Lurker Thursday

Good Morning everyone! It's Lurker Thursday! You know the drill.

Photograph: "Jack o' Lanterns" by Teo.

The "Good Negro, Bad N----" Disconnect

It was inevitable. What one would hope was an opportunity to use the high-profile tragedy of Jennifer Hudson's family to address crucial issues, such as domestic violence and inner-city violence, instead has unraveled - at least on the Internet - into a familiar dichotomous separation between the "innocent" and "undeserving" Jennifer Hudson (whom we all believe we know since she is a public persona) and the "vile," "ghetto queen", "pork" and "guilty-as-hell" Julia Hudson, Jennifer's sister. I'm so appalled at the disconnect occurring in various forums and message boards that I have to comment here. CNN even did a profile on how Jennifer Hudson "worked her way up" to get out of the ghetto (more or less that's how we can sum up that report).

Keep in mind that Julia Hudson lost her son, while Jennifer lost a nephew. Both women are dealing with such a tremendous loss of their mother and brother, yet Jennifer is receiving an outpouring of sympathy while her sister is being reviled? Apparently, because Julia Hudson took the time to update her MySpace about the tragedy, people are questioning her motives and even speculating that she may have had a hand in the murder of her family!

None of us really know what's going on, or how this came about, but this immediate vilification of Julia Hudson (while Jennifer remains the recipient of our prayers and warmest wishes) made me think that this is a familiar story of the "Good Negro and Bad Nigger" (sorry to spell it out just this one time here but I'm going to be blunt).

The Good Negro (Jennifer) "worked her way up," is living decently, fulfilling her "American Dreams" as an official "African American Dreamgirl" (and she's also currently our favorite Mammy 2.0, as recently seen in movies like Sex and the City and The Secret Life of Bees). She also sang the National Anthem at the Democratic National Convention, so she's already entered into our hearts.

By contrast, her sister, Julia Hudson, is the "Bad N----," who represents everything a racist misogynist society has come to loathe - she lives in the inner city, she's heavyset, she was married to a "thug," and now, it's convenient to blame her for bringing the violence to her family (which is our way of saying, she brought the violence into Jennifer Hudson's life, and how dare she turn our myth of the American Dream into an American Nightmare).

When we can create such an obvious disconnect for two black women who are related to each other, how much easier will it be to disconnect the black people we believe we "know" from the ones we believe we don't?

An anonymous poster recently asked questions on this blog that basically mount to whether or not we, as black people, will finally shut up about racial inequality and discrimination once Senator Obama becomes president (and the numbers right now are looking good that this may, indeed, come to pass). However, it is dangerous to assume that all is right in the world of race relations, should Obama make it to the White House.

The bottom line is: it's very easy to create this "disconnect" between "Good Negroes and Bad N---s." If Obama wins, it's because he got transformed into the "Good Negro," and he will function in this way, allowing many to continue perpetuating racist ideas and practices because of this dichotomy. Of course, if he loses, perhaps the GOP rhetoric of the "Bad N---" trumped the "Good Negro" image.

Either way, any useful dialog about race relations or violence gets undermined through these simplistic representations of blackness.

Shining a "Spotlight" on Inner City Violence

Here's a provocative commentary by Stephany Rose, from Beta News One (htp Mark Anthony Neal):

Jennifer Hudson's Tragic Spotlight

As a native of Chicago, my prayers and heart go out to Jennifer Hudson and her
family. However, my sympathy and concerns are not reserved for the Hudson family
alone. They stretch long and wide, covering the hundreds of victims and victims’
families whose murders go unsolved and remain out of the national spotlight.

Amidst the details of America’s DreamGirl Jennifer Hudson’s tragedy, will the heinous incident turn a national eye upon a pandemic quite often ignored in urban centers across America?

When shots rang out in the vicinity of the 7000 S. block of Yale Ave, early Friday morning, residents nearby thought nothing of it; or if they did, chose to ignore them.
Such a response surprises few who live in or are aware of the temperament of Chicago’s Englewood community. For many residents, violence in Englewood is to be expected. This sense of normalcy is one reason Hudson tried to persuade her mother to move. Her mother refused, wanting to remain close to family, friends and sense of being.

Read in Full.

Domestic Violence Awareness Month and the Hudson Family Tragedy

Today, Jennifer Hudson confirmed that the body of a seven-year-old found in the back of a white sedan earlier this morning was indeed her nephew, Julian King.

So, in one horrible weekend, she lost her mother, her brother, and her nephew. Her sister, Julia Hudson, may have been in a domestic violence dispute with her estranged husband, William Balfour, who is presently in police custody.

As we mourn this tragedy, and as the newfound celebrity status of Jennifer Hudson helps to keep a spotlight on this unfolding horror, let us keep the family in our prayers while also taking the time to acknowledge that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

I call attention to Professor Black Woman's commentary on the Cycle of Violence and how we, as women, and as a community, must be aware of the warning signs that might suggest that you too could be in a domestic violence situation.

This week, on Thursday, October 30, the second annual Document the Silence of Violence Against Women of Color will be held across campuses and in various communities nationwide. There are three things you are being asked to do:

1. Wear Red (i.e. ribbons, clothing, clown noses, etc.).
2. Read "Out of Silence" Litany at 8:00 pm/central time.
3. Take Pictures and/or video and email them to beboldbered@gmail.com.

