Fake Prestige

While I am thankful for my time back home in Northern California, with my parents, sister, and fluffy little dog, the necessary time spent with my extended family this Thursday was less than perfect. My grandmother is the oldest of thirteen siblings and everyone remains close. This year, nine of the siblings and their corresponding families--complete with ex-spouses, grown children, grandchildren, and in-laws--all crammed into my grandmother's house for Thanksgiving dinner.
This three-ring circus ran relatively smoothly overall, everyone's crazy considered, but a few relatives couldn't sit down an break bread without hitting one of my pet peeves. Quite a few of them attended Stanford University and they won't ever let you forget about it. Seriously, they went to Stanford for undergrad fifteen, thirty, forty years ago and they still will not shut up about how great it is. It starts off innocently with football talk, but clearly, in the context of the conversation and how they subsequently isolate themselves off from most of the non-college educated, non-Stanford people, there is an air of superiority. Yes, attending and graduating from Stanford is impressive, but what have you done for me lately? Flounder at a private law practice? Oh, look at me: airing out the dirty laundry. The Stanford talk is not necessarily a  problem, but the presumption of prestige is a big one.
This is the same thing one encounters in Los Angeles, particularly at my school, the University of Southern California. People always seem to want to be complimented for things that may be pretty cool, but not necessarily prestigious or impossibly impressive. This is usually manifested in name-dropping and label-whoring. While it is impressive that you know the hairdresser of Steven Spielberg's wife, you yourself are not in the film industry and your purse and shoe collection is enviable, but it doesn't necessarily denote any real wealth.
You know what is impressive? How about putting your prestige to more useful things than annoying your relatives during the holidays. There are plenty of problems that require well-connected, wealthy, and/or intelligent individuals to help solve them. And now I am done ranting. Happy Holidays everyone. Cheers.

Why I Hate the Term "Whitewashed"

I am a Black American woman and I've never once doubted that, nor have I had any negative feelings about identifying as such. For whatever reason, however, people seem to feel the need to point out how I don't seem black. From the way that I talk to my interests, I can't convince certain people--black, white, or other-- that I am really black. What is it about blackness that it requires some sort of seal of authenticity? In this supposed post-race society, ethnicity is still a very important part of an American's identity; for Black Americans, it seems it's something that has to be earned.

The apparent need to verify one's blackness with the rest of society is wrong for various reasons. Firstly, it assumes that Black culture is the same for every Black American anywhere in the country; this assumption leaves no room for the differentiations of socioeconomic class, location, generation, gender, sexuality, or religious background. This phenomenon also reflects a sentiment that a person can not control her destiny, a very anti-individualist idea that does not line up with traditional American ideology. But probably most importantly, who gets to decide exactly what is real blackness?

After years of having to wrestle with this pressure to be "authentic," I now can quickly and appropriately let someone know just how wrong they are to expect a certain type of black. Upon hearing some non-black girl tell a black how funny it was that she is so "whitewashed" and how her brother is too and they are basically white on the inside, instead of their insides being as black as their outsides. How are we so PC that we can't offend public figures publicly and yet we can allow children to that they are not being true to some stereotypical identity? Well, I'm disgusted. What are your thoughts?

It's Too Late to Apologize (For Indirectly Calling You Racist) But I'll Do It Anyway

 

Yo, George Bush. I’m happy for you and your memoir that’s coming out soon and I’ll let you finish, but Barack Obama had the greatest memoir(s) of all time! (Pop culture reference)

In a recent interview with Matt Lauer of the Today Show, George Bush revealed how hurt he was by Kanye West’s implications that he was a racist back in 2005. During a live telethon for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, Kanye West abruptly went off-script and vented his frustrations with the Bush administration’s slow response to the emergency in the Gulf Coast. At one point, ignoring is fellow telethon celebrity, Mike Myers’ attempt to get back to the script, West stated, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people!” Producers immediately cut to Chris Tucker. Five years later, George Bush told Lauer that it was, “one of the most disgusting moments” of his presidency. And that is coming from a President during whose two terms America experienced a massive terrorist attack, embarked on two wars, felt the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, and entered into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

Essentially, Bush would rather the jury be out on his public policy legacy rather than one allegation that he may be a racist. Our culture has warped itself to be so self-conscious and yet so shallow that it is more important to be—or at least seem—politically correct than to actually effective in one’s job.

 Normally, I am the first person to roll my eyes whenever someone laments how our society has become so sensitive to and too politically correct. To me, those are the same people who harbor resentment towards historically disadvantaged peoples who have recently achieved a larger presence in mainstream America, such as ethnic minorities, but also women, LGBT, and people with disabilities; these people see the advancement of others as a threat to their own piece of the American Dream. While I can understand how these people must feel, I don’t think they can or should say anything and expect not to get negative feedback. If you make a statement about race or ethnicity, be prepared for people not to like what you said, and for them to, by extension, not like you. There is a freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean it your words won’t cost you.

