See the full calendar here.
Showing posts with label Race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Race. Show all posts
Friday, December 17, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
For Colored Girls
I'm really looking forward to seeing Tyler Perry's new film For Colored Girls--hope it lives up to Ntokage Shange's brilliant For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf from which it's adapted. The film has an incredible cast, including Janet Jackson, Loretta Devine, Kimberly Elise, Thandie Newton, Phylicia Rashad, Anika Noni Rose, Kerry Washington, Whoopi Goldberg and Macy Gray.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Privilege and Passing: Root Post Redux
So, earlier this week my first post went up at The Root, a "daily online magazine that provides thought-provoking commentary on today's news from a variety of black perspectives" that I've been following for quite a while. I was thrilled to finally post there, and I hope to continue to write for them. You can find my first post, and the accompanying thriving-but-contentious comment section, here.
In the essay, I write about unintentionally passing (for white and straight) and the associated privilege(s) that passing "allows" me. What's interesting is that I specify in the post that it's usually those who are not people of color themselves that mistake me for white (or, occasionally, Latina or Israeli, the latter mostly because of my first name), and yet many commenters felt inclined to assure me that I look black to them. That's fine, and I actually appreciate that some people recognize me as black, as I have never felt particularly included by black culture (with a few exceptions). However, many people do not realize I am black when they first meet me (and they certainly don't peg me for a lesbian at first glance ). What these moments of misrecognition beget is situations of (white) (heterosexual) privilege. The questions I'm asking then is how to mitigate the privileges I'm given upon first impression and whether it is even my responsibility to do so.
Privilege is, in a way, even more insidious than outright racism because it's so easily glossed over and so often completely subconscious. For example (somewhat over-simplified but illustrative): as a biracial femme lesbian who looks white, middle class and straight, I have never been harassed by a stranger on the street due to either my race or my sexuality. The thing is that most people who might find my race or sexual orientation threatening don't recognize me as different from the rest of white, straight America. But I'm as gay as these women (who, adorably, are all look-a-likes of a male, teenage pop star) and as black as, say, Obama, regarding whom countless commentators asked if America was "ready for a black President." (I'm not saying that Obama isn't black or that biracial individuals aren't black; I'm just trying to make a point about the way visibility and privilege merge.)
In any case, despite the autobiographical format of my essay at The Root, I'm actually not overly concerned with how these factors affect me as an individual. I'm more interested in how privilege, especially privilege that relies almost entirely on visible identity markers, functions for those of us whose outward appearance doesn't match our actual identities. In what situations are you only how others perceive you rather than how you perceive yourself?
(As a postscript, it is worth noting that the question of the relationship between visibility and identity is especially trenchant today, on the anniversary of September 11. How often in the past nine years have those who appear Middle Eastern or Muslim been judged based on what they look like rather than who they are?)
In the essay, I write about unintentionally passing (for white and straight) and the associated privilege(s) that passing "allows" me. What's interesting is that I specify in the post that it's usually those who are not people of color themselves that mistake me for white (or, occasionally, Latina or Israeli, the latter mostly because of my first name), and yet many commenters felt inclined to assure me that I look black to them. That's fine, and I actually appreciate that some people recognize me as black, as I have never felt particularly included by black culture (with a few exceptions). However, many people do not realize I am black when they first meet me (and they certainly don't peg me for a lesbian at first glance ). What these moments of misrecognition beget is situations of (white) (heterosexual) privilege. The questions I'm asking then is how to mitigate the privileges I'm given upon first impression and whether it is even my responsibility to do so.
Privilege is, in a way, even more insidious than outright racism because it's so easily glossed over and so often completely subconscious. For example (somewhat over-simplified but illustrative): as a biracial femme lesbian who looks white, middle class and straight, I have never been harassed by a stranger on the street due to either my race or my sexuality. The thing is that most people who might find my race or sexual orientation threatening don't recognize me as different from the rest of white, straight America. But I'm as gay as these women (who, adorably, are all look-a-likes of a male, teenage pop star) and as black as, say, Obama, regarding whom countless commentators asked if America was "ready for a black President." (I'm not saying that Obama isn't black or that biracial individuals aren't black; I'm just trying to make a point about the way visibility and privilege merge.)
In any case, despite the autobiographical format of my essay at The Root, I'm actually not overly concerned with how these factors affect me as an individual. I'm more interested in how privilege, especially privilege that relies almost entirely on visible identity markers, functions for those of us whose outward appearance doesn't match our actual identities. In what situations are you only how others perceive you rather than how you perceive yourself?
(As a postscript, it is worth noting that the question of the relationship between visibility and identity is especially trenchant today, on the anniversary of September 11. How often in the past nine years have those who appear Middle Eastern or Muslim been judged based on what they look like rather than who they are?)
Monday, January 18, 2010
On listening to MLK
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
I sat down and listened to the "I have a dream" speech today - and realized that I had never actually heard it before! Sure, I've read the speech, and others of his perhaps a dozen times, but I never actually listened to it, all the way through, as spoken by the man himself.
It was surprisingly enlightening.
I spent most Martin Luther King holidays during my teenage year angry, not perhaps at MLK himself, but at the importance that people attached to him. It seemed completely justified at the time - he was a plagiarist, a hypocrite in a variety of other ways, etc. (and I was influenced by my moderately racist local culture). After I became a feminist, I added his occasionally poor attitude toward women to the list.
Eventually, of course, I realized that most of his supposed failings were either fabrications or exaggerations made by a rather nasty group of people (there's a nice write up here, if you're curious). But even more important, I think, was realizing who Martin Luther King Jr. actually was.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a great speaker. He wasn't a philosopher or a scientist who single-handedly discovered some great truth. And while he was an excellent leader, I don't think that's really why he's important. Martin Luther King Jr. real impact was that when he spoke, he wasn't just speaking for himself - he was speaking for an entire community. Even more, perhaps - he spoke for a whole group of people, black, white, women, men, who had one thing in common: they cared about equality.
MLK didn't just speak about race either, as some would have us think, he spoke about war, about poverty, even about technology. His genius was that he said what the people said; in listening, we can hear the people (including, perhaps, ourselves) speak.
And we would do well to listen.
(Crossposted at Constant Thoughts)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Princess and the Frog
So I'm curious about the newest edition to Disney's princess franchise, The Princess and the Frog. It opened last weekend, and it's one in a long list of films I want to see this holiday season (others include Blind Side, It's Complicated, Invictus, Nine, and Avatar). On a positive note, it features a black princess--about time, Disney!--although there's apparently been some controversy about the fact that her prince isn't also black. Personally, I'm not sure why that's a problem. An African American princess and a Latin American-esque prince? The more diversity the better, I say.