Recuperating Mammy, Restoring the Black Madonna: My Review of The Secret Life of Bees (Spoilers)

I offer this review of The Secret Life of Bees with Jennifer Hudson in my prayers as she copes with the weekend tragedy involving the murder of both her mother and brother and the kidnapping of her seven-year-old nephew.

I was already planning to see this movie over the weekend, even before the tragic news broke, so I certainly watched the film from a more poignant perspective. Perhaps that colored the way I received the story, but I'm happy to say that I was pleasantly surprised by how timely and how politically heartwarming the movie turned out to be.

You see, I would never have guessed, from the trailers, that this film would have risen above the usual half-baked Southern nostalgia of white girls fondly remembering their black mammies, a familiar story adapted from the novel by Sue Monk Kidd, who gives us a description of how she came to write this novel - which is one I'll need to read in future. This film is definitely much more than that. Of course, once I went into the movie and saw that the executive producer was Jada Pinkett-Smith and that the director was Gina Prince-Bythewood ("Love and Basketball"), I figured there would be a twist on the black mammy motif. Not only is there a twist on this motif, the stereotype got subverted in fascinating ways! :)

Dakota Fanning (who has really matured from the annoying little child star she used to be into a fine, capable actress, whose career promises to unfold like Jodie Foster) plays Lily, a motherless child, who lives with her abusive father, T. Ray (played by Paul Bettany) and who is plagued with feelings of guilt because, at the tender age of four (Spoiler alert --->), she accidentally kills her mother when her parents are in an ugly domestic dispute. She finds solace in their "housekeeper" (somehow this word is rather anachronistic, considering that the setting is 1964), Rosaleen, played by Jennifer Hudson, the only person in her life who shows her any love and concern. As the story unfolds, Rosaleen - in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - tries to register to vote (hear that, my young people?), but is severely arrested and beaten. In a female version of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, Lily-as-Huck rescues Rosaleen-as-Jim, and together they brave the wilds of the Southern landscape to escape to some unforeseen "freedom." The only memento Lily has of her mother is a label off of a jar, which depicts the Black Madonna and bears the name of a Southern town in South Carolina called Tiburon.


Together, Lily and Rosaleen head towards Tiburon, and there, they discover that the Black Madonna label belongs to a brand of honey, made and sold by August Boatwright (played by Queen Latifah), who resides in a bright pink-colored house with her two sisters, June (played by Alicia Keyes) and May (played brilliantly by British actress Sophie Okonedo). Lily is shocked to find such fiercely independent and well-to-do "colored" women living in such a luxurious home, especially since August is willing to take in two strangers. Soon, August puts Lily to work, helping her gather honey from bees, while Rosaleen works in the kitchen. August is that capable every black woman, filled with grace, wisdom, and strength, and Queen Latifah plays her majestically, especially in the way she talks about "queen bees" and honeycombs.

Alicia Keyes's June Boatwright reminds me so much of Beneatha Younger in A Raisin in the Sun: she's got that mix of cultured sophistication and revolutionary black intellectual. In the film, she plays the cello, and she is resistant to getting married to her beau because she values her independence (Sigh - don't you just love a movie where a black woman isn't desperately trying to get hitched? Especially when the sisters are doing really well on their own). Sophie Okonedo's May is a much more subtle performance, as Okonedo must convey both a kind of simple-minded innocence and heavy-hearted wisdom since her character is an overly sensitive "weeper" - she feels too deeply the wounds of the world (brought about after the death of her twin sister April). Her compassionate heart is so overcome by the troubles of the world that her sisters took the time to build her a "wailing wall" where she can go to for privacy and weep (a concept drawn from a similar wall in Jerusalem). It is there that we get a glimpse of the family (and African American history) for May keeps little notes in the stone walls, marking important events over which she has shed tears.

One of my favorite scenes from the movie is when Lily and Rosaleen are invited to "church" in the Boatwright sisters' parlor. There in the corner of the room is a wooden sculpture of a Black Madonna - with her right fist raised in the air (heh - it kind of reminded me of Elizabeth Catlett's "Homage to My Young Black Sisters" from 1968: left image) , a red heart drawn on her chest (reminiscent of Erzulie Freda in Haitian Vodun - right image below), and the bottom part of the statue resembling a tree trunk. August, her sisters, and the neighborhood women gather around the Black Madonna and take refuge in a mythical tale of this statue that grew from a tree, which marked the spot where Africans landed after arriving to the New World from the Middle Passage. What is fascinating about this scene is the way Lily gazes upon this empowering figure and sees, in its place, her own mother-as-victim (not the black mother-as-warrior). So overtaken by this powerful figure (and ritual) she faints from the force of it all.

From there, we get the complicated tale that unfolds as Lily learns about the ways that she has white privilege and power - and how this impacts on her relationships with the black people around her (whether in being able to rescue Rosaleen from her hospital jail or in causing trouble when she tries to go out on a date with Zack Taylor - played by Tristan Wilds - the black boy she works with at August Boatwright's home). However, while Lily is preoccupied with whether or not she can really be loved (because, for whatever reason, white people seem to need black people's love), she discovers that August was her mother's "nanny" (or, what the Southern folks would say from a different era: her mammy). When Lily asks August if she "loved" her mother, August can only respond with: "It's complicated. How can you really love when you're surrounded by hate?"

