• Our Black Bodies Our Black Selves – The REST of the Venus Williams Photos | What About Our Daughters "Racial and gender equality mean an equal opportunity to act a fool on the international stage. But that belies a larger question.. Do Black girls have the option of being “different.” Whimsical. Creative. Are our bodies only allowed to be shoved into some sexual context anytime they are displayed? To some people what Venus Williams wore on the first day of the French Open was obscene. I was ready to hop on the bandwagon with you. Until I actually looked at other pictures of the “outfit” and quite frankly its more odd than obscene in fact when viewed inlight of the apparel for both men and women across all sports, its rather boring. " (tags: sports celebrities clothing race racism gender)

by Latoya Peterson

Earlier this month, I was mulling over a piece in The Atlantic about the decline of the news, and Google’s attempts to assist the ailing industry. I found this tidbit fascinating:

“If you were starting from scratch, you could never possibly justify this business model,” Hal Varian [Google's chief economist ] said, in a variation on a familiar tech-world riff about the print-journalism business. “Grow trees—then grind them up, and truck big rolls of paper down from Canada? Then run them through enormously expensive machinery, hand-deliver them overnight to thousands of doorsteps, and leave more on newsstands, where the surplus is out of date immediately and must be thrown away? Who would say that made sense?” The old-tech wastefulness of the process is obvious, but Varian added a less familiar point. Burdened as they are with these “legacy” print costs, newspapers typically spend about 15 percent of their revenue on what, to the Internet world, are their only valuable assets: the people who report, analyze, and edit the news. Varian cited a study by the industry analyst Harold Vogel showing that the figure might reach 35 percent if you included all administrative, promotional, and other “brand”-related expenses. But most of the money a typical newspaper spends is for the old-tech physical work of hauling paper around. Buying raw newsprint and using it costs more than the typical newspaper’s entire editorial staff. (The pattern is different at the two elite national papers, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. They each spend more on edit staff than on newsprint, which is part of the reason their brands are among the most likely to survive the current hard times.)

Krishna Bharat (Distinguished Researcher at Google) puts an even finer point on the problems with the existing news model. Bharat runs Google News, the aggregator that sifts through “25,000 sources in some 25 languages” daily. And considering he has watched the type of news trends that receive coverage, his next comments are old news to many of us dissatisfied with how our communities are portrayed in the mainstream media, but hopefully illuminating to those in the industry:

In this role, he sees more of the world’s news coverage daily than practically anyone else on Earth. I asked him what he had learned about the news business.

He hesitated for a minute, as if wanting to be very careful about making a potentially offensive point. Then he said that what astonished him was the predictable and pack-like response of most of the world’s news outlets to most stories. Or, more positively, how much opportunity he saw for anyone who was willing to try a different approach.

The Google News front page is a kind of air-traffic-control center for the movement of stories across the world’s media, in real time. “Usually, you see essentially the same approach taken by a thousand publications at the same time,” he told me. “Once something has been observed, nearly everyone says approximately the same thing.” He didn’t mean that the publications were linking to one another or syndicating their stories. Rather, their conventions and instincts made them all emphasize the same things. This could be reassuring, in indicating some consensus on what the “important” stories were. But Bharat said it also indicated a faddishness of coverage—when Michael Jackson dies, other things cease to matter—and a redundancy that journalism could no longer afford. “It makes you wonder, is there a better way?” he asked. “Why is it that a thousand people come up with approximately the same reading of matters? Why couldn’t there be five readings? And meanwhile use that energy to observe something else, equally important, that is currently being neglected.” He said this was not a purely theoretical question. “I believe the news industry is finding that it will not be able to sustain producing highly similar articles.”

I’ve been thinking about this in light of the Stanley-Jones tragedy, and in light of South Philadelphia High School.

Bharat’s quote – “Why is it that a thousand people come up with approximately the same reading of matters? Why couldn’t there be five readings? And meanwhile use that energy to observe something else, equally important, that is currently being neglected.” – is highly important when we discuss the problems with discussing issues of grave importance. The reality of the current news model is that major stories are being neglected. When I ran a search for Aiyanna Stanely-Jones on the Washington Post website, a total of six articles were returned. Five were republished or summarized from the AP. One was a television column by Lisa de Moraes, on the influence of the television crew at the scene, and looking at the crime through a “what does this mean for reality tv?” perspective. Over at the New York Times, there was one reported piece focusing on the use of the flash grenade and the influence of cameras on police reaction, and an op-ed. Op-ed author Charles M. Blow sparked a conversation around the fall of Detroit, as a city. But it is only in alternate spaces where Aiyana Stanley-Jones’ death is put in the context of the larger picture.

The blog over at the Center for Investigative Reporting has a great piece up about the new reality of police raids:

A house raid by law enforcement in Michigan that led to the killing of a 7-year-old girl May 16 sheds new light on the question of whether police have become overly militarized in the post-Sept. 11 age of terrorism. The Detroit Police Department was executing a “no-knock” search warrant intending to nab an alleged murderer with the help of its SWAT team when authorities say Aiyana Jones was accidentally shot by one of the officers. [...]

The show’s website features images of Detroit’s special response team dressed in military-style apparel and carrying sub-machine guns capable of spraying 800 rounds per minute. One officer wields an intimidating, large-barreled “multi-launcher,” which fires tear-gas projectiles “to disorient potential threats” and “less-lethal rounds,” such as sand bags that are used for crowd-control situations.[...]

Police departments across the United States have used federal homeland security grants to equip these teams with armored vehicles, battering rams, modern devices for conducting surveillance, incident-command trucks resembling RVs on steroids and SWAT attire that seems to visually transform local police into the armed forces.

In one area of Hawaii, police use a 19,000-pound armored BearCat purchased with $240,000 in grants “mostly for executing high-risk search warrants,” according to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The vehicle has detectors on board for radiation and methane gas, and it’s followed on “missions” by a $330,000 mobile-command post.

New Hampshire spent $378,000 for two armored vehicles, and police in the town of Nashua there acquired a $250,000 mobile-command unit. Hidalgo County in southern Texas used federal cash set aside by lawmakers for border security to snap up a $346,000 “ballistic engineered armored response” vehicle, according to grant records Elevated Risk obtained this year.

Kimora Lee Simmons (yes, that Kimora Lee) took to the blog at Global Grind to air her frustration:

As the family has said, and I agree, the officer who shot Aiyana is not a “monster”. I do not believe that his actions were intentional, but the slapdash techniques with which these kinds of raids are executed concerns me.

We have militarized our police force, and in doing so, created a war between those who are suppose to protect AND serve our communities with the men, women and children that live in them! We break down doors in our own neighborhoods, the way we break down doors in Baghdad or Kabul. We treat our very own citizens as if they are on the other side. We have lost the connection we once had with our police force. We are afraid of them and they are afraid of us!

Adrienne Brown provides a guest post on the Global Grind, with similar sentiments:

why do the grieving faces of people on this street look so unsurprised?
and when 17-year-old Jerean Blake was killed Friday, wasn’t that equally devastating? did we do enough as a community at that moment?
do we know how to keep our children safe?
can we admit that we don’t know anything about how to be the kind of society where this could never happen?

to step back from the immediate events is to see what happens in communities who internalize the corporate military worldview that some people are expendable. the way we function as an economy that places profit first is that it’s normal for people in uniform to throw bombs into the home of civilians and shoot children.

an economy that valued people first could never justify those tactics.

i think of the children in my life – those blessed and loved and safe, and those who will never really be safe because of how the world sees them. the way aiyana died, the last minutes of her life – that is terrorism.

to know that that kind of terror and pain can happen to a child in this time – IS happening to children, funded by our tax dollars, right now, in iraq, afghanistan, palestine, arizona, and here in detroit – is to understand that as things stand, there is no justice.

Akiba Solomon, over at Colorlines, discusses the dual nature of the tragedy:

Cargill’s conflicted reaction is gut wrenching. “I’m sorry what happened to the 7-year-old child, you know my sympathy [goes] out for 7-year-old. But they knew the guy killed my son [Je'Rean Blake],” Cargill charges about the Jones family’s relationship with Owens. “Everything got started because that guy killed my son. That girl would have been living right now and my son would have been living too. … They don’t think about my son. They talk all about the 7-year-old girl. What about my son?”

This situation is too much, too sad, too unfair, too senseless to intellectualize about the moral equivalency this grieving mother is expressing. Too much, too sad, too unfair, too senseless to harp on how excessive police force—not her child’s murder by a civilian—led to the death of Aiyana. Who am I to question her anger at the lack of public focus on Je’Rean? After all, his killing should be just as aberrant as Aiyana’s—not just business as usual in the poor, Black neighborhood both children called home.

So here we all are, a week later. Facebook pages with thousands strong, hearts reaching out to families of two brown children who died at the hands of foolish predators, sloppy police work and reality-show preening. Aiyana’s in the ground, buried in a pink suit. Je’Rean laid to rest Monday.

Where are these perspectives in the mainstream media? The Stanley-Jones case, like South Philadelphia High last year, deserves better treatment. Both of these stories dealt with matters of national importance.

For Aiyana Stanley-Jones, her senseless death should have sparked a much better conversation than the rumination of reality television crews. While that area is ripe for exploration (and I would personally be interested to know if producers on cop reality shows use the same manipulative tactics as they do on regular competition shows), that should not be the only angle taken in the realm of the news. Look at the excerpts above. Police violence, state sanctioned violence, the militarization of police forces in the aftermath of 9/11, cycles of violence – there are many different angles to discuss with this story, but it appears that there is no interest in looking at those who are marked as “others.”

It was the same with South Philadelphia High School. Here was a golden opportunity to discuss some very complicated issues: the realities facing recent immigrants and children of immigrants in America, the declining state of South Philadelphia, class politics and how they create schools of last resort, the fact that many children cannot go to school in safety, the needs of overtaxed teachers for support, cycles of bullying, the declining infrastructure in urban cities — and yet, that chance was missed. A search on the New York Times website pulls up one story on South Philadelphia High, with the headline “Philadelphia: Racial Tensions at School.” The tragedy? This sole mention was a summary of an Associated Press article.

Google is doing their best to fix the news – but I am starting to wonder what parts of our current media model are worth salvaging.

Related: 5 Ways to Channel Your Aiyana Outrage

by Special Correspondent Andrea Plaid, originally published at Bitch Magazine

I’m taking a moment from my usual sexing-it-up posts because of the little girl pictured above.

For those who don’t know, her name is Aiyana Stanley Jones. And she’s dead. Her family just buried her this week.

She didn’t die from leukemia or in a drunk-driving accident or at the hands of an abusive or negligent parent or guardian.

She died for the sake of entertainment.

For those who haven’t heard the story: Detroit police raided her home on May 16 in what the department said their “executing a search warrant” of a murder suspect they eventually found in the home. According to the Detroit Free Press:

Police said that they threw an incendiary device known as a flash bang through a front window of the home to create a distraction.

