"All That Yellow Wasted"

Because I decided to express my disturbance over a comment that mocked lighter-skinned black women for discovering that our color did not protect us from black men's sexual violence (considering that it's now open season on us in black communities) nor did it hold the same value since the same group of men have discovered that they can expand their options by dating white, Latina, and Asian women, a conversation on colorism and the light-skin/dark-skin issue got underway on Black Women Vote!

As a lighter-skinned black woman, I found myself getting uncomfortable because the discussion was in response to the latest atrocity of a black woman who was gang-raped for four hours in Philadelphia, while her neighbors did nothing to help her (one neighbor - a fellow black woman - heard her screams but decided to take a nap rather than call the police!); yet, while so many were distraught that another black woman could ignore her sister in a time of need, no one found it ironic that someone thought it was appropriate to interject sarcasm directed at lighter-skinned black women while discussing the subject of rape, which affects every woman of every hue. Somehow, the prevailing argument went, light-skinned black women have been so busy thinking we're so valued in the eyes of black men, that we've just had a rude awakening to the real horrors of racialized misogyny - a reality that our darker sisters always knew was there. Because I said this was a bogus claim, considering I was once targeted for molestation because of my light color, I was told by a fellow light-skinned black woman that we must acknowledge the ways that we benefit from light skin privilege and right the wrongs we have committed against our darker-skinned sisters.

Where do I begin? In this vein, I will follow in the footsteps of Tasha, who posted today on "Confessions of a Light-Skinned Sista."

I could have used the same title, I suppose, but instead, I thought I would invoke an old saying from the South: "All that yellow wasted." It's an insult darker-skinned blacks would level at lighter-skinned blacks, for, unlike lighter-skinned blacks in Latin America and the Caribbean, being "high yellow" in the American South didn't really get you much. Oh sure, it's no accident that, traditionally, the black middle and upper classes were usually fairer - considering that many were descendants of those slave masters who financially supported them or provided them with an education or who allowed them to go free. But, when it came to a white supremacist, Jim Crow segregationist system, that light-skin privilege was relative. Unlike white privilege, light-skinned privilege came with limited power, if at all. For your "yellow" color didn't prevent you from getting lynched or discriminated against. Homer Plessy (of the famed Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision, which ushered in the "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws), who was "one-eighth Negro" (also called "octaroon") would find that out when he was expelled from a Whites Only car of a train, and because he dared to sue for his rights, we got legal segregation for his efforts. Damn those uppity high-yellows!

Look, don't get me wrong. I'm aware of the ways that I have been privileged because of my color. Especially in the Caribbean, where I started kindergarten and where teachers favored me and overlooked me for punishment (not just because of the color but because my aunt, with whom I lived, was a respected teacher, and also because I came from America, where my clothes, which were of a higher quality compared to the other local children, came from). In the U.S., it meant being favored by the mostly white teachers, who put me on accelerated academic tracks. In middle and high school, it didn't exactly mean I got all the attention of the boys because I was a skinny little bean pole, which basically meant that all my friends who had curves - regardless of hue, at least that was my observation - had boyfriends before I did. But, it definitely meant that I was treated as a "good girl" or the "smart girl." Not sure this was based on my color, so much as my demeanor, but did my academic excellence, which teachers were willing to acknowledge in me, get noticed because I was lighter-skinned?

I guess I'm trying to understand the ways that I have "wronged" my darker-skinned sisters, especially since the wrongs that others have talked about seem to be related to sexual competition. I never got all the attention of the guys among my friends because I was always slow, shy, and awkward, very much a late bloomer, so my friends - regardless of their color - advanced ahead of me.

And that's when it hit me: this is what I was getting upset about. The discussion about light-skin vs. dark-skin is so limited in its scope that we really haven't addressed what is truly meant by "privilege" and "power." To consider lighter-skinned black women as benefiting from a certain privilege, based primarily on heterosexual privilege, is to invest that kind of privilege with a power that may or may not be there.

It's like when discussing slave history with my students last semester. One of my black female students assumed that house slaves had so much more benefits than field slaves. But, when I told her that someone like Harriet Tubman much preferred to be a field slave than a house slave, she was baffled. I explained to her that female house slaves were more likely to be under surveillance, raped, and turned into concubines, so I asked her to consider how "privileged" is this existence.

To me, the difference between light-skin privilege and white privilege is that white privilege comes with power, and light-skin privilege comes with the illusion of power. Both are designed to uphold systems of power: white supremacy the most obvious, but other systems like patriarchy and compulsory heterosexuality. What is required is for lighter-skinned black women to acknowledge the ways that we are valued in certain ways over darker-skinned black women but to reject the premise that rewards these values.

Of course, I also understand why so few lighter-skinned blacks are willing to acknowledge this because the power that one obtains is truly illusory, and we are similarly scarred by racism - something our darker-skinned sisters and brothers don't always acknowledge because they have bought into the belief that the illusory power we hold is real. The bottom line is that this "power" allotted based on light skin is not enough.

It's not enough to keep Vanessa Williams from losing her crown as the first black Miss America. It's not enough to prevent Halle Berry from earning her historic Oscar for Best Actress without recreating the oversexed and demeaning role of the black vixen in Monster's Ball. It's not enough to keep Faith Evans, who once posed famously alongside Notorious BIG on the cover of Vibe as a coy blond bombshell, from being a victim of domestic violence. It's not enough to advance all the high-yellow nations in Latin America and the Caribbean beyond their "third world" developing status.

In other words, this "privilege" is entrenched in a system that values and empowers those with white skin, and those who are "near white" or "not quite," must know their place and never challenge the hierarchy in which whites remain on top. It's why lighter-skinned blacks bear their own scars of racism. All that yellow wasted indeed.

For those who didn't accept the racial hierarchy, they do make great movers and shakers, some even great revolutionaries (think Frederick Douglass, William Wells Brown, Mary Ellen Pleasant, Ellen Craft, Harriet Jacobs, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Huey Newton, Kathleen Cleaver). If we have ever been wrong or done wrong, it's in not pushing hard enough to break down this racial hierarchy, for the illusory promise of power was too distracting.

However, I hope that we, as black women, can come together and challenge ourselves on the light-skin/dark-skin issue, for we've been carrying too many scars and hurts, imagining that the other hue has wronged us in some egregious way. I never fell for the rhetorical crap that lighter-skinned black women were the "preferred hue" because that has always been white supremacy talking. It would be a shame if we as black people internalized that racial hierarchy. But, it would be worse if we didn't distinguish between the privilege that benefits certain hues and the power that eludes all of us.

Week in Review

1. I finally bought my copy of Paula Giddings' new biography, Ida, A Sword Among Lions: Ida B. Wells and the Campaign against Lynching, and already, I had to put my book down and take a break after reading this passage describing Ida B. Wells' mother, who was born into slavery and experienced this while on the auction block:

"The prepubescence of young girls saved them from being intimately scrutinized by potential buyers who routinely examined buttocks and considered breasts. The health of children, by contrast, was determined by making them run in circles, or jump up and down, or skip along in measured distances."

Ugh! And this is page 16 out of a 800-page book! I've already been warned about the brutal lynching scenes that are soon to come. It's not that I don't know this history, but somehow, reading it about a particular individual has just cut me to the core.

2. Yesterday, I forgot to do a shout out during the celebration of Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday, so please allow me to wish him the best health and more years to come. I must confess, however, that I didn't watch the YouTube video featuring the celebratory concert in London for him since it opened with Will Smith. I mean, I must get over my issues there, but I imagine once all the celebrity-laden hoopla dies down, we can get to the meatier issues of what keeps this extraordinary man's heart ticking.

3. Also yesterday, one of my students did it again by offering this myopic view, now that we are looking at women's representations in global perspective (including women from the Middle East/West Asia and beyond):

My father is a NYC firefighter who responded to 9/11, almost lost his life
and lost about 50 very close friends they hes had since he got on the job 20
years ago. I think it'd be hard for my father not to have some prejudices now
after what he's seen. I think many people felt that way after 9/11. We look at
these acts and these suicide bombers with like their children strapped to them,
that kill themselves and thousands of people in the name of religion then yes
the other peaceful normal Middle Eastern people will be forgotten and most will
only see and think of the savage ones. In that respect the media does have some
kind of role because they are always just talking about suicide bomber after
suicide bomber but very rarely do you hear them talk about the common, peaceful
people in the Middle East. And the question of are American women in more
control of how men treat them, I think there is a very obvious answer to this:
yes. Yes there's the male gaze, but so what? We're all human and women look at
men just as much maybe not in an obvious way but they do. In middle Eastern
cultures women have to be all covered up, can't speak in public, eat after the
man has eaten, could be killed if she has an affair but her husband could do
whatever he wants including rape, and beating her. As a woman I would much
rather deal with the occasional American male gaze then living as a women in
traditional Middle Eastern culture.

I have to let this go, because next week, this summer course will be over, and I have to just accept that some students cannot be taught. However, while I was wringing my hands in agony after reading this, another student rose to the occasion and simply flew when she offered this intelligent critique (not only in response to the same readings and video assignments but also to a link I included to Bill Moyers' Journal program called Buying the War, which looks at how the media sold the U.S. on the war in Iraq). This is what she wrote:

It is clear from the videos and readings that the media distorts representations to suit a particular purpose. As seen in the video "Buying the war" with Bill Moyer, our press worked with the White House to create an agenda to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.This is very troubling to me. I thought that something like Vietnam couldn't possibly happen again because we had learned our lesson and the country had learned to be more critical. Unfortunately, we have engaged into this "War on Terror" and it seems that it was all built on very elaborate lies and propaganda about weapons of mass destruction, harboring terrorists and the oppression of women. Worst of all, the major media (NYT, Newsweek, etc) only helped to further these lies with unreliable defectors and sources. On top of that, the trauma and American unity felt after 9/11 was manipulated by our government into allowing for irrational retaliation, and here we are seven years later and no one is any better off for it. I think this may go back to our very first module and the article that discussed how seven major corporations controlled most media outlets. My question is, how can we change this? How can it be legitimate for the press to mislead a nation? How can it be
acceptable for our government to mislead the people? I think if anything is to be said it is that people still have the power, otherwise they wouldn't need to go to great lengths to convince us of their motives. Unfortunately, we are still buying into it. How do we stop?