In other words, what does it mean for whites to insist that their black mammies loved them, when black women had to sacrifice the time they gave to their own families to take care of their white charges? What does love mean in the face of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and the constant threat of lynching?

More than love, though, Lily does learn about solidarity, and she is forced to make a choice between allying herself with white patriarchy or black feminism - an explicit choice presented to her towards the end of the film.

While the movie seems to end on the familiar theme of the comforting black mammy, things, of course, as August Boatwright would say, are much more complicated than that. Lily must accept the black women on their own terms, and as her equals. And, when that happens, she can accept herself.

It's an empowering message for all women, actually, and although I understand why a number of movie critics have been rather condescending in their reviews of this film (calling it too "idyllic", rather than recognizing the movie as more fable than history, or too "embarrassingly retrograde," I believe one NY Times critic called it, since the movie expects us to care about the white girl, rather than care about the black community in which she moves), I do believe such dismissive comments miss the more subtle references and the politically charged messages that clearly ask young white women to understand our complex interracial history (the scene in the movie theater, in which the black women look at Lily disapprovingly while she tries to "date" Zack, is not based in a contemporary narrative of so-called jealousy - FAR FROM IT! Such "disapproval" has always been about white women's refusal to recognize how they move through the world with privilege and power that reinforce racial hierarchies on a number of levels). More than that, it asks the same group of women to really question what it means to have black friends, what it means to join us in solidarity, and what it means to engage us in political, social, and cultural struggle.


Still, this movie would have been just as empowering if the focus was less about Lily and more about Rosaleen, who left an oppressive town and found herself in a house full of independent, self-evolved black women, who help her transition from the old Jim Crow ways of living black life to a future of Civil Rights, Black Liberation, and Feminism/Womanism. Considering that such a story would have been complete with this quartet of sistahs, one cannot help but wonder about the politics of having to include the Lily character at all. Except that interracial sisterhood is one that we still need to envision and strive for. Can this vision be achieved without resorting to Mammy? Or, can Mammy be recuperated and transformed into Black Madonna?

Is the Black Madonna yet another trap? Or, does she offer a different kind of liberation? I'm still sorting out my thoughts. But, I definitely liked this film!

Another Political Video (How Cute Are They?)

This is from the Ron Academy Seventh Graders Debating the Presidential Elections (singing to the tune of TI's "Whatever You Like":

What's With These White Celebrity Videos Promoting Obama (Not That I'm Complaining)?

This one's from Ron Howard:

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

This one's from Sarah Silverman:

Will Closet Racism Derail Obama?

Here's an interesting article from the BBC, by Laura Smith-Park (dated October 20):

Will Closet Racism Derail Obama?

Two decades ago, Douglas Wilder watched as a 9% lead in the polls in the race to be Virginia's governor slipped to just one-tenth of 1% when the ballots were counted.

He still won the election - becoming the first African-American to be elected a US state governor - but the narrowness of his victory led analysts to speculate that he had been a victim of a white hesitancy to vote for a black man.

The theory goes that some white voters tell opinion pollsters they will vote for a black candidate - but then, in the privacy of the polling booth, put their cross against a white candidate's name.

And the fear among some supporters is that this could happen to Barack Obama on 4 November, when the country votes for its next president.

The phenomenon is known as the Bradley, or Wilder effect.

Read in Full.

So, what do you think? On November 4, will a larger number of Americans unleash their inner racist and vote for McCain instead?

Lurker Thursday

Hi everyone! It's that time of the week again. Drop a note and *wave.*

Photograph: "Autumn Morning" by Roger Smith.

My Students Had to Remind Me What I Taught Them

I'm very late with this post, so my apologies. At any rate, I wanted to offer a review of a movie that went straight to DVD.

Basically, a few of my students, to whom I had introduced the subject of the femicide on the U.S./Mexico border (in particular in the city of Juarez), implored me to please watch the J-Lo vehicle, Bordertown. To think I had dismissed this very important film because of who was in it! Come to think of it, this movie never made it to either my art film theater or the multiplex, so of course, I smell a conspiracy theory. Regardless of my own dismissals, I am grateful that my students, the ones who thanked me for placing the lives of women of color at the center of my courses, reminded me that this too is about centering women of color.

Please, Professor, they said, you've got to see this movie. It's really really good.

I beg to differ with them that it's "really really good," but damn if it's not an important film to see.

So, I put it on my Netflix queue, and I finally saw it over the weekend. Aside from the histrionics of Jennifer Lopez, there were moments that her melodrama was necessary. Here's one scene.

After putting her life in danger to help a survivor named Eva (played brilliantly by Maya Zapata) track down her rapists and would-be killers, Jennifer Lopez's character, Loren Adrian, an ambitious and anglicized, blond-dyed Chicana journalist, learns the significance of her role to advocate on behalf of the women of Juarez, many of whom work in maquiladoras, assembly plants on the border where many of our digital technology is assembled.

After putting together an intimate portrait of Eva, her American editor (played by Martin Sheen, who seems to have become the stand-in white guy in these kinds of films - half bleeding-heart liberal, half representative of The Man) tells her he can't publish her article since her report implicates NAFTA and the U.S.-owned multinational corporations that have set up these plants while refusing to ensure the safety of their women workers, who are clearly disposable and replaceable. When Loren learns that her article will be quashed, she throws a temper tantrum, toppling many of the computers in the newspaper office while reminding everyone present that these lovely toys of ours are "covered in blood." The point of this scene, as heavy-handed as it is, is one that cannot be repeated enough.

