Problem Chylde

Newest place is here.  http://problemchylde.wordpress.com

Blogger pisses me off.

I've decided to use WordPress in lieu of Blogger because WordPress seems slightly less psychotic. I think Blogger's in a transitional mode, so it's being stupid as hell.

My new blog is http://antiessentialistspeaksup.wordpress.com/ and I've transferred everything over except comments because I don't know how. :(

Come on over and bookmark me! I'll leave this up for a couple of weeks before deleting it.

Interesting article/thoughts

How many people remember that grueling section of The Bluest Eye describing the fate of HBCU-educated Geraldine (wife to Louis and mother to "Junior"), cultivated to serve as one of many black Stepford wives for the "talented tenth," so to speak? She only found sexual pleasure and comfort in her cat.

Most white feminists enjoy talking about confinement to housewifery and plunging into the workplace as a declaration of their intrinsic worth as a person -- but for upper- to middle-class black women, the movement traveled in the opposite direction and the "confinement" became a luxury. If the outside world saw some semblance of the American Dream and the traditional American family in black society, white people rethought its divisions for a moment -- but only a moment. And to a small extent, it made sense contextually. Black women have worked pretty steadily during the times when white women did not. The greatest luxury a black man could extend to a black woman was the prospect of putting her feet up in a home she did not have to clean, a home where he'd be her lover and breadwinner, and she could clean her own house and take care of her own family without compunction. Her joy would be her compensation, and the relationship on the whole would signal to white folk that we shared the same family values. (This conception would probably turn white feminism on its head with its different signals of empowerment.)

The above description is probably too generalized to apply across the board, but I think it's significant in its perspective on the housewife predicament.

---

BAP Like Me
A wayward black American princess sees an unnerving reflection of herself in Condi Rice's efficient soldiering for the Bush administration
By Adrienne Crew, Salon
November 29, 2002

Condoleezza Rice is a cypher -- for most people. Press profiles portray the tough-minded national security advisor as some sort of preternatural mystery. Writers consistently marvel at her articulateness and speculate about her unflappable demeanor. In a review of "The Lives of the Muses: Nine Women & the Artists They Inspired" in the New York Observer, Benjamin Anastas wrote:

"First, a confession: Sometimes I think that Clio, the muse of history, has come to earth in the human form of Condoleezza Rice. Consider her utter certainty, the eerie, distant quality of her voice, and the strange calm she projects at the margins of White House photographs. And I can think of no other explanation -- save, perhaps, the puppy's eagerness to chew on rawhide -- for the exuberance she inspires in President Bush the Younger, her artist ... Just what exactly did happen behind closed doors during the famous 'education process' that resulted in our nation's foreign policy?"

Overlooking, for now, the racist and sexist undertones in this wide-eyed gushing, I have to say that Rice is no mystery to me. She's a BAP -- a bona fide Black American Princess -- who exhibits all the telltale qualities of the category: a razor-sharp proficiency, cool manner and a good daughter's devotion to carrying out orders. Believe me, I ought to know.

I count myself a wayward black American princess. As the editors of last year's "The BAP Handbook: The Official Guide to the Black American Princess" put it, I have been programmed since birth to "strive for perfection" in everything I do, as well as possess a keen sense of entitlement.

The black American princess is a prim, well-groomed, accomplished and articulate woman. In mainstream business culture, she rarely draws any attention to her ethnic heritage. She's often the sole black woman sitting in workplace meetings, or the hard-working, dedicated accomplisher of miracles for her church or community organization. (Not all black educated professional women are BAPs. Oprah Winfrey? Not a BAP, no matter how hard she may try; she's too spontaneous and relaxed -- and she grew up poor.)

The BAP baffles most people by confounding their expectations. Unless prodded, she exhibits no clear racial consciousness and staunchly defends her individualism. She speaks standard American English, rarely switching to the black English vernacular unless forced to by an overly familiar white colleague trying to establish intimacy. She may speak several languages, has likely traveled extensively, and may excel at antiquated avocations and elitist pursuits, like opera singing, violin or lacrosse.

