Words of Wisdom from Yolanda

Update: I missed something really important in this post, so following Yolanda's example - I'm editing it to highlight my own ideological blindness. I know this post is really popular, and I don't mean to start a 'meme' but if you repost it - maybe you'd like to highlight your own weaknesses too?

Words of Wisdom from Yolanda (straight out copying):

In light of recent assertions and statements that I’ve encountered on comment threads, message boards, and in private conversations, I thought I’d just take a moment to relate the following observations:

- You can be a good, decent, loving, caring person and be a white male supremacist.
- You can be a hard-working, dedicated, self-sacrificing person and still have unearned privilege. [ME]
- White male supremacy is a system of power, not a moral failing or an individual flaw.
- Having a spouse of color and/or children of color does not make a person antiracist.
- Working with, helping out, donating money to, or otherwise providing resources and services to people of color does not make a person antiracist. [ME]
- Being a fan of, an expert on, or a scholar of Native American literature, Eastern religions, manga, Afro-Asian languages, jazz, reggae, anime, Bollywood cinema, hip-hop, or national liberation movements does not make a person antiracist. [ME]
- Being a woman, lesbian, gay, transgendered, or poor DOES NOT negate one’s white and/or male privilege.
- Even if most men are not rapists, 99% of rapes are committed by biological men. This is a political reality.
- All human beings are equal. Men and women are not equal.
- All human beings are equal. White people and people of color are not equal.
- All human beings are equal. The rich and the poor are not equal.
- One does not need to be a white person to be a white supremacist.
- One does not need to be a man to be a misogynist.
- One can be both antiracist and white supremacist [ME].
- One can be both feminist and misogynist [ME]
- Critique of privileged and/or oppressive behavior is not a personal attack. [yeps, I fallen into that a few times]
- Resistance to oppressive bevavior is not a personal attack. [this one too]

And most important:

No matter how long you have lived, what you’ve experienced, what work you have done, you will never outgrow the need to change. [yes, yes, yes]

Comments closed, comment at Yolanda's pls.

Wow, when blogging 'works'...

Hell yeah, I'm almost out of hiatus - and this is really giving me that push to get right out. kettikili at Pass The Roti, critiques the entry made by one Jonathan Allen, of the New York Times, who was promoting a very orientalist trip to India. Now, that's okay in itself... but... but... said writer, decides to take on the bloggers at Pass The Roti in his own defense.

Now, don't take my word - read it!!!

So, this reaffirms my suspicions that big brother is indeed watching you and willing to fight the anonymous bloggers of the internets about it, cool.

Tee hee...

Comments closed, because you can comment directly at PTR. TY.

Update: Okay, then - big brother IS watching... uhuh: So Bush quotes two anonymous bloggers to support his war??? Okay, now - I'm just in a state of shock. Is this where blogging is going to start determining US foreign policy?

Discuss! Comments now open.

Progress is unilinear...

I'm not really getting out of e-hiatus, but - I just couldn't resist this discussion here. But the thing is - I should have just taken a hint of advice from the title of the post itself.

I mean this is why the word 'racism' is so problematic IMO, it's such a liberal term solely reserved for 'extreme' situations, so systemic and institutional 'racism' don't get covered... so 'racism' is insufficient really, when it's really about 'white supremacy' (ty to my friend who I had this discussion with the other day!).

Okay - what's my problem right?

The bold parts of this paragraph here, are my problem. Anyone with more eloquence, intelligence, strength and energy want to take it on? Or am I just really going on about nothing (cause at this point, that's how I feel - I don't think I have the energy to talk about anything anymore because I don't even know if I make sense really):

After all, white people have dominated the sciences and arts and humanities in the West for awhile now; they did come up with some useful things in the process, such as computers and penicillin. Unlike some of my more racist brethern, though, I don’t think this means white people are inherently better. I think that if everyone else got access to the education and opportunities white people have hoarded for themselves, they’ll start inventing the next rounds of computers and penicillin. In fact, I suspect that is exactly why white people haven’t shared; we didn’t want to be bested at anything. The downside is that so much squashed potential probably means that many more computers and penicillin that we don’t have.

Some quick notes:

1) Coming from both the 'art's' and 'sciences' - I have to wonder - what are the arts and sciences and what makes them so different from each other? Really, are they THAT different - or are those boundaries artificial? Where do doctors like Paul Farmer fit into this (i.e. someone who's both an anthropologist and a medical doctor)? Or economists like Amartya Sen? Or feminist physicists etc...? Psychologists etc? In places like India - you have doctors who are both students of 'western medical practises' and 'naturopathy/homeopathy'... now - where do those ppl fit?

2) Who created this division between the arts and the sciences? How are the arts and the sciences treated differently, how do they affect different groups of ppl? How do we value certain types of knowledge over others? Why is that a problem? Who produces certain types of 'knowledge' and who's 'type of knowledge' do we value more? Are the producers of knowledge valued more, or are the labourers who work to 'produce' the 'tools' of this knowledge valued more?

3) What is the problem with this idea that progress needs to be measured in terms of how many medicines and technical gadgets you produce? I.e. is your worth as a human being measured in your 'productive' value or your fiscal contribution? Is this the only model of progess that we have? Where do local/indigeneous forms of knowledge or learning fit in here? Or are they just completely useless and therefore must be eradicated?

ugh... back to e-hiatus.

e-hiatus

my undercover work as an internationally reknowned spy requires travelling to 'far-off' and 'exotic' places, so I can't write on this blog at the moment...

ahem, ahem...

