sparkindarkness | Entries tagged with racism

So, we just had a cabinet reshuffle!

And among many parts of that, we have a new Minister for Women and Equality. This was very necessary because the previous encumbent Theresa May (and, of course, the useless fig leaf Lynne Featherstone who is always out there willing to justofy any bigotry her Tory masters have, what a good little Igor she is) was a raging bigot.

So now we have Maria Miller.

Who is another raging bigot

For gods' sake Cameron - I know you're picking among the Tory party here so finding someone who isn't a bigot must be very very taxing for you - but really?

Can we actually have an Equality Minister who HASN'T voted against equal rights? Who hasn't voted against gay families? Can we have an Equality minister who hasn't voted to defend hate speech? Who was absent for the vote for the Equalities Act when it came to Sexual Orientation? A woman who Stonewall gave a mere 14% when it came to voting for gay rights? (The same as Theresa May)

Can we have a minister for women who isn't anti-choice?

In fact, can we have a Minister for Equality who actually gives a fuck about Equality?!

And when we've got that, can we actually have a MINISTER for Equality who isn't also stuck with some other "more important" brief - like the Home Secretary or Culture.

But let's leave the Minister for Equality and look to the Minister of Justice - why it's Chris Grayling!

Remember Chris Grayling, folks? Well he was the Shadow Home Secretary, but lost the job because he publicly spoke up in favour of Straights-only hotels and how it should be legal to discriminate against gay people.

This is the man who scraped up 29% on the Stonewall survey - and even then his words show he didn't even deserve that much.

This is our Minister for Justice. Justice for some - but not for me and mine.

Typical bloody Tories and their sycophantic mini-mes.

So, because a bad idea just doesn't die like it should, Victoria Foyt's racist Save the Pearls now has homophobic versions: for books: and television. I hate linking to them but they need to be seen. One is a book and the other movie with the same premise: an all gay world that persecutes the straight minority

So that’s more appropriating the issues we live with, our history, our suffering and then shitting on it all by making us the perpetrators of the violations committed against us. How can they not see how offensive this is? How can they not see how offensive taking the severe bigotry thrown at us every day and throughout history, bigotry that has cost us so much and then making our oppressors the victims and us the attackers, is? This is appropriative, this is offensive, it’s disrespectful and it’s outright bigoted.

Y’know, if you actually want to talk about prejudice and persecution and how they can affect people’s lives, why not use actual marginalised people? You want to show how a person navigates a society that has extreme prejudice against their skin colour? Why not make your protagonist a POC? You want to show a society that persecutes people based on who they’re attracted to and who they love? Why not make your protagonist gay?

Oh, but then that becomes a specialist subject, right? A “niche”, dealing with marginalised issues. A POC book. A Gay/Lesbian book. Totally inappropriate for mainstream audience – when we can take the same story and flip it to bizarre bigot world and make the poor straight, white person the persecuted victim and we’re back in mainstream land. Funny, that.

Is that what this is? This whole offensive, bullshit trend (I mean, apart from prejudiced arsehattery, which kind of goes without saying)? A desire to use prejudice as a plot point but not sully your main character by making them an actual minority?

And don’t tell me it will help straight/white people understand oppression. Because if a privileged person will only hear about prejudiced issues when it comes from a privileged mouth then what is the point? I’ve said this before when we’ve had similar bullshit, how are you going to encourage people to address prejudice and marginalisation while at the same time training them that it’s only worth listening to privileged people?

Because that’s what I hear when this excuse is trawled out. Straight, white people can’t possibly empathise with a POC or GBLT protagonist so we have to present these prejudiced issues through a privileged lens, from a privileged mouth. Or even from an elf or vampire – because that’s easier to swallow than actually facing real life prejudice that hits real prejudiced people.

And don’t tell me it’s for marginalised people. Would I like to read a book where marginalised people are the majority and in charge? Sure – but not through the eyes of a poor, oppressed straight/white person who is suffering so awfully at the hands of the big, mean, prejudiced gay/black people. Because maginalised people being cast as evil villains? Been done and it’s not fun.

Just stop. You want to include marginalised people, then do it. But don’t make free with the severe issues that have shaped and attacked us for generations and appropriate them for your own ends. And certainly don’t do it while making our oppressor’s the victims and the persecuted the attackers in these lazy, shallow, ridiculous worlds.

One of the eternal frustrations with trying to talk marginalisation with privileged people is the ignorance of what persecution actually means, what being marginalised actually means. Yes, I know, blink and step back “surely it’s obvious!?” right? I mean, groups that are marginalised are treated horrendously in a myriad of ways for centuries – how can we not know what that means?

And yet – how many times have we seen a marginalised person described some event in their lives where prejudice has screwed them over and you have some privileged person saying “oh, yeah, that’s just like what happens to me!” And then we to resort to the marginalised serenity prayer – give me the serenity not to kill this person with axes. Increasingly it seems I am lacking in serenity, on the plus side, I have no shortage of axes.

However, axe murdering does rather stain the carpet, and putting out plastic sheeting every time is a nuisance so can we actually address what marginalisation is and why privileged people don’t face it, even if they think they do?

So, let us begin with the “that happened to me too.” Ok, but does it feed into a societal pressure and habitual victimisation? Do things like that commonly happen to people like you, for that reason? Does it reflect or build on a major societal pressure?

