Red Tails: Historic, Entertaining, Altogether Lacking Women...and Why that Is Okay

Today's guest post, written by Amber Leab, is a cross-post of a recent film review on Bitch Flicks.

Red Tails (2012)

I don’t see movies in the theatre very often. I know, for someone who co-founded and writes for a film site to say that is tantamount to treason. But, it’s true: there has to be a good reason for me to plunk down ten bucks (I’m a starving writer, friends!) to sit in a movie theatre and put up with texting & talking teens and coughing & sneezing strangers, when I’d usually rather be in the comfort of my own living room.

Here are some examples of what brings me to the theatre:

• A movie is nominated for some serious awardage.
• A movie tells a story about women (other than ladies getting hitched), or is told by women.
• A movie’s cinematography demands the big-screen, public experience.
• My movie dollars are political speech.

It’s for the last two reasons that I saw Red Tails last weekend in the theatre. First, a whiz-bang action movie involving fighter pilots in WWII is definitely more fun in the theatre than on my couch. It’s the kind of movie in which you want the crowd’s gasps and applause at moments of high tension and release. You want the visceral experience of flight and fear, loss and victory. Second, since Red Tails is the first big-budget Hollywood action movie featuring an all-Black cast—and is both written and directed by Black men—I wanted to help send movie executives a message. See, as I pointed out last week in a preview post, producer George Lucas couldn’t get any company to distribute it—they feared the film would have no foreign market (which is where Hollywood currently makes a huge portion of its revenues). It took Lucas decades to bring the film from idea to reality.

So, the story behind the film means a lot to me. In case I’m not perfectly clear, it’s a damn shame that in 2012 Hollywood is too fearful, too conservative, too—frankly—racist to embrace a film about bona fide World War II heroes who happen to be Black. And don't give me that argument that movies about the Tuskegee Airmen have already been made.

But on to the actual movie, and to a pleasant surprise.

Although “action” isn’t my favorite genre, I can say without reservation that I really enjoyed Red Tails. Even though there are no women in the movie, aside from an Italian love interest and a brief appearance by her mother (the two speak to each other in untranslated Italian, but it’s safe to assume they talk about a man, so the movie fails the Bechdel Test)—more on that later. The movie is exciting, entertaining, funny at moments, deeply sad at others, and altogether engaging. Plus, as it’s based on the real experience of the Tuskegee Airmen, you might learn something while being entertained (although U.S. moviegoers are often portrayed as only wanting the latter, I suspect most of us actually want both).

Cuba Gooding, Jr. as Major Emanuelle Stance, sans pipe

The style of the movie is an homage to ‘40s and ‘50s hokey action flicks, so you get some corny lines (and some hilarious white-dude dialogue--imagine in a robotic voice: “I sure hope we meet up with those Red Tails again.”), stock characters, clear lines between good and evil, and affected performances—especially from Cuba Gooding, Jr. and His Pipe. Even if you’re not familiar with the movies being imitated, nothing stands out as particularly peculiar and, compared with the majority of Hollywood action flicks, the movie—even though it’s about war and defeating the German military—is rather innocent. Innocent in the way that you kind of hope young men the world over will watch it, and pass on some others.

Now, let me say more about why I’m okay with this movie—and with writing about it on a site that focuses on women in media and almost daily reports on how woefully underrepresented women are—leaving out women. It’s true that some movies are about men—particularly films about men in historic wars who are in combat positions. That’s not to say that war doesn’t strongly impact women, but for the majority of the 20th century,combat was done by men. Do we already have a plethora of films about men in combat? Yes, of course. But there are still untold stories, and although anyone familiar with the history of Black men in the U.S. should know about the Tuskegee Airmen, the sad fact remains that it’s not an often-told story in the nation’s history. Further, including women in this movie (again, there is a female love interest who appears in a rather common and predictable storyline) would detract—and distract—from the central story. If a sequel is, in fact, made—and it takes place when the men return home and are treated as second-class citizens in the country they fought for—it should include women.