Well, not quite - I've just got too much to do - everyday drudgery actually and I am definitely in need of some 'blogging introspection'.

Gotta take the clothes out of the dryer now.

In the meantime, check out this excellent 8 part series: Cultural Criticism and Transformation by bell hooks (the first two videos below). [Lately my youtube 'library' seems to be shrinking by the minute due to copyright violations, so - definitely check this out before it's 'gone'...]





Link as usual via Jimmy H., thanks Jimmy!.

bye for now!

How to win a cock-fight: review of the movie 300...

What the #$%& was I thinking you ask, I wasn't... yes, I just witnessed the biggest load of tripe ever.

Short version or long version? Why bother, you can find a detailed review of the movie elsewhere - spoilers and all, in fact it seems many reviewers have already called out this tripe for what it is on rotten tomatoes and Imdb (honestly writing a review for this is just too easy).

Short Version:

Don't waste any money on this overinflated hard-on (I didn't - I watched it for free). I don't know whether it was the rampant Islamophobia (despite Islam forming as a religion 1000 yrs after this war took place!), anti-black racism, white supremacy, the homophobia, anti-disableism, the obvious war-promoting or the spoils of war (i.e. objectified women) which got to me the most. Of course it could be the moral of the story: The only way to win a cock-fight (or "fighting for justice, freedom and humanity") is to get a bigger "stronger, harder" and "harder, stronger" cock (not my words, the movie's - and yes, they did say it TWICE in case I missed it the first time) while wiping out the bad guys i.e. asians, africans and persians (i.e. ANYONE non-white).

Long Version:

The movie's about some war in Greece set in 480BC, Battle of Thermopylae, based on the Frank Miller graphic novel - it's something I won't pretend I even knew about until today, so let's just ignore the 'history' of it and focus on it's cinematic glory. Really, there's no point in discussing the 'history' of this battle because the $&%*ing movie is an American pro-war propagandist movie not about 'the spartans or the greeks' but American-version of this battle which happened nearly 2500 yrs ago.

Basically, the Spartans, led by King Leonidas, have been asked to surrender Sparta/Greece to the Persian empire. A black male messenger informs Leonidas of this. When Leonidas's wife interrupts their discussion - he says "how dare you let your wife speak on these matters?"

Of course the only thing his wife is good for is bearing babies so she says "because only Spartan women BIRTH REAL MEN"...And yes, the 'pro-empowerful' camp of the audience lets out a little cheer when this line is spake (I'm still scratching my head bout that).

The interesting thing about this brief little discussion is that 1)it's an implicit acknowledgement that women in the messenger's country must be treated like dirt - remember the imperialist dynamic of "evil coloured patriarchal cultures?" vs. liberated western women? 2)liberated western women (read white) in Hollywood are generally empowered via their value to men - whether it's as a sex-object, love-interest, their adoption of masculinity or 'traditional' motherhood.

So the stage for white-hetero-male-patriarchal-supremacy is set from the get-go.

So instead of surrendering, Leonidas kills the BLACK Persian messenger and his black allies because they've 'insulted his wife and Sparta'. A violently glorified chopping a black man's head scene follows, really it's grotesque.

A flashback technique is employed to tell the tale of how Leonidas has been trained to be a fierce warrior from the age of seven, when the barbaric/noble Spartans start training their young to be warriors. The flashback of young, pre-pubescent, Leonidas proving his manlihood by slaying a wolf while only wearing a loin cloth in the freezing darkness of winter is referred to several times throughout the movie to reinforce Leonidas' ferocity.

Homophobia:

The movie doesn't even pretend to be anything but white supremacist, misogynist, islamophobic, ableist, or homophobic, in fact it prides itself on all these accounts. If we missed the homophobia at the beginning of the movie when King Leonidas briefly refers to Athenians as "Boy-loving philosophers", we get it again ten-fold repeatedly throughout the movie.

When Leonidas' army of 300 meets a neighbouring Greek city's army of 1000 men, Leonidas justifies the manly-manliness of his army because the "artists, sculptors, and blacksmiths" of the neighbouring city's army do not real manly-men make. The conclusion is that a few good men, are better than the lives of 1000 (this is enforced later on too).

When battle takes off, we find out that the evil Xerxes (god-like emperor of Persia) is an effeminate, heavily ornated, man-woman-transgender-loving horndog.

The funniest thing about my cinematic experience though, was that my companion, in this case evil incarnate; a gay, occupationally effeminate MOC, was drooling over the washboard abs, chiseled thighs and pecs of the uber-manly-man Spartan Army (yeah, okay so was I :P). So, despite it's obvious homophobia (i.e. it's literal message) this movie's reliance on extreme gender conformity was almost a parody of itself visually - i.e. there is no way you could take the narrow gender roles seriously without thinking dirty thoughts about the Spartan's in their loin cloths. At some point there was a duo of two younger Spartan's whom my companion repeatedly wished would make out - of course until one of them was decapitated.

Now, I don't think this was some clever-pomo-gender-fucking-theory on screen, that would give an otherwise horrible movie too much credit, and besides the lines between good/evil repetitive jabs at gay men in comparison to manly men were stark. I just think it was a series of bad choices made by the movie-makers and ended up reading differently than they expected. But saying this was a 'homoerotic' movie, as many critics have cited it as - would be negligent and would be like saying that football players, basketball players, other 'manly-men' are not really 'violent' but rather enjoy watching each other shower... or some other more clever analogy that I can't think of at the moment.

