On Hiring Practices

I'm not sure of the original intention of this photo, but it kind of hits the nail on the head.

I was going to write a post on the "Swine Flu" (about how much B.S. it is, and how it's a great excuse for racist media to blame "disease" on folks south of the border), but I'm in the midst of some other things and wanted to write on it before it left my mind.

**If you don't read this whole post in detail, please read the last couple sections prior to the endnotes**

I've been part of a few hiring committees of late. One is for the next Program Director of the non-profit educational organization I work for (I asked in on this one). Another is for a summer camp I work for (part of my job description for this one). The last is for my school (some involvement in hiring my own replacement).

And the first two have really hit me.

So let's do this in order.* The initial screening committee for the Program Director was myself and five white women. And I wasn't even asked to be involved in this process - I had to ask the higher-ups personally to be a part of it.

So I have to admit that every meeting weighed on my soul. It was so heavily culturally-biased, I felt like there was little I could do as the "token" minority with so little statistical pull.

And then there were the applicants. Almost zero candidates of color. Probably zero candidates outside of the middle or upper class. Part of it is that this is a non-profit job that doesn't have the money to pay people. So folks that represent our kids can't afford to waste a college education (and loans) on working this job. Not to mention that most of the staff looks like the hiring committee (except me, of course), so why would a person of color want to carry that burden, anyway?

So we're interviewing these folks, and I'm slipping into despair. How can we ever change these things when the odds are so stacked against that change? An interview with all these middle-class white ladies is only going to increase the chances of the success of another middle-class white female candidate. Because an interview is about confidence and comfort and communication. And if all the people around you have lived a totally different life experience than you - how can you feel confident that they'll give you a chance, or be comfortable in their midst, or communicate effectively?

The other committee members commenting on how awkward certain folks seemed, while I'm back in my seat, feeling outnumbered and equally-awkward.

So middle-class white ladies get hired and get more experience. They then apply more for the work. They are reflected in the staffing, so they are more drawn to working there . . . They get hired and get more experience. It's a deadly feedback-loop.

And I'm not saying people weren't qualified - they were (more or less). But it's so damn frustrating to try to figure out how somebody that doesn't fit that mold can break in without being so far above and beyond the rest. The amount of pressure and weight and frustration they would have to be willing to carry to even go through the process is unbelievable.

Because, being a person of color in an organization like this is an f-ing burden. We're the ones who always have to speak up and bring attention to the inherent biases in the systems. We're the ones who constantly have to try to educate people about experiences that they don't even care to think about. I had to ask onto a committee of all white women to try to make a small dent, and they hadn't even considered it until I asked (at least they agreed, though). Just being on the committee saps my strength and makes me want to quit on the whole ridiculous process.

But I'm not willing to give in. If I'm going to talk about it, I have too much pride not to then follow up. But it's so painful.

A little over a week ago, I met with the current executive director, associate director, and my program director (all white folks, of course) to talk about the cultural make-up of the staff.** And I wanted to cry.

I laid it all out: how hard it is to see so little representation; how uncomfortable it makes me, and then extrapolating that to how much harder that must be for the kids; acknowledging the difficulties to recruitment, etc. while demanding more.

But the problem is that it just ends up sounding like I'm asking for hires just because of race. Like I'm making the argument anti-affirmative action people always pretend we're making: that I want folks to hire less-qualified folks of color just because of their race.

And it's so hard to explain that - no - that's not what I'm asking. That it's about making it all fair. About doing the right things to attract the qualified folks of color to even apply in the first place, and then making the rest of the process actually level - like getting some color (the little we have in the first place) involved in the hiring process.

But nobody ever understands. It's a fruitless, unsatisfying endeavour. And it just makes me wonder if I really need to put myself through more of this crap.

But, of course, I do. And that brings me to my OTHER hiring committee. This one is me and two white women. And due to my busy schedule, I cannot be directly involved in the interview process. And that really worries me. Because now you've got the folks of color coming into an interview with no indication of representation in the organization. Folks that are confronting the same kind of mind-numbing sense of "other"-ness of the rest of their life as they interview for a job - without at least one browner person to help mitigate that.

And there's no real way around it. I'm trying to get myself some phone-time with these folks, but their impressions on the other two-thirds of the hiring committee will be happening separate from that. So they could very well flounder or not be able to connect in their person-to-person interviews, giving a negative taste (understandably) to my hiring counterparts. So even if I do connect with them on the phone and then make my appeal, it comes off as the token person of color trying to get another "unqualified" person of color hired as de facto "affirmative action."

Because the interview process is so inherently biased towards white folks, but the "white-as-norm" mentality makes the same white people doing the hiring unaware of it on any sort of intuitive level. And so they think the interview demonstrates "qualifications" to an objective degree. When, really, it's a test to see how well you can follow middle-class, white cultural norms.

Which, in some cases, is a necessary qualification for a job. But, in others - like working with and actually relating to kids of color and/or those in poverty - it's mostly irrelevant. And yet - it's probably the primary factor in most hires (past a certain level). Am I starting to get my point across?

It's one more hidden handicap for folks of color in this systemic game called white privilege. The hiring committee can say, "we interviewed a number of minority candidates, but they just didn't interview well," and then their hands (and consciences) are clean. When, really, it's not so different from interviewing some folks you don't know for a job, then saying they just didn't connect on the same level as that guy you went to high school with.

Nobody would hesitate to say that the latter situation is unfair and perhaps even unethical. And yet, nobody seems to say that the same thing happening with people of color interviewing with mostly-white staff or committees is anything but "equal."

Let me give you a stark example to finish off my point:

What if the middle-class white woman candidate had to interview with a room of five black males who grew up in the inner city? And she was competing with another black male who grew up in the inner city? The white woman doesn't get hired, and that's when the cries of "reverse-racism" would come flying - even if the woman had a horrible interview due to being uncomfortable, etc. while the black male connected and really seemed confident in his interview.

Now tell me that the odds aren't heavily stacked against the candidates of color in this business.

That's what I thought. And that's why my ability to hope is really taking a hit these days. Nothing's ever enough . . .


* I'm going to be purposely vague in a lot of this out of respect to the applicants and the organizations I work for.

** My focus was on racial background, but I talked about economics, as well.

*** And before anybody starts telling me I hate white women - in my line of work, it's heavily-weighted towards white females. It just is. And that was who was on my hiring committees. If it happened to be all white men, or only Latino females, or all anything else, all the same reasoning would apply.

On Donors and Board Members

I know, I know - more Honolulu posts promised, and I just haven't done it yet (haven't even gotten to the dark side, the real history). But my life is ridiculously busy right now, so I'm doing my best.

I'll take this moment to reference the sidebar - please read up on the AAYLC, any kind of help would be most appreciated.

In the meantime, I wanted to drop a quick post on an experience I had last night:

I don't know if I've mentioned it on this blog, but - on top of teaching - I work for a non-profit youth arts organization (primarily at the camp in the summer, but we run year-round programming in schools, mentoring kids and working with their families, etc.). So - last night - I found myself helping out at a fundraising event.

The event was - basically - a casual (but high-quality) hors d'ouvre-y kind of thing consisting of possible private donors (individuals with money, basically) and board members (also, coincidentally, individuals with money) shmoozing it up, watching a little video about the program, and listening to the founder (and one ex-camper) talk a bit. Relatively small (about 60 people).

So my job was managing the door. Since the event was held in a huge building (our offices are contained within a large advertising firm's building), we needed folks to help the donors and board members actually GET to the event upstairs. So my job was to greet folks as they came in, and send them to (and help them get on) the employee elevator (which needs an access key), where another staffer would be waiting, to accompany them to the event location.

Easy enough. Except the event, as I mentioned, was in a huge advertising agency building. At the tail end of work hours. So there was a constant flow of people coming and going - ad employees, visitors, etc. So I had to figure out which people were there for the fundraiser, and who weren't.

That should have made it difficult. Sadly, it wasn't.

I only asked one person who wasn't there for the event if they were there for the fundraiser. Every single other individual I was able to pinpoint the second they walked in the door, so I could go up to them and help them before they even asked for help. Every single one.

At this point, you may ask why (or you probably have it figured out)? Why was I able to do that? How? Do I have some incredible powers of intuition or ESP that others do not have?