Because this all matters. Say tomorrow I am walking down the street, leaving my firm and someone decides that he really really hates lawyers and decides to violently attack me with my own axe. Woe, I have been attacked, due to my profession. I have been victimised. Yet, if we take exactly the same attack and change one thing – that my attacker tried to kill me for being gay instead – and we’ve got an entirely different situation.

Being attacked as a lawyer wouldn’t make me worry about it happening again. It wouldn’t make me check the news for other attacks on lawyers and feel that fear every time I see it appear. I probably wouldn’t actually see any other incidents, or very few. I wouldn’t change my behaviour or worry about how I’m acting and what I’m saying. It wouldn’t send a message to all other lawyers that they’re under threat and their lives aren’t valued. I wouldn’t walk into a room full of non-lawyers and worry about being safe. I’d be pretty sure that it wasn’t part of societal attitudes to destroy me, drive me out or render me invisible (well, except for people who’ve seen one to many of those “I’ve had an accident” Underdog adverts, but even I want to punch them. After I’ve tracked down the Go Compare opera singer anyway). There won’t be powerful forces in authority encouraging people to discriminate against me for being a lawyer, to condemn me for it and to add to a culture of violence against lawyers. I can expect the press to report on my attack, rather than ignore it, I can rely on them not demonising me for being a lawyer. I am confident that, being attacked as a lawyer, my attacker will be treated like a criminal, I will be treated as a victim, I won’t be blamed for my attack, my attacker will be sentenced appropriately, the crime against will be treated as a grave one.

Read More

Privilege, oppression and marginalisation are concepts we talk a lot about in the social justice blogosphere (and beyond). There’s a lot to talk about and many nuances, intersectionality and so much more. But there’s also a creeping habit to, by intent or accident, use the language of privilege and oppression in a way that denies our own privilege, centres our own marginalisation as more vital (or universal), or gives our own marginalised group a pass on the badness. It’s a common reaction – after all, we all want to think of our people as “the good ones” and, despite it being easier to live as the oppressor, it’s certainly more sympathetic to identity with the oppressee. But it’s still not all good – because it does come down to denying privilege, denying marginalisation or dismissing marginalised people’s issues.

The most common thing I see is us just taking a rather scattershot approach to privilege – including every privilege the offender has – even the ones that are not relevant to the situation.

Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke in a grossly misogynist way because of her testimony on birth control. And, thankfully, people describe what a privileged arsehat he is. This is good – but I also saw many people cursing him for his straight, white male privilege. Sounds right – after all he is a straight white male (and he’s also a homophobic racist as well as a misogynist). Except, he didn’t use straight, white privilege to (though those privileges add to his power and position, certainly) to attack Ms. Fluke; his male privilege was the relevant one. And this matters – because by adding the straight and white privileges there we’re implying that if Limbaugh were gay or POC (or both) then he would not be oppressing Ms. Fluke, he would not have privileged over her - or, he simply wouldn’t do such a thing. We know that’s not true. Being gay or being POC is no defence against being a misogynist.

It’s not that he doesn’t have these privileges – it’s that they’re not relevant to the current discussion – or the relevance they have is fraught since it also implies a pass for those groups.

Another example – in my many many fraught discussions of the problems of slash and m/m genres many people have joined me in objecting. But some of the objections are of the appropriating writers using straight, white privilege. Except I’ve a whole shed load of homophobic fail in my inbox from straight POC writers, slash, m/m and yaoi defenders, declaring their natural ally-dom to all gay men since they’re man-sex fetishisers. It is by their straightness and othering that they are oppressing – and, again, we’re giving a pass to some of the privilege offenders by bringing in these other privileges. Some of the homophobic bullshit is given a pass.

Another common tactic I see is to distort or change the meaning of words in a way that magically includes you in the oppression (something I’ve mentioned before). I’ve read a blog that has a handy little lexicon that describes “heteronormative” as a “white, middle-class, straight lens”. Which isn’t what it means – if you have a large group of straight, working class, POC then you have a heteronormative situation. This reduces diversity to racial and class lines alone, by co-opting a word used to criticise the erasure and ignoring of GBLT people and giving the show/book/culture a pass if it is seen from a racially inclusive lens even if it completely denies the existence of GBLT people.

“Diversity” is another word that often gets bandied about without qualification when the writer usually means only diverse along one axis – I’m amazed at how many utterly erased books I’ve read or TV shows I’ve watched that were praised for their supposedly vast inclusion.

Similarly to expanding the definition of oppressions, there’s also the stretching of definition of social justice movements. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve said to someone “y’know that was kind of homophobic” and received a reply of “I’m not homophobic, I’m a feminist!” And this is relevant, why? Being anti-homophobia doesn’t make you anti-racist or anti-misogynist. Being feminist doesn’t make you anti-racist or anti-homophobia etc. Don’t assume an inherent intersectionality - and, by all that is holy, do not play the “no true Scotsman” fallacy for your preferred movement either. It’s another way to deny privilege and oppression by absorbing another’s oppression into your movement. That doesn’t mean that people can’t identify as part of X movement AND be against all the other isms – but it’s an AND not an INCLUDED – it requires more than just assuming a label – especially when that label never included said oppression in the first place.