Interestingly, the opening credits begin with a statement concerning NAFTA and what it has done to exacerbate poverty in Mexico. It also lets us know that "every three seconds a TV set is produced, every seven seconds, a computer." To drive the point home further, we are then given the gendered statistics: maquiladoras specifically target women because they "work for lower wages, and complain less about the long hours and harsh working conditions."

Perhaps one of the few films about the Juarez femicide that dares to implicate the northern side of the border, Bordertown is worth viewing just on this point alone. However, it offers more than that. It's a pretty good thriller that relays for us the many economic, cultural, social, and political issues facing both women on different sides of the border.

Soon after presenting this information, the movie begins with Eva, who is brutally attacked by one of the bus drivers, who operates the factory buses, and an accomplice, who turns out to be a powerful man in bed with a number of rich and wealthy folks in Mexico and in the U.S. (surprise surprise). While we can debate whether or not the movie effectively addresses the numerous killings, what I especially appreciate about the film is its message of female empowerment and transnational solidarity.

Eva miraculously crawls out of her own grave in a desert in Lote Bravo and finds her way back to her people. Eva isn't simply a young, poor brown Mexican woman. She's an indigenous Mexican woman, and there are moments when she and her family speak in an indigenous tongue, rather than in Spanish. While Eva bonds with Loren, we get a glimpse of the indigenous struggle over land rights (a little bit of the Zaptista struggle) and how she and her family were displaced and forced to migrate near the border. Her absentee father is an undocumented immigrant working in the U.S. (let's think about that, shall we? Those same immigrant workers who have been targeted by our anti-immigration rhetoric and who work on the grounds of our workplace or who keep our offices clean may have a daughter just south of the border who are prey to some sick and twisted rapists-murders, protected by corporations and governments that only care about the bottom line). Eva, her mother, and her sisters are forced to live in the "ugly city" of Juarez just to make a living.

Loren, we later learn, is the daughter of Mexican migrant workers who both died. We can call her "lucky" because she is eventually adopted by white American parents. Loren's work, which begins with a professional journalistic interest in advancing her own career, soon becomes the stuff of transnational advocacy and feminist resistance. And, together, Eva and Loren work for their own survival and the survival of others.

I'm not going to reveal too much of the plot because I want you to go rent the DVD and see this movie for yourself. Forget anything you've ever thought about J-Lo (whose sexy persona is still very much in use in many of the scenes). What is important is that she and Antonio Banderas, who plays an activist journalist living in Juarez, just for the sake of "truth," felt this movie was important enough to throw their star power behind it. And, even then, the movie got undermined since it went directly to DVD.

Since our movie industry wants to neutralize the message of this film with these tactics, it's time we start getting radical and using the DVD for consciousness-raising and awareness. My students are already planning a public screening on campus next week to commemorate the killings and to participate in the second anniversary of Document the Silence. (Don't forget: WEAR RED on October 30 in solidarity).

Sometimes, I need to be reminded that the theory I teach must be supported by Practice.

Catching Up on Movies

I'm catching up on my movie watching - this time through Netflix, rather than at the theaters - and I came across this trailer on the DVD (a review of the film that I watched is soon to follow).

All I have to say, after reviewing the trailer, is: where was I when this documentary film, War Dance, came out? It has been added to my movie queue.

Lurker Thursday

Hello, lurkers! It's that time of the week again. Please stop by and say hi. You can also post your comments on last night's debate if you want.

I did not bother to post a new blog about it because I simply found it tedious. I had my TV on, then got distracted with other things online, and caught a few of the back-and-forth in which McCain had the audacity to claim his "feelings were hurt" because he and Palin were called on their bad behavior. Two words, McCain: STOP IT!

All in all, nothing new was really revealed; they both outlined their policies, which they had done since Debate #1 (why do we have three of these things?).

Anyway, that's as much as I'm going to say about that. I direct you, of course, to PBW, who posted a thoughtful piece about this surreal edition.

Photograph: "Autumn Stream" by DigitalART2.

The "Obama" Effect

Update.

We are definitely in troubled times, and as various "studies" programs get targeted for budget cuts at colleges and universities, I think it's important to realize this backlash has been brewing for a long period of time. This is "Reconstruction" meets "Jim Crow Segregation," folks. Nothing like History repeating itself.

Keep this in mind.

1. In the wake of the Civil Rights Movement and Desegregation, programs like Affirmative Action went into effect in which people of color were recruited into higher education, and disciplines like Women's Studies and Ethnic Studies were created to challenge the hegemony of the disciplines which excluded these marginal groups.

2. Inevitably, the "Culture Wars" took place, during the first conservative backlash in the 80s with the Reagan-Bush era. The die-hard conservatives resented the multiculturalists, and the multiculturalists - because of their lack of vision - failed to impact across the curriculum in meaningful ways since they never went beyond "add race/gender/class/sexuality and stir" models. Not unlike the less impactful way that Affirmative Action never built a critical mass of people of color as faculty and students - simply trickling in a select few as "tokens."

