Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Study: Charter schools have worsened school segregation

Study: Charter schools have worsened school segregation #racism http://t.co/YSVDbAiRE7
— Mosi Ifatunji (@ifatunji) October 14, 2014

Monday, September 15, 2014

Racism

"The most common mistake people make when they talk about racism is to think it is a collection of prejudices and individual acts of discrimination. They do not see that it is a system, a web of interlocking, reinforcing institutions: economic, military, legal, educational, religious, and cultural. As a system, racism affects every aspect of life in a country."

–Elizabeth Martinez

photo credit: rahuldlucca via photopin cc

Thursday, April 24, 2014

The model minority myth

Most people in the U.S. believe that Asian American success in the academic field is indicative of idealized immigrant assimilation, but this image is not completely accurate and may be more harmful than beneficial

It is commonplace to assume that Asian Americans’ academic and monetary success in the United States can be attributed to “natural” intellect and a culture that inherently places emphasis on education. However, this attitude silences Asian American and Pacific Islanders’ (AAPI) voices in discussions of racial injustice in addition to numerous, serious repercussions.

What the model minority myth is

In short, it is the idea that AAPIs are a prime example of an immigrant group that has reached a higher level of achievement than the rest of the population average. This success is typically measured in high achievement in academics and in the workplace, as well as other factors such as low crime rates.

AAPIs have had a history of being seen as the “Yellow Peril”, a fear that manifested itself as initiatives to restrict immigration from Asia and the Japanese internment camps of World War II. That is, until it became convenient for them to be portrayed otherwise.

During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, blacks mobilized across the nation calling for action against segregations laws, voter disenfranchisement, and mass racial violence at the time. In response, the white American press began publishing rags-to-riches stories of AAPIs who achieved success in the U.S. despite facing similar racial segregation and marginalization as blacks. White America essentially broadcast the message that if AAPIs are doing so well, black America’s concerns were unfounded and the system was fine as is.

By the 1980s, every major U.S. publication had run a feel-good story about the high achievements of AAPIs

AAPIs were nonthreatening enough to utilize as symbols of idealized minority assimilation to American society because their population was much smaller and their history of political activism was quieter and less visible. Thus, AAPIs have been a tool to justify institutional racism ever since, and the model minority myth is taken as fact to this day.

Flaws of the Model Minority Myth

The model minority myth seems to be fairly easy for the general public to understand. After all, it’s hard to argue against a “positive” stereotype and the statistics that tell us that AAPIs have “obtained the highest educational attainment level and median household income of any racial and ethnic demographic in the country”. This idea alone is misrepresented, as are many other aspects that constitute the myth at large.

It homogenizes an incredibly diverse group

Asia is the world’s largest continent, not simply made up of the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. AAPIs therefore have many differences in class, ethnic, geographic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Claiming otherwise one-dimensionalizes AAPIs on traits based on stereotypes rather than as complex humans with complex experiences.

It needlessly pits AAPIs against other minorities

The model minority myth contributes to the historical tension between “the model minority” of AAPIs and those who the myth seeks to put down: blacks and Latinos. This is precisely what the manufacturers of the myth intended in a classic “divide and conquer” tactic. If minorities are too busy feuding with each other over harmful stereotypes and illusory privileges of “positive” stereotypes, they will spend less time resisting the actual oppressors. Black and Latino communities’ struggles with social inequity are attributed to “bad culture” without the press exploring whether institutional racism is at play. In contrast, when a well-educated, upper middle class East Asian community seems to be flourishing, the media is quick to attribute it to how much the current system is working. The latter story is easier to swallow at the expense of creating a very problematic racial hierarchy, leading into the next point.

It makes racism seem less harmful to certain minorities over others

It’s very troublesome that success is being measured in wealth and academic success, and it’s even more problematic that supposed social and economic equality means there are no significant forms of discrimination left in American society.

Instances of microaggressions are so prevalent in our society that they are considered normal, which silence AAPI voices in discussions of racial issues.

It puts undue, unfair pressure on AAPIs

For starters, reduction of AAPI into superhuman machines thriving in the American education system and workplace is pure objectification at best. Its implications beyond that are far worse.