Read More

So over in the US the Violence against Women Act has become partisan because it contains inclusive clauses for GBLT people, undocumented migrants and Native Americans

Which means, for these over-privileged arseholes, they were willing to scupper this bill – and throw all those women who desperately need this out because their hatred is more important than saving women’s lives. It isn’t just bigotry to those covered in those clauses, it is a callous disregard over everyone who is a victim of violence, stalking and domestic abuse.

Of course, given the source that’s not exactly surprising. But it’s an extra part that needs to be pointed out – none of these victims matter to them. Not the ones who are covered by the new clauses, nor the many other victims who they’re willing to ignore to flex their prejudice

And those clauses? They are needed. There does need to be specific addresses to marginalised groups that fall through the cracks, who the law often ignores even more than usual, who the law is often not even built to protect or acknowledge. They are needed because there are often extra issues that apply to minority groups that the law for the larger population of victims doesn’t address.

I’ve said it before on laws about bullying. Minorities often have specific issues that are specific to them above and beyond what the majority of victims face – that doesn’t make them more victimised, but it means if you want to address THEIR victimisation, you need to address their issues as well.

Like a domestic violence victim being afraid to come to the police or other external because they fear deportation, or the issues of institutional prejudice or confused or unhelpful jurisdictional wrangling. No matter how good the law is at protecting victims from abuse, if you don’t address that issue then these victims will not be protected.

Now, I don’t know what it’s like to be in an abusive relationship and fear getting help because of the first two reasons. But having a shred of humanity and compassion, I can see how desperately it is needed.

But for GBLT people, I’ve been there and I know it. It’s not a topic I approach with even the slightest degree of comfort, certainly not without using as much distancing language as I can to skirt round it. But this kind of thing is very close to my heart.

Read More

fixed link

I read this article about how grossly unrepresentative the judiciary is and I'm having a think

I am torn. Which seems odd. After all, the judiciary is grossly unrepresentative. It is extremely white, extremely male and, (though not mentioned by the article since we often fall through the cracks when discussing discrimination and representation) extremely straight as well as being overwhelmingly cis and able bodied..

Until relatively recently, to be a judge you had to be married. Sound bemusing? It was a rule brought in in the 1970s to expressly prevent gay people becoming judges. It was openly admitted that that was the reason for the rule.

When I left law school, the judiciary wasn't on my mind. In fact when I went to law school I knew it would be impossible. I also chose my law school on the understanding that I wouldn't be a judge and I would have little chance becoming a barrister if I wanted to be an openly gay man. I cynically – and realistically – assumed these doors would be closed and didn't try waste my time dragging at a locked door that would be so unlikely to open for me.

There have only ever been 2 openly gay judges in the High Court. One of whom has now moved off to the various echelons of EU law.

And we know that because of the various blinkers of privilege, this nearly all super-privileged judiciary is going to have big freaking holes in their understanding. We've seen in decisions and in processes that marginalised people of all stripes tend to get a rawer deal in the courts than the privileged, ye gods we know that.

So, why am I torn?

read more

And one of these they want to ask whether it needs keeping changing – OR REMOVING - is the Equalities Act

The Act that has brought all of our Equalities laws together. This act, which they're consulting on removing - is now the cornerstone of all our anti-discrimination law and protections. They're consulting people about gutting our Equality protection laws. They're including the Equality act on a site that is all about removing regulation.

New post and immense rage on the blog click to follow links and respond - comment here there or everywhere - but preferably on the damn government's damned consultation site about freaking "red tape"

The hate groups will take very little to set them off, and recently we’ve had another bigot rumble from a group f religious folks who would like to make it clear that Martin Luther King would not have supported gay rights.

And in general, this is something that just causes me to shrug, maybe roll my eyes. I don’t particularly care whether Martin Luther King was a homophobe or not (and if you’re anti-gay rights then, yes, you’re a homophobe)

So on the whole, I don’t care whether Martin Luther King supported gay rights or not. My rights don’t become more or less important on the basis of whether one man supported them or not. I think the whole idea of asking whether ANYONE would have supported gay rights is irrelevant and offensive – because it implies our rights need approval – and from a straight man no less.

More over, nor would I hail how pro-gay MLK would have been because, well, he didn’t seem to be. Whatever the personal opinions of this straight man were, they were not sufficient to warrant particular attention from him. I wouldn’t hold him up as a champion or supporter of gay rights not just because it’s appropriative, but because I don’t think he is due that accolade.

A lot of my opinion comes from my not having much truck with heroes of any stripe. I think it’s a bad habit of humanity to put people on pedestals. We raise someone up and suddenly we have to agree with everything they’ve ever said and done, we fight rabidly at any suggestion that they may have made mistakes, done some bad things, *gasp* been human. I’ve seen people defend things they find personally highly objectionable because Hero has said/done them. I think you can praise and honour and respect someone and their words and actions and message, but hero-worshipping someone often ends up in problematic areas.

I think sometimes we honour a person over the message they brought (how much of MLK’s message is even remembered? His words out outraged injustice His peace activism? How much of these messages are lost?) Hence why so many of the right wingers love top completely rip the famous “I have a dream” speech. They’re appealing to the authority of a hero and violating his message of anti-racism. And it’s certainly not in any way limited to one man – from Ghandi to Mothert Theresa to founding fathers to Churchill to Nelson Mandela to a squillion other people have been placed on pedestals and hailed.