Nope, I just leaned - heavily - on my own stereotypes of what a "private donor" or "board member" would look like and went with it. And it was 99% accurate, in this case. What was I looking for - more "fancily" dressed (perhaps "elegant" is more accurate - it wasn't a formal event at all, some people were in sweaters, but there was a particular price-threshold for what people were wearing, regardless of its formality, that I was able to see immediately). Then there was age - I assumed that they would be around 50 and older. I assumed race, as well - but that wasn't going to keep me from asking folks of color if they seemed to fit the other categories or looked lost.

But I didn't need to. Because not a single person at the event (with the exception of myself and a couple other staff members) wasn't white. Not one.

Not surprising, in the least, of course - but not exactly what I wanted to see. Considering the percentage (probably around half) of kids of color that are part of our program , it would have been nice to see a little bit of representation at the highest levels. It's harder to tell if anybody represented the kids' socioeconomic class (most from poverty) - I would assume no, but I can't say for sure that none of the folks that came hadn't "worked up from nothing." But knowing how often that actually happens, I have my guesses.

So - another stereotype that I didn't want reinforced held up to scientific rigour. 100% is pretty significant, statistically-speaking. It's a stereotype I know I hold - this one consciously - but I constantly hope to be proven an ass on this one; but it has yet to happen. It's the same with my school - the people that run things are white. Period. And so it's so hard for me to explain to any of them the importance of real diversity, as well as help them with some cultural competence in how they look at the program, and the changes they choose to make (or not).

Frustrating.

But I want to end on a positive note:

At first glance, the founder of the camp (and subsequent programming) would seem like the stereotype, as well. An older white guy with a TON of money (half the people that come to these events are just trying to get near him because he's so high on the social-status ladder). Further stereotypes would follow, regarding his intentions, what he thinks is important, how he uses his money, etc.

But I am happy to say that that is not the case. He has positive intentions, of course - but we all know how helpful intentions are when poorly carried out. No - importantly - he still has humility, in that, in spite of all these reasons he could feel like he's a god walking on dirt, he just treats people right. And, even more surprisingly - considering, he is constantly trying to learn and better himself. He's probably the only person of his status and position that could listen to me do some of my more race-and-class-conscious political poetry at camp (you should have seen some of the "lesser" board members cringe), and I know he's actually hearing it. He's come up and talked to me afterwards - not in the manner that uncomfortable white folks with money feel like they have to ("politically correct" and all that), but to delve deeper.

It's cool. He's let me and other staff push through changes and have conversations about working with our kids (about class or race) even while he admits that he doesn't fully understand/agree with it. And that's really an amazing thing - because, obviously, he has the power to veto everything (it also says a lot that he spends a large portion of the summer at camp with the kids, as opposed to being too "important" to mix it up a little). He's not perfect, of course - we have our points of contention - but he's actually trying; and that makes all the difference.

So. That kind of came off like an ass-kissing session there, but I just feel the need to point out the positive when I see it. The instances of hope. The breaking of a stereotype that all too often seems so true. It's not always about race. Or money. With a little humility and openness, people can transcend those boundaries.

I just wish it happened on a statistically-significant level.

On Being the Bigger Person

I know how this Giant died. I do. He just gave up. Got tired of walking around, always being the bigger person and dealing with other people's ish, until he just sat down and refused to get up ever again. Because it's so damn fatiguing having to be that much bigger than everybody all the time. If you ask me, that's why the whole race of Giants died out, when being so big should have given them an advantage.*

Most people in this world choose to be ignorant about some things. Conscious decisions - because they can't handle dealing with the reality of it all. We all do it. And, in and of itself, being ignorant isn't a bad thing at all. Certainly, there are now negative connotations attached to the concept of "ignorance," but if we stick to its true, dictionary definition, there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, by definition, all of us absolutely MUST be ignorant about a lot of things. That's just how it is.

However, when people use their conscious ignorance as a weapon, it ceases to be okay. When people fuel their own ignorance - and that of others - to try to bring others down, it's wrong. Especially when the means to ending their own ignorance is available to them, even offered to them - and they choose not to accept it.

Unfortunately, this is often how conversations about race often end - in ignorance-fueled, heated arguments. Name-calling, accusations, attempts to tell the other person what and how they think and are. Both sides end up walking away, angrier than before, and more convinced of their own righteousness than before they entered into the conversation.

And - oddly enough - I don't think that's the way it should be handled. I happen to believe that - in conversations such as these - it's so important to find each other's point. However, it is important to find their point, so you can find what you accept and agree on, as opposed to finding their point so you can shoot holes in it. It is important to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Because, in the end - the vast majority of people in the world really do want to be good. They want to do the right thing. They want to treat others well, be treated well, themselves, and have us all get along. I honestly believe that.

And, with that belief in hand, I am able to work with youth. Because, no matter what horrible things they may say or do to me or another (I've been called some amazing things), if I come to them and show them my belief that they can do it right, they are much more likely to go there. That doesn't mean I don't call them on their actions. It doesn't mean they don't have consequences for making poor choices. But it does mean that I hold their goodness and ability to change in mind, so that they know that I'm always going to be willing to help them fix it.

And guess what? It generally works. Abused kids. Homeless kids. Drug-addicted kids. Gang-affected kids. Hell - even white-supremacist kids. They all take out their frustrations in negative ways, expecting me to spit on them for it. But when I don't? When I don't yell at them or hit them or knock them down further? When I just say, "that's not okay, you've got to leave, and we'll talk about it tomorrow"? **

Not only do they end up coming back and talking to me about it - generally apologizing and taking responsibility - but they work to change. Slowly, for sure. But they do change. And improve. And become more like those "good kids" that they have always heard about, but never been compared to in a positive way. At least in my classroom. And in our school (because that's how our system works). But that's something, and I never claimed to be Mohammed, Jesus, or Buddha - so I'm not foolish enough to think I have the power to change their outside lives.

But, holy sh--, does it take patience. There are days when I get run ragged. When kids cross the line so far that it's all I can do to calmly ask them to leave. Days when I just want to flip a table and yell.

But they're just kids. So I can forgive them. Because I know all the terrible things they've survived just to make it to school at all. That what they do and say are founded in insecurity, hurt, and fear. And - often - ignorance. "Teachable moments" arise all the time when ignorance spurs an action.

And it's no different with adults. Yelling at them, insulting them, mocking them - it doesn't help bring change. Getting on a soapbox and berating them when they do wrong doesn't, either. Especially when you're talking about race.

I'm a teacher. And I know that trying to make somebody feel small for their ignorance (remember - just plain ol' lack of knowledge, ignorance is) only shuts their minds further. To open somebody up enough for them to learn, you have to reach them. And to reach them, you have to connect - to find common ground.

And so I do my best not to just go off on people when they say something that is offensive. Call them out, yes - but not attack. I have had folks - on this blog - berate me for putting on the kid gloves instead of tearing some folks a new one when they crossed the line. I get that. But - as my true goal is education - I don't see a knock-out blow as particularly useful for my cause. I'll be the first to admit that it feels better - but it doesn't help, in the long run.

Do I always follow through with this open-handed way of dealing with folks? Hell no. Because it's tiring. Much harder with adults, for me - because it's harder for me to forgive them. But most adults - especially when ignorant - are just big kids, and their ignorance is, surprisingly, not often their direct fault. And I try to remember that. The vast majority of hostile actions are just misdirected frustrations. And those frustrations are often real and deserved. How they are handled are not. So I hold that in mind when somebody pushes me.

But I'm not strong enough to do that all the time. I'm not strong enough to always gently call people out on their ignorance. So I'm not always gentle about it. Or, other times, I just bite my lip and let it go because I don't have the energy to handle it right, and I know the other way is going to be worse than pointless. I fail - often - in making my point clear. I get misunderstood all the time. Even when I do it right, not everyone wants to hear it.

And that's what being a conscious person of color is. A constant, moment-by-moment battle to keep an even keel and try to be the bigger person while surrounded by unknowing offenders, ignorant insults, and sub-conscious dismissal of our importance and humanity. And - mostly - we handle it. Mostly - we forgive and forget. Mostly, we take a step back and see the lack of overt malice in people's ignorant actions. Mostly, we do these things. Day after day after day after day after day . . .

