Sunday, December 20, 2009

Intersections of Identity

At Carleton, there’s a lot of activism going on, right? We’ve got the Gender and Sexuality Center, for people who want to do women’s issues or queer related activities, the Office of International and Intercultural Life for international students and students of color, AHA! (HIV/AIDS awareness), Body Positivity Discussion Group, Student Organization for the Protection of the Environment (SOPE), Animal Rights Coalition (ARC) and even the Wellstone House of Organization and Activism! We’ve got TRIO/Student Support Services, which helps students and deals with class issues, the Wellness Center, which provides physical and mental health resources, and even a Coordinator of Disability Services for Students. That’s a whole lot, isn’t it? It isn't even a complete list. This staggering truth might make some people think that activism at Carleton has been successfully specialized as to function most efficiently. Accordingly, activism has pretty run its course – there simply isn’t anything else left to do or care about.

While I applaud the work all of these organizations do, I question this conclusion. Even a simple thought game can point out some of the holes here – what about queer students of color? What about students of color with a disability/disabilities? What about queer students from a lower socioeconomic status regardless of race? It gets even more complex when the issues divide even further: let’s say a student is queer, of color, and from a lower socioeconomic status with mental health concerns, what then? Where do they go? The Gender and Sexuality Center (GSC)? The Office of Intercultural and International Life (OIIL)? Would they prefer to hang out with TRIO (Are they also part of TRIO?) Can they get an appointment at the Wellness Center? Even in this simple name-where-to-go game gets hard. Do they go to all? Does it depend on the day? Do they choose one and stick with it? If they go to all, doesn’t that take up a lot of time? I don’t know the answers. Maybe it’s a very simple decision. But I know for me it might be pretty difficult to choose.

From what I’ve seen, it’s also more than simply the name of an office or organization that gets people there. It’s a reputation. And certain offices have certain reputations – a reputation of being unfriendly to people of color, let’s say. Additionally, some offices have very concrete restrictions, the Wellness Center, for example, is not accessible to people with some types of disabilities. The TRIO/SSS office is three blocks from campus and at least four from the GSC and OIIL offices. Similarly, the house of activism is too far off campus and too inaccessible for students with some types of disabilities. Even within the basement of Scoville, where both the GSC and OIIL reside, there are two separate lounges and mingling occurs less than it could. Why should people be deprived of services and activities that could benefit them because of this?

My response is: they shouldn’t be. My argument is that while these organizations do great things for the Carleton community, they can do more. The offices themselves aren’t the problem; the ways in which they are separate is the problem. The ways in which they are isolated and pegged as a certain “specialized type” of issue that is the problem.

This fundamental division of these groups serves to ideologically separate these spaces. How? Where does this ideological separation stem from? I’ll introduce a word: kyriarchy. Then go on to say: some people reading this may go “huh?” This is not how we think about power structures. We like to separate them, specialize so we can go in-depth, but really so we can maintain a hierarchy of power constructed by (mostly straight) white men (a long time ago! This system does not implicate white men currently living in the creation of this structure. It’s been around for a long time). Even within these offices and organizations, this specialization maintains itself. In the one office I can speak of, there are the sexual violence prevention people, the queer issues people, and maybe some other things if we’ve got staff for it. Though not always the case, this specialization generally comes with specialized knowledge. So asking any ol’ person about disability issues in the queer community might leave the questioner feeling like their question wasn’t answered. And that’s within just one office! How about outside of it? What do climate change and people with disabilities have in common? Think the SOPE people know? I bet the ARC people know. (PS Five points to the commenter who can tell me the answer!)

There are examples of bridges being built. The Collective for Women’s Issues (CWI), so far as I have heard and seen, is one example of bringing women with varying backgrounds and identities together. Another example is the alliance between the JSC and LASO. Other great examples are Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP) workshops. Because AVP focuses partially on oppression in general, I left these workshops with added knowledge of the way all oppressions are linked (by violence, etc). Additionally, in a recent Chili night, links between LGBT people and Jewish people (these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive) were made to show that these groups were not monolithic but comprised of many different people with many different views. These are great organizations and attempts.

I think these efforts are worth continuing. The way I propose starting is by beginning with a concept. So, here’s a great post that I found to be really accessible about intersections of identity and the excuse that specialization people don’t need to know about “other issues.” I’m not going to quote it, because the whole thing is worth reading. Even the comments are great, I think.

I think that if more people were aware of and on board with this line of thinking, there would be more alliances, there would be more inter-office and inter-organizational work, which could lead to some truly progressive and inspirational stuff. There is the concern that, in working between groups, some voices will be lost, but I feel that so long as people are mindful of both their privileges and oppressions, as well as respectful and well versed in “step up, step back,” people with all different identities can come to deeper understandings of the needs and concerns of their peers.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Carleton

Today was the first day I spent a considerable amount of time with my family in the past long while. We went out to eat. I guess this speaks to the relationship I have with my parents; I like to keep my distance. But today really made me think.

As we were eating, my mom offered me her knife and fork (which she had been using to eat meat). I declined because I didn’t want to eat with something that had touched meat. My mom told me, “it’s not going to kill [me]”, to which I responded, “no it’s an ethical choice, I know it will not kill me.” My mom went on to tell me that, “it’s not like [I] did anything wrong, [I] used to eat meat when I was growing up.” Thanks for the support, mom! I could see how not using that silverware could be wasteful, had I chosen to use different silverware, but I did not appreciate being told that my choice wasn’t important. The entire conversation felt like a manifestation of how unsupportive of my “choice” my family is (which I feel is really more of an ethical obligation) and even more disappointingly, how unwilling they were to ask questions and attempt to understand my perspective.

