president obama to you

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.

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:

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...

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.

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.

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.

muslim world

the other day i heard a news anchor say that president obama is "extending a hand to the muslim world..."
i just want to inform the news anchor, the president, and the rest of the country who doesn't know already---muslims live in this country. they live all over the world. there is not really a muslim world. muslims, like all people, live in this world. i know i am picky about semantics, but come on.
what does this statement mean then? what does it imply?
to me, it implies that muslims are not here. they are there. they meaning, muslims are not among us. they are not the normal, not really a true part of this country. there meaning muslims are in other countries; countries that we can choose to have a relationship with or choose otherwise.
it seems like people from the u.s. fear muslims. for example, there was an uproar and media frenzy when there was false information circulating about the president being muslim. it was an accusation. it was reason not to vote for him. it was controversial. all out of fear, and quite possibly hatred.
fear that muslims are out to destroy the country. fear that muslims are terrorists. the fear and assumption that muslims cannot (and should not) lead this country. fear around the potential of a muslim leading the country. fear that allah is something/someone different than god. might i suggest, fear of upsetting the status quo.
it's not wrong to be muslim. it's not a crime. muslims as a whole are not terrorists. muslims as a whole are not fanatics. islam is not a religion based on hate, or war, or revenge.
these fears and assumptions have stacked one on the other, making it impossible for muslims to be seen as people in this country. muslims are stuck under the thickness and weight of such fears. instead of being of a peaceful religion, muslims are described as being in their own world. that's a ple i would like to change as i am an american muslim woman and i live right here.

words with meaning

i am amazed by the numerous meanings and contexts of words. with intention or not, words and phrases can be taken as harmful, oppressive, and bias.
like today...i said that i was the master quilter. not really harmful in and of itself. however, i was talking about leading a group of people who would quilt under my direction. calling myself the "master" quilter was reminiscent of times of slavery with masters and their slave workers. wow. that's not what i meant at all, but it is a meaning that could definitely be understood in that moment. and i have to own that.
now that someone else pointed it out, i feel a bit sheepish. that, however, i can live with. in the future (which starts right this second), i will need to be more aware of that term as well as to other relational/hierarchical terms that i may use in harmful manners. slavery is not okay in my book, and it is important to me that my language is consistent with my beliefs. this is my overarching reason for seeking to use inclusive language. it is important to me for my beliefs and actions to align and demonstrate consistency.

we all mess up. we all need to be okay with messing up and being messy in general. social justice is a tough thing to work on/toward. it is messy and that is a fact. every day is a journey. i need to remember that as much as the next person...especially when i am feeling a bit sheepish.

our identity

what is the identity of the united states of america? there are so many analogies out there, but do any really fit? it feels like we are constantly figuring out and freaking out about our identity. the truth is, as was mentioned to me, our nation's identity is constantly changing--i guess that is reason enough to not know who or what we are.
with this presidential election behind us now and the country looks forward to having it's first president of color how will the description of who the u.s. is change?
are we a melting pot?
do we all come together in one big space and melt into one another? cultures and heritages melting, changing, and becoming something new. how much is lost with this analogy? when a culture melts, is it anything like it was when it came into the pot? me, i don't want to melt. the wicked witch in wizard of oz melts and i don't want to be her, nor do i want someone else making the decision that my duty as an american is to melt. i do not want my culture lost, my language to be stripped, and my values to change to meet a different criteria for right and wrong.
are we a salad bowl?
are we all tossed together rather than melting together? each piece distinct from one another, enhanced when together? i don't know about you, but my salads are usually covered with white dressing. this makes for an interesting and unappealing analogy. it tells me that america can have difference, but it will always be smothered with whiteness and white culture.
are we a mosaic?
mosaics are beautifully put together. are we separate pieces shattered and then glued next to one another? even though i think mosaics are beautiful, when this is an analogy used to describe the country i live in, i wonder how do mosaic pieces interact with one another? what messages are sent when we adopt this analogy?
are we a patchwork quilt?
somewhat similar to a mosaic, except each piece is sewn together rather than glued separately. can we move once we are sewn down? are there boundaries that keep us from getting too big?

no matter what analogy we use to describe the country--we need to look at what those words mean. what implications they have. what implicit messages exist in how we choose to describe our country--the people in it, how we interact, and what we expect from one another.
even though it might seem trite, our language is important. our choices of descriptors do have impact on our self-image just as much as on our effectiveness of communication. who we are is a product of how we are able to identify what we believe in and why.
i for one am not about to say that who i am is melted where my true self can no longer be identified. likewise, i resist being covered by white culture and described that way. to say that we should all melt into a single pot is a perfectly logical explanation (ple) for resisting difference. i wonder how our new president will effect the way people talk about this country. people who live here and also people who do not. what perceptions will change and what ones will remain/persist? will we continue to have ples for resisting the existence of difference? ples claiming we are free from racism because we have a biracial black president?
in what ways will we have to shift our perspectives in order to challenge these ples? i am expecting this change. i don't know what the future holds. i am afraid that it will become more of an intellectualized battle for understanding and awareness, and in it, we will lose our focus on social justice. i fear we will make too many assumptions about our progress and lose sight of the work that needs to continue being done.

i hope though that my fears are not fulfilled, and that i can say that i was wrong. here's hoping to being wrong (and pleasantly surprised).

hey, it's just a joke.

i recently attended a training for my job as a property manager. the training was three days long for an online based management program i use. the training was held at an apartment complex that houses low income senior citizens. the trainer was kind of a strange fella. he kept making jokes that i felt were somewhat strange for someone who worked in property management and who was hired as a trainer.
during the second day, things got entirely out of control. as we were sitting during the break, a group of residents who lived at the complex walked through open room where the training was being held. the residents were speaking in loud voices, unaware of our training, and also speaking in korean, their native tongues. the property manager of the building asked the residents, politely, to please step out because we were in the middle of a training. they happily obliged. however, the trainer, found the need to make a snide remark. he said that the manager should have spoken to them in their native tongue, moo goo gai pan and kung pao chicken. i looked at him with shock and disgust. to justify his remark, he used a perfectly logical explanation (PLE). he said that he was an equal opportunity picker, he says that kind of stuff about everyone, so it is perfectly alright to make the remark that he did. i wanted to scream. i gave him one of the dirtiest looks ever and tried to make him feel terrible for his remark with my dirty looks. after a few moments, he came up to me and apologized for if he said anything that offended me. i did not accept his apology, because i felt his PLE was a cop out for someone, who says they are not racist, to justify their racist remarks.

so many times i have had to sit back and listen to people make stereotypical, snide, rude, racist remarks about other ethnicities, in supposedly good fun. and i feel like the person who is offended is often made to feel bad if the person making the remark apologizes for what they say. an apology doesn't make it right. understanding that such a comment is wrong, in bad taste, and terribly offensive to all kinds of people. and no one should have to stand for that.

the training continued for the rest of the time. i refused to awkwardly laugh at the trainer's jokes during awkward moments. i think that something small like that can make a difference. i don't know if it will make a difference to the trainer, if he will be conscious of what he says. but maybe, it will make him think twice before he says something like that to someone else.

i won't let that PLE stand anymore. because it isn't right and it should not be used as a justification anymore. we'll see how that works out.