That doesn’t mean his message wasn’t important. Ye gods it was. It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be honoured for being the creator and speaker of that message, because there aren’t enough hails in the world. It also doesn’t mean that that message is not applicable to GBLT people, especially GBLT people of colour – but is the message dependent on the man’s personal approval for it to be applicable? Would the message not have as much power and meaning – including for GBLT people – if he was actually a homophobe or indifferent to gay rights or whatever?

I don’t think so – because his message was inspired and glorious and insightful and powerful and cannot be diminished by any number of people arguing “no, it totally doesn’t apply to the homos” You can’t kill inspiration and passion and rightness so easily

Ok, the ONS has released statistics on most popular baby names in the UK. They do it every year, presumably because they’re so damned bored they have nothing better to do.

And they found that one of the most common names for boys was, apparently, Mohammed. *Shrug* Frankly I’m rather more disturbed by how “Oliver” and variations are becoming popular. Oliver? Really people, really?

Predictably the usual suspects are having the screaming meemies. The Daily Mail paused in their eternal quest to divide all the world’s substances into “things that cause cancer” and “things that cure cancer” to thoroughly lose their shit (I’m always amazed that the Daily Mail can completely lose their shit on a weekly basis, yet you open the paper and behold, there’s still a monumental amount of shit left) followed by the Torygraph running around with their hair on fire because ZOMG TEH MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER!

Right, some things to address here:

Firstly, as said extremely well here the methodology the usual suspects are basing their panic on is flawed in the extreme

But also, as touched on, let’s consider the name. It is an extremely popular name in the Muslim community, people have said that it’s traditional to name your first son that – I don’t know how true that is, but it’s certainly true that it is an extremely popular cultural name

Right, now try to think of an extremely popular traditional “British” name (ugh, as if Mohammed were somehow less British). I’m guessing most people instantly thought of something laughably outdated like “Henry” or “Albert.” There are some names that survive the test of time like James and Paul and Peter and Jack and Michael and Richard and – apparently, George and Oliver (really. Oliver. Oliver, people? George was bad enough – but Oliver?) but those names also have the rider of being considered “dull.”

In fact, dull seems to be something desperately avoided by many a new parent. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if we’re playing name-scrabble and seeing who can manage the most points with a treble word score if you manage to squeeze a “y” and a “k” into the name. Occasionally we’ll also get odd fashions that burn for a year or 2 then fall out quickly (there was a celtic name one recently – you couldn’t throw a rock without hitting a Rhys – or Reese, Reece, Rhyes, evena Rice at one time)

And I’m not saying this out of contempt or disapproval for these names (well, except Oliver. Really? Oliver? What were you thinking?) and I have nothing against little Ember Starsurge Mykynzie (vowels are so last century) Sparkletoes – but what I am saying is we’re dealing with 2 different trends with names.

One of which highlights and emphasises a traditional and highly respected name and uses it repeatedly – causing it to appear often (and this is by no means limited to Muslims, when visiting Portugal I was surprised to find whole villages that seemed to have 6 names repeated over and over and made heavy use of nicknames to differentiate)
And the other of which seeks “unique” names and will, inherently, avoid repetition of common, cultural or trend names.

Or, to put it another way – the number of kids named “Mohammed” in the country means sweet bugger all.

And really – this whole panic? Very unseemly to say the least. The desperate terror of the Muslims taking over is sickening to watch and, frankly, embarrassing. Yes, there are Muslims in the country. Deal with it – because this hair-on-fire Islamaphobia (and, let’s face it, racism – because you know they’re not picturing white people when they think of Muslims) is nauseating.

Now, certain people in the big wide world that is livejournal have protested mightily about silencing.

Silencing is a problem. Silencing is a major power in this world. Silencing is the cause of many injustices. Silencing ensures that the privileged and powerful never get countered. It ensures that the privileged message, the status quo, is not challenged or overturned. It ensures that those speaking up against injustice are dismissed and demeaned. They are loud or noisy or angry or unfair or selfish whiners or impatient or unrealistic or playing a card or enjoying playing the victim or trying to claim an unfair advantage or any number of the billions of other silencing techniques we know and loathe.

But ultimately, it allows the dominant message to stand, the privileged viewpoint to stand, while the marginalised who are hurt by it swallow their pain and stay silent.

We live in a world where, sadly, prejudices and isms are pervasive elements of society. Our society is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist and many other ists that I am sure I can’t even begin to comprehend from my place of privilege, let alone adequately surmise. This is simple reality. Our world elevates some bodies and marginalises others. Our world, our culture, our media, our politics attack, demean and marginalised some people every single day. They are disadvantages, they are neglected, they are rendered invisible, they are stereotyped, they are attacked and they are demeaned every day.

This is silencing. This is the legacy of silencing. This is the power of silencing, the context of it, the pain of it.

Nearly all of us have some kind of privilege. Yes, we do. Unless you are Dora the black, jewish, trans, poor, immigrant, disabled, elderly, lower class lesbian, then you have privilege. And I imagine Dora has privilege as well, since there’s no way I am aware of every marginalisation in the world.

And when you have privilege, you have a high chance of messing up. Privilege comes with ignorance, it is part of the nature of being privileged. And there is a good chance you will hurt someone or contribute to a situation that does hurt the marginalised.

Which is why I think we have a duty.

We have a duty to make sure our privileges hurt others as little as possible.

We have a duty to educate ourselves so that we can avoid ignorant, foolish actions and words that hurt people.