After entering, a Detroit officer got into a tussle with Mertilla Jones, Aiyana’s grandmother, who was in the front room.

The police gun went off. Aiyana was killed.

According to family members, Aiyana was sleeping on the couch, which sat near a window that faces the street. The explosive device the police threw in landed on that couch and burned her, said her father, Charles Jones. He and others say the girl was burning when she was shot.
…

Aiyana’s dad, Charles Jones, said he rushed into the living room after hearing the explosive and gunshot. He says police made him lie face down on the ground, his face in shattered glass and the blood of his daughter.

The Detroit police department has offered an apology for Aiyana’s death and says they are conducting an investigation.

Meanwhile, understandably righteous outrage, several countercharges, and downright ridiculousness came out as the Stanley-Jones family and circle of supporters prepared to bury Aiyana: people utilized social media to voice sadness and upset over this senseless death; the alleged suspect who touched off this tragedy is a 34-year-old man who is accused of shooting a 17-year-old youth because he didn’t like the way the teenager “looked at him”; Aiyana’ grandmother, Mertilla Jones, said the police lied about the gun firing because she was trying to wrestle it away from the officer (new video evidence allegedly suggests the fatal shot coming from outside the home); Jones contends she was inside during the raid and tried to protect her grandchild but was too late; politicians did their usual grandstanding; celebrities took the cops and the community to task for Aiyana’s death and to stop further senseless killings, especially of young black children.

But, as I said, I also blame Aiyana’s death on the media complex: of the “if-it-bleeds-it-leads” infotainment ethos that seems to pass for news—especially local news—nowadays; the perpetuating of the meme that black people are always and inherently entertaining to watch, especially if there’s an element of criminality and punishment to it and it’s getting “handled”; of the physical erasure of women and girls as watchable; the deaths of women of color, cis and trans, as not worthy of discussion–let alone activism–outside of PoC communities.

Or, perhaps, it would be more correct to say that Aiyana’s death is really our collective fault, if we continue to accept these conditions as part of our pop-culture consumption. If we do, we do not bury her with whatever deities she and her family believe in. We sacrifice her, again and again and again.

With that said, what I want to do is simply cry for her…

Hosted by Special Correspondent Arturo R. García

You know what might’ve made “The Countdown” a little easier to handle? Just one more word in the title:

But seriously, this was your standard “darkest before the dawn” episode, where everybody battled the Determinism blues before next week’s Big Finish. While we’re waiting to see if this follows the finale trend set by BSG and now Lost, the Roundtable focused in on one specific plot thread: the final descent of Demetri.

So, you had Demetri finally ‘fessing up to Zoey. Props to John Cho for mustering up the right amount of groveling and contrition for the moment. But it left Dem having to hitch his wagon to Janis and Simon of all people. Your take?
Andrea: I thought Gabrielle Union also brought the right amount of heartbrokenness, incredulousness, indignation, and upset to the scene. All I can say is I’m so happy she dumped Dem’s ass right there then took her freshly done sun-kissed weave and went to Hawaii with her parentals. As for Dem’s infidelity leading to his having to hang with Janis and Simon: Fuck him.
Mahsino: 1.) I hated her highlights, they should’ve been a warmer tone. 2.) I almost felt bad for Demetri. It’s like he got 20 points for fessing up before it’s too late, but -1000 when he cheated in the first place. I do like how she brought up how she risked everything for him, I hadn’t even thought of that.
Diana: I thought it was pretty realistic. Really, it made no sense to him to sleep with someone else because he thought he was going to die? That’s when you hold on to those you love the most. So I’m with you, Andrea, fuck him. Highlights or no, the weave was fresh.
jen*: As much love as I have for Cho, I’m beginning to be ok with Demetri eating it in the finale. He should be in something else, anyway.

Meanwhile, it was tough to feel a lot of sympathy for Mark. When Hellinger tells you he’s going to make you crack, and you still do it, after all this, I couldn’t help but see the Idiot Ball bouncing around.
Andrea: Can’t agree more. But we’ve all been saying that Mark is stuck on stupid for awhile. With Olivia and his child gone, he’s now swan-diving into suicidal because he no longer has anything to live for … and he knows it. I think his weeping in the clinker is his realization that he can’t control or cheat fate.
Mahsino: He could’ve just let Heilinger go after he realized he was right.
Diana: No one ever accused Mark of being the brightest bulb in the pack.
jen*: Seriously – pure Idiot. It would’ve been nice to see a change just to throw a surprise in. Instead, Mark marches directly towards his doom. Here’s hoping he actually does bite the dust.

Is anybody else thinking that Lloyd’s son and Gabriel could’ve solved this mess weeks ago?
Andrea: Then this whole show would’ve been a mini-series…which, considering how this show has gone, might have been a better idea.
Mahsino: It was originally supposed to be a 10-episode miniseries, which would’ve probably saved a whole lot of head-desking.
Diana: The kids and Gabriel are the only characters that make sense all the time. I am somewhat curious to read the book this show was based on so I can get some perspective on how the plot and characters originally played out.
jen*: I’m leaning toward the book, too, Diana. And wouldn’t it have been great if they’d gone for a mini-series? They could’ve cut out all those boring episodes in the middle, and all that crap with Stark. Lloyd [reprising Steve] is bumbling around, not realizing his kid can help him without physically being in the Benford house. Which reminds me – Olivia and Zoey seem to be the ONLY sane people on the show right now. Zoey’s going to Hawaii to get away from the drama and stupidity. Olivia’s chilling with the kid in an undisclosed loc – cuz sleeping around on your hubby [even if it *is* Mark Benford] doesn’t help to save the world. Maybe the ladies should’ve carried the show.

Vogel had the line of the episode, no?: “Clean yourself up, playboy” made me laugh.
Andrea: Dunno, it didn’t make me slap my knee or anything. I think I was still livid over Dem’s betrayal. Wait — I am still livid over Dem’s betrayal.
Diana: Actually, that line didn’t really make too much sense to me. I know Heilinger had just gotten a beat down, but, really, how was he supposed clean up while on his back and handcuffed?
Arturo: Well, really, he couldn’t. But it was the casual tone in Michael Ealy’s delivery that sold it for me. Relaxed snark is always the best.
Diana: I’ll be the first to admit that I take some things too literally, Arturo. If I had written a line for that moment, it would have been something like, “You’ve seen this moment a million times before, but you still just got beat down by wimpy Mark Benford; whatchya gonna to do now, playa playa?”
Mahsino: I vote we time travel and have the writers use Diana’s line. I have to agree I took it too literally, and even though it was a taunt, it just made his character look like an even bigger tool.
jen*: Watching the show as a lame duck means lines aren’t really sinking in with me – but I second Mahsino’s motion.

Open Mic!
Andrea: I was sort of surprised that Bryce walked away from his alleged here-and-now love to find Keiko … and sort of proud, in a way. I didn’t think he had it in him to leave her. Not that I’m thinking that Bryce, therefore, deserves Keiko’s attention or affection, the way he carried on in Japan. (Again, I’m holding out for the Emil-Keiko romance.) Then again, this also re-sets their story to his “white-savior rescuing” her from her life in Japan. Story arc of ewww, Bryce and Keiko.
Mahsino: Yeah, I wasn’t at all comfortable with how we’re supposed to forget about Emil and his halfstache. But the way he just left whatshername hanging just highlighted his flakiness. If I were Keiko, I’d take his infatuation with a grain of salt.
Diana: She should just go ahead and get on the plane with her mama.
jen*: Any scene with the candy striper is a scene I’m not into. Any scene with Bryce [sans Keiko] is a scene I’m not into. This also goes for Stark and anyone involved in his arc. I’m actually kinda thrilled that this show is almost over, because I’m done. And maybe that sounds a lil callous, but I really am over it all. It’s like someone told the writers the show was axed so they didn’t have to try anymore. Mark does every single stupid thing he shouldn’t – warned or not. He seems too simple to have even attained the rank in the FBI that he has. Dem, apparently aware of the shows imminent demise, has thrown his lot in with Janis and Simon? I’m of the opinion, if the writers/creators don’t care – why should I? I’m a little down, just cuz I don’t really see anything promising to watch in the fall. Guess I’ll just keep looking.

Welcome thieves

Workers are seen placing a new billboard that is wrapped in 22-karat gold over an old ad near Granville Island in Vancouver, Wednesday, May 26, 2010. The billboard, the first of its kind in the world, advertises the "Treasure" exhibit at Science World and will have its own security guard 24 hours a day. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

A worker is seen putting the finishing touches on a billboard that is wrapped in 22-karat gold near Granville Island in Vancouver, Wednesday, May 26, 2010. The billboard, the first of its kind in the world, advertises the "Treasure" exhibit at Science World and will have its own security guard 24 hours a day. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

No tags for this post.
Related posts

• No related posts.

• Jesse James — I Don't Want to Get Divorced | TMZ.com "- He says, "There isn't a racist bone in my body."
  - Jesse says he plans on being around the son Sandra is adopting … the son he had planned to adopt with her." (tags: racism celebrities transracialadoption)

by Guest Contributor Jenn, originally published at Reappropriate

I have to preface this post by saying that I have not been collecting comics lately. Thankfully, a friend of mine, who still keeps his finger to the pulse of the comic world, tipped me off to a major development in the world of comic books that has ramifications for the Asian American community.

Four years ago, after the presumed death of Ray Palmer, DC Comics introduced a new Atom, remarkable because he quickly ascended to being one of the foremost Asian American superheroes in comic-dom. He was one of the few Asian American superheroes to receive their own comic book title — All-New Atom — which was penned by Gail Simone. Simone developed Atom, and his alter ego Ryan Choi, as an Asian-American in virtually every sense of the word; although he was born and raised in Hong Kong, Ryan lived and worked as a professor in an American university. Part of his personal evolution involved struggles between his more Americanized identity with the expectations of his strict, overbearing father.

Now, when Atom first launched, I heavily criticized the book for its persistent dependence on stereotypical Asian/Asian American tropes. Choi was still one-dimensional and his book contained inappropriate racially-charged jokes that seemed out-of-place in a book that should’ve been a landmark for Asian American comic fans. Despite being set in at an academic institution, the series suffered from a bizarre absence of Asian American female characters. To me, All-New Atom was jarring — Ryan Choi had none of the ease in his Asian-American identity that Asian American characters written by Asian American writers do. Unlike the characters of Gene Yang’s American Born Chinese, or even the writing of Greg Pak’s Amadeus Cho in World War Hulk, Gail Simone’s Ryan Choi felt like a character forced into an Asian American skin. His relationship with his Asian-ness seemed fake and inauthentic. All-New Atom felt like a book about Asian Americans written by a non-Asian.

Interestingly, when I wrote about my disappointment in All-New Atom, Simone came to this blog defending her writing. She addressed concerns about the inauthenticity of Ryan Choi. Simone even emailed me a little bit to exchange ideas about adding a female Asian American character to All-New Atom’s cast.