So, perhaps there is hope with my teaching after all! :) Now, keep in mind, few of her classmates have bothered to respond to her questions, while the bigoted comment has already received dozens of responses, some stating that they agree with her. Sigh.

4. It's Pride weekend, and I want to give another shout out, this time to all my LGBTQI (am I missing any letters?) sisters and brothers. With the recent ruling on same-sex marriage in California, let's hope we will see a domino effect across the nation. Now, keep in mind, that I recently got into an online argument this week about religion and sexuality over this issue, so this is what I'm going to say: It's time we honor everyone's right to love and bless all of our unions!

In summary, here's Staceyann Chin talking about revolution:

The Mosaic Meme

I was invited by Professor Black Woman to participate in a Flickr Mosaic Meme, which she got the idea from Elle.

So here are the rules:

A. Type your answer to each of the questions below into Flickr Search.
B. Pick an image, using only the first page.
C. Copy and paste each of the URLs for the images into fd’s mosaic maker.

These are the questions:

1. What is your first name?
2. What is your favorite food?
3. What high school did you go to?
4. What is your favorite color?
5. Who is your celebrity crush?
6. What is your favorite drink?
7. What is your dream vacation?
8. What is your favorite dessert?
9. What you want to be when you grow up?
10. What do you love most in life?
11. One Word to describe you.
12. Your flickr name. (I used a different name since I don't have one.)

Even though I usually hate to be tagged for memes, I actually had so much fun creating this mosaic. It definitely gives you a picture (literally) of how we identify ourselves. So, I invite you to play along and create one!

Civil Rights 2.0 Video Contest

Just received this information today! Here's a video contest, sponsored by the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights, with a registration deadline of July 31, 2008, open to those who are ages 16 to 25.

Create and upload a YouTube video (30 seconds to 2 minutes in length) in response to the question: What are you and your generation doing for civil rights today?



Please see Contest Guidelines and information.

NWSA 2008: Repositioning Black Feminism

I returned from a rather productive and exciting conference at the NWSA in Cincinnati this past weekend. This is not always the case, so I'm glad to have something positive to report back.

Here are the highlights!

Day 1 - Thursday, June 19 (The Starry-Eyed Fan)

My flight was smooth and uninterrupted, and it didn't take me too long to get shuttled and settled into my hotel room. No sooner do I get into the hotel lobby than I'm bumping into former students, former professors, and former colleagues (in that order!). My first stop is attending a special "Women of Color" reception, and I didn't realize I've achieved a certain kind of national listserv fame (or infamy as the case may be) since the name on my tag was instantly recognizable. I can only imagine how much more this would be if my name appeared on this blog.

I met up with old friends from my alma mater, and on our way out, we passed by an academic hero of mine - Patricia Hill Collins, the conference keynote speaker and author of Black Feminist Thought; Fighting Words; Black Sexual Politics; and From Black Power to Hip Hop. I quote her often on this blog, and her theories definitely formed the framework for my dissertation, which became my first book. So, when an older scholar in our group called out to Dr. Collins, the rest of us definitely were immediately transformed into fangirls.

By the time I introduced myself to her, I think I managed to gush: "OMG! OMG! OMG!!! You're, like, soooo awesome! I teach you all the time!" (or something of the sort). She claims to have either heard of me or to have recognized my face (hmmm, we know people in common - black female academicians make up a small circle in academia- so that's not hard to believe), but considering that my forthcoming review of her most recent book is not exactly a positive review, I'm afraid she won't forget my name again.

Moving right along. Her keynote address was amazing and truly inspiring. Finally, a scholar who dares to bridge the theoretical divides between critical race theory and transnational discourse. I jotted down considerable notes while she talked since her lecture offered sociological distinctions between "colorblind racism" (what I had discussed in my Racism 2.0 post) and "color conscious racism" - both types achieving the same systemic inequalities while offering different approaches. More importantly, she asked us to think of how this U.S.-based system is then translated and globalized in different global contexts. In particular, she asked us to think of how racism gets entrenched in gender discourses so that the "public sphere" (often defined as masculine space) becomes the location for colorblind racism while the "private sphere" (or feminine space) becomes the permissible space of overt forms of racism. Complicated stuff, so I'm not sure I'm summarizing all the points well. I'd have to look through my notes and verify this. Still, she received a standing ovation - not just for her provocative ideas but engaging delivery. This was my first time hearing Dr. Collins speak, and I was beyond satisfied with her intellectual engagement (although the woman seriously needs to cite me since I have written on similar subjects, but that's another story). It's great to see the national organization for Women's Studies taking itself seriously as an intellectual discipline by featuring such speakers.

Afterwards, there was a reception, and since I didn't eat after traveling all day, I joined others for a late dinner and drinks and didn't get back to my room until after midnight.

Day 2 - Friday, June 20 (Old Narratives/Habits Die Hard)

So, I decided to skip out on morning sessions to participate in a tour of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in downtown Cincinnati, right on the riverfront where the Ohio River divides the "free state" of Ohio and the "slave state" of Kentucky. What a wonder it is to visit such sites, having read novels like Toni Morrison's Beloved, and get a sense of the history.

To my surprise, the museum is rather small, though I do like the design of the building. Also, considering it was only three blocks away from my hotel, I certainly wouldn't have paid in advance for the tour when I could have easily visited the museum on my own and guide myself (yes, I'm one of those scholars who hates museum tour guides - it really doesn't help when you know the history better than the person working for the museum). The museum tour actually starts with an animation introduction on the history of slavery. What a stroke of genius - this public pedagogy - since the animation captivated the school kids in the audience while leaving us adults speechless by its breathtaking beauty and emotionality. I tell ya, when I'm reduced to tears over a simple line drawing that renders the pain of an elderly slave woman being humiliated by her young-looking white mistress, that's some powerful art.

The rest of the exhibition was rather sparse. I guess it's still a work in progress because the Freedom Center is not very extensive in its historical information - for instance, where is the Margaret Garner story? No where to be found! There were some amazing quilts by a local artist, Aminah Brenda Lynn Robinson, and a reconstructed slave pen (replete with chains used on slaves) to give us a sense of how the enslaved were holed up in one place and treated like beasts of burden. Here again, I would've preferred looking at this exhibit on my own because our tour guide thought the important story was the master who owned the slaves, rather than the slaves themselves, and quite frankly, I don't give a crap about that man. I was far more interested in reading the list of the slaves he was selling and why they bore the names that they did - why, for instance, did this man own slaves called "Israel," "America," and "Ghana"? Did those slaves originate from those countries? What do those names mean? And how, pray tell, does a slave called Israel see him or herself as some "promise land" when he's holed up in a slave pen like some farm animal? You know, those are the questions I had, and didn't really want to hear about their "master" J. W. Anderson.

The interactive multimedia exhibits were probably the most entrenched in an old or, I should say, "master narrative." One particular film on exhibit framed the rest of the museum experience. Constructing as it did a patriarchal narrative about terrified slave mothers who dared not leave the plantation while wringing their hands for the young brave men who dared to escape, I began to get impatient. At least this particular filmic narrative envisioned a young man and his sister venturing on the underground railroad to find their freedom, but I was still annoyed by this.

After reading Beloved and Michelle Cliff's Free Enterprise - forget about fiction, let's just look at history (and I certainly suggest you revisit my Black Herstory series) - after Harriet Tubman, do we really need to construct a patriarchal narrative about the Underground Railroad when this journey required the strength of both women and men, black and white? I did find it quite amusing, after this filmic introduction, that the tour guide - when describing one of these fugitive slave stories to us - kept getting one of the names wrong by mentioning the name of Mary Ellen. It finally dawned on the group: right across from the tour guide was a big old portrait of Mary Ellen Pleasant, looking all impressive and big-eyed and "angry" like how black women get when they cut their eyes at you (and, yes, that's how she looked in the photo). Heh. I knew, when I gazed into her portrait, that Mrs. Pleasant was feeling the way I was since, ONCE AGAIN, she was being erased from this narrative. So, every time the tour guide kept inserting her name, I felt her spirit in tune with mine: if I could high-five her at that instant, you know I would.

Don't you just love it when black women, dead or alive, refuse to be silent or forgotten? :)

Of course, this interactive multimedia show wasn't over until we were treated to a specific film narrated by none other than Oprah Winfrey (whom I'm assuming must have shaped the main narrative since she donated a great deal of money to the museum). So, all I have to say is: Master Narrative Indeed.

All in all, I'm glad I made this trip and highly recommend this visit should you ever pass through Cincinnati. After all, we absolutely must support our African American historical centers, especially since this museum is still struggling - like so many others - to stay afloat. But, I would love to see a few more exhibits, and perhaps some of us can propose curating the kind of show that could certainly fill in the gaps that I've already mentioned.

The day ended with my attendance of a special panel organized in tribute to Audre Lorde. The main speakers - black lesbian scholar Kaila Adia Story of the University of Louisville, Filipina scholar Melinda L. de Jesús of California College of the Arts and editor of a new anthology, Pinoy Power, and Emi Koyama of Eminism.org - all represented different aspects of the next generation of scholars and activists, who wanted to discuss their debt to pioneers like Lorde. It was a very moving tribute and one that offered so much food for thought (especially Emi Koyama, who raised the same issues as Lorde did in her "master's tools will never dismantle the master's house" speech about academic organizations like NWSA not being able to offer funding to non-academic, struggling working-poor intersex activists like hirself.

After offering great ideas and speaking from their hearts, what's the first question they're given from the audience? A middle-aged white woman, who approached the microphone in the aisle, informed the panelists and everyone else that she is the only professor at her university teaching on the subject of black feminism (if we can believe that), and she would like some advice on how she can challenge the one sexist black male student in her class without coming off like a racist. No one on the panel offered her any advice. In fact, their silence started making everyone else uncomfortable (which was fine by me because, seriously, what does that question have to do with anything? Really?).