3. With the Clinton-Gore era, this Democratic-controlled White House was undermined with the Newt Gingrich-led GOP push to create a "Contract with America," which made us more vulnerable since it was under Clinton that too many conservative decisions were made - Welfare Reform, the Telecommunications Act, which corporatized all of our media, tougher drug laws, and the beginnings of the dismantling of Affirmative Action, since Clinton never did get a chance to select a Supreme Court Justice [Update - correction, as one of my commenters reminded me, he in fact nominated Ginsburg and Breyer]. During this era, universities became more and more corporatized - thus diminishing the importance of social justice-oriented programs and departments.

4. Such a centrist Democratically run government made it possible for the Bush-Cheney era, and post-9/11 made it that much easier to swing the pendulum back to the extreme right wing, which has created an atmosphere in higher education, where tenure is being put on the chopping block (now that more women and people of color are making it) and Affirmative Action and other Diversity programs are being cut. The return of Jim Crow (or James Crow Jr. Esquire, as Al Sharpton once coined) in the form of our highly segregated schooling system and housing situation has made it that much easier for arguments that don't support our racially pluralistic society which needs multicultural curriculum now more than ever.

5. However, the bottom line is: women and people of color have cracked into the system and have impacted the culture wars. Otherwise, why are the "Old Fathers" and the "Obedient Daughters Who Support Them" (cough Palin cough) working overtime to eradicate us?

This brings us to Obama: He is the ultimate symbol of Affirmative Action Gone Awry. Now, those N---- want to be in the White House too!

Is it mere coincidence that Ethnic Studies and other "studies" programs, as well as Affirmative Action, are being targeted right now? Is it any wonder that "intellect" is dismissed, especially when articulate people of color, like the Obamas, represent the way that the university is "overrun" (as if less than 10 percent make-up of the academic population means that we've "taken over") by radicals, queers, and people of color?

Why does this all feel like the beginnings of Jim Crow Segregation 2.0? Are we approaching a new era of James Crow Junior Esquire?

Consider that our post-civil rights era ran very much like the Post-Emancipation "Reconstruction" era in which a significant number of African Americans rose out of slavery and progressed. White Supremacy could not handle this, hence the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, the organization of mass lynchings, and the legalization of segregation.

Our 20th-century Reconstruction era (coincidentally the same decades as in the 19th century - just as this occurred during the 1860s-1890s, we too have experienced the 1960s-1990s as our 20th-century Reconstruction era) is now passed, and we are approaching a new version of the Crow era.

It's also during legal segregation that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Urban League, and other progressive movements started forming. In other words, we can no longer sit back and let these negative forces - designed to crush us and keep us "in our place" - simply wash over us. We must fight back.

If there is anything reading about Ida B. Wells has taught me (and I have not finished this very long biography yet) is that we have to strategize for our survival. Ida took her anti-lynching fight globally in order to effect social change. You know why the lynchings went down in the South because of her anti-lynching movement? Because she traveled beyond the United States and created an important international campaign speaking out about America's human rights violations against African Americans. Her European allies actually organized an economic boycott against southern cotton because of the lynchings. And nothing like feeling the economic pinch to get people to pay attention - remember the Bus Boycott that started the Civil Rights movement?

My people, we have got to fight corporate control. It has taken over every aspect of our institutions - from our so-called "free media" to our so-called "institutions of higher learning" to the way we elect our presidents. Let us not lull ourselves into thinking the battle is over if Obama wins the presidential elections. Our battle will have just begun - don't think our enemies aren't already planning to draw the battle lines if this happens. Remember that the supremacists have already begun anticipating an increase in the number of whites who will be joining their ranks. They're waiting for it. Not only that, but if Obama should lose, don't you think too many will say "close call" and really crack down on our "progress"?

Is Obama our 21st-century Homer Plessy, another mixed-race man, who fought for his right to ride in the "whites only" part of the train? After all, it was the fact that Plessy could "pass for white" and, therefore, served as the real threat to the myth of white "racial purity," that caused the Supreme Court's crackdown on the social boundaries by legalizing segregation, which is what the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling of 1896 instituted with their "separate but equal" policy.

I once said, very early this year, that I thought the Democrats were gambling big time in pushing Obama as a frontrunner, rather than as the ideal running mate; the latter option would have given this race-obsessed and race-driven country of ours an opportunity to adjust to the idea of a black president by first having him do a stint as V.P. I once said 2016 was the ideal time to put Obama up for the presidency, but to envision such a thing would have meant strategizing for the long term, for it really will take 16 good long years to roll back the damage created in the past 8 years of the GOP era under Bush-Cheney. But, we went along full speed ahead, deluding ourselves into thinking that we were living in a "post-racial society."

Now, every Democrat that I pass by these days is wringing their hands, worrying about Obama's safety and if the "undecided" voters will eventually decide against him come Election Day. This, after I uttered a word of caution in the form of an open letter to Michelle Obama, in which some well-meaning commenters chastised me for not getting caught up in the momentous historic significance of Obama winning the Iowa primary. Well, I wonder if these are some of the ones wringing their hands now.

Look: I'm on the Obama hope train right now. I mean, our choice at present is to choose hope or choose fear. And I really wish he'd go back to his rousing "hope" speeches to remind everyone of the optimism he once inspired.