BAPs are the feminine avatars of the black bourgeoisie, the fairer (if not in skin tone) half of a subculture larger and more complex than that limned by the Eastern Seaboard's patrician black Brahmins portrayed in Stephen L. Carter's bestseller "The Emperor of Ocean Park."

This tribe of upper-middle-class African-Americans prides itself on its heirs' ability to assimilate and integrate. Growing up in white suburbs and attending elite schools and institutions of higher learning, black American prince and princesses are immersed in Anglo (often WASP) culture and emerge with modes of speech, behavior and grooming that brand them as "Oreos," black on the outside and white in the middle.

From an early age, BAP matriarchs teach offspring their duty to present a flawless front in public, affirming the superiority of our forebears in defiance of Jim Crow and other racist institutions. BAP mothers also pass on negro noblesse oblige to their children, especially their daughters, who often lead fundraising efforts to support African-American causes. But they're more likely to raise money via debutant cotillions and other social events than car washes and bake sales.

BAP encoding presumes that internalizing white Western culture is a way to combat the historical stigma associated with being African-American. Since Rice is exactly 10 years older than I am, I believe that our parents shared the same belief in this pre-civil rights era acculturation process. Often fiercely proud of their African-American heritage, our parents were either blind to the fact that BAP conditioning is based on the wholesale acceptance of racist and sexist stereotypes about African-Americans generally, or knowingly encouraged us to internalize these painful stereotypes as a form of inoculation against racist perceptions faced in the larger world. So BAP mothers pinched and prodded us, reminding us to stand up straight, clearly enunciate each letter when speaking and never display public emotion (unlike other, poorer African-Americans).

Observers may categorize BAPs in subsets. Like Rice, I'm the bookish black-girl brainiac type. Many of us attended all-girls schools (Rice and myself included), which only intensified our obsession with propriety. I've dubbed this variety the "black bluestocking." Members of this group are easy to spot. Most of us offset intelligence with an earnestly girlish demeanor that's not threatening. I secretly covet April Cornell clothing and own more than five pairs of Mary Janes.

Older men seem to respond most positively to black bluestockings. So I'm not surprised that a series of avuncular mentors -- including academic Josef Korbel and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft -- assisted in Rice's ascent into the foreign-policy power elite. I've experienced this odd connection with older white men myself. When I became the first and only black female associate at a San Francisco white-shoe law firm in the '90s, I established the strongest rapport with the senior partners.

As I prepared to leave the firm after realizing that I detested practicing corporate law, I had one last tête-à-tête with my mentor, who was 30 years my senior. He urged me to hang in there and try to turn things around at the firm. "I feel like I'm talking to one of my kids," he sighed. His words brought tears to my eyes because I shared that familial bond. Black bluestockings have huge dutiful-daughter complexes. We have been programmed to obey and never challenge the expectations of authority.

Rice repeatedly manifests her own dutiful-daughter training. Friends tell me that the former Stanford provost, literally acting in loco parentis, had no problem implementing the campus administration's most painful orders -- cutting budgets, laying off people of color or disavowing solidarity with female professors. Like me, she had been taught to be a good soldier, carrying out orders with efficiency and without regard to social consequences.

Rice's dutiful-daughter role flourishes in the Bush family hierarchy. It began when Rice was a loyal advisor to Papa George during his administration. It continues with Dubya in this administration, though they have more of a cozy sibling dynamic. Isn't it curious that the press never comments on any sexual tension between Rice and President Bush, despite the fact that she's his closest aide? If President Clinton had had a similar relationship with a female aide, the press would have had a field day trying to discover a sexual component to the attachment.

The fact that Rice is attractive without being sexual confirms her (pardon the pun) BAPtist upbringing. As black women, we have been taught not to flaunt our sexuality, thus subverting and preempting the stereotype of the oversexualized black woman.