Alas, a few older black women - those who grew up believing that they must be polite and accommodating - began to offer suggestions on what this woman could do to challenge that sexist black man in her class. Then, a more conscious white woman went to the mic and said that it is really time for white women to stop putting the burden on women of color to "teach" them about the issue of race. Applause ensued, and Ann Russo in the audience, a renowned white antiracist activist-scholar, who was busy passing around a petition protesting racism and sexism in this year's presidential election (see PBW's post), chimed in.

However, it wasn't long before the conversation deteriorated because Emi's criticism of NWSA's class-based discrimination was appropriated by different individuals who began to trash the organization - not because they themselves wanted to address intersections of classism, racism, and sexism but to simply seize the opportunity to just gripe about their various grievances. The same offending white woman who asked the question about her sexist black male student went back to the microphone to complain that the free tote bags organizers handed out to conference participants smelled of a strange "chemical waste" and that it was probably "made in China" by all sorts of sweatshop workers, and what does that say about the lack of global consciousness on the part of NWSA?

At that point, a few Asian American attendees stormed out of the room, and I don't think the offender understood what she said or did wrong until finally, an Asian American graduate student felt empowered enough to approach the mic and tell this woman how offensive she was. Needless to say, the conversation went in circles, and I hung out with two other junior colleagues afterwards where we had drinks at the bar, and I didn't return to my room until 2 am. Just so you know, I did not leave that session without approaching the mic myself to invoke Audre Lorde's name and remind everyone why we were offering this tribute in the first place.

Day 3 - Saturday, June 21 (Hanging With the Big Girls)

Despite my late night hours, I made sure I woke up in time to attend a very important session that involved a conversation between the great black feminist scholar (and my former professor) Beverly Guy-Sheftall and the prominent black feminist historian Paula Giddings. Guy-Sheftall was also taking over as President of NWSA, and I cannot help but feel optimistic about the direction she could take this organization (thank goodness she did not attend the Audre Lorde panel, or she might have decided to resign right then and there!).

Dr. Giddings has just published an 800-page biography on Ida B. Wells, titled Ida, A Sword Among Lions. All the books were sold out, so I'm going to have to wait to get my own copy. Just from the conversation, it sounds fascinating, and it is definitely the most comprehensive biography on Ida B. Wells to date. I absolutely cannot wait to read it (you'll remember that I started my Black Herstory series with her). In a packed room of starry-eyed academicians, we listened to every single word emanating from these two great women as if they were preaching the gospel, and we absolutely believe Giddings when she tells us that Ida's spirit compelled her to write her story (which took her 20 years to do so). Absolutely captivating this woman's life was, and she did what she did without hesitation and with sheer courage and conviction. I now have a new motto should I find myself in any dilemma: "What would Ida do?"

Later on, I presented a talk on blogging as pedagogy and black feminist activism, so my Anxious Black Woman alter ego is starting to penetrate my academic space offline (hee). Afterwards, I bumped into both Giddings and Guy-Sheftall and got invited to join them for drinks and a later dinner! You've got to understand something, dear readers. I have vivid memories of when my professor had placed me and another graduate student at a table filled with other students at another conference while she hung out with important people like Toni Morrison. I definitely felt like she placed me at the kiddie table at that conference.

So, now I'm being invited to hang with the "big girls"! And that's when I knew I had graduated to the "grown-up table"! Yes, I'm almost tenured, but trust me when I tell you that, even though we are all Ph.D'd colleagues, former professors can still make you feel like you are still their student (case in point, before the night was over, she gave me an "assignment" - the details of which I won't go into).

Needless to say, I had a great time, and we talked about all kinds of things - including how Giddings was trying to get either a play or movie made about Ida B. Wells (that would be so cool!), and why Oprah Winfrey has yet to show any interest in producing such a movie (we all believe Ida is too radical for Oprah to want to tackle, but I don't see why she wouldn't - both women are affiliated with Mississippi and Chicago). So many untold stories, and the work we do as scholars is certainly not in vain. Towards the end of the evening (at least for me - after three drinks, I had to retire early, so obviously I'm not nearly as seasoned enough to really, really hang with the big girls - whom I understand stayed up till the wee hours of the morning) we brainstormed a potential fundraising event - if we could feature a televised feminist-style state of the union event featuring our most prominent women in the nation and charge admission - might this be an effective way to increase the relevance and profile of Women's Studies nationally? And my professor and her cohorts have their connections.

Who knows? We might be able to pull this off (if they remember, since we were all pretty juiced while coming up with our ideas, even though I've been "assigned" to remind them of these ideas - perhaps blogging about it is a way to force myself to recall this). Definitely stay tuned because if it materializes, I'd love for you all to know the part I played in all this.

So, all in all, this year's NWSA highlighted and repositioned Black Feminism in ways it hasn't before, and in light of the new directions our nation and world seem to be headed, perhaps the time is now for us to seize opportunities and imagine all things are possible.

I haven't felt so positive about this organization in a long time, especially after last year's fiasco, so let's hope the momentum has just begun.

Off to NWSA!

I'm leaving today for the National Women's Studies Association annual conference this weekend. Here's hoping my "Racism 2.0" post doesn't serve as a prelude of sorts. Will report back with details when I return!

Racism 2.0

Racism has been on my mind lately. The way it has shaped our conversations about this year's presidential election. The way it has shaped black women's images in the media. The way it has shaped my teaching. The way it has burned out so many good people that I know. The way it has destroyed our psyches and our bodies.

And I've been asking myself: why should I hold out hope? So many African Americans were truly overjoyed by what they viewed as the "impossible": when Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus in January and when he became the Democratic presidential candidate. And all this, despite the racialized media spin surrounding his preacher and his church (as if the churches on the right haven't had their share of controversy) and despite certain white women "showing their racism," or as anti-racist activist Tim Wise (htp Huey!) called it: "Your Whiteness is Showing."

As a professor, who has dealt with bigoted white students using the tools I taught them against people like me by appropriating progressive rhetoric and who has had to advocate on behalf of students of color, when they were getting screwed by my colleagues, or as an administrator, who continues to struggle to recruit women of color into the discipline of Women's Studies (because it is implicitly understood to be a discipline about "white women" in which they will always be ignored or marginalized), or as a Women's Studies scholar who knows her current success as a soon-to-be-tenured (I hope, it's not official yet) professor teaching in her own discipline is the exception, not the rule (some of the sharpest minds are Women's Studies scholars of color who either can't find a job in academia here in the U.S., or they have to teach overseas, or can't get tenure - *cough* Andrea Smith *cough*), it's hard to hold onto that hope.

And when my current crop of students this summer treat me as if I'm an impostor in my own discipline, and that the research and teaching that I do is so not worth their time and tuition dollars, where do we find the grace and the hope to "keep on keeping on," as Jesse Jackson would say?

If I could ask the Obamas any question - if they read our blogs and if our nation was truly ready to ask honest questions about race and racism - it would be this: "How did you do it? How did you all get through Princeton and Harvard and your law professions, and now running a national campaign, and not lose your freaking minds?"

If I asked them that question, would they be able to answer truthfully before a live American audience? Because most of us who are people of color, we really want to know. We come very close to the brink. And God forbid we exhibit our frustrations with racism, we are immediately labeled "Angry Black Woman" (see this latest Fox News Video - htp Gina from What About Our Daughters).

This is not about some internal source of strength borne out of 500 years of slavery and oppression. Because the Racism 2.0 (or what Patricia Hill Collins calls the "new racism" - a perpetuation of the belief in a "colorblind" society while ignoring the systemic effects of racial inequality) that we currently suffer is simply an upgrade version of racism past. Keep in mind: white people living during slavery thought they were "good people" too. The white people who lived during the days of lynching thought they were "good people" too (especially if they didn't participate in the mob - oh, they weren't going to stop the lynching party or anything, but at least they didn't create the noose or cut off the genitals of the victim, you understand).

The difference between that racism and today's racism seems to be by degrees. A key difference is that no one is comfortable being overtly racist today. Which is why, I suspect, the Clintons eventually lost their Democratic bid. They did not miscalculate the level of racism in our nation, but they did miscalculate how to articulate it. Very few people want to believe they are racists, and because our society defines racists as those extremists who wear hoods, burn crosses, hang nooses, or commit violent hate crimes every now and then, most people think they are off the hook. Which is why they get frustrated whenever the subject comes up or very defensive when they are told they are behaving or thinking in a racist manner.

This is why my summer students can get uncomfortable whenever subjects about race come up, and when I'm asked to refocus the subject back to a race-neutral subject (read: white people), and when I tell them that such a request is steeped in racist thinking, I get retreats. I get students swearing up and down how much they "appreciate diversity" (read: "I'm not a racist!"). If the N-word has become a fighting word for black people, more and more, it's becoming obvious that the R-word has the same effect on white people. It's their sore spot and a surefire way to turn them into very angry or very apologetic or very irrational people. Which usually means that we're NOT going to ever have intelligent conversations about the subject because if white people are being irrational because the R-word has been mentioned, and people of color are busy keeping in our anger because it's pointless to talk to irrational yet privileged people - or worse, be labeled as "angry" - then how are we ever going to cross this "bridge over troubled waters"?

We're in a serious bind here, folks. Because it is damn hard to fight a phenomenon if one side pretends it's not a problem while the other side knows it's there and, worse, knows the other side also knows it's there but is just pretending for fear of losing power and privilege. At least cross-burnings and noose hangings can be acknowledged and fought in the open. But what about the subtler forms of racism? How do we fight those? How do we fight a ghost?

That really is the challenge that faces all of us in this new millennium era. And, as I've already said in previous posts, I believe that ghosts exist. Then again, I'm a historian with a long memory.

Look At This Movie Trailer: So, African Women Shape the Concept...But Not the Discourse?