But, can we actually talk about his vision of "hope" without the delusions of living in a "postracial" society? The bottom line is no way, no how, is a "postracial society" going to come about after 400 years of slavery and Native American genocide, 70 years of legal racial segregation, and 30 years of legal desegregation and social resegregation. When we can't face our history honestly, how can we envision a future realistically?

The Vulnerability of Women's Studies

After spending considerable hours tabling for my department for an information fair for prospective graduate students, imagine my surprise to encounter an administrative person who basically dropped me enough hints suggesting that, in these times of budget cuts and economic crises, Women's Studies is pretty much on the chopping block. This, after wasting a good solid 90 minutes in a meeting earlier today where we were supposed to discuss impending budget cuts and what strategies we would need for survival, and instead got caught up in petty issues. I decided, either remain silent or force the issue.

The issue was forced, and we descended into an argument in which nothing got resolved. Some of my friends and colleagues, even former students, have already warned me that the demise of the discipline, in which I received my training, is inevitable. But, should I just let it die a slow death without a proper fight?

We are terribly vulnerable right now. Can Women's Studies be saved in the current climate and crisis?

Cool Human Rights Video

This was recently added by the Human Rights Action Center, an animated presentation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Playing Dangerous Games

Here is an op-ed piece in The Washington Post by Khaled Hosseini, author of The Kite Runner, titled "McCain and Palin Are Playing With Fire":

I prefer to discuss politics through my novels, but I am truly dismayed these days. Twice last week alone, speakers at McCain-Palin rallies have referred to Sen. Barack Obama, with unveiled scorn, as Barack Hussein Obama.

Never mind that this evokes -- and brazenly tries to resurrect -- the unsavory, cruel days of our past that we thought we had left behind. Never mind that such jeers are deeply offensive to millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslim Americans who must bear the unveiled charge, made by some supporters of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, that Obama's middle name makes him someone to distrust -- and, judging by some of the crowd reactions at these rallies, someone to persecute or even kill. As a secular Muslim, I too was offended. Obama's middle name differs from my last name by only two vowels. Does the McCain-Palin campaign view me as a pariah too? Do McCain and Palin think there's something wrong with my name?

But never mind any of that.

The real affront is the lack of firm response from either McCain or Palin. Neither has had the moral courage, when taking the stage, to grasp the microphone, turn to the presenter and, right then and there, denounce the use of Obama's middle name as an insult. Instead, they have simply delivered their stump speeches, lacing into Obama as if nothing out-of-bounds had just happened. The McCain-Palin ticket has given toxic speeches accusing Obama of being a friend of terrorists, then released short, meek repudiations of some of the rough stuff, including McCain's call Friday to "be respectful." Back in February, the Arizona senator apologized for the "disparaging remarks" from a talk-radio host who sneered repeatedly about "Barack Hussein Obama" before a McCain rally. "We will have a respectful debate," McCain insisted afterward. But pretending to douse flames that you are busy fanning does not qualify as straight talk.

Read in Full.

Because We All Need Reassurance Again from Michella Obama: "Be Not Afraid"

In light of recent news of the rising anger at Republican rallies, which are starting to more and more simmer towards the lynch mob (see CNN and BBC accounts), where certain audience members are yelling inane and incendiary things like "Obama Osama!" or "It's in his bloodline!" (as to why Obama must clearly be a "terrorist" - God help us all in this so-called "postracial society"), PBW reminded me why Michelle Obama is clearly made of leadership stuff. She of course was referring to her calm, cool, and collected appearance on Larry King Live the other night, but I want to take us back to an important speech she delivered last year, in which she called on all of us to "be not afraid." I think her words are now needed more than ever, as we approach Election Day - only three weeks away.

Lurker Thursday: Late Edition

Hello all! Sorry I'm late with this edition of Lurker Thursday, but I'm just now getting time, after going out of town, to catch up on my blog.

So, even though there are only three hours left of Thursday (and not even!) I do want to still welcome my lurkers and encourage you all to drop a note and say hi. :)

Is Palin Inciting Threats Against Obama with Her "Terrorist" Charge?

I got this From the Left, who got it from the Washington Post. Apparently, someone in a Florida rally, where Sarah Palin insinuated that Obama has "terrorist ties," yelled out, "Kill him!"

She did nothing to condemn such sentiments. It's one thing for a campaign to use smear tactics to take away votes from the opponent, but inciting real threats like this is so going over the line.

Is Palin simply being reckless with her cluelessness, or is this deliberate?

Music Video Break

I'm taking a break from politics and current events to just have a little fun with some music - and hip hop no less. Here's one of my favorite videos, "I'm Really Hot," from Missy Elliott, one fierce rapper and performer who is often under-theorized in current Hip-Hop Studies (hmmm, could it be her transgressive performance of gender and sexuality?). This video's got break-dancing, clowning, krumping, battling, boasting, Asian appropriation (or shout-out - take it how you will), and B-Girls doing their thing. In an age of overexposed and hypersexualized video vixens, all I have to say is: Go, Missy!

It is Getting Harder to Tell Tina Fey and Sarah Palin Apart

While I take issue with the dig at Gwen Ifill (as if to suggest that, just because she has a book coming out focusing on the state of Black America in the Obama Years, she couldn't obviously be an objective moderator - seems to me the book is about race relations, not Barack Obama, but whatever) Tina Fey nails Palin once again in the latest SNL skit.

