is it just me, or do people refer to president obama as mr. obama?? i have never heard presidents in the past referred to as mister, so why now? why with president obama?
i know why. somehow when we are talking about the president of the united states, implicit and systemic racism shouldn't play a role in showing respect for the fact that barack obama is not just a mister, but our president. there is no reason not to refer to him as president obama. it is so disrespectful, and full of white supremacy to refer to past presidents with president in their title while not doing to it for our current president.
our current president is black. and our president. he is both. one does not negate the other. it's sad that racism is so prevalent. even in newscasters who are supposed to report news in an unbiased way. if there really was no bias, this wouldn't happen. president obama would be called president just as every president before him.
however, racism does exist. we know because the power of a black man is denied when his positionality is denied. somehow, president obama is less than all the other men who served as president. the only thing that really sets him apart from other presidents is his race. so, what other conclusion is there?
we are in this repetition; reinforced to believe that it is okay to deny people of color true equality and true respect.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
excuses
instead of writing about perfectly logical explanations, i want to write about excuses...
today, i was playing softball. i have been playing for about 15 years and can acknowledge that i am pretty good. we were playing a team that had their stand full of heckling fans. as happens when playing softball, someone hit it to third base, i caught it and threw them out. let me clarify, a man hit it and me, a woman, got him out. end of inning.
next thing i hear is--you better check her for testosterone.
this was jarring for me to hear. it makes me cringe a little just to write it. but, that is what happened.
what i know, is that what was said is less about me and more about the person who said it. my perception is that there are multiple explanations for feeling the need to say that:
excuses are weapons. they hurt, injure, and destroy. if they feel they need weapons like that to win a softball game, so be it.
they lost. 21-8. i guess excuses don't work after all...
today, i was playing softball. i have been playing for about 15 years and can acknowledge that i am pretty good. we were playing a team that had their stand full of heckling fans. as happens when playing softball, someone hit it to third base, i caught it and threw them out. let me clarify, a man hit it and me, a woman, got him out. end of inning.
next thing i hear is--you better check her for testosterone.
this was jarring for me to hear. it makes me cringe a little just to write it. but, that is what happened.
what i know, is that what was said is less about me and more about the person who said it. my perception is that there are multiple explanations for feeling the need to say that:
1. masculinity is delicate and needs to be cared for because it will break
2. fear of approval from colleagues
3. embarrassment of being showed up by a woman
4. intimidation of me as a player
5. strict adherence to gender norms and hierarchy
6. anger for getting out
7. intimidation of that a woman can show a man up
8. displaced emotions related to gender roles/norms/expectations
what gets me is that the comment that was made was an excuse in and of itself. an excuse for poor behavior. an excuse to belittle someone (me). an excuse to blame external forces, when there were no external forces.excuses are weapons. they hurt, injure, and destroy. if they feel they need weapons like that to win a softball game, so be it.
they lost. 21-8. i guess excuses don't work after all...
Sunday, September 13, 2009
nuclear peace
while driving to work about a month ago, i heard a news piece on iran and their need for "peaceful nuclear technology." i laughed. what an oxymoron!
i come from a perspective that does not understand war, violence, and revenge, so it is difficult for me to understand the need for nuclear technology at all--peaceful or war-ful. then, i thought i would try to read a little bit on it before jumping to conclusions. turns out there is a peaceful nuclear explosions treaty that outlines the limitations of using nuclear explosions peacefully. after reading this, i realized that within the treaty (and the countries who signed it) peace is when people are not harmed and when the nuclear explosions are not used as a test of weaponry. the explosions could, however, destroy the earth.
peace is not really a concept that has exclusions. peace includes people and the earth equally. peaceful nuclear technology is not all that peaceful, and is destroying the idea of peace itself. also, it negates the importance and volatility of the earth. if we continue to mistreat it, the earth will not sustain us.
just because harm does not befall on humans directly does not mean actions are peaceful. a "peaceful nuclear technology" is just a perfectly logical explanation for destruction.
i come from a perspective that does not understand war, violence, and revenge, so it is difficult for me to understand the need for nuclear technology at all--peaceful or war-ful. then, i thought i would try to read a little bit on it before jumping to conclusions. turns out there is a peaceful nuclear explosions treaty that outlines the limitations of using nuclear explosions peacefully. after reading this, i realized that within the treaty (and the countries who signed it) peace is when people are not harmed and when the nuclear explosions are not used as a test of weaponry. the explosions could, however, destroy the earth.