Later on in the conversation, my dad brought up Walmart. My parents had (apparently) never been to a Walmart before, until last week when they went. My dad was impressed, saying, “They have everything! From groceries to anything else you can think of.” Now, I consider Walmart to be a terrible company that deprives its employees in the United States fair wages and benefits, as well as deprives them of the ability to unionize, employs and promotes within the organization in a racist and sexist manner, and engages in slave-like behavior with people working in factories in China, to name a few of the things that really bother me. So I brought this up, very casually, saying something like, “don’t they treat their workers kind of badly? Like make it so they can’t unionize and stuff like that?” To which my dad rattled off some story about how a small number of employees sued Walmart for underpaying them and won.

Then, and this is the part felt like someone was shaking me, my dad called someone a “creature” while we were driving home. I believe he was referencing a person of color (who I gendered female).

All of this within an hour and a half. What’s not to love?

I don’t want to make this post a demonization of my parents. They are who they are because of the circumstances in which they were brought up and the environments in which they choose to participate. What made me think about today was not because today was different than other days I spend with my parents, rather because it was very similar to every day I spend with my parents. These are the sorts of things that surround me when I am in their presence. Yet, I rarely do anything about it. The ways I responded today are more or less the strongest critiques of their thoughts I have ever voiced. Why?

Why do I fall so silent with my parents when I openly and fervently attempt to voice these concerns to my peers? There are two main reasons. One, my parents have held an authoritative grip over my entire being for most of my life. They enjoy dictating what I will do and who I will be and attempting to mold me into what they want for me, without regard to who I actually want to be. This leads to reason number two, they don’t listen to me. They don’t engage with me like I am an adult, but like I am a child that will forever only follow the rules they set – because they say so. They think they know what is best for me, regardless of what I want or need. Trying to engage with them is like slamming headfirst into a brick wall.

Which gets me to my last and probably most important point. I do a lot of complaining about Carleton. I do a lot of pointing out what Carleton gets wrong. Because it does get things wrong and I feel the only way to improve them is to call attention to them. But I don’t do this because I hate Carleton (although part of me does sometimes). I do this because I am incredibly invested in Carleton. I do this because despite the pain it has caused me, Carleton helped me become who I am, and I will forever be grateful for that.

So why can I voice concerns to my peers? Because they, for the most part, listen. Because they are, for the most part, open-minded enough to engage in a conversation with me, willing to question, willing to push (with consent when consent is needed). Willing to think then re-think. Because I honestly think most people try at Carleton. Try to be respectful in their own way, try to be critical in their own way. I might not always agree with the way, but hey, that’s what conversation is for! Yes, I have seen my fair share of condescension, but I have also seen a lot of humility, a lot of empathy and a lot of acceptance. I can voice concerns to my peers because they are some of the most responsive people around. Does that mean they are perfect? Absolutely not! But who is? Is perfection what we’re even going for? Absolutely not!

Why can I voice concerns to my peers? Because I know that, for the most part, they will not straight up tell me I am wrong, and when I ask why, tell me “because I say so.” A Carl’s answer is generally (at least somewhat) well thought out and open to questioning. A Carl generally comes at a topic to the best of their ability, within their limited reality. And a Carl is almost always eager to learn more. Though metaphorically clawing at my cocoon, more than ready to break free to the next episode in my life, I am proud to be a part of this community (or sub-communities within the community) because of these things. And I am excited to continue to be who I am in my community because, in the words of our President Rob Oden, “some things must change in order to remain the same.” May Carls remain open, willing to question and re-think, both others and themselves, and respectful to the best of their ability, so that Carleton can change into a place that listens to and truly nurtures all its students.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Finally! A Review of greenzine 14!

So this is the (sort of) long awaited review of the zine I read a while back. It’s a zine published by Microcosm and written by Cristy C. Road. It’s hard to say exactly what it’s about because it’s basically a bunch of stories, real-life experiences that Cristy shares with the reader. My favorite thing about this zine was it is all over the place. She could have chosen stories that focused on her Cuban heritage and the troubles of living in Miami while it was being gentrified, she could have focused on stories about building community around surviving sexual assault, she could have focused on many other things, because it is apparent to me that she is a multi-faceted human being. But she didn’t, she in fact incorporated all of these elements into the various stories because they all fit. Even when she was not explicitly referring to something, she was still talking about it. I think it is a living example of how I cannot ignore any one oppression because they all intersect.

The thing I thought she articulated the best was when she spoke about sexual violence and healing from that violence. She outs herself as a survivor of sexual assault and states,
“Through the process of healing from abuse, more survivors invalidate themselves, rather than single-handedly believe that the assaulters actions were unquestionably criminal. The surface of a rapist often commits to the form of a nice, caring individual. This is our consistent mind-fuck. Im a woman and women are taught vulnerability. Women are taught compassion and compromise. And for almost a year I told myself that I was overreacting. And I remember the January where I reprimanded every moment I spent beside him. My anger was not irrational, and my anger was as valid as my emotional breakdown.” (8)
She later on she talks about her involvement toward “combating sexual assault” in Philadelphia, which she began by facilitating a workshop with two friends.
“We wanted to educate each other about rape – what we define as our boundaries, what to define as sexual assault, what to define as an abusive relationship, and what myths we yearned to demystify. That in itself is manipulated and rape is justified as okay violence – as oppose to a hate crime.” (57 ish)

“We don’t fucking ask for it – its not the way we dress that normalizes it, honey. What normalizes it is the socially ingrained practice of domination that consistently breathes life into almost every human dynamic.” (57 ish)

“I’ve had to witness artists and films romanticize and satirize rape and assault as just another fact of our culture that is tangible to their own discretion. Ive seen people applaud at the domination of another person’s body. And the truth is that violation is violation, despite the context. The conception of violation is ceaselessly triggering- no matter how desensitized our rape culture is. Deconstructing these norms was an initial step towards that justice we yearn for daily.” (page 57-ish? There aren’t page numbers.)
This is a righteous description, in my opinion. Yes, the tone is a little on the angry/violent side, but I think that anger is valid and real and stems from real and valid pain. And I see past it to the content.

