minecanary reblogged
Tuesday, October 23/2012: There are racist hipsters? OKCUPID IS THE WORST THING EVER. Why do I keep coming back?
minecanary reblogged
1964 Presidential Campaign - Civil Rights and the South
It was October 1964, and the November Presidential election was looming as parts of the country still seethed over the Civil Rights Act President Lyndon B. Johnson had signed into law just a few months earlier.
Many white southerners and politicians considered the law an assault on their long-established way of life. Southern Democrats threatened to bolt as racial politics threatened to splinter the party and cost Johnson the election.
It was during this tumultuous time that Lady Bird Johnson embarked on perhaps her most difficult assignment as First Lady. In a four-day, 1,628-mile trip aboard a train dubbed the Lady Bird Special, the First Lady traveled through eight southern states.
This was the first time a First Lady campaigned on her own for her husband and she championed the new legislation that eliminated “Jim Crow” laws and guaranteed African Americans access to all public accommodations and the right to equal employment opportunities.
Along the way, Mrs. Johnson was met with invective that no first lady has experienced since. But the ultimate success of the trip, as she defended the need for the Civil Rights Act, was a testament to Lady Bird’s spirit and stoicism.
While she loved her role as First Lady, she wrote at the end of her tenure, “I wouldn’t trade anything for the experience. But not for anything would I pay for the price of admission again.”
Images: “Please don’t forget to vote” Postcard, 1964 ; Lady Bird Johnson on her Whistle Stop Tour. 10/6/64.
Source: lbjlibrary.net
Into this land of meek outcasts there came some Spaniards who immediately behaved like ravening wild beasts; killing, terrorizing, afflicting, torturing and destroying the native peoples to such a degree that this island of Hispaniola, once so populous, having a population that I estimated to be more than 3 millions, has now a population of barely 200 persons. There reason for killing and destroying such an infinite number souls is that the Christians have an ultimate aim, which is to acquire gold and to swell themselves with riches in a very brief time and thus rise to a higher state disproportionate to their merits. The Indians began to seek ways to throw the Christians out of their lands. The Christians with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim’s feet almost touched the ground. When tied to the stake, Cacique Hatuey was told by a Franciscan Friar of the god of the Christians and he was told what he could do in the brief time that remained to him in order to be saved and go to heaven. Cacique, who had never heard of any of this before, asked the Franciscan Friar if Christians all went to heaven. When told that they did, he said that he preferred to go to hell.
Bartolomé de las Casas, a 16th century Spanish priest and settler in the New World
minecanary reblogged
dc-khaleesi-deactivated20150209
And I’m not talking about the movie.
So, funny hilarious story, Tumblr. I (an African American woman) just went out with my boyfriend (a white man). We went out to an Irish pub to have a few drinks and maybe play some pool. After we’d had a few drinks, a random (white) guy and his (white) date sat down to watch the game.
Good for them.
My boyfriend and I were having a conversation about various heinous social and economic inequalities. Specifically the heightened and disgusting levels of racism that have been only increasing in the States. Increased police brutality against Poc, Continuing whitewashing in the media, Mitt Romney, the conservatives and Tea Party and all the implications therein. Really we were having a mutual rant about the absurdities and hopelessnes of some people. It got to a point where we were talking about some of the clearly racist motivations behind Obama hate that have arisen (namely racism). We were talking a little loudly because the football game playing was pretty loud. Whatever.
Anyway, as we’re talking about how hideous it is that there have been people symbolically lynching empty chairs (see Clint Eastwood) in their front lawns and other threats of violence that (if the president were white) would have been treated as acts of treason. Really it doesn’t matter what we were talking about. The topic was racism and how it is very real and very scary and disgusting in this country.
Anyway, the nice, white rich-looking gentleman next to us turns over and says “Sorry to interrupt your conversation, but do you really think it’s that racial of an issue?”
Both of us immediately reply “Yes.” knowing how this is about to go. He goes on to ask if we’ve had any experience with these things and we begin to explain to him the plethora of instances in which either of us has experienced systematic or personal racism. Of course he bowls over us to tell us that we have no experience and have no idea what we’re talking about. And that it is WE that are being racist for talking about it in public, after all racism is over and the things we’re talking about are antiquated and irrelevant now.
