community and identity

i've been thinking a lot about community lately. living in a city foriegn to me, treading on streets of one of the oldest cities in the u.s. which have some of the oldest "commmunities" of urban america. i have lived here for a year now. and sitting in class last night, we were talking about community. my friend, said "[community to me has rarely been a geographic drawn commmunity, i grew up in Harlem, but now live in Washington Heights, ive been there for 10 years now, but when i think of the the community, i think of communities i dedicate myself to and belong to, like social justice and labor, not necessarily drawn by physical boundaries.]"

her words reflect more than just the reality of a global economy and society, where captial and people (sometimes one in the same) can be moved over night. telecommunications have us talking and seeing eachother over a computer, and when we want to "stick it to the man" its often hard to find out who that man really is.

but to me, more importantly, her words highlight the importance of empowering people across demographics, beyond boundaries of race, class, gender, and sexual orientaiton. especially if looking at the potential democratic presidential candidates. one, a african american man, the other white woman. we have all heard "what it would be if we had a woman president? or a black president?"

although our identity and how we interpret it - our privilege, social honor & esteem, or lack of - is the basis for our views and political orientations, its important to realize that when it boils down to it, its about how we think. creating degress of opprssion has never made sense to me, i cant imagine weighing one person simply based on a single demographic. good politics are good politics, consciousness is consciousness, and if you truly believe in liberating education and empowering communities, thats what important. at least it is to me.

100% Angry Rant

I am so tired of people comparing Hillary Clinton to her husband. Sometimes it works in her advantage at other times it does not, but that isn't the point.

The point is: She is her own person. Every time I hear someone say things like "I haven't forgotten this and that from when Clinton is in office, so what makes anyone think Hillary will do anything different?" I want to scream!

How about the fact that she is a different person! It reminds me how much work we have to do in the field of women's rights. If it were the other way around people would be saying "Well, things didn't go so well when Hillary was in office, but I'm sure that Bill will be his own man and not make the same mistakes."

Seriously, if you don't like Hillary Clinton that's fine. She isn't perfect and there are things that I do not agree with about her stances, but can we please recognize her as an individual?

And how about getting more women and people of color in Capital Hill? I am now living in a city that is 60% black and I have seen only a handful of black staffers or legislative assistants during my lobby and coalition meetings these past two weeks. There are more women, but only white women. This whole working in DC for a predominately white organization that tries so hard to do anti-racism work is driving me a little crazy.

In sum, I really fucking miss my ladies in Claremont.

Election 2008: Do your homework

As a politics major in college and someone that has been interested in the topic since childhood I tend to become easily frustrated when people talk about politics.

My frustration doesn’t come with disagreeing about candidates or matters of opinion. My frustration lies with the very few facts the American people, specifically college students, seem to know.

There is currently a huge wave of young (18-25) support for Obama. Yet, I have not met too many people that actually know what he stands for. It seems to me that his overwhelming success with young people is largely because he is young himself. I’m sure some may be thinking, well, he is a good candidate so what’s the big deal? The big deal is that if we make our decisions based on who is the better looking, younger or most friendly, we are not using the critical thinking that we should have learned during our entire school careers.

I hear more people loving Obama and talking about his liberal agenda and then turning around and saying sexist comments about Hillary Clinton. One girl went as far to tell me this: “It’s obvious that the only reason Hillary Clinton is running is so Bill Clinton can have another turn in the White House.” Excuse me. I sat stunned on that one. Clinton may not be a favorite among college youth but I think Obama would agree that Clinton is not in this for her husband. And who are we to degrade our first front-runner female candidate by assuming that she has no will of her own. That she is simply a puppet of her husband. Hillary Clinton was one of the most outspoken and strong first ladies this country has ever seen—reminiscent of Eleanor Roosevelt. She led the nation in creating a comprehensive universal health care bill which was only thwarted because of the millions of dollars given to congressmen from the health care industry and the intense hatred of the Clinton administration by the Republicans. (Come on, she may have sounded a little crazy when she called it the “vast right wing conspiracy” but think about it, do some research on what the republicans did during the Clinton years. It’s not pretty).

It seems to me that while we are embracing our multi-cultural and progressive candidate we are forgetting to do our research on the other candidates. A lot can change in six months and by only focusing on one candidate we are missing out on the great potential we have with such a diverse group of candidates (well, democratic candidates, anyway). There are so many candidates with good points that I find myself supporting almost all of them in some way. (Clinton and Obama lead the pack for me, but Biden has been impressive too).