Another thing I thought was awesome about this zine was how open she was in writing about questioning gender norms. Throughout her life, Cristy struggled with these norms and her gender identity.
“I was unaccepted and failed to pass as the girlfriend of a prominent boy. I, like others, was weak and submitted to the subculture’s demands. Ultimately, I didn’t want this, I wanted what I had always wanted – I wanted to be a boy. But I never identified with straight boys, and if I was going to play the part of a boy, I might as well play the part of a the hot femme queer boy in my postmodern fantasies.” (27 ish)

“This year, I made a t-shirt which read “gender is a construct, so fuck it” and I came to terms with the difference between sex and gender.” (27 ish)
Cristy ends up subscribing to post modern definitions and ideals of gender. According to this “postmodern homosexuality,” anyone regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation can have queer sex. She does so to avoid the construct of socially ingrained inequities she sees in mainstream media about heterosexual relationships (though not all, she shares, stating that “a coercive power structure could be evident in any relationship”).

There’s just so much in this zine it’s hard to capture it all. I’ll share one more part, because it really got me to stop and think.
“Goals toward idealism often painted portraits of abusing privilege and power. How can we change and learn from this abuse? Abuse that entails advocacy of quitting your job, when most members of the working class can’t afford to. Abuse where middle class white anarchists scoff at a family for consuming cheap products from large corporations as opposed to making their own. What was a commonality to one was often an economic pipe dream to another, nuzzled beneath dept and survival. Raising a family often overpowered conscious consumption – this wasn’t practicing ignorance – let’s start from there.” (28)

“Instigating an alliance to the people is like a vine mounting from a collection of seeds. Every seed represents a struggle, a movement, an oppression, and a bout of empathy. The will to educate one another about our rights and our choices, and the will to support others by the means they demand, not the actions we would choose.” (29)

“This is what I wanted from growing up – the understanding of others’ choices, the will to educate a community of my desires, and the will to understand why they might not have the capacity to want to learn. In retrospect, a mother doesn’t want to swallow banter about what corporations not to support when she had to prioritize the nourishing of her family. Although, if communication is equally exchanged, one can become more than willing to listen.” (29)

“But we still see that idealized rendition of being radical that could only be embraced by privilege and taught through tactlessness. And when someone chose to steal from the large corporation, they may have felt perpetuating that idea to a large community was compelling. We could never feed others with our excursions and insurgency without recognizing that we are privileged. Scamming bus passes and single-handed theft wasn’t a commodity- because, honey, unlike a middle class white anarchist – a poor person can’t get away with it most of the time. A middle class definition of being poor was sickeningly indoctrinated into radical culture when a writer once said, ‘If you’re not having fun, you’re not doing it right’“ (29)

“It must be fun to get away with theft when you physically play the part of a clean-cut respected consumer, Im sure. I can assure you theft would never be alleged by a homeless passerby or a person of color.” (29)
There is just so much substance in these words. This is the vision of anarchism in particular that I see played out in mainstream spaces as well as some anarchist subcultures themselves. Anarchism as violent, anarchism as white and male, anarchism as middle-class, anarchism as “fucking over the system” in ways most people can’t afford to. A good example of this is the popular movie Fight Club.

The “having fun” bit is something I have also seen in a lot of mainstream activist writing, most notably, in the book “The Lifelong Activist” by Hillary Rettig.

What really got me thinking, though, was the bit about tactlessness. I consider myself to be honest to a fault and I see this getting me into trouble sometimes. I’ve been told I am intimidating more than once, which is interesting to hear because I don’t really know what I would intimidate someone with. Empathy, maybe? Regardless, I’ve become worried recently that people won’t be willing to listen to what I have to say if they can’t get past my tone. This bothers me because I feel like I’m in a bind – sometimes my tone is going to seem frustrated or angry and sometimes I will have no intention of having a harsh tone, but will have the effect of one. I do not know how to push the conversation past a place of “tone” to a place of “content,” so we can actually discuss the topic at hand.

This also got me thinking because I do have a lot of privilege. I by no means deny that. And it is at times a struggle, I have found, to allow myself to focus on the areas where I have privilege. It is sometimes easy to get into a habit of looking only at the ways I am oppressed by my context. I think that’s a bit mistake.

So I hope I have shared enough of the zine’s content for others to want to read it too! There’s so much more, I promise. I didn’t even touch on the parts about mental health, Cristy’s role in the punk rock scene, nor her Cuban heritage. It’s all there. I recommend it.

PS. Congrats to fellow Carls at Happy Bodies! For being in the Recommended Reading on FWD.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Reverse Racism

A little while ago the concept of "reverse racism" was thrown into a conversation I was having. It wasn't used in a context that made much sense to me, but the conversation that followed, debating why or why not reverse racism could exist, was of more interest to me. The idea was shared that the notion that debunks reverse racism (racism = power + prejudice) also disempowers people of color. The argument went on to say that the definition denies the effects of a word used toward white people as violent and harmful.

I clarified: while words used to harm white people are certainly harmful at an individual level, they do not have the cultural or institutional weight that a word used to harm people of color has regards to race. This still wasn't understood, perhaps I did not explain clearly enough, because the person did not feel that individual, cultural, and institutional types of power were the only types of power someone could have. Additionally, they could not distinguish between cultural and institutional power.