Higher expectations of AAPIs means Asian-American college students in particular are more likely than white American students to have suicide thoughts and to attempt suicide. Additionally, 15.9% of U.S.-born Asian-American women have a higher lifetime rate of suicidal thoughts than the general 13.5% of the U.S. population, according to the American Psychological Association. This is not helped by the studies that show AAPIs in general are less likely to seek psychological and counseling services .

Hard facts about the “model minority”

Infographic compiled by the Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus

AAPIs face more economic inequality than the model minority myth would suggest

First and foremost, it should be noted that while AAPIs seem to boast impressive statistics with having a higher median income than white Americans, AAPIs also have a higher rate of poverty. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, while 12.4% of the general U.S. population is living below poverty, 37.8% of Hmong (the highest in the country for any one ethnicity), 29.3% of Cambodian, 18.5% of Laotian, and 16.6% of Vietnamese people show stark poverty rates that are not discussed enough. For reference, 27.6% of blacks and 25.3% of Latinos compared to 9.9% of whites live under the poverty line.

The fixation on the successful numbers of AAPIs is a result of an inaccurate depiction of their economic diversity. The reason for the earning disparities in the first place is due to higher educational attainment by Chinese and Indian Americans in particular. When white men and AAPI men with similar educational backgrounds and qualifications are compared, however, it is shown that white men will still earn up to 8% more. Something in the current system, therefore, still discriminates against AAPIs.

The relationship between AAPIs and higher education is bleaker than the model minority myth suggests

The idea that AAPIs are overrepresented in universities is also, simply, a myth. University officials have used this myth as justification to cap their “quotas” of AAPI students during the admissions process. This means that AAPIs have to actually work harder to score higher than their white counterparts and compete amongst themselves for a limited number of spots. Prestigious institutions such as Brown University, Harvard University, and UC Berkeley have been investigated for their discrimination against AAPIs in admissions.

According to a detailed publication compiled by College Board, “The AAPI student population is concentrated in a small percentage of institutions, giving the false impression of high enrollment in higher education overall.” AAPI college students tend to be distributed in only a limited number of institutions, such as in 2000 when two-thirds of AAPIs attended college in only eight states.

Facts such as these tend to be glossed over in major policymaking decisions, such as the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold Michigan’s ban against affirmative action. The model minority myth alone serves as a pillar of color-blind racism and suggests that for society to move forward, minorities need only to pull themselves up through hard work rather than protest and policymaking. In the same way, proponents of the ban of “racial preferences” would rather take away the social programs and protections that seek to amend historical segregation and racial bias than openly discuss the inequities inherent in the current higher education system. The fact remains that minorities in general are still vastly underrepresented at universities, yet the ban outright ignores this. Because the model minority myth persists, bans on affirmative action and related protections persist, meaning chilling consequences for the advancement and empowerment of already marginalized minorities.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in the upcoming Pan perpetuates stereotypes, underrepresentation of Native Americans

On March 12, Variety.com announced that actress Rooney Mara has been cast as Tiger Lily from the Peter Pan story in Joe Wright’s retelling called Pan set by Warner Bros. to come out July 2015.

The trouble is that Tiger Lily is explicitly stated in the novel and play as being a Native American. Rooney Mara is clearly white and pale-skinned. As far as sources such as Flavorwire, Imdb, and Entertainment Weekly can tell, there has been no change to Tiger Lily’s identity as Native American.

This issue has two major parts to it: the blatant whitewashing of a role clearly intended for a Native American woman and the inclusion of a Tiger Lily at all in this retelling considering her racist portrayal in the original story.

The inappropriate casting decision

The problem is relatively simple: a white woman should not be cast in a role for a character who is stated as specifically Native American in the source material. It is just as inappropriate if Channing Tatum played Malcolm X or if Selena Gomez played Mulan.

Certainly, ignorant “equality”-minded internet folk will attempt inaccurate comparisons of the backlash of this issue to Michael B. Jordan’s casting as the Human Torch or Quvenzhané Wallis’ casting as Annie in other upcoming films crying, “Why is it okay for black actors to take white roles if a white person can’t take a Native American role? That’s racist!”