Further, if you compare this action movie with basically any other action movie in recent memory, one important element is missing: rampant misogyny. Perhaps the film would’ve been betraying its style if it included the kind of talk and images about women that are so common today, but in this regard it was completely refreshing. My feminist ire wasn’t raised a single time (though the romantic subplot might've drawn an eye roll). Perhaps that reveals more about me than the actual film, but the basic respect for women, even when they were almost completely absent, was a relief.

As happy as I am that Red Tails was made and did well its opening weekend (landing at the number 2 box office spot), it does bother me a bit that the historic element of the making of the film—with its Black writers, director, and stars—was all in the name of war propaganda. That’s not to belittle or reduce the accomplishments of the real-life Tuskegee Airmen. But the politics of it all reminds me a bit of The Hurt Locker. More specifically, director Katherine Bigelow was the first woman to win a Best Director Academy Award (and only the fourth woman ever nominated), but she had to make a very masculine and male-centered war film to achieve that level of respect and acclaim. Would a movie about another subject receive the same amount of attention and box-office success as Red Tails?

cast of Red Tails

Red Tails is far from the first film to feature a Black cast, but as someone on Twitter asked us, is it the first all-Black film that white people care about? In other words, we as a culture are very good at making period pieces and then looking at them, with self-righteousness, shaking our heads at how foolish and awful people were back then, and simultaneously congratulating ourselves for being so much better. But, more often than not, “back then” looks more like “present day” than most of us want to admit. (One recent outrageous example: in Newt Gingrich’s South Carolina primary victory speech last weekend, one crowd member reportedly shouts “String him up!” in reference to our current U.S. President.)

We should absolutely honor the heroes of our past, like the Tuskegee Airmen, but let’s not forget heroes like them exist today and have to face different but still very real demons when they come home. I, for one, would like to see more of those movies.

Rotten Tomatoes ranks Red Tails as Rotten, with a 33% rating (although the audience rating is a positive 73%). What did you think of the movie?

The Racist Body

This image comes from NotCot.org and no copyright infringement is intended.

I've talked in the past about my experiences with diet and body image, and included in there a little bit about how my cultural and racial identities shape it. But I don't think we at Not Another Wave have contributed much to conversations about how body image- particularly how it's marketed, and to whom- shape and influence a general culture in the US that perpetuates racist body norms and expectations.

In western Europe and its subsequent colonies, it's been a long-standing tradition to compare the bodies of African and Indian slaves and indigens with the bodies of the culturally declared norm, the White European. This happened (and continues to happen, but we'll get there in a moment) to both cis men and cis women, in efforts by the imperialists to prove European superiority over the Other. Where European men were classified as intellight, African men were childlike. Where European men were tall, Indian men were short. Where European men could be gentlemen and restrain themselves around European women, African men were hyper-sexual. As an article in The Western Journal of Black Studies put it,

Colonial invasive powers bring with them their own myths, beliefs, and forms of colonial ordering which create a bifurcated form of hierarchy that is designed to distinguish between the natives and the colonizers, a form of hierarchy where the colonizer (white, good, intelligent, ethical, beautiful, civilized) is superior in all things, while the native (dark, exotic, sexually uncontrollable, bad, stupid, ugly, savage, backward) is inferior.

The discourse of opposites, of lauding the "Us" and demeaning (and even criminalizing) the "Other," was justification for invasion, dominance, and control. Rudyard Kipling went so far as to refer to it as "the white man's burden," explaining that it was a "moral imperative" that Europeans colonize the Other, for the sake of the Other.