Sexy Nekkid Chicks, "white" vs. "other":

Yes, this movie has a lot of 'sexy nekkid chicks'. The first scene is where we're entertained by what we find out later to be a "white, nude, drunk, teenage girl". Girls gone wild anyone? Hurrah. And guess what? Said girl is really OWNED by very ugly priests because she is an oracle, and we find out that they get to fuck her too, cause they have "dark manly hearts" and women who are hot "are cursed by their own beauty", talk about victim-blaming...Totally unnecessary scene.

Later on, because manly man, Leonidas is urgin for the plungin, he 'bangs' his wife (Queen Gorgo) every which way to nth-multiple orgasm - to which even the the couple next to me laughed "Okay, we get the point already!" *snarky laugh*.

These former women are both white. One part is revolting, but obviously the way it was shot - it was meant to tantalize the viewer with it's 'mystical' elements, and when we find out this erotic dance is by a drunk, teenage girl, it's well after the scene is over - so what, the main point of it was to objectify...

Both of the white women in the two scenes are 'property' of their rightful owners, the white men in their immediate lives - the priests and husband. Their 'sexuality' is dutiful, non-deviant, conforming and 'moral' whether that is for a group of men who 'facilitate religion' (thus their sexual value is extended for the benefit of the entire community) or whether for their husbands (in this case the KING, and you bet your ass if the King don't get his rocks off... well).

But later, when we are introduced to a whole harem of hot, ornated, tattooed, coloured sexy chicks it's more like we've been thrown into a visual orgy of totally debaucherous sexuality. They are aggressive, forceful, defiant, unaware of their obvious ownership because even though they are owned they are willing participants in their own 'degradation'. We see these women of every single colour, other than white, defiantly throwing themselves at the disfigured/disabled/gollum-like character who is a traitor to Leonidas. They tempt and snare him into being an asshole and betraying his leader while luring him to the 'dark side'.

[ETA, re: ableism: this character is a traitor because Leonidas refuses him entry into his army due to his physical disability. The opening scene of the movie shows the Spartans practising crude eugenics by disposing of their 'disfigured' babies down a cliff. The disabled character would have 'created a gap in their strategic battle formation'. So he is emasculated by Leonidas and seeks revenge by betraying his 'people'.]

So basically the set-up of 'the dutiful/sexually moral white woman' vs. 'amoral Jezebel' [link to interesting article] is in place because of the way the women are sexually portrayed. Their sexuality is DIFFERENT. Their all objectified, but are morally different.

Later, Queen Gorgo (Leonidas' wife) is raped by a janus-faced politician. After which she gives a passionate speech in the male council chambers on behalf of the 'mothers/daughters/sisters/wives/families' of the 300 soldiers that have sacrificed their lives for the betterment of the city-state (again their value in relation to men). It is imperative that they send more troops to help them out. Gorgo's morality and better judgement are implicit in her being a 'liberated white woman'.

The thing is - the women in the harem are all SLAVES, we've heard this comment repeatedly via the open-conjectured-threats of what would happen to the women of sparta if the evil Persians got hold of them. One character goes so far to say "the women would become slaves, or much worse" (i.e. sex slaves). I.e. so if the harem consists of SLAVES, they are obviously 'victims of rape'. Yet, the only sympathetic rape(s) here (potential and realized), are those of the moral white women of Sparta - not the coloured women who are not victims but rather 'sexually deviant' from the get go.

Colourism:

Do you see any significant difference between the skin-colour of Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) or Leonidas (Gerard Butler), in this picture here? not really... Throughout the movie it is obvious that the Americans Spartans are all white and the other's are all deviant coloured people... yet, we're also aware of the obvious use of 'brown-face' throughout the movie. Cause Xerxes definitely does not look like Rodrigo Santoro.

Genetic variation and thus skin-colour are more varied within a 'group' than between 'groups'. So it's rather silly for them to consistently employ such stark colour differences anyways.

The Persian army is also substantially disfigured/ugly. The terrorists Persian Army, also employ 'dishonest tactics' to win the war. I.e. by employing sneak-attack strategies, strange monsters and 'magic'...

American-Propaganda - Conclusion:

The only way to win a war is to send in more troops, otherwise we all lose. The closing shot ends with an army of 30K plus who are all willing to 'sacrifice' their lives for the rest of us. They are "brave heroes" who die "a glorious death".

More on the obvious homophobia of the movie, here.

Cross-posted at Leftist Movie Reviews, comments open everywhere.

Update 1: There is some interesting discussion about this movie at Feral Scholar.

Update 2: There are petitions against this movie too. Check it out (link via No Snow Here at this blog here.

This movie also happens to be the number one movie this week, by a landslide.

A New Reader at LLL

The latest reader to LLL, wrote me this lovely poem today - contrary to popular belief, it made me bawl my eyes out - so to welcome this reader - I thought I would share this poem with whoever else is reading:

I have an angel,
wide eyes with answers,
open arms to hold guilt,
deep heart to hide sorrows,
beautiful smile to face the confessions,
to heal and to share,
the faith is hurting,
she is trying to be free,
rebellious with change
just to be human.

-----------------

It's been at least 20 years since my mom's written a poem and I think it's one of the first times she's attempted at writing one in English - she wrote four of them this past week (one for each of us). She's a published Hindi poet and I'm so proud of her. She's asked me so many times what I thought of this today - even said "you're not going to dissect my English are you? I don't want a post-mortem you know". Of course this coming from the years of insecurity of having a bratty little kid unjustly criticize your language skills. I'm sorry for the hurt I caused you, and the stupid things I've said to you in the past. I love you so much.

My mom's sacrificed so much for me, and I'll never be able to thank her enough for all the things she's done. It's true what they say about how when you're in your late 20's your relationship with your family really alters for the better, at least it has with me.