I felt this conversation, which I thought was very conceptual, was not productive because I didn't feel the other member of the conversation was listening. What I mean by that isn't that they did not read the words on the page or hear the words coming from my mouth, but that they did not internalize them. I feel they may have internalized something else and then had problems with the ideas they interalized. When this occurs, I do not know how to clarify in better terms.

Fortunately, people of color have been writing about this sort of thing for a long time! And so it is certain that they will do a better job than I in explaining. I present a post from Racialicious called "Why is it so important to have productive conversations on race?" Below are some quotes which resonated particularly for me, teasers even, to get y'all to read the actual article itself.

The author states:
"There are two major issues when trying to have a conversation as complicated as one centering race."

They are:

* The Role of Empathy (Bonding vs. Silencing)
"This kind of dynamic happens often on my blog. A person who is may not be of a the race/ethnicity being discussed shares a story about their experience. It is not the same as others stories. However, there are two very different ways people go about it.
One is when someone is trying to *affirm* an experience by relating it to their own lives. They talk about marginalization based on their sexuality, or based on their race gender combination. For example, many Asian American males and African American females find common ground in being portrayed as undesirable partners in the media. The experiences of an Asian American male and an African American female are not the same – however, there are enough notes of similarity where when we write a post, someone (of either group) wants to reach out and say, “hey, I feel you on this – you are not alone.”

The second is when someone is trying to *deny* your experience based on their limited reality. This is what I object to, because they are building what is a false parallel. So, comments like “As a white woman with kinky hair, I think it’s ridiculous that black women wouldn’t want to straighten their hair! I straighten my hair to look presentable and so should you!” (We actually received that comment on Racialicious, but it went on for paragraphs). It is frustrating when you are talking about a large, systemic issue and people try to make it about the individual. Saying “well, my barbie didn’t look like me either” or “women in ads don’t look like me” as a way of dismissing the systemic in favor of the personal actually stalls conversation."

* The Limitations of Patience
"My point is sometimes I can’t do it. And that’s a shame because, even if most failed, I know some of these conversations HAVE worked. I know some ignorant people who bought a clue, listened and did their best not to do it again. Yes, it can be productive. Yes it has worked. Yes calmly and reasonably answering all the ignorant questions you’ve answered a thousand times or politely objecting and explaining why something was offensive can and does work."
Ultimately, the post is about a push for better conversations about race.

I enjoyed this article because it talks about how to go about activism, and the myth that it's worth it to take on every situation at every time. This isn't something new to me. I just find it particularly pertinent at this moment in time.
"I just spent three or four hours I could have been doing other things responding to people’s concerns, and while that is fine sometimes, it isn’t a sustainable practice.
I prefer to work with other people who recognize the issues with systemic vs. individual racism, and are interested and willing to compare the ways in which oppression impacts us in order to raise a stronger fight against it."
I also enjoyed the article because it referred to reverse racism in a way I found accessible, and referred to some other concepts that have been bothering me lately, which were also present in the conversation. One is that of intent versus effect:
"You are correct in that we cannot judge the intent of others – this is why we say that the *effect* also needs to come under consideration. If you don’t intend to kill someone but do it anyway, the end result is a person is still dead. If you perpetuate racism unintentionally, the end result is still upholding a racist system.
But I am not overly concerned about this. I am one person, working at something that millions of others did before me and millions of others will do after I am gone. I do what I can."
The other is this concept of listening, really listening. I leave with this:
"But I firmly believe that you will not change anyone’s mind about anything unless they are willing to hear it."

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Review of 'The Corporation' Documentary

So I just finished watching The Corporation, a documentary about the formation and current manifestation of corporations. Now, it’s a long documentary, 2 and a half hours long, but I highly recommend it. Not because I agreed with everything people said in it, because I certainly did not, but because I, for the most part, really appreciated what it tried to do. In short, it was a scathing anti-capitalist film that eased the viewer into the evils of corporations.

The format was very cool – interviews with a lot of people from varying backgrounds – spliced with advertisements, historical footage, and what I will call “shots of nature.” I think about 20 people were interviewed, ranging from professors of business and environmental medicine, lawyers, “business spies,” stock brokers, Michael Moore, Vandana Shiva, Noam Chomsky, a Nobel Peace Prize winning economist, the author of NO LOGO, to CEOs of large corporations such as Goodyear and Interface. I really appreciated this diversity of voices, although it was clear from the editing that the directors favored the words of some over the words of others. I also thought that the advertisements meshed well with the voiceovers and interviews.

Another thing that I thought was really awesome was the way it implicated large corporations as more than “a few bad apples,” but really addressed that the way corporations are structured legally binds them to be driven by profits and have no obligation to ethical values, and in fact the documentary makes the assertion that any attempt to do so is a farce that is more geared toward curtailing their public image than anything else. Something I found to be particularly insightful was the idea that even if they did intend to be socially responsible, these companies got to decide the terms of their own responsibility. This is entirely undemocratic. Furthermore, it gave incredibly specific examples of corporations, naming them extensively, and told in-depth stories about their wrongdoings.

To name just one more thing that I thought totally rocked, the documentary was one of the only ones dealing with environmental justice that was not speciesist. It specifically noted the suffering of other animals. Examples of when it did this were highlighting the court cases that enabled “anything other than a human being” to be legally patentable. It also highlighted many instances of animal cruelty and highlighted it as cruelty to animals, not just treating the animals like another part of the chain of production.