However...while I'm in full support of an interracial Disney prince/princess coupling (well, as much as I'm in support of any prince/princess coupling...so that's not saying much), the first time I saw the preview for The Princess and the Frog a few months ago, I was a bit edgy about the way some of the other characters were represented. I realize the film's set in New Orleans and so the characters need Cajun accents. I also realize that there are typically evil witches and wizards and sorcerers pitted against the heroes of Disney pictures, hence the witch doctor. But does the combination of these things--plus the grungy firefly with the missing teeth--in the first Disney film to feature a black princess make anyone else twitch a little with stereotype-overload?
I really want to like this film, but I'm a little worried... So, has anyone seen it yet? What did you think?
However...while I'm in full support of an interracial Disney prince/princess coupling (well, as much as I'm in support of any prince/princess coupling...so that's not saying much), the first time I saw the preview for The Princess and the Frog a few months ago, I was a bit edgy about the way some of the other characters were represented. I realize the film's set in New Orleans and so the characters need Cajun accents. I also realize that there are typically evil witches and wizards and sorcerers pitted against the heroes of Disney pictures, hence the witch doctor. But does the combination of these things--plus the grungy firefly with the missing teeth--in the first Disney film to feature a black princess make anyone else twitch a little with stereotype-overload?
I really want to like this film, but I'm a little worried... So, has anyone seen it yet? What did you think?
Saturday, August 1, 2009
A Gates-Gate Update
I've been astoundingly remiss in blogging these days and again the only excuse I can offer is that I've been frantically working towards the completion of my dissertation. What about the other FWF contributors, you say? I'm sure they're also equally busy with work and/or summer vacations. Rest assured, come Fall I'll be back in the full swing of things and (hopefully) blogging up a storm.
That said, as a sort of peace offering for my absence, here's a little update on racial politics in America vis-a-vis Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest, or, as my parents and I like to call it, "Gates-Gate."
You've all probably heard--billions and billions of times on every form of media imaginable--about how President Obama referred to the police officer's decision to arrest Gates as "stupid"...and boy is he regretting his words. The President's choice of words has, somewhat inexplicably, become the hot topic this past week, prompting President Obama to offer an apology and invite the two men over for a beer, in a time-honored tradition of male bonding.
Of course, putting aside for the moment that the President certainly has better things to do right now, a significant player in all this has been completely left out. Linda Whalen, the woman who called 911 and started the whole chain of events leading to Gates' arrest, has been seriously maligned by the media. After her 911 call was released, it became clear that Whalen never mentioned the race of the alleged burglars in her call nor is she the "privileged racist white neighbor" many bloggers made her out to be:
Has Whalen received an apology for her vilification by the media or been asked over to the White House for a beer? What do you think?
Update (Aug. 3): I just found out (thanks Lauren for the heads up) that Gates' did thank Whalen for her call to the police, offering her flowers in a "gesture of gratitude."
On another racist-icing-on-a-racist-cake note, a Boston PD officer sent a vehemently racist email in response to an article by a Boston Globe reporter calling Henry Louis Gates Jr. a "banana-eating jungle monkey" (several times) and insisting that the female author of the article was such a "fool" that she is only good for serving him his "coffee and donuts on a Sunday morning." You can read the full email here. While the officer in question has been suspended pending a hearing, some are arguing that his email falls under the auspices of free speech.
What do you think? Where does free speech end and hate speech begin?
That said, as a sort of peace offering for my absence, here's a little update on racial politics in America vis-a-vis Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest, or, as my parents and I like to call it, "Gates-Gate."
You've all probably heard--billions and billions of times on every form of media imaginable--about how President Obama referred to the police officer's decision to arrest Gates as "stupid"...and boy is he regretting his words. The President's choice of words has, somewhat inexplicably, become the hot topic this past week, prompting President Obama to offer an apology and invite the two men over for a beer, in a time-honored tradition of male bonding.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Henry Louis-Gate | ||||
| ||||
Of course, putting aside for the moment that the President certainly has better things to do right now, a significant player in all this has been completely left out. Linda Whalen, the woman who called 911 and started the whole chain of events leading to Gates' arrest, has been seriously maligned by the media. After her 911 call was released, it became clear that Whalen never mentioned the race of the alleged burglars in her call nor is she the "privileged racist white neighbor" many bloggers made her out to be:
Tapes of the call released earlier this week revealed that Whalen, a first-generation Portuguese-American who doesn't live in the area, did not mention race. When pressed by a dispatcher on whether the men were white, black or Hispanic, she said one of them might have been Hispanic.
"Now that the tapes are out, I hope people can see that I tried to be careful and honest with my words," Whalen said. "It never occurred to me that the way I reported what I saw be analyzed by an entire nation."
Cambridge police Commissioner Robert Haas acknowledged that the police report contains a reference to race, but said the report is merely a summary of events. The arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, has said his information on the race of the suspects came during a brief encounter with Whalen outside Gates' house; she contradicted that Wednesday, saying she made no such description.
Has Whalen received an apology for her vilification by the media or been asked over to the White House for a beer? What do you think?
Update (Aug. 3): I just found out (thanks Lauren for the heads up) that Gates' did thank Whalen for her call to the police, offering her flowers in a "gesture of gratitude."
On another racist-icing-on-a-racist-cake note, a Boston PD officer sent a vehemently racist email in response to an article by a Boston Globe reporter calling Henry Louis Gates Jr. a "banana-eating jungle monkey" (several times) and insisting that the female author of the article was such a "fool" that she is only good for serving him his "coffee and donuts on a Sunday morning." You can read the full email here. While the officer in question has been suspended pending a hearing, some are arguing that his email falls under the auspices of free speech.
What do you think? Where does free speech end and hate speech begin?
Monday, July 20, 2009
So angry...
...I can't even come up with a decent title for this post.
I've just come back from a week without internet, secluded off in the wilderness writing about culture, and this is how culture greets me when I return: "Henry Louis Gates Jr. Arrested, Police Accused Of Racial Profiling".
Apparently, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., one of the preeminent scholars of African American studies and race theory, Harvard professor, was arrested late last week for attempting to open the jammed door of his own house. A neighbor called the police, reporting "two black men" attempting a break-in and the police arrived to question, and eventually arrest Gates for "disorderly conduct," even after he produced identification and proved the house was his.
From HuffPo:
You can read Gates' lawyer's official statement over at The Root.
To say I am appalled would be an absolute understatement.
Update: Apparently the charges were just dropped. First smart move by Cambridge law enforcement so far.
Also, reading comments about this case has me in a tizzy. What is wrong with people? (Alas, a blog's comment section is pretty mild, but makes me fear other media outlets.)
