questions. If the whole point of wearing sandals is to let your feet breathe and get some fresh air, then why are you wearing socks? And if you’re wearing socks because your feet are cold, then why not put on normal shoes? These are the questions that keep me awake at night.

I recently acquired Tegan and Sara’s new album The Con (thanks Michael!) and I’m really feelin’ the song “Nineteen.” I think the song manages to tackle first love and breaking up - you know, the normal fodder for indie rock and alternative music - and still come off touching and fresh. So in the spirit of young love, and all things gay (Tegan and Sara are big ol’ identical twin homos, if you didn’t know.) I decided to watch The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love.

I’ve known about this movie for years, but I until yesterday, I had never seen it. There had always been something about it that had told me to steer clear. Maybe I was put off by how old it was (it came out in 1995), the horrendously stereotypical fashion sense of Laurel Holloman’s character, or the convoluted title, all of which would point to this film belonging in that vast collection of Bad Lesbian Movies. But like I said, I was feeling inspired (read: I didn’t have anything better to do) so I tried it. Turns out that the Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love is actually a decent movie.

For those who don’t know what the movie is about, here’s a synopsis (from AfterEllen.com) :

Written and directed by Maria Maggenti, the film is about Randy Dean (played by Laurel Holloman), a white girl from the wrong side of the tracks who lives with her lesbian aunt and her aunt’s girlfriend after her fanatically religious mother left her to work with Operation Rescue full-time. Randy is the school outcast, laughed at and called a “dyke” by the other kids because she looks kind of butch and “acts like a man”… The girl she has a crush on is Evie (Nicole Ari Parker), a feminine, college-bound upper-class black girl who has lived alone with her mother (a developing-nations consultant) since her father divorced her mother when Evie was four to marry a white woman.

I think what struck me most about the film is how realistic and subtle it could be. In terms of realism, I loved the evolution of the relationship between Evie and Randy. It was shy, and sweet and awkward; all characteristics of a normal teen romance. And unlike many entries in the Bad Lesbian Movie canon (I’m talking about you, Go Fish), TITATGL handles some tough subject matter without hitting you over the head with its message. The film manages to not limit itself to just the lesbian aspect of the burgeoning relationship between the two leads by also touching on issues of class, race and family. And all without drawn-out, self-righteous monologues.

The movie isn’t perfect; some may find it to be too cute for their tastes, and the ending may be a little too goofy. But the core of the movie is in the right place and even my inner cynic is willing to cut the movie some slack. So if you’d like to see a young Laurel Holloman (way before her Tina days), or if you’d just like to see a funny and sweet movie, then you should check out The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love; I’d recommend it. And if you move quickly, you might even be able to catch it on Youtube like I did. What can I say, I’m cheap.

Want hilarity and a sense of indignation all at the same time? Look no further than this real advertisement from the 40s:

What. The. Fuck.

If you ever find yourself aimlessly browsing the archives of this blog, let me say that I sympathize with your extreme boredom. But let me also draw your attention to a post I wrote a few years ago about an artist by the name of Utada. At the time, I was amused with – and a little bit shocked by – her single, “Easy Breezy,” the first single off of Exodus, her 2004 all-English album.

If you’ve never heard of her, it’s because she’s mostly popular in Japan:

“She has been hailed as one of the most successful, influential and acclaimed musicians in Japanese music history. With the release of her seven studio albums, including one compilation and two all-English, 24 solo singles (18 Japanese and 6 English) and several VHS/DVD releases, she has sold a combined estimated total in Japan of some 36,000,000[1][2] records in Japan as of 2007, making her the 9th most successful musical act ever in Japan. Her worldwide total sales of albums, singles and VHS/DVDs to date is well past 40,000,000 units.”

As for “Easy Breezy,” it was the interesting line “You’re easy breezy and I’m Japanesey” which caught my attention. I had no idea how to interpret such a line. Was she being playful? Sarcastic? Or was this simply the result of learning English as a second language? While I never really found out the answers to those questions – though I’m leaning towards her just being silly – the strangeness of that song inspired me to purchase her CD.

I’ve had that CD for roughly three years now, and while shuffling through some music last night, I came across it again. As I listened to songs I hadn’t heard in about two years, I came to the realization that Utada’s uniqueness has grown on me.

The album isn’t great… but it is good. And once you accept its eccentricities, it’s easier to appreciate the album’s better tracks, such as “Devil Inside” and “Hotel Lobby.” There are even a few decent dance tracks – not to mention that the various remixes of “Devil Inside” topped the U.S. dance charts for a period of time.

Unfortunately, there was a downside to rediscovering Utada’s album; in the process I had to remember how horribly her record label, Island Def Jam, handled the release of the album. Whose idea was it to have “Easy Breezy” as the lead single? And who chose the concept for the music video?

Was the singing in a phone booth, all wet, and in the rain really necessary? If nothing else, that video practically set her up to be joke in the U.S. Aside from myself, I think the only other Americans that purchased this album were those that were already fans of her work in Japan. And thanks to Island Def Jam, the promotion for Exodus was almost nonexistent. Utada is an international sensation; doesn’t she deserve a little bit better?

I would be excited to listen to another English album from Utada, but after Exodus sold a negligible 30,000 copies, I doubt she’s rushing to release another record stateside. Which is quite unfortunate though, since any pop artist that dominates at Tetris like this is definitely cool by me.

A few weeks ago, a blogger on OurChart made an alarming observation:

Apparently Gwen Stefani doesn’t know what feminism means, as she asked her interviewer at Allure magazine (July 05) to define the term for her. After hearing the definition she decided that she was NOT a feminist. Earlier that same year Bjork told Bust magazine that she wasn’t a feminist because she thinks it would “isolate her.” Also in an interview with Bust, PJ Harvey said, “I [don’t] ever think about [feminism]… I never had any problems as the result of being female that I couldn’t get over” Here’s the real kicker from Harvey, “I don’t offer [support] specifically to women; I offer it to people who write music. That’s a lot of men.” Uffa. And from last month’s issue of ArtNews, the artist Tamy Ben-Tor is quoted saying “ its problematic to associate myself with any ideology [feminism], it serves the weak…I don’t feel affiliated with it.” Finally an artist of color, Nikki Lee (who should really know better), was quoted in the same ArtNews article, “ I’ve never had to think about the problem. I don’t like the idea of bringing up the issue. The more I bring up the issue the more I feel like I’m the one separating men from women.”

What can I even say about the comments these female artists have made? Of course, words like “stupid,” “uninformed” and “fucking retarded” come to mind, which is sad because I respect these women and I would expect them to know better. But as disappointed as I am in their analysis of feminism, I am more frustrated with how feminists have let mainstream society frame us and our ideology as deplorable, absurd and isolating. I honestly think that collectively speaking, society imagines feminists to be unloved closet lesbians that hate men, refuse to shave and have a penchant for burning bras. There is a real distaste there; evidently, even women find feminism to be uncool and ostracizing.

In 1913, author and feminist Rebecca West wrote, “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute.” Firstly, I like this quote because it shows that even feminists have a sense of humor. More importantly though, I like how West, in her own snarky way, hints at how quick society is to label those who vocalize their support of women’s rights. Today, nearly one hundred years later, her words still retain their salience. The mainstream still hasn’t caught on that in reality, feminism isn’t about any of the negative labels associated with it. My favorite and most simplistic definition of the term comes from Cheris Kramarae and Paula A. Treichler, authors of A Feminist Dictionary, who state that “feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.”

That’s it, plain and simple. If Gwen Stefani and her ilk can’t get behind that definition of feminism, then the future of women is more contentious than I thought.