Words From The Center, Words From The Edge

Appropriative Racial Politics VS Pseudo-Liberalism in Glee

naamenblog — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:36:53 +0000

So I am addicted to the new tv series Glee. I talk about it with friends and never miss an episode. Last night’s episode was…interesting in terms of racial identity.

Warning Spoilers Ahead

What you need to know -

Will Schuster is the Glee teacher and his arch-nemisis overly competitive Sue Sylvester the head of the nationally renowned cheerleading team The Cheerios has just been assigned as his co-chair. Sue attempting to bring it down from the inside finds out that many of the minority students feel they aren’t being heard in terms of what music is selected, who sings lead and their personal skills. She splits the Glee Club in two taking all the People of Color, Queer and Differently-Abled folks as her team.

Now she makes several racially insensitive comments while doing so referring to Mercedes as Aretha, Mike and Tina as Asian and other Asian, Kurt as Gay Kid, etc. She also claims Comanche heritage pulling on the pretendian stereotype and drawing it out for criticism. And in the midst of this she picks a song they all like, allows them to show off their talents and inspires them to have confidence. Sue’s goal is to win, this trumps everything else in her life. When it comes down to it that’s all she cares about and no matter the student’s identity if they show her they are a winner she’ll support them.

None of Sue’s actions bothered me because it was quite obviously more a critique of aversive racism and the lack of self-knowledge that many people in the world just like Sue exhibit using stereotypes and offensive language to expose them.

What did offend me in this episode was Will’s Rainbow Coalition speech at the end of the episode. What a way to ruin a great racial critique! Sue steps down of her own volition and Will says that she was right to address the needs of the minority students BUT he then goes on to say that they are all minority students because they are in Glee Club so their individual identities don’t matter. EXCUSE ME?!? Will has just effectively attempted to erase their identities. By ignoring the confluence of factors that makes these children what they are he attempts to assuage his own guilt in ignoring them. Marginalized people do not have the luxury of forgetting our position in society as illustrated earlier in the episode by Sue’s calling them. To ignore our identifications is to erase a vital part of someone’s identity.

I am of mixed African and African-American ancestry and that is what people see when I walk down the street. It effects how I am treated in the world, what I write, how I interact with society as a whole telling me that I don’t have a race is more of insult than you think – I may have other identities but I am also a Person of Color and that will never change.

Will falls into the trap of pseudo-liberalism or the “Kumbaya” version of identity politics whereby we pretend that racism/sexism/queerism/ableism is over and that if we just act like everyone’s the same everything will be okay. It’s a very colonized viewpoint and one that serves those in power more that marginalized people because the effect of saying that is silencing if a person needs to discuss identity politics, that conversation has effectively been shutdown and so the privileged person has now positioned themselves as above the discussion and they never have to deal with the uncomfortable conversation again while the marginalized now has no outlet within the relationship for discussing things that effect who they are.

For me I’ll take someone like Sue who may call me an inappropriate names but will never forget the confluence of identities that make me who I am and who I could at least attempt to have a conversation with over someone like Will who will try to erase who I am and preemptively shut down even the possibility of such a talk.

Posted in anti-oppression, aversive racism, media representation, queerism, racism, television, Theory & Criticism Tagged: ableism, anti-oppression, aversive racism, glee, media representation, queerism, racism, television, Theory & Criticism

Quick Post! – Transcript Published

naamenblog — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:53:20 +0000

Attending WisCon this year I participated in a conversation (among mostly fans of Color) about RaceFail’09, the ramifications of that, the confluence of race and science fiction and race in general. Portions of the conversation were transcribed (with full permission asked and granted of all participants) and appear in the new international peer-reviewed journal Transformative Works and Cultures, Vol 3 (2009). Really good conversation around race and being a fan, check it out if you get the chance:
Pattern recognition: A dialogue on racism in fan communities
Second year of grad school is still kickin’ my ass but hopefully things will slow down after the next couple of weeks and I can get back to blogging more regularly.

