In the category of satire - not!

A friend of mine sent me a link to an article from on online magazine reporting on an ineffective attempt at satire in a Long Island newspaper. The author of the article in The Independent, Rick Murphy, is apparently the newspapers co-publisher, co-owner, and Editor-In-Chief. In the column he poses as "Yo Mama Bin Barack" who seeks the presidency and displays stereotypical black ineloquence ("we won't denigrate or sophisticate but emulate and populate") and stereotypical black male aggression ("if [Clinton] gets too close, one of my New York advisors has advised me to, 'Bitch slap that ho.'"). The editor of the online newspaper, a black women's webzine, wrote to the editor of The Independent asking for an explanation and received an apology.

I am happy to report that I find this shocking. Not surprising, especially given what I've been told about Long Island, but shocking nonetheless. It will be a sad day when we stop being shocked by crap like this.

Murphy's column is clearly a poor, distasteful and bigoted attempt at satire. However, I would argue that the target of this bigotry wasn't solely Barack Obama. Obama is only the frame in which the author paints a more pernicious contempt of highly educated African Americans who seek social mobility and political power.

Murphy really begins by targeting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by denigrating his PhD in Theology. Granted, as a doctoral candidate, I'm a little bit sensitive to anything that smacks of anti-intellectualism. But the disparagement of the title "Doctor" continues throughout the piece. Given that the highest degree that Obama has obtained is a law degree, it is clear that Obama is not the exclusive target of this "satire". Murphy ends the column by denigrating the title Reverend. Given that Obama has no training in religious leadership and has not publicized holding any leadership positions in his own church, who is Murphy satirizing?

Education and religious leadership have historically been the two most reliable ways to move up the social and economic ladder in the black community, the latter being one in which the white (male) majority cannot control. In total, the column is not just a poor attempt to demean Obama or even Dr. King. It is hostile to all African Americans who have achieved or even seek any kind of social mobility by using the authority that comes through the attainment of advanced degrees or the authority that derives from religious leadership.

Which leaves open the question, when is it ever acceptable for a Black person, or any other non-white, to seek high political office? What combinations of qualities would the white man who wrote this drivel accept in a Black, Asian, or Latino candidate? Are there any? As my friend noted to me in an email this morning, perhaps there are none, at least for people like this. People like Rick Murphy will use the talents and credentials that enable some to disable others. You can even see it in his apology letter where he addresses the editor of the webzine by her first name when she addressed him by a more formal salutation. Apparently, she is not even good enough to be called "Ms.". Despite all of the progress that is seemingly being made, sometimes it seems little as changed.

Gender, civil rights and hope

In this presidential election, the mass media (mainstream and blogosphere alike) are focusing on the race versus gender card in the Democratic contest. May I start out by stating that this discussion is nothing but a days worth of manure from an industrial hog farm. Black men and women are voting for Clinton and white men and women are voting for Obama and vice versa. Have we not yet learned that people cannot always be reduced to their demographics?

I would also like to make it clear that feminism, or the effort to secure equal and equitable rights and opportunities for women to live and work in society free from discrimination and fear, is a civil rights concern. I do not claim to be a "feminist", at least not in the burn-your-bra, all-men-are-oppressors form. But the overall goals of feminism to allow women to choose to go to school, to play sports, to work in any field they choose, to choose whether or not to get married and to whom, or whether or not to have children and how, to vote, to travel and even check into a hotel without a husband are exactly the same goals that non-whites and other marginalized groups have sought. The feminism versus civil rights discussion is another truckload of chicken litter that serves no one but people who profit from divisiveness.

For me, this also isn't about substance versus charisma. I am a policy wonk. There's nothing I appreciate more than a well crafted policy. The books on my Amazon wishlist are policy books. I regularly seek out critical evaluations of policies in areas that I don't even work in just out of curiousity (guess what - Amber Alerts don't work).

The reason why Clinton is losing favor with people is not because she's all steak and Obama is all sizzle, as some have implied. This assertion is simply offensive. Obama has substantive policy proposals as well, some of which I don't entirely agree with and some of Clinton's proposals need either more work or a reality check. Also, Clinton does have her own charm. She's a powerful person who has survived personal and political attacks for most of her public life. There's a steadiness, steeliness, and a level-headedness that I might otherwise find attractive in a presidential candidate in these times. And despite everything I say below, if she is the nominee, I will vote for her.