But - once in a while, our fatigue catches up to us. We don't have the energy to be the bigger person. Our frustration rises up. And. We. Let. It. Out. It comes out as fire. As vitriol. As semi-automatic rage. As uprooted trees in a hurricane.

And that's when somebody who doesn't know any better steps in. Somebody who hasn't been worn out with being big all the time. Somebody who thinks race is moments in isolation and not an entire life lived. Somebody who doesn't know that they are in a privileged position to get to treat this one situation as just, one, situation.

And what does that person say? "Relax - it was just a joke." Or "why does everything have to be about race?" Or "I'm sorry that you were offended, but that's not what I meant." Then they mention "reverse racism" and various forms of evidence to support their "color-blind" attitudes towards life and how much better it would be if everybody else lived the same way.

And they walk away, never knowing that their words and actions just added more weight to a Giant's overburdened shoulders. That their lack of perspective and active ignorance contribute so strongly to the dying-out of the Bigger People. That, while all they noticed was the Giant's raw power and size (and thus, deemed it "dangerous"), they forgot to take note of its gigantic heart and how hard said organ must work to keep its owner alive.

All they "know" is that they would never "overreact" like that. And stereotypes and sub-conscious beliefs are reinforced.

So that when they stumble upon the Giant's bones one day, the only explanation they can come up with is that the Giant must have been "inferior" or "too primitive" and thus unable to survive, never realizing their own contributions to its demise.


* Yes, I know that this photo isn't real, by the way. It's pretty cool, though.

** It's a testament to our school that having to leave is a bad thing to our kids (the same kids who never attended and constantly skipped classes at their other schools).

*** I am, indeed, aware of the strange turn towards allegory that this post took at the end. But I kind of like it. So there.

On the Invention of Racism, Part II

Oh, what a way to start the party I referred to a couple days back. From the very beginning. Note to the upstairs party - make sure you read the full post before you let the way it all begins get you, because it was very intentional, and NOT because I hate white people.

For the first installment, see "On the Invention of Racism, Part I."

So, where did I leave off? Oh, right - what history really looked like before it got re-written.

I was talking about the fact that white Europeans were simply NOT superior - AT ALL - for most of the period of time we like to call "written history." In fact, if we were talking about technological and social advances, we'd have to call them plain inferior. To - pretty much - everyone else. Seriously.

And me writing that probably blows people's minds. Because that's not how our textbooks tell it. And isn't that just racist to say in the first place?

My response? I don't know - is it? Is it racist to state the simple fact that white Europeans literally swam in their own sh-- during much of the second millennium while civilizations of color in Africa, Asia, and the "American" continent practiced good hygiene? Is it racist to say that white Europeans in the 1300s were illiterate savages, in contrast to the highly-educated, scientifically-advanced Moors, or Mayans, or Sudanese, or Chinese, or . . . (you get the picture)? Is it racist to speak of the barbarism of white European colonists in contrast to the settled, civilized natives that they butchered? Is that racist? Because it really seems to me that that's what every single American child learned in school . . .

Oh, wait. No. My bad. They learned the opposite. Right. They (we) learned that white Europeans were the advanced ones, while everybody else was backwards. But that wasn't racist because it was true.

Except it wasn't.

No - it was only true after racism was invented. And institutionalized.

Because there was a time (through all these years of primitive European backwardness) when different races of people didn't exist. The concept of race didn't really exist. There was the acknowledgement of different skin color, of course. And of different places of origin and civilizations. But it wasn't about race. The differently-colored civilizations of the world traded with each other, took advantage of the advancements (and weaknesses) of the others, and lived in a relative state of peace with each other (and I specify "with each other," because they were obviously fighting amongst themselves - but more within the same racial groups than without).

And nobody was "superior." Sure, the Chinese have always thought themselves superior to everybody else, but nobody was actually superior in terms of dominance or advancement or anything else like that. One culture had their way of doing things, the other culture had their own way, and that was how it was.

So what caused superiority to happen? It started with wars of subjugation and slavery.

But most wars of subjugation through the majority of historical time were not between different races. No - they were one tribe or group from one race* taking over land or control of another tribe or group of the same race. And, with that, came slavery. Africans enslaved Africans. Indigenous Americans enslaved other Americans. And white Europeans enslaved other white Europeans. And wasn't it all so hunky-dory? No. But it wasn't about race, either.

Wars that happened between different races weren't about race, either. The major ones were about religion - Christians and Muslims during the Crusades. And neither side thought the other was inferior - simply wrong about God. And so it went until the Inquisition. And, at that point, race starts to appear in the picture - because, although it was ostensibly about religion - it fell out to start eliminating people of the wrong "look" or opinions (I believe this is where true anti-semitism really made its first major stand, the dark-skinned Moors were pushed from Europe, "witches" were persecuted, etc.) . . .

And then Columbus' terrorist attacks on the Americas began. As white Europeans gained control of the Americas (again, through brutality and plague), they gained wealth. Wealth in terms of gold and trinkets, but also in terms of manpower - SLAVES. Because the most slaves in the original Americas were not actually Africans - they were Native Americans. So many that there certainly wasn't a need for white slaves, anymore. But then the plague started wiping out the Natives, so the white Europeans, used to all the extra slave help to do their work, had to ship in African slaves to take their place.

And that's about when the invention of racism really began to take full shape. Because Columbus' initial reports on the natives he met were highly positive. Commenting on their regal physical appearance, their kindness, and their civilized culture. That was until he decided he would kill them and take over their land for "God and country." Then, suddenly, he started talking about their "savagery" and their uncivilized nature, likening them to animals.

Because the problem was this: how could a God-fearing Christian man kill off a whole race of kind, regal, and civilized people? He couldn't. Which presented two options: either, a) don't kill them and leave their land and resources, or b) change how you look at them, so you can feel okay about killing them all.

Guess what option Columbus went with?

And the rest followed suit. There are hundreds of accounts of "explorers" and "statesmen" initially having positive things to say about native peoples, only to do a complete 180 in opinion once they started profiting by killing them.

It was simply a matter of propaganda. If you can convince your people that the "enemy" is less than, then they will have no problem killing them. This kind of dehumanization during wartime has always occurred (and still does).

But it stopped happening only during wartime. Because the majority of slaves became black slaves. And - again - no God-fearing man or woman could whip another man or woman, split up their family, rape them, murder them, etc. No. But they could do all these things if they changed their mind about who those people were. In fact, changed their mind to not even make them people.

And so history had to be re-written. Because if the conquerors acknowledged the previous power (and superiority) of these peoples' civilizations, then how could they adequately justify their current actions? Again - they couldn't. So they - very intentionally - changed history to put white folks on top, from beginning to end. Suddenly, Europeans conquering and colonizing the world wasn't an act of epic brutality and fascist Empire - it was inevitable. It was the ever-constant march of progress. Something that nobody could stop.

They took the morals right out of the equation. And never put them back in. Think back to your history lessons of your childhood - how often was this battle presented as "more advanced" versus "less advanced"?** Manifest Destiny. Exploration. Africa became the "Dark Continent" as slavery reached its peak. None of this was a coincidence.

Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry - they all owned slaves. They had them beat. They broke up their families. They acknowledged the wrong of it all (in a way), but they continued it. Because that was how it was. Because it was easier to let it continue than to function without it.

But slavery did end (at least in the most literal, legal sense). And, afterwards, Reconstruction occurred. Black Americans were given full rights, put into positions of authority, sat in government. But it fell through. Not because the black folks were unable to handle the new way of things, but because white racists (which was the majority of white folks) were murdering black officials. They attacked entire towns. Burned the homes of the most successful black folks.

And suddenly the rights were revoked by the government. But they couldn't admit that it was because the white racists had won - of course not. So it got re-written as the newly-freed slaves being unable to handle authority. Being too uneducated to be successful. Because that story felt better for the authors.

And that story was so effective and became so ingrained, that few people today even realize that black people actually served in government and had legal equality any time before the Civil Rights movements of the 60s. We're taught to believe that things have steadily been getting better. That the racist institution of segregation had to bow to the "inevitable" might of "progress." Uh-oh. Sound familiar?

That's the story we keep hearing. That things "are getting better." Which is often code (when said by people with power) to mean, "stop complaining - be thankful for what you're given;" a justification for those same people to do nothing active to change how things are.

