May Day 2010 rally against Arizona SB1070 in Portland, Oregon

It is a debate that will decide the fate of millions of people, including some of our most vulnerable members of society—that is, the children of undocumented immigrants. That we appear to be losing this war of words then, is cause for alarm and action. The progressive movement has ceded ground to the extreme right on immigration mostly, as Eric Ward, lead organizer for Which Way Forward: African Americans, Immigration and Race, argues, because of our unwillingness to name racism as the primary stumbling block to comprehensive immigration reform.

Polls show that most US Americans actually support Arizona’s SB1070, an anti-immigrant state law that not only enables, but encourages racial profiling by police. When I asked author and nationally syndicated radio talk host Bill Press about the strong anti-immigrant bias these polls show, he noted that much of this could be due to the way in which the questions were worded. He believes that the US is actually pretty evenly split across political lines. And, in fact, there is some research to support this optimism.

Unfortunately, I’ve personally had conversations with progressive people, albeit mostly white men, who support SB1070. In my social network, I’ve spoken with others who’ve had similar experiences conversing with white liberals, usually male but also female, who are either riding or on the other side of the immigration debate fence. In short, the progressive movement is troublingly divided when it comes to immigration. This is not so surprising when we remember again that the immigration debate is largely about race. And this blogger, for one, is never surprised by the duplicity of too many self-proclaimed liberal white Americans on issues of race.

The US government supports and encourages anti-immigrant sentiment by employing hate speech, including using terms like “criminal alien” in legislation. The Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of our country also contribute to further othering “the other” not only through using terms like “illegal alien,” but, as Press noted, through more blatant hate speech and outright lies about immigrants and people of color.

And, really, what else but hate speech are terms like “illegal alien,” when they are used to refer to people who are our neighbors, friends and relatives? Or “criminal alien” when, as in the Secure Communities program, it is predominantly applied to those who have committed no crime, but may have been stopped for a traffic violation or, under SB1070, by government-sanctioned and legislated racial profiling?

At a recent hearing of the Portland Human Rights Commission on the so-called “Secure Communities” program, new Police Chief Mike Reese attempted to frame the conversation by reassuring the immigrant and refugee community that racial profiling and deportations of people who have committed minor infractions—that is, who have not committed any actual crime—are “unintended consequences” of the program. Never mind that most of those who have been deported through “Secure Communities” programs in other states have been precisely those who committed no crimes. Or that the “unintended (yet predictable and preventable) consequences” of programs like “Secure Communities” include the separation of parents from their children; increased fear of police in immigrant and refugee communities; a subsequent increase in the number of crimes that are not reported as a result of that fear; the violation of human and constitutional rights such as due process; and the specter of state-sanctioned racial profiling.

Reese assured us that the Portland Police will work to mitigate these “unintended consequences” as they begin to collect data on the Secure Communities program. I was reminded of the language of warfare in which people—that is, civilians—who are killed during fighting between armed groups are called “casualties” or, slightly better, “civilian casualties.” Yet there is nothing casual about death. One wonders whether a more insulting term exists to describe the loss, especially under violent circumstances, of human beings, of someone’s loved ones. Similarly, one wonders whether there could possibly be a less accurate name than “Secure Communities” for a program that actually decreases rather than increases security in our communities. Or, when we know that ICE is working hard to meet a quota of 400,000 deportations per year, a more flimsy and deceptive catch-all phrase—“unintended consequences”—for the results of that program.

I’ve heard it said that if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Nor, as I recently learned, is repetition. We are the words and ideas that we consume. And the words and ideas that we impart. So if we are going to put out words and ideas, they must come from a place of love, justice and power. Our “change movement” rallying cry—three words that will forever evoke the memory of Barack Obama’s successful campaign to become the first black President of the United States—were, ironically, borrowed directly from the immigrant rights movement: Si, se puede! Si, se puede! Yes, we can! Yes, we can! We said it enough times that we believed it.

This is the power of words. And we can choose words that will win the immigration debate. Words like “undocumented” that actually reflect the reality of the situation in which so many find themselves. Or like “economic refugee” or “environmental refugee”—terms that are sadly becoming increasingly applicable to many in the developing world who come here to seek a better life for their families.

We need more Eric Wards who are not afraid to name race and racism in the immigration debate. And we need allies like Bill Press, who will call out measures like Arizona’s SB1070 for what they are—that is, “racial profiling,” which is again a term that accurately describes the central strategy of most anti-immigrant programs.

And we must all call out the xenophobic right’s dehumanizing jargon of “illegal” and “alien” and “criminal,” which is being used to promote discrimination against our friends and families, for what it is—that is, “hate speech.” Let us say “no” with a unified voice and as often as it must be said to the myths and outright lies about immigrants perpetuated by xenophobic right wingers as we say “yes,” without faltering and in a unified and resounding voice, to an honest national dialogue about comprehensive immigration reform.

ACTION STEPS:

Global groups working on immigrant rights:

Sadly, I couldn’t find a group really working on building a global immigrant rights movement. The closest I could find were mostly groups focusing on globalization, but not from an immigrant rights framework, per se. These groups include:

• Global Exchange
• Attac
• International Forum on Globalization
• Transnational Institute

Please send me any globally-focused immigrant rights groups that you find!