Update #2: A few other posts on Gates' arrest:
Rebecca Walker's blog
Shakesville
NPR
Pam's House Blend
Racialicious
I've just come back from a week without internet, secluded off in the wilderness writing about culture, and this is how culture greets me when I return: "Henry Louis Gates Jr. Arrested, Police Accused Of Racial Profiling".
Apparently, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., one of the preeminent scholars of African American studies and race theory, Harvard professor, was arrested late last week for attempting to open the jammed door of his own house. A neighbor called the police, reporting "two black men" attempting a break-in and the police arrived to question, and eventually arrest Gates for "disorderly conduct," even after he produced identification and proved the house was his.
From HuffPo:
Some of Gates' African-American colleagues say the arrest is part of a pattern of racial profiling in Cambridge.
Allen Counter, who has taught neuroscience at Harvard for 25 years, said he was stopped on campus by two Harvard police officers in 2004 after being mistaken for a robbery suspect. They threatened to arrest him when he could not produce identification.
"We do not believe that this arrest would have happened if professor Gates was white," Counter said. "It really has been very unsettling for African-Americans throughout Harvard and throughout Cambridge that this happened."
The Rev. Al Sharpton is vowing to attend Gates' arraignment.
"This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen," Sharpton said. "I have heard of driving while black and even shopping while black but now even going to your own home while black is a new low in police community affairs."
Ogletree said Gates had returned from a trip to China on Thursday with a driver, when he found his front door jammed. He went through the back door into the home – which he leases from Harvard – shut off an alarm and worked with the driver to get the door open. The driver left, and Gates was on the phone with the property's management company when police first arrived.
You can read Gates' lawyer's official statement over at The Root.
To say I am appalled would be an absolute understatement.
Update: Apparently the charges were just dropped. First smart move by Cambridge law enforcement so far.
Also, reading comments about this case has me in a tizzy. What is wrong with people? (Alas, a blog's comment section is pretty mild, but makes me fear other media outlets.)
Update #2: A few other posts on Gates' arrest:
Rebecca Walker's blog
Shakesville
NPR
Pam's House Blend
Racialicious
Friday, June 5, 2009
Feminist Television Characters (with clips!)
Jezebel just published a list of 20 feminist television characters and, although their list is great, they also lament that 1) most of the characters aren't that recent and 2) they're almost all white. While the latter is pretty much true of television in general--with a few exceptions--I thought I could still find a few more women from the 1990s and the 2000s to add to the list...especially a few more women of color.
Here are five more feminist television characters--three of whom are of color--just off the top of my head (and in order of appearance). Tell me more in the comments (Buffy and Xena are already givens)!
1. Clair Huxtable (Phylicia Rashad), The Cosby Show (1984-1992)
2. Winifred 'Freddie' Brooks (Cree Summer), A Different World (1987-1993)
(Freddie comes in around 3:30 or so, but the whole clip's interesting -- this episode dealt with domestic violence. A Different World might be one of my favorite sitcoms of all time.)
3. B'Elanna Torres (Roxann Dawson), Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001)
I couldn't find a good, representative clip of her awesomeness (although, admittedly, they tamed her down a good bit over Voyager's seven seasons), but you should watch this fun little tribute video for the women of Voyager (Torres, Captain Janeway, and Seven) set to Salt-N-Pepa's "Ain't Nuthin' But A She Thing." It's priceless!
4. C.J. Cregg (Allison Janney), The West Wing (1999-2006)
Probably not the most representative clip, but I sadly, don't have all day to troll around Youtube! ;-) However, speaking of Janney, Melissa Silverstein of Women and Hollywood just posted a great interview with her the other day.
5. Sarah Connor (Lena Headey), Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008-2009)
Again, a compilation (made by folks who want to save the recently-canceled show). Still, so true...
That's all for now, folks! Seriously, though, add to Jezebel's list...and to mine.
Update: Check out the excellent additions (also with clips) by Melissa over at Women and Hollywood.
Here are five more feminist television characters--three of whom are of color--just off the top of my head (and in order of appearance). Tell me more in the comments (Buffy and Xena are already givens)!
1. Clair Huxtable (Phylicia Rashad), The Cosby Show (1984-1992)
2. Winifred 'Freddie' Brooks (Cree Summer), A Different World (1987-1993)
(Freddie comes in around 3:30 or so, but the whole clip's interesting -- this episode dealt with domestic violence. A Different World might be one of my favorite sitcoms of all time.)
3. B'Elanna Torres (Roxann Dawson), Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001)
I couldn't find a good, representative clip of her awesomeness (although, admittedly, they tamed her down a good bit over Voyager's seven seasons), but you should watch this fun little tribute video for the women of Voyager (Torres, Captain Janeway, and Seven) set to Salt-N-Pepa's "Ain't Nuthin' But A She Thing." It's priceless!
4. C.J. Cregg (Allison Janney), The West Wing (1999-2006)
Probably not the most representative clip, but I sadly, don't have all day to troll around Youtube! ;-) However, speaking of Janney, Melissa Silverstein of Women and Hollywood just posted a great interview with her the other day.
5. Sarah Connor (Lena Headey), Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008-2009)
Again, a compilation (made by folks who want to save the recently-canceled show). Still, so true...
That's all for now, folks! Seriously, though, add to Jezebel's list...and to mine.
Update: Check out the excellent additions (also with clips) by Melissa over at Women and Hollywood.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Victims by Choice?
I read this article the other day by conservative radio host, Phil Valentine. Honestly, I had never heard of the guy but the title of the article, “Some members of society just want to be victims”, was so captivating, I could help myself (www.tennessean.com). He discussed the findings of a recent American Journal of Public Health study of 5th graders that links racism to mental health. Now, being the awesome journalist that he is, Mr. Valentine doesn’t just report on the study. He also gives his readers insight to his thoughts on how “these people” are taught to be victims, walk around with a chip on their shoulder, and are always looking for a way to be offended—his example being the paranoia that springs up when “they” are passed over for a promotion or not given party invitations. He goes on to say that kids will be picked on for one thing or another. For example, he was 4’11” as a high school freshman and although he got bullied, he learned a valuable lesson through those years—never let anyone define you!
Well, as one of “those people” he speaks of in his article, I must say that Mr. Valentine is amazing—a white male comparing the racism to being short. Seriously?! There are so many things wrong with that argument. It’s something I face everyday and I don’t need people reminding me of it, but they can’t seem to help themselves. As a minority and depending on the way I dress (as ridiculous as it is), I am judged as soon as I am seen.
