Back in 2004 when I first started speaking and blogging about race, I was invited to facilitate a phone discussion with a group of parents who had adopted children from outside the United States.

One of the mothers in the group was white and Jewish. She adopted her son from an African country, and was raising him in her faith. She told me that she wanted my advice on a situation she was dealing with.

Her nanny was a Jamaican woman. One day, the nanny came home and the mother noticed she looked upset. The mother asked her what was wrong, but the nanny just shook her head and said everything was fine.

The mother was concerned, so she kept prodding, but the nanny was still reluctant to say anything. The mother was persistent, and told her that this was a safe space for her to share. She said there wouldn’t be any judgments, no matter what it was about.

Finally, the nanny broke down and said, “You people don’t know how to act!”

She explained that anytime she took the child for play dates in their mostly white and Jewish neighborhood, parents would treat her brusquely and avoid eye contact. Whenever she went to a store, salespeople would follow her around to make sure she didn’t steal anything. When she went to pay for items, the cashier would treat take great pains not to touch her hand when giving her change back.

She had been putting up with this kind of discrimination for a long time now because she loved working with this family, but she didn’t know how much longer she could go on as it was wearing on her emotionally.

“Can you believe that?” the mother asked me, her voice shaking with anger.

I was about to respond by expressing how sorry I was that this level of prejudice existed in her community, when the mother continued.

“I’m going to fire her! How dare she call Jews ‘you people!’ I’m Jewish and my son is Jewish. I’m just going to have to fire her because I don’t feel safe around her anymore.”

I was stunned.

Not only did the mother completely ignore the very real discrimination her nanny was dealing with; she managed to turn the entire situation around so that she became the victim.

In subsequent years, I’ve come to realize that this kind of behavior is not at all unusual.

If anything it’s the norm, not the exception, for people to be pre-occupied with their own suffering and supremely uninterested in hearing about the oppression others face.

This lack of empathy is one of the biggest roadblocks we face in dismantling racism.

If we’re serious about social justice, we need to recognize that when one of us is discriminated against, it’s an affront to us all.

I talk to white people about being “kicked out of the club.” It’s the moment that they realize that speaking up about race or racism distances them from other white people.  It’s when they find out that other white people won’t necessarily support them when they raise issues of racism.  I have tried to be empathic with them as they struggle with the perceived loss they suffer when doing what’s right means being ostracized.

I try to have compassion because the Now Me knows how the Then Me felt.  The Then Me often didn’t speak up.  The Then Me was somewhat passive aggressive.  The Then Me would quit a job rather than deal with repeated acts of racism, even when those acts weren’t directly aimed at me.

Then Me realized this was suicide.

Then Me knew that typically nobody would speak up if I didn’t.  And Then Me knew that I couldn’t live a lie.

So what are the risks and rewards of being anti-racist?  I feel funny writing “risks” (I was “taking a risk”),  just as I wrote “perceived loss” a few paragraphs ago.  I wrote that white people suffer a “perceived loss” when they are ostracized by other white people, because I would like to believe that it’s not a loss when you find out who other people truly are.  Or when you find out who you are yourself.

Then Me was a silent person.  Now Me has a voice.

— So now I know., by Resistance

Sarah Palin believes that political correctness is for fools and racial profiling is the way to stop violence. Thing is, if (as she tells Sean Hannity) “liberals’ heads explode” over her comments, it’ll be due to exposure to utter stupidity.

The only good I can see coming from Sarah Palin’s media march is that any possibility of her running for President in 2012 will, most likely, be shot to hell.

First, she’s on Newsmax, calling Fox News comedian Glenn Beck “effective“:

Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He’s a hoot. He gets his message across in such a clever way. And he’s so bold – I have to respect that. He calls it like he sees it, and he’s very, very, very effective.”

Of course you think he’s a hoot – what he does is comedy! Well, unless it’s a disgusting metaphor that he used incorrectly. Melissa over at Shakesville bravely decided to wade into Beck’s world and create a transcript:

America has spoken clearly, consistently-we don’t want [government-paid healthcare]. And for the first time in history, we don’t think it’s the government’s place to give it to us. We’re kind of reading this [holds up unidentified piece of paper] from time to time now. We are-excuse this analogy, but I feel like it’s true-we’re the young girl saying [puts on scared voice and crying face] “No, no-help me!” [back to regular voice] and the government is Roman Polanski. In the end, I think we’re all gonna be cowering in France. [A few more moments of babbling about "unfunded liabilities" before the video cuts out.]

Melissa says: “Universal healthcare = rape. Awesome.”

I say: Can this asshole even get a goddamn joke right? If the government is Roman Polanski, then they would be cowering in France, not us. And doesn’t France have womb-to-tomb care, which is what we’re apparently protesting against? Fail! Fail! Fail! If Jon Stewart kept botching jokes like this, Comedy Central would have fired his ass.

Palin’s love of Beck’s inane sputtering seems even more strange when you consider he just won the Anti-Defamation League’s title of “Fearmonger-in-chief:”

The Influence of the Mainstream Media

Though much of the impetus for anti-government sentiment has come from a variety of grass-roots and extremist groups, segments of the mainstream media have played a surprisingly active role in generating such segment. Though a number of media figures and commentators have taken part, the media personality who has played the most active role has been radio and television host Glenn Beck, who along with many of his guests have made a habit of demonizing the Obama administration and promoting conspiracy theories about it. Beck has acted as a “fearmonger-in-chief,” raising anxiety about and distrust towards the government.

Please note the headline the ADL gave Glenn Beck: Mainstream Media.

But back to Palin.

The tragedy at Fort Hood on November 5, which resulted in the deaths of thirteen people and injuries to dozens of others, has been co-opted by those who would seek to further their own agendas. The Republicans are already on the move:

House and Senate Republicans, emerging from the most detailed briefings given to Congress since the Nov. 5 attack killed 13 at the central Texas Army post, said delaying investigations would put off legislative efforts to give military officials the tools to prevent similar tragedies in the future. They said such an effort would not interfere with the criminal investigation of shooting suspect Nidal M. Hasan, an Army major who was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan.

“Congress also needs to move forward to make sure we do our work to get to the right conclusions,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee.

Catch that? We need to get to the right conclusions. Wonder what those would be?

Sarah Palin knows. Here’s an assessment that she shared with the Weekly Standard yesterday:

She commented on the trail of evidence linking the alleged Ft. Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, to militant Islam. “There were such clear, obvious, massive warning signs that were missed,” she said. “This terrorist, even having business cards” that identified him as an “SoA” or soldier of Allah. Palin blamed a culture of political correctness and other decisions that “prevented — I’m going to say it — profiling” of someone with Hasan’s extremist ideology. “I say, profile away,” Palin said. Such political correctness, she continued, “could be our downfall.”

Interesting. Because obviously, racial profiling worked so well before. In fact, due to the government’s racist actions in World War Two, many Japanese Americans lost their homes, their lives, everything they had – and for what? Mike Shinoda (of Linkin Park fame) cut a track for his solo project that explored his family’s history in the internment camps. A student on YouTube spliced the song with images and facts from the era:

The U.S. government ultimately paid close to $1.6 billion dollars in reparations for their insistence on profiling.

Now Palin and company want to repeat history, as those who don’t learn from it so often do.

Palin-Beck 2012 [Politico]
Glenn Beck: Asshole [Shakesville]
Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies [ADL]
Republicans criticize Obama’s Call To Delay Hill Inquiries On Fort Hood [Washington Post]
Palin On Nidal Hasan: “Profile Away” [Weekly Standard]
Exploring Japanese American Internment [Asian American Media]
Official Site [Densho]

Related: Casting Out: Exploring the Racialization of Muslims [Racialicious]
The Greatest Cliché: The Unexamined Propaganda of “Political Correctness” [Zuky]

After several months of a focused internet and social media campaign pressuring CNN to fire Lou Dobbs, the xenophobic pundit announced tonight he is leaving CNN effectively immediately.

BastaDobbs.org–the virtual Latino coalition which led the campaign against CNN–is claiming victory. “We are thrilled that Dobbs no longer has this legitimate platform from which to incite fear and hate,” said Roberto Lovato. Lovato, who is an accomplished writer, is also the founder of the Latino-advocacy group Presente.org, the lead organization behind the anti-Dobbs campaign.  “The community is newly empowered and energized,” he continued, “and we are ready to fight for a respectful and civil media discourse when it comes to immigration coverage on mainstream news.”

I couldn’t be happier that Lou Dobbs’ uncritical voice of hate is off the air.  I am a firm defender of anyone’s right to free speech, but I am also fiercely opposed to the  notion that we are better as a society if we provide a platform for all speech.  Television news–and cable news in particular–has moved into an era where providing a “safe space” for the voices from the political extreme has come to substitute for critical discourse and constructive debate.  That isn’t the news and it isn’t “fair and balanced.” It’s petty, and it’s lazy, and it needs to evolve.