During the New Hampshire primary debates in June Obama and Clinton standing side by side took numerous blows from the other candidates. And each time, they stood up for each other. They have recognized that as front runners and non-white males they have to stick together. They may be vying for the same vote but they are not trash talking each other either. Maybe we should take a page from their book.

I would like to hear college students give a fair assessment to each candidate. Read the newspaper, watch the debates, follow the campaign trail and stop saying sexist shit about Hillary Clinton! You may not like her that much but recognize what a huge step this is for women in general and think about what your words about Hillary Clinton convey to other women and to young children. If you’re saying that a white woman can’t do it because she’s a woman, then what are you saying to all of the women of color out there? What are you saying to your sons and daughters?

One of my 5th grade girls asked me if women can be President. I told her yes, there just hasn’t been one yet. I told her about Hillary Clinton. She said, “I want to be President.” I smiled and told her that sounded like a great idea. And then I whispered to her “Do you know who else wants to be President?” She shook her head. “Me.” She smiled like I had never seen before and walked out to recess with her head held high. So look out for a Mexican woman named Alycia thirty five years from now.

This is a pivotal time in our country’s history, regardless of the outcome. PAY ATTENTION.

Minorities, Identity Politics and Political Correctness

Words that I loathe.

"Minorities":

From Dictionary.com:
mi·nor·i·ty [mi-nawr-i-tee, -nor, -mahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -ties, adjective
–noun
1. the smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.
2. a smaller party or group opposed to a majority, as in voting or other action.
3. a group differing, esp. in race, religion, or ethnic background, from the majority of a population: legislation aimed at providing equal rights for minorities.
4. a member of such a group.
5. the state or period of being under the legal age of full responsibility.
–adjective
6. of or pertaining to a minority.

It's estimated that there are approximately 6,602,224,175 living people on this earth. More than two thirds of that population is not white.

"Politically Correct" and Identity Politics":

These words trivialize the struggles and aspirations of communities of color. They normalize the very abnormal experience of being privileged in this world. They assume that the struggles of these exist rest on the periphery of (North American) society and must be spoken about as additives to "normal" [read: privileged] discourse. I come from a different ideological position, one that assumes that the struggles of communities of color are intrinsically tied to the fate of every person in this country. It's the subjugation of communities of color that validate and inform what it means to be powerful, what it means to be white.

Identity is pervasive in any political stance. Bill O'Reilly's, as a white, wealthy, straight man whose stance against gays, black people, brown folk, the rest of the world, and the earth is an ideological weapon that ensures his success and reinforces his power and privilege. But so far, I've never heard anyone accuse O'Reilly of pulling the "race" or "wealthy straight male" card.

I try to operate from a framework that presupposes that politics are pervasive in every facet of life, from the water you use to shower in the morning, the food you eat at lunch, to the person you sleep with at night. More than anything the term "politically correct" is a meager attempt to absolve folks of their racism. "I know this isn't politically correct to say this, but..." Fuck being politically correct. Just say it. You're racist. We all are. You can't live in this society and not be racist, sexist, homophobic, age-ist, classist, and everything else that centuries of colonization and brutality have inscribed in every one of us. Let's get past the point of being afraid to have real discussion so we can heal. Folks have fought and died to have ownership over what they're called. So no, it's not insulting to have a discussion about it. It is insulting to trivialize that struggle by putting it in a narrow vacuum of silence.

Killing Women is NOT a Game

I know, I know…I’ve been missing in action.
This summer I’m an intern for Mujeres Iniciando en las Américas (MIA), an organization that seeks to create positive and safe living conditions for women in Guatemala. One of MIA’s top goals is to decry violence against women in Guatemala. Emerging statistics suggest that the violence against women has now taken the form of femicide. Yes, I said it, FEMICIDE. It’s an ugly monster that both the US and Guatemalan government does not want to recognize. But so is GENOCIDE and that took place in Guatemala during its 36-year long civil war. It took the U.S. government a few years after the war to officially recognize it’s involvement in those massacre campaigns and it’s taking Guatemala even longer to judiciously try it’s military leaders in command during the conflict.

In order to bring any change to Guatemala, Lucia Muñoz, director of MIA, states that we need to increase awareness in the US, in the international community, and in Guatemala so that political pressure is placed on the Guatemalan government to change its ways. There are so many reasons why the U.S. wouldn’t want to get involved, especially since it has already sponsored and encouraged the 36-year long civil war through funding and through the training of Guatemalan soldiers at the School of the Americas.