Those judgments may be a careful glance my way as they grab their purse tighter; a cashier who drops the change in my hand as if she can “catch” my color; or random people who ask me why “you people voted for him…”
I’ll take it one step further and tell you as a minority woman, the criticism or judgment I receive is far worse than anything a bully could ever have done to Mr. Valentine in the 9th grade. This touches every part of life—social situations, work environments, you name it. It’s a constant adjustment on my part because as soon as you think you’ve got it down, somebody comes along and you have to find a new way to fend off the foolishness. It is easy to tell someone not to let anyone else define you—it’s another to make you understand that I have been defined since the day I was born by my race and gender.
Look, there will always be those who choose to play the “victim” role. However, they may be of any race, any gender, any ethnicity, etc. so, it is totally unfair to classify the entire group as “victims”—we all make our own choices and react to things differently. I believe it is up to us to encourage openness and understanding. There are more resources out there that will help you understand a culture than hate it. And even if you don’t understand or agree with something, respect it. At the end of the day, we have got to figure out how to live amongst one another without judgments and criticisms that divide us because honestly, we’re more alike than different. It just sucks that there are people that would rather ignore that fact and fight to remain ignorant.
Well, as one of “those people” he speaks of in his article, I must say that Mr. Valentine is amazing—a white male comparing the racism to being short. Seriously?! There are so many things wrong with that argument. It’s something I face everyday and I don’t need people reminding me of it, but they can’t seem to help themselves. As a minority and depending on the way I dress (as ridiculous as it is), I am judged as soon as I am seen.
Those judgments may be a careful glance my way as they grab their purse tighter; a cashier who drops the change in my hand as if she can “catch” my color; or random people who ask me why “you people voted for him…”
I’ll take it one step further and tell you as a minority woman, the criticism or judgment I receive is far worse than anything a bully could ever have done to Mr. Valentine in the 9th grade. This touches every part of life—social situations, work environments, you name it. It’s a constant adjustment on my part because as soon as you think you’ve got it down, somebody comes along and you have to find a new way to fend off the foolishness. It is easy to tell someone not to let anyone else define you—it’s another to make you understand that I have been defined since the day I was born by my race and gender.
Look, there will always be those who choose to play the “victim” role. However, they may be of any race, any gender, any ethnicity, etc. so, it is totally unfair to classify the entire group as “victims”—we all make our own choices and react to things differently. I believe it is up to us to encourage openness and understanding. There are more resources out there that will help you understand a culture than hate it. And even if you don’t understand or agree with something, respect it. At the end of the day, we have got to figure out how to live amongst one another without judgments and criticisms that divide us because honestly, we’re more alike than different. It just sucks that there are people that would rather ignore that fact and fight to remain ignorant.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Rock, Race, Hip-hop, and Why I Like Music
There's an interesting post up on Feministe titled "Asher Roth, Hip Hop, and Rockism, Or Why Doesn’t My Kid Like Hip Hop?".
I'm not going to talk about Asher Roth anymore; he's just an idiot. I do want to talk about the other half of the article. So why doesn't her kid like Hip-Hop? And more importantly, what's all this about Rockism?
Rockism, of course, is simply one of the youngest names in the grand old tradition of Art snobism. I personally used to be a classicist - if it wasn't written either: A. before 1930 and/or B. In a conservatory, I didn't want to hear it. Vocalists who needed microphones to sing weren't real singers, and I found the electric guitar to be thoroughly disgusting. And the Great (and not incidentally always white and male) Masters had the last word on everything.
By this standard, Rockism looks downright tame!
I got better. Do note, though: I didn't stop being a classicist because I suddenly realized that my prior ideas were racist, sexist and wrong. I stopped because I actually listened to all that other music, and liked it. I'll come back to this.
But Rockism. The Times article liked in the Feministe post makes some good points, but it honestly doesn't go far enough. It's not that rock music is 'white' and hip-hop is 'black'. It's that Hip-Hop is 'new', and rock music is 'old'. Let me explain:
Around 110 years ago, all the kids were listening to a new kind of music called Ragtime. They played it in the bars and clubs, they danced to it, it was exciting and rebellious and their parents were scandalized. Critics mostly ignored it, preferring to focus on 'real music' like Opera. Note that the greatest rag composer was a Black man named Scott Joplin.
Now, mentally switch (Modern) Hip-Hop with Ragtime, Rock with Opera, and Eminem with Joplin. Not an exact analogy, but fairly close.
Fast forward to today. What has happened to Ragtime? Simply put, it has become classical music, right along with Mozart, Wagner and the rest. White Art snob culture has co-opted it, and it has become part of the 'Canon', if you will. It's just the same with Jazz. And it's happening to Rock now, too - enough now that Rock is seen as 'white', despite its history! (Bo Diddley, anyone?) The patriarchy likes very much to utilize the 'if you can't beat them, join them' strategy, and so always takes credit for the accomplishments of the less privileged. And why stop now? Perhaps Asher Roth is simply the beginning of the end for Hip-Hop. Black culture will move on to the next new genre, and the cycle will continue.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps we can stop making it about which sort of music is 'better', and actually get around to listening to it.
You see, here's my criteria for whether music is 'good': I listen to it. If I get a shiver down my spine, it's good music. If my body is enveloped by an orgasmic feeling of delight, it's great music. It's a visceral, almost purely physical reaction, and as far as I can tell, it's quite genre agnostic.
Which brings me to Lauren's son. None of the nine-year-olds I know have even heard of Kurt Cobain or Elton John, let alone want to listen to them; this makes me think he really likes it! (Then again, he could be rebelling against his parent's music choices!) Perhaps it is racial - but perhaps he just hasn't hear the right Hip-Hop yet. Or, perhaps he would like some of the Black rock stars (is Hendrix close enough to Cobain?) With any luck, he'll be able to really appreciate music.
Some people want to rebel. Some people want to be snobs. Some people (Rockists) want to be snobs about rebelling! But really, music should be about feelings, and about meaning, and about choices, and about people.
(Curious counter-argument to everything I just said: is my insistence on criticizing music separately from its surrounding culture an artifact of my Art snobbishness?)
I'm not going to talk about Asher Roth anymore; he's just an idiot. I do want to talk about the other half of the article. So why doesn't her kid like Hip-Hop? And more importantly, what's all this about Rockism?
Rockism, of course, is simply one of the youngest names in the grand old tradition of Art snobism. I personally used to be a classicist - if it wasn't written either: A. before 1930 and/or B. In a conservatory, I didn't want to hear it. Vocalists who needed microphones to sing weren't real singers, and I found the electric guitar to be thoroughly disgusting. And the Great (and not incidentally always white and male) Masters had the last word on everything.
By this standard, Rockism looks downright tame!
I got better. Do note, though: I didn't stop being a classicist because I suddenly realized that my prior ideas were racist, sexist and wrong. I stopped because I actually listened to all that other music, and liked it. I'll come back to this.