That said, I do agree that we are entering dangerous territory with how we approach political correctness and tolerance. The dismissal of Juan Williams from NPR is a fresh example of how we make knee-jerk reactions to racially insensitive speech. Incidentally, William’s confession of feeling “nervous” on airplanes when seeing people in “Muslim garb” was during a discussion about political correctness, and he was actually advocating being “careful” when talking about different ethnicities and races.

But recent controversies aside, being politically correct in speech does not necessarily change how one feels about a particular topic. The words may sound good, but they may be hiding meaner, far less tolerant intentions. But should we really go in a direction in which speech takes the place of actual tolerance? Additionally, it’s possible that our PC culture is what is contributing to some of the resentment that some Americans have against others. If they must censor themselves for fear of offending the wrong person or losing their job for how that looks, the result could be unpleasant feelings associated with a group of people or with being politically correct altogether.

We can barely see the line of propriety ourselves, and yet when someone else so clearly jumps over it, we are usually incredibly offended and serious consequences ensue. We are hypocrites. We say stupid things in the heat of the moment like Kanye did, but when someone questions us, we will usually claim that they are too sensitive. But when it comes to the statements or actions of others, we are quick to assume that since they are insensitive, they are intolerant, racist, and/or prejudiced. Williams’ comments were certainly not graceful, and very clearly NPR did not find them to be politically correct, but he seemed to actually mean well, and he clearly was not expressing hatred or bigotry. When something insensitive is said there needs to be a distinction made about intent. When it we are speaking, we should be conscious of how our words may be perceived and choose accordingly.

Political correctness is still important, because it is an integral part of exercising tolerance on a daily basis. Still, it should not come at the expense of telling the truth and having open, honest conversations that can help solve problems or actually bring people together. It certainly shouldn’t come at the expense of getting our jobs done, because what’s the point in seeming like a person who doesn’t “not care about black people” just to look like the jerk who doesn’t care about anyone at all?

Does this paragraph make me look fat?: In Respone to CommuniKate's "The Big Problem"

Among other things, I am an older sister and a mentor. Some day, I will become a mother, possibly having daughters. In a world where anything Kim Kardashian does is news, diet commercials run amok on our TVs, and Cosmopolitan month after month tells you however many ways to "drive him wild," that terrifies me. Countless women have lamented the plight of young women and their self-esteems, especially in relation to body image. Last week, Kate brought to our attention the controversy surrounding the CBS sitcom "Mike & Molly" and Marie Claire blogger Maura Kelly's take on the show's two overweight stars.

Now I could say that Kelly was way off base and that it's this sick kind of thinking that causes young girls to wretch into toilet seats across America, but I think that would be missing the opportunity to have a dialog about body image. It's true that this was not Kelly's finest piece--I actually follow A Year of Living Flirtaciously quite frequently-- but we could use this as a teachable moment rather than vilify her. Besides, Kelly's problem with "fatties" on her TV isn't nearly as troubling as what I see constantly in real life.

I mentor girls from the ages of 11 to about 17. What I've noticed recently about them and has caused me to analyze women of older age groups, is that their ideas about beauty and body image are largely influenced by what is presumed to be the opinion of men. As a character quips in my favorite play, A Raisin in the Sun, "It's how you can be sure that the world's most liberated women are not liberated at all." Despite obvious psychology studies to the contrary--and the fact that many media outlets aimed at women offering advice on how to interact with and please men are ran by women--most women still, at least subconsciously, believe that there is only one acceptable body type to attract men. In LA, every woman wants to be stick thin and leggy. In the East Bay Area, where I'm from, most worship the "thick" woman, praising her wide hips and thighs, and of course, the "Oakland booty."

Yes, culturally, there are often tendencies for certain aesthetics to develop, but let's look at what sort of message that sends to our girls. It says that they are only beautiful if they meet those standards. Forget about what is natural, from very skinny to "thick". The only thing that matters is one's sex appeal apparently. The role of woman has made leaps and bounds over the course of recent history, we technically know that women can do so much more than simply be sexy. And yet, why do we still equate that with our self worth?

Honestly, I don't have an answer for that. It's hard to change something to save future generations when the threatening force is within yourself at the same time. I do know, however, that we need to try harder reevaluate how we value ourselves. We also should probably put down the Cosmo and turn off Keeping Up with the Kardashians, but, you know, baby steps.

Addendum 11/15/10: For a much better articulation of my argument, check out Hugo Shwyzer's "The Problem with 'Being Sexy But Not Sexual'"

Ted Sorensen 1928- 2010

Ted Sorensen, speech writer and confidante for President John F. Kennedy died this weekend. He is often credited, though he never admitted to it, with writing some of the most recognizable--and inspiring words for JFK.