National groups working on immigrant rights:

• Which Way Forward: African Americans, Immigration and Race
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Change.org
• Highlander Research and Education Center (also has a list of more national resources)
• Opportunity Agenda

Oregon groups working on immigrant rights:

• CAUSA
• Center for Intercultural Organizing
• Immigration Law Group
• Safe Communities Project
• Unete

PRINT RESOURCES:

• Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigration Myth Exposed by Nigel Harris
• New Study: Immigration Lowers Crime Social Science Quarterly via RaceWire
• Top 10 Reasons to Support Immigrant Rights by Global Exchange

As a black immigrant woman from a low-income background, I struggle with embracing the higher—that is, middle—class status that I’ve acquired through education at a liberal arts college, as well as through my entry into the elite institution that is philanthropy. Despite the ambiguity of the term “working class” (because, after all, how many of us, even the well off among us, don’t work?!), I clung to this label because it kept me grounded in my identity as one who considers “the struggle” to be her life. However, ironically and, perhaps, necessarily, it was while among a multiracial gathering of young people (EPIP) and a multigenerational gathering of black people (ABFE), that I first felt acutely “classed.”

Fortunately, EPIP’s conference agenda attempted to tackle class head on even as it kept race necessarily at the forefront of the discussion. In one workshop, a brilliant sister advocated for making philanthropy more accessible to the general public, including to, say, the low-income kid from north Philly. This vision took on special significance when one of the workshop leaders, also a black woman, mentioned that she was, in fact, that kid from north Philly. She had grown up knowing nothing about philanthropy yet had become an expert in the field. Another EPIP workshop, “Transformative Communication Across Race, Class, Gender & Role,” led by Milano Harden and Chad Jones, also explicitly addressed class.

In contrast, my experience of ABFE was one in which class was the ghostly white elephant in the room, palpable but stealthily silent. Members of ABFE reached out to me in different ways—from including me in their circle at an after-party to attempting to connect me to decision makers within the organization. I was, therefore, surprised and dismayed when one of the group’s members completely ignored me, forcing me to follow him around for a few minutes, after I had been introduced to him by a peer who had hoped he would give me relevant information on their work.

I realized then that, for some, class supersedes everything, including race, in relationship building. I also understood in that moment what EPIP plenary speaker Bill Somerville had meant when he recalled how, when he first joined the foundation world as a grantmaker, he swore to himself that he would never treat people the way that he had been treated when he was a grantseeker.

The elitism of the foundation world is rooted, at all levels, including that of foundation staff hierarchies, in the false dichotomy between “the giver” role and “the receiver” role. This false dichotomy not only fosters unhealthy power dynamics, but is detrimental to the overall health of the philanthropic ecosystem that EPIP Executive Director Rusty Stahls challenged us to cultivate.

As a foundation “insider” who is often also an “outsider,” I would argue that getting over our elitism is philanthropy’s greatest and most persistent challenge. EPIP is certainly a step in the right direction and is one example of an organization that is boldly confronting racial and generational disparities in the field. Class, however, presents a daunting hurdle because of the seemingly intractable elitist nature of philanthropy.

So I return to the question: how do we make philanthropy accessible to people who may not always choose the right fork during a three course meal, but who, based on their ability to empathize with the struggles of everyday people, are more likely to say what needs to be said and to do what needs to be done…even at the risk of being accused of bringing up topics that do not constitute polite dinner conversation? How will philanthropy become the change that it wishes to see?

The goal of transforming philanthropy requires us to understand that who we reach out to and how we reach out matters. It demands that we accept that something is wrong if, after a national conference, the only real connections we have made are with people who belong to our race, class, gender, sexual orientation or generation. It begs us to reach out, but also to be reachable. To shake and to hold hands with a firm grip that says we mean it and are in it for the long haul. To, as more than one presenter asserted, trust ourselves, our colleagues, and the groups in which we invest. And, finally, to bring love back into the equation.

EPIP plenary speaker Robby Rodriguez said that social justice is the nexus of democracy, power and love, and stressed that social justice must be the focus of philanthropy in the 21^st century. Perhaps then, our shared love for democracy will inspire us all to do more of the above in order to transform philanthropy into a truly inclusive public good.

One thing is certain: doing away with the elite culture of philanthropy will require action at the individual level. It will require people like the anonymous ABFE member who paid for a young person to attend that group’s keynote address not knowing that it would be me showing up at the door, secretly hoping to knock it down.

The following post was inspired by a number of recent racist incidences in pop culture and the excuses that many people made for these incidents. I shared this piece at a recent gathering for the McKenzie River Gathering Foundation and participants suggested that context might be helpful. So in no particular order,  I was struck by the manner in which many people responded to Vanity Fair’s exclusion of women of color in its March 2010 up and coming Hollywood actresses issue; Universal Picture’s deletion of two black actors from an advertisement for the movie Couples Retreat; John Mayer’s now infamous degrading and fetishizing comments about black women; and finally, by technology, specifically cameras–that is, plastic and metal objects–that discriminate based on race.  The intent of this list is to help people decode the new sophisticated brand of racism, which is more subtle and ingrained than the overt racism of the past. The reality is that many people who defend and perpetuate this kind of racism, do not even recognize it as such. My sense is that many of the people who make these arguments or excuses  for racism really know not what they do. This means that we must respond with even more sophistication–by employing humor, art and other creative strategies, even as we also use time-tested strategies like boycotts and divestment, to get people to think more deeply about subliminal and coded racism. Please let me know if this list is helpful to you!

10. It’s not racism, just good marketing. Their target audience is white, so what do you expect?

Decoded: The Veiled Sign

The message behind this argument is, essentially, that “Whites Only” signs are in vogue again. This argument was recently used by some to defend Nokia, Vanity Fair magazine, and even musician John Mayer against charges of racism. The primary flaw with this argument is that it puts profits before people and assumes that businesses should not have to operate in ways that are inclusive or, at least, not discriminatory. Furthermore, it ignores the reality of white privilege which ensures that most products are marketed using a white-centric model.