But Rockism. The Times article liked in the Feministe post makes some good points, but it honestly doesn't go far enough. It's not that rock music is 'white' and hip-hop is 'black'. It's that Hip-Hop is 'new', and rock music is 'old'. Let me explain:
Around 110 years ago, all the kids were listening to a new kind of music called Ragtime. They played it in the bars and clubs, they danced to it, it was exciting and rebellious and their parents were scandalized. Critics mostly ignored it, preferring to focus on 'real music' like Opera. Note that the greatest rag composer was a Black man named Scott Joplin.
Now, mentally switch (Modern) Hip-Hop with Ragtime, Rock with Opera, and Eminem with Joplin. Not an exact analogy, but fairly close.
Fast forward to today. What has happened to Ragtime? Simply put, it has become classical music, right along with Mozart, Wagner and the rest. White Art snob culture has co-opted it, and it has become part of the 'Canon', if you will. It's just the same with Jazz. And it's happening to Rock now, too - enough now that Rock is seen as 'white', despite its history! (Bo Diddley, anyone?) The patriarchy likes very much to utilize the 'if you can't beat them, join them' strategy, and so always takes credit for the accomplishments of the less privileged. And why stop now? Perhaps Asher Roth is simply the beginning of the end for Hip-Hop. Black culture will move on to the next new genre, and the cycle will continue.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps we can stop making it about which sort of music is 'better', and actually get around to listening to it.
You see, here's my criteria for whether music is 'good': I listen to it. If I get a shiver down my spine, it's good music. If my body is enveloped by an orgasmic feeling of delight, it's great music. It's a visceral, almost purely physical reaction, and as far as I can tell, it's quite genre agnostic.
Which brings me to Lauren's son. None of the nine-year-olds I know have even heard of Kurt Cobain or Elton John, let alone want to listen to them; this makes me think he really likes it! (Then again, he could be rebelling against his parent's music choices!) Perhaps it is racial - but perhaps he just hasn't hear the right Hip-Hop yet. Or, perhaps he would like some of the Black rock stars (is Hendrix close enough to Cobain?) With any luck, he'll be able to really appreciate music.
Some people want to rebel. Some people want to be snobs. Some people (Rockists) want to be snobs about rebelling! But really, music should be about feelings, and about meaning, and about choices, and about people.
(Curious counter-argument to everything I just said: is my insistence on criticizing music separately from its surrounding culture an artifact of my Art snobbishness?)
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The All-American Cowboy versus the "Bionic Booty"
Please take note that the following post contains spoilers for tonight's Dancing with the Stars results show as well as a good ole' fashioned rant. Consider yourself warned.
My parents have been watching DWTS since it first aired, which is pretty miraculous to me since, up until recently, they barely watched any television at all. But I suppose it's because they're big fans of ballroom dancing and have been taking lessons and dancing together for the past twelve years. In fact, they got me into ballroom dancing when I was fourteen; I even briefly contemplated taking it up professionally when I was a teenager, but school commitments and other things came up and it just didn't happen. They also got me watching the show, although it took until this season for me to really become a fan.
At the beginning, my allegiance was split between Gilles Marini and Shawn Johnson--because Gilles was awesome, even early on, and I was such a huge fan of Shawn's plucky determination (and sheer unflappable optimism) during the Beijing Olympics (I also have a begrudging appreciation for Melissa Rycroft's dancing...but don't tell anyone). But rather rapidly, over the last few weeks, Lil' Kim and Derek stole my heart. Sure, I like Lil' Kim's music, but her celebrity has nothing to do with my adoration of her as a dancer.
DWTS brought out a side of Lil' Kim America hadn't really seen before. Instead of the tough-as-nails, "Queen Bee" rapper who gleefully tossed about obscenities and explicit sexual references, she revealed herself to be funny and a little shy and deeply committed, not to mention charmingly insecure despite her hip-hop cred. On the show, more than any of the other celebrities, Lil' Kim to me seemed remarkably human. The vast majority of her dances were excellent because she worked hard and, most importantly, because she's an incredible performer.
And, yes, part of her performance persona is that sexy, hip-thrusting style she's adapted from her hip-hop career, but I think she was never really given a chance to show other facets of her talent. In fact, every time she performed a dance that wasn't "raunchy" or "passionate" enough, she was penalized.
The judges were clearly very taken with Lil' Kim, and as shocked as I was that she was eliminated this week, but even in the final, tearful moments after her elimination, they were lamenting the loss of her "bionic booty."
Apparently, no matter how good she is, a woman of color is still judged on her "passion" and her ass (oh, er, her "assets," as they said tonight--haha). I'd like to see what would happen if Bruno told Melissa Rycroft to work her "bangin' rack"! Can you imagine?
(I could write volumes about the blatant racism of the judges' comments to Lil' Kim--especially when they were being "complimentary"--as opposed to how they address the other dancers, but...that will have to wait until I'm not, you know, trying to finish a dissertation.)
Just to be clear, I'm not angry because my favorite dancer was eliminated. Honestly, if Lil' Kim had gotten to the semi-finals and then had been beaten by someone equally good, like Gilles or Mellisa or even Shawn, I wouldn't have cared...much. But when the person who wins out over Lil' Kim is the one person left on the show who has absolutely no innate talent whatsoever? Well, then my feathers get a little ruffled.
Ty Murray is not a good dancer. He seems like a perfectly nice guy, I have no problems with him personally, and he's improved remarkably over the past few weeks. I'll even give him props for his Argentine Tango last week, which was pretty good...on a relative scale. However, he's stiff and stilted, still hasn't developed a sense a rhythm or movement after months of training and is simply worlds away from any of the other four couples.
I hate to speculate on things like this. What do I know, really? But I find it hard to believe that America didn't vote for Lil' Kim just because her waltz last week wasn't as good as it could have been. If that were the reasoning behind people voting, then Ty wouldn't have made it past the third week. It seems pretty clear to me that Lil' Kim's elimination this week has way more to do with people's privileging of the "All-American," white cowboy--clearly held to a different (lower) standard than any of the female contestants--and preconceived notions about how women of color are supposed to perform for us and how they're supposed to act.
And about yesterday's waltz? While I'm no professional by any means, I think I have a little more ballroom knowledge than the average Joe. Like Carrie Ann said, there were a few missteps, but it was still a beautiful dance (my goodness, ever-the-stickler Len even liked it), with some very graceful, sweet moments. Oh wait, I forgot. Black women aren't supposed to be graceful; we only like them when their booties are "bionic" and their dances are raunchy. Or, as Bruno said, "You tried to be a lady, but you're more comfortable being a tramp!" Um. Wow.