Time/CNN Remembrance

Not enough room in the Tea Party Movement for original goals and latest values and beliefs

The Federal Housing Finance Agency recently announced that the taxpayer-funded bailouts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could cost as much as $363 billion by 2013. An outrage such as that is enough to make one want to rally in the streets, perhaps even reenact the legendary Boston Tea Party with similarly frustrated citizens. Isn’t there already a group that is both against bailouts and a throwback to the founding ideals and revolutions of this country? Where are they, one might ask. Currently, they are endorsing candidates on Republican tickets across the nation, and rallying behind anything concerning family values, Glenn Beck, or Sarah Palin. Not even two years into its “movement,” the Tea Party has already forgotten its original ideals and goals. If tea partiers want to know why they are derided by the majority of politicians and the media, including writers for Fox News, a little bit of self-reflection would reveal that the perceived abandonment of their limited government and anti-bailout agendas in favor of social values is the cause of both their lack of credibility and the disdain they receive.

The Tea Party burst onto the political scene in early 2009 in response to the Obama administration’s support of the bank bailouts. After communicating on the Internet during the Bush administration, these conservative citizens decided to organize a few demonstrations in a few cities. The relative success of those demonstrations inspired thousands to form their own local tea parties. There are literally countless tea parties in all fifty states.

One source of the movement’s popularity is the outrage at government’s responses to the Recession, particularly the bank bailouts and the Healthcare Reform Act. No one would disagree that the current state of the economy calls for a serious reevaluation of regulation of financial institutions, as well as of the priorities of the federal government. The tea party’s valuation of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets is not what alienates people, what is problematic for many is that the Tea Party is concerned with the ethnicity and religion of President Obama and allows various websites and personas such as Dale Robertson to use their resources to make unauthorized statements on behalf of the movement.

Though the coverage of the Tea Party is most assuredly affected by the liberal bias of the mainstream media, it still does not excuse the behavior of the offensive tea partiers who supposedly are in the minority. Rather than asking demonstrators to put away their signs that contain racially insensitive material, the tea party organizers allow them to participate in the activities unmolested, but then claim to not have known about them. It would be easier to believe that with many protesters that organizers can sometimes miss a few random people with something off about them, and countless spokespersons have tried to refute claims that the Tea Party is racist, but that would be more believable if it wasn’t for Dale Robertson, the self-proclaimed founder of the tea party movement, wasn’t caught holding up a sign with the words “slave” and “niggar.” Not only did Robertson hold up a sign with a racial slur, he misspelled it.

The people stealing the spotlight from supposedly true tea partiers seem to be only concerned with matters of race, religion, and 2^nd Amendment rights.  For example, Glenn Beck’s association with the Tea Party attracted many similarly concerned citizens to his “Restoring Honor” rally, which actually had more to do with spirituality, especially of the Christian persuasion, than with politics. Teaparty.org lists “gun ownership is sacred,” “traditional family values are encouraged,” and “English as core language is required” as the movement’s non-negotiable beliefs. Judson Phillips, the leader of a tea party in Tennessee is calling for ousting of Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota for, among other things, being a Muslim, making some obscure connection from Ellison to Hamas. 

            In essence, the fundamental principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government have been lost in the media circus of bizarre personalities with louder voices. The movement has moved on.

Obama, Dems, "Moving America Forward" and Los Angeles politics

Having been born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, I naturally have problems living in the city of Los Angeles. I don't need to elaborate on my laundry list of complaints here, but in terms of politics, I have some serious doubts. When it was announced that Barack Obama would be giving a speech at the University of Southern California this Friday, there was speculation on what kind of protesters would show up and how far they would take things. Every time this was brought up, I immediately dismissed the idea, seriously doubting the audacity of politically conscious Angelenos. I predicted that most people who didn't agree with the Obama administration's policies would still show up, but their boldest medium of dissent would be in the form of eye-rolls and mutterings under breath. This is a college campus, in "South Central", after all. On any other day, without the overt presence of the Secret Service, conservatives and others feel self-conscious and don't necessarily advertise their disapproval of the President, so why would they speak up now?

LA, I seriously misjudged you. Not only did you roll 37,000 deep, but you brought your gumption and you brought your crazy. The Tea Party was in the house, with their signs and Obama-as-Hitler portraits. During Barbara Boxer's speech, some random pro-lifer yelled boldly by himself, "ABORTION! SHE'S FOR ABORTION!" Also, there was some relatively untraceable USC group, Student Activists for a Beloved Community. They were, oddly enough, my favorite. They stood near a portion of the massive line waiting for the rally to start, holding up signs with peace signs and simple phrases like "Leave Afganistan" or "End the War." They seemed harmless enough until they grabbed the arms of one of their fellow protesters and proceeded to waterboard him. The demonstration disgusted everyone and prompted a few shouting matches. The waterboarded protester promptly removed the burlap sack from his face and passed out fliers with information to raise doubts about the Obama administration's commitment to ending the wars in Afganistan and Iraq on one side, and a plug for their "Struggle for Education in Apartheid Israel" on the other.

I'm sure I missed a few others, but the point is, Los Angeles, I may have been wrong about you. Now get out to those polls and vote!