I am also a big fan of Roberto Lovato and Presente.org, for all practical purposes the brains and muscle behind the campaign.  In many ways, all of the folks at Presente.org who worked hard on this for months have something to celebrate tonight.

But I would also urge people to be cautious about Dobbs’ departure.  It’s not only too early to tell whether or not this was a victory for “the campaign,” the signs may be telling us it is a victory for el otro lado.

I reluctantly never signed on to the BastaDobbs crusade.  The historian in me sees too many pitfalls in campaigns that target an individual rather than what that individual represents or advocates.  Lou Dobbs was never the real problem plaguing Latinos in America.  He was a symptom of the larger problem, perhaps at worst a nurturer of it.

That larger problem is a system of entrenched racism that is violent.  It is a lack of humanist compassion and empathy.  Fear, hate, ignorance are its friends, but even they are not its substance.  If Americans everywhere hated Mexican immigrants and did nothing about that hate, there wouldn’t really be a problem.

All that said, we are still better off not having Dobbs on TV.  My primary worry comes from how his departure took place.  CNN chief Jonathan Klein likely either pressured Dobbs into leaving or, in essence, fired him.  By letting Dobbs dictate the public nature of his departure, CNN never has to be publicly accountable for continuing to provide him a platform for the past four years as he grew increasingly hostile toward immigrants and Latinos.

Dobbs also gets to leave CNN as a populist hero for the Right wing.  The inference that CNN pressured him out on the supposed effort of a bunch of radical Latinos helps fashion Dobbs into a martyr for the cause.  Time will tell whether or not this is the case.  Until we see where it is he ends up, we don’t know the measure of the victory.  In fact, we may have given him even greater and more authentic power in the eyes of the small constituency to which he speaks.

Finally, the “teachable moment” that was Lou Dobbs program is now gone from the air.  That doesn’t mean its views are defeated, and it doesn’t mean uncritical analysis of our most pressing problems is gone from CNN.  It does mean CNN gets to put on its best suit and tie and now pretend that what it gives us is the news.  It also forces the anti-Dobbs campaign to have to define the problem anew.

In her legendary work of art Borderlands/La Frontera, Gloria Anzaldúa reminds us:

“But it is not enough to stand on the opposite river bank, shouting questions, challenging patriarchal, white conventions. A counterstance locks one into a duel of oppressor and oppressed. . . [it] refutes the dominant culture’s views and beliefs, and, for this, it is proudly defiant. . . But it is not a way of life.”

Postscript
This week news surfaced that CNN paid Dobbs to go away. This article in the New York Post alleges Dobbs walked away with a check for $8 million from CNN in exchange for his early departure. Dobbs himself is also speaking out, as you can see in his recent visit to FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly.

Time Magazine reports on women migrant workers who have been raped, and the resulting pregnancies:

While globalization has turned much of the world into a wide-open labor market, it has also created complex human and societal dramas. Women account for up to 50% of the world’s 100 million–strong migrant-worker population — and there is no effective entity to protect their rights and dignity. In 2008, Indonesians working abroad, commonly as domestic staff in the Middle East and parts of Asia, contributed about $6.8 billion to their national economy via remittances, according to the World Bank. And while statistics are difficult to come by, there are increasing reports of many who are physically abused, raped and — in some cases — killed by their employers…

…female migrant workers are raped and then dumped on the streets by their employers, who refuse to give them their passports after discovering that the women are pregnant. The women are then arrested by police and placed in jail. Sometimes they are deported before the child is born.

Normawati says there are dozens of children who were abandoned by migrant workers in homes throughout Jakarta and surrounding areas.

I really appreciate the way this article draws attention to the intersection of gender and workers’ rights.  The article focuses on Indonesian women working in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but their stories are an illustration of a wider problem — those hit hardest by callous economic policies are almost always poor women of colour.

But it must be said that I do not care for the way Time Magazine characterises the women migrant workers.  The article doesn’t interview any actual migrant workers;  as a result both the mothers and the children they leave are painted as voiceless victims, when there is definitely a lot more to their existence than that. (For example, the women are referred to as “raped migrant mothers” – not “women who were raped while doing migrant work.” Potentially a small difference, but the first phrase reduces the women to the word “raped.”)  As well the article repeatedly emphasises how these women have ABANDONED their children; leaving the reader with a rather crude and over-simplified picture of women in unimaginable situations, forced to make terrible choices.

And while the article points out that countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan provide insufficient protections for migrant workers, it’s the same story everywhere.

Perhaps another bone to pick with the article is the way it localises problems that pervade the entire world, especially industrialised countries – like the exploitation of migrant workers, violence against women, patriarchal prejudice towards children born of rape – to the Middle East and Indonesia.

For example, Canadian organisation Justicia for Migrant Workers works to protect the rights of migrant workers in Ontario and beyond. J4MW tries to protect workers from both their employers and the Canadian government, whose policies sacrifice workers’ rights for “economic stability.” Their Campaigns page will give you an idea of the kinds of rights violations workers are facing.

Below is a list of other organisations that work for migrant worker rights. I found most of them by asking around and random google searches; if you have more you’d like to add to the list, leave them in the comments! I had trouble finding any organisations that specifically represented women migrant workers and their issues, which is probably pretty telling.

Damayan Migrant Workers Association Holds Health Fair & Gender Rights Training (North Star Fund Blog) (US)
Damayan Migrant Workers Association (US)
United for Foreign Domestic Worker’s Rights (Southeast Asia)
Migrante International Website (Philippines)
Migrante International Blog (Philippines)
Immigration Advocates (US)
United Farm Workers (US)
Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (US)

Thanks to Jane, Angela and Sunny for their help!

Maybe we’re just bad luck.

I mean, you saw what happened to Heroes on the Roundtable’s watch. Now comes word that Flash Forward is slipping, ratings-wise. If I’d known about this effect sooner I would’ve started convening Glee roundtables.

Just kidding, Mahsino!

But, anyway, dear readers, what do you make of this show getting beat out in the ratings by … by the Vampire Diaries? In the meantime, let’s cover “Playing Cards With Coyote”:

Best thing about this week’s episode: consistent (or at least, constant) follow-up on Al’s “gift” to Demetri. I also thought Celia getting 15 minutes of fame out of it was an interesting touch. Your thoughts?
Diana: I don’t know if I missed something, but the logic seemed kind of flawed to me. I did not know Al knew Celia’s full name/identity. With that said, I still mourn Al’s loss and wonder if there could have been a less drastic measure to achieve the same outcome. But then I guess it would not be as dramatic and worth putting on the front page of a newspaper that the future could be changed.
jen*: I’m with you Diana – how would Demetri know to deliver the letter to her if Al stated in the letter that he didn’t even know her last name? Maybe he used Mosaic?
Arturo: I think Al mentioned cross-referenced her with his vision in Mosaic during last week’s ep. It stands to reason – though, in retrospect, it should’ve been spelled out – that Dem or somebody did the same.

Likewise, I thought the sequence in the pet store was appropriately tense, and the follow-up between Dem and Mark addressed some logical questions. But how could nobody even theorize that the tri-star tattoo was a group thing and not just on one guy? (Btw, is there any chance the Tri-Stars aren’t at least connected to “Jericho?”)
Diana: I was mad that no one thought that such a tattoo could exist on more than one person. The whole episode also put Mark’s morals and ethics into play big time which Demetri rightfully called him on. Maybe Mark starts drinking again because he killed the wrong tattooed man and didn’t change a damn thing.
jen*: Seriously. Mark just kills this guy with a pretty plain-looking tattoo and thinks he’s the only one who’s got it? It looked like some sort of para-military thing when I saw it, so of course my first thought was Jericho – especially with all the talk about them firing on the daughter-in-hiding. How did Mark rise this high without ever thinking things through?
Mahsino: I’m starting to get the whole Law & Order “twist” vibe from this show, like the Jericho/3 star connection is some giant plot twist that’s supposed to shock us.

In my notes I was jotting down, “Lloyd: worst poker player ever?” … until he finally pwned Charlie the EEEEEVIL Hobbit. I’m glad Lloyd won mostly because a) c’mon, it’s Capt. Norrington against a HOBBIT and b) Simon was turning into a bit of a Villain Sue anyway, no?
Diana: If I was Lloyd, I would have just skipped the card game and told the world what I had done. Bump the Hobbit man and his silly games.
jen*: Couldn’t he at least have kept the money? I would think he could use it…since he’ll most likely be needing a lawyer.
Mahsino: Doesn’t he have some hospital bills to pay, I mean dude hasn’t once mentioned going to work. Giving up the money was poor parenting- I’m sure Dylan could’ve used a college fund.