I love you Mom!!!
Can you just avoid reading the profanities, please?
Thanks
-A

Awesome vid...

I don't know anything about the band... but WOW.



via Jimmy H.

Edited to add (TY Sewere):
This band is really awesome - do check out their wiki entry (not endorsing wiki here!).
This is the band's website.
Their Myspace page (they have a 'blog').

On a related note - here are some cool maps at Zuky (via Nine Pearls).

Thinking Blogger Award...

I've been feeling icky, frustrated with anger and ready to break something - so hell, why not participate in something nice?

I'm really honoured that Veronica (Nine Pearls) gave me a thinking blogger award. It was totally not expected.

From Veronica's:

Long ago, and far away, people with “personal websites” and “online journals” used to hand out awards left and right. We also joined “rings” and “collabs” and “cliques.” Anything for a link.

Someone named ilker yoldas has resurrected that fine tradition, adding a memey twist. And, I have been tagged by Andrea and Antiprincess for a “Thinking Blogger Award!” And, I get a shiny button, too!

The participation rules are simple:

1) If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2) Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
Optional:
3)Proudly display the ‘Thinking Blogger Award’ with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn’t fit your blog).

So these are my e-sheroes, I want to emphasize I've chosen people not because they just make me 'think' but because they possess integrity and a healthy dose of self-reflexivity - which I think is fundamental to any kind of 'progressive' thought. (Links will be included to some of my personal favorites, we've got all this good writing on the web - we need to recyle it!):

1) Yolanda, the Primary Contradiction - what can I say about this woman to justify how awesome she is? She writes concisely, her writing is accessible, honest and holistic. She's never scared to be open, introspective and forthright, often allowing readers into her heart. Even her most shortest posts are powerful. A taste of her fine-writing:

The Race-Gender Character of Marxists
FIST Statement: Prosecuting an Ideology
Capturing the Power Trinity

2) Zooey, Diaries of an Eccentric Nerd Athabahibiji - Zooey makes learning an adventure (I sound like a sesame street character) and not just because she's an educator but because she asks tough questions! She manages to balance this fine-line between our own internal struggles and how they connect to our lived experiences and our politics. Zooey shows and acknowledges how we as people living in the empire are both the oppressed and the oppressors. Now this is true introspection, bareboned honesty - and did I mention she's a damn fine poet too?

Pedagogical Anxiety 1 and 2.
Racialized Anger

3) DesiItaliana, Pass the Roti - I haven't gotten a chance to read a lot of her writng, but I am confident that I will constantly be challenged by her thought-provoking posts and am already impressed with her introspection!

Why I Never Hung Out With the Indian Club

4) Spotted Ele, The Bipolar View - From just a very 'liberal' understanding of disability - I'm coming to learn more about it from the internet. Partially thanks to bloggers like Spotted Ele. But spotted ele is doing more than that, she often manages to connect how disability/gender/poverty and race come together. Spotted ele, like the other bloggers is self-reflexive.

What Is the Bipolar View Like?
The Twisty Thread and the Response (Not about "Twisty" but about making derogatory mental health references)

5) Sparkle Matrix - A mutli-media anti-sexist extravaganza. Sparkle makes patriarchy bashing fun! From odd objects, funky videos and a category called 'Nice matters' - what's not to love? Sparkle doesn't provide a lot of commentary - instead lets you ponder the sexism in the images/videos/articles that she links to for yourself. She's also repeatedly demonstrated that she is 'willing to admit' she's not always right and if the commenting gets out of hand, she calls it out.

There are tonnes of more people I would have mentioned, but in my limited time on the net, I've found that these bloggers in particular show a high-level of introspection and that's why I mentioned them. As I blog more - and read more blogs, I'll make sure to mention more people in the future.

Honorary award:

Jimmy H. - Thanks for always directing me to relevant articles/comics, showing me the importance of history, demonstrating the importance of reading widely and how it all connects. You are totally fab!

Just because...

...been feeling like this lately. Remember kids, if you say anything AGAINST ANYONE - it's WRONG. But when you say things people want you to say YOU'RE RIGHT. Every other fuckin' day of the year - you are a 'freak'. Feminism isn't just some pie in the sky - it's practised. Thanks for showing your true colours Wimmin...

No comments. Thanks.

Misogynist troll and Race-Traitorism

Post deleted because shit like this is not worth my time and energy.

Thank you for all your emails - you know who you are. I appreciate it greatly.

My First Lesson in Solidarity and Loss

Note: This post was written for another blog a few months ago. We never got around to putting this series up - but I thought that recent events warranted my posting this.

Post addressed to: Kenneth Eng

Please also read this very insightful and critical piece by By Kil Ja Kim: Question From the Inside: Does Asian American + POC = Anti-Black? (link via Jimmy H.).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Liangs and I: My First Lesson in Solidarity and Loss

When I was between the ages of 4-9, my family and I lived in a middle class primarily ‘white’ neighborhood in Alberta. My parent’s first school of choice was about a five minute walk from my home, but because I was not Catholic the school rejected my enrollment. After this, my disappointed parents decided to enroll me into a school which was about a half an hours’ walking distance from my home.