What this fails to acknowledge is that stories such as Annie’s are universal, yet that of a Native American is not. Annie’s race plays no part in her story. On the other hand, in Tiger Lily’s case her racial identity is core to her character’s role in the story. Most Peter Pan adaptations consider her an important character for her extensive knowledge of Neverland, having been exposed to her tribe’s deep history with the island. She is unique to Neverland and her personality traits such as her bravery and pride also stem from her association with her, albeit stereotypical, tribe.

Furthermore, Mara does not display the physical characteristics remotely related to those of a Native American. This provides a disturbing opportunity for the usage of redface, or makeup to represent a Native American based on a stereotyped caricature. It will also allow for the perpetuation of harmful, one-dimensional stereotypes of a large, diverse group of people.

Mara’s signing on for this role shuts out the opportunity for a relatively unknown Native American actress to gain exposure in Hollywood, opportunities that are very scarce for such a marginalized community in show business. Whitewashing Tiger Lily’s character means that Native Americans are further erased from society’s consciousness. Native Americans are vastly underrepresented in today’s American society, and seeing a white person onscreen where a Native American should be affirms to viewers everywhere that they are unimportant and even nonexistent.

The problem with Tiger Lily

The original Peter Pan was written by J.M. Barrie in 1902 as a tale of innocence and adventure. However, the author’s worldview was extremely Eurocentric and thus Tiger Lily represented English fascination with Native Americans. As a result, the author’s depiction of Native Americans was limited, flawed, and ultimately racist in nature. The author wrote them into the story as a fantastical version of a real, large group of people. This carried over into even Disney’s 1953 film adaptation in which Tiger Lily’s people were referred to as “redskins” consistently. Tiger Lily has no spoken lines except for an attempt to say “Help!” while her father and his tribesmen speak primarily in guttural grunts. This conveys the voicelessness of Native Americans and the erasure of their collective identity.

A further common misconception of Native Americans is that of the “Indian princess.” In the play she is described as follows:

The concept of an "Indian princess" was the projection of European explorers' social structures onto the Native Americans they encountered. There is no such thing as an Indian princess. The fact that this aspect is still embedded into Mara’s role strongly suggests this racist stereotype will be perpetuated in this role.

Adaptations such as Hook and Peter and the Starcatchers tactfully chose not to include Tiger Lily at all, recognizing the controversy of her depiction in earlier retellings. Indeed, neither she nor the Chieftain made an appearance in the sequel of Disney’s film version. It would have been wise for Pan to follow suit.

This is why Mara as Tiger Lily is problematic. Not only is a white woman set to play a Native American’s role, but a white woman is set to play a Native American woman’s role that has been historically racist in nature.

The filmmakers have an opportunity to follow through with their “multicultural” retelling, which admittedly has not been off to a good start with Hugh Jackman (white actor) as Blackbeard and Garret Hedlund (white) as Hook. If Mara is playing Tiger Lily, her backstory should be changed to fit that of a white individual rather than that of a Native American in order to avoid inappropriate redface. Revamping Tiger Lily’s story as one that better correlates with the more sensitive and politically correct ideals of modern society would be intriguing and make for a much more compelling film. It would also undoubtedly be a very constructive way for the filmmakers to distance themselves from the source material in the way they seem to intend. For now, as further developments in casting and production are announced, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for a Latino Peter and an Asian Tinkerbell.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving | Sometimes Racism is Subtle

Notice the chairs around the table.

Franklin somehow got the jacked up chair.

Franklin sits alone on the long side of the table.

There are no Latino characters in Charlie Brown cartoons. There are no Asian characters in Charlie Brown cartoons.

I suspect Charles Schulz lived in a segregated neighborhood like most Americans.

Even through Asians now often live in European-American majority neighborhoods, when these cartoons were made, the Asian population was still low from the legacy of the Asian Exclusion act and Chinese Exclusion Act.

I don't understand why Charles Schulz excluded Latinos. He lived in California so he knew Latinos existed.

@getgln

Also see

How The Peanuts Comic Strip Got Its First Black Character

Friday, August 2, 2013

Black Like Me (Book Review)

Can you ever really understand someone of a different race?