We have a duty to listen to marginalised people when we do hurt them, to apologise and make that hurt right insofar as we are able, and to learn from what they say. Their words are a gift – they do not owe you an education, they do not owe you an explanation. If you have just said a lot of privileged, painful crap, they don’t owe you anything except a slap upside the head.

When you, in privilege, in ignorance, in cluelessness, in foolishness and, frankly, out of out and out prejudice, say or do something that hurts or harms marginalised people and they protest, you are not being silenced.

When you hurt them and they turn and express their anger at that pain, they are not silencing you.

When you fear you can’t write a story that is racist because people of colour will protest angrily at the racism, you are not being silenced.

If you think that people who write racist items are shamed by protests and criticism, then that is also not silencing.

You cannot stand on someone’s foot then yell “stop silencing me!” when they demand you move.

There is certainly silencing happening there – but it’s not from the marginalised. The marginalised rarely have the power, the societal position, the privilege to silence anyone – certainly not when it is their marginalisation that is the focus.

To call marginalised people protesting against “isms” silencing shows a gross ignorance of context. Could they be nicer about it? Are they being mean and harsh? Are they dog piling? Probably because they have had this conversation before and are sick of it. Probably because you have HURT THEM Probably because you have hurt them in a way that has hurt them over and over again, countless times before. Probably because they’re sore and wounded and hurting already and you’ve come by to add yet more pain to the load. Probably because this whole society hurts them and demands they shut up and smile about it.

We live in a world that constantly tells marginalised people to shut up, in a world that constantly causes pain AND demands silence from those who are hurt. When you cause pain then complain about the protests from the marginalised, then YOU are not the one being silenced.

Let us be clear here. When you are promoting, espousing or furthering the privileged viewpoint of racism (or any other ism for that matter), a viewpoint and context that is already howled from the rooftops at deafening decibels, I might add, then you are NOT being silenced when you are criticised. Your message is the dominant one, all the power in the world seems unable to silence it, more’s the pity.

And to further note – yes there are many books and media that have moved society forwards by challenging societal and media norms. They have been transgressive, they have been heavily criticised by those seeking to support the status quo, they have cause apoplexy in the powers that be that protest in fury about challenges to the social order.

Racism – or any prejudice for that matter – is not transgressive. That is the world we live in, now. Supporting a marginalisation is not transgressive, it’s not pushing society forwards, it’s not introducing ground breaking concepts. It’s supporting the same dark stains that already blight our society, it’s not moving forward, it’s decidedly standing STILL – or moving backwards. Do not insult these books that tried to push society forwards by presuming to compare them with retrograde, racist tales.

Looking at the Tea party movement in America (they actually tried to set up a branch over here but kind of fell apart. Partially because a group named after the Boston Teaparty wasn’t exactly going to be popular among British conservatives, but mainly because if you organise a tea party in Britain then people expect a cuppa damn it! Holding a tea party without tea is definitely blasphemy and they were roundly tutted and ‘I sayed’ out of the country).

The teaparty movement is made up of lots of people with teabags who want to teabag politicians and teabag taxes and teaba- *snerk* damn it, Americans, couldn’t your extremists have picked a slightly LESS ridiculous name? It’s nearly impossible to take them seriously like this!

Anyway, the organisation appears to be against taxes (in general and total it seems… yeah, that’ll work), against healthcare (even when needing it themselves, ahhh ignorance), anti-communism (oh please, the red scare is SOOOO last century! Get with the new paranoid hatred already), pro guns (I wouldn‘t trust these guys with a letter opener, personally), pro Palin (and if nothing else was indicative of severe problems then this certainly is) and pro traditional values, whatever those mean.

Well they had a rally in DC where, among with several rather… reality disconnected statements, they called black politicians n*gger and gay politicians f*ggot and spit on a black politician.

Sing it with me: “I see your true colours, shining through…”

To say this is horrendous and disgustingly offensive is, of course, an understatement. It’s even kind of shocking – not that such sentiments are surprising but because they’re willing to voice such hatred in such a blatantly open fashion. If there were any sense of reality or equality then these people would be shunned, the parties would flinch away from being associated with them and only “teabaggers” that avidly repudiated such vileness would be given a shred of credibility by the media or political parties. This should be the death knell of the movement as a serious political force – at least insofar as respect from the legitimate people in power is concerned.

Because this shit is not ok. It’s not legitimate. It’s not reasonable. It’s not acceptable. And any media presenter or politician that treats it and them as any of these things is worrisome in the extreme – not just for themselves but as an indication as to the state of American politics.

(And don’t give me any bullshit freedom of speech argument. Freedom of speech means getting to say whatever the hell you want – not that political parties and media outlets need to treat your ravings as rational, sensible, relevant or even remotely acceptable).

Sadly, I don’t think this hatred will be treated with the contempt it deserves… I hope for it – but I don’t expect it. And that is worrying.

I’ve been following a few blogs and something has hit me in the face with sheer obviousness which really really really should be a no brainer for all - but every year it happens.

Racist costumes. Really really offensive, insensitive and down right ridiculous costumes. Every shop has them this time of year - you can be a Mexican bandito! A Japanese Geisha (or Ninja or Samurai)! A Native American brave/squaw/princess. Never mind that they’re grossly inaccurate stereotypes. Never mind that their portrayals are ridiculously offensive. It’s Hallowe’en, why shouldn’t you appropriate the culture and identity of often marginalised people?