Let's tally things up, shall we? Lil' Kim has been consistently good, has excellent rhythm, and is a phenomenal performer. Ty has been consistently iffy, has no rhythm, and couldn't perform his way out of a corral.
Clearly, I don't get "American viewers" and how they vote. Or, actually, I think do get it. That's what scares me.
My parents have been watching DWTS since it first aired, which is pretty miraculous to me since, up until recently, they barely watched any television at all. But I suppose it's because they're big fans of ballroom dancing and have been taking lessons and dancing together for the past twelve years. In fact, they got me into ballroom dancing when I was fourteen; I even briefly contemplated taking it up professionally when I was a teenager, but school commitments and other things came up and it just didn't happen. They also got me watching the show, although it took until this season for me to really become a fan.
At the beginning, my allegiance was split between Gilles Marini and Shawn Johnson--because Gilles was awesome, even early on, and I was such a huge fan of Shawn's plucky determination (and sheer unflappable optimism) during the Beijing Olympics (I also have a begrudging appreciation for Melissa Rycroft's dancing...but don't tell anyone). But rather rapidly, over the last few weeks, Lil' Kim and Derek stole my heart. Sure, I like Lil' Kim's music, but her celebrity has nothing to do with my adoration of her as a dancer.
DWTS brought out a side of Lil' Kim America hadn't really seen before. Instead of the tough-as-nails, "Queen Bee" rapper who gleefully tossed about obscenities and explicit sexual references, she revealed herself to be funny and a little shy and deeply committed, not to mention charmingly insecure despite her hip-hop cred. On the show, more than any of the other celebrities, Lil' Kim to me seemed remarkably human. The vast majority of her dances were excellent because she worked hard and, most importantly, because she's an incredible performer.
And, yes, part of her performance persona is that sexy, hip-thrusting style she's adapted from her hip-hop career, but I think she was never really given a chance to show other facets of her talent. In fact, every time she performed a dance that wasn't "raunchy" or "passionate" enough, she was penalized.
The judges were clearly very taken with Lil' Kim, and as shocked as I was that she was eliminated this week, but even in the final, tearful moments after her elimination, they were lamenting the loss of her "bionic booty."
Apparently, no matter how good she is, a woman of color is still judged on her "passion" and her ass (oh, er, her "assets," as they said tonight--haha). I'd like to see what would happen if Bruno told Melissa Rycroft to work her "bangin' rack"! Can you imagine?
(I could write volumes about the blatant racism of the judges' comments to Lil' Kim--especially when they were being "complimentary"--as opposed to how they address the other dancers, but...that will have to wait until I'm not, you know, trying to finish a dissertation.)
Just to be clear, I'm not angry because my favorite dancer was eliminated. Honestly, if Lil' Kim had gotten to the semi-finals and then had been beaten by someone equally good, like Gilles or Mellisa or even Shawn, I wouldn't have cared...much. But when the person who wins out over Lil' Kim is the one person left on the show who has absolutely no innate talent whatsoever? Well, then my feathers get a little ruffled.
Ty Murray is not a good dancer. He seems like a perfectly nice guy, I have no problems with him personally, and he's improved remarkably over the past few weeks. I'll even give him props for his Argentine Tango last week, which was pretty good...on a relative scale. However, he's stiff and stilted, still hasn't developed a sense a rhythm or movement after months of training and is simply worlds away from any of the other four couples.
I hate to speculate on things like this. What do I know, really? But I find it hard to believe that America didn't vote for Lil' Kim just because her waltz last week wasn't as good as it could have been. If that were the reasoning behind people voting, then Ty wouldn't have made it past the third week. It seems pretty clear to me that Lil' Kim's elimination this week has way more to do with people's privileging of the "All-American," white cowboy--clearly held to a different (lower) standard than any of the female contestants--and preconceived notions about how women of color are supposed to perform for us and how they're supposed to act.
And about yesterday's waltz? While I'm no professional by any means, I think I have a little more ballroom knowledge than the average Joe. Like Carrie Ann said, there were a few missteps, but it was still a beautiful dance (my goodness, ever-the-stickler Len even liked it), with some very graceful, sweet moments. Oh wait, I forgot. Black women aren't supposed to be graceful; we only like them when their booties are "bionic" and their dances are raunchy. Or, as Bruno said, "You tried to be a lady, but you're more comfortable being a tramp!" Um. Wow.
Let's tally things up, shall we? Lil' Kim has been consistently good, has excellent rhythm, and is a phenomenal performer. Ty has been consistently iffy, has no rhythm, and couldn't perform his way out of a corral.
Clearly, I don't get "American viewers" and how they vote. Or, actually, I think do get it. That's what scares me.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
A critical look at Avenue Q
I very much liked Avenue Q when it came out 5 or so years ago. It seemed witty, intelligent, and socially relevant - even if it was rather vulgar. Not to mention, it was pretty funny. I hadn't heard it in a while, though, so today I pulled out (or rather, clicked up) the soundtrack.
It was... less than impressive. Avenue Q just wasn't quite how I'd remembered it.
It's not the pervasive sex, or the overall message (which is okay, I suppose), or the gay storyline (which was handled fairly well) or anything big like that. It's more that, despite purporting to be different, to attack societal stereotypes, Avenue Q fall into them on a regular basis. Take, say, racism:
Now, they're obviously not in favor of racism. But they seem to think that acknowledging racism it makes it just fine in small amounts. There's definitely something wrong with this - thinking that 'mexican busboy's should learn to speak goddamn english" also causes you to not want to hire them, for example. The question, of course, is whether the satire is honest (the song is truthful) or whether the joke is on micro-racism itself. A quick check around the Internet shows that everyone else is uncomfortable too - which shows that it is definitely a problem. Come to think of it, Avenue Q seems to have a real problem with people generally:
Now, when I first heard this, I thought it was hilarious. (I was a good deal more cynical and angry back then.) But seeing someone suffer shouldn't make you feel good! It should make you feel worse. It's not even worth laughing about. And I don't think there's a good argument here (as there was with 'Everyone's a Little Bit Racist') that they are really making fun of people who laugh at others. It's more of a black humor sort of feeling, minus the subtlety that would make it work as such.
But it's the women that are the most offensive, and not in an empowering way. Lucy is a Slut (with a capital S). Ha. Then, she becomes a born-again Christian. Double ha. The big question is, of course, what's wrong with any of those? Shouldn't she be able to do what she wants? But she moves from bad to bad, and it seemingly escapes any commentary.
Kate Monster has many redeeming qualities (and an actual purpose!), but she apparently needs a boyfriend to really complete her life. Lovely.