But the problem is - things haven't "been getting better." Things are better now than they were during the 1800s and early 1900s, for sure. But, as far as race relations go, they aren't better than a few hundred years before that. So, if we're looking at the BIG PICTURE, things (racially speaking) have actually been getting WORSE over the course of history. But that kind of outlook doesn't really help the current straight*** white male power system keep us blind and apathetic. If we become too aware of all that, then we might actually start doing something about it, instead of passively talking about "progress" and waiting for the "inevitable" improvement.

In the meantime, racism prevails. We continue to think that welfare recipients are black, single parents that are waiting for handouts without working for it (when data proves to us that those black, single parents actually tend to work MORE than any other demographic). We talk about how our Irish immigrant forefathers "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" in the face of adversity, while black Americans have not done the same (ignoring the fact that those black Americans who did exactly that were lynched, beaten, and threatened with no legal recourse up to a couple decades back****). We talk about McCain being a "true patriot" because he was tortured at the hands of Vietnamese savages (while we torture and hold "terrorists" without trial or direct evidence to this very day). We pillory black athletes who screw up, chiding them for not being role models (then go out to see another movie that only casts black males as thugs and convicts).

We tell our kids to value their educations - then pump lies down their throats.

Progress is NOT inevitable. It has to be fought for, tooth and nail. Because racism has been the most successful, enduring invention of the last thousand years, and I'm tired of paying for it.


* At least what we would now call "one race."

** Which implies "more intelligent" versus "less intelligent," of course.

*** I could do a very similar post about the invention of homophobia (and will at some point).

**** And it's arguable whether or not equivalents are truly a thing of the past.

On Walking in a Wind Storm (and Dealing with Being Other)

I shall continue my essay on the invention of race shortly, but something has come up, so I shall write on it while it's on my mind.

In my second part of my "relating topics of race via metaphor" series (see On Driving in the Rain), I bring you a new metaphor: walking in a wind storm.

Picture it: coat held tight, collar up, forward-leaning into the wind. Edges of your coat fluttering and flapping and slapping you as you just try to put one foot in front of another. Random objects (newspapers, garbage) are hitting you from the side. The rain is hitting you in the face. It's uncomfortable. Terribly unpleasant. Frustrating. But you push on, ignoring it as best you can, letting everything bounce off you as you just move forward.

And then one tiny bottle-cap gets flung into the air. A tiny little bottle-cap. Insignificant. Harmless. If it hits you, it's just going to bounce off your coat - you probably won't even realize it happened. But for some reason, that cap gets lifted off the ground, swirled once or twice, and then flies directly into your earlobe. And it STINGS!!! It hurts. It even drew a little bit of blood. You curse, grabbing your inflamed ear. And that's the one thing that just knocks you off your game, you start swearing, throw your useless umbrella to the ground, trying to stomp the offending bottle-cap into submission.

All the while, you're still in the middle of a windstorm.

I think about race all the time. I watch ten seconds of television, and I am guaranteed to see something that "otherizes" people of color and establishes white people as the norm. A white co-worker says something that displays their cultural incompetence. I read the news and see how it portrays people of color. I hear a joke about Asian men and the size of their ----. All the time. But it doesn't really phase me on any sort of noticeable level. I brush it off. I put up my collar and push on. That's how it is, crying about it isn't going to help me; so I take note when I have the energy, let it bounce away when I don't, and go on with my life, thinking on a way to make it a little more manageable.

But then something hits me in the gut. Something that shouldn't be that big of a deal. Just one more in a long line of things. It's not meant to be offensive. It's not meant to hurt. A tiny little bottle-cap that wouldn't have bothered me if it hit me anywhere other than my ear.

But it hit me in the ear.

Now, I'm not going to do a big public call-out here, but let's just say I saw something on a blog the other day that bothered me. It wasn't big. It wasn't meant to harm. By itself, I never would have even thought on it more than a few minutes. But, for whatever reason, it hit me in the ear. It threw me off my game. And I'm still thinking about it.

And I received an impassioned apology. One that I believe to be genuine. Almost immediately. And I appreciate that, but for some reason - it's not enough for me here. I don't know if I'm being rational, but I just got hit in the ear during a wind storm, you know? And so I want more.

Because an apology isn't active. It's reactive. It's the - "oops, I got caught" - reaction to guilt when it's brought to one's attention. I never thought the person meant harm to begin with. So an apology establishing that changes nothing. I want something active to happen. No defense, no justifications - I already know the person isn't bad or evil or racist or anything else like that at all. But I want something to happen.

Because, in the end, my mentioning of the matter changed nothing. I got the apology, but the post is still there. I got the apology, but I still got to see 30 other commenters completely ignore my own reference to the offensiveness of the post and talk about how "cute" it was. 30 (presumably white) folks ignoring the one person of color (and representative of the race mentioned) speaking out because they can. Because that's how it always goes. And what crushes me is that these are people that want to raise a Chinese kid!

Now, obviously, there's nothing the blogger can do about commenters choosing to ignore my comment. That's their personal preference, and we can't change other people's personal preferences . . . Or can we?

Because this is the second part where the apology isn't enough. Just like with all the more public apologies that come from institutions and radio stations when somebody does something wrong, nothing follows up to demonstrate the sincerity of the apology. Because, if it is so truly heartfelt (which, oddly enough, I still believe it to be), then shouldn't that person desire a change? To prevent similar things from happening?

And so the blogger CAN affect the readers' choices to ignore my comment: by drawing attention to it. By writing on it. By posting on the topic. Surely, by removing the post with an explanation. By asking for further education or help. By MAKING the other readers think about the one person of color in the room. By MAKING other readers (and those in a similar situation) open their eyes to their own cultural biases on "normality" and "otherization." By MAKING other readers think about the painful realities of race BEFORE they raise a kid that's going to have to suffer through them (with less help precisely because their "parents" haven't been MADE to think on it).

That's action. That's sincere regret. That's making change.

*And so here I must undo my own B.S. "apology" and take a next step. Because, in my comments to a previous post, an inappropriate comment came in regarding preferences of mixed female "looks" (more or less following the line of "exotifying" mixed people, by all races). In response, I gave a half-assed explanation for why I allowed it, but pretty much left it as a side-conversation. I eventually deleted the comment.

But here, I would like to follow up on my apology to Seitzk in the same way that I ask for in this post: first, I would like to put on my "posts-to-write" queue the topic of exotification (especially of females of color). Second, I invite Seitzk to write her (my assumption is female from previous comments, but I'm actually not certain) own breakdown of what personally offended in that situation, which I offer to post as clarification for ALL readers that may not have caught it, or understood. I also offer the opportunity for the commenter to respond - to create a dialogue. See if we can't clear up a possible misunderstanding, or simply educate to eliminate another instance.

Because the primary aim of this post is education. We're all going to mess up at some point. We all have our own stereotypes and biases and prejudices that we're not even aware of. We all will be misunderstood at times. So if we cannot address that and learn from it, then what's the point of me writing all that I do?

On the Invention of Racism, Part I

So, before I get into this post, I want to note that uglyblackjohn secretly (not really, but the announcement was embedded in the comments of my first post, so I just found it) bestowed a blogging award on me last week. Just found it, so I shall let that marinate for a minute before I more competently address that. However, I wanted to thank uglyblackjohn for the acknowledgment and invite you all to click on his name above to check out his blog.

Now, on to the racism!!!



The above image is a depiction of a schematic drawing from one of Leonardo da Vinci's many inventions. Da Vinci, of course, is now (and was during his time) acknowledged as one of the foremost geniuses of his time - and maybe beyond. A true representative of a "Renaissance Man," he flourished as Europe came out of the throes of the Dark Ages.

But the question is: how did Europe come out of the Dark Ages? And what were other people doing during that time? Did the Dark Ages span the entire world?

To answer the last question first - of course not. While Europe was battling through plague and squalor and the lack of any semblance of what modern folks call "civilization" (i.e. literacy, academia, peaceful co-existence, medicine, hygiene, etc.) the rest of the world was - gasp - doing pretty much fine. China was pushing along, celebrating over two thousand years straight of scholastic aptitude and written language. In Western Africa, Timbuktu boasted a library of 1600 volumes, as well as a university rivaled only by another advanced university in the Sudan (Eastern Africa). Arab Muslims (the Moors) were in a period of scientific and academic achievement perhaps unrivaled in all of the world. Across the Pacific, the Mayan, Incan, and Aztec Empires were building cities of hundreds of thousands with irrigated farmlands and sewage systems.