Condoleezza Rice is the first bona fide black American princess to step into the public limelight since Lena Horne. She's a particularly exotic BAP because she's the first geeky BAP to be in the spotlight. Black male nerds' cultural profile has increased since the 1980s, with the appearance of cartoon characters like Oliver Wendell Jones in "Bloom County" and television characters Steve Urkel of "Family Matters" and Dwayne Wayne of "A Different World." These media images helped us to identify black-geek characteristics in real people like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. But we've never seen a female version, until now. Rice's stiff, processed helmet of a pageboy hairstyle is the black-girl geek equivalent of pundit George Will's bow tie.

And it is Rice's very BAPtitude that led to her success. Her ascension to power shows how the establishment will reward an individual who completely appropriates white behavior and privilege, regardless of race or ethnic background. But it's also her BAPtitude -- and its embodiment of an outmoded "white makes right" philosophy -- that's responsible for whatever African-American animus exists toward Rice.

Make no mistake, BAPdom has its perks. It helped get Rice to the White House. Visibility and privilege grant access to people, places and experiences most people only read about in Dominick Dunne's tales about polite society. Looking back on all the sleepovers, parties and wedding receptions that I've attended, only now do I realize that I was often the only person of color in the room at all, or the only one who was not a servant.

It hurt to disappoint my mentor when I left my high-flying law firm. I knew that ditching the firm was not the action of a dutiful daughter. But I had begun to reexamine my BAPtitude, realizing that the price of maintaining it was too high. BAPtitude can become an insidious mask -- not unlike the one in poet Paul Laurence Dunbar's "We Wear the Mask" -- that conceals the wearer from herself as well as from others. Like some twisted take on a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale (say, "The Red Shoes"), that mask of perfection and poise wears you, instead of you wearing it.

I now struggle to balance my assertion of individuality with expressions of solidarity and concern with African-Americans, most of whom do not share my background and values. Like Rice, I've often refused to succumb to a race-based consciousness -- what economist Glenn Loury called the "figment of the pigment" in his review of "America in Black and White" by social scientists Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom. Yet I can't pretend I don't feel anger and humiliation when I'm confronted with racism. My BAPtitude isn't enough to shut out the racism around me.

I've learned something else, too: A cheerful BAP mask of perfection stifles spontaneous emotional display, often preventing personal connection, which only serves to heighten the wearer's sense of alienation. It's lonely when one's poise ossifies into impenetrability.

I wonder if this is one of the reasons why Rice, like so many other tough-minded BAPs I know, has such a strong religious faith. The Lord is an excellent confidant when someone feels misunderstood. I pray that her Christian compunction overcomes any conservative impulse toward moralism and helps to keep the United States out of war.

Unlike Condi, I've decided to loosen the bindings of my mask and display my imperfections. I've been gratified and occasionally surprised by others' compassion when I dare to display my frustrations and even lose my temper in public. Fewer folks than I feared appear to think less of me for doing so. No one gasps or points fingers. And even if one of them were to do so, I feel as if I can now look back at them with pride and say: "This is me, all of me."

Adrienne Crew is the content licensing manager at Salon. She is working on a novel about black girl geeks.

Another Logical Fallacy I Don't Like: Red Herrings (Or Batshit Crazy Tangents)

1: “That kid should stop playing in traffic. Four-year-olds — all children, for that matter — really should be supervised better.”
2: “Traffic is pretty dangerous, but why do you hate children? And what’s wrong with four-year-old children that you don’t seem to like? I don’t like when cars nearly hit me either, and I don’t even play in traffic! And I’m fifty-seven! But really…were you hit by a car before?”

Shifting Objectifications Solve Nothing -or- How to Oppress a [White] Woman

While the title of this post does connect indirectly to the discussion over at nubian's blog, it also relates to an experience I had in my Contracts class today.

Two key points:

1. Objectification isn't cool, regardless of who uses it.
2. Objectification isn't cool, regardless of who is objectified.