Book Reviewed: Black Like Me

Author: John Howard Griffin

Rating: 5.0/5.0 stars

Pros: It is a classic in every sense of the word.

Cons: Not found

What does it mean to be a person another race?

The answer to the question would lead John Howard Griffin on a journey through a side of America he had never known about. All he had to do was darken his skin.

John Howard Griffin, writer and former Army medic was baffled and confused by the lack of progress on the “race question” in America. Why didn’t everyone get along? Why did it seem like the world of White Americans and Black Americans so different even though they lived in the same country?

Mr. Griffin set out on an experiment to find out the answer. With the help of a doctor, lamps and creams, John Howard Griffin transformed himself from a White journalist and writer to a Black person. (He also shaved his hair.) He didn’t change anything else that one might consider aspects of a race like language, clothes, or mannerisms. At that point, he learned just how fluid the concept of race is.

Once he began the experiment, Griffin detailed his experiences (both internal and external) as he tried to navigate through his new world. Griffin was unprepared for the response that he got. As a Black man, Griffin was denied service at check-cashing stations, was forced to move to back of the bus, was verbally harassed, and even chased down by a group of young boys. He had to learn as quickly as he could, the unwritten code of race relations in the South where he was traveling including which restrooms were open for “Colored” people, which hotels he could stay in, and how much eye contact he could have with White people. In short, he got to see a side of America that he thought never existed. He saw a side that demeaned Black women and crippled Black men. The experience left him increasingly angry and hopeless at time.

Griffin was not content, though, to just darken his skin. Griffin did various little mini-experiments and traveled to different areas to see the types of responses he would get. He put himself boldly in situations that allowed him to see how White and Black people would react. For example, Griffin would darken his skin for a little bit and then remove the creams and shading to note the differences in response. He traveled to Mississippi to get a deeper experience into a place where he felt prejudice was incredibly strong.

The negative experiences Griffin faced, though, with the new understanding and help he received from the Black community in learning how to navigate this unwritten “race relations code”. He was able to hear from Black men and women about their unrestrained thoughts on race relations. He was able to get to go beyond the stereotypes to see the actual human beings behind them. As a result, he gained a whole new respect and understanding of the race relations as it was back in the 1960’s. Sadly, a lot of the same issues Griffin describes are still with us forty years later.

Upon completion of the book, Griffin became a sort of celebrity, both in a good way and bad. He became a best-seller, but he also became a hated figure in his community and local areas around the South. An effigy of him was burned in his town and he received letters of threats in the mail. On the other hand, he became an increasingly sought after lecturer and speaker, continuing to write on a variety of topics (social justice, religion, blindness, etc.) all the way up to his death in 1980.

Commentary

John Howard Griffin‘s “Black Like Me” is a classic for a lot of reasons. It features an interesting mix of journalistic writing mixed in with personal reflections and commentary. Griffin’s work also portrayed a really vivid and detailed snapshot of his world at the time in incredible detail. Griffin, in journalistic mode, is able to capture the smallest details from a glance to something larger, like a plate of food. He balances this with a grace and respect for the humanity. “Black Like Me” is not just a series of journal articles about an experiment. It is an exploration into American society and its views on race, poverty, social class, human nature, and faith.

To me, though, the greatness of John H. Griffin’s book is his openness to vulnerability. Griffin accepted the fact that he could die on his experiment, yet he had to go through with it. He risked being misunderstood (he was), being criticized and mocked (he was), because he felt that only through this experiment would he be able to get some answer to his question. As a person born in the category of White American, he could never fully comprehend the totality of the Black experience in America, but he didn’t have to. Suffering doesn’t require full participation in order for you to feel it and be forever changed. That experience temporarily crossed the barriers that are still evident in our society today. By opening himself up to such vulnerability, he grew wiser and stronger as a human being.

Let us hope that one day we can one day express the strength that he did.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Three Stages of Understanding Race

Untitled by Elisa Castro

Here are the three stages of understanding race, simplified.