peace is not really a concept that has exclusions. peace includes people and the earth equally. peaceful nuclear technology is not all that peaceful, and is destroying the idea of peace itself. also, it negates the importance and volatility of the earth. if we continue to mistreat it, the earth will not sustain us.
just because harm does not befall on humans directly does not mean actions are peaceful. a "peaceful nuclear technology" is just a perfectly logical explanation for destruction.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
open letter
to whom it may concern:
as the days pass without a budget in california, my mind turns to the well being of others--of people i don't know and probably never will. fear often accompanies my thoughts. what will happen to people with disabilities, families on welfare, people without health care coverage, homeless people, and communities of color who continue to live in depressed areas? when we are asked to find cost-saving measures by cutting unnecessary or "wasteful" programs, i fear for the gaping hole that is left from such cuts. i fear that through the only lens of budget, we lose sight of our values and see people as waste.
when california has no budget, who suffers most? when a budget is accepted, to what degree will the most underserved populations diminish and die--in spirit and in the flesh?
while we are in such a dismal time, i feel like an outsider to the state of california, my native and current home. it is hard to fathom the hypocrisy of our state, our governor, and the messages we put out about who we are as a state. so little is being done, real solutions and governmental decisiveness is so slow. accountability and responsibility seems lost in the current system. the california public universities are held in such high esteem, yet continue to receive less and less state monies. commercials invite people to work in california, yet our unemployment rate is among the highest in the country.
these are the current issues. poor planning, little action, and the apparent need for social status quo is what has turned california spiraling into a downfall.
unfortunately, people who get the least amount of support will get less and the systems that tend to bring the most equity socially, culturally, and economically (namely, schools, community colleges, and universities) are being whittled down, unable even to strive for equity. while people who directly contributed toward california's political and economic decision-making still have jobs.
it saddens me that when the economy slips, so does the value for equity. how can we be the land of opportunity when we can't offer any? how are we the golden state; progressive, aware, and multicultural when we are lackluster in our standards?
we are not who we say we are, and that saddens me the most because we have such great potential.
i hope for our potential to be realized even in the face of adversity.
--concerned california citizen
as the days pass without a budget in california, my mind turns to the well being of others--of people i don't know and probably never will. fear often accompanies my thoughts. what will happen to people with disabilities, families on welfare, people without health care coverage, homeless people, and communities of color who continue to live in depressed areas? when we are asked to find cost-saving measures by cutting unnecessary or "wasteful" programs, i fear for the gaping hole that is left from such cuts. i fear that through the only lens of budget, we lose sight of our values and see people as waste.
when california has no budget, who suffers most? when a budget is accepted, to what degree will the most underserved populations diminish and die--in spirit and in the flesh?
while we are in such a dismal time, i feel like an outsider to the state of california, my native and current home. it is hard to fathom the hypocrisy of our state, our governor, and the messages we put out about who we are as a state. so little is being done, real solutions and governmental decisiveness is so slow. accountability and responsibility seems lost in the current system. the california public universities are held in such high esteem, yet continue to receive less and less state monies. commercials invite people to work in california, yet our unemployment rate is among the highest in the country.
these are the current issues. poor planning, little action, and the apparent need for social status quo is what has turned california spiraling into a downfall.
unfortunately, people who get the least amount of support will get less and the systems that tend to bring the most equity socially, culturally, and economically (namely, schools, community colleges, and universities) are being whittled down, unable even to strive for equity. while people who directly contributed toward california's political and economic decision-making still have jobs.
it saddens me that when the economy slips, so does the value for equity. how can we be the land of opportunity when we can't offer any? how are we the golden state; progressive, aware, and multicultural when we are lackluster in our standards?
we are not who we say we are, and that saddens me the most because we have such great potential.
i hope for our potential to be realized even in the face of adversity.