9. Anyway, BET, Black Miss America , Jet, the NAACP, United Negro College Fund, etc. do it too! They won’t let white people in and that’s reverse discrimination.

Decoded: The Reverse Discrimination Distraction

A classic case of dominant culture denial. How quickly have those who make this argument forgotten that these black or other minority-centered entities were created precisely because of racism and white privilege. The point is that, after creating the need, some white people would like to do away with solutions that address that need.

8. It’s always been like this. The magazine cover is an accurate depiction of Hollywood —all white, skinny people. What’s the big deal?

Decoded: The Good Old Days

Racism isn’t logical, so no surprises here. People who make this argument may secretly have an affinity for other historic norms—facets of American life that did not go out of style for decades upon decades and, perhaps, even centuries. Slavery, anyone? How about no women in the “workplace?” Those were the days. Right… Beware of hidden nooses.

7. Well, probably there weren’t any qualified/talented/pretty/smart/up-and-coming people of color who they could have included. Should they not have featured/hired the qualified white people? I mean, I can’t think of any black/Hispanic/Asian people who fit the bill.

Decoded: The Curious Case of the MIA POC

Two quick points. One: Most white people admit to having no or few friends of color, yet some are comfortable asserting that there are none qualified for various positions/awards/etc. This begs the question: How would they know? Two: This point is false. There are many qualified, talented, intelligent, and/or beautiful people of color. You probably knew that, but don’t forget it. And add Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Alexander Pushkin to the list of celebrated people who were actually, by American standards, black, but who people assume were white.

6. Who cares? I don’t care if they’re purple, orange or blue. All I care about is whether they meet the criteria, are qualified and/or can do the job.

Decoded: The Rainbow Bridge for Sale

Artist-activist Damali Ayo calls this a “three year old’s understanding of race.” Yet another variation of the anti-Affirmative Action argument. People who make this argument obscure social construct with lived reality. They forget that much of our reality is constructed, particularly by a dominant culture paradigm that puts people of color at the bottom of the social ladder. Moreover, it is not difference or race the social construct that are the problems, but people who cannot tolerate and appreciate difference. This kind of argument ensures that #8 will never go out of fashion. I’ll wait till I meet the Purple People to believe this one.

5. We’re all human. So what if they only feature/hire/promote white people?

Decoded: The Universal Liar

Another anti-Affirmative Action argument, similar to #6. Oftentimes, people who make this argument are in denial about white privilege. The argument is a nonstarter since it ignores obvious realities—no one is denying that we are all human. But it’s silly and even insulting to those of us who identify with and appreciate our racial and cultural heritage to deny a significant part of who we are. More importantly, it ignores the reality of significant racial disparities in employment, health care, education, etc. It assumes that there is universal equality when, in fact, there is not.

4. It’s a private business. If you don’t like it, just don’t buy it. Go somewhere else.

Decoded: The Capitalist

A variation of #10, usually employed selectively—in defense of white racism. Profit before people. Again, they could make it easier for us and put up “Whites Only” signs, but that would be too, well, obvious. This is also a contradiction of #9. We’re told Ebony, BET, shouldn’t exist, then told that if we do not like white-centered Vanity Fair, we should instead buy these alternative, black-centered publications. It would seem, then, that there is still a need for businesses that are specific to people of color. Point taken.

3.  It’s a free country. They should be able to say or show what they want even if it’s insulting to people of color.

Decoded: All in the Name of Democracy

This argument misses the point entirely. Once an entity, individual or company, has exercised or, rather, abused its free speech, we still get to tell it what we think. We can also put our words into action and boycott that entity. That’s real democracy.

2. It’s racist to point out it’s racist.

Decoded: The White Wall.

Even when it is the elephant in the room—anyone with eyes, except perhaps the “colorblind” (and I don’t mean that in the medical sense) can see what’s missing or happening—if you are a person of color and you point “it” out, expect to have the tables turned on you. You will inevitably be accused of trying to stir up controversy, playing the victim, dividing people, etc. You will then be called a reverse racist for even bringing the subject up. Voila. Now you are the racist. Right…

1. Stop being so politically correct. It’s annoying.

Decoded: The Too Cool for School

Hmmm… Four centuries of white supremacy versus four or so decades of political correctness? Which is worse? As a friend of mine used to say, “Depends on where you’re standing.” As Howard Zinn wrote, “The memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away.” So who’s counting, some might ask. Well, we are.

WHAT YOU CAN DO ONCE YOU’VE UNVEILED CODED OR OTHER RACISM:

1. UNITE/SHOW SOLIDARITY with groups, organizations and businesses that share your values and that value you as a human being, consumer or ally. Ever heard of the European Union? There is economic and political strength in numbers. People of color own businesses that could use your support and might cater to your needs.
2. BOYCOTT businesses and other entities that do not share your values and do not value you as a human and/or as a consumer. This is especially powerful if done as a group.
3. PROTEST! Even if theythinks we doth protest too much. Protest with your pen, keyboard and mouse, with your money and with your vote. And never rule out the possibility of a good old fashioned street meet.

As the only pro-choice woman in a black family, I felt compelled to take on fellow pro-choicers. As Frances Beal argued decades ago in “Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female,” the white feminist movement has failed to embrace a reproductive rights agenda that takes into account the realities, historic and current, faced by black women in the United States. Until it does so, the birth control movement will always be perceived with suspicion within the black community.