Sadly, soon after these exchanges took place, All-New Atom was canceled after just 25 issues. Ryan Choi went on to help find the lost Ray Palmer, Choi’s predecessor in the Atom mantle. Palmer and Choi worked together as members of Checkmate, but suprisingly, Choi was virtually absent in the major cross-over events that subsequently swept the D.C. Universe (e.g. Final Crisis, Sinestro Wars, Blackest Night). In fact, Electroman tells me that Choi appeared in only one panel in Final Crisis.

Last week, not content to allow Ryan Choi fade into obscurity, D.C. Comics made a decision to bring the All-New Atom back… in a gory death scene. In the first issue of Titans: Villains for Hire, a title contained under the year-long Brightest Day story arc currently sweeping the D.C. Universe, Deathstroke assembles a team of mercenary villains. As one of his first acts as leader of the new, evil Titans, Deathstroke breaks into Ryan Choi’s house in Ivy Town. After a brief battle, Ryan Choi is fatally impaled on Deathstroke’s sword.

Now, as Blackest Night has hammered home (and by “hammered home”, I actually mean, beaten like a “dead, dead, really really dead horse”), dead characters in the D.C. Universe rarely stay dead for long. If nothing else, comic book writers are very good at coming up with wonderfully creative ret-cons to undo a character’s death. Even Jason Todd, the second Robin, who was supposed to be the only character in D.C. Comics whom editors swore would never come back from the dead, was resurrected and now fights crime as the homicidal Red Hood.

So, it’s quite possible that Ryan Choi will be back.

But for now, Ryan Choi is dead.

And beyond merely being dead, Ryan Choi is pointlessly dead. It seems as if Choi died only to demonstrate how Badass(tm) Deathstroke and his new Titans are. And, as Justin Slotman commented about the recent deaths of Jin and Sun on Lost, “killing off beloved characters to prove that Bad Guy is Really Really Serious is the laziest kind of writing.” Some fans have argued that Choi’s death is racially motivated because D.C. Comics was uncomfortable with an Asian American wearing the mantle of the Atom; with Choi bumped off, Ray Palmer would be free to reclaim his superhero identity. Would a prominent non-Asian superhero have died so meaningless a death?

While I think the phrase “racially motivated” is rather charged, I tend to agree with the notion that D.C. Comics sets a dangerous precedent for so casually eliminating one of the few prominent Asian American superheroes when he appears no longer necessary. D.C. editors seemed apathetic to persistent cries to have Ryan Choi treated better in the pages of his title, and, now, they seem callously unconcerned about killing the character off. Ryan Choi barely had the chance to become a “beloved” character — of Asian Americans or fanboys at large — before he was tossed aside in a gruesome and unnecessary death. In life, and in death, Choi served as a placeholder — first for Ray Palmer’s Atom, and now for Deathstroke’s evil plan. Choi never really manages to come into his own as an Asian American character and as a superhero — throughout his four year run, he stood perpetually in the shadow of Whiter, more well-known characters.

So, rest in peace, Ryan Choi. Too bad you never became what you could have been.

By Guest Contributor Lisa Wade, originally published at Contexts.org

A recent study by Chelsea Schafer and Greg Shaw found that, as of 2006, over a quarter of Americans would still rather not live near homosexuals.  This percentage has been decreasing, however; in 1990 and 1995, 38% and 30% of people, respectively, wanted to keep their distance:

But tolerance for Muslims and immigrants has not increased alongside tolerance for gays and lesbians.  The data show that rather high levels of tolerance in the ’90s (with about 90% of people being happy to have these groups as neighbors) disappeared and, by 2006, 22% of people did not want to live near Muslims and 19% did not want to live near immigrants.

The data on tolerance for Muslims is likely due to the way the attacks on September 11th, 2001, have been spun to stoke hatred against Muslims.  What do you think about the increased intolerance for immigrants?  Have “foreigners” been collateral damage in the smear campaign against Muslims and Arabs?  If it were simply growing conservatism, wouldn’t we see the same pattern for homosexuals?  Other explanations?

Borrowed from Contexts Discoveries.

By Deputy Editor Thea Lim

Alicia Keys loves drama – and no, I am not referring to her current lovelife (you’ll have to read a different kind of blog to get that gossip, unfortch), I’m referring to her music videos.  When it comes to star-crossed histrionics, both Keys’ music and videos always deliver the goods. Which I kind of like, most of the time; woman’s got a good set of lungs and a nice scrunchy crying-for-the-camera face.

But her latest video just gets on my nerves.  ”Unthinkable” stars Chad Michael Murray as Keys’ white lover, and shows reincarnations of the same interracial couple across several different decades, suggesting that from the 40’s up to today interracial relationships still face prejudice.

While I appreciate the way Keys uses time to show parallels between the racism of the past and the racism of the present, there are a few things about this video that strike me as deeply dishonest.  Broken down for your reading convenience, here are my issues:

1. Only black people hate interracial relationships!

Okay Ms Keys, why do you only have black people showing prejudice in this video?  From the 50’s to 70’s to the 80’s to the 00’s, all we see are black faces looking on at the Murray/Keys pairing with fury and even violence.  Oh no wait, we get a split second of a white cashier looking at black/white flirtation with disgust…and then it’s back to black folks.

A video doesn’t just pop out organically from the brain of its creator: someone makes very specific choices and then very specific casting calls to mark race in a video.  So why did Keys and her team choose to only show black people getting mad about the interracial love in this video?

This seems particularly problematic and dishonest in the “50’s” section of the video, where the optics, if you really look at them, are disquieting: a group of angry, bloodthirsty black men circle a defenseless white man with a puppy dog face.

So not only do we get a very racist portrayal of black people as aggressive and irrational in contrast to a lover-not-a-fighter white man, we get a profoundly skewed version of history.  Anyone with a 101 knowledge of Black History Month knows that in the 50’s it was black men, not white men, whose lives were in danger if they so much as looked at white women.  For some of our readers this will be well-trod ground, but let’s do a refresher just in case: Emmet Till was a 14 year-old black boy who was tortured and murdered for allegedly flirting with a white woman.  And his story was not an anomaly; this happened to many black men.  So much so that an all-white jury took all of 67 minutes to acquit both Till’s accused murderers.  This didn’t happen in 1897, it happened in 1955.

I imagine that at some point in the 50’s, there were white men who were given a split lip by black men for dating black women. (And then, considering the way the justice system works, those black men were probably sentenced to life in prison.) But when you note the systemic power behind the violence visited upon black people by the white dominant culture, that other violence pales in comparison.

Either Keys is appallingly ignorant of American history, or is intentionally toying with historical representations to solely present black people as the violent objectors to interracial relationships. Maybe just to get a rise? To step with the “but black people/POCs are the most racist!” crowd? I just don’t know.

Undoubtedly there are people of any ethnic group who have issues with IRs, causing their friends and family members misery.  So why did Keys make the conscious decision to show only one half of the haters, especially when you think of the state’s force behind white distaste for IRs?

2. Let’s hump our way to a racism-free world!

I know that interracial couples continue to face prejudice today. Just last year we heard about a Louisiana judge who refused to grant a black/white couple a marriage license, for the sake of their (future) children.

Yet reactions to IRs are immensely complex: sometimes the forces of racism actually encourage interracial relationships, where people of colour are boiled down into dehumanising sexual stereotypes to be collected. Meanwhile, Keys’ presentation of IR reactions seem to fall into only one category: people are hateful towards mixed race pairings because they are mean racists; anyone who accepts or encourages an IR therefore, is an enlightened anti-racist.  (Just take a look at responses to “Unthinkable”: Vibe calls Keys “socially conscious” for advocating for black/white relationships.)

This kind of black and white (haha) telling of an interracial affair runs dangerously close to the “let’s hump to end racism” campaign.  Hands up if you’ve ever had the misfortune of hearing someone say “Everyone should date out of their race, because the more we mix, the less racism there will be.”

The idea that interracial relationships are anti-racist, and having a mixed race family will fix racism is not only naive; it may even go hand in hand with racial fetish.  A few weeks ago I met a freshman college student – a good-looking black guy with a bright future – who told me that he doesn’t want to date black women because he has a thing for mixed race girls*, specifically ones that look like Alicia Keys. (So of course I emailed him CVT’s article about how mixed race people on the whole may actually *not* be that hot.)  When I suggested that his racial dating preference was messed up, he said that the bad balanced out the good, because isn’t dating outside of your race a way to end racism? The more we mix up, he reasoned, the less there will be reason for people to hate.

Please! Yuck! No. Date someone because you like them inside and out, not because a) you have a racial preference or b) you think that dating out will end racism when you have little beige babies. That’s just asking for parental trouble when your beige babies have their own consciousness and their own desires, and don’t want to be poster kids for your personal crusade. And anyways, racism is not truly about racial phenotypes; it’s a social campaign to assign power based on ethnocultural group.  There will always be ways to demarcate ethnocultural group, even when people are “all mixed up.”

I guess I shouldn’t be too shocked that this is coming from Keys – she is after all, the co-founder of the Keep A Child Alive campaign, which created this sorry set of ads a few years back:

So maybe her racial politics have always been a little bit obtuse.

3. Mixed Race Masquerading

The cherry topping on this mixed race mess comes in the final scene of the video, when Keys’ family watches as Murray pulls up in his car.  You see her black brother (a familiar face, but I can’t find the actor’s name anywhere) and her black mom, played by Adina Porter, her black father is silhouetted in the foreground.  In other words, Keys’ character does not have immediate family members who are white.

Why does this matter? Even though Keys herself has a white momma, usually I would have no problem with a first gen mixed race person playing someone who is not first gen mixed race. Hey, more power to them.  But considering the interracial content of this video, and its grossly simplistic presentation, it puts me off that Keys chooses to simplify even her own genealogy at the end.

Drake, who is also black/white wrote “Unthinkable” and provides back-up vocals. Some fans have asked why Drake is not in the video, saying he should’ve been cast as her brother – is it because having a light-skinned black and white man in the video would throw off Keys’ wall of hate-filled blackness?  A real life mixed race person would apparently complicate the coarse racial dynamics of this video; Keys hides both Drake and her own mixed roots in the video.

Which I suppose brings me to my personal beef with this video: as the mixed race product of an interracial relationship watching a song/video made by two other mixed race products of interracial relationships, I am really irritated that Keys is presenting these unions as so wholly pure, good and anti-racist.

This is obviously an irrational personal projection, but I often hope (expect? sigh) that mixed race celebrities have a more nuanced understanding race and racism**.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they are going to end racism just by being a manifestation of love across racial lines.  Rather I assume that if you live at the intersection of race and love, as many mixed families do,  you’ll have insight into just how complicated that intersection is.  You might have a sense that interracial relationships, like any relationships, are muddy, confused things that are not wholly good, bad or anything.