The discourse of Us vs. Them that the European colonists applied to their subjects was also, of course, applied to female bodies and the identities of women. Similarly to the discourses used to subjugate African and Indian men, European discourses painted African and Indian women alike as childlike, subservient by nature, and hyper-sexual. African and Indian women, in the colonist eye, represented the constant threat of temptation into every sin the Christian European imagination could come up with. To support this discourse, European soldiers actually kidnapped a woman from South Africa, nicknamed her the "Hottentot Venus," and paraded her around as a sideshow attraction in Great Britain and then in France. Of particular interest to spectators were her butt and her labia, which were both described as "abnormally large." Think about it: in the day when a person's cranial shape was supposed to determine intelligence and personality, an "abnormally large" pubic and posterior signalled a lot about supposed sexual appetite when compared to the "normal" physique of European women and their "normal" sexuality.

I go through all this because I think it has bearing on current discussions about bodies and their shape here in the US. There's a lot of publicity given to the "majority" culture pressure that is put on White women to be thin, which has a whole field of feminist research devoted to it. As one blogger rightly puts it, "This is about power. It's about wanting women to be small in the world, to take up less space, literally and metaphorically." It also relates to sexuality. Twiggy became popular among White women during a period of time when White women's sexual options were expanding drastically, thanks to advances in hormonal birth control and the emergence of the second wave feminist movement. While everyone's figure is different, the overall effect of weight loss is a body that's contained, restrained, and thus- depending on your build- significantly de-sexualized. The use of clothing to highlight curves only goes so far to refute this argument; accentuating one's breasts, hips, or butt is acceptable and often encouraged, but if a woman's breasts are "too" big, or her hips "too" full, she's "too" sexual. As another blogger put it, "It is...crucial to mention the mental anxiety caused by constant badgering by the chauvinists of the world, and the sexual harassment that seems to find large breasted women because of the stigma that goes with large breasts; and that is that those women must be 'easy'." Essentially, the loss of weight to maintain a minimally curvy body feeds directly into an ages-old series of assumptions about White women- particularly that they shouldn't be "overly" sexy.

What I'm trying to get at is that the whole "thin is in" movement really is a very White-centric movement. While pictures of women laughing alone with salad- one of the trademarks of the weight loss movement- occasionally include a woman who's presumably of African descent, the vast majority are White. And those who are Black have been, for lack of a better term, "whitenized," with light skin, controlled hair, and Romanesque features. Essentially, they are the Other as the European colonists wanted them to be: under control, "saved" from themselves, and "just like Us."

This brings me to the topic of another, less marketed-by-health-companies body standard: the standard of Thick (or Bootylicious). We've all heard it mentioned, either by rappers (especially in Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby Got Back"), activists, our friends and families, or our partners. Instead of pushing the ideology of thin, the Thick movement promotes curves and planes that would make fashion designers fall over. It's the idealization of a body that's slender (but still curvy) through the breasts and waist, and flares into a round, perky set of hips and bum connected to a pair of muscular, curvy legs. Is it a hard ideal to live up to? You bet, and don't ask me how hard I worked before I discovered that my butt wasn't built to be perky. But I digress- the point is that the ideology of Thick has become a high-held standard for many women, particularly Black women, instead of the skinny White body. And while I'm thrilled that women of any race could reasonably look to that shape as an example of how many body types are sexy, I'm also concerned about the cultural influences, both from Black and White sources, that have given shape to the Thick ideal.

Latoya Peterson on Racialicious gives a great breakdown of the idea of Thick and the meanings and validation it can carry for the women who identify with it. The valorization of a large butt, for those whose basic body shape involves one, is hugely liberating in a world that's dominated by images of bodies with flat or hardly existent butts. At the same time, however, I find it hard to forget the features that Sarah Haartman was famous for- particularly her posterior- and I have to wonder how much influence the earlier European readings of Black female bodies has had on the current uplifting of Thick. If large breasts on a White woman still read as a measure of her sexual appetite and ability to consent, does the size of a Black woman's butt get interpreted that way too? If so, is the valorization of a Thick body type simply a marketing scheme designed to re-sell the image of the Other? One of the authors of Colonize This!, Serina Riley, addresses the same problem:

"As much as we get praised for loving our full bodies, many young white women would rather be dead than wear a size 14. They nod their heads and say how great it is that we black women can embrace our curves, but they don’t want to look like us. They don’t adopt our presumably more generous beauty ideals. White women have even told me how lucky black women are that our men love and accept our bodies the way they are. I’ve never heard a white woman say she’s going to take a cue from black women and gain a few pounds, however. In a way it is patronizing, because they’re basically saying, 'It’s OK for you to be fat, but not me. You’re black. You’re different.'"