I found myself both amused and slightly annoyed as so-called progressives denied that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, had ever embraced eugenics and/or that that the organization was founded with a racist agenda. Given that there was a time when racism was the norm, why is it so surprising that most institutions, including Planned Parenthood, were founded by racist individuals? Isn’t it, in fact, likely?

The unwillingness of the pro-choice movement to acknowledge and to denounce the racism of some of its most vocal adherents, past and current, is foolish to say the least. How can we trust you if you continue to lie about history? Or if you are simply lazy about learning the history of others and, in this case and worse, of your own movement?

People of color are right to be wary of organizations like Planned Parenthood. This is not to say that these organizations do not do good work and that we should not support them. (Like I said, I’m pro-choice.) After all, abortions account for only a small portion of the services that most Planned Parenthoods offer.

This is to say that we must be vigilant and, when appropriate, critical of any organization that appears to target people of color and that has a racist foundation. We can and should ask questions like why is it that black neighborhoods can’t get stores that sell organic produce or cafés that market herbal teas, but can get Planned Parenthoods? Why the emphasis on birth control, but not on healthy living?

We have not and cannot forget the nightmarish war waged on the bodies of women of color during the last two centuries. Nor can we separate these despicable actions from the political agendas that motivated them.

That’s my quick two cents. Now here’s the research to back it up.

————————–

Reproductive Rights v. Population Control in Recent History: Why People of Color Are Right to Be Wary of the Birth Control Movement

Given that black women were previously the fodder that fueled the United States’ slave industry, the birth control movement has been viewed with wariness more often than warmth by many black people in this country.  The twisted irony of the situation has not been lost on black social commentators like humorist Dick Gregory who noted:

First, the white man tells me to sit at the back of the bus. Now it looks like the white man wants me to sleep under the bed. Back in the days of slavery, black folks couldn’t grow kids fast enough for white folks to harvest. Now that we’ve got a little taste of power, white folks want to call a moratorium on having children.

For some people of color, birth control is synonymous with population control. While I have been pro-Choice for as long as I can remember and notwithstanding  debates with family members and friends who identify as pro-Life, I’ve come to understand that people of color’s fears about birth control are sadly well-founded. Proponents of birth control who targeted people of color have historically emphasized population control. Particularly where the population control argument masked the larger agendas of white supremacy or of the neocolonial global war on the poor, birth control methods have facilitated the genocide of certain populations of color including indigenous peoples in North and South America.

Between 1897 and 1981, people of color, the poor and the disabled became victims of United States government-sponsored forced sterilization programs.

Oregon, where I currently reside and which has the “unique distinction” of being the only state that historically enforced laws barring African Americans from entering its borders, was also the last state to end government-sanctioned forced sterilizations in 1981.  (See also Sundown Towns by James Loewen.)

While we may find the notion that a government could rob a human being of her or his ability to bear children shocking today, the sterilization campaigns waged against people of color, the poor and those deemed mentally ill were the logical conclusion of ideals espoused and popularized by the eugenics movement. These ideas became such a part of the United States social fabric, that they were promoted even at the highest levels of government.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes decision in Buck v. Bell, upholding Virginia’s compulsory sterilization law is evidence of the extent to which negative eugenics gained support as a useful population control method. In his decision, Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

As Michael Sullivan DeFine noted in his study “The plight of Native American Women,” the Immigrant Act of 1924—an act that dramatically restricted immigration quotas to favor those from western and northern Europe—was “passed by Congress in large measure because of information supplied by the intelligentsia of the eugenics movement.” He goes on to add, “With success in Congress established, Harry Laughlin, a eugenics movement supporter, drafted a model eugenics sterilization law that was adopted in various versions by many states in this country.”

These views were not confined to the usual suspects—to organized hate groups or conservative white men of privilege—these views permeated even white progressive circles, including those of white feminists. Few people are aware that Planned Parenthood, formerly known as the Birth Control League, was historically rooted in the eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger, the celebrated feminist and founder of Planned Parenthood, was a proponent of negative eugenics. Those who hold that Sanger was racist, cite Margaret Sanger’s own words:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

More telling and to the point, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

It is also worth noting that Sanger was invited by and subsequently spoke at least one KKK gathering of women. Those who defend Sanger note that she called her KKK speaking engagement “weird.”

While there is much debate as to whether Sanger actually wanted to “exterminate the Negro population,” it is beyond debate that the celebrated feminist promoted the sterilization of at least a few other minority groups, namely the mentally and physically afflicted. In her role as one of the eugenics intelligentsia DeFine mentions, Sanger advocated for the creation of a congressional department to:

Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

Thus did Margaret Sanger, a white feminist woman who was considered radical in her time, play a critical role in laying the foundations for birth control programs that targeted people of color, the poor and the mentally ill in the U.S. The repercussions would be devastating for these populations.

American Indians, already a very small demographic in the US, had their numbers decimated to such an extent that the word genocide is more than apt. Although there are no precise figures available, a General Accounting Office study conducted from 1973 to 1976 found that in Oklahoma “1,761 of roughly 17,000 women of childbearing age were sterilized.”  Many, if not most, of these sterilizations were coerced. Women who resisted sterilization were accused of being “unfit mothers” and welfare case workers threatened to take their children from them.

As noted above, Puerto Rican women of childbearing age were also targeted, in large numbers, for sterilization.