With that said, Clinton's problems are in part related to her messaging. Obama's message about hope is attractive right now because people in this country are suffering or they are in a position to legitimately fear suffering in the very near future. Clinton has summarily dismissed this message as worthy of public discussion. That very dismissal is what makes her unattractive to me. I read somewhere that if you take away people's hope, you may be taking away the only thing they have. By dismissing the importance of hope in this day of economic insecurity and war you are dismissing the nature of humanity.

Even as someone who believes very strongly in the role of policy wonks and the technocracy in politics, I believe even more strongly that policy decisions should be made based on values that recognize people's essential humanity. We can't get decent immigration laws passed because our leadership has failed to see immigrants has human beings who deserve the same opportunities to work, go to school, play sports, live in a safe community, and do all of those other things that civil rights activists have fought for. We can't seem to put enough money in our urban schools for the same reason. We can't even get the president or the CIA to say that torture is wrong (not just illegal) because "terrorists" are apparently not human beings. Clinton's failure to see the importance of hope in society tells me that she does not necessarily see the humanity in the policies that she fights so hard for.

The basis of my vote this time around

In past elections I have always based my vote on the candidate whose position on social issues is closest to mine. I look at things like their position on abortion, civil rights, environmental protection, consumer protection, financial support for higher education, and (as of late), war.

Recent personal events have forced me to re-prioritize my issues of concern. I now look more closely at the candidate's position on economic issues. I have never really paid much attention to that in the past, except where those positions intersect with social issues (like increasing federal grants for college). Now, I am much more interested in where the candidate stands on tax policy, extension of unemployment benefits, and general spending policies.

Every economist of any regard has said that we are heading into a recession. The most cautious don't bother to try to predict how long it will last. However, even if the country begins to improve mid-summer, as some optimists suggest, the effects on the middle class, working class, and the poor will linger much longer. At least not without some serious intervention by the government.

I am lucky that I am involved in the kind of work that keeps me employed pretty much all of the time. Not always full time, but nonetheless employed. I am also lucky that my husband works under a union contract that virtually guarantees his employment for at least the next 3 years. However, my father is not so lucky. His company, a large national printing operation, is shutting down. He will be out of a job in 6 months, maybe less. It appears that they will have to sell their home of 20 years, a house they were hoping to give to one of my sisters and her new family, in order to weather this period. My sister is in no position to buy a house right now. As my mother says, how do you take twenty years of memories and move them to a smaller place?

This is the human element of this economic crisis. But it forces me to look at the candidate whose policy proposals will support people like my parents. I want a president and Congress who will extend unemployment benefits. I want universal health insurance. I want a realistic poverty line and food stamps to be extended to the working class. I want homeowner protections from unscrupulous mortgage brokers and laws that prevent people from signing onto mortgages they cannot afford. I don't need this for myself. I want this for my parents and my sisters and every one else like them.

As an independent voter, and someone who takes that seriously, I will have to even give the Republican candidates a look. I am looking for the candidate who has the political will or creativity to support the increasing numbers of people like my parents. If the Democratic nominee isn't willing or able to do that, then I may have to vote with the other side this time.

Racialized views of undocumented immigrants

When I talk about immigration in my classes, one of my favorite questions to ask is: who is an "illegal" immigrant. Most of my students think all undocumented immigrants are Latin American. I then show them a group picture of undocumented immigrants receiving assistance from a local immigration center here in Boston. With only a handful of exceptions, the group of about two dozen people are white. I would imagine that they are probably Irish. My students are usually dumbfounded. Depending on the time available we discuss whether it changes their view of the issue. Most of my students need more time to think it through. Or at least time to forget what they just saw.

Today in the Boston Globe, Kevin Cullen wrote about a local undocumented immigrant who died of pneumonia. As he states, no one will ever know if the young man didn't go to the hospital because of fear of getting caught and deported, "stubborn pride", or simple lack of knowledge. The young man in the article is Irish.