Most notably implicated in this film was Monsanto, best known as a fertilizer and seed company. This documentary provides a scathing critique on Monsanto’s actions. Did you know that Monsanto was the company that created Agent Orange? This was news to me. Additionally, I did not know that Monsanto the manufacturer of rGBH? I also did not know! But yeah, Agent Orange is obviously awful and was used to intentionally harm people. And rGBH causes cows’ udders to become extremely painful and puss up. This puss sometimes gets into the milk that people drink, which is partially why American milk is banned in Europe. Furthermore, Monsanto caused two investigative reporters, who uncovered this information and attempted to show a story about it on Fox News, to lose their jobs. Monsanto either lied about the testing that had been done with rGBH or the FDA overlooked it when approving the drug. On top of that, Monsanto has genetically manipulated seeds such that they terminate themselves after a single season. This means that farmers become dependent upon the company to provide them with seeds year after year after year.

This is particularly troubling culturally in India, where Monsanto has taken to selling seeds. In some Indian cultures, women are the keepers of knowledge about seeds; as Monsanto creates this dependency it strips Indian women of their agency and to some extent their cultural significance.

Another particularly troubling representation of a company was that of IBM. A portion of the documentary was devoted to exposing the ties between IBM and the Third Reich during the time of the Holocaust. Concentration camps were well organized and each prisoner was assigned a punch card, which was used in a predecessor system to the computer to keep track of detainees. The owner of IBM was also seen dining with Hitler and, despite allegations that IBM had no idea what their machines were being used for, documents detailing the communication between the New York office of IBM and the Third Reich during that time were shown.

One last thing that I really appreciated was the devotion of time to Cochabamba, Bolivia, where attempts to privatize the water systems failed miserably as an angry populous fought back against the government and a US-owned multinational corporation. I appreciated this pretty much because it reminded me of Ecuador and the struggles people are facing there to resist the privatization of, well, everything.

The documentary made the argument that the government is powerless in the face of these corporations and in fact is basically controlled by them. Because of this, as people we should take back the government and use democracy to hold these corporations accountable. Additionally, each individual should take responsibility for their actions and attempt to do what they can to, through democracy and laws, alter the landscape of capitalism.

I am not sure I can get behind the idea of government being powerless to corporations, nor that democracy will save us all. As I have stated previously, I do not think the idea of “the majority” really exists, but is constructed given the appropriate context. Furthermore, I do not feel like it is a fair assertion to make that each individual should be held responsible for their actions, especially when this is coming from a person I will identify as upper class. I do not think that it is merely as simple as being responsible, because for a large family in a lower income bracket, one might not be able to afford a non-corporate option if a cheaper corporate one is available. That being said, I do feel it is imperative that CEOs of large corporations hold themselves accountable for the damage they do to other human beings, animals, and the environment.

A few other things bothered me about the film, which I will name briefly. First, I did not appreciate the use of the DSM to pathologize the corporation. I could see how people with mental illnesses (and transsexual people, who I do not consider to have a mental illness, but the DSM does) could find this problematic. Another thing that bothered me was the use of people with disabilities to evoke pity. This occurred in reference to Agent Orange as well as water pollution. I have no problem highlighting that the chemicals we pump into the earth cause birth defects, but I would have appreciated if we had gotten to hear the voices of these people, as opposed to using them as literary devices used to evoke emotion. Lastly, while the film did both focus on some people of color and have people of color in the film, most of the interviews were conducted with white people and I felt the representation of people actually affected, as opposed to “experts” who study the subject, could have aided in the narrative.

Those criticisms aside, I thought the documentary was long but thoughtful and thought provoking. Additionally, it did a very good job of creating a historical narrative and easing people into the idea that corporations might not be the best things in the world. The Corporation is available at Carleton's library.

One last thought, since I have tried to connect most things to either personal rants or Carleton. I wanted to point out that one member of the Board of Trustees at Carleton (Arnold W. Donald) worked at Monsanto for over 20 years, serving as President of the Agricultural Sector from 1995 to 1998 and Senior VP and President of the Nutrition and Consumer Sector from 1998 to 2000. Arnold is a member of the board at organizations Scotts Miracle-Gro, Oil-Dri Corporation of America and the Laclede Group. He was a supporter of Bush/Cheney in the 2004 election and Obama in the 2008 election.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Honest Curiosity

So I’ve been thinking a lot about my place in activism, especially after a zine I just read. I’ve been doing a bunch of reading with FWD and talking with people at Carleton about educating others and I’ve come to the conclusion that while I’m always going to be educating others, I don’t feel it is my responsibility. This has led me to think about what I’ll call “honest curiosity;” when someone sends me an e-mail or asks me a question that is prefaced with “I’m not trying to be patronizing, I’m honestly curious.” It reminds me a lot of trans issues, which is also something I haven’t written about yet, so I thought I’d start there, then finish with my own thoughts.

For an introduction to gender terminology, see this website. It’s also FWD.

I will add one paragraph: One major reason for the marginalization of trans people is cissexual privilege. This privilege, defined as the double standard that promotes the idea that transsexual genders are different from, and less legitimate than, cissexual genders, is the result of how gendering works in our society. Gendering, the process of distinguishing between males and females, is usually based on secondary sex characteristics, as well as gender expression and behavior. Most cissexuals have never been misgendered, so they are lead to believe that the process of gendering is a matter of observation, as opposed to speculation. Additionally, the idea of gender entitlement depicts gender as a birthright, so transsexuals are cast as people trying to claim for themselves a gender that they are not entitled to.