You might know how people confuse fetishes with love. You might know that love is not always strong enough to end racism; maybe you have family members who love you, and still have effed up racist ideas.  You might know that people take offense at mixed race pairings sometimes out of real, understandable pain, not just hate.

Yet instead Keys chooses to give a painfully simple drawing of a mixed relationship that lets racist stereotypes about her own people stand, presumably so as to cash in on that socially conscious rep from a mainstream media that just likes anything shiny.***

Fail Alicia – this lets a lot of us down.

–

*By “mixed race” I assume he meant someone with one white parent and one parent of colour.

** I don’t mean a more nuanced understanding than other people of colour, just more nuanced than the white establishment around them.

***Hey, there’s cache in the safe socially conscious, just ask multimillionaire Bono.

Mod Note - If you’re new to Racialicious, read the comment moderation policy before attempting to comment. – LDP

by Guest Contributor Minh-ha, originally published at Threadbared

This post is inspired by Sarah Scaturro‘s comments to one of my previous posts about the Black Fashion Museum Collection. In her comments, she mentions the Save Our African-American Treasures program, which she describes as “an Antiques Roadshow (minus the price appraisal) type of event” that travels to different cities to discover, preserve, and celebrate the material cultural histories of African Americans.

One of the reasons I was so intrigued by this program is precisely because it doesn’t operate through the heritage capitalist logics of the Antiques Roadshow on PBS. From what I can tell, the Save Our African-American Treasures program is primarily a conservation effort and not a public display of one’s vested interest in the heritage of Americana. It’s the Forest Gump-like display and valorization of what I can only describe as “heritage capitalism” by the predominantly white appraisers and guests that irks me about the Antiques Roadshow. (Why is there so little scholarship on the Antiques Roadshow‘s circuits of commodities, capitalism, and racial citizenship?)

I began watching the Antiques Roadshow on and off just a couple of months ago. What I found amusing about the show is the guests’ reactions to the appraisals of their family heirlooms – you can tell when someone is genuinely surprised or disappointed with the estimate and when they’re feigning surprise. Also funny (to me, at least) are the various stories guests tell about how they or their families acquired these objects. Most are pretty quotidian stories about unexpected discoveries at yard sales, thrift stores, and estate sales but some are really grand narratives about their genetic linkages to American founding fathers, European royalty, and a motley crew of adventure-seeking, risk-taking, fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants, off-the-beaten-path family relatives who acquired Persian rugs, Chinese Ming vases (always Ming era), French antique jewelry, and Native American dolls in their world adventures. I have to admit that I get a little giddy when the appraisers myth-bust these stories. There was an episode devoted to family myth-busting, if I remember correctly.  Actually, Marie Antoinette never owned this hair comb set you inherited from your great-aunt. It’s likely a reproduction made in the 1940s in Watertown, New York.

Other than the human interest aspects of the show, I never found it that interesting. (It’s probably because I wouldn’t know a Biedermeier from an Oscar Meyer, as Martin Crane put it in the Frasier episode featuring the Antiques Roadshow called “A Tsar is Born”.) But my casual disinterest turned into a serious criticism of the show when I caught this recent appraisal of a Tlingit (indigenous people of Alaska) bowl and ladle.

The guest narrates a valiant story about Colonel Charles Erskine Scott Wood (the great-great-grandfather of the guest),who was on a “scientific expedition” to the Sitka area of Alaska in the spring of 1877 when he somehow came upon this bowl and ladle. The guest is unclear on the details: “And I don’t know specifically if he was given these or if he may have bartered something.” (That these objects might have been stolen is not a possibility imagined by the guest but one that I immediately considered.)

(Note the partial image of Colonel Charles Erskine Scott Wood decked out in classic imperialist garb.)

After her story, the appraiser fills in the details about the history of the bowl and ladle telling her and viewers, “These would have been considered family heirlooms of the Tlingit people.” “These objects are alive in the Native consciousness.” “It’s as rare as can be. It’s a Native American masterpiece.” The guest nods and utters a few “wow”s while she listens. (Meanwhile, I’m screaming, Give them back! Give them back!)

The excitement builds, reaching the climactic event: the actual appraisal. “The mountain sheep horn ladle at auction would sell in the range of about $75,000 . . . at auction this bowl would realize easily in the $175,000 to $225,000 range.”  Overcome with emotion about her cultural-capital inheritance of the spoils of history, she responds thusly:

The guest’s facial gesture projects a self-satisfied smugness that exemplifies the privileges of heritage capitalism. Hardly concerned about verifying how someone else‘s rare “family heirlooms” and “masterpieces” came into her family’s possession, she’s simply thrilled to have them.

More important than the monetary value of these objects, is the wealth they materially signify: the wealth that comes from centuries’ long and continuous accumulation of property and assets, the emotional and physical security and entitlements such property and assets enable, and the ability to pass down to future generations the socioeconomic status that inheres to such property and assets. This wealth secures and reproduces, as George Lipsitz explains in his book with the same name, “the possessive investment in whiteness.”

Whiteness is more than a racial identification; it’s a racial inheritance of a history of privilege, property, and opportunity secured by and through heritage capitalism. More still, “the advantages of whiteness,” as Lipsitz asserts, “[are] carved out of other people’s disadvantages.” In situating the bowl and ladle within her family history in the context of a public television show, these objects become public objects of a particular heritage of whiteness. Their public display publicly recognizes and reaffirms this racial narrative of American heritage – one that depends on the historical and ongoing disadvantaging of Tlingit people and their descendants. The significance of the bowl and ladle to the Tlingit are contained and limited to the ways their exotica adds to the wealth of the guest’s inheritance, to the way they help to accumulate further the possessive investment in whiteness. Through the  Antiques Roadshow, “the structural and cultural forces that racialize rights, opportunities, and life chances in [the U.S.]” are sentimentalized as heritage and secured as natural (Lipsitz).

Such appropriations are not external to fashion. Mimi’s compilation of blog posts addressing “native appropriations” in so-called hipster fashions as well as the numerous comments we received about this issue bear this out well. The bowl and the ladle at the Antiques Roadshow, like the feather headdress at Urban Outfitters, are put into the service of  “materializing,” in Philip Deloria’s words, “a romantic past” forged by a long and persistent tradition in America of “playing Indian.” This tradition, Deloria reminds, “clings tightly to the contours of power” to create a national subjectivity of whiteness constituted through racially gendered and classed “contrasts.”

The recent addition of clothes as a category of antiques explored on the Antiques Roadshow makes alternative programs like the Save Our African-American Treasures program all the more important for materializing non-dominant histories and for articulating a radical politics of vintage. (Mimi’s already begun this project in her series of posts organized under the category “Vintage Politics!)

If you’re interested in watching the fashion appraisals on Antique Roadshow, look for episodes in which appraiser of antique clothing, lace, and textiles Karen Augusta appears.

By Thea Lim

Kiana Firouz is an LGBT activist and film director from Iran currently seeking asylum in the UK. In late 2009 the trailer for her film Cul de Sac created controversy. This is the NSFW trailer:

In a letter published on the blog LGBT Asylum News, Firouz writes:

I, Kiana Firouz, an Iranian Lesbian, born in 1983 in Tehran/Iran, have sought asylum in the U.K but my application was turned down by the Home Office, despite accepting the fact that I am a lesbian. I accordingly submitted my appeal which was dismissed incredibly by the adjudicator. According to my solicitor’s point of view there is a little chance to grant a permission to appeal against the adjudicator’s decision. It means that I will face with deportation soon.

Homosexuality in Iran is a sin and offence which is subject to harsh punishment. According to the Islamic law, repeatation of this offence will be punished by death. The punishment for lesbianism involving persons who are mature, of sound mind, and consenting, is 100 lashes. If the act is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will apply on the fourth occasion. (Articles 127, 129, 130 penal code) The ways of proving lesbianism in court are the same as for male homosexuality. (Article 128)

Jezebel writes:

Meredith Yayanos from Coilhouse says Firouz will “most likely be sentenced to torture and death after being found guilty of the ‘unspeakable sin of homosexuality.’” In Iran, the punishment for homosexuality consists of up to 100 lashes, which can be applied up to three times. After the fourth violation, a woman can be convicted of “unrepentant homosexuality” and executed by hanging.

Firouz filed for a court appeal after receiving the judge’s decision, but it was swiftly overruled. She can appeal the decision, but as of now, Firouz is facing deportation. The international human rights organization the EveryOne Group is asking concerned British citizens to send an email to the British Home Office asking them to reconsider Firouz’s case (public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk). There is also an online petition circulating, which could help save Firouz from corporal punishment in her home country.

The petition is here, and you can visit the Facebook page to save Firouz here.

• Some Harlem Churches in Fight for Survival – NYTimes.com “All Souls’ Church, on St. Nicholas Avenue, and any number of the traditional neighborhood churches in Harlem that had for generations boasted strong memberships — built on and sustained by familial loyalty and neighborhood ties — are now struggling to hold on to their congregations.

  The gentrification of Harlem has helped deplete their ranks, as younger residents, black and white, have arrived but not taken up places in their pews. Longtime Harlem families, either cashing in on the real estate boom over the past decade or simply opting to head south for their retirement, have left the neighborhood and its churches. Then there are the deaths, as year by year, whole age bands are chipped away.”

  (tags: via:carleandria race religion gentrification history)
• Writer Junot Diaz gets on Pulitzer board “The Pulitzer Prize absolutely fundamentally changed my life and career as an artist,” noted Diaz, who says he grew up “working poor” in Parlin, N.J. “I keep thinking, `Wow, I get the chance to do that for a whole bunch of people. Not just me alone, of course.” Pulitzer officials say Diaz will be the first Latino to serve on the board…Co-chairman David Kennedy said the board looks forward to Diaz’s perspective. Kennedy describes Diaz’s prose as a mixture of Dominican Spanish and American English. “We hope that’s the voice he brings to the deliberations of the board as well,” Kennedy said. “Someone who is sensitive to and immersed in parts of our culture that haven’t received the appreciation … they probably deserve.”

  (tags: junotdiaz pulitzerboard literature litofcolor racialiciousmascots)

• Trial of Sadistic Chicago Torture Cop Ramps Up Lt. John Burge and his men electrocuted, suffocated and beat confessions out of black suspects in Chicago for 20 years, until 1993. Some of his victims ended up on death row. Jury selection has begun in his trial. (tags: via:carleandria stateviolence policebrutality chicago burgetrial)

by the Racialicious Team

Andrea Plaid:

I know we want to keep this a light affair–the readers will damn near eulogize Carmen in the comments (”She’s leaving the anti-racism biz, not the mortal coil, y’all!”)–I’m still a bit verklempt about her going. Just had to say that…

With that said, I think we should add some of our favorite Carmen clips, like when she looked like she was gonna beat that newscaster’s ass for coming out his mouth wrong. But, of course, CNN didn’t leave that one up. Can anyone get access to it? I’ve tried Google, no luck.*

Or this one of Carmen explaining why the Spanish basketball teams making Miley Eyes is racist:

Or her explaining the myths and realities of interracial relationships:

Or her breaking down myths about Asian Americans:

Wendi Muse:

Carmen,

It’s hard to imagine Racialicious without you, especially considering all the hard work and dedication you put forth to make it what it has become under your guidance. As I mentioned in my goodbye letter to what I affectionately called “The R,” you are the reason I ended up writing for Racialicious in the first place. After having met you at your NYU presentation on race in the media, I was fully inspired to really begin to channel all the thoughts in my head about race onto the page, and fortunately you recognized that helped nurture that interest. Though you will be moving on and continuing your work at Urban Dojo and as a devoted mom, I am more than certain that you will continue to inspire others along this new path. You will be missed at Racialicious, but your legacy will live on through the passionate contributors that are at the helm of this site and the countless others whom I am sure count Racialicious as their stepping stone for discussing, seriously considering, and writing about race as we know it. Best of luck in your new pursuits!