Point 1 is exemplified in that comment thread about Jessica Valenti's new book, Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters. (The comment thread on Feministing's pretty interesting as well.) Using another form of objectifying women to promote something good is still objectifying and commodifying women's bodies. You're using the body part of a woman to market your product. Period. It doesn't matter if you're marketing jewelry, alcohol, guns, feminism, world peace, or Jesus. If you use the body part of a person or the image of a person to sell or to market something, you're using that person as a means to accomplish your own ends. As Kant would say, "That's pretty fucked up." Doesn't matter how much you have in common with the person, either. So, how do you singlehandedly oppress a woman and make her cry? You explain to her that using the tools of the patriarchy to dismantle the patriarchy make you no better than the patriarchy. In other words: you wrong and you ain't special. Besides, shouldn't we question why subversion is powerful and what exactly makes it powerful? What powers are we using, people? And if they're identical to the powers used against us, do our intentions/motivations really matter in the end?

Point 2 happened today in Contracts class. I swear, when our professor gets laid, his personality improves. Today he exchanged cake for giving correct answers in class. (Okay, his new weirdness could link to drugs, but HE HAD CAKE!) Today's class introduced the subject of damages for breaching a contract. We went over the fundamentals of two ways to compensate damages for breach: expectancy and reliance. My notes describe the difference thusly:

Reliance damages measure the difference between post-K (where you are now) and pre-K (where you were before) situations. Expectancy damages weigh the difference between expected results (where you would have been had no breach occurred) and actual results (where you are presently).

Our first case illustrating the weight of these two theories for calculating damages dealt with plastic surgery. (I believe the name of the case is Sullivan v. O'Connor.) The judges deliberating on Sullivan's appeal toed the line between reliance and expectancy calculations. Our main take-away point for the day emphasized that expectancy calculations would result in higher costs than reliance calculations. However, our teacher chose a very...interesting way to illustrate this example.

First, he proclaimed that he wanted to avoid anything that would anger feminists. Since Sullivan involves a "professional entertainer" suing for a botched nose job, our professor switched the facts. He transformed the plaintiff into a male seeking ab construction surgery. Then he "regrettably" drew a scale on the board from 1-10, corresponding of course with any infamous beauty/sexiness ranking scale.

Mr. Sullivan's abs before surgery rated as a 5. However, his "5" abs weren't raking in the sexist chauvinist female pig ladies (and I'm quoting), so he decided to go under the knife to obtain Brad Pitt in Thelma and Louise abdominals (ranked 11 on his scale o' sex). After surgery, poor Mr. Sullivan's abs failed the cut and have sank to a rating of 1. Ouch.

So on this scale, he illustrated the difference between expectancy and reliance. Using the expectancy scale, Mr. Sullivan would collect a hefty penny because the difference between an 11 rating and a 1 rating is a whole fucking lot. To illustrate the reliance rating, our professor then waded deeper into the pool of stupid: he equated Mr. Sullivan's ability to woo women with their level of intoxication at the first meeting. Yes, he went there. He argued that before the operation, Mr. Sullivan only needed three beers to distort the woman's judgment enough in his favor. However, after the botch job, Sullivan will require many more beers for women to ignore his newly created potbelly, so to speak. So his reliance calculations would determine the difference between his post-op situation (1 rating) and his pre-op situation (5 rating).

So after a day of cake sharing, objectification of males, objectification/denigration of females, and a strange streak of quality teaching, our professor calls it a day. We all pack to leave, and my friends realize that my [white] female friend is fuming at this lesson, to the point that she is physically trembling with anger, and she leaves the room immediately after the conclusion of class. I was pissed off as well, but after the last time I became angry about something that affected me deeply, I now try my hardest to focus on the lesson and to let the stupid fade to the background. (This is the same friend that I referenced as an anti-racist sympathizer in my post.)

A few of my friends (of course) did not understand what the big deal was. I mean, he did it with guys! Come on! He left women alone! What's the problem?! Specifically, what is HER problem?! I explained as plaintively and as calmly as I could that it does not matter who is the target of objectification -- objectification is wrong. It is also condescending to think that feminists speak out against patriarchy because they want to establish an equally wrong matriarchy in its stead. Of course, they all just scoffed and rolled their eyes at the whole situation. We Kwazy Lib'wals Wif Owr Kwazy Ideaz.

I referred to this instance in my title as oppression of white women because I found it strange that I did not have as visceral of a response as my friend did. If it were a racist matter, I would have been upset. If it were a racist and sexual matter, I would've cut somebody. But just sexist? Especially a sexist stereotype that's lumped more heavily on the heads of young white women and glosses over other women? Not so much. I wondered why that was.