Forthcoming: early 2009





The gender politics look a bit steeped in Afrocentric politics (Read: highly sexist), especially just looking at the movie logo, but I'm curious to see it all the same. Please visit Motherland for more info.

Teaching While Black...

So, why am I not surprised, that after my "Beckys" spent a good chunk of last week complaining about the bombardment of "video hos flaunting their big behinds all over the place," the next logical step of their rage/venting/discomfort would be the black female professor behind the computer screen (as opposed to in front of the classroom)?

One such student posted this message to me:

One thing I have noticed with the intersection of race and gender is it seems to
focus primarily on african american females and the negative effects of their
media representation. White women also have false representations in the media.
Obviously. I felt as though this module focused primarily on black women. I am
not offended or anything I just think some equal focus could bring about some
wider perspectives of the way we view women in general.

Sigh. Keep in mind, the previous week, we had focused a great deal on white women and that, during this module, I included readings that addressed representations of Latinas and Native American women as well (the following week, we will look at Arab and Asian women).

Why Have We Decided to Accept that "Black People are Dysfunctional"?

Gina's latest blog had me falling out of my chair with laughter. I appreciate her humor in the face of yet another serious discussion in the news about black women and our various woes and the black community's various pathologies (an upcoming CNN special report about being "Black in America" is forthcoming in July) .

If it were simply white America painting this picture of ourselves, we can chock it down to good old-fashioned white supremacy. But, whenever I read the black blogosphere and listen to the conversations that black folks are having, obviously we have decided to accept as "fact" that we, as black people, really are dysfunctional.

Take this last Father's Day. Like many people, I went to church that day (just like I did on Mother's Day). And, while the Mother's Day church service was a rather emotional "Oh how we love our Black Mamas, let us count the ways and weep and raise our hands in reverence over it" affair, the Father's Day church service was a stark contrast.

There was no, "Oh Daddy, I would not be here on this earth but for you!"

No "Daddy, Daddy, oh how I love you! Oh, how you kept me on a steady path! Oh Dear Father!"

No weeping in ecstasy for the love our fathers have given us and the grand debts that we owe our fathers for giving us life and nurturing us into adulthood.

Oh noooooo.

Unlike the Black Mother - who is highly revered in the black community (which in and of itself is a problem - thanks, Lisa *waves* for pointing this out in my Rebecca Walker post) - the Black Father is reviled and chastised and always, always viewed as a "problem."

And that's what we got for our Father's Day sermon: a sociological report on everything the black man isn't doing to "head his household" or "take his proper place" or whatever it is we have decided a patriarch should do.

Considering that the text for the sermon was based on the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which is a story about a father's unconditional love and reconciliation, I'm still trying to grasp in my mind how such a message justified descending into yet another chastisement about how dysfunctional our black fathers are.

Don't get me wrong: as a feminist, I am very aware of the problems of patriarchy and how male dominance has contributed to a number of dysfunctional families: domestic violence, abuse, incest, absenteeism, you name it. But, I happen to know that these pathologies cut across all races, ethnicities, nationalities, and classes - not just black folk and not just poor folk - and that, despite these problems, there are decent people and decent men who treat women and children with love and respect.

Why didn't we get that sermon? After all, the same pathological sermon could have been leveled against mothers on Mother's Day, because we know some mothers are not nurturing or loving, that some are abusive. But, we didn't get that message on Mother's Day because we recognized that was a day to celebrate motherhood.

Why are we "celebrating fatherhood" by accepting the widespread narrative that black people don't have fathers to celebrate? And, again, this isn't exclusive to the black community. Just before the Father's Day weekend, a white female writer for The New York Times offered a scathing critique of patriarchy that managed to anger every father around (since she thought it was prudent to compare Muslims obsessed with virginity and evangelical-type fathers who participate in Father-Daughter Purity Balls with the deranged Austrian father, Josef Fritzl, who locked up his daughter for 24 years and repeatedly raped her and had children with her). I mean, I too find those purity balls rather creepy, but it takes a certain kind of father-hate to make the connections that she did.

Can we imagine a progressive society in which fathers take on positive roles? Roles that are not oppressive or problematic? What are our fathers doing that they can't even get celebrated one day of the year? When, as black communities, are we going to reconcile with our fathers? What are our expectations? Are we still expecting some dominant "head of household" figurehead, or do we want someone more compassionate and caring?

Most importantly, can we start moving beyond the myth of our own dysfunctionality? Isn't it time we abandoned whatever models are being forced on us and forge new definitions of family and community?

Happy Father's Day!

To all our fathers ...

1. those who have nurtured us




2. those with whom we must reconcile



3. those who need our forgiveness



4. those who inspire us



5. those who are cherished in our memories

So, Mother Earth Doesn't Like Us Anymore: My Review of The Happening (Spoilers)

You would think that, after Signs, after The Village, and after Lady in the Water, I would have given up on M. Night Shyamalan. But, I saw the trailer for his movie, The Happening, and as an avid lover of the Book of Revelations and a fan of all the History Channel programs conjuring up clever ways that humanity will be wiped off the face of the earth, this was one summer movie I was willing to see.

It doesn't hurt that Mark Wahlberg is incredibly sexy when he wears a severe furrowed brow, which he kept on for the entire duration of the film.

And, yes, I ignored all the bad movie reviews and all the scathing criticisms posted by the many anonymous reviewers on the imdb message boards to see for myself if The Happening was destined to be another Sixth Sense or another Lady in the Water. It's neither actually. However, if I had to evaluate all of Shyamalan's movies, this would be my ranking:

- Unbreakable (the best surprise twist ever - even besting his first movie)
- The Sixth Sense (ignoring, for the moment, the surprise ending that audiences have now come to expect, this is still his most complex story and the freshest Shyamalan has ever been - he wasn't pandering to anyone's expectations so his individual style as a director shines best here)

*wide gap*

- The Happening (not his worst film by any stretch of the imagination, but Shyamalan's recent film shows glimpses of what made him unique and a strong director even while showcasing all his weaknesses - more on this later)
- Signs (there were real chill-inducing moments in this one, but the "surprise ending" was just so idiotic: I mean, really, aliens from outer space who are allergic to water have come to invade a planet that's comprised of 70 percent of it? Really?!)
- The Village (again, some real chill-inducing moments in this one - the shocking stabbing scene alone was worth the price of the movie ticket - but the ending, which betrays the rest of the movie's premise, was enough to ruin the entire film)
- Lady in the Water (this one I avoided in the theaters, but even watching it on TV for free was a waste of my brain power. A mermaid. That's all I have to say...)

So, having highlighted Shyamalan's resume, let me elaborate on The Happening. One thing I really like about Shyamalan's films is the sheer creepiness of them. Say what you will about his idiotic concepts and poor scripts, the man knows how to create the right kinds of moods: the sounds or lack thereof, the camera pans, the close-ups, the long shots, the build-ups, etc. Just good stuff! This is where he shines, and such moodiness was not at all missing from The Happening.

The opening scene, which takes place in Central Park in New York, created the necessary suspense right out the gate. There were glimpses of September 11 afterwards, as we are privy to a sudden torrent of bodies falling from high rises - Oi! the trauma! the trauma! (anyone who saw September 11 LIVE!! will never forget the images of the falling bodies - or the horrible, terrible sounds of their bodies crashing on the ground - and Shyamalan masterfully recreates the apocalyptic scene as a way to jostle our memory of when we all knew our world was coming to an end (I highly recommend the You Tube documentary, The Falling Man, which explores how media deliberately erased the trauma of the WTC falling bodies from our national memory).

Such worldwide witnessing of the "mass suicide jump" is the jumping off point (no pun intended) of the strange happenings in this movie, first assumed to be an inexplicable terrorist attack sans commercial airlines-turned-missiles, and then to be an invisible enemy polluting our air with poisonous toxins, which have caused humans to commit suicide.

Crazy and nonsensical concept? Of course it is. But, somehow, it's a concept that I can accept. The action of this movie soon switches to Philadelphia and Pennsylvania - Shyamalan territory - when we are introduced to a high school science teacher (played by Wahlberg - I know, I know: this is a concept that's just as hard to accept), who asks his students to consider why so many of our bees are disappearing from the earth. And if the bees are dying, are we next? (On the blackboard, Albert Einstein is credited with a quote that predicts that humans would last only four years after all the bees have become extinct - yeah, I don't think he said this either!)

No sooner do news reports come in about the mass deaths in New York City than all of our Philadelphia residents take to the trains to escape the city. Finding refuge in suburbia and then in small towns, slowly our main characters realize that there is no escape. Slowly, they realize (after talking to a nerdy nursery owner) that maybe, just maybe the plants and the trees are responsible for this pandemic. Wow.

So, what does one do when one realizes that Mother Earth has turned on humankind and that there is no escape, wherever you go? Well, you turn to the one you love, give up your self-centered and immature behavior, and create positive energy. No, I kid you not. That is the movie in a nutshell. As a matter of fact, I like the message (even if it ends on a familiar note of how the nuclear family will save the day), but the script and the dialogue were too silly for anyone to take seriously. If there were some real intelligence behind the concept, this would have been a nice film. As it stands, it's just meh. Not bad, but not good, and at least it offers something different in the high testosterone-filled mindless blockbuster flicks on their way to our multiplexes.

All in all, The Happening is a mix of what works well in a Shyamalan film and what doesn't.

When Shyamalan shines, he is radiant.