Frankly, it reeks of white privilege. To take someone’s identity, someone’s culture and turn it into a hollow, fake costume for shits and giggles is so self absorbed that it should be stunning if it weren’t so typical. Really, would people blackface for Hallowe’en (actually, don’t answer that, because I’m pretty sure some ignorant, self-centred fools would and those “Tighty Whitey” costumes come damned close)? Scrap that, apparent;y people WOULD blackface for Hallowe’en. *headdesk*

Get a clue. Go dress up as an elf or superhero or playboy bunny (though, again, there’s another rant about how 90% of every costume for women out there can be summed up as “stripper-dressed-as” which is fine if they want to dress so - but where’s the choice?), go dress up as Nixon or Blair or your favourite cartoon character. But don’t appropriate, diminish and assume the identity of a culture or people for a night of lols. Really.

Some other people talking about the same thing. Clicky and see, some of these costumes boggle me in their vileness. (ETA: Oh look a blackface costume. Ye gods.)
http://whebrhotub.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-identity-is-not-costume-for-you-to.html
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/10/29/racist-halloween-costumes/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114199552&sc=emaf
http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/politically-incorrect-halloween-costumes/
(Oh dear gods. Hitler, KKK, blackface, Illegal Alien, 9/11, Wigger, Gaylien? WHAT THE HELL WORLD?)
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/18/us-immigration-enforcement-finally-preaches-what-it-practices/
http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/10/suddenly-get-interested-in-non-white.html
http://www.racewire.org/archives/2008/10/before_you_wear_that_racist_ha_1.html
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/28/how-to-inform-a-friend-their-halloween-costume-is-racist/
http://www.parentdish.com/2006/10/23/outrageous-halloween-costumes-arab-suicide-bomber/

Along comes someone who leaves you positively stunned by the extent of their sanity - or lack thereof

http://news.aol.com/article/interracial-couple-denied-marriage/719806

(In)Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell of Lousiana has just denied a marriage license. Why?

Because the couple is interracial. Yes, he actually denied the marriage license of a couple because one is black and one is white. No, this isn't a dusty old article from the 50s and 60s. This is 2009. Keith Bardwell, however, may have been preserved in a time capsule in a previously unknown method - however one thinks if one were to preserve someone for future generations one could do a damn sight better than this racist waste of skin.

His excuse is some vague rambling about children. I can't say I read in detail because my brain keeps scremaing "YOU ARE FUCKING KIDDING?!" every time I read a quote from him - and you KNOW when the right wingers start screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" in Helen Lovejoy like fashion that there's absolutely no point in continuing reading

He claims he isn't racist. Uh-huh, you're not only racist, Bardwell, but you're a pretty damn good poster child for racism. In a pictorial edition of the dictionery his face would be suitably placed next to the entry for racist. (Other good places would be "fossil" "relic" and "unbelievable bigot who should be hit with fish")

He also claims he has black friends. Piles of them in fact (piles? What does he stack them in a storage closet for when he needs an anti-racism defence?). He even let's them use the bathroom! (Wow, this is presented as an example of anti-racism? REALLY?). Isn't it amazing how all these racists have legions of black friends? You'd think that this excuse would have died long ago as pretty pathetic and useless (but, then again, we're talking someone who is against interracial marriage so I suppose even the tiniest amount of awareness is beyond him). If you are one of his many many black friends, and assuming you aren't imaginary (possibly due to the copious amounts of LSD Bardwell must be consuming on a regular basis) could we send you some heavy objects for you to beat him about the head with?

I wasn’t going to mention the case of Dave Burk, an arsehole teacher of Consumer Education (as an aside... consumer education? What?) who spouted homophobic drivel in his class. After all, if I scouted the world for homophobic arseholes my blood pressure would go through the roof and I’d have little time for little else.

But his case does highlight something. Now, this arsehole asked - in multiples lessons it seems - "How would you feel about your tax dollars going to pay some black fag in New York to take pictures of other black fags?" Yeah he’s a special kind of repellent that guy. One of his students, an openly gay man, objected.

Yeah he’s an arsehole, but there are 3 things that struck me about this that I feel the need to ramble about

Didn’t mean to cause offence - ignorance
One of the things he has said in the fallout is that he didn’t intentionally offend anyone. Now, I can think of only 2 excuses for how you can possible say such drivel and NOT intentionally offend someone. The first is ignorance.

Ignorance is a tricky thing. I’ve said before that those who do not share a marginalisation may not realise when a thing that is said is prejudice and offensive (which is why I’ve said it’s bloody stupid to tell a marginalised person what they should and shouldn’t be offended by) and it follows that occasionally, even with the best will in the world, if you are privileged you will occasionally insert foot into mouth and wonder why various marginalised people around you are looking at you like you’ve just violated a small goat. It happens. Usually it’s a matter of how graciously you recover from these little errors that counts.

However, ignorance is not a blanket excuse. And I call bullshit that ANYONE in the western world, with English as a first language who has not been living in cave somewhere can possibly not realise that “fag” is offensive when used to refer to a homosexual. I call bullshit on anyone believing that saying money going to black and/or gay people is somehow worse than giving it to straight and/or white people is not offensive. This ignorance is inexcusable. It is either a lie and should not be accepted or evcidence of such utter contempt and disrespect to both gay and black people that offending them in a blatantly offensive manner doesn’t even register in his mind. Both are inexcusable.