I think I became jaded after a Philosophical Issues in Feminism undergraduate course where perspectives of women of color emerged nowhere in the curriculum or the discussion unless one of the five women of color made a tangential comment about it. The end-of-term discussion really fucking pissed me off after hearing all these white women around me talk about how ending sexist treatment "trumps" ending racist treatment. Good thing a section of me is saved; I guess the rest of me can go to shit in other ways.

I raised my hand and made the point that eliminating sexism will not be successful until we eliminate racism, homophobia, ablism, transphobia -- we have to tackle all the oppression-laced -isms and cooperate. My white female classmates then informed me that I would unfortunately have to wait until their problems were solved. One of them explicitly turned to me and said, "Yeah, but that stuff can come after we're done with sexism, you know?" As a way to placate me. I don't know how I resisted punching her in the face, especially since I was running on a half-hour's worth of rest for the second day in a row. I remember how livid I was, and I wrote very sloppily on the course evaluation that more course readings written by women of color need incorporation into the course.

So I guess as long as people felt comfortable spitting on different aspects of my identity, I tried to write off my disconnect as an ability to develop affinities and responses to individual violations of them as I please. Today, however, I realized that insulting one part insults the whole being. I can't accept that or tolerate it. The difficulty starts here.

[Consider this entry my answer to Race Changers Challenge #3.]

Get Rid of Affirmative Action to Shield Minorities from the White Man's Crazy

'Cause these UTexas law students brought the crazy in buckets filled with "bling":

A group of first-year law students at the University of Texas at Austin has been chided by the dean for participating in a “Ghetto Fabulous”-themed costume party and posting pictures from it online.

They were law students, of all people. These people will have influences on the legal system of the United States in three years' time. Critical Race Studies & Legal Positivism for the win!

Nick Transier, a first-year student who attended the party in September and posted pictures on his Web site, said nobody meant to offend anyone of any race.

“We had no intention by any measure to choose a group or class of people and make fun of them,” said Transier, 26, of Houston.

Do people know what the word "intent" means any more? Especially law students who study criminal law? Maybe I should break this down a little bit. You know how there are those situations where a guy's aiming a gun at a woman, and saying, "If I can't have you, no one will," and then the gun goes off? From what that guy says, he may not have intended any harm, but his actions don't quite match up with that shoddy declaration of making her his BFF. Uhhh, Bueller?

Also note: this article says "26" and not "2+6," so our expectations of a mature apology...should be gone. What happened at this shuck-'n'-jive suaree, we wonder?

But the photos — in which partygoers carried 40-ounce bottles of malt liquor and wore Afro wigs, necklaces with large medallions and name tags bearing traditionally black and Hispanic names — upset some black law students, said Sophia Lecky, president of the Thurgood Marshall Legal Society.

Hmmm...maybe they're making fun of...umm...Alcoholics-Anonymous-evaders-who-have-
not-cut-their-hair-in-a-really-long-time-and-have-participated-
in-high-school-track-at-a-Harlem-nightclub...

Yeah, that's it.

Surely these can't be regurgitated negative stereotypes of "ghetto" black and Hispanic folk! Can't be! Why on earth would the white man make his burden any heavier? Blessed be! Now, just how many minorities attend this school? Because if this happened in Pale Folk Po-dunk Academy of Legalation (PFPAL), perhaps we can understand. It's always prudent to blame "rednec ks"/"po' white trash"/"KKK"/"CIA"-- oops, that slipped; I meant "Appalachia," wild typo there -- for their lack of book-learnin' and hatin' the darkies.

About 70 of UT’s roughly 1,300 law students are black, according to preliminary enrollment figures. There are about 800 white students, 225 Hispanic students, 75 Asian students, 55 foreign students and 75 whose ethnicities were unknown.