Cissexual privilege and modes of sexism seek to “normalize” people and thus many practices observed in society marginalize trans people. This happens in a lot of ways. Trans-exclusion occurs when cissexuals exclude transsexuals’ self-identified gender designation; Trans-objectification occurs when cissexuals “become hung up on, disturbed by, or obsessed over supposed discrepancies that exist between a transsexual’s physical sex and identified gender”. This can be seen when looking at how transitions dominate cissexual discourse regarding transsexuality. The focus on physical transformations traps transsexuals in their assigned sex and often manifests itself specifically in a focus on the trans person’s genitals. By focusing on transformations, the trans person’s identified sex becomes a goal they are always approaching but never achieve. Objectification reduces transsexuals to the status of a thing, allowing cissexuals to demonize, fetishize, and exploit them without remorse. Another practice is that of trans-mystification, to allow oneself to become so caught up in the taboo nature of “sex changes” that one loses sight of transsexuality’s tangibility and real-ness. This is seen readily in the media, where the transsexual’s assigned sex is transformed into a hidden secret or plot twist and their lived sex distorted into an illusion. Yet another marginalizing practice is that of trans-interrogation; this is the intellectualization of objectifying transsexuals. It revolves around the question: “why do transsexuals exist?” where a seemingly harmless question is “not a matter of pure curiosity, but rather an act of nonacceptance”. Trans-erasure explains the ease with which transsexual voices are dismissed or ignored by the public. Several reasons cause this: that oppositional sexism restricts the number of people who come out as transsexual, that those who do come out are limited by gatekeepers as they physically transition, and the world assumes people are either male or female and cisgendered and cissexual, erasing from public awareness trans people. This allows the media to depict trans people however they want, academics to posit whatever theories they want, and for cissexuals to claim expert knowledge of transsexuals. Lastly, Trans-fascimilation, the portrayal of transsexual genders as facsimiles of cissexual genders, serves to artificialize transsexual genders.

To summarize the points that are pertinent to where I want to go from here, I will focus on trans-interrogation and trans-objectification. In trans-interrogation, seemingly harmless questions can cause worlds of pain as they unwittingly are deemed to seek answers in an unaccepting manner. Examples of how pissed off trans people get when asked these questions can be found here. Pointing to trans-objectification, questions can imply the conceptualization of the trans person as “other,” such that they cease to become a person, but continue as an object to be studied. Thus, the benign question of “how can you think that?” can be an isolating question stemming from the fixation on the “otherness” of an identity, attitude, or belief.

I feel like this marginalization is not unique to trans people, although I feel it certainly does apply. But people can be marginalized for all kinds of reasons, as we know, and political beliefs can be one of those reasons. I find it demeaning and isolating to be asked how I could think something, or to be told my views are “fascinating because they are so different from [mine].” I am of course open to questions about what I think, but I expect the questions to be thoughtful and self-conscious. I have perfectly valid reasons for why I think things, as I have come to think them through the experiences I have accrued over my lifetime. I think (but could be wrong) others have come to their beliefs through these same methods.

I wish that people, instead of telling me my beliefs are “fascinating” would think about why I might have those beliefs, or at the very least tell me what is so fascinating about them, other than that they’re different *gasp*. I wish people would ask for resources they could turn to learn more about the issues I am passionate about instead of relying on me to supply answers. I would appreciate if people would think outside of themselves before coming to me with questions, though of course basing their statements on their experiences. Clarifying questions are great. I am a human being and my opinions reflect that; I am not an object.

“I realized it wasn’t so important if I figured out someone’s identity if I was just having a chat with them in a line or some such. If I don’t need to know, I don’t need to know. Someone else’s comfort is more important than the satisfaction of my curiosity” (quote courtesy of FWD)

Also, I realize that trans terminology can be hard to understand sometimes, so I’m totally down with answering, as best I can, respectful questions on this topic.

Also also, I’m going to post a review of the zine I just read soon because it was packed full of awesome sauce.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

bitch makes me feel validated!

Another post about Glee: This is another article about the episode "Wheels."

http://bitchmagazine.org/post/glee-ful-appropriation


I'm kind of all over the place right now, so that's all for now.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semetic?

So, at Carleton last term, there was a discussion facilitated by peer educators from the Office of Intercultural Life. The discussion was called "Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semetic?" and it was a very, very heated night. The two things that struck me at the time were:

1. White men (regardless of heritage) felt as though they could speak for other people, groups as large as "the Jewish people," even. They did not feel the need to speak from their own experience.
2. People really like dichotomies, like "Jews/Palestinians" and "those who want violence/those who want peace."

Now, both of these things really bothered me at the time. I really, really strongly dislike when people speak for other people. Unless others have asked me what I think, they can't speak for me. Period. So unless the person speaking had gone around and asked every single Jewish person on the planet, I do not feel they can speak for "the Jewish people." And even if they had done that, people are dynamic and change; what they thought at one time could be completely different from what they think now. So really, I prefer to speak from my own experience or directly cite the people I hope to be allies with.

Furthermore, I think dichotomies are generally false. I believe that there is a greater diversity within groups than between them (this is what I was once told in a training manual). In a situation like the Israel/Palestine "conflict" (read: genocide) there is a wide array of voices saying distinct things. And "those who want violence/those who want peace"? Really? I won't go there, because I don't even know what that means.

So while the conversation definitely sparked thoughts in my head, I left feeling like I hadn't really learned much about the "conflict" itself. And I won't pretend I'm an expert, because I certainly am not. What I remember very vividly, however, was one particular part of the discussion. During this part, Israel had been defined as a political state, and one of the people participating in the discussion referenced religion. One facilitator immediately stepped in and informed speaker that this was not a discussion about religion. The other facilitator stopped them and said something like, "No, we can go there. Let's go there."