In Europe, backwards tribes were fighting over nomadic lands and wallowing in their own filth.

So how did white Europeans stop acting like savages and get a little bit of civilization? By getting help from all the non-white civilizations, of course. Mostly, it was the Moors who were able to pass on their knowledge to the primitive Europeans. Their extensive academic and scientific knowledge - preserved in libraries - was the backbone of European "genius" as it blossomed during the Renaissance. But the Europeans were smart - they knew that they had much to learn from all the other more advanced civilizations, so they built on what they learned from interactions with the Chinese and Africans that they traded with. End result? Europe stopped being a cesspool.

Or did it? At the time of the white "discovery" of the Americas, London was still a city swarming with filth and excrement and disease (while the Mexican city of Tenochtitlan harbored hundreds of thousands - perhaps more - in perfectly-ordered streets). Scotland was a hinterland full of feuding tribes. The indigenous Americans commented on the incoming Europeans' filth (as it was against custom for white folks to bathe at the time, while the Natives upheld customs of cleanliness and hygiene).

So how did these backwards people take over the world? Was it because they were more "advanced"? Somewhat. They surely had more firepower in most cases. But it really came down to savagery. Because the conquering Europeans were more ruthless in their desire to kill all who stood in their way, they were able to succeed. Oh, and not to mention the fact that over 70% of the original inhabitants of the Americas died of disease before even having a chance to fight back.

Because the fact of the matter is that the indigenous Americans taught the Europeans how to farm, so they could survive in the "New World." Most of the original colonial towns were built on Native city-plans (complete with sectioned-off farm-plots) that had been abandoned as Natives died of plague (probably smallpox).

So where does the racism come in? Well, somewhere along the line, white Europeans became the "inevitable" conquerors of the world. Somewhere along the line, we stopped thinking of the different "races" (which didn't really exist in the way they do now) as equals. We stopped thinking of the various non-white civilizations of the world as on par with (or more advanced than) white European culture. Somewhere, somehow, we started ranking races against each other. Instead of where we had been - where different ethnicities were acknowledged to be different (because, even then, there was no "color-blind") and unusual, but NOT inferior - we came to a world where people started thinking of different "races" as more or less human than others.

So how did that happen? By design, pure and simple. Racism was intentionally constructed to serve very specific purposes. Racism is not - and has never been - a natural result of physical differences between people. I'm tired of hearing that claim. Noticing difference and grouping people IS natural. But those are two very different things - with very different possible results.

And so, if you tune in for my next installment, I will break down the true history of racism, why it was invented, the results, and (hopefully) what we can do about it.

The suspense must be killing you . . .

On Code-Switching

Yeah - that's right. That's a photo of some thuggish-ruggish, street-repping ASIAN youth. Kids like many I've worked with who balance the American street life with traditional "Asian" cultural systems at home with the dominant white cultural systems of the establishment. Think that's easy?

There's a term that I've heard off and on within educational circles called "Code-switching." Now, this term was initially coined in terms of bilingual people - whose brains adapted to switch linguistic coding depending on their situation: such as English at school, and a different language at home. In countries where people grow up speaking even more languages, this is even more evident as people can end up switching between three or four different languages in one social situation, depending on who is there and the circumstances.

When used by educators (and other social workers), however, "code-switching" is use more broadly as a term referring to adjusting to different cultural situations, in general (including language, but not only language). And this isn't just in terms of ethnically mixed folks (like me), but anybody that finds themselves regularly interacting with people of very different cultural backgrounds.

Specifically, this idea is used by educators to discuss the obstacles in the way of many students within the current public education system in the United States. Because, to be blunt, our schools are run within the parameters of the dominant white, middle-class culture. This means that the values being enforced are white, middle-class values - whether or not that reflects the students (or even staff) in the system. So anybody from a different demographic (whether it's by socio-economic status, race, sexual orientation, or otherwise) comes in at a distinct disadvantage; because they come in having to learn new rules of social interaction, new ways to handle situations, different ways to communicate - all on top of the academics they are also expected to learn.

The problem being, of course, that few teachers actually go about TEACHING any of these new rules or ways of communication. Since the education system is so biased towards this white middle-class cultural mindset (and usually hires those from within that demographic), it is often assumed that this mindset is "normal" - thus, kids who are not fluent in the ways of being and communicating in this system are "bad kids" or "trouble-makers," etc. Students are assumed to have an instinctual knowledge of these rules, and so nobody takes the time to TEACH it - and so the kids who come in from a background of poverty, or a different ethnic or racial culture often suffer disciplinary repercussions, as well as poor school performance.

And this is where the concept of "code-switching" comes in. Because it is not necessarily a bad thing that schools move through a white middle-class cultural framework. Nor is it necessarily a good thing. It just IS. And, realistically, most of the professional world in the United States operates from an identical framework, so it is important for kids to master an understanding of these "rules" in order to move up, economically. It's not exactly fair (since it puts kids from a different cultural viewpoint at a distinct disadvantage), but it's brutal reality.

So some educators have begun to try to actively teach students how to code-switch in order to be successful in school. What that entails is throwing out a lot of the judgments that usually come when a student isn't following implicit school rules (such as levels of volume that are "too loud," ways of interacting that are "disrespectful," or ways of communicating that are "violent" or "aggressive") and instead teaching the student how to adjust. For example, a teacher could tell a kid, "Hey - I know it's not so easy to just 'turn the other cheek' in real life, but you've got to be able to find other ways to handle it if you're going to be successful in school and/or keep a well-paying job" and then following up with some brain-storming of other ways to solve it in a way that works within the system, but also for the kid.

Because, for many kids that don't fall under the white middle-class umbrella (which, actually - are the majority) coming to school can be like playing football all their lives and then suddenly being thrown into a basketball game without ever having the rules explained to them. So when the coach tells them to keep the other team from scoring, there's one most likely outcome: the kid tackles the Hell out of the dribbler in the middle of the court, gets thrown out of the game, yelled at by coach and other players and fans, and hates the sport of basketball ever afterward. At least, that's what would happen if the coach ASSUMED the kid had seen/played basketball before. If the coach was working with a kid he knew was new to the sport - a very different outcome would result.

And that's what happens in our current education system. We have a bunch of teachers (coaches) who ASSUME that kids know all of the many implicit rules of the white middle-class cultural game because that's the framework within which those teachers have lived their entire life. And so the kids end up getting themselves in unwinnable situations that end up in tragedy.

Of course, some folks are better adapted to code-switching than others: for, instance, those who have been practicing it from infancy. Those people who learned from a very young age about the changing rules of the game. Those who implicitly comprehend the very fluid nature of cultural values and are able to read the subtle cues that can clue them in to ways to be in different cultural situations. One such group of people are mixed folks like me. And that's why I will forever be grateful for my mixed background - because it gave me this inherent code-switching ability that most people don't have.

Because I grew up knowing - when I visit my Chinese grandparents, I should act this certain way, and talk this certain way, eat this certain way, etc; when I'm with my white grandparents, I should do these other things; when I'm with my friends, I should be like this. When I lived in Tanzania, people were constantly commenting on how "Tanzanian" I became - in action, mannerisms, ways of thought. But it was natural for me, because I was born into an adaptive cultural world, so I sub-consciously adjusted to a "Tanzanian" way of living and speaking as a matter of course. I have lived my life with a given intuitive knowledge that there are a whole number of different cultural ways of being and acting, and they are not on a hierarchy of "good" or "bad" or "rude" or "acceptable" - but rather a spectrum of "how this group does things." And that will forever be the greatest gift my mixed background has given me.

The problem is, of course, that those without an inherent understanding of cultural fluidity so often peg folks like me (let's call us "Instinctual Code-Switchers" or ICS) as "sell-outs" or trying to "play both sides" because of our ability to interact at the cultural level of whomever we happen to be with. I am now able to start pegging the distinct ways I change my demeanor depending on who I'm talking to, and it's interesting to me. I completely change my body language depending on the demographic of the people around me, and it is completely automatic. I've even tried NOT to do it, at time, and it's an actual fight for me to do so. And I'll tell you this - it is NOT "fake." It is not "selling out." It's just being able to better communicate between cultures and to adapt to subtle cultural cues to get along better.