Fatemeh Fakhraie:

I want to just say a thank-you to Carmen for pulling me into the Racialicious fold. It’s sometimes a bumpy road for Middle Eastern and Muslim writers on Racialicious, but her inclusiveness and bravery in including us in the discussions is appreciated, and is part of what makes the site great. Much love to you, Carmen.

Arturo Garcia:

The thing about Carmen that always impressed me was her finesse. The issues we talk about seem to raise people’s hackles instantly, but here’s Carmen taking it into peoples’ boardrooms, to CNN, to online radio, and to this space, and she made it seem almost … elementary. I’m thankful to her for helping me in my journey on this site, and for the chance to inherit at least part of the mission she developed.

That said, Keanu is dead. Long live Cho!

Jessica Yee:

Thanks to Carmen there is only one website on the worldwide web that I feel comfortable writing and truly supported – which is Racialicious.

Nadra Kareem:

Carmen, thanks for being a pioneer on the World Wide Web for race relations. With your work on Racialicious, Anti-Racist Parent and New Demographic, you helped to break down the persistent racial issues facing the country over the past several decades. And the fact that you love Keanu makes you all the more admirable in my book! From one Keanu fan to another, good luck to you in all of your endeavors.

Thea Lim:

When I started reading Mixed Media Watch/Racialicious in 2006, I marvelled at this Carmen Van Kerckhove person. Who was this woman, and how was she so cool? Carmen was like the digital representation of everything I wanted to be as an anti-racist writer. Then, when I finally got to meet Carmen in the flesh two years later, I couldn’t believe it when she hugged me and said how excited she was to meet me. (And then I almost fell out of my chair when Latoya asked me to join Racialicious, but that’s another story) I think what is most special about Carmen is not her mind-boggling social media skills, or her concise, sharp and seemingly effortless critiques of race and pop culture, (and these are mighty powers) but how she manages to stay so affectionate and enthusiastic as a person throughout. We will miss you Carmen, and we are proud to carry on the work you started – both its super-smarts and its warmth.

Latoya Peterson:

It’s rare that one email can change your life. Four years ago, pissed off and isolated in a small, all white town as part of a work assignment, I googled something about race and stumbled upon the Addicted to Race podcast. I quickly fell in love with segments like racial spy and enjoyed frank, interesting conversations about the state of race in America. Over time, ATR became part of my regular listening. I even bought a hot-pink ATR tee-shirt, which I wore proudly (and alienated some co-workers with, but that’s the story for another day.) As a regular listener, it was a bit amusing to listen to Carmen and Jen struggle to talk about the struggles of black women. After one episode filled with “I thinks” and “maybe black women might feels,” I shot off an email basically saying that if she was struggling writing about black women, there were resources she could tap. Carmen responded to the email, and asked me to come on board as one of the first special correspondents to her revamped website, Racialicious.

And ever since then, my life has been kind of a whirlwind of chaos. But every step of the way was Carmen, smoothing out the path and keeping me close to the calmer eye of the storm. Over the years, I’ve watched her go through so much to do this kind of work. Anti-racism, like so many social justice initiatives, is difficult to maintain without burning out. I cringed watching Carmen being attacked, learning she had her own special section on a white supremacist site, watching as people dismissed her work time and time again for the crime of having a white last name, who she dates, what she looks like – anything but the actual ideas. A common sentiment was along the lines of “What does some little Asian girl know about race?” But Carmen is visionary, and her mission was always clear – that it was time for a new type of conversation about race, one that looked at a multitude of perspectives, that was inclusive but never apologetic, that focused on accessibility and conversation. And I was down with that mission.

But more than just vision, Carmen is a great friend. Kind of like the older sister you always wanted, Carmen was always there with a listening ear, a kind word, or a well placed “Dude, fuck that shit and stop worrying so much.” It was Carmen who pushed me to get my work published in some sort of paying media outlet. I still remember the “fight” we had over a piece, where she refused to publish it since she thought I should get paid for it, and I refused to send it out because I wanted to have it on Racialicious. It is because of Carmen that I am a paid, working writer, something I had never thought would be possible. Later, when she turned over the editing of the site to me, and let me put my own mark on Racialicious, adding new contributors and a different style, which was controversial at the time – but Carmen had nothing but faith. It was Carmen who pushed me to start speaking, to build my own identity outside of Racialicious, to figure out what I wanted and needed out of life. It was Carmen who talked me down from the ledge when I wanted to quit blogging for good after a piece I wrote became an online nightmare, and it was Carmen who ultimately blurred the lines of boss, mentor, and friend.

In many ways, Carmen was instrumental in leading and shaping the lives of young activists like myself and challenging us to be our personal best. So, I know how many of you are feeling right now.

When Carmen told me last year she was retiring from race, I was devastated. I felt like someone knocked the wind out of me. And my first response, in my head, was one of anger. How could you want to leave now, when we are so close? What about the book? What about the conference? What about all that cool new stuff you were doing for New Demographic? You just want to walk away from it all? Why would you throw everything we worked for away? But even before I could vocalize these thoughts, I already knew why. And in some ways, the path Carmen would choose became clearer and clearer with each day. It was just time. After eight solid years of work, fighting, and struggle on behalf of racial justice, she was choosing to make an exit. And to continue to ask for more, more, more would only mar what she has already accomplished.

Carmen blazed the trail.

And, to honor her work, it is time for us to continue onward.

Even if our eyes are still filled with tears.

*Latoya’s note: The situation Andrea refers to above is when Carmen was on CNN in the middle of the day, on a segment hosted by Don Lemon. Carmen tried to reframe the conversation away from “Did Jesse Jackson get a pass for using the N-word because he’s black” and talk about the broader racial issues at play. However, Lemon was having none of this and pressed with “Did he get a pass? Did he get a pass?” Since Carmen wasn’t playing that game, she was cut from the rest of the segment, hovering silently in her little box. Awesome. This is why we need a Racialicious TiVo.

It seems we don’t talk a lot about it, but to be sure, there are distinct pains, complexities and privileges associated with mixed heritage people. And I’m realizing that these distinctions can be quite fruitful to discussions of race and gender. For I realized that mixed heritage families are a perfect example of “families on the fault lines.” In other words, mixed families undergo a unique experience that may reflect and deify notions of privilege and hierarchy. At the same time, they hold vast potential to resist narratives of the normalized body.

In my case, I’ve experienced both privilege and oppression with my identity and family background. For instance, while folks in the Filipino community might easily classify me as one of them, this isn’t the case for those outside this community. Filipinos are so underrepresented in the media and other forms of public representation that people don’t seem to understand what it means to be a dark-skinned Asian. They seem to only think of East Asia when they hear “Asian” (as if the region of Southeast Asia doesn’t exist!). I’ve gotten Latino, Chinese, Indian–you name it. (And to be fair, I’ve inherited some of my father’s bi-racial characteristics which further confounds people.) There’s a sort of erasure and concomitant exotification that occurs just by virtue of being Filipino or any other underrepresented ethnic group.

On the other hand, there is a distancing from this Otherness that happens through my last name. I’m clearly not white, but my name–Anna Sterling–sure does sound white. It never fails as a conversation starter; by rote I explain that my paternal grandfather was an American soldier stationed in the Philippines during WWII. My father was bi-racial, hence the last name. I know for a fact that this last name has conferred privileges onto me throughout time–everywhere from fitting in with my white suburban friends a little bit more than those with more traditional names like Magpantay or Danganan to perhaps having eyes linger on my resume in job searches a few seconds longer.

Then again, I’m brought back to my physical appearance and the significance of it. My father married a full-blooded Filipina woman when he got to the states and as my mom says: “he fell in love with my native Filipina beauty!” My light-skinned father and “native-looking” mother (read: dark!) created a rainbow-colored spectrum of children. My other two sisters obtained my father’s light skin while I inherited my mother’s dark skin. It’s really sad to think about the policing I went through as a child: my own sisters would say I was dirty and that I needed to shower; family friends had the audacity to ask immediately upon seeing me “Did you just come from the pool? Why you so dark?!”; I’ve had people “compliment” me with, “You’d be so pretty if you weren’t so dark!” Even more, if you flipped your TV over to the Filipino channel, you’d be shocked at the total whiteness of those given space in the media. No matter how many times I watch Filipino TV, the almost geisha-whiteness of the actors and personalities continues to astound me. It’s made strikingly clear– whiteness is beautiful. (In fact, so many of the most popular actors are half-white that I’m beginning to think it’s a prerequisite!) I absolutely hated my skin color growing up (and no wonder!). Another dark skinned friend of mine would literally wear turtlenecks in the blazing summer heat. And I’ll never forget the time I bitterly told my mom through clenched teeth, “I hate you for giving me this dark skin.” My mom wasn’t defensive and angry, but instead replied in the most gentlest way, conveying sadness and deep disappointment. Thinking of that breaks my heart.

—by Anna, excerpted from “Dark Skinned White Girls.” Read the rest at Feministing.

I identify as Filipina and black. I do this to give honor to the struggles both my Filipina mother and my black father have had to endure. I give respect by learning both heritages and never denying one or the other. My identity is heavily influenced by both society and my parents. Both influences intersect to make me who I am. I feel that both my parents have endured a great deal due to society’s conscious and unconscious views on race and class. The way society works has developed my parents into hard working people that took the only paths offered to them. For my father, it was entering the military and escaping the harsh life of Jacksonville, Alabama. For my mother in the Philippines, it was working at an Air Force base. Their paths would cross and they would marry and have four children of which I am the youngest.

My parents are still together and talk openly about racial issues that they have to deal with. The funny thing is that they do not connect their struggles. My father understands about black oppression, but not about Asian and Pacific Islander struggles and vice versa for my mother. While my mother is coming to a certain consciousness about not wanting to be called “Oriental,” my father has to be gently reminded that the term is rather offensive.

—by Lulu, published in “Blended Nation: Portraits and Interviews of Mixed Race America.” Read the rest at Filipinas Magazine.