Umm...you mean even diversity couldn't stop the fashion violence and increase the peace? Affirmative action, what have you done?! I bet the kids at this party will be the same ones castigating affirmative action when the topic arises for debate. 'Cause, you know, blacks and Latinos (the noticeable brown folk in the classrooms, excluding some of the Native Americans, often interspersed amongst the white women, Asians, and other-people-who-probably-shouldn't-be-there) just waste their scholarship money on a strong Afro pick, a case of 40's, and a bullhorn for when they cruise into Con Law shouting, "SHOW THEM MY MOTTO!"

Chimps. We are governed by chimps.

However, I am not thoroughly depressed. Robert Jensen, an educator in Texas (and elsewhere, thanks to the internets), put the smack on down and singlehandedly brought thought provoking sexy back:

When one of the first-year University of Texas law students who participated in a "ghetto fabulous" party posted pictures on the web, we saw the ugly face of white privilege and the racism in which it is rooted. But the depth of the problem of white supremacy at the university -- and in mainstream institutions more generally -- is also evident in the polite way in which the university administration chastised the students.

...It was kinda like that scene in Team America where the gang shitbombs some location on faulty intelligence. And Spottswoode turns to their supercomputer, I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E., and he says, "That was bad, I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E. Very bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E." And I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E. replies, "Sorry:"

...First, Sager suggests that some students "might be seriously offended by the party, and especially by the pictures taken at the event."

[Translation: Why the fuck did you take pictures? We could've just said the darkies were hallucinating again, but you took pictures! No tangible evidence! That's it: all you fuckers are taking criminal law over again!]

...Second, the email suggests that the partygoers didn't consider "the potential harm they were causing to UT Law" by doing something that could make some people "feel uncomfortable simply because of who they are."

[Translation: We're not supposed to make the darkies sad DIRECTLY. Tact is key. This party lacked tact and a PR speech in its pre-planning. Don't worry; we go over "covering your ass" in third year. Hey, maybe we should put that in the prospectus...]

...Finally, and most important, the dean's message warns the partygoers that they failed to consider "the extraordinary damage they could do to their own careers" in a society in which those who employ lawyers might not want to hire people who engage in such conduct. Sager warns that it is "genuinely foolhardy to engage in conduct (and even more foolhardy to proudly disseminate proof that you have done so) that could jeopardize your ability to practice law."

[Translation: DO NOT SAVE PROOF DUMBASSES GODDAMNIT WHY DID WE ADMIT YOU-- I mean, people will probably still hire you...but you'd have a lot of sucking up to do to those token darkies in the copy room. A looot...damn, y'all. Hahahaha. You fucked up...but we can fix it. Just...NO PICTURES on the INTERNET. GEEZ.]

Jensen then goes into areas that some people would describe as deep:

The motivations and views of participants may vary, but these parties have two consistent features: (1) white people mock African American and Latino people through stereotypes of the residents of low-income urban areas, while at the same time enjoying the feeling of temporarily adopting these looks and poses; and (2) the white folks typically do it without pausing to ponder what right they have as members of a dominant racial class to poach in this fashion on the lives of people of a subordinated racial class.

In other words, white people find pleasure in insulting non-white people while at the same time safely "slumming' for cheap thrills in that non-white world, all the time oblivious to the moral and political implications.

So wait...I thought white people were colorblind, gender-blind, and damned near vision impaired. Getthefuckouttahere. They actually JUDGE people about whom they essentially know NOTHING?! And negatively, no less? I thought they memorized the "content of their character" part of the King speech! "I Have a Dream," people? No? Surely this behavior is new!

(Sarcasm aside...do these people have to be future lawyers? Seriously? No, seriously?)

Here's what we should say to students: The problem with a racist "ghetto fabulous" party isn't that it offends some people or tarnishes the image of UT or may hurt careers. The problem is that it's racist, and when you engage in such behavior you are deepening the racism of a white-supremacist culture, and that's wrong. It violates the moral and political principles that we all say we endorse. It supports and strengthens an unjust social system that hurts people.

Preach, preacher! I mean...erm...kumbaya. (I love how he writes "that we all say we endorse" 'cause I can feel it in my heart and it's good. And I think for the others, it probably tastes like burning.)