Because we all do this on a regular basis. We all talk differently to our friends in a relaxed atmosphere than with our co-workers at work (on rare occasions, we don't . . .). We act differently in a job interview. We speak differently to our elders (hopefully) than to our peers than to small children. When we go to a show, we take on the mannerisms and adjust to the expectations of the specific fan-base for the show we are watching, whether it's rock, hip-hop, or the symphony. We are constantly code-switching as we move from situation to situation.

But when we do the same thing between racial cultural situations, people get uncomfortable. POC tell other POC we're "acting white." White folks get upset when POC don't automatically adjust to a white cultural framework and wonder why "they act that way." We make jokes about how people do things in other countries, or in ethnic cultures different from our own. We make tv shows called "Bizarre Foods" and crack jokes about the people of the country we are visiting.

And why? Because we don't directly acknowledge code-switching and how it works in our society. White teachers are afraid to tell their students that, in essence, they actually ARE being asked to "act white" to do well in school.* POC are afraid to admit that we do, indeed, "act white" in order to get better jobs. We all tip-toe around it because it's so damn touchy - and, in the meantime, our education system fails the majority of our children. Were we able to simply say - "there are certain rules to every game you play, and the specific rules for the game called 'do well in school' or 'get a promotion' are like this . . ." Kids are all about rules and fairness, so when you explain it to them in these terms, it settles them. You're not telling them how they do things are wrong or bad or any other such judgement - simply that they've got to learn some different rules and adjust to them to play these particular games.

Because, again - these kids are no less skilled or intelligent than their white middle-class counterparts.** In fact, I would argue that they must be a little MORE skilled and intelligent to be able to adapt (something others don't have to do) and still be successful. And this is why I think white college kids so often struggle with all-black fraternities, or the existence of BET, or why an Asian students' coalition is NOT the same as a white supremacist group - because these are the very kids who NEVER had to learn to racially code-switch in order to survive. Because they never had to adjust their ways of thinking or being to make do. And so they are unable to wrap their heads around the concept of different cultural value systems, or how other people do things without judging it based on their own narrow views.

And, oddly enough - it's not really their fault. It's frustrating as Hell, and often makes me want to scream - but it's more a flaw in the system than anything specific to them, personally. Because nobody ever explicitly taught them about code-switching or how it works or its prevalence in our society. To them, that has never been shown to exist because we're all so scared to admit it, and so they are allowed to roll through their lives in ignorance. It's the backbone of white privilege. Tell people to "respect other cultures" by saying "that's a pretty dress" or "I really love your hair" without ever having to understand that it's just about different rules to a game, thus eliminating "normality" and replacing it with "how things are done in this particular situation/place."

And so right here represents the beginning of a movement. Whether you're white or a person of color - please start openly acknowledging how code-switching works in our society. Just be honest about it. Teach your kids about it. Talk to your friends about the different rules you all play by. And if you're an educator? Start changing the system by just being open and frank about what we're asking our kids to do to be successful - and stop assuming they "should know how to behave." Please.

* Specifically, "middle-class white."

** Again, I must stress the "middle-class" aspect of the educational culture here, because white kids coming from poverty struggle with the adjustment in the same way that their more colorful peers do.

*** Thinking about it, I should probably specify that the educational system runs from a STRAIGHT white middle-class cultural viewpoint, as I have no doubt that GBLT students must also do some heavy code-switching to have success in school.

On Kids and Race

Some comments on a post at Racialicious caused me to feel the need to write this post. In short, the comments were talking about students self-segregating themselves by race (white kids sitting with white kids, black kids with black kids, etc.) and whether or not that was a "bad" thing. Well, here are my two cents.

I'm a middle school teacher. Currently, the school I teach in is about 50% white, 35% black, 14% Latino, and then one mixed-Asian kid. And the kids definitely DO self-segregate themselves in the classroom, lunchroom - wherever they have a choice of seating arrangement for themselves.

And the question always comes: is this a "bad" thing. Shouldn't we be getting the kids to mix it up? Does it mean that the kids are already "racist" and we're only encouraging that by letting it happen?

There are different ways to look at this, but in the end - for me - my answer is that this is perfectly fine. There is NOTHING wrong with it, whatsoever. It just depends on how it's all handled.

Because the thing is that kids come in to school insecure. They're scared. Middle school is all about hormonal fluctuations, awkwardness, and embarrassment. And so they come in on hyper-alert for anything that might knock their already-crumbling sense of self all the way down.

So - at the beginning - they want a sense of security. And the first, most basic sense of security comes from feeling like the rest of the people they are around are "like them." It's what we continue to do into adulthood - looking for people "like us" to be around, spend time with, and establish close relationships with. So, for the kids (and before they know any other students all too well), they rely on the most basic instinctual indicator of likeness that they can find: physical appearance. That includes clothes (dressing "goth," "skater," "hip-hop") as well as race, but when people talk about self-segregation, it's race they are looking at, and it's the most obvious.

So the black kids end up sitting with the other black kids. White kids hang with white kids. Latino with Latino. And the one mixed-Asian kid sits by himself. And - especially at the beginning - that's okay (with the exception of the lone mixed kid).

Because it helps the kids find a comfort level with school. And without that particular comfort-level, they would head into classes a little more on edge, a little more ready to find a fight (or a breakdown).

No - the REAL problem is the way this phenomenon is generally perceived and/or acted upon. White people are generally the most disturbed by this particular situation. White people get horrified by "all-black" fraternities. They get intimidated when the people of color are all hanging out together, and they talk about how "non-inclusive" that is. They call it "reverse-racism."

And the same idea is put onto self-segregating kids by white teachers. But I have a secret for you all: what are the only schools where this kind of segregation DOES NOT happen (when the kids have choice)? Think about it . . . Think . . . Right - the only schools where this doesn't happen are the schools that are heavily dominated by one race (90% or so) - where there are not enough students of another race to successfully self-segregate. Where the kids that don't make up the majority are at a horrible disadvantage - isolated and on edge due to standing out so strongly. And, normally, this is in mostly-white schools (but it's definitely true at mostly-black schools, as well).

So what does self-segregation at a school indicate? True numerical racial diversity, plain and simple. But it's hard for white teachers to see that, because they live in a world (generally) that DOES NOT HAVE that true numerical racial diversity. Let me say that again - the world white teachers live in does not have true numerical racial diversity. Not that the U.S. doesn't have a level of racial diversity, but that the circles and social worlds that white teachers generally walk through are NOT truly diverse.

They may have their token friends of color, but their worlds are probably highly white outside of - perhaps - their schools. Because most teachers are white, middle-class college graduates. And most white, middle-class college graduates do exactly what they fear their kids doing: self-segregate. They hang out with other middle-class college graduates who (statistically-speaking) are going to be white, most of the time. But it's not obvious that they are self-segregating in this way precisely because large numbers of another race (or more) are absent. They say, "my group of friends is diverse" because they have those two black friends, and three gay friends, and an Asian friend, while all the rest are white and straight. That's NOT diverse.

And let me say again that I'm generalizing. But it's still valid. And it's mostly the same with the teachers of color, in all likelihood- because we adults tend to self-segregate, as well. But the key difference is that white people tend to fear that when it's made obvious - by the presence of a large number of racial minorities - while people of color understand that as a fact of life. For us, it's a survival technique in a mostly-white world.

And that's where the fear and defensiveness come in when white folks see self-segregation happen in front of them. The simple fact of their own, isolated self-segregation causes them to not be prepared to deal with large groups of another race doing the same. They call themselves "open-minded" because they "allowed" a couple people of color (that come from their own narrow background) to be their friends, and they call those at a mostly-black party "reverse-racists" because their asses weren't kissed when they walked in the door. It's why seeing self-segregation in a school as a "threat" is a mind's clever way of veiling prejudice and a desire to "protect" the white kids.

But I digress. My point being that self-segregation is perfectly natural and the fact that it is possible reflects the numerical diversity that kids need to not feel isolated when in school. To be a little less fearful that a teacher or classmate is going to pick on them or be "against" them because they don't have other people like themselves around. And that is hugely important in a middle school setting (and anywhere, really). And that level of comfort opens up a kid's confidence enough to live out the following situation (which I will end with, as a positive note):

One day, in my math class, one of my black students raises his hand. When I call on him, he asks, "Why are all the black kids sitting on this side of the room, and all the white kids are on that side?"