So, the Stark family. I still don’t care.
Diana: Ditto on that, Arturo.
jen*: Are they the sponsor and daughter-in-hiding? Cuz I don’t care about them either. But I haven’t learned their names…so…
Arturo: Yup, that’s them, Jen.
Mahsino: The producers need to take a page from Family Matters and send the Stark family up to their room or something- I won’t ask any questions, I promise.

Open Mic!
Mahsino: I was pissed that there was seemingly no period of mourning on the part of Mark. He uses a colleagues death as an excuse to go out on a mini vacation with his wife?!
Diana: And then Mark doesn’t even turn the phone off while on vacay. Olivia should have trashed him and kept the underwear.
jen*: What’s up with trying to change the future without thinking things through? Al dies without considering that someone else could kill Celia, Mark kills a dude with three stars on his arm because of course no one else would have that tattoo, and Olivia doesn’t ponder that on April 29 she could be wearing a different set of underwear. Although those were nice.

This movie is in many ways a fairy tale. The character Precious gets to be saved by a caring caseworker and a loving teacher. In real life, poor, undereducated and sexually victimized girls are most likely to end up in the juvenile justice system.

I see it all the time. There is the 13-year-old who became pregnant to stop her uncle from raping her — a girl whom I met not at an incest survivors group but in a girls’ detention facility. Or the girl raped so many times by age 13 that she feels worthy of being prostituted and cannot see a life for herself beyond jail. Or the girl who was kidnapped by a pimp, repeatedly raped by him, prostituted by him — only to be arrested and placed behind bars for prostitution.

Girls in the United States are subject to violence with horrifying frequency. One in three American girls will experience sexual violence by age 18, regardless of race or class. Girls ages 16 to 19 across the ethnic and economic spectrum are four times more likely than others to be victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. No girl is safe from being raped, exploited or abused.

Yet when girls in economically stable families are hurt by sexual violence, the protective layers of functional schools, safe neighborhoods and access to mental-health services tend to buffer them from further exploitation. For girls at the margins, sexual violence often funnels them into the criminal justice system.

Sex trafficking or running away from abusive homes and foster-care placements are the primary reasons for girls’ incarceration. These girls are not being detained for violent offenses or because they are becoming gang-bangers or murderers. Girls are ending up behind bars after the damage they endure from rape and sexual abuse. A recent Oregon Social Learning Center study of chronically delinquent girls found that the median age of the first sexual encounter among detained girls was 7.

The judges sentencing these girls to detention aren’t necessarily another bad guy in their stories. Often, judges don’t want to return girls to abusive homes or to a ruthless pimp, so they detain the girls as a way to keep them safe.

Unfortunately, detained girls often endure sexual violence and exploitation behind bars. Many girls are placed in solitary confinement, where self-mutilation often occurs. Some facilities require girls to shower in front of male guards or subject them to cross-gender strip searches. Girls in detention facilities are also routinely sexually coerced or abused by staff. While girls make up only 11 percent of the population of state-operated juvenile facilities, they account for 34 percent of the victims of sexual violence in these facilities.

— ‘Precious’ girls without a happy ending, by Malika Saada Saar, founder of the Rebecca Project for Human Rights

Today I cried on a stack of lemons at the supermarket. I should note here that crying in public, much less on produce, is atypical Fiqah behavior. Public crying is embarrassing AND unattractive, and as a pretty and vain chronic sinusitis sufferer, I know that Puffy-Sobby-Wetface is NOT my best look. But today, that’s exactly what I did: stuck my elbows in a stack of sunny yellow lemons, buried my face in my palms, and sobbed. It was early afternoon, and the produce section was thankfully empty. I don’t know how long I stood there before I was able to collect myself, wipe my obviously-been-crying face, clean my smeary glasses, and make my purchase. I ignored the eyes of the cashier, the concerned and alarmed expression of the man bagging my groceries, and the fiery burning of my beet-red ears as I left the store. You fucking idiot! I thought as I made my way back home. You forgot he was there!

I guess now would be a good time to explain myself.

For the past month or so, I have been the recipient of the unwanted attentions of a cop. This officer, whose beat is at a park in my neighborhood, first approached me when I was coming back from running some morning errands. At the time, I was carrying a few large shopping bags and wearing ear buds blasting M.I.A. I didn’t see him until he was right next to me, grabbing one of the heavier bags right out of my hand and startling me stupid. The cop, a Latino man in his late thirties, purred a too-familiar “hello” and told me that he it looked like I needed some help. All this as he took off his sunglasses and frankly assessed my bosom. A chill had gone through my whole body as I’d smiled and stammered a nervous thank you, moving my purse around to from my side to my front in an attempt to cover my breasts.

“Where you headed?” he asked, looking down at me as my eyes landed everywhere else: his shoes, a lamppost, a trashcan, a little boy barrelling down the sidewalk on his scooter. As we stopped at a crosswalk, he moved a full step closer to me so that we were separated by no more than a few inches. I swung the shopping bag hanging from my hand between us, casually, so as to appear non-deliberate. My flitting eyes landed on the gun at his hip. I quickly looked away.

“Oh, not far,” I’d said, calmly, making small talk as my mind screamed angry accusations and panicked instructions. Don’t let him walk you to your building! Stall him! It’s your fault for wearing a V-neck shirt without a minimizer! Tell him you have run to the bodega across the street and pick up something you forgot! Tell him your boyfriend’s waiting for you! You must always remember to wear your wedding ring when you go out or this will happen! This is your fault! Your fault! Don’t tell him your real name! Don’t tell him anything! Keep talking! This is your fault!

“OH!” I said, feigning dismay. “I forgot something! I gotta run into one of these bodegas and grab it.”

“No problem, I’ll walk you there,” he’d said. My stomach turned over.

“Thank you so much, that’s really nice, but I got it.”

“You sure?” he’d asked, handing me my bags.

“Oh, yeah, it’s not a problem. I mean, a little weight-lifting won’t hurt!” I added. He laughed, and gave me one last nauseating up-and-down.

“Don’t get too much exercise, now,” he’d drawled.

I had swallowed my rising bile and forced a smile, thanking him for his help, and hastily crossed the street. As I stood in the tiny, cramped bodega, the crystal pinpricks I felt along my arms, legs and neck condensed into a sickening film of cool sweat. I was mortified to discover that my normally well-behaved teeth were chattering audibly. The store owner’s cat, dozing on a bag of flour and awakened by the noise, lifted her eyelids to half-mast to investigate. Finding me boring, she slid them shut and resumed her napping. Clenching my teeth, I strode quickly out the door, crossing the street against traffic, and headed up to my apartment. The elevator ride up those ten flights lasted forever, as I plotted my future daily trajectory.I would have to be more careful. I would have to vary my route. I would have to remember he was there. I must not forget.

And yet, weeks later, here was I, in the same boat. As I unpacked my groceries, I tried to calm down. Contradictory thoughts echoed in my head. It’s fine. He doesn’t know my name. He hasn’t done anything untoward. I’m fine. It’ll be okay. He doesn’t know which building I live in. He doesn’t have my number. I’ll be okay. As I put my kettle on the stove for tea, it dawned on me that what this officer hadn’t done didn’t matter one whit to me. Because it was my knowledge of what he could do that had sent me into the first public crying jag I had had in over a decade. All the things that he could do to me, without questions, without consequences. All the ways that in an instant this man, whose sworn duty is to protect and serve me, could do me harm. Could hurt my body. Could ravage my soul. Could hurt the people I loved. Could ruin my life, or take my life, or both. And it was that which emboldened him to repeatedly ignore my body language, transgress my personal space – spatial rape -and openly eye my body. The weapon he wielded was menace, and it was backed up by the physical reality of a loaded gun and the legal authority of a badge. Because of the power dynamic imbalance, I would not be able, politely or harshly, to brush this man off. He would not allow it. My mind pored over the seemingly unending roster of the NYPD dead and wounded, people who had been violated and/or murdered because some asshole racist bastard jackass inferiority complex motherfucking PIG was having a bad day and exercising bad judgment. It wasn’t fair. It just was not.