1. His Local Colorism - I absolutely love this aspect in his movies: his commitment to do Pennsylvania and to highlight local concerns - like the quick glimpse of a headline about "Killadelphia" and its recent murder epidemic, or when our main characters finally seek refuge in an old "safehouse" out in the countryside, which was part of Pennsylvania's Underground Railroad route. This attention to historical detail casts the future through the lens of the past and shows what, if anything, makes the state worthy of the ideals of "brotherly love," which is the kind of city Philadelphia claims to be. With so much violence and hostility expressed by many in the movie, who fail to reach out to strangers and help in a time of need - scratch that, in a time of crisis - this historical reminder that fugitive slaves were at the mercy of strangers and that such strangers had to be relied upon if one were going to journey to freedom is an important message. It's no coincidence that our main characters reconcile and express their love for each other while speaking through a pipeline that allowed fugitives to communicate with each other.
2. His Subtleties - It is these subtleties that really work in his films. By the same token, if our main characters can reconcile in a safe house, there is no such promise when, earlier, they sought refuge in a big house that turns out to be a "model home" - everything in it is plasticized; everything in it is a sham. It represents all of our modernities and artificialities. Is the film telling us to give up our contemporary way of doing things and return to nature? That, if we stayed in tune with nature, the wind and the trees and the grass would not try to poison us since "the world is too much with us" as Wordsworth said?
3. His Multiculturalism - in many Hollywood movies that don't always recognize the racial pluralism of our society, I do like this aspect of Shyamalan's movies, which highlight how multicultural our cities and towns are. Although he never challenges the centrality of whiteness or the white nuclear family in his films, he does showcase how whiteness is surrounded by people of color and also highlights his marginality as a South Asian filmmaker. I always find it interesting that he was once approached to direct the South Asian-American film, The Namesake, yet he turned it down (which is a good thing, because its director, Mira Nair, is miles better as a filmmaker), because he'd rather do these kinds of films. He may not be the brown version of Spike Lee, but like Lee, he does know how to introduce people of color into the narrative, and to do so effortlessly without reducing them to pure racial stereotype.
4. His Suspense Build-up - As I already mentioned, this is what Shyamalan does best. He can make a boarded up house with shadows moving about on the inside, or a plastic tree, or an old woman just chilling on her ancient porch, or a doll lying on a bed, look downright menacing!

But when Shyamalan sucks, he sucks HARD!

1. His Poorly Conceived Concepts - the problem that I have with much of Shyamalan's fascinations with the supernatural is not that they are hard to believe. For the record: I do believe in ghosts. I do believe that our comic-book heroes and villains are ancient archetypes and representations of humans who have exhibited certain extraordinary powers. I do believe there is a real possibility that life exists on other planets in galaxies far away. I do believe that radical sects that try to live in the past exist in the U.S. (didn't we just discover one in Texas the other day?). I still don't believe in mermaids though. But, if a filmmaker immersed me into his alternate universe in a convincing way, I could accept any of these concepts. For crying out loud, at the box office right now, I'm sure Shyamalan's film will be defeated by another fantastical movie that expects its audience to believe that exposure to gamma rays can turn an ordinary man into a hulky green hybrid monster! And I'll bet you anything those movie audiences won't argue the logic of the premise. Shyamalan takes a fascinating concept, exhausts it, over explains it (because somehow the logic of the concept is so important, right?), and then abandons it for some "unexpected" surprise ending. At least that didn't happen with The Happening, but unfortunately, too many news reports, in which scientific "experts" were shown, tried to "explain" it). Here's a clue: what makes supernatural occurrences so fascinating to begin with is that they cannot be explained. Let's keep the mystery, shall we?
2. Badly-Written Dialogue - Wow, the high-school level conversations throughout this movie were downright embarrassing. I will not go into detail about how our couple decided to "confess" to each other just before their imminent deaths (which - spoiler alert - does not happen). I imagine part of what makes his concepts go awry is precisely because the writing does not help take it to its next logical level. If Shyamalan's ego wasn't so huge, he would have already gotten help with a good screenwriter. He can direct, but no, the man cannot write.
3. His Cameos - speaking of egos, Shyamalan has an Alfred Hitchcock complex and, so, loves to place himself in his movies. Fortunately, in his latest film, he's only a voice on a cellphone. At least, in this respect, he's learning to minimize his presence.
4. His Uneven Direction - Main actors shine, while extras are simply awful in their delivery of lines. And, of course, the other aforementioned points outlined above.

In summary, The Happening was entertaining enough as a summer movie, which I think has done enough to keep him from the downward spiral that started with The Village, just not enough to restore him to his Sixth Sense glory. Work with a good screenwriter, Shyamalan! Because, as silly as the premise is for The Happening, I happen to believe you're on to something. Yes, the wind and the trees and the plants are communicating to us. More of us need to listen.

Did I Really Just See This?!

I went to the movies last night and saw this trailer for an upcoming fall season movie, Lakeview Terrace, which is so problematic I don't know where to begin with my critique.

Do I start with Samuel Jackson in a Denzel Washingtonesque corrupt cop role, or do I begin with the so-called intolerance of black folk who disapprove of black women in interracial relationships? What is their point? That black men with a lot of power spells the doom of all concerned (so, maybe, just maybe, this is a jab against Obama's run for the presidency)? I sure as hell know this is not any advocacy for black women and white men's right to be together!

See for yourself:

"You're Not Fit to be First Lady!" Black Women and the Burden of Representation

Last year, I posted a question as to whether or not America would be ready for a black First Lady. I mean, if we go by our fictional accounts, as I had already referenced season one of Fox's 24 in which the TV show imagined that we could have a black president - but only if he first divorced his conniving wife since, as he put it, "You're not fit to be first lady" - Obama may have a real chance. But, his "baby mama" (to shamefully quote Fox News) Michelle Obama? Not so much.

That's right: today, I learned from Brownfemipower (didn't know she's back up!) - via Professor Black Woman - and Gina from What About Our Daughters - that Fox News referred to Michelle Obama as a "baby mama."

This, after I had to intervene today on an online summer course about women and the media that I'm currently teaching since my mostly white female students - who don't have a black female professor standing in front of the classroom because she is only existing behind a computer screen - have made some bigoted comments about black women's representations in the media. There is absolutely no filter in their comments, which would have been in place if we were in a face-to-face classroom, and so, because they were responding this week to a scholarly article on the legacy of the "Hottentot Venus," many of these misguided souls have taken the opportunity to vent - yes, VENT!! - about how they are so sick of those "video hos" (I kid you not! They were careful to put those words in quotation marks, as if that excuses their derogatory remarks) all over the media, who just "love to flaunt their big butts all over the place." Yes, that's a direct quote!

Sigh. Why do they sound like those white girls from Sir Mixalot's music video?

"Oh my God, Becky! Just look at her butt...She is just sooooo...BIG!!"

If their gender were different, how would the dialogue change? Would they simply be white guys disapproving of the size of black men's penises? What is the source of their discomfort over black bodies? Is there a level of homoeroticism taking place? Is there some kind of racial insecurity about sexuality being expressed here?

More importantly, why is it that, last week, when the articles they read and the videos they watched that addressed white women's representations in the media (the same sexualized images, mind you), no one complained that they were so sick of these women "flaunting" themselves "all over the place"? Hello! One of the articles referenced the infamous moment when Britney Spears appeared panty-less in public. Where was the same outrage? They weren't outraged; they just thought this was indicative of the way "patriarchy" conspired to keep women in their place through ubiquitous pornographic images.

But, as soon as we address black women's representations, the problem is not patriarchy. Oh no! The problem is those shameless "video hos" who "flaunt their big butts all over the place!"

So, how do these online students relate to the Fox News "Obama's Baby Mama" report? Obviously, there seems to be a certain kind of cognitive dissonance that takes place in which black women, regardless of who we are, cannot be separated from the main stereotypes that abound about our bodies. That has been our "burden of representation." Michelle Obama, an Ivy League graduate, professional lawyer, respectable wife and mother, and potential First Lady, is somehow reduced to the "baby mama"/"video ho" that is currently in heavy rotation and circulation. This image is so thoroughly ingrained in our culture as the antithesis of the "All-American Girl/Woman/Lady" that it really could undermine Obama's chances at winning the presidency - yes, more undermining than any scary black man image that has been in circulation.

The original Hottentot Venus image was created at a time when England was colonizing Africa, when the transatlantic slave trade was abolished, and when there was a crucial need to crush the revolutionary spirit among slaves in the Americas (in the wake of the Haitian slave revolt). It was absolutely essential to create an image that suggested that Africans - by the very nature of their bodily existence - were sexual savages with debased morals and animalistic urges, who were therefore deserving of slavery and colonization. African women, in particular, were viewed as deserving to be raped and to be bred to support the slave labor economy.

When we survey the media landscape and take note of the ubiquitous "baby mamas" and "video hos" of our contemporary moment, what economies, policies, and cultures do these images support? And if these images support certain beliefs and systems, how does someone like Michelle Obama serve as a threat?

It is only the power of such images that can even support dialogue that existed in a show like Fox's 24 - "You're not fit to be First Lady." It will be useful for all of us to start paying attention to how race and gender intersect to influence these views during this year's election. And, yes, it's a point I will be reinforcing for all my "Beckys" enrolled in my summer course.

Please visit Gina's Michelle Obama Watch.

Oh, Rebecca, Rebecca: Forgive Your Mother Already!

See. And this is why I never took third wave feminism seriously, even though this part of feminism is supposed to identify my generation. One of the co-founders of this "movement" (which always felt to me more like a "ripple" than a wave since those who were articulating this feminist movement were daughters of feminist icons, who always sounded to me like they wanted to rebel against what their mothers taught them), Rebecca Walker has been on the war path in writing and speaking negatively about her famous mother, Alice Walker, the Pulitzer-Prize winning author of The Color Purple.

Here is what she said in a recent Daily Mail article, "How My Mother's Fanatical Views Tore Us Apart":

My mother's feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

I love my mother very much, but I haven't seen her or spoken to her since I became pregnant. She has never seen my son - her only grandchild. My crime? Daring to question her ideology. Well, so be it. My mother may be revered by women around the world - goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it's time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.

My parents met and fell in love in Mississippi during the civil rights movement. Dad [Mel Leventhal], was the brilliant lawyer son of a Jewish family who had fled the Holocaust. Mum was the impoverished eighth child of sharecroppers from Georgia. When they married in 1967, inter-racial weddings were still illegal in some states.

My early childhood was very happy although my parents were terribly busy, encouraging me to grow up fast. I was only one when I was sent off to nursery school. I'm told they even made me walk down the street to the school.