These incidents, and the universities' responses, also raise a fundamental question about what we white people mean when we say we support "diversity." Does that mean we are willing to invite some limited number of non-white people into our space, but with the implicit understanding that it will remain a white-defined space? Or does it mean a commitment to changing these institutions into truly multicultural places? If we're serious about that, it has to mean not an occasional nod to other cultural practices, but an end to white-supremacist practices. It has to mean not only acknowledging other cultural practices but recognizing that the wealth of the United States and Europe is rooted in the destruction of some of those cultures over the past 500 years, and that we are living with the consequences of that destruction.

We white people can't simply point to the ugliest racism of the KKK as the problem and feel morally superior. We can't issue a polite warning to a few law students about being thoughtless and think we've done our job. The problem is that most of us white people -- myself included -- are comfortable in white spaces, and we often are reflexively hesitant to surrender control of that space. Real change -- the process of truly incorporating a deep multiculturalism into our schools, churches, and businesses -- is a long struggle. The more I make some progress in my own classes, for example, the more I see how much I have left to do and the more aware of my mistakes I become.

I emphasized parts of this section because I've heard people isolate affirmative action to skin color and racial discrimination to skin color way too many times. I've heard people advocate colorblindness in the same breath I've heard them refer to skin color as "trivial," and I'm always overreacting or hypersensitive or too scary black when I mention the fact that I am black. I've heard talks about tolerance and diversity more than I'd care to disclose. I have a revelation to share: white folk, all the other people whose skeletons you try to gaze at when you're putting us down -- you know, the people of color -- we've been tolerating your asses for years. Toleration runs thin. You tolerate bad smells in crowded rooms. You tolerate foul language at casual social gatherings. You tolerate the occasional pop quiz in a subject you like. It's really fucking condescending and veiled to apply such a practice to people. To be honest, we don't like toleration (even if you guys kinda deserve it), we don't want it, and we don't want to give it.

We want respect, and we want it while you can still see our respective skin colors, our respective cultures, and our history. We want to walk into a room and speak to you without feeling like we're representing for "our people." We don't want to choose between uplifting a collective and fighting for our own survival. We don't want to use your cultural standards to determine whether ours are good enough. We don't want to be your lowest common denominator.

We don't live so you can put on your fresh new private trendy minstrel shows or buffet-pick from our traditions, fashion, and standards of existence -- all traditions that we're proud of creating. We're human, damnit. Remember all those male-normative definitions of people and their multifaceted identities and creativity? WE HAVE THAT TOO. We want credit for it. We want credit for being human and beautiful and free. And god-fucking-damnit, we don't want to walk into a place defending ourselves where we're supposed to be still developing ourselves. Growthefuckup. We've survived this long; do you really think we've done it without effort? We just coasted through? After the rope, the whip, the firehoses, the dogs, the spit, the shame, and the degradation? The "border patrols," the internment camps, the black/yellow/brownface, the forced migrations, the massacres, and the segregation?

Cocaine really must be one hell of a drug.

Word Evolution in Action!

Taken from here, an excerpt from a women's encyclopedia entry by Gloria Steinem about womanism:

In 1993, The American Heritage Dictionary included this new usage, and defined womanist as: "Having or expressing a belief in or respect for women and their talents and abilities beyond the boundaries of race and class; exhibiting a feminism that is inclusive esp. of Black American culture. -- n. One informed by womanist ideals. --wom an ism n." Considering the traditional definitions in such classic sources as the Oxford English Dictionary -- which illustrated womanish with the phrase, "a womanish and a whorist government," and cited womanist as a rare synonym for "womanizer,"--this recognition of change in the language was no small achievement.

Now, that's awesome. Whether Alice Walker intended to change the standard identification of the word "womanist" or "womanism" is questionable, but the result is mindblowing! (I'm a spazz, but I seriously think this is awesome. Speak to any linguist/semiotician about signs, signifiers, and the signified, or about paradigm shifts and contextuality. You'll see why I'm psyched about such a change over a relatively short time.)

This is what women can do. This is what black women can do. This is what people can do when they unify towards a great cause.

The quest now is to broaden people's vocabularies to recognize the power of this word and all words.