This was a bad. Call. And made the other facilitator quite angry. And I didn't understand why until I read this. One of the articles in it is called "The Forgotten '-ism'" and it talks about Zionism.

In the article, written by three Arab-American women, they begin by defining Zionism.

We define Zionism as a settler-colonial political movement that seeks to ethnically cleanse historical Palestine of the indigenous population and populate it as a Jewish-only state. [...] Among the claims that underlie hegemonic Zionism is that Jews have the right to possess al of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers. (99)

They talk a little more about Zionism and they think it's a not-such-a-good-thing.

This Zionist narrative is given credibility through the biblical notion that the Jewish people are entitled to the land because it was given to them by God. The Zionist movement has not only supported the creation of that state of Israel on Palestinian land, but has supported the creation of a Jewish-only state in that historically diverse land. Within this paradigm, Zionism constructs Jews as a race (or distinct ethnic group) and the state of Israel as a Jewish-only state, with non-Jews considered a "demographic threat." This exclusionary logic has produced the conditions for torture, home demolitions, restriction of movement, unemployment, poverty, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Any state that officially and legally privileges members of one "race" or "ethnicity" over another, and establishes national identity on the basis of race or ethnicity, is inherently racist. Therefore, Israel is a racist state that is founded upon a racist ideology that protects and preserves the rights of Jews only. That racist ideology is Zionism. (99)

But just to make things very clear, Zionism is not the product of religious thought.

Zionism was born through the writings of Theodore Herzl in Germany in the late 1880s. As outlined by Herzl, Zionism was to be a secular political project that defined "the Jews" as a people, a nation, and a race, rather than as a religious group. In the context of the fervent European anti-Jewish discrimination of the time, Herzl argued for the need to create an independent Jewish state for "the Jewish people" who, he argued, could never possibly assimilate in the countries they inhabited. Although multiple locations were suggested, the Zionist movement proposed Palestine as a site for a Jewish state, in a strategic move that would allow them to use the religious history of Palestine to justify their political goal of colonization. At every point of its genesis, the Zionist movement was informed and reinforced by nineteenth-century European colonialism and its white supremacist ideology.

Israel was not constructed to colonize the natives, per se, but to remove them entirely from their lands and to construct Israeli Jews as the authentic people of the land. (100)

So it was only after reading this that a little light bulb went off in my head. Of course! Religion has no part in this discussion because this is not a conversation about religion, but a conversation about colonialism and white supremacy.

And if you don't believe me, and even if you don't believe the women who directly wrote the article, I present quotes from Herzl himself:

From his diary: "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country...expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

And another one, Herzl claims that the Zionism project's goal is "To go further than any colonialist has gone in Africa ... where involuntary expropriation of land will temporarily alienate civilized opinion. By the time the reshaping of world opinion in our favor has been completed, we shall be firmly established in our country, no longer fearing the influx of foreigners, and receiving our visitors with aristocratic benevolence." (Both quotes from page 101)

The article goes on to talk about the ADL, how it claims that "Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism" and the ways in which Zionist leaders have infiltrated the US government, higher education, political organizations, and industries. But I won't talk about that, I want to keep the focus local.

To talk a little more about racism and white supremacy, I think this notion of Zionism is largely absent from what I've seen at Carleton. I had a friend tell me that in conversations people actually ask her if there are "black Jews." In the world. And I'm pretty sure I've heard people assert that there aren't or be surprised when they hear that there are. And I don't know much about the JSC (Jewish Students of Carleton) but I remember having a conversation with people about how white the JSC is. And possibly even a conversation about how their services don't support all sects of Judaism. What I do know is: they party a lot. And I'm positive there is at least one strong Zionism supporters who is a faculty member at Carleton.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Short

Another comment, not mine, but I agree. Now, given what I've said about anger, I am hoping people will be able to see past the tone of this message and think about its content.

On Gay Marriage

I don't have much else to say. I know people of color at Carleton have assumed my politics are in line with the "gay agenda" because I'm white. So this is to clarify: I don't think gay marriage is all that important right now. In fact, I think marriage has its roots in Christianity and patriarchy, and if we really wanted to be promoting equality, we'd abolish all marriage! Give me civil unions. I, of course, encourage people who are religious to pursue marriage as a religious act, separate from the state. I would not want to take away anyone's choice. But I don't want mine to be limited, either.

Anger

I've been thinking about anger for a while. It started in November when, at Carleton, a number of events happened that caused quite a stir, namely: the Disorientation Guide, my girlfriend's house drama, and an article I published in the school newspaper.

Since then I've had a number of conversations with a number of people (this is vague for a reason), and some of the things I've learned from these conversations are:
  • When someone says something offensive, it's my fault for being offended.
  • I get angry because I stretch myself too thin caring about other people and groups
  • I need to calm down when I'm angry; people can't engage with someone who is angry
Well, to that I link this article. It's about atheism and anger.

One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the newly-vocal atheist community is, "Why do you have to be so angry?" So I want to talk about:

1. Why atheists are angry;

2. Why our anger is valid, valuable, and necessary;

And 3. Why it's completely fucked-up to try to take our anger away from us.

So let's start with why we're angry. Or rather -- because this is my blog and I don't presume to speak for all atheists -- why I'm angry.

Well, I think Greta Christina does speak for me with this article. Rather, I agree with a lot of the things she says (although not all of the words she uses). Furthermore, I think this applies to other historically, culturally, and institutionally oppressed groups; the histories might be different but the anger stems from similar causes. I cannot speak for people of color, or people with disabilities (see: link for people of color), or anyone I am not. But I can speak for me, and I can speak from the experiences I have had.