(Image Credit: Lulu Carpenter, Filipinas Magazine)

by Guest Contributor CVT, originally published at Choptensils

A while back, I wrote a post (here and at Racialicious) that covered my tendency to channel emotions like anger and frustration into my art and teaching, using those so-called “negative” feelings as fuel for anti-oppressive works. I made references to being “violently peaceful” and how I often thought of my words as verbal punches against oppression.

My readers had a lot of different thoughts on that piece, positive and otherwise, but one Racialicious commenter’s words, in particular, really stuck with me. In short, this commenter basically touched on – what should have been – an obvious point: that my piece, although I intended it to be applicable to women as well as men, came from a very “standard” masculine point of view; a male culture that is taught to embrace violence in many ways. With that in mind, my intentions meant little in regard to the fact that I was really playing up to a “masculine” ideal and quite possibly dismissing half of the world’s population. (*1)

Let’s just say I’ve been digesting and working over these thoughts for months now (doing other things, too, of course), and I think I’m finally ready to write about it.

This post is going to examine the culture of violence in one man’s life (mine), with a focus on this question: “How does a man of color struggle against oppression without using violent imagery?”

There are probably a ton of readers out there that have an immediate, obvious answer to this question, but it’s one I’ve had a very hard time answering for myself. Why? Because I grew up in the States. As a male. And the media and people around me very much encouraged me to make violence a part of my identity.

From the very beginning, a concept of manhood was pressed on me (by my environment, not my parents) that made fighting and imitation-violence a major focus. Toys “for boys” were GI Joes and other fighting-type “action figures.” The movies aimed at me (and that I enjoyed) generally involved shooting and fighting. The “manly” heroes were generally the ones who could beat up the most people.

When I was a little kid, I thought ninjas were the sh– (I actually kind of still do). I’d run around all day, trying to walk like a ninja, throwing imaginary weapons at faux enemies, and then jump-kick and punch them to an early demise. I would then make some sort of Bruce Lee-esque “whaaaa!” and move on. (*2)

As I got a bit older, “Big Trouble in Little China” became my all-time favorite movie. (*3) I moved from ninjas to a different form of martial arts bad-ass-ness – imaginary swordplay and pretending to be able to shoot lightning at attacking hordes.

I also started reading a lot of fantasy novels involving magic and knights and battles and wars – and, in my daydreams, I would put myself front and center as the most-skilled warrior of all. I would spend hours outside with my favorite stick, attacking weeds and battling to victory.

I watched a lot of action movies. I played “Sniper” with my b-b gun. My friends and I created a game we called “Hostage Situation,” in which one or two of us would play cops trying to deal with “terrorists” who were holding a couple civilians hostage. (*4) It involved a lot of shooting and killing of each other. And we loved it.

In elementary school, I got into a few fights.

In middle school, I got into a few fights.

In high school, I got into a few fights.

I never really felt like I “started” any of those fights (even though, in hind-sight, some of my actions led to them), but I found myself in them, nonetheless. Because I was encouraged to “stand up for myself” and not let other people “push me around.” No matter how much bigger than me somebody was, if I felt like I needed to stand up, I stood up, and I wasn’t going to back down. And “not backing down,” in my mind, usually meant getting ready to throw blows.

I played football through high school- a cornerback, my strength and willingness to really hit somebody stood out to my coaches, opponents, and even some college scouts. Asian kids can’t play football? Every week it was my goal to prove that that was a load of B.S., and I took out some of that pressure on opposing players (always cleanly, but hard). And I enjoyed it. It felt good. The rush that coursed through me after I knocked some other guy on his ass? Beautiful.

But high school ended, and I had to make a direction-changing (at that point) decision – in picking between two colleges, I had to choose either to continue playing football at one school, or to focus on academics at another school. After a lot of deliberation up until the midnight deadline, I chose academics. And, with that, my little “outlet” for violent tendencies disappeared.

Interesting thing is, I found myself in the middle trying to break up fights throughout college – never getting into one, myself. I was the cool head. I was the one pissed off at my stupid (usually drunk, but not always) friends trying to “be a man” by getting into it with some other idiot. I was throwing my “friends” out of strangers’ parties because they were trying to start sh– with people for no reason. When a group of my friends loaded up the car to head over to stomp some frat kids for threatening another friend . . . I went out for pizza. I found myself hanging out with groups of female friends more often – because, with them, I knew I wouldn’t have to deal with that kind of crap.

I’d like to say that that’s all there was to it. That, from then on, I was this enlightened, non-violent guy who went around defusing fights. But that was hardly the case.

Because I still had it in me to “never back down.” There were a couple times when I was breaking up other people’s stupid fights when one of the guys involved would run their mouth and threaten me. In those cases, I never swung, but I definitely puffed up a bit, did the “glare” and responded with less-than-peaceful words. It was ingrained. It was in my blood. I couldn’t “let” somebody talk to me like that. I wasn’t going to get punked by some fool who I was keeping out of a fight. And afterwards? I hate to say it, but I’d imagine kicking that guy’s ass, in detail.

Ultimately, I was glad that I hadn’t actually fought, but there was a part of me – always – that kind of wished I had.

And I struggled with that. Still do. Because I have absolutely zero respect for those guys who have to prove themselves with violence. Guys too insecure to just let people be. Who pick on smaller, physically “weaker” people. Who prey on others. Who even joke about laying a hand on their partners. Who ruin lives due to a need for some sort of never-achieved “masculinity.”

And yet . . . I still have these little violent daydreams . . . some f—-er drops some racist ish in a conversation, and I gleefully imagine breaking his nose. Some guy puffs up on the subway with somebody half his size, and I fantasize about knocking him out. I watch a movie, and I get all pumped up when the protagonist gets violent revenge on the enemies that killed his family . . .

It’s in me. This secret affair with violence – while I’m walking through the world, consciously trying to eliminate the violence of oppression; trying to teach my kids peaceful alternatives to physical fights; mentoring kids in the arts, so they can engage their emotions instead of just letting them out. How can I reconcile these two extremes? Because I honestly, fully believe that changing the culture of violence in the lives of kids of color (especially) is a huge key to leveling the playing field. I whole-heartedly believe in being a male role model who celebrates non-violence and defines manhood by being confident enough to let somebody puff up without needing to do anything about it.

But then I play some competitive football and hit somebody . . . and I revel in it. I watch (and enjoy) violent movies. I put aggressive passion into my poetry and other writing.

And I talk about anti-oppression work as if it’s a war. That’s the kicker for me. The other stuff is mostly internal work that is going to take me some time to deconstruct and move away from – but at least I have no need or inclination to actually act on it. But when I think – and talk – about oppression? I think violently.

I think about “fighting” oppression. I think about “choosing my battles” in order to save my strength and more effectively “fight back.” I talk about being on “the front lines” and “battling” it out. I talk about “hitting back” against oppressors, “knocking the privilege out of people’s mouths,” “bringing the top down,” “blowing up” stereotypes.

Even when I think about oppressed peoples standing up for themselves (which is positive and necessary), I’m still using the “can’t back down” mentality that got me into all those physical fights as a kid. I get stubborn and dug in. That ignorant, sub-conscious racist guy I work with? I’ll show him what’s up.

And it’s all making me start to wonder. Because I largely think (and explain myself and the world) in metaphors and analogies. I come up with a strong metaphor for a situation that is difficult, and I use the mechanics of the metaphorical situation to help me solve the problems of the literal one.

What does that mean? Well, say dealing with racism is walking through a windstorm. You’re constantly buffeted by gusts and little crap that’s being flung through the air – but if you put your collar up, get a forward lean going, you can still make some progress and be somewhat unaffected by it. But then some bottle cap gets flung up and hits you in the ear, and it really stings. And that’s the last straw – that’s it – that pain from such a little thing just makes you lose it, and suddenly you’re cursing this windstorm, tearing up, frustrated, and you just stop moving forward and kind of wallow in how much you hate dealing with this. You want to quit.

That’s being a person of color (in the States, at least). So I use this metaphor to explain why “just a joke” is never “just a joke” – because we’re in a freaking windstorm, and there’s so much sh– flying through the air. I also use it to build myself up, to not let one bottle cap keep me from pushing forward to my goals. To find ways to buffer myself against the wind while keeping that forward, positive momentum. Because, once you stop and let your body give up a bit, it’s so much harder to get moving again.

Right. Metaphors. So my problem here is that my metaphor for the struggle against oppression, in general – is a war. Is violent. Standing up for myself is great, but not if I’m thinking in terms of showing somebody else what’s up. It changes the dynamic. If I’m talking about race, and every white person becomes my enemy – how the Hell am I ever going to get enough help to bring real change? If I’m looking at this as a running battle – a war – that means I’m looking to inflict damage on some sort of “enemy.” And that comes through in how I speak, how I interact, the particular solutions I tend to find most feasible. And it becomes apparent to that “other side.”

And, suddenly, they have good reason to fear me. To feel threatened by me. To get defensive and start fighting themselves.

And then what?

That cycle of violence (even if it’s just metaphorical). Because, ultimately, it goes like this – violence – in any form – only breeds a need for revenge in the victim. That revenge may be aimed at the perpetrator, but it is most often aimed at the nearest, easiest target, instead. Which then breeds the need for revenge in somebody else, totally unconnected to the original crime. And it never ends.

And thinking of the anti-oppression struggle as a violent act (war, battles, etc.) does the same thing. It just creates this cycle of “Us” vs. “Them.” Me trying to win at their expense, them getting theirs at somebody else’s cost. The Oppression Olympics. Divide and Conquer. The lack of true unity . . . because we’re all fighting, all stuck in the cycle of violence.

I need a new metaphor. One that accepts no violent imagery. One that rejects it. But, as I’ve detailed above, I’m far too conditioned to think in violent terms – even as I consciously reject violence – to be able to come up with this new metaphor. I would guess that most males (at least in the U.S.) are, too.

And so I turn to the female, non-masculine half of the world to set me straight. I am not creative enough to think differently, but I believe that many of you are. What is a useful, non-violent metaphor for the struggle against oppression that all of us (especially the men) can use as a mental model to finally break the current cycle we’re stuck in?

I need to think differently. I’ve finally worked through to that point. But I’m stuck. I need help.

Ladies? The patriarchal, pissing-contest system we have in place is largely at fault for the state of the world – and it shouldn’t be your jobs to bail us out (again), but I don’t know what else to do on this one. I’m not qualified or capable of finding this new metaphor (which is probably so very obvious to you all) due to my “masculine” conditioning.

So I’m asking you for your help in developing this new model for reducing oppressive systems. This new way of thinking. (*5)

I hope what I then do with it will be more than sufficient re-payment . . .

(*1) Obviously, I’m not going to call this commenter out (even in the positive way I intend), but I’m sure that those who want more detail on the comments in question can puzzle it out for themselves.

(*2) Yes, I am very much aware that Bruce Lee is/was in no way a ninja. Ninjas were Japanese. Bruce Lee was mixed-Chinese – like me. However, as a little kid, I did not have that distinction, therefore the mixed-imitations.