1. In biology we are taught - race is biological

2. In sociology we are taught - race is a social and demographic construct

3. Maturity - call race what you want, but note that when our interpretations confront the world, we need to get real. We have real communities to grow up in, and serious racial issues to tackle.

* Racism

* Privilege
* Stereotyping / Prejudice / Profiling

* Xenophobia / Hate crimes

* Segregation / Desegregation

* Integration / Immigration

* Pluralism / Intersectionality / Community

* Affirmative Action / Reparations

* Prison Industrial Complex / War on Drugs / Stop-n-Frisk / New Jim Crow

Author of The Nature of Race, New York University sociology professor Ann Morning, Ph.D., speaks at the Baker Institute about how scientists influence ideas about race through teachings and textbooks.

Bob Marley - War | No More Trouble

Bob Marley is of mixed race (African-Jamaican / English-Jamaican).

Monday, January 21, 2013

Noam Chomsky on The Left, Class, Racism, Xenophobia and the Right (6/8)

"Chomsky discusses the history of Racism in the United States, and dealing with xenophobia and the right. Historically these tendencies have been overcome by "common activities ... on the basis of their class interests." The interview was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, in March 2011."

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Steven Tyler Apologizes To Nicki Minaj For 'Cornfield' Dis

Photo Courtesy of Getty Images

Steven Tyler Apologizes To Nicki Minaj For 'Cornfield' Dis: Minaj insisted Tyler's diss was a 'racist comment,' but the Aerosmith frontman insists 'I am the farthest thing [from being racist].'

What Nicki Minaj doesn't know, it is because of Steven Tyler/Aerosmith that Hip Hop has a place in Rock-n-Roll. Aerosmith's "Walk This Way" - Featuring Run DMC in 1986 gave credence to an art form (Hip Hop) that was no where near as prevalent as it is now. Not only is Aerosmith one of the mainstay rock bands from the 70's and 80's, their music continues to inspire musicians around the globe.

Whatever Ms. Minaj is thinking (or not) she should at least recognize that Steven Tyler is the farthest thing from being racist, and has, for a long time now, been an outsider himself. Young musicians and entertainers, especially Nicki Minaj, need to recognize who the leaders are in the music industry as a whole, and need to read up on their musical history before they make crass comments and accusations about the very people who paved the way for them. Had it not been for Steven Tyler, Alice Cooper, David Bowie and Mick Jagger, Nicki Minaj would not have a prayer with her purple (pink, gold, white or blue) hair and some of her more outlandish outfits. The aformentioned musicians paved the way for her (and many like her) to be accepted.

elle T.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

OBAMA AND FACEBOOK

November 11, 2012

OBAMA AND FACEBOOK

MSN ran an article yesterday recounting the stupidity of one Denise Helms of California. So much for California Dreaming. This is not only about the racism that exists in this country, but also about young people who still cannot figure out what Facebook is for and when it is appropriate to use it. Considering that Ms. Helms is only 22 years old, she gets her racism from somewhere, and I am going to assume it is her family and the people she hangs around. President Obama won the election because the people chose him. One of the things that makes this country great is that WE get to chose whom we want in the White House.

As a black American let me just tell you, I don’t always like who ends up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and in all truthfulness, in my lifetime Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are the only two presidents that have made a positive difference in my life. But I never called either one of the Bush’s, Reagan, Ford or Nixon anything publicly, but “Mr. President”. Despite the fact that for most of my life there has been no such thing as FaceBook or Twitter or Tumblr, any of the former presidents mentioned above got only respect from me, and frankly, either of them could have been called much worse.

Barack Obama is the president now. He is black. He is educated. He is smart. Not a soul reading this could go and do the job he’s done for the last four years. It is not a perfect world right now. Wars and conflicts round out our news every day. Bailouts and screw-up’s are the mainstay conversations at dinner tables around the country on a regular basis. Fiscal failure looms around every corner. Change rings out worldwide and with that should come some understanding that things will not stay the same.

Facebook is a part of that change. But social media should not replace common sense. As Americans we have the 1st Amendment right to say what is on our minds. There is context that goes with that though. You still cannot shout out “Fire” in the middle of a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. Try it and you will end up in jail. You cannot have casual conversation at the airport about the bomb you built in your father’s garage. They will interrogate you and you will miss more than your flight. And for those like Ms. Helms, if you say something derogatory about a sitting president, the Secret Service will be watching and listening.