According to the BBC, in the 1960s, 60 percent of women sterilized in North Carolina were black women and girls. “By the late 1960s, ironically as the Civil Rights movement grew, North Carolina began to target its Black population. “ Moreover, “Records show that in North Carolina out of the 7,000 sterilisations less than 500 took place with the clear consent of the patient.”

While often overlooked, some black female activists like Fannie Lou Hamer, herself a victim of the practice, spoke out against forced sterilization.

Alarmingly, the campaign of forced sterilizations was outsourced to poor countries whose large populations posed an economic threat to western hegemony. According to Bruce Johansen, Professor of Communications and Native American Studies at the University of Nebraska, the St. Louis Dispatch reported in 1977 that the then Director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), “said that the United States hoped to sterilize 25 percent of the world’s roughly 570 million fertile women.”

It is worth noting that USAID is not the only U.S. agency complicit in outsourcing forced sterilization. Le Sang du Condor (Blood of the Condor) is a film that retells how the US Peace Corps forcibly sterilized Quechuan Indian women in the 1960s. (Unfortunately, this film is hard to get.  If you find it, please let me know.)

Los Indios does a great job of documenting the forced sterilization of indigenous women in Latin America. As late as the 1990s, the Peruvian government forcibly sterilized 200,000 indigenous women. (The government apologized in 2002.)

It is worth reiterating that forced sterilizations ended in the United States only as recently as 1981 and that most of these sterilizations occurred at the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement—that is, in the 1960’s and ‘70s. Johansen writes, “The last vestiges of legally sanctioned eugenics played out during the 1960s, when concern about overpopulation expressed by industrial leaders in the United States …became official federal policy.” Furthermore, “Sterilization for the poor and minorities was officially sanctioned in 1970…when the IHS initiated its sterilization campaign…”

Finally, only five states in the U.S. have issued apologies for forced sterilizations. The BBC notes that the US “federal government has never acknowledged that any sterilisation abuses have ever taken place.”

————————–

Still to come: Why People of Color Should Be Pro-Choice

Sojourner Truth represents the very best of both the Abolitionist and Feminist movements. Nonetheless, Truth is primarily associated with the former. In her “Ain’t I a Woman” speech, Truth distinguished the differences between the concerns of white women and those of black women.

In addition to agitating against the prejudice of white men who thought that white women should not “overexert” themselves mentally, white women were also concerned with dispelling the qualms of white men who thought that the “fairer sex”—a term that applied exclusively to white women—should not overexert itself physically. During that time, however, the notion that black women might overexert themselves physically would have been laughable to white society. As Truth remarked, “”Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman?”

Then as now, black women have had the unique experience of being both stripped of our sex and sexuality even as we are either sexually exoticized or sexually denigrated by white society. Sadly, as I will show, this is not a problem that has disappeared with the abolition of slavery.

White women in the 1800s were certainly treated as second class citizens by their white male counterparts. On the other hand, in status, white women occupied a position that was far superior to that of most people of color and certainly to that of black people. In some parts of the United States, a black man could be lynched for “looking too long” at a white woman no matter her socioeconomic standing. The tragic story of fourteen year-old Emmett Till is perhaps the most noted example of a southern white lynch mob mentality which persisted even in 1955. In at least one incident that same year, a black girl was “beaten for ‘crowding’ a white woman in a local store” in Mississippi. As I argue later, because they were forbidden fruit to all but white men, white women became a nearly universal male status symbol.

Third or fourth class citizen, however, does not even begin to describe the lives of most black women under slavery. In general, blacks were perceived by whites as subhuman. In fact, white people often treated their dogs and other domesticated animals better than they treated black people. In general and in that time period, whites’ treatment of their pets could often be characterized as indulgent while their treatment of black people could more aptly be characterized as barbaric, irrational and inherently counterproductive. Ironically, then as now, the most vocal racists have often ascribed these latter traits to black people.

Sojourner Truth gives us a glimpse of some of the horrors experienced by black women during slavery.

Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns…and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me…

Under slavery, black women were both a source of profit and of distress to their white mistresses. Since the slave system depended on cheap labor, black women were often viewed by white slaveowners as breeding machines. It is in this context that many white masters justified their rapes of the black women in their power. In Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Harriet Jacobs recounted her experience as the unwilling object of her master’s “affections” and her mistress’ wrath:

Mrs. Flint possessed the key to her husband’s character before I was born. She might have used this knowledge to counsel and to screen the young and the innocent among her slaves; but for them she had no sympathy. They were the objects of her constant suspicion and malevolence. She watched her husband with unceasing vigilance; but he was well practised in means to evade it. What he could not find opportunity to say in words he manifested in signs.

While most women today show sympathy and “sisterhood” for women who have undergone the traumatic experience of rape, white women rarely showed this kind of concern for black women during slavery. A white mistress was more likely to view a black woman who was the repeated victim of her husband’s lechery as “competition” than as a “sister” in need of solidarity and compassion. Though the concept of competition presumes a certain level of equality or agency that did not actually exist for black women—that is, absurd though this may seem—this was, nonetheless, the manner in which most white mistresses appear to have regarded their black female slaves.