As my anger and outrage grew, tears filled my eyes as I tried to recall the last time I had felt truly Safe. It had been such a long time. I am relentlessly mistrustful of authority in general by design, and the Poh-Leese in particular by experience. By the time I was four I knew that there were things in this world that my mother, the most powerful force in my child universe, was unable to protect me from. And by the time I was seven, I knew that the adult world often abused its power, gorging itself with gusto on the innocence of children, aided and abetted in its crimes by willful adult blindness. (I am and have been smart, strong, quick and crafty since I was a kid. Please believe me when I tell you that if I had been Safe, I would not have needed to be any of those things.) I abandoned the notion of entitlement to safety altogether the first time I was followed by a grown (White) man. It happened at my local mall. Panicked, I found a (White) female security guard. And told her what happened. She didn’t believe me. Or rather, she didn’t believe that I hadn’t done something to make the pervy bastard follow me. Let the record show that I was twelve years old. As an adult, I know that my positionality as determined by the laws of the Kyriarchy mean that I will very rarely be Safe in any real sense, and will often have to fend for myself even when I obviously need help or am in danger. Having been blessed with a survivor’s mentality, the mantle of victimhood is something that I rarely wear for very long. So, with that in mind, I blew my nose, washed my face, and got online to see what options for citizens who are subjected to police harassment are. I was appalled to learn that the Department of Justice, one of the few bodies empowered to “police the police”, offers no preemptive recourse and precious few options to actual victims of non-physical (i.e., property damage, verbal assault) police harassment. Mind you, if you so much as brush the arm of an officer of the law, it’s considered assault, and you can be arrested. Basically, you only have a case if you have been violated, and even then, it may be shot down unless you have solid physical evidence. Your chances of building a case are significantly reduced if you are female and Black. A short conversation with my lawyer upon the advice of a friend confirmed that, as is so often the case with the law, it wasn’t about what I knew, but what I could prove. My attorney, his voice simultaneously tired and hurried, sighed the truth to me: “I’m sorry, honey. There’s no case here.”

There’s no case here. So,there it was. With the exception of my teary retelling of these incidents – and there were more – with this cop to my friends, this story didn’t happen. It won’t be a nationally-known scathing indictment of the NYPD. It won’t be another chink in the perceived armor of the NYPD’s professional integrity. It will be a drop in the bucket, and water under the bridge. It will fade into silence with nary an echo.

Or. Maybe it won’t.

Let’s play a little game of Photoshop sleight-of-hand. See the poster up there for Couples’ Retreat? Now look below:

Presto! Somewhere over the Pond, Faizon Love and Kali Hawk disappeared from the poster, as the 2nd version was the one used to promote the film in the U.K. As reported on Yahoo, a spokesman for the film’s distributor, Universal, said the move was made “to simplify the poster to actors who are most [recognizable] in international markets.”

But two years ago, in a New York Times article, BET head Reginald Hudlin had a different theory:

“I always call international the new South … In the old days, they told you black films don’t travel down South. Now they say it’s not going to travel overseas.”

Both the Times and Entertainment Weekly cited, among other films, Dreamgirls as an example of the “doesn’t travel well” theory, noting the discrepancy between its’ showings in the international and U.S. box-offices; only 38 percent of its’ total business came from markets abroad. But that was a marked success compared to, say, Hustle & Flow, which only got 6 percent of its’ business outside of the States.

While reading the EW article, here’s one theory a reader posted regarding this trend:

I believe that as Black Actors make more movies that don’t SEEM to be made for African-American Audiences. they’ll do better abroad. As much as I like Eddie Murphy, his movies from Norbit to The Nutty Professor are more, how can I say it, aimed at what he thinks Black audiences will enjoy. And they don’t have international appeal.

So here’s some questions, readers: Is more critically-acclaimed fare like Hustle & Flow and Dreamgirls getting dragged down by the Norbits of the world? Is this a response/push-back against the American film industry relegating more diverse stories to the art houses and film festival circuit? What are your thoughts?

It was a peaceful Sunday morning. Sunlight streamed in through the windows, the sheets were clean, the pillows were fluffy. I settled into bed and got nice and comfortable – that is, until my boyfriend decided it was time for the Sunday talk show circuit.

“[Hasan] was a radical jihadist!” blared out of the television. There went my quiet morning. Atlasien has a piece in the works about Fort Hood and some of the other major headlines. Until then, here’s a relatively sane round-up of what’s been going on:

Fort Hood and the invisibility of Arab Americans – Washington Post Short Stack Blog

Arab-American history is long and deep in the United States but Arab and Muslim Americans are not part of how we imagine who we are as Americans or how we perceive what makes up the American experience. Now, in the national discussion among commentators, politicians, and others in the aftermath of Ft. Hood, we can see the dangerous effects of Arab-American invisibility; in that vacuum, acts of a single individual, Major Hasan, cast a shadow of collective guilt on millions of Americans.

Timothy McVeigh warped the interpretations of the Constitution but we easily dismissed that without pondering whether there was inherent evil in the Constitution. The same cannot be said of how we view the relationship between the Koran and violent behavior – we unfairly blame individuals’ horrific acts on the teachings of the Koran. We ignore needed discussion of evident mental health issues, which were the focus when other service people have cracked and murdered their colleagues, and instead engage in lazy analysis about ethnic predilection of violence.

How can we move the conversation forward? If we knew more about the soldiers mentioned above and other Arab Americans, if their stories were familiar to us, if the origins of their names recognizable to us, how would the conversation be different?

Fort Hood Rampage: Don’t Let Tragedy Bring More Tragedy – Racewire

As we respond, we must categorically resist voices of suspicion and reaction so that this tragedy does not bring more tragedy. That the shooter’s name sounds Muslim will offer those who thrive on fear an opportunity to pounce. We reject the impulse to assume that the shooter’s name means anything about his motivations, that being Muslim or being perceived as such makes someone dangerous. A hideous crime was committed. Let’s make the attacks end there.

What Does Fort Hood Mean for American Muslims? - Wiretap

Writing shortly after the incident, the perceptive young American Muslim writer Wajahat Ali understandably cautioned against leaping to conclusions, writing:

“A cousin of Hasan, interviewed by reporters, has suggested an alternative motivation, not necessarily influenced by religious conviction. ‘He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy,’ said Nader Hasan. ‘He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there [in Iraq and Afghanistan].’”But in the face of additional evidence that emerged today, it is not reasonable or logical to pretend that some great wall separated Hasan’s own sense of Muslim identity from his motive. Witnesses report that he shouted “God is great!” ahead of his rampage; family indicated that he was deeply upset over discrimination he said was visited upon him for being Muslim; and he openly expressed his hostility to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by describing it as a “war against Islam.”

Of course, we do not yet know precisely what combination of factors led to the attack, and with more than 20,000 Muslims actively serving in the U.S. military, it would be absurd to mistake one man’s warped and skewed understanding of Islam and graft it onto every other Muslim.

But the scale and nature of this incident raises a number of uncomfortable questions about what usually goes unseen and remains unsaid outside of military circles.

A psychiatrist, Hasan heard the stories of soldiers returning from combat: did these accounts of killing, abuse and other horrors fuel his anger at American policy as the date of his own deployment to Afghanistan neared? What kind of harassment was Hasan subjected to on base for his Muslim identity? How widespread is enmity toward Muslims and Islam among the very soldiers who Gen. McChrystal is sending to fight alongside Muslims against Islamist extremists?

There are also other, equally pressing questions that directly affect young Muslims, such as me, who call this country our own. People will invariably ask why and whether Muslims are in the military — or perhaps even in the country at all — and what sort of measures will be taken to “monitor” this minority.

Tunku Varadarajan: Off the Deep End - Sepia Mutiny

By now, many readers may have seen Tunku Varadarajan’s controversial column for Forbes from last week, “Going Muslim.” In it, Varadarajan coins a new term to describe Major Nidal Hasan’s rampage at Fort Hood two weeks ago. “Going Muslim” is Varadarajan’s variation of “going postal,” a phrase coined a few years ago, after a string of (non-Muslim) U.S. postal workers went on killing sprees. Here is how Varadarajan defines the term:

This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American—a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood—discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans.

The most irksome part of Varadarajan’s column for me was the following paragraph:

The difference between “going postal,” in the conventional sense, and “going Muslim,” in the sense that I suggest, is that there would not necessarily be a psychological “snapping” point in the case of the imminently violent Muslim; instead, there could be a calculated discarding of camouflage—the camouflage of integration—in an act of revelatory catharsis. In spite of suggestions by some who know him that he had a history of “harassment” as a Muslim in the army, Maj. Hasan did not “snap” in the “postal” manner. He gave away his possessions on the morning of his day of murder. He even gave away—to a neighbor—a packet of frozen broccoli that he did not wish to see go to waste, even as he mapped in his mind the laying waste of lives at Fort Hood. His was a meticulous, even punctilious “departure.”

In fact, reports from Hasan’s colleagues strongly suggest a profile of a person who was borderline psychotic for several years, but who finally snapped around 2007. Yes, he gave away his broccoli on the day he went on a shooting spree. But that is in fact entirely in keeping with how psychotics behave.

What Varadarajan doesn’t realize is that the kind of paranoid argument he is making about immigrants in “camouflage” could very easily be used against any other immigrant group, including Hindus, as a pretext for mistrust or active discrimination.

Varadarajan also make a claim about “integration” into American society that is simply not supported by any facts. The diverse groups of immigrants who are Muslim have done just fine in terms of their economic performance, civil participation, etc. By coining this pernicious phrase, and by promoting an argument based self-evidently on bigotry, Varadarajan has shown us why we no longer need to take anything he says seriously.