For me, the fact that Thick is so strongly associated with Black women and Black identities is the part that's concerning: while I understand the desire to have ideals and cultures separate from those of the White hegemony, I also have a hard time believing that the Thick ideal in particular is really all that liberating.

The counterargument, of course, is that many cultures in the US find great pride and power in reclaiming images, ideals, and vocabulary from their discriminatory pasts. Words like cunt, nigger, queer, and bitch have all been reappropriated by cultural movements to confront the bigotry that used to dominate them, and there's merit to the argument that the current chart-toppers of hip-hop, who valorize overindulgence in sex, drugs, and violence, are manipulating stereotypes about Black men to gain power over the White imaginations that created them. Sex workers forming unions and declaring pride in their trade are refuting the myth that they're the victims of pimps and johns. In theory, if the stereotype is being used and evolving in the hands of the people it's supposed to harm, its creators- the ones doing the harming in the first place- lose their weapons. In theory. Whether or not it actually works that way is a debate that merits its own article.

Regardless, the point remains that the "ideal body" that's promoted in magazines, billboards, newspapers, TV, and movies that are marketed towards the hegemonic (predominately White) culture is really only intended to be ideal for a specific group. The current popular ideals for White women and Black women, I think, retain a lot of the racist and sexist assumptions that were prolific during Europe's imperialist years, and contribute to a culture that still believes Black women have uncontrollable sexual appetites as compared to White women. Furthermore, the notion of separate ideal bodies is offensive in its own right- that anyone from any culture should be expected to live up to a standard based on a small percentage of the population. Even if it were unproblematic to assume that Black and White women should have completely separate body goals, the fact remains that not all Black women are built to be Thick any more than all White women are built to be skinny. Instead of idealizing bodies based on stereotypes and minorities, we should be idealizing the people who are happy and comfortable in their natural shape. Instead of buying into a diet industry that's upholding racist ideals about bodies and appetites, we should be investing our time and energy in other ways to improve ourselves, such as challenging the idea that self-fulfillment comes in wearing a particular dress size. Let's do away with the Madonna vs. Hottentot Venus dichotomy once and for all.

Note: this article has been notably Black-and-White focused, while leaving out ethnicities and identities that also have stereotypes associated with female bodies (i.e. the "skinny Asian" stereotype). I'd love to hear from you what your perceptions of these are, as well as how you think they fit into a global history of domination and subordination.

In the blogpsphere! (from Erica)

This will be quite brief- I'm tired after taking (and passing!) the social work licensure exam this morning and then working on my latest article for GoGirl Magazine (which you should all start reading, by the way). But before I head to bed, here are some articles I think you all might find interesting to read. Please do feel free to bring comments here and start a discussion about what you see/like/dislike about them!

First, there's a new book out that looks at how the criminal justice system- in particular incarceration- has had a disproportionate impact on African-American individuals, families, and communities and has essentially created a new system for Jim Crow.

Then, there's an interesting study that's finding widespread discrimination against Asian-Americans in undergraduate programs, especially elite schools in the northeast.

There's also a good post out from Apophenia, who points out the power disparities in equality advocacy- especially in terms of who we hear and why.

And last but not least, as always, the U.S. military makes headlines with its extraordinarily high rates of sexual assault. In this article, though, the subject isn't just that noteworthy topic- instead, it focuses on one former member of the Air Force who is using her experience to advocate for cultural change in the military and better prevention of sexual assault. Personally, I find this article fascinating, but that's also because sexual assault prevention and response in the military is likely to be my career for the next decade or so.

Anyway, enjoy!