You don’t have to like Obama. He is the president of this great country of ours though. Trashing him (or anybody else for that matter) on FaceBook is not acceptable. FaceBook is a tool to exchange messages, share common interests and to network with those whom have similar interests and tastes. It is not, however, a place to rant, vent or complain about things which have far-reaching consequences. So, if you don’t like President Obama, if you are not happy with things as they are, use FaceBook as a means to show your content of character and not your smallness of mind.

elle T.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Racism by Law | Immigration Act of 1924

President Coolidge signs the 1924 immigration act, restricting non Northern European immigration.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Teaching Children To Respect One Another

Has anyone seen research where the researcher asks children, instead of a closed ended question like "Who is the smart one" but instead "Are all phenotypes equally nice and equally smart?" (Children may not know what a phenotype is but that creates a good opportunity to explain that a phenotype is only skin deep). Children can then be asked to explain their answer and where they learned their knowledge or stereotypes. Maybe they learned it from TV, radio, friends, students, family or even their parents.

This is the deeper dialog I would like to hear in grade school. Before children form all sorts of biases - adults should help them understand what a stereotype is and why stereotyping is wrong.

If it's found that a parent is teaching hate shouldn't that parent have a "Come to Jesus" intervention? Isn't it better to stop hateful teaching before it grows into another hate crime?

CNN's full story here

===

Glenn is a European-American married to a Mexican-American. They have two children. Glenn is interested in progressive immigration reform, and desegregation within schools and communities. He is a life long learner with interests in sociology, anthropology, psychology, history and politics.
Connect to Glenn at CommunityVillage.us

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Multicultural Etiquette

Living in the U.S. I've said and done offensive things that I didn't know where offensive until I got in trouble. Here are a few things I've learned.

It's okay to speak the language of another culture.
It's okay to eat the food of another culture.
It's okay to use the technology of another culture.
It's okay for actors to dress in the clothes of another culture.
It's NOT okay for you to dress in the clothes of another culture on Halloween.

It's NOT okay to tell an African American that they sound like a 'White' person - even if you're joking.

Notice which ethnicity is missing from the photos above. Please share your thoughts.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

White Privilege in relation to the Pathology of White Supremacy

by: Glenn Robinson

Most people are familiar with white privilege, but how does it relate to the doctrine of white supremacy?

Steven Riley from Mixed Race Studies let me know about this Dr. Yaba Blay article titled Skin Bleaching and Global White Supremacy: By Way of Introduction

Below I have quoted from her section on "white supremacy" where she gets straight to the point about the odd false dichotomy culture that the U.S.has been morphed into - and apparently other countries have some of the same false dichotomy issues woven into their culture as well.

Humans like to oversimplify to make the world easier to understand; however, humans themselves should not be oversimplified and we are not as simple as black and white / good and bad.

"White supremacy has been constructed by Whites for the benefit of Whites."

-Yaba Blay

European man who INTENTIONALLY drove into 2 people was NOT arrested!

"From the egomaniacal standpoint of White supremacy, given the self-assigned superiority of Whiteness, White people have the moral right to exact brute force whenever White interests are threatened, while those classified as “non-White” have no equivalent moral right to defend themselves against White aggression, especially when such aggression is enacted in the name of “democracy” (L. Ross, 1995)."

"White supremacy is routinely interpreted as a code word for White people. However, White supremacy is more than a collection of White people. As a system, many people participate in, and as an ideology, many people think, feel, behave, and operate according to it, and in many ways defend and uphold it -- White and 'non-White' alike. The institution of colorism exemplifies how “non-Whites” serve to uphold White supremacy." -Yaba Blay

"In his discussions of the psychology of the oppressed/colonized, Fanon (1963; 1967) used the term “Manichean” to describe the world of the oppressed/colonized. Of or relating to Manichaeism, “a doctrine based on the ideas of the Persian philosopher Manes, which saw the world as polarized between forces of absolute good and evil, symbolized in the oppositions of light and darkness, black and white” (Dyer, 1997, p. 225), a Manichean view is one that not only divides the world into dualities, but sees those dualities as irreconcilable oppositions:"