(Image Credit: Mattox)

Arise Magazine has an interview with Jimmy Jean-Louis. Jean-Louis, a model/dancer/actor is best known stateside for portraying “The Haitian” in Heroes. From what I can remember of the Heroes recaps, quite a bit of the snarking revolved around the shrinking role of PoC on the show and the falling ratings. So I was amused to read:

Jean-Louis continues to brood mysteriously on our small screen this autumn as season four of the hugely successful sci-fi drama goes on air. “We are shooting it now, and it’s going great,” Jean-Louis says. So what fantastic superhuman twists and turns can we look forward to? Naturally, his lips are sealed, but you can be sure The Haitian won’t be far from the action. A fixture on the show since the beginning, he’s an ambiguous figure who uses his superpower – an ability to erase people’s memories – sparingly and wisely.

Really? I think I need to check with Arturo on this one…

At any rate, some of the behind the scenes details were revealed:

The role now seems to suited to the 41-year-old actor that it’s hard to believe he first tried out for DL Hawkins (Leonard Roberts). “I auditioned for DL three times, and the producers said ‘No, no, no.’ It was only later, while I was in Africa promoting the film Phat Girlz, that they called my manager and asked me to audition again for another role,” he recalls. “He told them I wasn’t even in town, even after I got back to Los Angeles, until they finally offered the part to me without seeing me, which is unheard of in TV.”

The part was originally meant to be from New Zealand and called The Kiwi but was changed to The Haitian to suit Jean-Louis’ roots. “We went through a few names, but the reaction from the audience to the Haitian was so great that they kept it. And you know what – I like it because it helps me promote Haiti. Heroes has made me a reference for Haiti and has inspired me to go back and help Haiti.”

Addicted to Race is our weekly talk show podcast about all things race. Here’s a rundown of what you’ll find in this episode:

What are some strategies for overcoming resistance to gay rights in the African-American community? Does the movie Precious exploit black dysfunction? Did CNN’s special on “Black Men in the Age of President Obama” reinforce stereotypes about black gay men? Given the popularity of “mommy memoirs,” why aren’t there more women of color writing these books? Tami Winfrey Harris, Andrea Plaid, and Dumi Lewis discuss.

Addicted to Race is broadcast live every Sunday afternoon at 12 pm Eastern. You can listen live on our BlogTalkRadio page and call in by dialing 347-996-3958.

Right-click here to download an MP3 of Addicted to Race Episode 126
or
Click here to never miss an episode by subscribing to us in iTunes
or
click the button below to play it immediately

He recently followed in idol George Takei’s footsteps as Sulu in the Star Trek remake and is set to star in A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas when buddy Kal Penn wraps his presidential advisory gig next summer.

In the meantime, he hopes to settle in to life on the small screen and continue to make a mark in terms of diversity. While Cho admits he’s seeing many Asian Americans on TV – from Lost to Grey’s Anatomy to Melrose Place to The Office – he still sees room for improvement.

John Cho, ABC’s Flash Forward“Don’t get me wrong, the FBI agent is great – and I’m very happy to see the numbers. But I mean, they got hospital shows wrong for so many years – so to this day, I’m just happy to see Asians as doctors on TV.” says Cho. “But my character on Flash Forward was not written as Asian, and I think that’s still pretty common. When I was cast, David [David Goyer, creator of Flash Forward] asked me if I wanted to change the character’s last name to a Korean name, and I said yes, so we did.”

While this attests to the level of success Cho has reached after nearly 15 years in the business, he still sees the trend as problematic. “The landscape has changed – with the exception of Harold I haven’t played a character written as Asian for many years.

But that’s not something to brag about either,” he says. “It’s sort of double-edged. Ideally you’d want brilliant, fleshed out characters that were already written Asian. But there still is that shortage. My point of view is that things are getting better, yes, but things aren’t nearly where they should be. But I am feeling a bit more optimistic than I was before.”

He credits the surprise success of Harold & Kumar, in part, as a propeller of change. “In the beginning, I felt very concerned about representing – I felt a lot of pressure to play the right role,” he says, noting the model minority stereotype. “I sweated that, but eventually it got to the point where I wanted to go against the grain and play more vulgar characters. Harold is the straight man, but he’s also sort of an everyman.” [...]

To this day, Cho is surprised by fan reaction to the film. “It taught me a lesson in identity, and I realized that maybe there was a generational shift that I had been unaware of,” says Cho. “The moment of clarity for me was this young Asian American woman that came up to me and said, ‘Oh, thank you for Harold & Kumar, thanks for representing us. Us stoners.’ That threw me a curveball, you know. It made me see that just because we’re the same color doesn’t mean we’re the same – everyone processes identity in a different way, and that’s a very healthy thing.”

“Police officers giving drivers $204 tickets for not speaking English? It sounds like a rejected Monty Python sketch. Except the grim reality is that it has happened at least 39 times in Dallas since January 2007….All but one of the drivers were Hispanic.”

Reporting on the issue, a New York Times editorial asks the question – is racism alive and kicking in America? If this were a one off incident, it could be an aberration. But 39 times makes it a growing pattern of injustice.

So how does one question who or who is not an American? Does it have to do with language, race, ethnicity, how long one has been in the United States – or is it about the more legal aspect of possessing citizenship.

Recently, an incredible achievement by Meb Keflezighi’s, winner of Men’s NYC Marathon, kicked off a number of doubts about whether this is truly an “American” achievement, or one imported in from outside.

“Meb Keflezighi, who won yesterday in New York, is technically American by virtue of him becoming a citizen in 1998, but the fact that he’s not American-born takes away from the magnitude of the achievement the headline implies.”

Comments from a CNBC Sports Business Reporter who half apologized in a post the next morning.

“Frankly I didn’t account for the fact that virtually all of Keflezighi’s running experience came as a U.S. citizen. I never said he didn’t deserve to be called American.”

Keflezighi came to the United States when he was 12 from war torn Eritrea. Is that enough time for him to be an American? Ironically the last American to win the marathon was also born in another country – Cuba. Alberto Salazar’s comments from a New York Times article are insightful.

“What if Meb’s parents had moved to this country a year before he was born? At what point is someone truly American? Only if your family traces itself back to 1800, will it count?“

The same article talks about the racial stereotypes that seem to be emerging to the surface.

“The debate reveals what some academics say are common assumptions and stereotypes about race and sports and athletic achievement in the United States. “Race is still extremely important when you think about athletics,” said David Wiggins, a professor at George Mason University who studies African-Americans and sports. “There is this notion about innate physiological gifts that certain races presumably possess. Quite frankly, I think it feeds into deep-seated stereotypes.”

So are we heading for a “clash of cultures” figuring out where the identity of America lies. This Huffington Post article has a few answers.

What’s been missing from our national discourse on “is it race or isn’t it?” is the distinction psychologists and neuroscientists have made for over two decades between conscious and unconscious (often called “explicit vs. implicit”) prejudice

Asking what the difference may have been if over the last 25 years, a half million Englishmen a year had entered the U.S., it wonders if

“what turns up the volume on Americans’ feelings about immigration is that immigrants are not white, English-speakers from London but brown-skinned Mexicans who may not speak our language well and don’t share our Anglo-American culture.”

Demographers now place it around 2040 when whites may be in the minority in the U.S. And so it seems, the best way to deal with this reality may be -

“There’s nothing shameful about admitting that you’re among the majority of Americans – of every color – who has sometimes judged another person on the color his skin instead of the content of his character – and then realized it wasn’t fair. The best antidote to unconscious bias is self-reflection. And the best way to foster that self-reflection is through telling the truth in a way that doesn’t make people defensive or point fingers – except at those who wear their prejudice proudly and deserve our scorn.”

(Photo courtesy of the New York Times.)

**TRIGGER WARNING**: The following post is about physical and sexual abuse in detention, and focuses on a trans woman who has chosen to speak out about the abuse she endured. Her choice is incredibly brave and her story is deeply distressing.

Restore Fairness has a post about Esmeralda, a trans woman from Mexico who came to the US to seek asylum, only to endure sexual abuse in an American immigration detention centre.  Her story, like many others, speaks to the way that the immigration system intersects with other forms of oppression, often in an unspeakably cruel and dehumanising way.

The Restore Fairness article states:

Transferred far away from their homes and families, stories are rife of how detainees are denied visitation, access to lawyers, medical care, and are subject to physical and verbal abuse. Many vulnerable people, including asylum seekers, pregnant women, children, lawful permanent residents and even U.S. citizens are among those detained.

Listen to Esmeralda’s voice of courage and take action now to fix a broken detention system.