My guess is that a white teacher without a true knowledge of diversity would hem and haw and change the subject. Luckily, I'm not a white teacher. And so I respond by asking him, "That's a good question, why do you think that happened?" The rest of the class period is spent in an all-class dialogue where we look at social dynamics of race, stereotypes, the need to fit in, etc. Every kid shares their opinion. Every kid has something insightful to say.

After that? No - all the kids didn't start sitting in a completely mixed racial arrangement like in a political photo-op. But they interacted with each other differently, and had a better understanding of themselves and why they chose to be where they did -without it necessarily having to be a "bad" thing or about "not getting along."

And that's just fine with me because that conversation never could have happened in a school where there were too few kids of color to self-segregate, in the first place.

On "Freeing Tibet"

A land populated by a people with thousands of years of history, thriving cultures and traditions is invaded by an occupying army. Through a brutal campaign of violence against an entire people - women, children, and the elderly - millions of people die, and the land is taken and occupied. The occupying government encourages its people to take over land that was previously populated by those they killed. The occupied population dwindles and is forced onto the worst land, where they deal with poverty, alcoholism, and depression. They are forced into new schools, their culture brutally stamped-out and tarnished.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Yeah - exactly, it's how the United States was colonized. It's how the Native Indian populations were subjugated, robbed, and destroyed. It's how the original occupants of the land I currently live on hardly exist, anymore. It's how the most successful colony in the world occupied its current territory and got away with it.

It's not too different from how businessmen - that's right, freaking BUSINESSMEN - overthrew the sovereign Queen of Hawaii and then handed the land over to the U.S. government to "annex," so they could make a people's homeland into a glorified theme park for non-native tourists.

Reminiscent of how the same government forcibly interned its own citizens - who happened to have Japanese blood - and stole their property with no real reparations (I don't count a lip-service "apology" and token money generations later as reparations).

Did I mention that they got away with it?

Because where are the international protests when WE host the Olympics? Why doesn't the world cry out in rage about OUR human rights injustices?

Is it because those that benefitted from the theft are the ones who generally protest against all the rest of the world's injustices? Is it because there's an expiration date on justice and what's wrong or right? Or is it just because that would be awfully inconvenient for a lot of people?

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't exactly think the whole current Tibet situation is all good. I don't. I don't think there's a problem with seeing wrong in the world and wanting to bring attention to it - or to try to do something about it. I'm all for it, really.

What I AM against is this ridiculous level of blind hypocrisy that so often goes hand in hand with protesting. If you are a United States citizen, then how can you spend time and energy protesting the situation in a foreign continent and not spend more time and energy trying to fix the injustices of the country in which you live? How can you be against foreign occupation by the Chinese, and then be okay with the fact that your house is built on land that your government lied, cheated, killed, and stole to get?

And the answers all seem to come the same way - "well, that was so many generations ago - I didn't do it." Right. So then shouldn't we all "stop living in the past" and worrying about what China did 50 years ago (before most of the current residents were born)? Of course not. So then the "past is the past" argument is B.S. People are still suffering and paying for it. Native Indian cultures are in greater danger of dying out than the Tibetan culture - so, if anything, it should be more pressing to do something NOW.

Oh, but right - that would be so very inconvenient.

Because the second response is the "what am I SUPPOSED to do about it?" To be honest - what the Hell are you really going to do about the Tibet situation? Right - build up media attention, get the information out, not give the government an excuse to ignore it, MAKE IT MATTER. Now imagine if it was the country's own residents doing it. Not just Indians, themselves, but the people who benefitted. What if there were tons of "Free the U.S." benefit concerts headlining the biggest American bands? What if there were thousands of volunteers and protesters doing their part every day? What if popular media personalities talked about it? Maybe something could actually happen. Probably not - but so far all that hasn't changed China's mind, either.

And the fact is - unless you're willing to give back your land to whichever tribe it originally belonged to (REALLY willing to do so), then you have no right to protest against all these foreign "occupiers." Want to know why they don't give up their occupations (this goes for Israel, to China, to Morrocco)? The same reason the people of this country aren't willing to give up their homes and land to make right for the ridiculous, horrifying injustices of this nation's past. And all these other countries didn't kill off a whole other race of people to make good on their occupations.

And it always gets flipped, right? The question - so what are YOU (meaning me) doing about it all? No, I don't hold protests. I'm not organizing a petition of people willing to give their land back (although, maybe I should get started on that). But I AM asking the questions. And I try to get people to think. It's not enough - and I'm enabling the injustice to continue, as well - but in none of that does it make it non-hypocritical for U.S. citizens to fight other people's battles while ignoring that of the occupied in their own country.

And that's the problem. That's white privilege. Or "upper-middle-class" privilege. Or "developed-nation" privilege. Or "superpower" privilege. Whatever you want to call it - the tendency to think that we know it all and have the right to tell other people how to do things. That we know better, and thus are "doing good" by getting mixed up in other people's problems, as we view them from our own narrow cultural world-view. Meanwhile, we let injustice happen on our own doorstep because "it's not my fault - I'm not directly responsible" or there's "nothing I can do." And then we re-convince ourselves that we're "making a difference."

Yeah - we ARE making a difference. But the direction in which that difference tends is up to more of a debate than we like to think.

* Pretty good of me to write this whole essay without even putting it on the current popularity of China-bashing (because they're starting to get some clout) while we ignore white countries' similar injustices (Ireland, for instance), isn't it?

** Oops - I guess we can ignore footnote number one.

On White Culture

"The Devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist!" - Charles Baudelaire, 1864*

Now, I don't hold to a theory of "white devils," but this quote seemed way too perfect in a conversation about white culture. Because one of the most tricky aspects of white culture (from here on I speak of specifically white American culture) is the belief that there is no such thing.

I hear it all the time - white folks speaking to how "jealous" they are of people of color because of their cultural "roots." White folks saying that the reason they are drawn to "exotic" cultures is due to a lack of their own.

Well, I'm sorry to burst that little bubble, but American white people - you have a culture. You really do. And part of the reason you find that so hard to believe is that it is intrinsic in that culture to believe that you have none.

Let me explain here. One of the major aspects of American white culture is the belief in individuality. "Everybody's unique." We're all a bunch of snowflakes**. It is inherent in white culture to box in other people (of any race) and then follow up with an explanation of how I - myself - am not part of any particular group. It's one of the cornerstones of the American Dream - every individual can "lift themselves up by the bootstraps" if they work hard enough. We are all about the "pursuit of happiness" as opposed to a pursuit of familial security or community or any other such thing. And so, with that as one of the highest pillars of American white culture, it is exceedingly difficult for white folks (or those brought up in said culture) to then consider themselves as a part of that culture. Clever, isn't it? And frustrating . . .

In contrast, few cultures of color hold individuality in such high esteem. The family is often much more important in those cultures than in white culture. Identification with the group (nationality or ethnicity) is also very important - so much so that people of color often feel that they must represent all people of their race in whatever they do. Not so white folks. How often do white folks deny their responsibility for the actions of others of their race (positive OR negative)? Because they are all individuals.

What else is important to white culture? Logic. Reason. Controlled emotions. Folks raised in white culture often will talk about how "loud" other races are. When people display open emotion - raising their voice - they are seen to be "out of control" or even violent. Problems should be reasoned out and solved with logic. The world around should be understood through science and objective observation.

And this is a HUGE reason white folks have such a hard time understanding the experiences of people of color. Because logic does not really come into play when race becomes involved. Race cannot be understood through observation and scientific reasoning. Race must be felt to be understood. White people like to tell people of color that they "understand" where they are coming from because they logically understand the sentiments - when no person of color would ever think that their situation is truly understood in those moments.

White culture is a patriarchal system. Men dominate and make decisions. "God" is male. Women are seen as emotional (again - as opposed to "reasonable") and physically weak. Stay-at-home mothers are not valued the same as the male "breadwinners."

Youth and vitality are honored and revered. Movie stars, athletes, models - young, attractive, imitating the perfection of Greek/Roman gods and goddesses. Elders are seen as old infants - needing to be cared for (and often sent to nursing homes).

In other cultures, the mother goddess is all. Elders are revered for their wisdom and experience. Ancestor-worship is common. Unrelated elders are still objects of respect - to be obeyed.