Alice Walker believed so strongly that children enslaved their mothers she disowned her own daughter. When I was eight, my parents divorced. From then on I was shuttled between two worlds - my father's very conservative, traditional, wealthy, white suburban community in New York, and my mother's avant garde multi-racial community in California. I spent two years with each parent - a bizarre way of doing things.

Ironically, my mother regards herself as a hugely maternal woman. Believing that women are suppressed, she has campaigned for their rights around the world and set up organisations to aid women abandoned in Africa - offering herself up as a mother figure.

But, while she has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities - after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel.

Wow, just wow. But, wait! There's more! (Please Read in Full if only to be a witness.)

Sigh. You know, this dysfunctional family dynamics needs to stop. I mean, it wasn't long ago, at the National Women's Studies Association conference in 2006, when Rebecca Walker, in a keynote address, spent the bulk of her speech berating her mother and all those of us who identify as feminists for still holding up Alice Walker as a feminist icon. So, when is this family drama going to end (or at least kept private)?

Worse, she takes her personal war with her mother - for which she comes off like a petulant and envious child (because, I'm sorry, but what else should I think from a woman who deliberately dropped her father's last name so that she could be identified by her mother's?) - and magnifies it as if this is indicative of an intergenerational conflict among feminists. This is what she concludes:

The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn't take into account the toll on children. That's all part of the unfinished business of feminism. Then there is the issue of not having children. Even now, I meet women in their 30s who are ambivalent about having a family. They say things like: 'I'd like a child. If it happens, it happens.' I tell them: 'Go home and get on with it because your window of opportunity is very small.' As I know only too well.

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two
decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed
out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their
biological clocks. They've missed the opportunity and they're bereft. Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women's movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them - as I have learned to my cost. I don't want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

While I agree with Rebecca Walker that a true assessment of the feminist movement must be made among different generations of women, I take issue with her narrow view that somehow these gender-related problems should be blamed on feminism - doesn't this sound like what neoconservatives and the right-wing "family values" folk have been saying all along? Why not assess how many inroads that various social movements have made, as well as the changing world that our contemporary moment represents - in terms of militarism, technology, neoliberal capitalism, and neocolonialism?

There there is the business of patriarchy that still hasn't altered the power relationship between women and men all that much. Why not assess how sexism has been the basis for narrowing women's choices, where we are still reduced to having to choose between motherhood and art or professions rather than live in a world where these choices complement each other? Not to mention the intersections of racism, classism, and sexism in complicating these choices or lack thereof.

I respect Alice Walker for daring to forge a different path as a Civil Rights baby, Women's Liberation participant, and artist. Her books - The Color Purple and In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens - have changed my life, and I am not exaggerating when I say this. She dared to want to do things differently as a black woman. Her passion and her aesthetic sense offered us a grand vision for how we could move forward. Does this mean she didn't make mistakes? Obviously, when it came to motherhood, she did, if we are to believe Rebecca. But, why should this make me reassess the goals of feminism, especially when this public bickering only makes me shake my head at such bad behavior between mother and daughter?

I had always suspected the "third wave" of feminism was nothing more than bratty whining of the privileged daughters of second-wavers. How sad to see that I was proven right after all.

Joining the Ancestors: Remembering Paula Gunn Allen

It is with deep sadness that I learned today of the passing of Paula Gunn Allen (1939-2008), a pioneering Native American feminist scholar and poet. In an era when those following in her footsteps, like the incomparable Andrea Smith, are denied tenure this year at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and when many Women's Studies students and scholars are fast forgetting the important work that trailblazers like Allen have contributed, I would like to remember her today. Here is her obituary:

Paula Gunn Allen, award-winning American Indian scholar and poet, passed away at
her home in Ft. Bragg, California, on May 29, 2008, after a prolonged illness. She was 68 years old. Family and friends surrounded her at the time of her passing. Born Paula Marie Francis, in 1939, she grew up on the Cubero land grant in New Mexico, the daughter of former Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico Elias Lee Francis and Ethel Francis. Both her father’s Lebanese and her mother’s Laguna Pueblo-Métis-Scot heritages shaped her critical and creative vision.

For the last thirty years Allen was a foremost voice in Native American literature and the study of American literature. She was also a founding mother of the contemporary women’s spirituality movement. Her most recent work, Pocahontas: Medicine Woman, Spy, Entrepreneur, Diplomat (2004, Harper-Collins), received a Pulitzer Prize nomination. The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions (1986, Beacon), a collection of critical essays, is a cornerstone in the study of American Indian culture and gender. Her edited anthology Studies in American Indian Literature: Critical Essays and Course Designs (1983, MLA) laid the foundation for the study of Native American literature. She promoted and popularized the works of other Native American writers through the anthologies Song of the Turtle: American Indian Literature, 1974-1995 (1996, Ballantine); Voice of the Turtle: American Indian Literature, 1900-1970 (1994, Ballantine); and Spider Woman’s Granddaughters: Traditional Tales and Contemporary Writing by Native American Women (1989, Ballantine Books), which received the American Book Award from the Before Columbus Foundation. She also authored Off the Reservation: Reflections on Boundary-Busting, Border-Crossing, Loose Canons (1998, Beacon); As Long as the Rivers Flow: The Stories of Nine Native Americans (with Patricia Clark Smith) (1996, Scholastic Press), and Grandmothers of the Light: A Medicine Woman's Sourcebook (1992, Beacon Press).

A prolific writer, Allen published six volumes of poetry: Life Is a Fatal Disease: Collected Poems 1962-1995 (1997, West End Press); Skins and Bones (1988, West End Press); Wyrds (1987, Taurean Horn); Shadow Country (1982, University of California Indian Studies Center); A Cannon Between My Knees (1981, Strawberry Press); and Blind Lion (1974, Thorp Springs Press). Her latest book of poetry, America the Beautiful, is forthcoming from West End Press. The Woman Who Owned the Shadows, a novel, was published in 1983 (Aunt Lute Books). Her creative and critical work has been widely anthologized.

Allen received her BA degree in English in 1966 and her MFA in creative writing in 1968, both from the University of Oregon. She earned her Ph.D. in American Studies in 1976 from the University of New Mexico. She taught at Ft. Lewis College in Colorado, the College of San Mateo, San Diego State University, San Francisco State University, and the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque prior to joining the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley, where she became a professor of Native American and Ethnic Studies. In 1999, she retired from the University of California, Los Angeles as a professor of English, Creative Writing, and American Indian Studies.

Allen received many awards, including postdoctoral fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts and the Ford Foundation-National Research Council, the Hubbell Medal for Lifetime Achievement in American Literary Studies from the Modern Language Association, a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Native Writers’ Circle of the Americas, the Susan Koppelman Award from the Popular and American Culture Associations, the Native American Prize for Literature, and most recently a Lannan Foundation Fellowship.

She is survived by a daughter, Lauralee Brown (Roland Hannes), a son, Suleiman Allen (Millisa Russell), two granddaughters, two sisters, and one brother. Two sons, Fuad Ali Allen and Eugene John Brown, preceded her in death.

Read Further.

Thoughts on Hillary Clinton's "Endorsement" Speech

Professor Black Woman is back from her blog break and offered this refreshing and - as usual - provocative commentary on Senator Clinton's speech today, in which she "endorsed" Senator Barak Obama for the Democratic presidential candidacy. Here's an except:

As a former Hillary Clinton fan (back before Bush), and a person that has just spent way too much time in the frozen, uniform gray rainy liberal feminist mecca of stumptown, I can’t help but weigh in.

Some have already noted that in the 25-30 minutes she spoke, she spent only 4.5-6 minutes directly addressing Obama, using the rest of the time to talk about her own place in history, mainstream feminism, and the Democratic Party. As a historian, I was struck by the way she acknowledged the Suffragettes and white female abolitionist and wrote herself into this herstory absent of Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and so many other suffragettes and abolitionists of color. Though I was less surprised about how she avoided the similarities between her own frustration with Obama and Stanton & Anthony’s with Douglass right down to the race baiting. I was also struck by the length of the speech dedicated to speaking for women, rallying women, and placing herself at the head of women’s history as the woman who made it possible to believe “women can run for president.”

....

Hillary is the first to run on a major party ticket and to garner slightly less than 18 million votes. She is not the first woman to assume she had the right to be President nor to test that assumption at the polls. The most famous of these women: Shirley Chisolm, whose legacy has largely been eclipsed by the insistence that Clinton stands alone in history. She is not the only woman running for president in 2008.

Yet Clinton’s historic place cannot be forgotten nor slighted. Her legacy while inspiring to many also left many more wary of a woman who would reference assassination and white rural voters who will never vote for a black man as reasons she should triumph. And still she brought older women, first time female voters, and many more to the polls (as did Obama). She called out politicians and reporters alike on their real sexism: from the cleavage comments, to the “take out the trash” comments, to the “shrew” and “witch” labels she endured. She stood up for her daughter as a mother and as a public figure throughout the campaign, and long before it. And yes, her candidacy no doubt opened the doors for white women to be more often featured as pundits and together with Obama’s campaign forced the door open for women of color, since people brought them in to act as foil or “traitors” to whichever id. Sadly, such tokenism does not sit well with the idea that women should be sought out for their opinions as thinkers and experienced analysts but the failure to do so is the fault of neither campaign and Hillary’s certainly demanded women be taken seriously.

As the dust settles for the moment, and I believe it to be only a moment, I am left to wonder what the election would have looked like if we had talked about multiplicative and intersecting oppressions and not false hierarchies and binaries? What if Hillary Clinton had shown herself to be as quick to stop racism as she was to confront sexism by saying to any of her supporters who disparaged the realities of race in N. America that she disavowed them, their support, and their tactics? What if she had demanded Bill O’Reilly be fired for supporting the lynching of Michelle Obama, the same way she demanded other reporters be fired for saying she had “pimped out Chelsea”?