Jacobs wrote:

She was not a very refined woman, and had not much control over her passions. I was an object of her jealousy, and, consequently, of her hatred; and I knew I could not expect kindness or confidence from her under the circumstances in which I was placed. I could not blame her. Slaveholders’ wives feel as other women would under similar circumstances…

…she spent many a sleepless night to watch over me. Sometimes I woke up, and found her bending over me. At other times she whispered in my ear, as though it was her husband who was speaking to me, and listened to hear what I would answer. If she startled me, on such occasions, she would glide stealthily away; and the next morning she would tell me I had been talking in my sleep, and ask who I was talking to. At last, I began to be fearful for my life. It had been often threatened…

White mens’ rape of black women highlights the contradictions and falsehoods of white supremacy. Again, Jacobs noted:

The secrets of slavery are concealed like those of the Inquisition. My master was, to my knowledge, the father of eleven slaves. But did the mothers dare to tell who was the father of their children? Did the other slaves dare to allude to it, except in whispers among themselves? No, indeed! They knew too well the terrible consequences.

The full text of Harriet Jacobs’ Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is available online. You can find it here.

In the next section, I’ll place the womanist and feminist split in the modern context. Please stay tuned!

Below are links to previous installments of “Chasms of Isms.”

Part I

Part II

I’ve recently become obsessed with two narratives which both speak to this time of my life. These are great declarations by two legendary black women who lived in different times and yet seem to have arrived at the same conclusion—that is, that black women occupy a very unique and challenging place in the universe. Although Zora Neale Hurston echoed some of the sentiments here when she wrote that the black woman is the mule of the world, the works I want to highlight are Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman” speech and Alice Walker’s “Be Nobody’s Darling” poem.

To be a black woman in America is to know sadness, to shake hands with it…and to keep right on walking. Weakness, Sojourner Truth seems to say, is no option when there is no one who will catch you. Pragmatism, Alice Walker reassures us, will see you through.

As a black woman who makes indie-folk music, I’ve often been tempted to affect the whimsical and charming persona of Joanna Newsom and other white female folk artists whose works I admire. The wonderstruck quality of Newsom’s songs, which seem like revisionist fairy tales that have been adapted to real life, albeit in some parallel, more innocent, universe, is appealing in a world that seems to embrace and even hasten calamity—environmental, economic, etc.

Alas, castles and clouds are not for the likes of me…except as objects that cast ominous and looming shadows, that remind me of the place a person who looks like me would have occupied in those good old golden days of yore—a position lower than servant, a slave.

What I love about Truth and Walker’s works, short as they are, is the unperturbed and honest voice, the resolve, and the attitude of equanimity behind each of them. Outsiders, these black women observe madness yet do not partake in it. They simply reflect back what they have seen.

By telling it like it is, by telling the truth, Sojourner Truth and Alice Walker also reflected the seemingly timeless reality of the lives of black women in the United States.

What are our lives like? Our lives are, I think, bittersweet and preoccupied with practical concerns. We are taught in the US school system to pine for the castle only to realize, through trial and error, that the castle is simply an illusion. It simply does not exist for such as us.

We may enter, but at a price that may be much more than we can pay—that is, the price of peace of mind for all that we will perpetually sacrifice and deny in order to “belong.”

Later, we may realize that the castle is really just a fancy fallout shelter from which the masterminds behind the madness, the artful progress toward the profitable calamity of world wars, operate.

For those of us who are incapable of self-denial, who are too preoccupied with the landscape beyond the castle walls, we must lay aside our illusions and delusions. We have little time for magic and sweet nothings. There is, quite simply, too much work to be done.

We do not have the luxury of being apolitical artists or academics, of wallowing in self-pity, or of detaching ourselves from reality. There are too many black people dying of preventable diseases, too many black men and boys languishing in prisons or taking up arms unnecessarily, too many of people of color period being sacrificed at the altars of globalization’s war on the poor.

All this is to say that our concerns are quite different from the concerns of most white liberals, even white female liberals. Unlike our white progressive counterparts, too many people who look like us are in need.

Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman” succinctly spells out some of the differences in the experiences of black and white women. In making her speech, Truth foretold the emergence, one hundred and fifty-some years later of womanism, a concept first espoused by Alice Walker.

Together, these two works form the spiritual undergirding for my thoughts as I argue that, since black and other women of color have found our interests to be different from and sometimes contrary to those of white women, we must embrace a paradigm that takes into account this reality. This is not a call to faction, but to action.

Click here to read Part I of “Chasm of Isms”

The irony, of course, is that the reason for all the outcry, all the rebuking and all the chiding, is precisely because Holder was right–America is a nation of cowards when it comes to talking about race. As a surveyor I know recently found out, racism is the one topic that can create a tense silence in a room full of mostly white liberals.

That said, I was dismayed and annoyed by the news that the U.S. was not going to participate in a conference that is of great importance to a growing percentage of its population. I briefly entertained the thought that there had to be a good reason why the U.S. would not only avoid but boycott such an event. Briefly.

It appears that the Jewish right has subverted the anti-racism movement, managing, without much ado on the part of Americans and much analysis on the part of the mainstream media, to place the Jewish community at odds with all communities of color. Wedges abound.

Here is what John Boostra at the UN Dispatch blog had to say:

“‘We must never eschew what is right in favor of what is easy’ — except that what is easy here is, in fact, to sacrifice the Durban Review Conference to the wolves howling against it, and to leave the fight against racism painfully un-waged.”

Speaking of double standards, does anyone else find it funny that a nation that was comfortable participating in a grossly expensive sporting event in a country that is terrorizing its citizens, is illegally occupying another nation, and is one of the world’s worst polluters is now boycotting a World Conference Against Racism and Discrimination being held by a body that represents 192 nations because of criticism of one nation at a previous conference?