In the news...

Here are some stories that have been making the news recently:

First, in Louisiana, a judge refused to sign a marriage license for an interracial couple, saying he was "concerned for the children" of such a marriage because "most interracial marriages don't last." He then went on to assert that his decision isn't racist because he is willing to do "ceremonies for Black couples right here in [his] house." News flash, Judge Bardwell: being willing to marry People of Colour but not interracial couples doesn't make you non-racist. It just makes you a eugenicist.

Then we've got the "Rape-Nuts" issue. Seen in this clip, Jon Stewart discusses the shocking news that 30 Republicans want the government to have the right to do business with companies that require employees to sign away their rights to sue over gang rape.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

I'm almost speechless over this issue, especially since New Hampshire's very own Judd Gregg was one of the congress members to vote against the bill. This kind of hypocrisy just underlines the disjoint between how we respond to crimes that involve money and crimes that involve the types of abuse we associate with "domestic disputes." Frankly, I think it should be illegal for a company to place that kind of clause in their contracts in the first place. If the company was in any way responsible for the gang rape, they should be held accountable for it. But this bill wasn't even trying to prevent companies from creating these kinds of contracts - it was just trying to prevent the government from doing business with them if they choose to practice such unconscionable methods.

Then, finally, we get the deliciousness that is the GOPs recent attempts to revamp its image in America- especially its image with African-Americans and other racially marginalized groups. Not only did they mistakenly list Jackie Robinson as a "great Republican" and then fail to address their continuing stances on projects that act to the detriment of marginalized Americans (i.e. maintenance of the current health care system; laissez-faire approaches to education and the economy; idealization of a heterosexual, two-parent family format), but they do so in a way that clearly aims to recruit as many young, marginalized people as possible- sick of your "old white guy" image, Republicans? Snappy website design isn't enough to fix your problems.

We'll be back, I'm sure, with more news as it happens.

From Erica: Unseen Victims of Domestic Abuse

Last week, while our posts focused on basic information about domestic abuse, we kept mentioning one thing in passing: victims of domestic abuse come from all walks of life, all backgrounds, all identities, all persuasion, and all ages. Today, I'd like to give more consideration to what that means, both for the sake of changing our stereotypes about abuse and also for the sake of increasing access to services that can help.

First, we'll go back to the stereotypical abusive relationship. Mainstream culture and media, more so than we may think, promote an image of abuse that involves a man and woman in their early-to-mid 30s, married more often than not, who are White, marginally affluent, and have a couple of children. The woman is meek, the man is domineering, and there's a lot of physical violence, especially if the husband's been drinking. The only physical or mental dis/Abilities portrayed are her injuries and his out-of-control rage.

There are so many possibilities and identities missing from this picture, it's hard to swallow. Do some people and situations mirror this image? Of course. Do all? Certainly not, and the problem is that our society, including many of the legal and social initiatives that exist to eradicate domestic abuse, often only accommodates this one.

Let's just take a brief look at who gets left out by this picture:

• People of Colour
• Lesbian, gay, and bisexual folks
• Trans and intersex folks
• The elderly
• Men who are abused by women
• Adolescents
• People with dis/Abilities
• Folks who aren't married
• Folks living at one socioeconomic extreme or another
• Immigrants, particularly those who don't speak English fluently
• Folks being abused by relatives other than their spouse or partner
• Folks from particularly strong religious families or communities
• Victims with active addictions to alcohol or illicit substances
• People living with HIV/AIDS
  

For folks in these and other groups, the barriers to leaving an abusive relationship are compounded by the additional barriers their abusers may throw at them, along with stigmas from others and themselves.