Ignorance can be an excuse - but when it is this extreme then the ignorance is either willful or a lie. Either way, inexcusable, unsupportable and fully worthy of condemnation.

Didn’t mean to cause offence - audience
The only other way I can see him assuming he wouldn’t cause offence with his vile statements is he assumed his audience wouldn’t care. Because if you know that your words are offensive and say them thinking no-one will be offended then the only way you can do that is if you think your audience ISN’T of the targeted group and/or doesn’t give a damn about the targeted group.

Which brings me to another point - homophobia, racism, sexism et al won’t disappear if the privileged only scrape their tongues clean when they think the marginalised are listening. If straight people are merrily spouting homophobic bullshit when the GBLT folk aren’t around then little progress can be made. If white people feel that all those racist slurs are perfectly acceptable so long as no PoC are around, then we have precious little chance of working against racism.

These terms are offensive - and they should offend all people, not just the people they target. These terms show that the speaker is a bigot who views section of humanity with withering contempt. That should be offensive to everyone, not just the victims.

More, everyone who hears those words and stays silent because it’s not about them are sending the message that such attitude and language is ok. It’s ok to be homophobic, no-one really cares so long as there are no sensitive gay people around. It’s ok to be racist, we’re happy with racism, so long as there are no PoC to get huffy about it. Sexism is fine, so long as there are no over-sensitive women around we’re happy with sexism.

It’s not ok. It’s not right. It’s not acceptable. And if we‘re sending that message, we have to stop. We have to say “that’s not right” “that’s not funny” and even “you’re an arsehole” when we hear such filth spouted even when it is not aimed at us. Because if we don’t we’re saying “we accept this” and if we accept it, we’re part of the problem.

And finally - the response
The school has made a decision how to deal with Dave Burk. He has been warned.

No, I didn’t forget to keep typing that sentence (I know, I do that too often). That’s it. He has been warned. He’s a naughty boy and they told him that. Bad bigot. He may even have been denied a cookie but probably wasn’t send to bed with no supper.

He has been warned.

This is problematic. This is exactly the same point I made with the audience. If we give the message that bigotry is acceptable, to be taken lightly, a minor nuisance at worst then we will make no inroads against it. What message has been said by the school here? What have they told their students? That flagrant bigotry is a minor problem? Probably less serious than running through the corridors? That dehumanising and denigrating your fellow human beings is barely worthy of comment and certainly not worthy of action? That vile hate speech is treated as less serious than, say, smoking behind the bike sheds?

And what have they said to the GBLT students and the black students? Yes, a teacher treated you as if you had less worth than straight/white students and the school’s pretty ok with that? The school is happy with prejudice against you. The school thinks prejudice against you isn’t particularly a problem. The school is TEACHING that BIGOTRY isn’t worth acting on, that it’s minor, that devaluing marginalised bodies isn’t all that bad.

Yeah, that’s messed up. That’s a horrendous message to send and a gross indictment of the school. Again, if we want to oppose bigotry, if we want to fight against it, we have to treat it as the serious blight it is. No brushing it under the rug, no dismissing it, no ignoring the hurt and pain and damage it causes.

Bigotry is not trivial. If you treat it as such, you are part of the problem.

Hyperbole is a common tool, I use and abuse it myself. It can be extremely effective - it can also be extremely silly (Godwin‘s anyone?).

But, hyperbole can be extremely offensive.

When you use hyperbole to compare relatively trivial acts to things that are grossly offensive or horrific or vastly awful then you are disrespecting, devaluing and diminishing the terrible things that have happened. It is offensive and grossly inappropriate to use such terrible times and events as a rhetorical tool. And it is grossly offensive to compare whatever petty concern is hurting your precious fee-fees with very real, very terrible trauma.

And we see it a lot. During Lamda fail there was no small number of desperately upset people comparing the awards to Pink Triangles and racial Segregation. It was one of the main reasons I was roused to dive into that battle.

In WoW communities I see people compare having their account hacked to domestic violence or being raped.

Such exaggeration is not only silly, but it disrespects real victims. When you compare a game to rape, you are disrespecting and devaluing rape victims. When you compare an award to segregation, you are devaluing and diminishing the evil of segregation, the impact it has and the impact it is still having. When you compare just about anything to the holocaust you need slapping repeatedly until some senses are beaten into your thick skull.

More, it is often a sign of extreme privilege and prejudice. It is a sign of being extremely glutted on white privilege that you would presume to appropriate the evil of segregation for your own self-serving ends. It is a sign of arrogant disregard, selfishness and even misogyny that people would trivialise a rape victim’s experience in order to garner sympathy over their game. There is, to me, a very clear hand of prejudice in that people are willing to diminish these horrors so completely for their own use.

And now we have a very good example of this. <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/tourism/ci_13552589”>LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks has compared gay anger towards the Church of Latter Day Saints to the treatment of blacks during the civil rights movement.</a> Yeah. Um. Wow. No. Really. No. As the article says, people are not impressed by the comparison. number of LDS members lynched by GBLT people? That would be none. Churches blown up? Why, that would be none too. Really, this comment is so full of fail I am almost in awe. It fails for its blatant homophobia and attempted silence of gay people. It fails for its deception and attempt to cast the victims as aggressors. It fails because of the utter racism and white privilege involved in daring to appropriate not just not suffering and victimisation inflicted on black people at that time, but also for appropriating the courage and the hard work of the civil rights activists that kept on fighting. And it fails because the people of the LDS church - the people, not the leaders or the organisation - do not deserve a homophobic, racist arsehole like this to speak for them.