Just saying…

It’s been a little difficult to find out exactly what “anti-semitic” words were spoken at the 2001 conference and who said them. Here is what I gathered from the link above:

Article 164 states targeted victims of Israel’s brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women and refugees. Article 425 announces a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state…the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel. Furthermore, Article 426 talks of condemnation of those states who are supporting, aiding and abetting the Israeli apartheid state and its perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide.

In light of recent events, I can’t say that this criticism wasn’t warranted or, rather, that this language hasn’t been vindicated. In its most recent show of military might, Israel bombed a hospital and a school–places where one might expect to find children and women.

As to the criticism that Israel practices apartheid, I also find that to be true. The claim of genocide may be more difficult to establish since it is not clear, to borrow from US Department Spokseperson Christine Shelley’s infamous quote, how many acts of  genocide constitute a genocide. Proving genocide is a monumental task. In Rwanda, it took 800,000 such acts–that is, the loss of 800,000 lives–before the U.S. declared the mass murder of the ethnic Tutsis by their fellow countrymen a genocide. In Sudan, no one is certain how many died before the US Congress found the moral strength to use the word “genocide.”

How many Palestinians must die before we should say that Israel has committed genocide? I personally find it striking that, in what was initially revenge for the deaths of 3 Jewish soldiers, Israel killed an estimated 1,300 Palestinians.  Thirteen Israelis were killed during the fighting. It would seem that, to Israel, one Israeli is worth 100 Palestinians.

Speaking of genocide, what does one make of this?

To be fair, it does seem counterproductive to the pro-Palestine movement to allow Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be the keynote speaker for such an important summit.

I maintain, however, that a country that was willing to participate in the Beijing Olympics has no business opting out of an important international conference against racism and discrimination.

This is a missed opportunity for communities of  color in America. More than forty years ago, Malcolm X tried to bring the plight of African Americans to the United Nations. He argued, rightly, that racism is a human, not civil, rights issue.

Our problems as people of color have not disappeared with the appearance of a black family in the White House. Black and Latino men are still warehoused in U.S. prisons, at the best of times, unemployment for blacks is still higher than it is for whites at the worst of times, and, because banks targeted our communities for subprime mortages, blacks and Latinos are much more likely to be struggling financially right now.

We need leaders who are willing to fight for the civil and human rights of people of color and immigrants. Unfortunately, it currently appears that Obama’s race is actually hampering his ability to do much, if anything, about anything race-related. Once again, and under the new flag of Obama–that is, the red, blue and brown flag of a pluralistic America–those of us agitating on behalf of people of color in America have been denied an international audience.

For an update on the case, click here. If you missed the original hullabaloo, you can read my take on the saga here.

Recently, I had the good fortune to get a glimpse into the work that grassroots groups are doing to oppose this kind of bigotry. One such group created a film to capture the struggles of undocumented young people whose only “crime” is that they were not “made in the USA.” While this may sound cheeky, in the context of an immigration policy that views undocumented immigrants as nothing more than a cheap source of labor even as it does nothing to improve the working conditions found in American companies operating abroad, this is an indictment that makes perfect sense.

Papers’ creators note that many of those who are undocumented came to the United States at a very young age. Since they had no say in the matter, the question of choice does not even arise in such circumstances.

For all practical purposes, these young people are Americans. Many cannot even recall the “home” that they left behind. They contribute to the growth of this country yet are denied basic rights—access to a public higher education, driver’s licenses and the right to vote, among other necessities. According to Papers’ creators, this is the plight of the more than 1.8 million undocumented young people in America.

To learn more about the struggles of undocumented young Americans and to support this awesome project, please visit www.papersthemovie.com.

The group is currently asking that people do what they can to support the DREAM Act, a bill that would create a path to citizenship for undocumented youth through attaining a college degree or serving in the military. While the military provision is controversial, the DREAM Act is currently the best and most viable option. Kyle at Citizen Orange also notes that the DREAM Act should not be viewed as a diversion or obstruction from attaining comprehensive immigration reform, but as a building block toward that end. To show your solidarity, please visit dreamactivist.org.

Note to reader: the title of this piece is intentionally and necessarily long-winded. While it may appear like mere pretentious intellectualism, this is quite simply the most practical solution to questions that have pestered me as I’ve been preparing to write this piece. After all, how can anyone address pluralism and identity politics without casting a very wide, perhaps too wide, net? And yet, aren’t pluralism and identity politics so inherently and intrinsically connected that it is impossible to address one without the other? By the same token, aren’t pluralism and identity politics also inherently at odds with one another? Yes. And Yes. And so we have a paradox—an irresistible challenge for anyone who, like me, enjoys making sense out of the seemingly nonsensical.

Since I can’t claim to be an expert in everything that would need to be addressed here, this piece will be broken down into more manageable pieces that will allow me the time for research. I’ll begin with an overview of why and how identity politics is a threat to pluralism. Please note that the underlying assumption throughout this piece is that both pluralism and cultural identity are assets that should be valued and protected. You can’t have one without the other.

I will then attempt to identify the current threats posed to pluralism as a result of identity politics or of movements that, by design or by default, have embraced a dominant culture paradigm. In particular, I will focus on the dominant culture (read Eurocentric) identity politics embedded in the feminist movement, the reproductive rights movement, the LGBTQ movement and the environmental movement.

I will also address how identity politics has inhibited the progress of people of color movements—namely, the immigrant rights movement.

Finally, I will make a case for the framing of this piece—for why, even though they appear to be inseparable, I value pluralism more than I do cultural identity. I will also conclude with some action steps for how we can promote and, where they actually exist, promote pluralistic societies that value cultural identities.

What is pluralism?