As an example, let's look at People of Colour, particularly those who may be living in a predominately White area. One barrier to leaving an abusive relationship might be fear of "confirming" a negative stereotype about a particular racial or ethnic background. Consider stereotypes about African-American men- that they're highly aggressive, sexualized, and dangerous- and consider how a predominately White community might react to the news that their neighbour is being abused by her African-American husband. Or consider how that community might react if it becomes apparent that abuse is happening in a couple of Middle Eastern origin, given that White society assumes that partner abuse is acceptable in Middle Eastern cultures. Rather than supporting the victim in escaping the abusive situation, the community might defect to the stereotypes and assume that "it's okay for you, this is supposed to happen." It might also happen that the community be supportive, but act in a way that suggests that they're "rescuing" the victim from a bad situation caused by the race or ethno-cultural background of their abuser. Either way, dealing with the racism of the community or society at large- and potentially confirming it by revealing the abuse- can be a significant barrier to leaving.

In a similar vein, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and intersex folk all face barriers associated with community-based and society-based stigma. In an effort to gain acceptance of their relationships, LGBTI folks and their allies have often painted extra-rosy pictures of their day-to-day lives. Coming out about abuse can disrupt this positive stereotype and exchange it for the negative one: that LGBTI folk are incapable of having responsible, healthy relationships. And on the subject of "coming out:" for the LGBTI person who isn't out, the threat of being involuntarily "outed" by their abuser can be enough to keep them from trying to leave their situation, particularly if their families or friends are homo- or trans-phobic or if their employers are likely to fire them shortly thereafter. The latter is especially a concern for trans folks, since gender presentation is not protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the US.

Stereotypes and stigmas are massive barriers for all of the folks on the list above- people with dis/Abilities (they have relationships?), the elderly (they have relationships?), adolescents (it can't be serious, it's puppy love), religious folks (their religions must say it's okay), immigrants (they don't know any better), men being abused by women (he's a sissy or he's lying), people at socioeconomic extremes (they don't know any better or they're rich so who cares?), folks who aren't married (they get what's coming to them), folks with active addictions or HIV/AIDS (they deserve what they get), and folks who are being abused by non-partners (that doesn't count as abuse). And one of the big problems that these stereotypes cause is that shelters, hotlines, counseling services, and legal protections often buy into them as well.

This buying-in doesn't necessarily mean that shelters openly espouse the sorts of views I've described here. Rather, it tends to mean that organizations often forget that there are special barriers for these victims and that they may come with particular needs as a result. For example, neither of the shelters I've worked at was readily accessible for anyone in a wheelchair, and for safety reasons, neither of them permitted victims to bring any caregivers to the shelter. Suddenly, a victim who requires assistance to eat, use the bathroom, bathe, or do any number of mundane activities is unable to go to a shelter because of the fear- on the part of the shelters- that a caregiver is the primary abuser or will be unable to maintain the confidentiality of the shelter location. Many shelters, including those funded by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, don't have space for male survivors of any sexuality, gender-queer survivors never cross their radars, and even trans women will often be asked to leave if they're "outed" to shelter staff- something I've seen happen. Adolescents, unless they're over the age of 18, are rarely accepted to shelters in their own right, because legally they're supposed to be residing with their parents. Folks with active addictions are often turned away for liability reasons. And it can be costly and impractical for shelters to provide resources, referrals, and staff that are competent in many languages and cultures and familiar with immigration laws.

Of course, the barriers presented by "buying in" are legal as well; many of the legal protections we'll discuss next week, such as restraining orders and custody papers, are more difficult to obtain when there are stereotypes operating against one's credibility and capabilities. A pernicious stereotype that affects the ability of LGBTI people to get restraining orders, for example, is that abuse between LGBTI partners is just "fighting between friends," and therefore no restraining order is needed. One's ability to express oneself verbally or in writing- in English or in any language- can impact that as well, and having a mental health diagnosis (especially bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) also reduces the likelihood that one's story will be believed.

Later in the week we'll come back to this topic and take a closer look at the social power dynamics that impact marginalized peoples' decisions to leave abusive situations. For now, however, I invite you to check out some of the Domestic Violence Awareness Month activities that are going on around the country, and participate if you are able!