I attended this school for the next five years (kindergarten through grade 4), and can not claim any form of attachment to my first institution of learning, in fact these early years of schooling were most definitely spent in a fair amount of isolation. A large part of this isolation was due to the fact that I was often treated as a ‘racial pariah’ and I do not recall having many friends during that period. This had little to do with my personality because from a happy, boisterous and extroverted child I became a very reclusive and introverted one. I was rarely ‘made fun of’ in overt racist ways but my ‘otherness’ was noticeable when my peers had birthday parties to which I was not invited, or when games were played or when we had to partner with other students on projects (yet everyone always asked me for help in math and English) and I was one of the last few people chosen.
In the absence of companionship, I picked up the habit of always doing my homework on time, reading, and listening to the radio. As a result of this, I always answered questions in class and won all the spelling bees in school. One could say that the only ‘friends’ I had in school were my teachers. In addition to this, I also developed a liking for the toys, clothing and musical tastes of my white, male peers. In fact, I would boast about my transformers and lego collections and/or musical knowledge. This increased my popularity a little, but in most cases people would take advantage of me by borrowing my toys or asking for homework help.

Academically Jeff Liang, a Chinese-Canadian, was the only other student in my class who always scored well. Like me, Jeff didn’t have any other friends either but was very lucky that he had Melissa, his older sister who was two grades ahead of us. I was slightly envious of Melissa and Jeff because they celebrated Christmas, Easter, Halloween (something my parents equated with begging) and pretty much all the other Christian holiday that I did not participate in because I was Hindu.

By grade two, Jeff and I had developed an unspoken academic competition between us, a competition that was often encouraged by the ‘nerdy’ white boys in class who were keen to find out who got the highest marks – jokes about whoever scored the best would ensue. These ‘nerdy’ white boys were not our friends, they would only come up to us after a test was over, or when we got our papers back. Jeff and I often compared our marks, tested each other’s spelling abilities and even challenged each other on our knowledge of television, movie and game trivia. Oddly, our rivalry developed into a sort-of friendship, and like our unspoken competition, our friendship was also unspoken. Our friendship was never ‘public’ nor did we ever acknowledge each other as friends by referring to each other as ‘best friend’. Jeff and I never hung out at recess, we never had lunch together and we never really talked in class to each other, aside from comparing our marks. However, after school, it was different; we walked home together with Melissa. Jeff and I would watch Smurfs and Carebears together, trade stamps and stickers and share our transformers and lego. Melissa would occasionally join us – but less so because she was a little older than us. Occasionally Mrs. Liang even babysat me.

Near the end of grade three a new student, Brad, had transferred to our grade. He was a few years older than Jeff and I, and was probably the same age as Melissa. Many rumors were spread about Brad, such as that he had been expelled from his last school and overall that he was a trouble maker. Brad was a little taller than most of the kids in our class, he was in hindsight a very ‘Aryan’ looking boy with white (not blonde) hair, very pale skin and blue eyes. Like the Liangs and I, Brad didn’t have any friends either and inevitably he befriended Jeff. Unlike us, Brad didn’t have friends because everyone was scared of him.

Brad lived very close to the Liangs and I, and shortly thereafter he started accompanying the Liangs and I in our walks to and from school. From the beginning Brad would make fun of me. Jeff would occasionally laugh and giggle at Brad’s taunting. Melissa being the ‘responsible older sister’ would occasionally intervene by scolding us. One day I had had enough of the joking and took it upon myself to blurt the saying “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me”. It was a ‘big mistake’ on my part. Brad, immediately responded with an ‘Oh yeah?..” and picked up the nearest branch off the ground and threw it at me. After he did this a few times, Jeff started doing the same. Melissa hesitated at the beginning and then followed pursuit. Trying to shield myself from the hailing sticks and stones, I ran across the street and took an alternative route home, crying the entire way.

I didn’t tell my mother about the incident immediately, I never told anyone in fact. It was something I was embarrassed by, something that I thought I had brought upon myself by speaking up for the first time. From that moment, Jeff and I stopped hanging out altogether and resumed our former lives as isolated invisible minorities in a primarily white school. If I was babysat by Mrs. Liang, I was sure to bring my books with me to study in which I occupied the furthest table in the corner to pass the time until my mother came to pick me up. Even Jeff wouldn’t attempt to talk to me while I was there, if he watched television, he watched it alone; if he played with toys he did it alone. Like our friendship had formed in silence, the demise of our friendship too also passed in silence.

Within a month or so Brad got into more trouble and was eventually expelled. No one heard from him again, even his family moved away. But my friendship with the Liangs had changed permanently. I walked home alone or with a new friend that I had made, Shelly, a white ‘obese’ girl from another class who also had no friends. Shelly later became my first ‘best friend’ despite her many attempts to ‘convince’ me of the existence of Jesus. Even when Jeff, Melissa and I saw each other walking in the same direction we avoided each other.

Like the friendship that the Liangs and I had formed had been kept a secret, our ‘break-up’ was also kept a secret. No one knew of our friendship, no one knew when we stopped being friends, no one ever thought twice about us. Our undeclared friendship was a source of embarrassment so we kept it to ourselves and likewise our ‘break-up’ was a painful loss.

A very long time has passed since my friendship with the Liangs ended. I moved away the following summer and never saw or heard from Melissa or Jeff again. Since then I have moved several times, to other smaller and predominantly white cities and towns, yet my experiences with other people of colour have not been very different from my experiences with the Liangs. In fact, the Liangs could easily have been the da Silvas, the Subramanians, the Shahs, the Dalmars, the Kims, the Garcias and sometimes I too have been ‘the Liangs’. Encounters with other people of colour have often been greeted with a silent acknowledgement, an undeclared sharing of a guilty secret and often a source of embarrassment. We would encounter each other, but are often embarrassed by the acknowledgement of our shared second-class status and as a result we forsake potential alliances for short-term gains and suffer an incredible loss. We know that we can be friends but being friends might not be the ‘safest’ thing.