The article also links to the website of Just Detention International, an organisation that works to end the sexual abuse of detainees in the US and internationally.  Esmeralda’s story is in included among their Portraits of Courage, a section of their website where people who have survived sexual and physical abuse in detention, are speaking out – often in spite of the threat of severe retalitation – to try and put a stop to the horrific abuses that go on in detention.  Not surprisingly, many of the people who took part in Portraits of Courage are queer people of colour.

One of the things that is constantly on my mind while I am blogging here is, “What do we want?” It’s a question regularly flung at groups outside of the dominant culture when they launch a complaint against some effort to appease them. But I, too, often ponder what the end result, the ultimate ideal, would be for people like me who write about race and the readers who digest the work and diligently comment. While I recognize that the question itself is huge and can have a whole slew of answers, I tried to come up with some of my own in order to get the ball rolling.

The sad part is that this was a practically impossible task. In attempting to answer, I simply came up with more questions.

How can I put into words the future that I want for children growing up generations beyond mine? How can my own personal wishes even be reflective of what may be useful, necessary, or even relevant in a time that I cannot see materialized in front of me?

But then I thought that maybe there was a way to synthesize some of the things that the voices here express all the time into a set of values that we want for the future.

1. Fair and Equal Media Representation
Let’s face it: people of color in film, print, and televised media are not fairly represented, if represented at all. We often fall into a set of stereotypes, simple tropes that have been regurgitated for centuries. Some of them are so widely used and accepted that they are sometimes completely impossible to discern, particularly by those who do not have a vested interest in studying, writing, or thinking about this stuff in the first place.

But even then, the frequency of these stereotypes is tiring and affects us all in ways that are beyond our powers to remedy just in creating awareness. In fact, sometimes, the awareness itself can be dangerous. It makes viewing any form of media a tiring process, one from which all joy has been removed, any element of comedy or surprise absent. Additionally, viewing films, watching shows, and reading the paper and magazines can make us hyper aware. We can then suffer from media fatigue, a side effect of which is perpetual unhappiness regarding any and all portrayals of people of color in the media, even the ones that may be worthwhile. We begin to pick apart even the most honest attempts at creating change or presenting fair portrayals of communities of color, which results in even more stereotypes, one of them being that people of color are constant complainers who can never be satiated.

My take-away is that people simply are not trying hard enough or that they remain unaware of the stereotypes they present in their work because it is so deeply ingrained in our collective unconscious. Stereotypes have become an inseparable element of our society. Until that is deprogrammed, an ideal in itself, and the end result is one in which people of color are proportionately and fairly presented in media, my job remains active.

2. Visibility and Equal Access to Resources
Because one of our main foci of otherness in the States is race, based primarily on our (in this case, US American) history of oppression, we sometimes become distracted from the other issues that impact our daily lives. The struggle for access to resources is real, and one that is suffered by multiple groups of people. The lines of otherness cross more frequently than many realize, exceptions of course being those who are directly affected. For example, take someone who is a poor immigrant of color with an untreated mental illness who participates in a non-Christian religion and identifies as transgender. There is limited written work on this person’s experience and even less recognition of the fact that ze may exist in our society. The sense of otherness results in invisibility. This person may fly under the radar of the organizations that may deal with race or gender or other identity politics, and certainly not be considered by more mainstream or government entities.

In addition to the issue of increased recognition by organizations for resources, there is the issue of very basic needs, like housing, education, and food. In our present state of affairs, these resources are placed very low on the priority list for the poor, for example, a population of which many people of color are disproportionately a part. As a result of multiple factors, some of them being negative overall opinions toward certain POC groups, unfair media portrayals, and ultimately a general disregard for the value of POC’s lives, their concerns are often overlooked and not addressed. One of the things that many people seek and have been fighting for over the course of centuries is an acknowledgement and granting of access.

3. To Be Seen as Individuals
In my personal experience, many people base their perceptions of people whom they do not know on what they have seen on television, in the news, or heard from others. Of course, their own set of experiences with people from certain groups also influences their behavior around them in the future. This is not an abnormal response, nor am I condemning those who take a Pavlovian approach to dealing with people who are different from them in some way. However, one of the main goals as expressed by both the writers here at Racialicious and many of those leaving comments is that this reaction is something that needs to cease in order for people who are not of the dominant culture to be seen as individuals, people with varying sets of values, ideas, and ways of life.

Whenever I see a negative image of black people or Southerners or women (in other words, sometimes watching 30 Rock makes me go into a figurative aneurism), for example, I get worried. I fear that when people see me, they think one thing based on a set of misconceptions, and correct and/or add on more with time, even as they begin to know me better. It’s something that I wish could be deleted from our way of thinking, this dominance of stereotypes. Some say that this problem can be solved via increased exposure to the “othered” group, but depending on the circumstances of that exposure, it may actually have the opposite effect, resulting in further gross errors in stereotyping of a group.

To further this idea, I also hope that one day, the behavior of various groups of color, the images in the media, and the individual interactions people have with each other will no longer bear the weight of being deciding moments. I want to see a society in which comedians can perform a skit related to a group of color, for example, poking fun at stereotypes, without worrying that a person of another group and/or the dominant culture and media will exploit that moment by cementing it as truth and not recognizing its comedic value and not anthropological importance. One day, can a movie like Precious, a comedian like Dave Chappelle or Margaret Cho, a reggaeton artist’s political affiliation, a lesbian’s voting choice all happen without being associated specifically with members of the group to which that person belongs?

—-

With all this said, I now wonder what your expectations, as readers of Racialicious, are at the moment. What are your personal hopes in terms of race or other identities that are often marginalized? Where do you see the country in which you live progressing or regressing to? And is there something you are doing personally to further these expectations?

On the SCI FI Wire (surprise!) I saw this:

This photo is one of 20 colour photographs taken by Dulce Pinzón for her exhibition “The Real Story of the Superheroes,” running at the Joan Hisaoka Healing Arts Gallery in DC, from November 4 -28.

On her website Pinzón writes:

After September 11, the notion of the “hero” began to rear its head in the public consciousness more and more frequently. The notion served a necessity in a time of national and global crisis to acknowledge those who showed extraordinary courage or determination in the face of danger, sometimes even sacrificing their lives in an attempt to save others. However, in the whirlwind of journalism surrounding these deservedly front-page disasters and emergencies, it is easy to take for granted the heroes who sacrifice immeasurable life and labor in their day to day lives for the good of others, but do so in a somewhat less spectacular setting.

The Mexican immigrant worker in New York is a perfect example of the hero who has gone unnoticed. It is common for a Mexican worker in New York to work extraordinary hours in extreme conditions for very low wages which are saved at great cost and sacrifice and sent to families and communities in Mexico who rely on them to survive…

The principal objective of this series is to pay homage to these brave and determined men and women that somehow manage, without the help of any supernatural power, to withstand extreme conditions of labor in order to help their families and communities survive and prosper.

Each photo includes the worker/superhero’s name, hometown, the number of years they have worked in New York, and the amount of money they send every year.  The text accompanying the photo up top states:

NOE REYES from the State of Puebla works as a delivery boy in Brooklyn New York. He Sends 500 dollars a week.

Here’s another one:

The copy on this one states:

MARIA LUISA ROMERO from the State of Puebla works in a Laundromat in Brooklyn New York. She Sends 150 dollars a week

And one more:

FEDERICO MARTINEZ from the State of Puebla works as a taxi driver in New York. He Sends 250 dollars a week.

To see all the photos, visit Dulce Pinzón’s website, or if you’re lucky enough to be in DC, go see it in the flesh!

However I would avoid the SCI FI Wire site.  The commenters there don’t appreciate Pinzón’s vision…

So for the past few years I’ve been jousting with my family and loved ones around the issue of same sex marriage and repeatedly found my argument falling on deaf ears. In fact what I most often heard was, “I am for gay rights but…” and what would follow would immediately sweep away any indication of actual support for the union of two people from the same sex. As a service to myself and those with whom I will soon have this discussion with, I’ll provide some statements and my rebuttals. Instead of taking our 45 minutes on spinning wheels, let’s work and see and if we can cover some different ground.

1) “I’m for gay rights but … you can’t compare being Black to being gay.”

I feel you, I understand that being Black is different than being gay, but did you realize even in that statement you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk? No really, this is the part of the conversation where you keep on throwing out “they” which you might as well then say “those people.” I know you don’t like me bringing that up, because for so long and so often within the dominant White culture of America Black folks are referred to as “they”, “those people” and even recently “that one.” It’s really a process of othering, trying to make a distinction of who is “in” and should receive privileges and who is “out” (pun intended).

2) No, you’re not getting it, I didn’t choose to be Black and I can’t hide being Black.