In a society that constantly delegitimizes my relationship, provides me with few role models, and actively seeks to silence my voice, I get angry sometimes. When I go to the hospital and pretend to be my girlfriend's friend out of the fear that she will not receive the medical attention she needs if people know we are dating, I become angry. When someone compares me sleeping in my girlfriend's room, while we are both sick, to "someone falling ill in [a random dorm's] lounge," I become angry. When people intentionally look away when they see us holding hands on the street then claim they are not homophobic, but allies to the queer community, I become angry. When people tell me I am hypersensitive and that I "couldn't possibly be feeling" what I tell them I am feeling, I become angry. When someone tells me they won't stop using a word I've asked them not to use because it hurts me, I become angry. And when someone tells me I should be quiet, that all of this is somehow my fault for existing, I become angry. Being told not to be angry is being told that my experience is not valid. I should shut up and deal with being oppressed. It's my fault.

I can't jive with that.

Edit: And I will just provide Greta Christina's response to her comments. Just something to think about before providing a comment here.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

More on Glee

So I've been thinking more about Glee and I've watched more episodes since I last blogged. In fact, I've finished episode 9 (Wheels) and can't seem to find episodes 10 and 11 online anywhere. Except for that one place that makes me fill out a survey before I watch. Not going to do that, sorry.
Edit: Found them on Hulu!

[Spoiler Alert]

Anyway, I'll very quickly address this episode, which is partially about "Wheels," whose name is Artie. The Glee club wants to go to Sectionals, but Artie, due to being in a wheelchair, can't ride the bus unless they pay for a special, accessible bus. Mr. Schuester, our noble hero and main protagonist, insists that the students have a bake sale to come up with the money, and makes the young adults ride around in wheelchairs to "know what it feels like." To be even more generous, Mr. Schuester choreographs a number to be performed (everyone) using wheelchairs.

[End Spoiler]

Now, aside from troubling portrayals of people who use wheelchairs through Artie (the actor who plays Artie does not use a wheelchair when not acting), I found this to be problematic.

But don't hear it from just me! Here's something that was linked through Feminists With Disabilities, which is a great blog and I encourage everyone to check it out! One poigniant quote is this:

No doubt about it, life with a disability is a tragedy! Why these poor gimps, blinks, and others would be better off dead! They are so courageous and yet pitiful as they go about their daily routines. Yep, I'm so glad it is their fate and not mine . . .

Sadly, these are the misconceptions that the public holds about those of us who live with disabilities. Disability simulations do nothing but reinforce these negative stereotypes about persons with disabilities.

It seemed to me that this former message is the message I got from Glee. According to this site, they are misconceptions, and all they seem to do are reinforce negative stereotypes. And I agree pretty strongly with that. So, it would seem to me that these negative representation only serve to further reinforce pre-existing notions of oppression.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Something Awful is, in fact, Awful

So I've started watching Glee today because I am unable to continue watching Season 5 of Lost until it comes out on DVD December 8th. It's a very interesting show because it portrays people in "minority groups" but does so in a way that is, I feel, racist, ableist, misogynist, and homophobic.

Regardless of what I think about the show itself, some other people have things to say about it, too. All I'm going to do is post this link and preface it with this:

If you've ever felt like activism is done, at Carleton or anywhere else, just look at this link.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3226863

Rarely am I surprised by the things people say. However, this is some of the most overt ableism and just plain nastiness I've seen in a while. Gems include:

I hate the disabled.

edit: But I do love their ramps. gently caress stairs.

And the response to that:
more importantly, they hate themselves.

One more, just for funsies:

Zwiftef posted:

Wait you're saying that you, a middle class white male that has nearly the most privilege in the entire world, don't understand why lesser privileged people need to have groups to advocate for their needs?

It's not acting if the deformed freak is a deformed freak. Think of the actors! They have rights too.
Really, we are talking about the land of make believe and someone bitches that it's not real. Piss off.

PS. Props to that one person in the forum who called the poster out on their privilege.

Bohemian Grove

So I'm looking up some information about the Board of Trustees at Carleton, since I think that sort of information is very valuable. I've found something pretty interesting, mainly, one person of interest: Michael Armacost. He seems pretty awful. Supporter of Bush/Cheney, brother to the former president of Bank of America, heavily involved in the United States government...I mean I'm biased, but really. He was an International Relations major. According to a friend of mine, "that explains it. That's where he went wrong."

But something more interesting is this Bohemian Grove thing he's a part of. I'm pretty sure someone at Carleton was talking with me about this last year, how absurd and awful it is. But since I didn't remember for sure, I checked the thing out on Wikipedia.
The Bohemian Club's all-male membership includes artists, particularly musicians, as well as many prominent business leaders, government officials (including many former U.S. presidents), senior media executives, and people of power.
Alrighty then. Looking at that NNDB site, I see Colin Powell, Alan Greenspan, Henry Morgan (co-founder of Morgan Stanley), Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and George Bush Senior and Junior, among others. Looks like a lot of white men. Looks like a lot of white, rich men from upper-class backgrounds. Looks like a lot of straight, able-bodied white, rich men. Probably cisgender, too, but how would one know? A lot of Bush supporters. I guess that makes sense.

Also, this is just wonderful:
The Grove is particularly famous for a Manhattan Project planning meeting that took place there in September 1942, which subsequently led to the atomic bomb.
Hurray! The world would have been much worse off without that planning meeting. So, really, it is just so very fortunate that this exclusive club exists for rich white men who really don't have a safe space anywhere else!

Anyway, I wonder if Carleton's prestige has anything to do with this club. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe Carleton isn't as prestigious as I think it is. I leave you, once again, with little concrete. Hopefully, though, something to think about!