It was only in my university years that I befriended more people of colour because there were just 'more of us' there, this was when I could finally ‘safely’ be an ‘Indo-Canadian’ without shame. Yet, even now I see this shame when other second generation South and East Asians refer to newcomers as “FOBS” (or Fresh off the boats) – making fun of their accents, their habits, their clothing and mannerisms. I see it manifest itself in the way we make classist and racist remarks when we realize that not all of us are ‘model minorities’. When we deny the existence of the ‘third-worlds’ that our parents came from because we have not directly lived their, their very existence becomes a source of embarrassment for us. When we compare how much ‘better’ everything is in the “West” and how everyone is more ‘civilized’. I see it when we hurt each other and try our best to ‘ignore’ the systemic racism, sexism, classism, imperialism that harms all of us in a myriad of ways in both systemic and unseen forms and overt forms. We proceed in our individual bubbles as though our ‘short-term gains’ will shield us from any or all of these things. Most of all I see it when we deny that we have anything in common and practice our own form of racism against each other. Ultimately who wins when this happens? What are the unaccounted losses when this happens?

*All the names used in this story are fictional; any resemblance to living or dead person(s) is merely coincidence.

Cross-Posted at Pass The Roti.

Sometimes I wonder - which planet I'm on....

Chasing Moksha and Heart are creating "new theory" over at Heart's space:

And voila - this is what it looks like:

Because of patriarchy’s plot to make her the standard of beauty she is hated, yet other than white woman (WOC) is objectified and raped as well. But still the mass, the objectified WOC and white men seem to be working together (consciously or not) to focus their hatred and cause of all woes on the white woman.

Tres Brilliante! I am floored. I, as a WOC am a tool who is jealous of hot white women....yes indeed.

Heart I asked you kindly to remove my link from your blog and since you didn't listen the first time around (or release the last comment I made at your blog - asking you to do so) - I'll ask you publicly on my blog where you don't have such control to censor me - delink me NOW, I don't mind if I have to devote an entire blog called "heart delink me" and post the samething every single day on that blog - just do it.

ChasingMoksha - I am requesting that you do the same, though I do ask you with a tinge of remorse.

ChasingMoksha's original post:

Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Morphing Into The Oppressor
By being told that I cannot speak about race issues that involve blacks and other races on behalf of my husband (who is identified as black by society’s racial constructs), it is an attempt to negate my husband’s agency.

Last time I checked y'all were complaining about how marriage is a patriarchal tradition that removes women's agency by forcing her to be 'one with her husband' as a unit. As I see it, this is still a valid argument of marriage but does not limit the possibilities of what an actual marriage can be. So in this sense the only person 'denying your husband agency' is YOU. Can't your husband speak for himself? If a white man married to an asian woman said "I can't speak about race issues on behalf of my wife because ... etc.." what would you say? Okay... hold on -you have more to say about this.

As a black man, a person who has a stake in racial affairs and as his partner in this life and mother to his child, I have a stake in it too, hence he has entrusted me with his stories.

Like y'all don't trust trans men to speak on behalf of women - how do you know what it's like to live the first 20 yrs of your life experiencing racism? You'll never know the sweet pain of being called the n-word (which I have been called more than a few times), a paki, a terrorist, a chink (I've been called that too!). You'll also never know the sweet pain of being sexually objectified by white men who feel a sort of special entitlement to WOC - and the thing is, I think in your heart of heart's you know that there is just a special place in a white man's libido reserved for WOC. This comes in a myriad of forms where we're (along with ethnic minority white women) racially AND sexually objectified. Or have you selectively forgotten to omit the 'asian in asian p*ssy, exotic in exotic p*ssy, Latina in Latina sl*ts, ebonyin ebony hoes, russian in russian brides, part of the two-part series that is sexo-racism? In fact I feel the same way when I go to lesbian clubs, despite not being a lesbian - many white WOMEN have internalized sexo-racism to the extent where they will go on about how they 'love Indian women'. I have let it slide, I laugh it off - I even giggle - but truth be told I have outright sworn at white men for the same behaviour (of course only to be called a fucking stuck up bitch who's ugly anyways) and very politely dialogued with white lesbians about this - whom I consider my friends and who I give the benefit of the doubt to (and yes, I am being sanctimonious here and I don't care).

It is utilizing his agency to utilize me (with my consent) to bear witness to his racism. He is too busy experiencing the racism and trying to survive in that racism that he does not elect to write, blog, retell the stories of his oppression to others outside our family, therefore I am that person by proxy.

HUH? Okay, chasingmoksha, you know I would totally be cool with you writing about your HUSBAND's experiences with racism - but call me totally heartless, but this seems to me like you've written this stupid-ass whine-fest particularly to talk about YOU, not your husband.

Where's my proof? You've got ONE blog post about RACISM, and surprisingly (or not) this "morphing into the oppressor" one was the ONLY post under this label. Maybe, I've missed something. So where is this coming from? Ahh... your ENTITLEMENT.

One would have to wonder what is the motive of another who attempts to eliminate my husband’s agency and to negate mine in the process.

One has to wonder what your motive for posting this was? When you've got only ONE post under racism - and though I haven't searched your site fully - I haven't come across any other posts about racism against your husband or children. I agree there is a sensitive way of dealing with this - and your 'race' alone does not disqualify you from writing the experiences of the man you love and his encounters with racism.

I am also finding it deeply troubling that despite some really good anti-racist posts by WOC, rarely radical feminists ever cite those posts unless it's written by a WW or from an argument that supports the 'sexism trumps racism' perspective, I have to wonder why that is.