Touche, you’re probably don’t remember when you chose to be Black, if you ever did. In fact, since we’re talking – heterosexual to heterosexual, I don’t remember when I choose to be straight, but that’s besides the point. The point is that being “Black” and being “gay”, as we sociologists say are both “socially constructed”. Yeah, fancy academic words but definitely important. By socially constructed I mean that we create the boundaries and meanings for these categories. There is a great film that breaks this down and books, but let’s be real, you ain’t gonna pick up a book or watch a movie in the middle of this blog post, so let me do what I can to break it down now. While we’ve come to think of meaning of Blackness as something that can’t be changed, avoided, and pretty much is like gravity, we’ve forgotten that was created. In fact, the dominant images and tropes of “What is Black”, weren’t even our creation. Think about it, how many people who identify as Black, would say “my skin is actually the color of Black.” Very few, in fact, we respond by saying things like “I’m brown, caramel, dark chocolate, etc.” all descriptors that side-step an imposed moniker. Also have we forgotten that for so many years, the oppression of being Black and not having access to rights made many of our ancestors pass? Yeah, that’s right, not all of us are “definitively Black” and certainly what it means to be Black has carried consequences.

3) That’s my point, almost exactly, you can tell when someone is Black usually, but you never know if they’re gay! Well unless they’re really flamboyant or something.

Ah, I get it, if you are gay you don’t have to “look or act gay” and if you don’t act gay, you’ll be fine in society. Yeah, that’s called passing … well actually more appropriately covering. See, as a Black folks, I really hope we think deeply about oppression and how oppressive it must be to not be able to show your love for someone else. If I walk outside and decide to kiss a strange woman in the middle of the street I won’t get many strange glares (other than folks saying “Dumi’s a wild cat”) but if I love someone of the same gender and walk arm-in-arm with them down the street I’m likely to get screw faces down the block. As a result, we, heterosexual folks often say stuff like, “I don’t care what you do behind closed doors but I don’t want to see it.” Interesting… we live in a society were the physical expression of romantic love between people is common, but almost completely forbidden for certain groups. In order to be one’s self we ask people not to express themselves and “pass” or “cover” for straight. That doesn’t sound very equal or liberated to me. Can you imagine a community where love was the norm and hate was not what we used to regulate others behaviors? (that’s rhetorical)

4) Okay, I get that, but doesn’t it piss you off when they use the Civil Rights Movement for their movement?

Once again, what’s up with the us and them type of thinking. Gay Black folks have been around for a long time, to act as if they are not us is to deny part of ourselves. In fact, the most prominent voice and architect of the Civil Rights Movement was Martin Luther King Jr. His work centered on non-violence which he derived from Gandhi but he learned from Bayard Rustin who was a queer Black man. Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Queer Black folks have been at the center of our movement for rights as well as our cultural and social uplift, why try to write them out of history now? Or rather why not acknowledge the central role they’ve played in the collective Black struggle which should include lgbtq brothers and sisters? We can only say gay folks are piggy-backing on the civil rights movement if we don’t acknowledge the contribution of gay folks to the movement. Now has the equal rights movement around sexuality taken on some tropes that came along during the Civil Rights movement, absolutely! But all subsequent movements do that, in fact, a marker of a successful social movement is an adoption of some its techniques. But let’s not forget what the Civil Rights Movement was about! It was fighting to make the 14th and 15th amendments real!!! Those amendments legally gave Black folks equal civil rights but when we looked at how Black people were treated and what they could do, it is seen that it’s unequal. I think we can take a similar look at the Gay Rights movement which is simply fighting for the same rights that heterosexuals have, be it marriage, adequate healthcare, or to live freely in society.

5) I hear what you’re saying but God made “Adam and Eve” not “Adam and Steve”! We’re a Christian country and marriage is a bond before God between man and woman.

Ah, you got me with that one, I didn’t realize a rhyme could break down an entire situation. Oh wait, no it can’t. There is an entrenched myth in this country that marriage is exclusively a religious, often insinuated Christian, practice that the government sanctions. Not true at all, anthropologists have long observed and discussed marriage as beyond Christian and beyond the sanctioning of the state. It is true here that many associate the two, but that does not seem logical that it must also be seen as such. First, the mythos of the United States as  Chrisitian nation is based on ignoring that colonies were founded out of the fleeing of religious oppression. How ironic is it that religion would then become the basis for oppression in 2009 and 1619 when non-Christian Africans arrived in captivity and quickly were proclaimed subhuman and savage. If you are going to invoke the credo of a nation, then I’d suggest you invoke the ones of equality and diversity, which means you are welcome to have your beliefs but your beliefs should not be the basis for impinging on other’s rights.

Now I know by this point you likely still don’t agree with me, but I do want you to see there is validity to a discussion about gay rights and the civil rights or more importantly gay rights as civil and human rights! I do want you to see that all to often we neglect and relegate a part of our people to inhumane and unjustified treatments through our active and passive condoning of covering. I do want us all to think about what MLK meant when he said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I do want us to really grapple with the fact that if Huey Newton in the 1970s could see the connection, we should be able to see it in 2009. I wrote this because I worry about a people’s ability to turn a blind eye to injustice in a world and nation that often has suggested the unjust is just the way it should be. For a people who have fought for existence and rights, it should only be natural to continue that fight with our brothers and sisters.

***this piece is designed to be a primer and conversation starter. there are many more things to say, but wanted to get the ball rolling and get some basic ideas out there***

“The Gift” marked, I hope, a real transition point for our team of protagonists. Because we got to see Al as not only sympathetic, but close to well-rounded; his sacrifice, I feel resonated for the viewers. More on this later. Meanwhile, this episode provided another glimpse into why the death of our alleged lead protagonist, Mark, would *not*.

The big problem with Mark is this: until he wore that Police shirt under his jacket, I had no idea the guy *liked* anything. We’re told he loves his wife, but the chemistry between them hasn’t ever been there, even in the “good times.” Until this week, he didn’t crack one joke (compared to Demetri, who’s been at least able to pull off the facade of joviality at times). Like I said last week, he’s a melodramatic character in an action-oriented series. (Another symptom of forcing melodrama where it doesn’t belong: The “pensive” little music videos that seem to close every episode. This week it might have stirred genuine emotion, had we not had to deal with one for most of the season.) I also don’t think Mark is as engaging to the “casual” fan as the showrunners may want to believe. If Brannon Braga and Co. aren’t careful, they might have another Claire Bennet on their hands. Now, to the week’s big topics:

As intense as the final sequence with Al was, I’m disappointed that Dem didn’t get to ask: Hey, what if Celia gets killed by somebody else? Wouldn’t that still make her flash forward come true? Nontheless, I’m sorry to see him go.
Mahsino: While I did scream “f-ck this noise” at the screen, I love how Al was/is technically the one that proves that the flash forwards aren’t set in stone and that he was able to actually make a change. That being said, why couldn’t Mark be the one to take one for the team? I think he knew the risk that Celia might die, but at least he wouldn’t have to live with the guilt. (And I can’t be the only one that wished they would’ve closed the show with Simon and Garfunkel’s “Cecilia“, seeing as they have a propensity for inappropriately-placed music).
Andrea: ::side-eyes Mahsino:: What struck me is that this is a Black man who committed suicide–a statistic that is rarely discussed within and outside Black communities, though, thankfully, that silence is starting to crack. At the same time, what deeply disturbs me is Al sacrificed his life for a narrative, whether to prove or disprove it. Again, the death of a character of color furthers a plot.
Diana: I was mad. I was already vested in Al and really wasn’t ready to see him go. The writers did have to address whether the flash forwards were set in stone to allow the story to go forward, but I didn’t want to see a POC be a casualty. We’ll see if this becomes a pattern. I’m willing to continue watching for now.
jen*: Yes, you can change things. But you don’t have to *die* to do it. Al struck me as smarter than that. Maybe it was too difficult to live with the guilt, but I’m sure gonna miss him. I suppose I knew something was gonna happen when I saw his name listed as a ‘guest star’ in the opening credits, but wow. All that to convince people not to roll over and take it? I’m ticked that it had to be him – there are SO many superfluous characters that could’ve gone instead.

Earlier in the episode, though, we got to see Al engage in some welcome jocularity with Mark and Dem. Though the three of them are the worst undercover ops I’ve ever seen; why would you discuss clues in front of a potential witness (even if she was sympathetic and “goth-hot”).
Mahsino: I feel like they’re so used to aimlessly chasing and shooting at people that they forgot how to do real sleuthing.
Andrea: LOL
Diana: I thought it was funny that Demetri called Mark on his Police t-shirt. You’re right, they’re not prime-time sleuths. They’re better when they are questioning odd balls, following weird clues, posturing in gun battles, and visiting dark warehouses with doll heads.
jen*: What did they do before the FF? Mark’s wife can still do surgery – why can’t they do their FBI thing? I actually wish they’d let Mr. Blue Hands get to whatever he was going to get to, cuz they didn’t have much to go on in the beginning. And of course, he’s not gonna talk. Eh.