As always, if you are experiencing intimate partner abuse or know someone who is, please contact your state's Coalition Against Domestic Violence or call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) for information, referrals, and safety-planning. To keep yourself safe, always remember to clear your browser history and, if using a cell phone, your call history.

From Erica: one more news item

This image didn't make it onto my radar earlier today, but my partner pointed it out to me and I couldn't resist posting it here. There's no background story for it yet- whether it was photoshopped in one direction or the other- but what appears to have happened is that the original ad for the US was altered for the ad to be used in Poland. I'm not sure what to say, except that it's embarrassing beyond all reason that this happened in any capacity.

Edit one day later: the original link is broken, as the company apparently changed its mind about the image. My partner saved it before it went down, though, so I've changed the link to be to the saved version. Trust me, that's what the original looked like.

From Emily: a follow-up to "Unbelievable"

Before we move on to other posts, I want to take a moment and discuss the article Erica posted about on Wednesday. First of all, I echo everything Erica said. The country club is wrong, and I hope someone takes them to court over this issue, where I'm still optimistic the club will lose this battle.

On a less militant note, I'd like to address a different component of racism. The club didn't just object to the campers' complexions - the parents of white children reported feeling afraid that the African-American and Black children would hurt the other kids in the pool. If you aren't used to being around people who don't look like you, it can definitely be a disconcerting experience the first time you are, so it is understandable that some of the white swimmers felt uncomfortable when the campers joined them in the pool. But no matter how much ground we gain through expensive legal battles, we cannot overcome racism without overcoming the fear that drives it. Most people are racist because they are terrified of losing something, whether it's their life, their job, or the lifestyle they've becoming accustomed to.

So here's what I want to see: More mothers, fathers, grandparents, friends, teachers, pastors, and coaches teaching younger generations to accept and love people regardless of something as insignificant as skin pigment. I want today's children to grow up knowing that dark skin is no more frightening than dark hair. While we're at it, let's also combat the very snobbery that cloaks racism in many communities that claim to be accepting. Let's teach children to love and accept kids who wear inexpensive shoes and live in a run-down apartment or a trailer park.

Posted by Emily

From Erica: Unbelieveable

I just caught this link somewhere on the Internet and wow, am I ashamed. I'd suggest reading the whole story, but in case you don't: the gist of it is that a summer camp of African-American kids paid a massive membership fee to a country club for use of their swimming pool, only to be booted on their first visit because the club is concerned that these kids will "change the complexion" of their institution. There are so many things wrong with this situation, I don't know where to begin. The most obvious is that no one should be denied membership or access to anything on account of their race, especially since there are laws protecting against this sort of situation from occurring.

What it points to, however, is something far more insidious and damaging: the club not only took this action, but was so convinced that it has the right to restrict its membership on racial grounds that it didn't even try to disguise its motives for kicking the campers out. I'm not arguing that concealing racist motives is a better idea, because it's not. Rather, what I want to point out is that the bluntness with which the club handled the situation is a reflection of the status of racism, anti-racism, and the (dis)enfranchisement of people of colour in this society. A club that makes these restrictions in spite of the law is apparently unafraid of facing reprisal for its actions; either it believes that the camp (and its associated parents, grandparents, and other legal guardians of the campers) lacks the financial capital to take out a lawsuit, or it believes that such a lawsuit would be decided in its favour. Ricci v. DeStefano, anyone?

There was a lot of talk after the election of President Obama about what having an African-American president meant in terms of systemic racism, and some people went so far as to call racism dead. I never believed that, but I had hoped that the legacy of the Antebellum period and the second half of the 20th century had taught us, as a country, the basics of humanity. Apparently, I was very wrong. Not only does Obama sill have to live up to his every word in order to make future non-White presidents possible (because, let's face it, a racist society demands that he act as the representation for every single non-White person in the country), but we're so far emmeshed in racism that businesses still feel they can hang up a metaphorical "Whites Only" sign. How shameful, heartbreaking, and embarrassing.