The Stepford VP Candidate

When ya can't tell if yer watchin' Tina Fey or Sarah Palin, it's a gosh darn bad sign.
- wendy weiss, colorado (from New York Times' Readers' Comments)

[The] cynical attempt to foist Palin on the nation as a symbol of feminist progress is an insult to all women regardless of their political orientation.
- Joe Conason, "The Dumbing Down of the GOP", Salon

The problem with Ms. Palin’s candidacy is that John McCain might actually win this election, and then if something terrible happened, the country could be left with little more than an exclamation point as president.
- Bob Herbert, "Palin's Alternate Universe," New York Times

I could talk about OJ Simpson's Guilty verdict, which was the main headline for today, but I'm not gonna. I'd rather start this post by revealing how I adore Gwen Ifill and how she's been a hero of mine: poised, eloquent, intelligent, and a sharp sister who's got the guts to wear her hair without weaves on TV and to keep the Washingtonian media big wigs in line on her PBS-aired program, "Washington Week." I'm hoping the rumors I've been hearing are true - that she's set to take over NBC's "Meet the Press," in the wake of Tim Russert's passing and when Tom Brokaw, who has temporarily filled in, steps down. Can't wait!


Nevertheless, as much as Gwen Ifill is often at the top of her game, I wish she had been a tad bolder and less tolerant throughout the Vice Presidential Debate Thursday night, as she had been in the early stage of moderating this event, when she nailed both candidates for not answering her questions: "Governor, Senator, neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice president. I'm going to come back to that..."

So, this brings me to what I find most annoying about Governor Palin. She really does remind me of a Stepford candidate. If you remember that old feminist cautionary tale of the Stepford Wives (and I'm referring to the 1970s book and movie and not that horrendous remake featuring Nicole Kidman), the sci-fi envisioned a New England suburban town where something was not quite right with the women - they were too cutesy, too perfect, too plastic, just too phony. Then, we later learned that the Stepford Wives were not real women but rather robots that killed the women whose places they were expected to fill. I've always thought that story, penned by a man, was far too contemptuous of men in thinking this vision was what men really wanted. But, if we are to believe in Sarah Palin's popularity, perhaps he's not too far off.

The bottom line is, the debate was less of an actual "debate" and more of a public interview. And even then, if I were on the hiring committee (what am I talking about? As a registered voter, I am!), I would reject her resume and her interviewing skills. Never before have I seen a more apt description that best sums up Palin's presence on Thursday night:

THERE IS NO THERE THERE.

She was a cardboard caricature, a pre-programmed voice recorder. She was all artifice, a facade, with no real substance. Just too many smiles and winking (at whom? The American people, or her debate coach?), and rehearsed speeches. I wanted to remind her that this "Q&A interview" was not for her to be crowned Miss America but to become vice president.

Something else. Next to her, Senator Joe Biden came off as a candidate with real substance and real emotions. I was none too pleased when Obama had chosen him for his running mate, but for the first time, I am comforted by the fact that his experience means something and can shore up Obama in his presidency. I was moved when he had gotten choked up about his experiences as a single parent struggling with a child's injuries (while Palin, who loves to tout her motherly role, showed very little sympathy). I agree with PBW's assessment when she stated, "Biden was the most moving to me when he became choked up by Palin's callous disregard for his own life experiences."

Interestingly, I was surprised at how subdued Biden was; he can be an attack dog, but even he knew to not be too hard on his opponent because she was not equally yoked. And, honestly, that's a quality to seriously commend because it was the equivalent of a trained boxing champ entering the ring and working overtime to not knock out an untrained lightweight, simply because he was clear his punch could do lethal damage. I commend him, not because it was a sign of patronizing chauvinism (which is usually what motivates McCain when he treats Palin like some fragile child and not a future world leader) but because he didn't want to show her up (at least that was my take on it).

Palin, by contrast, hardly appeared to be her self-described "pitbull in lipstick." She was more like a trained monkey (if I must follow this animal kingdom analogy). Nowhere was this more evident than when she dodged question after question, sticking to her ready-made script, saying absolutely nothing but doing so with pretty good delivery (as in: doesn't matter that you're not saying anything, so long as you deliver it well), her plastic smile, winks, and "Palinisms": "Say it ain't so, Joe." Ugh.

So, here's an example of what I mean about Palin refusing to veer off script, even dismissing Ifill as a worthwhile moderator, who wasn't welcoming of what she had to say. The specific quote when talking to Biden: “I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear.”

That quote comes at the end of this revealing exchange:

IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Senator McCain's comments about health care?

PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases. We can speak in agreement here that darn right we need tax relief for Americans so that jobs can be created here. Now, Barack Obama and Senator Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times.

Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy. We do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce. Government is going to have to learn to be more efficient and live with less if that's what it takes to reign in the government growth that we've seen today. But we do need tax relief and Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.

IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It's a bogus standard it but if you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That's why we got into so much trouble.

IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also...

You can read the Debate Transcript in full.

This exchange pretty much summed up Palin's performance (which was to not really say anything, not answer any of Ifill's questions, and stick to her script). By contrast, Biden pointed to specific policies and specific experiences.

