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.
4 years ago
Saturday, December 5, 2009
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.
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.
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.
But just to make things very clear, Zionism is not the product of religious thought.
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)
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.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.
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)
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.
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:
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.
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
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:
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:
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.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.
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:
One more, just for funsies:
PS. Props to that one person in the forum who called the poster out on their privilege.
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.And the response to that:
edit: But I do love their ramps. gently caress stairs.
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.
Also, this is just wonderful:
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