(*3) I wrote a post a LOOOONG time ago about why that movie worked for me (and still does), but for now let’s just boil it down to – I actually had Chinese heroes to look up to in the movie, with a bumbling white sidekick.

(*4) Interesting “historical” sidenote – in this game, we imagined the “terrorists” as white guys like Hans Gruber and the crew in the first Die Hard movie (even though not all my friends were white).

(*5) And by “new,” I mean “new for this particular male” – it’s likely common-sense old for some (or many) of you.

• Texas OKs school textbook changes – Life- msnbc.com AUSTIN, Texas – The Texas State Board of Education adopted a social studies and history curriculum Friday that amends or waters down the teaching of the civil rights movement, religious freedoms, America's relationship with the U.N. and hundreds of other items. The new standards were adopted after a final showdown by two 9-5 votes along party lines, after Democrats' and moderate Republicans' efforts to delay a final vote failed. The ideological debate over the guidelines, which drew intense scrutiny beyond Texas, will be used to determine what important political events and figures some 4.8 million students will learn about for the next decade. (tags: via:carleandria textbooks publiceducation texas skewedhistory)
• Dora the Explorer: illegal immigrant? CHICAGO – In her police mug shot, the doe-eyed cartoon heroine with the bowl haircut has a black eye, battered lip and bloody nose. Dora the Explorer's alleged crime? "Illegal Border Crossing Resisting Arrest." The doctored picture, one of several circulating widely in the aftermath of Arizona's controversial new immigration law, may seem harmless, ridiculous or even tasteless. But experts say the pictures and the rhetoric surrounding them online, in newspapers and at public rallies, reveal some Americans' attitudes about race, immigrants and where some of immigration reform debate may be headed. (tags: via:carleandria warning:graphic image arizona immigrationlaw doratheexplorer latin@)
• Diversity is beautiful. So why the whitewash in fashion? – The Globe … We all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but a new study out of Britain suggests that most beholders find one thing especially beautiful: a mixed-race face. According to Michael Lewis of Cardiff University's school of psychology, “people whose genetic backgrounds are more diverse are, on average, perceived as more attractive.” Lewis, a senior lecturer at the school, came to this conclusion after asking what he says is the highest-ever number of respondents on the subject to rate more than 1,200 pictures of black, white and mixed-race faces on the basis of physical appeal. In his view, the study proves that Darwin's theory of heterosis – the belief that cross-breeding leads to genetically fitter offspring in the animal world – also applies to humans, who in turn equate fitness with beauty. If that's the case, it also reveals how truly unevolved the fashion industry is… (tags: via:leslie fashion/race hybridvigour cardiff badargumentfordiversity yucky)
• Book Review – The Last Hero – A Life of Henry Aaron – By Howard Bryant – NYTimes.com "Bryant confirms what one sensed at the time, that Aaron approached [his goal of 3,000 hits] more as grim chore than joyous mission. To a teenage fan like me, the long siege, spanning several seasons, felt exhausting. Even as I rooted for Aaron, counting each home run, I yearned for it to end, in particular the racist abuse. It was well known that as each fresh trophy was being shipped to Cooperstown, Aaron was hoarding his own, much darker souvenirs, the torrent of hate letters, including no small number, Bryant acerbically reports, “from his fellow Americans, guaranteeing his death should he continue the quest.” That he was pursuing it in Dixie only heightened the pressure. He was given the protection of a “two-man personal security force,” and the F.B.I. kept watch. Three decades later it still pained him, Bryant writes, to recall “how a piece of his life had been taken from him and how it had never come back.” It was one of baseball’s ugliest passages." (tags: race sports baseball history)

• The Paris Review – The Art of Fiction No. 203 Ray Bradbury, of Fahrenheit 451 fame: "You can’t learn to write in college. It’s a very bad place for writers because the teachers always think they know more than you do—and they don’t. They have prejudices. They may like Henry James, but what if you don’t want to write like Henry James? They may like John Irving, for instance, who’s the bore of all time. A lot of the people whose work they’ve taught in the schools for the last thirty years, I can’t understand why people read them and why they are taught. The library, on the other hand, has no biases. The information is all there for you to interpret. You don’t have someone telling you what to think. You discover it for yourself." (tags: via:TNC education prejudice bias)
• Black Atheists Ponder Coming Out of the Closet – The Root "One conference participant from the Bible Belt summed it up this way: "Christianity's grasp on black people makes it almost impossible to admit that you're a black atheist. We have to hide our non-belief, otherwise we are excluded. And if we give voice to any objection or doubt, we're ostracized and isolated–or just banished! So any time religion comes up, it's simpler to just change the subject or say nothing if you can't bring yourself to fake an 'amen.' … But don't use my name ‘cause my mother told me when she saw me reading God is Not Great that if any of her children actually believed ‘that mess,' she'd have one less child." (tags: race religion atheism)

by Carmen Van Kerckhove
Cross-posted on Racialicious, Love Isn’t Enough, Addicted to Race, and CarmenVanKerckhove.com

This post probably won’t come as a huge surprise — I know many people have noticed how quiet I’ve been over the last few months.

I want to let you know that I’ve decided to “retire” from work on race and diversity. Instead, I’m going to focus full-time on working with my husband Serge on Urban Martial Arts, our karate school in Brooklyn.

Why have I decided to change course? Well, it took me a long time to admit this to myself, but the truth is that I’m just not as passionate and driven about race work as I used to be.

Before, when I heard about something race-related, I’d get fired up and couldn’t wait to blog/speak/evangelize about it. But over the last year, blogging has felt like more of an obligation than a passion. And it’s just not fair to you if I keep phoning it in.

Besides, I’ve always been a big believer that you need to know when to move on and make room for the next generation. There’s nothing I would hate more than to become that cranky older activist telling the young’uns to shut up and show some goddamn respect.

People who are close to me know that I’ve always been just as interested in marketing and entrepreneurship, as I have been in race. And lately, my interest in business has been peaking as my interest in race work has been dying down.

Serge and I started Urban Martial Arts, our Brooklyn karate school, two years ago, and it’s been such a great journey. We work together shockingly well (hey, we were nervous about how it would be to work AND live together!), and running a local small business poses a never-ending series of enjoyable intellectual challenges for us.

Plus, I can’t even begin to tell you how rewarding it is to run a business that brings such positive change to our community: not only changes in our students’ physical well-being, but also seeing how martial arts is helping to strengthen them mentally and emotionally.

Serge is the martial artist in the family, not me, so I’ve never had a chance before now to see how life-transforming martial arts really can be. Kinda makes me wish I’d done karate as a kid instead of kidding myself that I was ever gonna be a ballerina. (If you’ve ever witnessed how terrible my posture is, you’ll know that the ballet tuition was quite a waste of money. LOL!)

It’s also been really cool to see what a diverse community we’ve created. We’re in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood called Ditmas Park. The school’s location happens to be at an intersection between a bunch of different ethnic/religious communities — West Indian, South Asian, Orthodox Jewish, North African, Middle Eastern, Eastern European, just to name a few — and we have students represented from all those backgrounds and more.

(Oh, funnily enough, the school is literally around the corner from this daycare center. When I saw that post go up, I had a total case of “the worlds are colliding!”)

It’s also been fun for me to take what I stumbled into learning about social media and try to adapt it for business purposes. We just relaunched our web site, which has — wait for it — a blog! That’s right, I’m still blogging, though now it’s about health and nutrition, and the goings on at the school.

I’m also trying to figure out what the best strategy is with our Facebook page and Twitter account. I’m tinkering, trying out some different things, but if any of you have suggestions, I’d love to hear them! Hit me up at carmen AT urbandojo.com. And of course, if any of you live in or near Ditmas Park and want to try classes, holla!

So anyway, the point is: I’m really excited about this new direction I’m heading in!

And because there are so many amazing people who are doing great work in the race/diversity space, I feel that I can walk away without regret, and with confidence that people are going to continue the struggle against racism.

So what’s going to happen to the various places where you keep up with me and my colleagues? Here’s a rundown…

• Racialicous – Latoya Peterson is going to take over
• Love Isn’t Enough (formerly Anti-Racist Parent) – Tami Winfrey Harris is going to take over
• Addicted to Race – Latoya Peterson is going to take over
• New Demographic will be dissolved.
• My personal blog – I’m not quite sure yet what I’m going to do with it.
• My Twitter account – again, I’m not quite sure yet what I’m going to do with it.
• My Facebook account – I’m going to let it go idle, since it’s gotten just too overwhelming and full of people I don’t know (my own fault, obviously).

I’ve started a new Facebook account under my married name for personal and karate purposes. Feel free to friend me there, but please understand that I’m only going to accept your friend request if I know you personally in some way, so don’t be offended if I don’t respond!

Tami tells me that Julia, a Love Isn’t Enough contributor and ardent supporter will be joining her as co-editor, and they are assembling an editorial team to move the site forward. Some of the same voices our readers have come to appreciate will still be around, plus some new ones.

While they work out technical stuff and marshal their forces, Love Isn’t Enough will be on hiatus. They will return the week of June 14. In the meantime, they will post an open thread and encourage readers to share any suggestions for the future.

Latoya also has a lot of exciting plans for Racialicious, and Addicted to Race, but she’ll reveal those to you in due course.

Ok, so here’s where my emotionally stunted self is going to try and let myself get a bit mushy.

Thank you so much for the support you’ve shown me over the last eight years. Every person who has ever subscribed to our email newsletter, subscribed to our podcast, commented on our blogs, told a friend about us, came to watch me speak, emailed me encouraging words, interviewed me for an article or show, signed up for a teleseminar or program, linked to our blog — every single one of those actions helped create this vibrant network of communities you see here today.

I’m really proud of the work I’ve done over the years, and I’m so grateful for the amazing opportunities that have come my way, and the great friends and colleagues I’ve met.

I hope that you will continue to support Racialicious, Addicted to Race, and Love Isn’t Enough after I’m gone, because Latoya and Tami have some great things in store for you.

Thank you for letting me into your life.