Posted in OTW, People of Color, race, RaceFail'09, sf/f, WisCon Tagged: OTW, People of Color, race, RaceFail'09, sf/f, WisCon

So Close Yet So Far!

naamenblog — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:32:39 +0000

So I’m obviously not as plugged in as I thought I was because until last night I had never heard of the Emmy-winning web series Satacracy 88. Twenty-four episodes were done in ‘06 and ‘07 and they are all viewable on hulu. Now the pluses are complex, interesting Woman of Color protagonist, plenty of People of Color, passes the Bechdel Test, gotta support indie art and the plot is pretty interesting and grabby.

I stayed up late last night watching the whole thing, each episode is only 3 -5 minutes and I was loving it until I reached the end. Now I’m not gonna ruin it for anyone who is going to head over and watch it but I found it anti-climactic and boring and just plain annoying.

This time though I can’t really blame the creators or the showrunners for the badness. See, Satacracy 88 comes to us via ItsAllInYourHands.Com where at the end of each episode the protagonist is left torn between two possibilities and the audience vote decides which way they go. It’s like a group census Choose You Own Adventure Book!

They have two other shows on their webpage and on hulu.com but I’m too burned on how Satacracy 88 ended to put myself willingly into mob rule television again anytime soon. I would recommend people go watch it if only so I can have someone to discuss some of the possibly problematic elements I recognized. One of which was Satacracy 88’s origin story which I put under a cut so as not to spoil:

The briefness of her origin says that as a young girl she avenged her mother and people/village by killing her father and his whole colonialist regime. Now while I enjoy the acknowledgement of colonialism I’m unsure how the whole thing sits with me with the implications of rape and violence again being the motivation behind a strong, capable female character if this time implied rather than stated outright.

Posted in fantasy/sci-fi, media representation, People of Color, sf/f, viral sci-fi, web series Tagged: fantasy/sci-fi, media representation, People of Color, sf/f, viral sci-fi, web series

The 2nd Year Begins/Terminology “Confluences”

naamenblog — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:01:12 +0000

My second year of grad school has begun. I’m taking four classes this semester:

Contemporary Queer Writers of Color
Fiction Workshop
20th & 21st Century Poets of Color
Queer Poetics

So there’s a lot of reading, a lot of literature and a lot of theory. In addition two of my classes require me to blog once a week. So yes my dreams of blogging regularly again seem to be coming true just not the way I thought. All of this is in addition to being co-fiction editor of the literary journal 580 Split and running a school sponsored reading series.

In conclusion I may be insane, the good part is that a lot of my reading are awesome folks I would read anyway if not quite so quickly. I’m also reading a lot more stuff by Women, GLBTQ folks and People of Color – which was one of my goals for this semester. So for my first week I read Langston Hughes, Barbara Smith & Gloria Anzaldua.

On top of this I’m researching various PhD programs in the Bay Area. So far the most promising ones seem to be Literature @ UC Santa Cruz, Modern Thought & Lit. @ Stanford and Rhetoric @ UC Berkeley.

*Terminology: Confluences

Last week in my class I was introduced to the word confluences as opposed to intersections and I’m doing my best to replace the terms in my vocabulary. Not that intersectional is now “out” or anything like that it was just the more I thought about the reasoning the professor put forward, the more I agree with it. Intersectionality implies static connections, the the places and situations in which our identities meet and influence each other happens the same way every time in the same way at the same time. The truth of the matter is that our various identities shift and change depending on the situation.

The imagery I’ve been using to thing of confluences is wind currents. A separate current representing each identity, two or three or more may merge into bigger systems depending on the situation, or one current itself can interact on it’s own and even if some of your other identities do not feed directly into the confluence those other winds are still present shifting the focus and perceptions of the larger storm system co-existing.

Haven’t worked out the whole metaphor or interactions yet but overall really liking the terminology of confluences of identity as opposed to intersections of identity a whole lot right now.

Posted in all about me, confluence, school, terminology Tagged: all about me, confluence, grad school, terminology

Missing In Action

naamenblog — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:48:19 +0000

Yes, know I’ve been MIA for quite a while but first it was finals, then I was traveling through Europe for seven weeks and now I’m moving on Monday and have been spazzing out packing things but I promise I’m not dead and will return to regularly scheduled blogging as soon as I settle into my new place.
Hope everyone’s summer has been good and if not good at least interesting.