I give Cullen credit for humanizing the often overheated rhetoric around immigration. If you listen too much to the likes of Lou Dobbs, it would be very easy to forget or ignore the fact that immigrants are human beings. Strategically, Cullen's article is helpful in showing people, mainly white Americans, that undocumented immigrants are not some unknowable "other". Undocumented immigrants are, and look, just like them.

And that is also why I find this article discomfitting. Human beings have a knack for rationalizing contradictory rules in order to reduce cognitive dissonance. This means that behavior that is considered unacceptable for some is excused for others. This happens in race relations all the time. Even today, it is o.k. for white men to have sexual relations with women of color, however there is widespread discomfort when black men have sexual relations with white women. Studies of the sentences given to white men versus black men who have committed murder find that the harshness of the sentence is significantly related to the race of the victim; black murderers of white victims get considerably longer sentences and are more likely to receive capital punishment than white murderers of black victims. In this case, Cullen's article may simply lead white people to forgive the undocumented status of this Irishman but continue to view undocumented Latinos and Asians as criminal.

The Irishman in the article was hardworking, skilled, and employed. There is no mention of whether he paid his taxes, or whether his employers made their Social Security and Medicare contributions as they are supposed to. I would bet that most would assume that he did, if only because he is white. I would also bet that an equally sympathetic portrayal of a hardworking, skilled Latino immigrant would be met with accusations or at least assumptions of not paying taxes and taking jobs away from people who are allegedly "entitled" to those jobs.

Cullen's article is necessary in order to inject a little bit of rationality and understanding in this discussion. It is may also unfortunately have the effect of reifying racialized understandings of which "illegal" immigrants deserve sympathy. It is time to see the immigration debate as one based primarily on race. An undocumented Irishman faces the same risks and likely harbors the same fears as an undocumented Latino. Except that I doubt that South Boston or Dorchester is on ICE's list of next likely places to raid. I would bet that if an ICE agent walked into the Eire Pub, it would be to have a beer after coming from community sweeps of Chelsea or New Bedford.

Why I might vote for Obama

I realized the other day that I have become inclined to vote for Obama, despite some reservations I have about some of his positions, because I have become more conscious of the racism in this country. When I lived in California, I was a member of the largest non-white group in the state and the large demographic group in So.Cal. Almost everyone I went to school with at CSULA was non-white. Everyone I worked with was Latino and, if I wanted to move up in my profession, others would see me as white and I would still be Latina. Granted, I lived in L.A. during the governorship of Pete Wilson, which I see now as the beginning of the contemporary wave of anti-Latino sentiment. But I don't think I felt the level racism that his policies embodied because when I looked around, I saw my people everywhere. They were definitely in low paying janitorial jobs at my college and they were picking strawberries in Ventura County. But they were also reporters on the news, they were sitting on the city council, they were teachers, doctors, lawyers and business owners.

Moving out to the East Coast where I was truly in the minority really opened my eyes to this thing called racism and the issue of race relations. It also made me more aware of my white skin privilege. Here people took it for granted that I was white and would say things to me or in front of me that they would never say in front of my darker skinned parents or my long-haired, mustachoed, Mexican American husband. Moreover, many white people here are so racist they don't even see the racism in their words and deeds. In California, white racists owned their racism. Here, they don't see the prejudice in making assertions about who deserves to have access to a college education, to be able to get health care, to be provided the same rights in the criminal justice system, to even be in this country. And pointing it out to them just makes them either really uncomfortable or really angry. They aren't racist. They have friends who are brown. They give scholarships to brown people all the time. They don't necessarily want too many them sitting on the board of directors of local organizations, but they are happy with providing them with social services and other benefits. We aren't racist, they say, because we give them free after school tutoring and basketball uniforms.

I also think my experience with a friend's campaign for the state legislature this last summer reinforced to me that we have a long way to go to improve race relations. This became clear not just because the campaign brought out the racism that I already knew existed in this neighborhood, but because of the blindness to racism among these white "progressives" who were assisting us. These folks, although clearly understanding and sympathetic to the issue of racism and prejudice, had also clearly never seen it. They not only did not know how to handle racist comments when confronted with them, they still could not get themselves to see that people still do believe these things. Whenever confronted with it, it was treated as a fluke and not a norm. In fact, it is the norm in this neighborhood and in many others. It may be more overt here and more subtly pernicious elsewhere. But racism and prejudice is alive and well and I see that more clearly today than ever before.