Worst of all is Gary Coleman. (Who is played by a female singer, if you didn't know.) When I first saw Avenue Q, this seemed quirky, fun, different. Now, it just seems like they're saying, "Look at this loser. He's such a loser, he's no better than a woman." After all, the writers have stated that Coleman was supposed to be a symbol of failure. Apparently, failure is synonymous with being female.
What do you think? Perhaps I'm over-thinking this. Or perhaps I'm just too dense to truly see between the lines. But just I couldn't help but be disappointed and sad at listening to Avenue Q.
It was... less than impressive. Avenue Q just wasn't quite how I'd remembered it.
It's not the pervasive sex, or the overall message (which is okay, I suppose), or the gay storyline (which was handled fairly well) or anything big like that. It's more that, despite purporting to be different, to attack societal stereotypes, Avenue Q fall into them on a regular basis. Take, say, racism:
Now, they're obviously not in favor of racism. But they seem to think that acknowledging racism it makes it just fine in small amounts. There's definitely something wrong with this - thinking that 'mexican busboy's should learn to speak goddamn english" also causes you to not want to hire them, for example. The question, of course, is whether the satire is honest (the song is truthful) or whether the joke is on micro-racism itself. A quick check around the Internet shows that everyone else is uncomfortable too - which shows that it is definitely a problem. Come to think of it, Avenue Q seems to have a real problem with people generally:
Now, when I first heard this, I thought it was hilarious. (I was a good deal more cynical and angry back then.) But seeing someone suffer shouldn't make you feel good! It should make you feel worse. It's not even worth laughing about. And I don't think there's a good argument here (as there was with 'Everyone's a Little Bit Racist') that they are really making fun of people who laugh at others. It's more of a black humor sort of feeling, minus the subtlety that would make it work as such.
But it's the women that are the most offensive, and not in an empowering way. Lucy is a Slut (with a capital S). Ha. Then, she becomes a born-again Christian. Double ha. The big question is, of course, what's wrong with any of those? Shouldn't she be able to do what she wants? But she moves from bad to bad, and it seemingly escapes any commentary.
Kate Monster has many redeeming qualities (and an actual purpose!), but she apparently needs a boyfriend to really complete her life. Lovely.
Worst of all is Gary Coleman. (Who is played by a female singer, if you didn't know.) When I first saw Avenue Q, this seemed quirky, fun, different. Now, it just seems like they're saying, "Look at this loser. He's such a loser, he's no better than a woman." After all, the writers have stated that Coleman was supposed to be a symbol of failure. Apparently, failure is synonymous with being female.
What do you think? Perhaps I'm over-thinking this. Or perhaps I'm just too dense to truly see between the lines. But just I couldn't help but be disappointed and sad at listening to Avenue Q.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
On the recent community firestorm...
As you may have noticed, there was a bit of an internal fight in the feminist blogging community these last two weeks. It started with this post and ended, as much as it could, anyway, with an apology from the authors. If you missed it (and you very well might have - more proof of how wrong it was!), it was basically an attempt to show how the big feminist blogs exploit little blogs/WOC. A couple of the best analysis/rebuttals can be found here and here.
I really wanted to say something about the whole mess, but just don't feel I have anything to add. I think I'll play a song instead:
I really wanted to say something about the whole mess, but just don't feel I have anything to add. I think I'll play a song instead:
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Tell It WOC Speak Carnival
The first WOC and ally carnival is up at Renee's awesome new blog Tell It WOC Speak.
By way of introduction, Renee writes
By way of introduction, Renee writes
Welcome everyone to what I hope will be the first of many blog carnivals dedicated to the voices of women of colour and our allies. In every sphere of life women of colour are marginalized and exploited. Often, when we attempt to engage to change our circumstances we are silenced. This carnival is our attempt to give voice to our shared issues. We have a strong history of activism and organizing and it is in this vein that we have chosen this space to highlight the various ways we have attempted to carve out a niche in the online world. We shall not be silenced, and our dreams shall be realized. We are women of quality and worth.It's an impressive collection of posts and I highly recommend everyone hop on over and visit it now and not a moment later.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Characters Unite
Check out this new campaign from USA Network called Characters Unite:
Click here to sign the pledge, which reads:
(H/T Queers United)
Click here to sign the pledge, which reads:
As a character of the USA, I hold these truths to be self-evident--that life is richer and we are stronger as a country when we see beyond stereotypes and appreciate each other for the characters that we are. I take this pledge to stand against prejudice, intolerance, and hate, and promote greater acceptance and understanding in my daily life. After all, characters are what makes us USA.I know that as much as this is a public service announcement for tolerance, understanding and acceptance it's also an advertisement for the USA network. But, you know what? When this is the kind of marketing being used (as opposed to this), when the company is actively showing support for differences of race, ethnicity, sex, gender and sexual orientation, I'm okay with a little self-promotion on the side.
(H/T Queers United)
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Suggestions Please!: Radical/WOC/Alternative/Global Feminist Blogs
Ojibway Migisi Bineshii and I are trying to generate a list of 100 (or so) radical/alternative/racially- and ethnically-diverse feminist/gender blogs as a companion/alternative to this list. We would LOVE your suggestions! Please leave links in the comments (if you think your own blog fits the bill, that's great too) and we'll post the list to both our blogs once it's compiled.
Thanks in advance, and please do forward this post to friends and/or ask for suggestions far and wide. We'd like to amass as diverse and comprehensive a list as possible!
Thanks in advance, and please do forward this post to friends and/or ask for suggestions far and wide. We'd like to amass as diverse and comprehensive a list as possible!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Obeying orders
I went to see a Dar Williams concert last night at the Boulder Theater. She was incredible, as always, and she played her new song "Buzzer," which meditates on Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiments from the early 1960s.
The song:
(Lyrics here)
For those who don't know, the Milgram experiment was designed to understand how people respond to authority and how far they are willing to go to obey authority figures even if what they're being asked to do is harmful to another human being. Some people aren't convinced that Milgram's experiment was scientifically-viable in terms of the conclusions he drew from the results, but nevertheless the experiment is still relevant.
Milgram advertised the experiment, conducted at Yale University, as learning study in which one person would administer increasingly strong shocks to another person whenever they answered certain questions wrong. The actual experiment--which wasn't shared until after all the results were collected--was seeing how many people would be willing to go to the maximum voltage of shock treatment if they were told to do so by an authority figure (Milgram himself). The results were astounding: most participants went all the way up to the highest voltage even when the person being shocked (who was an actor only pretending to be shocked) screamed in pain and begged them to stop.
In an essay querying, "When is it proper to refuse to obey authority figures, even if they have been democratically chosen for their positions?" a man who took part in the original Milgram experiment explains, "The results of the Milgram experiment should not surprise us. Most people unquestioningly obey orders from authorities, and refusal is unusual. As children, after all, we are taught to obey our parents, teachers, employers and law enforcement officers."