Such stands might have made Hillary Clinton seem like the legacy of camelot that she and Bill appeared to be during their campaign. They might have reminded people that the educational attainment, home ownership, and general wealth of African American families went up for the first time in centuries under the Clinton administration.

And what would have happened if the media actually dealt with the statistics that show Hillary only swept women 50 and above and that she was equal or only slightly higher in demographics between 30-50 and below 50% in 18-25 year old women and that while she garnered more a slightly larger percentage of white women and Latinas votes she did so poorly amongst black women that in some states she only got 20% or less, stats on Asian women were not available but there were Asian women’s caucus for Obama? Would a discussion about race and age polarization have led to a re-evaluation of how we all do feminism and potentially reinvigorated the movement through new commitments from the presidential candidate down?

Read in Full.

Obama-Kennedy Dream Ticket and Other Itemized Musings

My thoughts for the day, while reflecting on events this week:


1. When I suggested on a whim in a discussion over at Black Women Vote! that Obama should pick Caroline Kennedy to be his running mate, little did I know that I would soon read a similar commentary by Linda Milazzo called "My Dream Ticket: Barak Obama and Carolina Kennedy." (Read Article)

There are so many reasons why this would ROCK the political world. First, it would render Hillary Clinton's "gender" victimization null and void, including the recent arguments by former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro, and second, it would prevent the Democrats from thinking that a compromised ticket of Obama/Clinton is the way to go. Eversince I was an adolescent, I remembered tuning into a fascinating interview featuring the Kennedy matriarch, Rose Kennedy, who was asked about the potential of President John F. Kennedy's children, and she had waxed poetically that one of his children had what it took to be the future president. The interviewer (cannot remember which one of those white male talking heads it was) assumed she was referring to JFK Junior (when he was still alive), and the grand matriarch quietly stated, "I was thinking of Caroline."

I have not forgotten the subtle way she was championing her granddaughter nor the easy way Caroline had been dismissed as a potential candidate. My, how times have changed. And while Caroline Kennedy has not yet entered into the political arena as a major contender, her credentials as a lawyer, author, mother, and overseer of various foundations and causes certainly are no less worthy than anything Senator Clinton has done prior to serving as First Lady and in Congress. So, why should Clinton's loss simply be seen as the problem of sexism and sexism alone? What if the wrong white woman had emerged at this point in time? While Caroline Kennedy is already serving on a committee to pick Obama's VP, I sure wish someone in the party will state the obvious and tell the woman that she needs to step up to the plate. As Milazzo states in her article:

Some readers may doubt that Caroline Kennedy has the credentials to lead. But I
believe she has always led – just more quietly than most. She's learned from the
best. Her uncle is the Lion of the Senate. Her Aunt Eunice began the Special
Olympics. Her Uncle Sarge created the Peace Corps. She's steeped in a legacy of
public service. She has power and doesn't abuse it. She serves on foundations
and boards - all for the public good. She's on the Commission on Presidential
Debates and on the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and she's a founder
of the Profiles In Courage Award. She's traveled globally and lived abroad.
She's an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics, and though she doesn't
hold political office, she's worked with and for those who have, and for those
who still do. She's brilliant and universally respected. There is little
negative to be said about Caroline.

I seriously think this kind of combination would be a major coup for the Democrats and one that could heal the wounds already exposed in the party.

Obama-Kennedy for the win this November! :D

2. The gender debates already in circulation are truly fascinating, and I want to point you to two provocative conversations: Shecodes' Hillary's Transition from Candidate to Champion (few seem to be a fan of Clinton as VP, which is why I say: "Obama-Kennedy for the win!!") and Gina's So Will the Infamous Michelle Obama Tape Drop Today? (an insightful post that foreshadows how Michelle Obama will be the new whipping girl in the media, now that Clinton is out of the way, as everyone knows that one thing white America hates more than black men it's black women! And I guarantee you that the same white feminists who were outraged by the overt sexism expressed against Hillary will be quiet as mice when Michelle is targeted; just watch and see.)

3. Funny how all kinds of interesting emails pop up in your inbox when you post a few times about American Idol and David Archuleta. I received a message announcing that our 17-year-old-cutie-pie boy wonder has just signed with Jive Records. So, I guess losing the American Idol crown isn't all that bad! So, I followed the link to see the official announcement and just about fell out of my chair in front of my computer desk when I saw the numerous "acts" under this label - some new R. Kelly stuff, a bunch of lame-assed hip-hop buffoonery, and - my favorite part - Chris Brown (who's like two years older than our sweet little Mormon boy) doing some gratuitous and overwrought bump & grind act at a concert. Have mercy!

I don't even want to visualize what kind of corruption awaits little David if he's working under this label (although, to be honest, I don't see this kid succumbing too much - no matter how much he wants the fame and glory. This is the same kid who spent his week off ministering to troubled youth at a fireside camp and lending his beautiful voice to this effort and planning a "Thank You" concert charity for his local fans - until AI producers nixed this event since it threatened to cut into the profits of their upcoming Idol tour in the city: Welcome to the big bad world of capitalism!).

Of course, something tells me that, because of the way racial representations work, Jive will know exactly how to market his wholesome white masculinity for success, PRECISELY because we already have this good white boy/bad black boy dichotomy in place. So, as much as I'm pleased for Archuleta and like what he is able to do with his God-given talents, I'm downright pissed that, if a black teenager with his talents, looks, and values were signed to a similar label, NO WAY would he be allowed to exist in a wholesome manner. This same label would force a new and similarly church-raised black male artist in his teens to resort to that whole bump & grind, hypersexual and hard masculine image just to compete with the likes of Chris Brown and Usher and that whole lot.

So, I'm left to ponder: what happened to the wholesome black male vocalist? You know, the ones who would croon all those great (or even gooey) love songs? And....and...what happened to the New Edition types and the soulful longings and wailings and pleadings of the Boyz II Men types? What happened to the clean-cut wholesomeness and raw talents of the Michael Jackson types (albeit before he became a ruinous pervert - thanks to the excesses of fame and fortune) and the balladeering of Lionel Richie types, and the deep soul-piercing and heartfelt music of the Stevie Wonder types? What is this hip-hop-influenced R&B foolishness? There's no love to be made! It's all bump & grind banality! If there is any new R&B pop act that can take us back to the rope, please let me in on it!

And, I don't care if it makes me sound irrational, but I'm going to blame R. Kelly for this downward spiral. Talking all that crap about how "I don't see nothing wrong with a little bump & grind?" You filthy, urinating, pedophile! I hope they throw the book at you and lock you up and throw away the key! Not just for your sexual predatory ways with minors but also for the unpardonable sin of screwing over the best tradition of the R&B love ballad!!!!!!! [/ends rant]

My black brothers and sisters, let us embrace a new future. Down with R. Kelly, up with Barak Obama. Watch his example! Learn from him! See what he is showing you! He is telling you: See? See what you can accomplish? See what you can achieve with a strong, beautiful, and educated black woman by your side and two little daughters who look to you for guidance and leadership?

Make no mistake, my brothers. He got where he is today and accomplished as much because when you respect your women, you respect yourself. And when you respect yourself, you will go far.

If you'd rather degrade your womenfolk, well, then, you can either expect jail time like R. Kelly, or drama like the kind 50 Cent is currently having with his "baby mama."

Learn, my people, learn! Okay, I will now officially end my sermon. Moving right along...

4. Speaking of hypersexuality, just want to promote a new website that was shared with me in yet another email: this one is called Stop Porn Culture, and I want to spread their message. Don't get me wrong: I'm all about the power of the erotic and positive sexuality, but we can all do better than the nonsense and commodified junk that's in heavy rotation and circulation right now. We must do better!

Say it with me now: YES, WE CAN!!!

Yes, We Can? A Day That Will Go Down In History

Today is an important day in history. Senator Barak Obama became the first African American to lead a Major Party Ticket in the race for the President of the United States. This in and of itself is a moment to really take in and just appreciate. I am proud for all those young men and women of color who have a genuine role model to look up to and for the older men and women of color who lived long enough to see this day come to fruition.

It really is only six months from now where, what so many people have considered "the impossible," could actually become possible. America, are you ready? I mean, really and seriously ready?

And, Obama and company, are you all ready for what I'm sure is going to be a bumpy ride from here on in, so - as Bette Davis said in All About Eve - "fasten your seat belts!"?

I ask this question because, as I had expressed over on Black Women Vote!, I was taken aback by Obama's actions last week to resign from his church where he married Michelle and baptized his two daughters. Yes, as much as I found Father Phleger to be offensive and inappropriate in his mockery of Hillary Clinton - and in the pulpit no less! - I also found it highly problematic that Obama felt the need to throw his church under the bus to appease dissenting whites, who were responding to soundbites and media spin.

I worry about his caving in to such criticism and race-baiting tactics, especially since I'm sure we're all clear that the GOP are going to pull out all the stops and make the Clinton machine look so tame in comparison. Months earlier this year, they had already circulated a memo asking just how racist they were allowed to be when they mounted the national campaign against him. It's time for Obama and company to view the road ahead, taste the possible victory, and start strategizing on how to keep James Crow, Jr. Esq. at bay.

These are the times when I wish I had enrolled, not in academia, but in politics, where those of us who are scholars of race relations could offer our expertise and help liberals and progressives mount effective campaigns to woo the bigots and use their own racist rhetoric against them - the way neoconservatives have been able to rally around hate to gain access to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government.

For, if Obama is to win this thing, he needs to find a key way to balance the support of whites, blacks, and various people of color. No more should we rely on divisive tactics (if there's anything to be learned from the whole Obama vs. Clinton identity politics debacle in the past six months, it's the lesson on how to appease diverse groups and not see their interests as mutually exclusive).

In light of the impending doom that awaits us - our economic crisis, gas prices spiraling out of control, global food crisis, housing problems, and the never ending war in the Middle East - now more than ever, we need a leader who will inspire us. We do not need a leader who is going to offer us empty platitudes and false promises because NOTHING can be done in the next four years by anyone to reverse the travesty that has occurred under the Bush-Cheney administration in the last eight years. With such dark days ahead, we need a Franklin Delano Roosevelt 2.0: meaning, we need someone who can inspire us with hope, who can offer us a vision of where we need to be - politically, globally, culturally, socially, economically, militarily. We need a leader who will put the people first and corporations last. We need a leader who understands the world and our place in it.