What I want to see come of this: I want to see a lawsuit. I want those kids, their counselors, their parents/grandparents/guardians, the camp directors, and anyone else who can prove they have standing to take this case to court. I want that country club to be forced to eat their words, and I want them to be held up as an example to the rest of the country (and to the world, for that matter) that racial discrimination is unacceptable and intolerable. Mostly, I want those kids to have role models that are willing to fight, so that they can grow up knowing that this behaviour- this discrimination- is the fault of ignorant people and systems. I want them to grow up- and their White peers to grow up- proud of themselves and their identities, and dismantling these sytems of injustice that continue to allow situations like these to occur in the first place.

From Erica: A racism rant

This isn't going to be my last post on this topic, but I'm angry, so this limited post is going to be the start.

My partner's father, a White, diehard Rush Limbaugh conservative, sent me an email today that very calmly discussed the implications of the SCOTUS's overturning of prior decisions in the New Haven firefighter case. As part of this, he referred to Latino/as as "spics" (although he misspelled it). I called him on it, pointing out that that's a really offensive and derogatory term, and he fired back a reply that demanded to know why Judge Sotomayor can be racist against "old white males" and he can't be racist back.

First of all, in the most basic sense, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if you believe that Sotomayor's comments were racist, a matter I'll consider in a moment, it's completely unreasonable to argue that someone else's hateful or ignorant behaviour gives you the right to behave the same way. In White Judeo-Christian culture, at least in the United States, the philosophy is that you should always strive to be the better person; the phrase my parents used to describe it was "to turn the other cheek." This is a man who would argue that, if a bully punched his kids at school and his kids punched back, his kids deserve whatever punishment the school metes out for them because, regardless of circumstances, they committed a wrong. I know that racism can be really difficult for White folk to acknowledge and understand, even when they're being as deliberately malicious as this man is, but it's difficult not to ask myself how on Earth he can justify his actions to himself.

The second matter, which comes directly from that, is that I'm absolutely fed up with hearing people talk about "reverse discrimination" and "reverse racism" and think they're being meaningful. The reverse of discrimination is no discrimination, and the reverse of racism is no racism. Discrimination isn't solely the property of White folk. There are plenty of people in this country and around the world who are incredibly racially discriminatory and who aren't White.

Racism, in my understanding, is a specific form of discrimination. Having never been the victim of it myself, as a White person, it's entirely possible that I've got this somewhat confused. However, what I've gathered over the years from bell hooks and Audre Lourde and Patricia Hill Collins and Andrea Dworkin and Chandra T. Mohanty and a whole host of anti-oppression theorists is that racism is discrimination backed by power. Racism is when discrimination can be enforced, either overtly or covertly, through the legal, social, and political systems. What this means in practice is that an African-American woman can make all kinds of race-based judgements about me and I about her, but my judgements are the ones that are validated by our respective housing options, educational opportunities, and interactions with the police, welfare systems, and other authority or assistance figures. THAT is what racism means.

I think the most frustrating thing about this situation is that this is an email conversation that's already happened many times, albeit without the slur. We've talked about racism before, but he's absolutely not interested in even considering the possibility that there are things he could learn or even discuss. He's completely absorbed in the ideology that says that nothing's wrong, everything's fine as it is, and his privileges as a White man are completely incidental.

And I'm tired of telling him the same thing over and over again, with my arguments falling on ears that refuse to listen. My email back to him simply stated, in no uncertain terms, that his language was inappropriate and he is never to use it again. Unfortunately, the bigger issue remains unresolved, and it's something that anti-racist theorists have been grappling with for their entire careers and their entire lives. When someone refuses to listen, how do you turn them around? If turning them around is next to impossible, how do you know when to focus your energies on the people who will listen? Is it ever okay to give up hope on someone's ability to broaden their perspectives, even temporarily?

These questions are so huge, and I know there are multiple answers to all three of them (as well as to many I haven't asked here). The only bright spot I see in this is that I'm still angry, which means I'm still motivated to keep fighting.

--Erica