Posted in all about me Tagged: all

On Vacation but still had time for a little quiz…

naamenblog — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:48:32 +0000

Currently on my grand tour of Europe, already have hit Dublin & Barcelona I am currently in Paris but there’s always time for a quiz!

Your result for Which fantasy writer are you?…

Mary Gentle (b. 1956)

19 High-Brow, 19 Violent, 21 Experimental and 31 Cynical!

Congratulations! You are High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.

Mary Gentle is a UK author whose work has received some acclaim. Her great break-through came with 1984 fantasy novel Golden Witchbreed, which depicts the travels of a UK envoy on a planet, Orthe, where the inhabitants have, by choice, abandoned a high-tech society for a seemingly less advanced way of life. Though nominally science fiction, the novel is generally called fantasy, partly because Orthe has the feel of a fantasy world. Nothing is what it first seems to be on Orthe, however, and the envoy’s journey across the planet gradually reveals a vividly imagined alternate society, where nothing is ever over-simplified or, for that matter, easy. Gentle revisited Orthe in 1987, when the sequel Ancient Light was published.

Since then Gentle has written the White Crow sequence, starting with Rats and Gargoyles (1990), which has received some acclaim, not least from other writers; China Miéville, for example, put it on his list of “50 science fiction and fantasy novels socialists should read”. She has also written Grunts! (1992), a novel set in a Tolkien-like fantasy world, but told from the point of view of the orcs, as well as several other books.

Gentle is not one to shun away from difficult issues in her works and is equally unafraid of discussing and depicting violence. Neither has she settled to writing the same kind of story over and over, and, while being at her best a great entertainer, she has the ability of twisting and bending fantasy environments and themes at her will, making unafraid a key-word of her career as a writer.

You are also a lot like Gene Wolfe.

If you want something more gentle (no pun intended), try Philip Pullman.

If you’d like a challenge, try your exact opposite, J K Rowling.

Your score

This is how to interpret your score: Your attitudes have been measured on four different scales, called 1) High-Brow vs. Low-Brow, 2) Violent vs. Peaceful, 3) Experimental vs. Traditional and 4) Cynical vs. Romantic. Imagine that when you were born, you were in a state of innocence, a tabula rasa who would have scored zero on each scale. Since then, a number of circumstances (including genetical, cultural and environmental factors) have pushed you towards either end of these scales. If you’re at 45 or -45 you would be almost entirely cynical, low-brow or whatever. The closer to zero you are, the less extreme your attitude. However, you should always be more of either (eg more romantic than cynical). Please note that even though High-Brow, Violent, Experimental and Cynical have positive numbers (1 through 45) and their opposites negative numbers (-1 through -45), this doesn’t mean that either quality is better. All attitudes have their positive and negative sides, as explained below.

High-Brow vs. Low-Brow

You received 19 points, making you more High-Brow than Low-Brow. Being high-browed in this context refers to being more fascinated with the sort of art that critics and scholars tend to favour, rather than the best-selling kind. At their best, high-brows are cultured, able to appreciate the finer nuances of literature and not content with simplifications. At their worst they are, well, snobs.

Violent vs. Peaceful

You received 19 points, making you more Violent than Peaceful. Please note that violent in this context does not mean that you, personally, are prone to violence. This scale is a measurement of a) if you are tolerant to violence in fiction and b) whether you see violence as a means that can be used to achieve a good end. If you are, and you do, then you are violent as defined here. At their best, violent people are the heroes who don’t hesitate to stop the villain threatening innocents by means of a good kick. At their worst, they are the villains themselves.

Experimental vs Traditional

You received 21 points, making you more Experimental than Traditional. Your position on this scale indicates if you’re more likely to seek out the new and unexpected or if you are more comfortable with the familiar, especially in regards to culture. Note that traditional as defined here does not equal conservative, in the political sense. At their best, experimental people are the ones who show humanity the way forward. At their worst, they provoke for the sake of provocation only.