And, for crying out loud, if we have a black and biracial man vying for the presidency, we need him to be ready for the onslaught. When our economy crashes - notice I didn't say if - he needs the strength and conviction to withstand the overwhelming criticism that will come his way and the blame that will fall on him (and not on the previous administration). He needs to disarm the bigots while charming the open-minded and reminding us that, really, "hope" is "audacious."

I know some are already threatening not to vote for Obama if he teams with Clinton (somehow, I don't see this happening, after all the acrimony - especially since her unfortunate assassination comments, which, if I combine these comments to an earlier statement this year in which she fancied herself as Lyndon B. Johnson, don't bode well for Obama's future), and some white women are swearing they will leave the party and hope that Clinton runs on an independent ticket (I kid you not - just got this one from CNN). Perhaps there is no way to please everyone.

At this point, though, I do want to acknowledge the history-making momentum of tonight and be proud that our nation actually rose to the task to vote for Obama in the Democratic primary.

It's going to be a hot, long and contentious summer, I will predict that much, and whatever happens, we will always have this inspiring speech from earlier this year (let us hope it will brighten the dark days ahead):

The Taming of the Shrews: My Review of Sex and the City (Spoilers)

I guess this officially kicks off my summer movie season! I went out with the girls over the weekend and checked out the latest, Sex and the City, and am still trying to contemplate why the movie version of the edgy HBO series was so unbelievably tame.

I mean, the only hot sex scenes involve the married couple (that's Miranda and Steve) in the Brooklyn apartment? (Because, by contrast, the wealthy, Manhattan couple - that's Charlotte and her bald-headed, nerdy but sweet husband, Harry - is so pristine when they make love... it's like, flowers and gauze and all that stuff, to which I say, "No wonder you've been struggling to get pregnant, girlfriend!").

And the best (or worst?) part: the man-eating, hardcore sex-crazed Samantha ain't getting much action! That's right: Samantha, whom we've all come to know and love (and whom many of us single gals will swear up and down that we're nothing like her - maybe Miranda or Carrie or even Charlotte, but definitely not Samantha) spends much of the movie remaining devoted and faithful to her young studly Hollywood boyfriend while lusting after the super-hot, well-endowed neighbor next door and subsequently gaining weight since she eats out of frustration. Um... whaaaat??!!!!!!!

So, yeah. Watching the movie version of Sex and the City (which I only sporadically tuned into, usually because I didn't always subscribe to HBO) was like watching a she-wolf missing its teeth. And it certainly doesn't bode well for those of us who are getting older or those of us who enter coupledom. The message is you'll become boring and sad and unforgiving.

It's like that song from The Sound of Music, in which the nuns sing about the spunky and mischievous Maria - "How do you solve a problem like Maria? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?" When that movie plays the song again as Maria walks down the aisle to marry Captain Von Trapp, you understand the message: marry the wild child off, and that will surely tame her. Sure enough, when we see married Maria, all her spunkiness is gone.

I certainly do not expect to hear the same kind of message in Sex and the City! And that's what the movie felt like. The girls were so tamed. The most neurotic would have to be Charlotte, who lives life through rose-colored glasses - not so much because life really is but because she's so anal retentive, she'll force those glasses on regardless (speaking of her AR proclivities, there's a hilarious scene that makes fun of those, uh, functions!). And then there's Carrie, the perpetual single girl who loves shoes, shoes, shoes (which, by the way, Sarah Jessica Parker really was rocking the style, so I must give her some props). So, it makes sense that when Mr. Big comes along (again) she wants to force the issue of marriage when he buys her a fabulous Manhattan penthouse in which he reconstructs a ginormous closet with wall-to-wall shoe space that would put Imelda Marcos (and Condoleeza Rice) to shame.

So, here's what I'm going to say about the whole marriage issue. If there is a moment of feminist sensibility in this movie it's over this subject. For Carrie was deliriously happy moving in with Mr. Big in that fabulous penthouse (you know, they're literally living on top of the world!) until they go to a public auction of a dumped girlfriend who sells all of her expensive jewelry that were given to her by her former billionaire boyfriend (so many levels for deconstruction here, but why bother?). It is here that Samantha is outbid for a diamond ring she desperately wants (and later learns her Hollywood boyfriend was the one who outbid her so he could buy it for her - this, of course, doesn't sit well with independent-minded Samantha because she's no romantic) and it is also here that the girls learn that the dumped girlfriend found herself tossed out of their luxurious home after ten years of being together. Ten years -- the same length of time Carrie has been with Mr. Big. And, just like that, Carrie, who sells her own apartment to move in with Mr. Big, realizes she has no legal leg to stand on if they ever break up. She says, why not get married? He says, yeah, why not.

And the grand and fabulous wedding is planned. So, what I do love about Sex and the City is that when it's critically on, it's on. The marriage thing becomes an issue because it's an economic issue, always has been, always will be. It's why women were married off like chattel in the past, and it's how women still measure their currency. Which is why it's really complicated for the independent single girl who's making her own money. And if the possibility of being dumped and finding yourself homeless and in a completely different socio-economic bracket after the breakup spurs women's materialism, there is definitely a deeper level to this superficiality.

Perhaps the most powerful scene in this movie is when (spoiler alert! Don't say I didn't warn you! Stop reading if you don't want to know!) Carrie - who is simply stunning in a Westwood bridal gown - falls to pieces when Mr. Big gets cold feet and doesn't want to go through with the wedding after all (on their wedding day!). Suddenly the movie took a serious turn (while Mr. Big takes a much-needed beating - really, that jilting was just so wrong!), and Carrie's got the blues for the rest of the movie. Again, another feminist moment - her girlfriends really come through for her. Samantha thinks nothing about trying to reimburse Carrie's honeymoon bill (since Carrie wanted to surprise him with a vacation trip to Mexico) and instead gets all the girls to join Carrie in Mexico, where they basically have to nurse her back to her former self. And here, the issues of economics come into effect. Carrie, who will not forgive Mr. Big (at least not until the obligatory happy ending) has to struggle with trying to get her apartment back (men are so unpredictable, aren't they? You really got to have Plan B as a single girl). By contrast, when Miranda - the main breadwinner in her marriage - finds out her husband cheats on her one time(because she's lost interest in sex), she can be as unforgiving as she wants because she can move on (how many women even have the economic independence to be that unyielding?).

Of course, in the case of Carrie, this is where elite white privilege comes in. She's such a mess after this public humiliation, she's got the resources to hire a personal assistant to organize her life. Enter Mammy 2.0 (yes, that's the gig Jennifer Hudson gets post-Oscar, and her name is Louise!!! As in Louise Beavers? Are they for real?). And Miss Louise is such a trooper and the perfect mammylike comforter - she can get Carrie the online hookup (like renting the best Louis Vuitton handbags), update her website, her email files, and even all her "love letters" from Mr. Big, which she will not read. And of course a nice sympathetic ear and big shoulders to cry on.

And my favorite part about Miss Louise. Girlfriend from St. Louis, Missouri, moved to New York City - not to go to school or to pursue her dreams of making it on Broadway or Madison Avenue or Wall Street or wherever we fancy ourselves as twentysomething ambitious modern black women (as Toni Morrison once waxed poetically in her novel, Tar Baby: "If ever there was a city for black women, New York was it...Talk shit, take none."). Oh noooooo. Louise came to New York City to find love. That's right. Apparently, she's the last black woman on the planet who did not get the memo that all our mamas and grandmas and aunties and big sisters and girlfriends and magazines like Essence and all the R&B singers from Mary J. Blige to Keyshia Cole have been sending out: "Good luck with that, sister girl!"

At least the movie tried to move beyond asexual mammylike characterizations for Louise does get 11:30 PM booty calls (although we never get to meet the mysterious phantom figure - because, white people always think we have no problems when it comes to dating) and still gets to go back to St. Louis to marry the man of her dreams (because, again, white people don't know that, if single gals like the Sex and the City crew are having a hard time of it, then black women have it twice as hard, but whatever...I just love how the twentysomething black girl is still the one with the all-knowing wisdom and the strength and courage and know-how to help resuscitate the fortysomething white woman back to her self).

You know, I much prefer it when we don't ever enter into their lives or their spheres of existence on TV, which we never did in the HBO series. When it goes to the big screen, THEY RESURRECT MAMMY 2.0!!!

Interestingly, Jennifer Hudson's single "Dressed in Love" is included in the soundtrack, as are a bunch of other black female vocalists, thus indicating how our voices are always shoring up white female narratives, since we are often the unseen but audible "chorus" with various "you go, girl" cheerleading anthems that spur on white women in their various endeavors.

So, the movie had its high and low points, some funny points, but more often than not, it certainly does not recapture the glory of what made these quirky, sometimes edgy, and often hilarious women such a phenomenon on the small screen. And while I applauded with everyone else when Mr. Big "proposes" properly (whatever that means) and gave up a lush wedding at the New York Public Library (which I thought was a way cool thing to do - especially for the writer that is Carrie Bradshaw) replete with the lovely bridal gowns for the Vogue spread - to (ONCE AGAIN, SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT!!) marry at city hall in a simple but elegant power business suit (and later celebrate with close friends at a local restaurant), I can appreciate the so-called anti-materialism in the message, especially the message that women in their 40s can still marry the man they love or finally get pregnant or forgive their husbands when they mess up.

But, I still expect Samantha to jump into the shower with the well-hung next-door neighbor rather than just lust in her heart about it (just because she had to remain faithful to her hot looking boyfriend who stayed with her during chemo - as she fought breast cancer). How do you solve the problem of edgy single gals? Why, marry them off or stifle them in relationships!

As an aside, I'm back! And it feels great to unleash myself on my keyboard. :)