Speaking of the undercover raid, I’m disappointed that in this case, the writers gave in to some pre-conceived notions, namely, that the Ghosts would listen to generic “Goth” music and do naughty things to each other. It might’ve been more clever to show the Blue Hand Group go out in a more “civilized” fashion. Oh well, at least the Kangaroo isn’t mixed up with this crowd, right?
Mahsino: So, how long ago were the blackouts supposed to have happened again? I ask, because that’s a pretty quick turnaround time to develop a bonafide cult- that has a fully stocked bar no less.
Andrea: This whole sequence caused me to roll my eye with the oh-so-supposed-to-shock Goth-y BDSM-y silliness until I saw the folks cloaked Abu Ghraib-style. Then that whole scene went from silly to just side-eyeingly stupid because, as Fiqah would say, that image was shown all willy-nilly. But, as Mollena said about the Ciara/Justin Timberlake video, BDSM, especially race play, can be a visually easy cheat for shock value.
Diana: And the whole scene still didn’t explain the room full of bodies laid out and why they’re left for anyone to find. Really, there’s no need to have a rave (or open bar) to off yourself. jen*: Al gave me the impression that it was more likely that the Blue Hand people were a mix of abyss-seers and FF-havers. But I am surprised that it supposedly caters to just the Goth-iest folks.

Where does Demetri go from here?
Mahsino: Well, if his wife-elect has anything to say about it, he’s going to get his ass back to bed and stick with her plan. His death will not ruin her big day, dammit!
Andrea: If I was Demetri, I’d ask Zoey the most obvious: “I’m really glad you ‘knew’ it was me, but did you actually see me in your flashforward?” Her stubborn magical thinking doesn’t negate the possibility that he could still die. Already she’s a bridezilla. SMH
Diana: I am glad he finally told her, though. If I were them, I would go ahead and run down to the courthouse to get married and live for the moment, just in case.
jen*: Second that, Diana. What’s so hard about being honest? But also, isn’t Zoey a lawyer? She’s gotta be smart enough to realize that not *actually* seeing Demetri is a red flag.

Open Mic!
Mahsino: So, back to Al, how did someone who looked like that get to be so lonely? He was nice, attractive, and had a good gov’t job with benefits? Side-eye on that one.
Andrea: Quite easily, Mahsino. I had a step-cousin, a Black man who had a good career in the military, was beloved by family and friends, and was good-looking, too. He committed suicide and, if I recall correctly, he left no explanation. It happens.
Diana: And he could cook too. Sad. As for the expanding cast, I was glad to see the MI-6 agent. I always liked her on ER.
Arturo: I totally fell for her during her guest-spot on Doctor Who last year. Her character was actually cool enough to make you believe she could be the Doctor’s wife.
Mahsino: I understand how it happens in real life, but in the land of Flash Forward, and TV in general,I question how it’s justifiable that the nice guy kills himself, but the douche-bag alcoholic who’s meh-looking at best gets a loving and devoted wife and family.
Andrea: But that’s just it, Mahsino: suicide is one of life’s verities, both in real life and on TV. It’s not about who “justified” in killing themselves and who’s not. Again, it happens.
Diana: Andrea and Mahsino, I’m deliberately trying not to get too heavy. I like my fantasy and sci-fi somewhat pop light. I get where you’re both coming from. We can’t see the inner workings of people who, from the outside, seem to have it all together, but still choose suicide as the path of least resistance. If they are going to go there, I would like to see a discussion on how selfish a choice suicide can be. Yes, Al seemingly did this for selfless reasons, to save another life and save himself from the guilt, but where is his family in all this and how do they cope with being left behind? Was there an alternative that was less extreme? He could have stopped driving for the six months or stayed in his apartment. His suicide might just be laziness on the part of the writers.
Andrea: I understand where you’re coming from, Diana, but the writers killed off a sci-fi character in a real, heavy, and all too-human way instead of, say, a pop-light incineration in a teleporter. Al’s suicide–as well as the suicide cult–bring up the magnitude of the human cost–selfish, selfless, and/or otherwise–of what Olivia’s future lover and the Hobbit did. Now, I’m going to cut the creative a little–like a hair’s breath of slack–because they may chronicle the toll Al’s death has on his family and friends. However, if the FF creatives want to keep it light, then they’d better ask Jeff Goldblum where he keeps his machine.
Arturo: My guess is, we’ll see the most – if any – toll of this on Demetri, since Al did this, in part, to show him he could change the game.
jen*: Hum. I’m sad about Al, because I would rather have seen more about him than this old guy with the long-lost daughter. But I was kinda weirded out that the doctor-boy seemed to think that kanji was the name of that specific character that the babysitter showed him. (Yeah, I don’t know anybody’s names.) Interesting that he’s looking for his Japanese dream-girl.
Mahsino: That reminds me- the vaguely, possibly, maybe “traditional” Japanese music they felt obligated to play when they mentioned Japan. Eye roll.

The LA Times has a story out today on a report released by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center detailing the Asian American vote in the 2008 presidential election. Gratifyingly, the report notes that the Asian American voter turnout in Los Angeles County has grown by an astounding 39% in California since 2000, showing the growing importance of the Asian American vote in the state.

For the countless organizations that are involved in improving voter turnout for APIAs, this is great news –  a validation of the countless hours spent canvassing and phonebanking Asian American voters to increase voter turnout. But it also underscores to me the importance of GOTV efforts — even with the massive increase in APIA voter turnout in L.A. County, the national voter turnout for APIAs remains 7% lower than the national average.

The 2008 election was also an energizing election; GOTV efforts must also focus now on ensuring that Asian American voters continue to vote — not just in national elections, but in local elections for propositions, city council, and state government.

The report has some interesting findings on top of its “take-home message” that APIA voter turnout has increased in L.A. county. Check out this graph showing voter trends within the APIA community and compared to all registered voters in the region. Unlike the voting population at-large, Asian American voters are predominantly foreign-born and skew older, suggesting that language, immigration, and other concerns that appeal to immigrant voters will have greater impact on our community. Indeed, APALC reports that over 90% of Asian American voters, regardless of country of origin, support improving English language training for immigrants.

Yet, that foreign-born older voters favoured McCain over Obama — despite McCain’s chronic flip-flopping on immigration that would tend discourage immigrant interests. Could this be a manifestation of the poor outreach the Democratic Party has towards Asian immigrant voters?

The report also has some interesting data regarding issues that the APIA community voted on. An astounding 90% of APIAs in L.A. county support universal healthcare. Yet, despite data indicating that most APIAs in L.A. county are Democrats, a majority also supported Prop 8 banning same-sex marriage.

This support seemed to differ based on voter ethnicity and voter age. Not surprisingly, older voters (who tend to be more conservative) supported Prop 8. Yet, the ethnic data is more interesting: while Chinese Americans opposed Prop 8, Filipino and Korean Americans voted overwhelmingly in favour of banning same-sex marriage — perhaps this has to do with the strong Catholic faith in these ethnicities communities?

We must focus our energy on maintaining the increased voter activity amongst APIA voters: 2008 cannot be a flash-in-the-pan. Rather, APIA voters must continue to stay involved in local elections, deciding propositions, city council, school board and state government representatives. This means that GOTV campaigns are still critical for maintaining and increasing our voter turnout. More than ever, we need to ensure APIA voters get out to the polls by increasing voter education, helping them get to the polls, and ensuring that they have adequate language access to voting material. (Incidentally, APALC also reports that roughly 1/3 of Asian American voters experience limited English proficiency, and they also released a report showing that bilingual phone calls and mailers are highly effective in increasing APIA voter turnout.)

And why do we need to vote? Asian Americans have, too often, been discounted during campaign season because we are perceived as being too small a community to effect election outcomes. Yet, in L.A. County last year, a whopping 63% of Asian Americans voted for President Obama (although, to be fair, that number mirrors the county-wide support Obama won in the 2008 general). While Obama won L.A. County handily in the 2008 presidential election, if all 2932,000 Asian Americans who had voted for Obama voted for McCain in that election, Obama’s margin of victory over McCain would have shrunken. And certainly, had Obama carried enough Asian American votes in L.A. County in the Democratic primary, he might have won the region instead of Clinton.

With recognition that Asian Americans wield voting power comes national attention — and more importantly – campaign promises. Recognizing the importance of the APIA demographic, Obama made several campaign promises during his presidential campaign that have since paid off  for APIAs – he has appointed a surprising number of Asian Americans to his administration, and earlier this month he signed an executive order increasing federal resources addressing disparities within the Asian American community.

Long story short — in this pluralistic society, voter apathy is tempting. But, our community can’t afford to fall by the way-side. The Asian American community deserves political attention, and we can only get that by participating in the political process.