I suppose I hope that if Obama were to be elected president, maybe, just maybe, it might start to change the way white people think about non-white people. Maybe they would see us as less of a threat. Maybe they would be willing to open up their neighborhoods, their loan funds, and their play groups to us. Maybe the teachers, school counselors, and administrators will be less likely to write so many of us off. Maybe, just maybe, it might inspire black and brown folks to believe that things could actually be different for them. Maybe the lack of hope that pervades our brown and black neighborhoods would ebb just enough so that there is one less excuse for believing that doing well in school is "acting white", one less excuse for the drug dealing, gun slinging, gang banging way of life. Maybe the apathy will subside just enough to get people out to vote and involved in their local schools, local non-profit organizations, or at least involved with their neighbors.

Yes, it is a vote for the symbol. But, no more so than voting for Clinton because she is a woman. When there is little difference between candidates on the issues, don't we then vote on ideology? Don't you then vote for the person who symbolizes, and hopefully will put into action, a world that you would like to see made into reality? Obama symbolizes the hope that maybe this country can get past the specter of race so that brown and black peoples can finally have the freedoms and opportunities promised to us.

Gender roles in the postmodern era

I just returned from a wedding. It was one of the most fun weddings I've ever been to. Even my husband danced. I was hoarse at the end of the night from singing and shouting. It was great.

In addition to a soundtrack that included songs from my generation, there was a really interesting twist in the evenings obligatory speeches. Usually, the father of the bride is teary-eyed, the maid of honor (or bride's best friend in this case) is sappy and emotional, and the best man is funny, often making use of double-entendres. But not at this wedding. In this case, the father of the bride was teary-eyed, but it was the best man who could hardly get through his speech. And the bridesmaid/best friend was absolutely hilarious. The best man had to stop at one point to catch his breath and find his notes. The bridesmaid gave the new husband advice on how to live with his new wife, including telling him that it is really, really important to watch the Twilight Zone marathon with her.

There's a lot to criticize in our new postmodern era, particularly when it comes to gender roles. But I think it is great that a man can get up during a wedding and get choked up over his best friend's marriage and that a woman can make the jokes and the double entendres. We live in a good time.

Ideology versus ethnic politics

I've been ruminating over my recent experience helping a friend in a local election. We did not win. It is painful to accept, but not entirely surprising.

In our recent wrap up conversations, the issue of what to do next is the main topic of conversation. In these conversations, the group appears to bounce back and forth between pursuing a progressive agenda and paving the path for a more electable progressive candidate or continuing the try to elect a Latino/a. While these are not mutually exclusive endeavors, they are two different foci. If you focus on the former, then we don't worry about the ethnic background of the person we support, as long as they are ideologically progressive. If you focus on the latter, then we have to work to overcome the anti-immigrant sentiment that exists here, in addition to organizing, educating, helping eligible immigrants become citizens, and voter registration.

I'm torn about this. In principle, I am much more in favor of an alliance of progressives that is inclusive of all groups. I do not believe that ethnic politics is useful in the long term. Ethnocentrism too easily morphs into racism, as Latinos in East Boston are now experiencing. Ideologically based coalitions who share common values are longer lasting and more powerful than coalitions comprised of people who have only one thing in common. The Latino ethnic identity is too transient, too squishy, and too unreliable a characteristic to create a long lasting political coalition here. There are too many different national groups, too many different generational differences among those national groups, and the supply isn't as readily replenished as seen in the Southwest.

At the same time, an issues based coalition will not necessarily be able to do the really hard work of overcoming the xenophobia, racism, and sexism that surfaced in this past election. An issues based coalition works to get various issues addressed. This often does not require dealing with the electorate, but instead dealing with decision makers and leaders. It does not necessarily result in a change in leadership or opportunities for leadership.

I'm not sure which way is the best way to go, and whether there is a third way that balances these concerns. I do feel like we need to decide soon, otherwise this group will either splinter or will simply dissipate.