It might be helpful to clarify what I mean when I talk about pluralism and identity politics. The following definitions of the word “pluralism,” come from an obvious and popular reference site, Dictionary.com. Taken together, these definitions encompass my understanding of the term pluralism.

pluralism

n.

1. The condition of being multiple or plural.
2. 1. A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.
   2. The belief that such a condition is desirable or socially beneficial.
   3. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
   4. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.
3. Ecclesiastical The holding by one person of two or more positions or offices, especially two or more ecclesiastical benefices, at the same time.
4. Philosophy
   1. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
   2. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.

Note that I include the ecclesiastical definition since I think it begins to capture the experience of women of color and other people who have multiple identities.

What do I mean by multiple identities?

The tem “identity” is particularly useful here. Since so much of our identity is socially constructed—race and gender—it makes sense that part of our identity is that with which we actually identify. This is not to say that identity is always a choice. In fact, for those who exist outside of the dominant culture, it is rarely so. It is those who exist within the dominant culture who have the luxury of exercising their identity or a particular facet of their identity—white, male, heterosexual, Christian, or “American”—when it is convenient. All queer people and all people of color are marginalized in this paradigm.

The reality is that some people live their identities while others rarely acknowledge certain aspects of their identity. The phenomenon known as “passing” is especially relevant here. Those who can “pass” as white or straight or Christian are often afforded certain privileges that are denied to those who cannot pass. Passing requires an individual to deny certain aspects of her or his identity. The benefits are fairly concrete and are usually social and economic.

In the United States, due in large part to the right’s success in defining who is an American (see “The Obama Step-Aunt/Immigration Wedge”), to be white is to be normal. Most white people rarely remember that they are white until the discussion, which rarely happens, is about race—that is, until they are forced to or until it is convenient to identify oneself as actually having a race…usually for the purpose of downplaying the importance of race. In the context of a society that promotes whiteness as the standard and the crown, it isn’t difficult to understand why a black person who “looks white” might pass as white.

(Note: Blackness in the United States has historically been defined by the “one-drop rule.” For the “colorblind,” postmodern liberals who would like to think of themselves as being the generation that has transcended race, this is why Barack Obama is black. I personally disagree with the school of thought that says that once someone has become successful, she or he sheds her or his blackness at the pearly white gates of the ivory tower.)

So what I am concerned with here is the lived identity—those aspects of identity with which we are faced, or forced to face, every day. I am concerned with the experiences of those who find themselves up against a white wall—literally, in the case of some immigrants—with little room to move or grow, without mobility.

What do people generally mean when they say identity politics?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The laden phrase “identity politics” has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestoes, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

TO BE CONTINUED…

Today, like most other days, however, I was reminded that, while we’ve come a long way, we still have a ways to go.

According to a neoconservative article masquerading as scientific research, boys with names like Barack Obama are more likely to commit crimes.

The article entitled “Boys with Unpopular Names More Likely to Break the Law” is a perfect example of how eugenics has buttressed a culture of covert racism in America.

The article reveals that “research” undertaken by two “scientists” conveniently christened with the ever-popular names David and Daniel have found that other people—that is, “those people” who, unlike them, are burdened by “unpopular” names like Malcolm and Kareem, or even Ivan, Alec and Ernest—are more likely to do bad things, illegal things.

As evidenced by their names, it can only be clear that David and Daniel are do-gooders. They want to change the world for the better. They conclude that, “The findings could help officials ‘ identify individuals at high risk of committing or recommitting crime, leading to more effective and targeted intervention programs.’”

People, this is covert racism at its finest. Stamped with the sterile, “objective,” impenetrable seal of “science,” the United States government and its white citizens are provided with a “rational” basis for what would otherwise appear to be irrational institutional racism. People of color, watch out. Blatant racial profiling season is upon us.

Unequal sentencing for the same crime? Nothing sinister about that! You see, the They that is The System would say, Jamaal is more likely than Brian to commit crimes and should, therefore, be held for further observation. He is, because of his black, we mean, “unpopular,” name predisposed to criminal behavior.

The “lesson” to those of us with “unpopular” names is that we should shed our cultures, our heritages and bow down to the mainstream—that is, to the “norm(al),” the “standard,” the status quo—or, in so many words, to white hegemony.

I can’t help but point out that President Barry Oberman just doesn’t roll off my tongue and incite the same pride as President Barack Obama does.

So what’s really in a name? A history. A baobab tree with roots that may veer, intertwine and intersect, but that are, nonetheless, rooted. An identity.

When our parents give us names passed down from our ancestors they do so as a form of homage to these good people and in anticipation of the person that they expect us to become.

I understood and concurred with the decision of New Jersey authorities to remove the child who was given the name Adolf Hitler from his parents’ custody. What expectation, after all, is embedded in the name Adolf Hitler or in Aryan Nation, his sister’s name? I would argue that, whatever the expectation, it was very different from those of most parents who name their children Cesar, Kwame, Malcolm or Mohammed.

The motive behind the naming is radically different. It is an act borne of love and not of hate. Any similarity in the results, therefore, cannot be attributed to something as obvious as the names in and of themselves. Any similarities in the outcomes of these individuals’ lives could be attributed to the environment, namely to a society that perpetuates oppression by rejecting anything that seems unfamiliar or foreign, even, it would seem, a perfectly good name.

Undoubtedly, I will be returning to the topic of racialized and racist science.  Unfortunately, there’s more.  A lot more.

For now, if you’d like to know more about the history of the Eugenics Movement, check out Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man.