Have times changed? Would most people go into an experiment like this nowadays and blatantly refuse to participate? Last year, ABC News re-created the experiment with similar results (although their testing pool was quite small and, hence, not a scientific cross-section).
Milgram was interested in understanding the cause behind "evil" actions and, in particular, how fascism takes root among "ordinary" citizens. But I don't need to conduct an experiment in order to see that some McCain-Palin supporters, with their racist, scary mob mentality, are running headlong in that direction:
H/T Feministing
The song:
(Lyrics here)
For those who don't know, the Milgram experiment was designed to understand how people respond to authority and how far they are willing to go to obey authority figures even if what they're being asked to do is harmful to another human being. Some people aren't convinced that Milgram's experiment was scientifically-viable in terms of the conclusions he drew from the results, but nevertheless the experiment is still relevant.
Milgram advertised the experiment, conducted at Yale University, as learning study in which one person would administer increasingly strong shocks to another person whenever they answered certain questions wrong. The actual experiment--which wasn't shared until after all the results were collected--was seeing how many people would be willing to go to the maximum voltage of shock treatment if they were told to do so by an authority figure (Milgram himself). The results were astounding: most participants went all the way up to the highest voltage even when the person being shocked (who was an actor only pretending to be shocked) screamed in pain and begged them to stop.
In an essay querying, "When is it proper to refuse to obey authority figures, even if they have been democratically chosen for their positions?" a man who took part in the original Milgram experiment explains, "The results of the Milgram experiment should not surprise us. Most people unquestioningly obey orders from authorities, and refusal is unusual. As children, after all, we are taught to obey our parents, teachers, employers and law enforcement officers."
Have times changed? Would most people go into an experiment like this nowadays and blatantly refuse to participate? Last year, ABC News re-created the experiment with similar results (although their testing pool was quite small and, hence, not a scientific cross-section).
Milgram was interested in understanding the cause behind "evil" actions and, in particular, how fascism takes root among "ordinary" citizens. But I don't need to conduct an experiment in order to see that some McCain-Palin supporters, with their racist, scary mob mentality, are running headlong in that direction:
H/T Feministing
Monday, October 13, 2008
Columbus Day Linkage
Some great posts on what it means to celebrate Columbus Day and why there's really nothing to celebrate:
Día de la Resistencia Indígena, Womanist Musings
A Day that Lives in Infamy, elle, phd
Happy Día de la Raza!, Nezua
Columbus Day Observed, Mamita Mala
Speaking of racism, The Bilerco Project analyzes the McCain campaign's scary race tactics and its effects and Tim Wise weighs in on the cost of silence.
And Cara at The Curvature decries another one of those awful, "provocative" victim-blaming anti-rape PSAs.
On the flip side, on an amusing/day-making note, my hero Tina Fey says she'll leave the planet if McCain-Palin win:
Día de la Resistencia Indígena, Womanist Musings
A Day that Lives in Infamy, elle, phd
Happy Día de la Raza!, Nezua
Columbus Day Observed, Mamita Mala
Speaking of racism, The Bilerco Project analyzes the McCain campaign's scary race tactics and its effects and Tim Wise weighs in on the cost of silence.
And Cara at The Curvature decries another one of those awful, "provocative" victim-blaming anti-rape PSAs.
On the flip side, on an amusing/day-making note, my hero Tina Fey says she'll leave the planet if McCain-Palin win:
The "SNL" veteran who has come back to play the Republican Vice Presidential candidate (and whose own show, "30 Rock," is still nowhere to be seen), said, "We're gonna take it week by week. If she wins, I'm done. I can't do that for four years. And by 'I'm done,' I mean I'm leaving Earth."
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Feminist Flashback #6
Foxy Brown, 1974
(Warning: There's some offensive language and imagery in this trailer, including the use of the "N" word. But it was the best overview of the film I could find. I apologize if it offends anyone.)
A quick caveat for this week's feminist flashback: not everyone would categorize blaxploitation as feminist since it is, by definition, about exploitation of certain racial and gendered tropes. Significantly, blaxploitation is a genre very-much based in the 1970s – urban crime, the war on drugs, post-civil rights. Gary Morris’s article on the genre in Bright Lights Film Journal defines it fairly well:
Many people -- particularily reviewers -- found (and find) blaxploitation films to be degrading and unrealistic. However, in a 1977 interview, Pam Grier (star of Foxy Brown, among other things) stated
Even though it's violent, hyper-sexualized and gratuitous, I love Foxy Brown because Pam Grier's character is kick-ass. What do you all think? How do we define feminism in text when so many other factors--violence against women (and men), racist stereotypes, revenge, etc.--seem counter to that ideal?
(Warning: There's some offensive language and imagery in this trailer, including the use of the "N" word. But it was the best overview of the film I could find. I apologize if it offends anyone.)
A quick caveat for this week's feminist flashback: not everyone would categorize blaxploitation as feminist since it is, by definition, about exploitation of certain racial and gendered tropes. Significantly, blaxploitation is a genre very-much based in the 1970s – urban crime, the war on drugs, post-civil rights. Gary Morris’s article on the genre in Bright Lights Film Journal defines it fairly well:
The plots of most of these films — and they are conventionalized enough to confidently treat them as a group — are pastiches of old Warner Bros. melodramas, with dashes of MGM fashion glamor — via the street — thrown in. Most are gangster melodramas with elements of social protest, dominated by a single (male or female) charismatic personality. They fall loosely into two overlapping categories. First are the stories of the pimp or pusher at a crisis point, caught between the needs of his people (black nationalism) and sellout pressure from The Man. […] The second is the straight-on revenge drama, in which a character — often female, more violent and less conflicted than her male counterpart — single-handedly destroys a white-based power structure that's harmed her, her family, and by extension the black community.
Many people -- particularily reviewers -- found (and find) blaxploitation films to be degrading and unrealistic. However, in a 1977 interview, Pam Grier (star of Foxy Brown, among other things) stated
I feel I portray all images of a woman on all levels because I am product of my environment. As far as people insisting that I have been cast in blaxploitation movies, I don't know what black exploit means. All the roles I have had were reflections of our society. Those were real people from real elements. The heroiness I portrayed always showed concern for the terrifying social conditions and it is only in this area that I feel I meld with the screen characters I depicted.
Even though it's violent, hyper-sexualized and gratuitous, I love Foxy Brown because Pam Grier's character is kick-ass. What do you all think? How do we define feminism in text when so many other factors--violence against women (and men), racist stereotypes, revenge, etc.--seem counter to that ideal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)