--concerned california citizen
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
white normativity
it occurs to me that white normativity exists although i have never heard this term. i was just at a conference about race, at a workshop on a theory of "silent racism." this theory is essentially that all white people are somewhat racist--that white people's actions/behaviors/thoughts are more or less racist or somewhere on that continuum. "not racist" doesn't exist in this theory.
now, i am not going to argue for or against this theory, but i do want to mention that during the workshop, the person leading it kept saying "we." usually this is not a big deal, however, someone asked who the "we" was and the response was white people. language, namely "we," the presenter used was never altered after this question was asked.
the presenter assumed the audience was white, as that is the meaning of "we." the audience was not white. in fact, the audience was mostly people of color. to me, the inherent message of the continuation of using "we" is that people of color should be disregarded, even if they are in the room.
this was the moment during the conference that i began to think about white normativity. i began to connect concept to practice. to me, white normativity is when we reference the world from a white perspective and (un/consciously) assume that everyone agrees with and has this perspective.
in this situation, the perfectly logical explanation (ple) for the presenter using "we" and really only meaning white people, was simply that it was difficult to find an easy way to make clear that the theory was in reference to white people. to me the ple is pretty pathetic. also, it tells me that the presenter is not doing their own work, just reporting their research. if the presenter had done their own work, this ple would not exist.
now, i am not going to argue for or against this theory, but i do want to mention that during the workshop, the person leading it kept saying "we." usually this is not a big deal, however, someone asked who the "we" was and the response was white people. language, namely "we," the presenter used was never altered after this question was asked.
the presenter assumed the audience was white, as that is the meaning of "we." the audience was not white. in fact, the audience was mostly people of color. to me, the inherent message of the continuation of using "we" is that people of color should be disregarded, even if they are in the room.
this was the moment during the conference that i began to think about white normativity. i began to connect concept to practice. to me, white normativity is when we reference the world from a white perspective and (un/consciously) assume that everyone agrees with and has this perspective.
in this situation, the perfectly logical explanation (ple) for the presenter using "we" and really only meaning white people, was simply that it was difficult to find an easy way to make clear that the theory was in reference to white people. to me the ple is pretty pathetic. also, it tells me that the presenter is not doing their own work, just reporting their research. if the presenter had done their own work, this ple would not exist.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
pronouns
really, i just have one thing to say. in the absence of knowing the appropriate gender pronoun--she/he--the person should not be referred to as "it."
the sad thing is i hear this often enough to realize that it is said often. people are always people; they should be treated as such. no one, not one person, should be referred to as a thing, an it, whatever, or nothing.
what made me especially disappointed today was that one of the people who off-handedly called someone "it" was a person who attended a training about how to be an ally for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (lgbtq) community. calling someone "it" certainly is not a good start or positive reflection of this person's ability to be an ally to the lgbtq community.
that is all.
the sad thing is i hear this often enough to realize that it is said often. people are always people; they should be treated as such. no one, not one person, should be referred to as a thing, an it, whatever, or nothing.
what made me especially disappointed today was that one of the people who off-handedly called someone "it" was a person who attended a training about how to be an ally for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (lgbtq) community. calling someone "it" certainly is not a good start or positive reflection of this person's ability to be an ally to the lgbtq community.
that is all.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
institutional racism
sometimes, there is no perfectly logical explanation (ple), no excuses at all.
it was wonderful to sit in a training and have the trainer, a white man, say that institutional racism is the primary factor in the disparately high numbers of children of color in the foster system. i was astonished. it was refreshing to hear such honesty. he didn't want to beat around the bush or have us believe that there was some other "logical" explanation. when we play off stereotypes, believe that a person's worth is less than another because of their race, and act according to our belief in that person's lower worth, then we have racism on individual level. when our beliefs shape our systems--schools, policies, laws, social services, then that initial active use of racial stereotypes is institutional racism.
i think he is right. institutionalized racism has engrained in us that when children of color are in the foster system that somehow that is acceptable. or more acceptable than white children. how does this belief continue so rapidly for so long? the thought that some children deserve to be in the foster system (while others do not deserve to) is the ple that must stop.
i wish there were more moments like today's training.
kudos to you, trainer. thank you for keeping it real.
it was wonderful to sit in a training and have the trainer, a white man, say that institutional racism is the primary factor in the disparately high numbers of children of color in the foster system. i was astonished. it was refreshing to hear such honesty. he didn't want to beat around the bush or have us believe that there was some other "logical" explanation. when we play off stereotypes, believe that a person's worth is less than another because of their race, and act according to our belief in that person's lower worth, then we have racism on individual level. when our beliefs shape our systems--schools, policies, laws, social services, then that initial active use of racial stereotypes is institutional racism.
i think he is right. institutionalized racism has engrained in us that when children of color are in the foster system that somehow that is acceptable. or more acceptable than white children. how does this belief continue so rapidly for so long? the thought that some children deserve to be in the foster system (while others do not deserve to) is the ple that must stop.
i wish there were more moments like today's training.
kudos to you, trainer. thank you for keeping it real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)