"Its logic is a categorical either/or, in which one of the terms is considered superfluous and unacceptable. Yet in reality, this duality of opposites in the Manichean outlook are interdependent. Each is defined in terms of its opposite and each derives its identity in opposition to the other. Yet in such a perspective, it is necessary to keep the line of demarcation quite clear or else the Manichean [world] collapses." (Bulhan, 1985, p. 140)

"In this way, the Manicheans conceived of darkness, or black, and things associated with it as evil, while light, or white, symbolized those things that were good." -Yaba Blay

Read the entire article here.

Tim Wise - The Pathology of White Privilege

Monday, October 3, 2011

The Moth - Ernest Quiñonez

Ernesto Quiñonez remembers his 7th grade self and realizes it's a slippery slope from victim to

victimizer.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Anti Defamation League - We Are a Nation of Immigrants

Video of Deborah Lauter, ADL Civil Rights Director, speaking about the dangers of ethnic profiling and the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

ADL reaches out to kids.

More:
Code Words of Hate

Friday, July 29, 2011

To Joke or not to Joke

Humor is one of the joys of life and also a great stress reliever. But what topics are out of bounds? When does humor land you in hot water? Is life too serious to joke about anything?

I've struggled with these questions and flip flopped on the answers my whole life. I've been guilty of attempting to make light of the way European-Americans talk vs African-Americans. Maybe some of you are upset at even the thought that I would dare to step into that controversial stereotyping. I have also been easily offended myself when a co-worker made a racist joke about refried beans. He even made the joke at work. wtf iwwsp (what the f is wrong with some people)

If you're not a professional comedian stay away from the sensitive areas of race, culture, class, ethnicity, and handicaps. Call me boring, but is it really worth sounding like a racist a-hole for a few chuckles?

Switching gears to my serious topic. I'm talking about immigration policy with a family member. (I know. Bad idea.) When this family member says "The problem is that immigrants are draining the system!", and (as if that wasn't enough) "If we open the boarders ALL Mexicans will be up in the U.S.!"?

To put you in my shoes -- in the SAME room is my Mexican wife and my 6 year old Chicana daughter. I kid you not.

I had played this scene over and over in my head before I even realized that I could have made a joke out of it. I could have said "I know huh!? What should we do with them!?" "(insert cruel and unusual punishment up to and including genocide)" Now, if I did say that, the problem is that I don't think six-year-olds are good at understanding sarcasm and devil's advocate. I suppose I should have turned the whole situation into a teaching moment of how to use sarcasm in a humorous way and how to play devil's advocate.

My problem is -- when someone is offensive -- I'm not in a laughing mood anymore.

So what would you have said if you were me?

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Justice for Brisenia

911 Raw: The Sound Of Hate

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Wounded Knee

Sunday, December 26, 2010

U.S.A. Perfect Imperfections

3 good things & 3 bad things

Good

1. That we are united from all countries, we're a melting pot, that we are a nation of immigrants who welcome immigrants.

2. That we have many world class universities and free public education from kindergarten through high school.

3. I like that we have freedom of speech and freedom of press.

And like my critical thinking teacher from Guyana said, "Imagine the world without the United States". He said "Regardless if the Democrats or the Republicans win - the country is doing something right."

Bad

1. I don't agree with having immigration quotas in a country made up of immigrants. What's happened is that the English invaded the land of indigenous Native Americans (at least 500 Nations were disrespected, disregarded, displaced & disenfranchised). Then for 100 years there was no immigration policy and the English encouraged immigration to populate the land that they stole. After the English had spread to the west coast they said, "Okay we're good. Let's start excluding people from immigrating now and let's base it on race.

2. The second thing I don't like about the U.S. is that our taxes do not pay for preschool or college tuition.

3. The third thing I don't like is that our taxes do not provide health care for everyone. Our taxes provide free police and fire departments which are essential and even free libraries. The library is of no benefit if you're dead.

Pages

Featured Post