In short, Palin, while not nearly as trainwrecky as her interview with Katie Couric, set the bar to an all time low, and we, the American people, are the worse for it. And, I'm not sure which upsets me more: our sexism, in expecting women to under perform (and prop her up in entertainment shows, like ET, which is currently on my TV and which can't seem to get enough of her), our racism, in thinking she's preferable to a black man as president, our classism, via a political party that shows its contempt for the working class by treating them as if they need to be "straight talked to" in such an insulting way, or our imperialism, in thinking that the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb team that is McCain-Palin is a worthwhile team to foist upon the rest of the world.

I'm far more fearful should the Stepford Candidate become the Stepford VP, thus reigning terror on the rest of us, imposing a terribly limited vision of American womanhood: brainless, patriarchy-aligned, and robotic.

Funny Friday

Stay tuned for my commentary on last night's VP Debate over the weekend. (Preview title: "The Stepford VP"). But, after an exhaustive day, I need some time to put this piece together. In the mean time, have fun with these:


htp PBW for mentioning political comics.

Lurker Thursday

Welcome once again, dear readers and lurkers. On this Lurker Thursday, you know the drill. This week, I want some real participation. Please drop a note and say hi. Don't make me have to call on you (Hi, Morgan Stanley! *waves*).

Photograph: "Low Light" by Ming Mong.

Economic Crisis Impacting on Higher Education

I'm at a state university, and we're all waiting for the ax to fall, but hundreds of colleges across our nation are impacted in other ways, due to this economic disaster. (And this doesn't even take into account the lack of available student loans. SMH)

This is from an article in Chronicle of Higher Education, titled "Bank Freeze Leaves Hundreds of Colleges Cut Off from Short-Term Funds," by Kelly Field.

Wachovia bank has frozen the accounts of nearly 1,000 colleges, leaving institutions unable to access billions of dollars they depend on for salaries, campus construction, and debt payments.

The freeze, which affects most institutions that invest their endowment income and other assets through Commonfund, has some colleges worried that they won’t be able to make payroll this period, said Verne O. Sedlacek, president and chief executive of Commonfund, which manages investments for nonprofit institutions. Many colleges use the organization's short-term investment fund for operating expenses, “almost as a checking account,” he said.

As of last Friday, the Common Fund for Short Term Investments managed approximately $9.3-billion in assets for 900 colleges and roughly 100 private schools.

Wachovia, which agreed to sell its banking operations to Citigroup this week, announced on Monday that it was resigning as trustee of the fund and would allow plan participants to withdraw only 10 percent of their assets—the value of the securities that had reached maturity. That percentage grew to 26 percent on Tuesday as additional securities reached maturity, and is expected to reach 57 percent by the end of this year and 74 percent by the end of 2009.

But unless the credit markets thaw, enabling a new trustee to sell more of the short-term securities in the fund, colleges won’t be able to access all their money until at least 2010.

Read Article in Full (subscription to the Chronicle is needed.)

HIV/AIDS Traced as Far Back to the Colonial Era in Africa (Of Course!)

Because, you know, this is what U.S. experts would come up with.

Here's the BBC Report from today:

The study, published in the journal Nature, suggests the virus may have crossed
from apes to humans between 1884 and 1924. They believe newly-built cities
may have allowed the virus to thrive.

Hmmm, where have I heard that one before?

It continues:

Aids, the illness caused by HIV, was first reported by doctors in 1981, but the
virus had been around for many decades before that.
HIV is not a single virus - there are a number of different strains and subtypes of strains, some sharing the same "founder event" in history, in which a single human was infected.
Scientists believe that these "founder events" may have involved
eating monkeys infected with a similar virus.

See? Why in heck would they assume this friggin' link between monkeys and humans? What kind of exoticized, primitivized imaginary is at play here when they attempt to link the HIV virus to the African continent in this manner?

Continuing:

Research published last year found the viral ancestor of a subtype of HIV
responsible for most modern cases in the US and Europe in a blood sample taken
in Leopoldville, the capital of Belgian Congo - now Kinshasa, the capital of the
Democratic Republic of Congo.

Of course they did, but wouldn't it be just as intriguing if they found similar blood samples in other parts of the world beyond the Congo? After all, from what memory serves, I once tuned into a 60 Minutes episode in which scientists discovered that an early strain of the HIV virus was once found in a patient from England in the early 1960s, even though we often document the first AIDS patient to the year 1981. There was no indication that this person traveled to Africa. See what I mean about the assumptions that were made in this research in which questions automatically point to the African continent as the point of origin for HIV/AIDS? And, yes, I'm going to question this because, during the Victorian era, many racist scientists tried to argue that syphilis originated in Africa - even though evidence existed in history that indicated Christopher Columbus's sailors, who mostly likely never traveled to Africa, contracted the disease, although it's not clear if this originated with them or if they picked it up in the newly discovered Americas. And, since history has shown that Native Americans were wiped out by disease from contact with Europeans, where do you think syphilis most likely originated from?

Anyway, all this is to say: this is useful information for scientists (and for us), especially in the wake of an HIV/AIDS pandemic that impacts more women around the world everyday (and women of African descent in particular). However, these assumptions about point-of-origin seem terribly bogged down in racialized and imperialist thinking that we need to unpack. These scientific questions may harm us more than help us, especially if they limit what new directions and new considerations are taken, if we are to ever find a cure.

Read the Article in Full.