PS - that Catherine Mackinnon article Heart keeps linking to is such bullshit and can be torn down quite easily. I'm not going to waste my breath anymore on this subject, I think I've done enough - and at this point - I don't have any energy left to devote to this. I also don't like the idea of blogwars, and I feel utterly conflicted about posting this up. But I think it's warranted here as I am increasingly feeling the lack of support when i have commented on Heart's space and have made sure that I do not comment on Heart's space anymore.

Comments are closed. Everyone can banter about this on their own space, rail on me in their own space, piss on each other in their own space, shit on each other in their own space and I just don't give two shits anymore. Thank you.

Update: CM has altered her 'tags' to include more posts under 'racism'. I am leaving my comments above as is.

Update 2: My last & only comment on CM's blog regarding this:

I won't be commenting more than once (I hope) on this topic. I've said what I need to on my own blog.

1) Amy: Quote: "And I think it especially sucks when otherwise intelligent people end up becoming totally reactionary and defending incredibly regressive and conservative politics because, all protestations to the contrary, race trumps everything to them, and they'd rather defend a conservative man of color than a radical white (Jewish) feminist--as recently happened on Heart's blog."

You are referring to ME, just say it. I think as an 'otherwise intelligent person' yourself - you would have thoroughly understood that i made a specific comment about the MEDIA usage of a black pastor commenting on a BLACK woman. I nowhere gave him a free ride to say that 'he wasn't an asshole' - he was. I don't know whether you understand how 'race is played out by the media'. If you don't - maybe you ought to learn more about it, there is in fact a great book on how disney constructs race, class and gender for the benefit of WHITE PATRIARCHAL SUPREMACY. It's a wonderful read - and oh woe is me - it's written by a WHITE MAN. I recommend this to you - cause it's fun, engaging and really gets the idea of WHITE PATRIARCHAL SUPREMACY across: "The mouse that roared" by Henry giroux.

If any comment that I am disheartened by on this comment thread - this is the ONE, beause I do respect a lot of what you have to say. Did I say I was "defending the black pastor"?? Or did I say he was USED BY THE WHITE MEDIA TO PIT ONE BLACK MAN AGAINST ONE BLACK WOMAN? I am dumbfounded that someone as intelligent as yourself would fail to see what I was saying and say something as fucking stupid as "race trumps everything" when in fact, I have done nothing but contribute repeatedly to feminist writing and the feminist blogosphere. So it's fucking insulting as hell that you would 'reduce' my intelligence to being nothing but 'reactionary'!!!! Just because YOU fail to see the INTERSECTIONS of OPPRESSION doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to PROJECT on me! I think I was clear that I BLAMED THE WHITE PATRIARCHAL MEDIA for their CHOICE OF BLACK PASTORS. If you missed that central element in my argument - then that is YOUR problem NOT MINE. In fact, I happen to believe that this was DINES central thesis - and HEART (AS USUAL PER HER ONE - SONG MISSION, misrepresented DINES ARGUMENT). Dines, of course being a WHITE FEMINIST. So the issue is not Dines or Heart's whiteness but rather the stupidity with which HEART posited the thesis of her post.

QUOTE AMY: "I'm wondering also what you mean specifically when you ask if white women "oppress" women of color. My understanding of oppression is that it doesn't primarily happen on a personal scale--that it is a structural phenomenon that happens at the class level."

Thank you Amy, I agree with you - and when you comment on a thread called 'Morphing into the oppressor" one has to wonder who the fuck this oppressor is.

1) it unintentionally starts off with the assumption that WOC, are somehow more "POWERFUL" (i.e. the word oppressor) than WHITE WOMEN. And though white women are not at the top of the food chain, white women do indeed benefit via-the structure of WHITE PATRIARCHAL SUPREMACY more than WOC. This is not THEIR FAULT, but many WW and WHITE FEMINISTS often fail to see their own privilege (i'll get to that later).

Don't you think it's a little more than dishonest to insult 1/4 of the worlds population by saying that they are 'morphing into the oppressor' when they are of the poorest and most marginalized people on earth? So going back to what you said, if oppression is indeed a "STRUCTURAL phenomenon" using it so loosely is fucking insulting as hell. And someone as intelligent as yourself Amy, would clearly understand that.

2) Quote Amy: "And I think of situations like upper class or upper-middle class white women hiring domestic laborers who are Third-World women, and I think that's a choice they should not make--but I also think it's a choice they CAN make because of their CLASS privilege, not their skin privilege."

Who are the richest people on earth? THEY ARE WHITE, or after years of slavery, colonialism did white people automatically lose all the money they stole from 3/4s of the rest of the world? So skin and wealth are often very closely related. This is not to say that the lowest white classes do not share oppression or have similar problems to other poor people's globally. But when we talk about the upper classes and hiring third world labour - it is often closely associated to SKIN privilege. As someone who lives in the empire like yourself - I TOO BENEFIT from third world labour. So you and I do have that in common.

-----------------------------------
Chasing Moksha,

Quote: "AradhanaD, it is really too bad that you cut others off so quickly. It is as if you are saying that if a person is not 100% in tuned with whatever you deem as appropriate and acceptable then they are not allowed to work through it, learn, grow, explore in order to reach the level you are owning to."

Ditto to you - I have the right to cut-off whoever I want, and when you say that WOC are morphing into the "oppressor" i.e. by using a word that has 'powerful' implications so loosely - I have no fucking reason to want to talk to you further until you've understood the implications of what you are talking about. YOU are acting like an MRA "if women get jobs - I won't have one anymore". But instead you and the rest of the bunch here seem to be saying "If WOC say anything critical of white women and their PRIVILEGE, they are taking something away from feminism"... no, we're engging in feminism - unless of course we somehow lose our 'feminist status' by talking about racism too.