Above is a draft of where my time has gone these past few weeks. I’ve found that creating documents is not so much fun…click the image to see a larger version and to learn more about this issue.

This flyer will be passed out on July 4, 2007 in Guatemala to protest the International Olympic Committee's presence in the nation. On this day, the committee will decide where to host the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. "What's wrong with the Olympic planning committee meeting in Guatemala?" you might ask. Well, the Olympics are founded on bringing nations together peacefully through sports. Why would a nation where women are facing the most extreme form of sexist terrorism be allowed to host an organization founded on peace? It’s also a great opportunity to gain media attention.

Though I’ll be staying in the US taking care of things behind the scenes, I’ll keep you all posted.

Reason #48730 Why I like The Onion

New Abortion Bill To Require Fetal Consent

Little Justice for Rape of Black Women

Chester Dewayne Turner was convicted Monday of the murders of ten Los Angeles women and a fetus in a rampage that lasted over a decade. The Los Angeles Times reports that the former pizza deliveryman and crack cocaine dealer began his rampage in 1987 and the last known crime occurred in 1998. The savage crimes include one that was caught on a security camera where the victim was pushed down into an alley and raped for eighteen minutes. Others include female victims whose brutal rapes contiunued even after they had been strangled to death. In one instance, the savage force of Turner's strangulation broke the victims neck.

Since most of the women were Black, and many had histories of drug abuse and prostitution, the murders did not garner the same attention granted similar crimes of the era. The Night Stalker and Hillside Strangler cases causesed widespread hysteria in LA in the 1970's and 80's since most of the victims in these cases were white women, yet the stories of these Black women, whose bodies were dumped in gutters along the Figueroa Corridor, went largely ignored by the media.

What bothered me most about this case was the defense's argument: that the women has willingly submitted to sex with Turner in exchange for crack cocaine. Part of me wants to say that we've finally reached a historical moment when value is being placed (by the judicial system) on the bodies of Black women as not merely sexual objects, but human beings. Then I think back to the infamous case of Tawana Brawley. In 1987, the fifteen year old was found naked and brutalized in the woods of Wappingers Fall her attackers had been six white men, one of whom was a police officer. The case made national headlines, the six white men indicted were eventually exonerated, and Ms. Brawley became the subject of national fury as many accused her of lying about the entire attack. Eventually, one of the accused men successfully sued for defamation of character. Throughout most of the media scrutiny, Ms. Brawley remained silent, a silence that has come to characterize the long, brutal history of sexual violence targeted toward Black women.

What does Ms. Brawley's twenty year old case have to do with the Turner's conviction? Prosecutors in Turner's case argued that Turner's savage attacks were about power and control. I'd like to extend that argument even further and point out what I deem to be the obvious: Turner's victims, much like Ms. Brawley, were targets of sexual violence because they were Black women whose bodies and lives were deemed useless. Rape is rape, no matter who the perpetrator turns out to be, but I wonder if Turner would have been convicted if he had been white? It's much easier to place Turner within the historical role of the Black male beast than it is the hold white men accountable for similar crimes. Turner's conviction is undoutedly a victory for Black women, but it does little to turn the tide of sexually violent crimes that are often as much about asserting white male priviledge as they are about reaffirming the entire system of patriarchy.

Case in point: the Don Imus constroversey.

When a white male radio host can call a group of Black women a bunch of "nappy headed hoes" and the entire disourse turns into a debate over how Black men treat Black women in hip hop culture, it's easy to see that very little has changed. I'm in no way excusing Turner's crimes, or lessenining their impact because he is a Black man, but I am calling for white men to be held to the same standard of punishment. Imus' comments did not physically brutalize Black women, but they nonetheless reaffirmed the ideologies that make rape --physical, emotional, mental and otherwise -- acceptable, even necessary, as a way to mainitain power. So yes, Imus raped every Black woman (and women in general) in America with his comments. And each day that the discourse veers away from an analysis of racism AND sexism and how one inevitably works to define the other, the ideologies that make it acceptable to sexually objectify Black women, control Black women and brutalize Black women continue to be justified. Just as Tawana Brawley was silenced and Turner's victims were murdered into silence, Black women have been silenced as a whole in the Imus controversey.

Despite Monday's conviction of a Black serial rapist and murderer, there turns out to be little justice for Black women.