Cynical vs Romantic

You received 31 points, making you more Cynical than Romantic. Your position on this scale indicates if you are more likely to be wary, suspicious and skeptical to people around you and the world at large, or if you are more likely to believe in grand schemes, happy endings and the basic goodness of humankind. It is by far the most vaguely defined scale, which is why you’ll find the sentence “you are also a lot like x” above. If you feel that your position on this scale is wrong, then you are probably more like author x. At their best, cynical people are able to see through lies and spot crucial flaws in plans and schemes. At their worst, they are overly negative, bringing everybody else down.

Author picture by the talented artist “Molosovsky”. Visit http://www.flickr.com/people/25360041@N06/ for more!

Take Which fantasy writer are you? at HelloQuizzy

Posted in all about me, quizzes Tagged: quizzes

Manifesto! 5/5 – Not The Marrying Kind – Statements…The End

naamenblog — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:26:44 +0000

Previously – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.2)

I think there’s humor in the hypocrisy of a movement that fights for marriage equality while lauding a film like “Brokeback Mountain” as romantic when the core basis of the film is an extra-marital affair. But it seems being on the down’low is acceptable as long as those engaging in it are white and only betraying women. Although the theme of pretending to be something you’re not fits in quite well with the homogenizing view of the large GLBTQ organizations.

I understand that the drive to show love and openly express affection for another person is there in everyone. But those people who are so invested in the idea of marriage to the exclusion of any other possibility should really examine why they view marriage as the only valid expression of love and what it says about their love that the only way they can think to express it is to repeat a stagnant oppressive tradition centuries old.

I wonder what makes someone I marry after knowing them for twenty minutes while drunk out of my mind in Vegas worth all the rights, federal and state, that marriage confers rather than the best friend I’ve had for over a decade simply because I’m not sexually attracted to him? Yet if I wanted those rights to go to him without the benefit of marriage I’d have to pay much more than my meager grad student paycheck would allow to a lawyer. Those rights over our bodies should be ours to give freely and without payment or the added shackle of marriage.

I think the yearning for the rights that accompany marriage is understandable as the yearning for equal rights always is but wouldn’t all that energy and wealth be better used fighting for America to recognize it’s own betrayal of the separation of church and state and force them to actually allow those civil rights to be granted to however many whomevers you so choose?

Finally for all these reasons and more, I call for the destruction of the legal/civil institution of marriage as not only a rigid re-establisher of gender roles, a religious sacrament, and an unequal institution which legally proscribes rights to those who conform to its rules while excluding others but also as a continued and evolving tool of oppression that serves to separate communities further, stratifying relationships on a scale from normal to freakish and a hierarchical framework that is slowly dying and does not need to be perpetuated for even a moment by misguided idolization of it.

That is why I’m not the marrying kind.

The End

So there it is, my first manifesto. It was a bit hard to write at first and I lapsed into essay territory a lot then I realized one of the essential differences between the two: In essays you have to back up your findings/decisions/statements with someone else’s opinion to make sure they’re valid. In Manifestos you can just say the things that you believe and you observe without having to “prove” that your point is valid. The whole idea of manifestoes tears down the white tower of intellectualism and all it entails imbuing the writer with being the expert. It’s why you get so many crazy manifestoes but it’s also why you get genius ones that blow your mind. After all what’s that old saying? There’s a thin line between genius and crazy. The art of the manifesto straddles that line.

Posted in anti-oppression, Feminism, GLBT, identity politics, intersectionality, manifesto, misogyny, People of Color, politics, privilege, Queer, queerism, race, racism, Theory & Criticism, writing Tagged: anti-oppression, Feminism, GLBT, identity politics, intersectionality, manifesto, misogyny, People of Color, politics, privilege, Queer, queerism, race, racism, Theory & Criticism, writing

Manifesto! 4/5 – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.2)

naamenblog — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:18:06 +0000

Previously – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.)

I believe that the fierceness and power of the movement has been bled out by the constant focus on marriage equality as the only issue of importance perpetuated by large, wealthy, privileged groups such as GLAAD and the HRC who are looking out for themselves as opposed to the community as a whole.