Wow. My world flipped upside-down
This guy is so smart. I instantly wanted to thank him for pointing out (without letting me speak, mind) that I was so wrong. It had never occurred to me that my personal lived experiences of racism in the US could be invalid. Just because I’ve seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears doesn’t mean that its true. That’s like saying that if you let go of an apple and watch it drop, then there’s probably gravity or something—ABSURD. White people are ever-glowing angels of purity who have never committed acts of bigotry, all those things we were talking about were misunderstood expressions of free speech (which, as a rule of white free speech, I am not allowed to criticize). The lynching of an empty chair, while a clear symbol of hate and harm-wishing toward the POTUS is totally not racism (despite the CLEAR racial history of such an act). Lawl, silly me.
Also, I was really glad he interrupted our private conversation to interject his completely requested opinion. Because without it, I would have continued to float through the world thinking that I was a victim of continued systematic racial oppression. Not only that, but I would have continued to be deluded that in the year 2012, someone like MITT FUCKING ROMNEY should not be in any way, by any person considered to be a viable candidate for president of the US. I mean really, who am I to think that I should be considered equally to those of other races, especially white people. Whew, I’m really glad we met this guy.
Also, good thing he told me that I had no idea what I was talking about. Because his welcome interruption showed that he certainly did.
Anyway, Universe, thanks for that.
#takeaseat
Ms. NICHOLS: I went in to tell Gene Roddenberry that I was leaving after the first season, and he was very upset about it. And he said, take the weekend and think about what I am trying to achieve here in this show. You're an integral part and very important to it. And so I said, yes, I would. And that - on Saturday night, I went to an NAACP fundraiser, I believe it was, in Beverly Hills. And one of the promoters came over to me and said, Ms. Nichols, there's someone who would like to meet you. He says he is your greatest fan.
And I'm thinking a Trekker, you know. And I turn, and before I could get up, I looked across the way and there was the face of Dr. Martin Luther King smiling at me and walking toward me. And he started laughing. By the time he reached me, he said, yes, Ms. Nichols, I am your greatest fan. I am that Trekkie.
Ms. NICHOLS: And I was speechless. He complimented me on the manner in which I'd created the character. I thanked him, and I think I said something like, Dr. King, I wish I could be out there marching with you. He said, no, no, no. No, you don't understand. We don't need you on the - to march. You are marching. You are reflecting what we are fighting for. So, I said to him, thank you so much. And I'm going to miss my co-stars.
And his face got very, very serious. And he said, what are you talking about? And I said, well, I told Gene just yesterday that I'm going to leave the show after the first year because I've been offered - and he stopped me and said: You cannot do that. And I was stunned. He said, don't you understand what this man has achieved? For the first time, we are being seen the world over as we should be seen. He says, do you understand that this is the only show that my wife Coretta and I will allow our little children to stay up and watch. I was speechless.
Source: NPR
Why calling out someone on their privilege is relevant when discussing prejudice
Living as a member of a group that is discriminated against gives you empirical insight into the reality of prejudice that merely hearing about prejudice does not. Of course it is going to appear on the surface to someone who is white, straight, male, and Christian that prejudice is a thing of the past or at least on the decline, because it's not something a person who meets those descriptors deals with in his daily life. A white straight Christian male saying prejudice doesn't exist is like a millionaire saying poverty doesn't exist.
Disclosure: I am a white straight male and I get that I will never fully understand what it means to be someone other than who I am, although I can still try to eliminate as much ignorance and prejudice arising from privilege as I can. I probably shouldn't even be writing a long rant about it, but some recent comments I have read on reddit, a site dominated by white straight males, and also on tumblr, have made it difficult for me to stay quiet. Therefore, this is primarily addressed at other white straight males who get all flustered and indignant when someone asks them to check their privilege.
For someone who is not a white straight male, the existence and insanely huge extent of modern prejudice is obvious simply from stepping outside. It's not always as obvious as racial violence, though of course that exists as well; on the level of individuals, it's more often a sideways glance, a starting level of distrust, unending rehashing of unfunny jokes based on stereotypes, or unwarranted dismisiveness.
But while individual prejudice is all too common, the real problem isn't with individuals, but with systemic prejudice. Even if all individuals stopped being prejudiced today, the system has been stacked in a way that reinforces differences between people not based on merit, but on categories like race, sex, sexual orientation, and religious belief. The most obvious example of systemic prejudice is systemic racism, which correlates very strongly with class/income due to intergenerational wealth effects.
In other words, the ghosts of the more open racism of the past are still with us, and structure our society in ways that show that the ostensible capitalist ethic of reward to merit is a lie. There is a feedback loop in our system that people with wealth can outcompete others regardless of the true merit of others' abilities, and that feedback loop spits out enormous amounts of systemic racism.