With gratitude,

Carmen Van Kerckhove

PS: Let me leave you with one last gift…

• Gay Couple Sentenced to 14 Years in Malawi | New York Times "Gift Trapence, executive director of the Centre for the Development of People, was at the court house Thursday and told reporters: 'How can they get 14 years simply for loving one another? Even if they are jailed for 20 years you can't change their sexuality.''' (tags: via:biancalaureano LGBTQ africa homophobia criminaljusticesystem)
• Readers: Children Learn Attitudes about Race at Home | CNN.com "'I think it's interesting how many people want to fight the results, rather than conclude, 'Hey, maybe it is a good idea to teach our kids when they are really young that we shouldn't judge people by the way they look,' FrustratedMI wrote." (tags: via:molecularshyness racism black white children dolltestredux)
• Tim Wise: Of Faulty Comparisons and Racial Animosity: Nashville, New Orleans and the Politics of Disaster | Facebook "But the second narrative, as articulated by far too many in the past two weeks, while it praises those local efforts, does so specifically by attempting to contrast the good and decent people of Nashville with the presumably undesirable and indecent folks in certain unnamed but easily identifiable other places, who have in recent years experienced massive flooding. In other words, the black and poor of New Orleans, inundated when the levees protecting their city gave way to flood waters generated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. And so we have been subjected to claims by Nashville columnist David Climer (of the local daily, The Tennessean), that the reason the flooding here didn't receive enough media attention was because in order to get headlines, you have to 'start looting.' But, as Climer made sure to point out, in his May 9 essay, 'We're better than that. Our city never lost control.' Got that? We are good. They are bad. Praise us. Screw them." (tags: via:robschmidt racism neworleans nashville)
• Detroit Police Kill 7-Year-Old Girl in "No-Knock" Raid | The Black Snob "This is usually the no-knock scenario: You're asleep, in your apartment or home, and it's past midnight when suddenly there is a loud crashing noise and flashes of smoke and light and people are breaking down your door with guns drawn and your response is of panic and confusion. You're pretty sure you're about to die, so, naturally, you put up a fight. But as it turns out, it's the police executing a "No-Knock" warrant with a flash grenade. But, ahem, how would you know that if it's past midnight, you're asleep and it just sounds like armed killers are trying to break into your house? How would you know this, especially, if you live in a high crime area where actual criminals DO break into people's houses and accost them?
  "No matter the scenario, this is a sad situation and why 'no-knock' warrants should be illegal." (tags: via:molecularshyness policebrutality)
• A Black Kagan Recruit Makes the Case for Confirmation | The Grio "Even more, as a clinician, I was impressed by Elena Kagan's substantial expansion of the clinical teaching program at Harvard. From environmental law to educational advocacy, Kagan poured resources into Harvard's clinical offerings. Due to this expansion, thousands of indigent and under-represented citizens received quality legal services that they otherwise would not have been able to afford. For me, this represented a tangible commitment to the principle norm that animates our legal system: "equal justice under law." (tags: race Kagan SCOTUS Harvard academia)
• Why Blacks Should Get Behind Elena Kagan "Beyond the issue of diversity of faculty, I can personally attest to Dean Kagan's support of diversity in the student body. The numbers that she has been responsible for are just outstanding. Since Elena Kagan became dean, the number of African American students admitted, particularly black males (given the national decline in African American males in colleges and universities), is simply astonishing. From 2003 until she ended her deanship in 2009, the number of African American students has been at an all time high. Her first year, 10% of the students were African American and the total minority student body was 29%. That percentage has increased in each category over the years. As a result, 31% of the entering class at Harvard Law School over the last 9 years is a record and a sign of her commitment." (tags: race Kagan SCOTUS black africanamerican academia college Harvard)
• Could U.S. Jews Abandon Israel? | The Atlantic Wire "For much of Israel's short history, it has enjoyed intimate diplomatic and cultural ties to the U.S. In addition to both being democracies and sharing a similar agenda in the Middle East, Israel and the U.S. boast the two largest Jewish populations in the world. But could the support for Israel among American Jews be slipping? Most American Jews are liberal, for reasons we explored here. Some liberal U.S. Jews, including Jon Stewart, are distancing themselves from what the New York Times calls "a state whose government is now dominated by nationalist and ultrareligious politicians." In the New York Review of Books, Peter Beinart–a prominent, liberal, Jewish pundit who has long supported Israel–says that American Jewish support for Israel is dropping rapidly and could, he says, disappear among the liberals who dominate the group." (tags: race religion ethnicity jewish politics Palestine Israel)
• The New Poor – The Economy Shifts, Leaving Some Behind – NYTimes.com "Ms. Norton says she cannot find any government programs to help her strengthen the “thin bootstraps” she intends to pull herself up by. Because of the Wal-Mart job, she has been ineligible for unemployment benefits, and she says she made too much money to qualify for food stamps or Medicaid last year.

  “If you’re not a minority, or not handicapped, or not a young parent, or not a veteran, or not in some other certain category, your hope of finding help and any hope of finding work out there is basically nil,” Ms. Norton says. “I know. I’ve looked.”"

  (tags: race whiteness unemployment)

Hosted By Special Correspondent Arturo R. García

It wasn’t our fault, promise. Well, at least we don’t think so.

FlashForward officially entered lame-duck status last week, making “The Negotiation” awkward to watch, despite it finally putting its’ players, as Gabriel would say, “where they need to be.” For the first few minutes, watching Wedeck rally the troops – and credit to Courtney B. Vance for making this speech shiny yet not-saccharine – I thought this was the finale. Gang, your thoughts?

Andrea: As much as I had patience with the show to establish itself, another part of me wonders if the creatives thought they had more time to develop the show, considering that far worse shows have been picked up. I guess they forgot they were on ABC, not the CW (or whatever the hell it’s called nowadays).
Mahsino: No Andrea, it wouldn’t have lasted that long on the CW, too many people of color. But yeah, I kept checking IMDB to see if this was the season finale.
Arturo: Y’know, I’m not so sure. The CW lusts after the younger demos enough to think it would’ve been more likely to accept J-Cho as a lead actor vis-a-vis J-Fiennes. And while Smallville is positively bad, the network’s shown a steady hand in letting that fandom develop over the past 10(?!) years.
jen*: It did seem like the finale. But I’m not thinking the CW would go for a show with so many old people … playing old people.

If/when we start a bowling team, I’m hiring CB Vance to do our pre-game speeches, deal?
Andrea: It took me a minute to figure out that he’s doing the weekly into voice-over. If it were me, I’d go with “Cho. And I think y’all know what state I’d want him in when he’s making the speech.
jen*: I’m LOVING Vance, here. In fact, IMO he’s probably one of the people best-served by this show, just getting his face and talents out there. I’d love to see him in something else anytime soon. He could totally be presidential, I think.
Diana: ::Does cartwheel in gleeful anticipation.::

Did a gaggle of Lost fic-writers get ahold of the script? Because the Simon fanservice went way off the rails this week – “Look! Even formerly presumed lesbians want him!” “Look! Here he is shirtless in a douchey hat!”
Andrea: Y’all know my dislike of Simon. But I’ma give him the hat. He looked rather jaunty in it…though I do think he should’ve done a “Smooth Operator” spin and disappear from the room after his chat with Elvira and Viggo Mortensen’s younger brother.
Mahsino: Re: presumed lesbians, I think I’d just describe it as her doing her job (pretending to be interested in Simon and Janice). I’ll give it a pass since she doesn’t have a back story yet and just call her bisexual for now. And yeah, it was a douchey hat and it called too much attention to his jowls.
Arturo: You might be right on that one. Still, I found it curious that we got an inferred flirtation during her interaction with Janis, but when we got to Simon it became a case of OHMYGODGUYSHETOTALLYHITTHAT. It harkens back to your past observations about Janis being a “wish-fulfillment”-sort of lesbian for some segments of the audience.
jen*: I’m on Team Hat, here. I liked it. Though I would have been even more pleased if he’d had his shirt on. And what an outtake that would’ve been to see, if he pulled an MJ, put on his ‘Smooth Criminal’ hat, and disappeared a la Remember the Time.
Andrea: Or at least do the “Smooth Operator” lean.
Arturo: I dunno, gang, I don’t think Monaghan wants to step into Sam Rockwell territory.
Diana: The hat did look good on him, but I still don’t understand why his character gets so much action. He was with that lady on the train when first introduced; he’s been giving Janis come hither looks for a while; and now this. Somebody on the writing staff must be crushing on him hard.

And then, Janis. On the one hand, she finally knows she’s been played by all sides. On the other, her GTFO stance toward Demetri is, pardon my french, a dick move.
Andrea: See, ol’ girl was, relatively speaking, better off going to a sperm bank. Now, I’m thinking Zoey’s going to shoot Dem in the chest for this mess. SMH all around.
Mahsino: In her defense, she didn’t actually think he’d be alive to want to raise this kid, so she probably did equate it to the next best thing to a sperm bank under the circumstances. Her attitude pissed me off. She keeps saying she doesn’t want him involved with her mess, but it’s a bit too late for all that, Zoey’s probably going to figure out somethings up once she sees Janis’ daughter.
Arturo: No kidding; without an acknowledgement that he a) told Zoey and b) that she’s onboard with this plan, it’s hard to see how Dem thought that would work out. Is he gonna ask Janis to put the kid in a lucha libre mask whenever she’s near Z?
jen*: Ok. I was holding out for some miraculous, other-worldly explanation. And now I’m just pissed. I was even hoping Janis would say the baby wasn’t real – or maybe that Dem isn’t the daddy – but this? Not Cool. And for someone who’s gonna be a mom, Janis doesn’t seem to think ahead much. Obviously Zoey’s gonna hafta be connected to the baby – maybe even more if Demetri dies.
Diana: Andrea, I predicted a while ago that Zoey would shoot him when all this baby donor stuff started percolating. We’ll see.

Speaking of Dem, he’s fairly trapped himself: by Zoey, by his infidelity with Janis, and now seemingly by destiny.
Andrea: See, if Dem would have read our Roundtable where we discussed this very issue, he would have just been trapped by destiny. But, ooooooh noooooo, he had to get his baby daddy on. ::bitchlips::
jen*: For real. Things didn’t have to go down this way, unless they were planning on getting rid of Dem by the end of the season anyway. In which case I wouldn’t have watched season 2, even if it wasn’t canceled.
Diana: For real, for real. He could have been working on perpetuating his legacy through Zoey.

Open Mic!
Arturo: I’ll just go ahead and say it – no matter how the Aaron Stark plotline plays out, his saga was a burden this over-staffed show couldn’t afford. Especially not when the Jericho link to the GBO was only mentioned in passing, and not by any of the bad guys.
Andrea: Co-sign, Arturo. But then, I feel the same way about Mark. ::shrug::
Mahsino: Agreed, his storyline is a waste of time, but what bothered me more is the fact that the Big Bad supposedly has been sponsoring Simon since he was a wee lad, yet they look the same age.
Arturo: It’d be more fitting for Viggo Jr. is either a mid-level operative or just the latest in a prior line of Big Bads. But, again, we didn’t get enough meat on the bones of their story other than, “oooh, they want to knock the world out, boogedy boogedy.”
jen*: The most useful part of the Stark story was Wedeck’s use of the intel. I feel like they could’ve had him multitasking earlier on, and left out more of the minutely boring details that translated into blah episodes mid-season. As for Mr. Blonde Baddie? Too much hair. I couldn’t take him seriously. And I kinda thought he looked younger than Simon. I’d expect The Bad Guys™ to be a group you had to work your way up in…not just step into after undergrad.
Diana: Even though I am not a real fan of Mark, I was really impressed by his posing as Gabriel and going after Viggo Jr. like he did and the calling Janis on her BS. But, it’s a little too late to become invested now. Obviously.