I understand that there are parts of society that will always and forever hate queer folks, no matter how normative the community attempts to appear, no matter how much power and revolutionary anger the movement gives up to present as safe and friendly. All the concessions to try and join the privileged side of the equation will never endear those people to the community and has the added effect of alienating those within the community who begin to look at it as a seething mass of sell-outs, gentrification and assimilationists.

I see how the mainstream GLBTQ community from the ’90’s on has never truly attempted to form coalitions with other minority groups instead choosing to co-opt and appropriate the words and images of other groups and their movements while maintaining limited contact with members of those groups. The then expected support of these people by the GLBTQ community in political aspirations stinks of hypocrisy.

I see how the narrative of partner immigration has been backburned by the marriage equality movement, in a racist move to distance themselves from the anti-immigration sentiment sweeping the country. This cowardly move, because of the racist quotas of the immigration department, disporportionately effects People of Color.

I saw the easy way white members of the queer community used privilege to their advantage in the wake of Prop 8. The aiming of racial slurs at African-Americans and the delayed and in most cases non-existent response from all the community organizations focusing on marriage equality certainly does not sync up with any their talk of coalition. Beyond changing the way other marginalized communities look at the queer community this incident also taught the People of Color within the community that the moment someone who looks like us does something you don’t like we’re just another everyday nigger to you.

Next – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…The End.

Manifesto! 3/5 – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.)

naamenblog — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:05:29 +0000

Previously – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…

I don’t understand how fighting tooth and claw for inclusion in such a problematic power structure such as marriage is a fight for everyone’s equality. A marginalized group fighting for a bigger piece of the pie rather than the eradication of the system has never led to liberation.

I see that the fight for marriage equality has eclipsed any other cause or issue within the queer community, taking up space and overshadowing any other concern that might exist for members of that community.

I remember when the narrative for the GLBTQ movement was defying traditional white patriarchal heteronormative societal expectations. And the belief that by challenging those notions and creating a new inclusive and welcoming community society itself could be altered. In light of that history it’s hard to reconcile the now constant push to “be normal” and to ostracize or at least hide those who refuse to conform.

I understand that the original push for marriage equality had a strong base of supports from a very select segment of the community – mostly rich, white, men. I understand that this was primarily an outgrowth of the AIDS epidemic and the fear of losing shared or a partner’s property without full legal protection. Note, the fear of loss of property and wealth has always been a fear of the privileged.

I believe that introducing marriage into the queer community has the effect of recreating a hierarchical system within which those who do not ascribe to relationships at all or to alternative forms of relationships – including but not limited to open-, poly or hand-fasting – are further marginalized by the introduction of the “legal” and “correct” way to have a “real” relationship.

Next – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.2)

Manifesto! 2/5 – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…

naamenblog — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:58:37 +0000

Previously – Not The Marrying Kind: Introduction

I understand that marriage is a prison, has a historical basis in silencing women and trading them like pieces of chattel and that a mere fifty years of “change” or transgressive reinterpretations can in no way wipe out a history of oppression and inequality stretching back centuries.

I understand that the main point of marriage and its popularity through the ages comes from the act of binding a woman’s sexuality to one man thereby ensuring any children she gives birth to are legitimate heirs. This is linked to capitalism and the accumulation of individual male wealth as well as patriarchy and male dominance in general as we can see through history that groups with matrilineal inheritance placed much less importance on marriage or monogamy.

I believe that marriage is in fact a religious sacrament, no matter what else you say about it, and as such has no place whatsoever within the context of the laws of the United States of America which hypocritically mouths off about the separation of church and state. Marriage is so inextricably linked with religion that the words “civil marriage” are an oxymoron.

I understand that the concept of marriage, through societal pressure and media representation, implies and enforces rigid gender roles and stereotypes that no amount of discourse or critique has been able to dispel, this has to do with marriage being an intrinsically unequal system that will constantly resist attempts to reform its narrative.

I don’t understand why there is such an excessive value placed on this institution by society when the “values” of the institution are constantly being flouted by its biggest proponents. The clinging to a tradition obviously on a slow slide to obsolescent societal death stinks of a desperate oppressor trying to keep one of his major tools in play.

Next – Not The Marrying Kind: Statements…(cont.)