No one's said that you don't have a right to talk about your husband's experiences with racism - and I've said so on my blog too. If they have said so - you should be talking about that ONE person in particular and not invoke an entire group of people (in this case WOC) to make an argument. That's dishonest and hurtful - and I'm sure you can understand why.

Quote: "I have very few posts listed as racism because I have only recently started using the tags (around Christmas when I switched to the new blogger). However, throughout many of my posts and loads of my comments around the blogosphere, I have dived into racism quite a bit."

Good, and I said I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't go through all of your posts - or did you miss that in my post?


Quote: "Therefore, if you want to insulate yourself further, splinter yourself away from my kind all the while the fucking WHITE MAN gets a free ride because GOD forbid we cannot discuss him when Miss Anne is really the oppressor,"

Because I am pissed off as hell right now, I'm going to just say this - FUCK YOU. I know you've been visiting my blog, I know you know a bit of what I talk about - so really fuck you. Do I link to Alas? Do I comment on Alas's blog? Do I talk to Alas? Do I support pornstitution? Have I metaphorically sucked cock of the white man? Where in the world have I given white men a free ride? This is nothing but a straw feminist.

See the problem with 'radical feminism' is that you see it as a binary system of 'oppression against women only' - when in fact there is a lot more going on. I.e we suffer from racism too - so my framework is "white patriarchal supremacy" (which capitalism is a part of). If you fail to see how whiteness is part of 'patriarchy', including how the world has changed because of COLONIALISM, then that is YOUR PROBLEM and you are giving white men a free ride, NOT ME.

Quote: "I am sorry for it because I do in fact respect your opinions greatly."

This is dishonest, simply because you just called WOC the oppressor - and I am a WOC. Maybe you wrote in haste, maybe you didn't mean it, maybe you are on your own path of learning, maybe I shoudn't be so hard on you - but when someone calls ONE group 'morphing' into the oppressor - I'm going to be hurt - especially when i am a member of said group.

Quote: "What happens to my husband effects us as a family which is in fact about me, I am part of this family"

And again, I've never said you couldn't write about the experiences or troubles that you face as an interracial married couple - or the stares that you get from society, or the difficulties your children might face when they are forced to 'pick sides'... etc... your anger should have been justly directed at ONE person who said this to you - and NOT A GROUP.

Quote: "Also, you are not the authority who dictates who I link to. If my wishes to exercise my agency of voice are not respected then I will play by those same rules. I did not give you permission to use my user name in your post, in your blog."

If I wanted to - I could have just called you a typical white feminist - but I didn't, because I have white feminist friends who are indeed wonderful people who 'get what racism' is and understand the interconnectedness of oppression WONDERFULLY. Actually just yesterday I had lunch with one of them. So I would rather comment on you BY NAME, than as a group. And yes, I have a group post called 'white feminism' under my tags, only because this is a recurring problem in the blogosphere, activism and academia. And you are right - you have the right to link to whomever you like.

Quote:"Yet you took that liberty. I am not some simple and easy white bitch (you know those hoes just pining for a big old MOC dick but cry rape the minute she is hemmed up) waiting to lose my journey in this life for some arbitiary approval that is given and taken away with no rhyme or reason. I got shit to work through. I would end it with a “snarky” little remark like “no love lost,” however, I cannot say that in good conscience."

Strawfeminist, strawfeminist, strawfeminist. Never said you weren't hurt by white male patriarchal neocolonialism capitalism. Never said it.

--------------------------------------

Heart: "You know, what intrigues me is that the more as white women we have rejected our race privilege, the more it has been compromised by the choices we've made to be traitors to whiteness,"

Yes, the entire black race is grateful to you for having sex with a black man. you've said this once, you've said it twice. yes, I'm being a horrible person - here. So what, you wear this like a fucking badge. You're white privilege does not magically erase itself when you partner with a black man. It's as stupid as this fucking moronic post here: http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2006/09/sure-more-on-race-why-not-i-mean-more.html

Heart: Quote:"But a white woman whose lived reality gives her insights and experience and knowledge which might actually useful to those who want to do anti-racism work? Hell no, she should keep it to herself."

Poor old robert Jensen, look at how much he tries to be a profeminist man. The dude keeps writing about sex work, writing about porn - and all he does is get shat on - all the time. I am so sorry for Mr. Jensen. Poor white man who keeps writing about sexism and now he writes about racism too. And yet, Mr jensen can still keep getting published. Book deals, money, conference tours etc... Yes sirreee - Mr. Jensen.

Hey even anti-porn feminists like AD hate his work - couldn't be that when he writes he makes it seem like every woman can only be valued via their relation to men. Shucks, even he anti-porn crowd dislike him - and yet he tries SOOOO HARD.

Don't worry CM - I won't be commenting again on this - it's too much work for me.

I too am saddened that there weren't more connections happening. Oh wait, but they are? What? Yeah, they are -- you know when? When people stop calling other MARGINALIZED people 'oppressors' - there's nothing but love.

OVER AND PERMANENTLY OUT.

----------------------------------------------
Update 3: I have recieved a lot of really thoughtful and self-reflective comments from chasing moksha - who do want to build bridges. So much to think about, I think Donna mentioned there's a lot of different related arguments on the net - see also discussions on pass the roti too. It's a good time - we can build e-bridges!!! :)