White culture emphasizes the importance of time. "Time is money." Being on time is vital. Businesses live and die by next-day delivery. We can "waste time" or "spend time." What we do with our time is an investment in our futures. We work our asses off now, so that we can get paid or retire weeks or years on down the road.

A majority of non-western, non-white cultures feel quite differently about time. There is nothing wrong with sitting around, chatting and reinforcing existing relationships instead of working. Being an hour late just isn't a big problem. Work is meant to take care of current needs - planning for the future is less important than simply enjoying the free time of the present. Those raised in American white culture often mistake these cultural differences as "laziness."

Is this starting to make some sense? Does it hurt to see where these white cultural traits hit home? And again - I emphasize that these are cultural traits of white America - but it doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people of color. Who are the racial "sell-outs"? Who are the PoC who "act white"? Why - it's the ones who have a stronger connection to white culture.

And other cultures within the confines of the States are not immune to assimilation. As the generations go by, you can watch youth of color start emphasizing more and more of these white cultural traits. Because cultures are fluid, and they are spread via exposure - as opposed to explicit teaching. And so American media implants these cultural "givens" in the minds of all its viewers.

And it's important to be aware of this. Although few lay claim to an explicit understanding of white culture, American white culture is understood. It's why people refer to white cultural traits as "normal" as opposed to the distinctions necessary to identify the other side. It's unspoken and taken for granted because it is so pervasive. And because of that, it becomes identified with "normal" and stops being interesting or "exotic" enough for white people to be happy with it. And then they start claiming they have no culture and start looking to borrow from somebody else.

And this is not to be confused with white privilege. Because people of color can definitely partake of white culture without partaking of white privilege. But an understanding of white culture can then lead to easier explanations as to why it's so hard for white folks to be aware of their privilege.

There is so much farther I can go with this - and I will, in time - but I think this serves as a good primer for understanding of white culture. And with this basic understanding, a dialogue between different racial cultures becomes a little bit easier. Because it's hard to comprehend and respect cultural differences without consciously knowing where you stand.

I would love to hear some opinions on this matter, so please feel free to comment.

* Yes - I did originally hear a version of this quote in the movie "Usual Suspects"

** I always wondered if it was more than coincidence that snowflakes are white.

*** Of course, I didn't just make all this up. Many studies have been done on white culture and the pieces I mentioned here have been consistently brought up. For those who want more information, hit me up in the comments, and I'll see how I can help.

On Not Trusting White People

So, we’ve been over the fact that I definitely do not consider myself white.* So, that said, I would like to touch on my particular issue that I have had with white folks, in general – trust.

Now I know there are people out there that will instantly cry “racist” and suggest that I hate white people by making a blanket statement like this.** That is not the case, and I hope to make that clear through this post (and from what I’ve already written in this blog).

I should say that I have walked through and lived in a mostly white world. My schools growing up were predominantly white (although my social circle wasn’t). Most of the people I ended up being around in college were white (with some notable exceptions). As a youth worker, I end up having mostly white co-workers. And I have plenty of close white friends, so this isn’t an intolerant hate thing. It’s an experiential thing.

Again, we return to EXPERIENCES and how they shape us. From my experiences with white people – some of whom I considered friends – I have learned to be wary of surface-level acceptance from white folks as a person of color. Some examples:

- I mentioned before ("On Not Being White") how my white friend’s parent bought into my made-up “Chinese.” An adult being so ignorant of the world around her that my made up sounds were legitimately “Chinese” to her.

- In middle school, there was a kid I knew (we got along relatively well, I thought) who was getting teased and picked on by a bunch of kids. I wasn’t part of it, but I was standing and watching, feeling bad for him and trying to decide what to do (yeah – of course I should have stood up for him, but it was middle school). Suddenly, he turns to me and yells (through his tears) “why don’t you just go back to where you came from!?” I was shocked, at first – where the Hell had THAT come from? But then I snapped out of it, and I had my first fight based on race. But I still carry that feeling of shocked betrayal – to save himself, he found a racist hate within him to fling my way, even though I wasn’t one of the people hurting him. That was probably one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned about racism – hurt people hurt people.

- The summer after my first year of college, I was back in my home town at a party hosted by one of my old high school friends. Another white friend (we’ll call him “J”) brought some of his college buddies by. Well, let’s just say the college buddies were assholes, and it led to a fight. I got in there and broke it up, and my friends and I basically had J’s college buddies take their friend and leave. As that happened, the kid who had been in the fight made a comment about “that Buddha-looking motherf***er” (me), and I watched as J laughed in response. I wanted to kill him. And, again, submerged racism reared its ugly head when I wasn’t expecting it.

- In college, I was at a party with some friends, sitting on the front porch. A white kid comes in (a friend of some of my friends), talking about a fight he just almost got into. He told everyone how he had seen a bunch of Asian kids hanging out on their porch and when they wouldn’t bum him a smoke he yelled, “F***ing chinks!” The people on the porch with me laughed at his story – including some of my “friends” (those that didn’t, of course, said nothing).

- I had a white ex-girlfriend who was dating another bi-racial (white/Asian) guy. When I asked her what his specific background was (Chinese, Japanese, etc.), she said she didn’t know and was shocked when I told her that that was something she should ask. When I told her that likely really mattered to him, she argued with me and asked, “How would you know?” She later said she was surprised that I hadn’t “dealt with” the fact that I never saw people that looked like me around since I should "be used to it by now."

- Here, in Portland, I have had numerous white “liberal” males talk to me about how much they are into Asian or “exotic” women. White liberal females talking about race in a group of white people (and me) and how they “know how it feels” because one time they were the only brown-eyed person amongst a group of blue-eyed folks. Then arguing with me when I tell them they don’t know what they’re talking about.

- I have worked with white youth workers serving kids of color – who clearly target black and Latino youth in ways that defy understanding. Then, when I brought it up with my superiors, they told me my “expectations were too high” of my co-workers and nothing was done. Later, when I asked for a diversity training because I was so worried about the racial dynamics I saw at our school (and wanted a safe place to talk about it), I was told they would make it a priority – only to see it never happen (over six months of school after my request). And this is a boss that I respect and admire in so many ways – probably the best boss I’ve ever had, on a general level.

There’s more, of course. There’s always more. But I think these stand-out examples cover the themes I think need to be covered to explain why I don’t trust white people. Because - I remind you - these were friends or people that were in a position of (potential) trust. These weren't the overt racists (mostly) or bigots that I avoid. These were the white folks willing to be friends with me. People in positions where they (generally) had good intentions about race. It is the fact that these things still happened in spite of all that that made them so damaging. And so, with white people now:

I don’t trust that they don’t have some ingrained racist notions that they hold back because they know it’s not appropriate – only to have it come out when under duress, or when they need a scapegoat.

I don’t trust that they are truly my allies – that they will do more than just talk, actually standing up for me and my own when it really matters (whether or not we're around).

I don’t trust that they don’t make racist jokes or comments when I’m not around (or they think other people of color are not around).

I don’t trust that they see women of color as more than objects – that they actually care about the ethnicity and culture and experiences behind them.

I don’t trust that they are really listening or actually want to understand race and privilege on anything but their own terms.

And I don’t trust that those that work with kids of color actually do it out of respect, as opposed to white supremacist notions that “backward” cultures of color need a white savior in order to become civilized.

I don’t trust white people. And I have plenty of reason not to.

But there are exceptions, to be sure. I have two white friends here in Portland, “F” and “A” (incidentally, both with Jewish blood), who have never let me down in this regard. Who I know are not afraid of race and are willing to really check themselves in regards to it. Who do not deny their natural prejudices, and thus are able to confront and move past them.

But, unfortunately, I have found them to be the exception, thus far. And so I continue to distrust white people, even after I have befriended them to some degree. Because I never know when they might just side-swipe me with ignorance or (worse) outright racist notions.

So, to any white readers – please think on this, and see if privilege has caused you to make this impression on others. Are you to be fully trusted as an anti-racist ally? And to my readers of color – any stories of hope to combat these negative experiences?

I hope there are.


* If you haven’t read it yet, read “On Not Being White.”

** Other people have said it better than I can, but “racism” implies power and privilege, so it gets old when white people accuse people of color of “racism.” I can definitely be prejudiced, but let’s call if what it is, okay?