Differences in class aren't the only example of systemic racism, though. It exists in our culture and media as well. Though non-white people are on track to make up over 50 percent of the population of the U.S., and women already make up that proportion, protagonists in movies and television are still overwhelmingly white, and still overwhelmingly male. Because "white male" is seen as a cultural "default," despite this attitude's arising from past and present prejudice, white males are seen as somehow more neutral and unaffected by the bias of race or sex, more or less unconsciously.
So, to get to the point. When someone calls you out on your privilege as a white male, they are not necessarily discounting your opinion entirely, but they may just be pointing out that your position is not necessarily neutral and that your lived experiences are that of someone who is not the object of prejudice.
White straight religious men can still talk about prejudice and be great allies of the disenfranchised, although to some extent their ability to be such strong allies relies on the very prejudice they are fighting against. Which is not to discount their contributions in the least, since fighting prejudice should be done with all the resources at one's disposal, and if you can turn prejudice around to the advantage of the disenfranchised, then all the better (though they must be careful to follow and not to lead.)
But particularly when a white straight man is arguing against policies that benefit victims of prejudice, or saying something as patently ridiculous as the idea that racism is no longer a potent force in society, he has to expect someone is going to call him out on not having direct experience as the object of prejudice. Direct, lived, everyday experience of prejudice because of one's very nature is something that cannot be truly understood by people who do not live it, and therefore, especially when arguing against victims of prejudice on the subject of prejudice, the white straight man's opinion is necessarily colored by who he is. Everyone comes from a background of experience, and a white straight man's denial that prejudice is still very relevant in society, coming from a background in which he was not prejudiced against, makes his opinion less credible.
In short, there is a difference in the credibility of arguments made by a white straight man who is an ally of the victims of prejudice and the credibility of arguments made by a white straight male who is arguing against the victims of prejudice. The former accepts the direct experience of prejudice of the victims as true despite his own personal experience of not being prejudiced against. This is the essence of "checking your privilege." The latter thinks he knows better despite the lack of direct knowledge.
No one should be saying white men can't have opinions on women's rights, social services, racism, or criminal justice. But when a white straight man's opinions on those subjects go against the interests of women, LGBT people, or people of color, he should expect that someone is going to point out he may lack the experience necessary to truly understand the terrible effects of prejudice on those subjects.
To use a relevant example for other white male atheists out there: since you are non-religious, I bet you see discrimination against atheists everywhere you look. Do you think this discrimination is as obvious to religious people as it is to you? How would you feel about a religious person dismissing the idea that there is discrimination against atheists in this country--or worse, saying that efforts to eliminate this discrimination were actually somehow putting atheists "above" religious people? Don't you think that a religious person making these arguments would be at least somewhat less credible because that person lacks the experience of being discriminated against as an atheist? I doubt you can think otherwise without being so intellectually dishonest as to do away with the whole concept of evidence.
White straight males can and should be vocally opposed to prejudice and in favor of policies that benefit victims of prejudice. They should, however, be careful to modulate their voices so as not to dominate the discourse when talking about the subject with victims of prejudice, and listen more than they speak. The victims of prejudice need to lead the debate about the issue, but having allies who are not victims speak up is important as well, as long as those allies generally agree with the victims, and accept that the victims have access to evidence that they do not.
White straight males who are opposed to the idea that prejudice still exists or oppose policies favorable to victims of prejudice, on the other hand, should completely expect that their privilege is an issue that prevents real understanding. Their credibility when making these arguments is close to zero.
The transition from degradation to respectability was indeed great, and to get from one to the other without carrying some marks of one's former condition, is truly a difficult matter. I would not have you think that I am now entirely clear of all plantation peculiarities, but my friends here, while they entertain the strongest dislike to them, regard me with that charity to which my past life somewhat entitles me, so that my condition in this respect is exceedingly pleasant. So far as my domestic affairs are concerned, I can boast of as comfortable a dwelling as your own. I have an industrious and neat companion, and four dear children—the oldest a girl of nine years, and three fine boys, the oldest eight, the next six, and the youngest four years old. The three oldest are now going regularly to school—two can read and write, and the other can spell with tolerable correctness words of two syllables: Dear fellows! they are all in comfortable beds, and are sound asleep, perfectly secure under my own roof. There are no slaveholders here to rend my heart by snatching them from my arms, or blast a mother's dearest hopes by tearing them from her bosom. These dear children are ours—not to work up into rice, sugar and tobacco, but to watch over, regard, and protect, and to rear them up in the nurture and admonition of the gospel—to train them up in the paths of wisdom and virtue, and, as far as we can to make them useful to the world and to themselves. Oh! sir, a slaveholder never appears to me so completely an agent of hell, as when I think of and look upon my dear children.
Source: lettersofnote.com