I’ve spoken about criticisng respectfully as an outsider but now I’m going to ramble on about the unpleasant habit some people have of using criticism as a method to express their prejudice (hence the need for the former post)

Recently there have been a few cases of marginalised people doing stupid and naughty things. Kanye West at the Music Video Awards, Serena Williams having a tantrum with a ref and, in the more distant past (though updated with near weekly fails) there is Perez Hilton, well, Perez Hilton just about every time he’s opened his mouth. Included here for completeness and general overview (and because of point 6 which I risked doing exactly what I was cautioning against)

All of these people have been, rightly, criticised for less than acceptable behaviour. No problems there - all of these people have done things severely worthy of criticism. And then there’s a criticism that makes you want to headdesk - where people are basically treating it as an excuse to let that bigotry hang free. (actually 2 others have said it better than I, Womanist Musings and Transgriot but I like to spread in more general terms than specifics.

So let’s look at some bad criticism and Sparky’s guide to why it fails.

1) Any and all uses of bigoted language.

Why it Fails
Do I even need to say this? Kanye West was an arsehole, a brat, a selfish prat and many other things. Accurate, if crude, descriptors all. The N-word? REALLY unnecessary and unless he’s started eating small children while I wasn’t looking, makes the “critic” (racist arsehole would be a better term) look waaaay worse than he ever was. Criticism is legitimate. Using it to pull out the inner bigot isn’t.

2) “Serena Williams’ unprecedented rampage... wild... savage...”

Why it fails
Excessive hyperbole. Serena Williams is not the first sports person to throw all her toys out the pram because a ref decision went against her. Footballers do it on a near weekly basis. John McEnroe had a whole marketing persona based on him spitting his dummy out and breaking tennis rackets.

Basically - it is no more unacceptable for a marginalised person to lose their temper/say something stupid/whatever than it is for a non-marginalised person. If the white guy doing it would only earn a tut and a headshake from you, then the black woman doing it shouldn’t earn your outraged and furious condemnation.

3) “I never ever comment on sports usually - but...”

Why it fails
Well, why are you mentioning it now? Hundreds of sports personalities have arguments with refs, umpires et al. Millions of gossip columnists say shit that is awful - and that you routinely ignore.

I’m not saying don’t criticise. I’m asking you to examine WHY you’re criticising. IF behaviour is worthy of criticism and IF you would NORMALLY comment then go right ahead. But if you completely ignore it when a white person does it, then commenting on it when a black person does it looks bad. To repeat again - I had a colleague who loved to tell me all the details of any and all incidents of crime committed by immigrants he could find. He never said anything inaccurate - but he never spoke about crime UNLESS it was committed by an immigrant. I think it’s pretty clear why.

4) “Kanye West, a black entertainer...” “Serena Williams, a black sportswoman...” “Gay gossip columnist, Perez Hilton...”

Why it fails
If you were talking about Eminem saying something stupid - you wouldn’t identify him as the “white straight entertainer.” There’d be no need - his race and sexuality would be deemed to be a) obvious and b) irrelevant. It is equally true when the fool in question belongs to a marginalised group. Why are you emphasising or reminding people of their race/sexuality etc? Why are you acting like it’s relevant?

5) “Kanye West shows what is wrong with the black...” “Perez Hilton again shows the sexism/racism of the GBLT community”

Why it fails
When black people get together, put a crown on Mr. West’s head and announce him their supreme leader, I’m sure they’ll send us a memo. Until then his actions and speech reflects himself and ONLY himself. When the Gay Mafia appoints Perez Hilton as Commander in Chief of our marriage and morality destroying armies then we will let you know. Until then he is not a spokesperson, avatar or poster child for the GBLTI movement or any part of it.

If you have a legitimate, sensible criticism about a community or movement, then go for it - respectfully. But don’t pluck out the bad actions of one person and decide that this is somehow indicative of absolutely everyone within the group.

6) “Perez Hilton is a disgrace to GBLT people.” (NB: this is kind of why I inserted Perez in here, to prevent me violating my own caution against presumption)

Why this fails
Fail 1 If you are NOT part of the marginalised group in question (in this case, if you are not GBLT) then it’s presumptuous in the extreme to dictate who is and isn’t a fit representative of that group. Sure, he’s an idiot beyond all measure - but it’s not your place to say it or to choose which GBLT people are appropriate “spokespeople” or not (aside: In my view no-one is or everyone is). We don’t need or want you policing us or playing “good minority/bad minority”

Fail 2 If you ARE part of the marginalised group then STOP PLAYING THIS GAME. You are feeding the idiots at no. 5. The correct answer isn’t to say “Perez Hilton is a disgrace to all GBLT people” but to say “the man’s an arsehole - his sexuality is irrelevent.” He doesn’t disgrace me. He doesn’t shame me. I have no duty to apologise for him nor do I have any sense of collective responsibility or blame for what he’s done. He is not my friend or family. I have no power over his actions and no influence over them.

It is deeply homophobic to judge me or other GBLT people on the basis of what he has done/said. We do not have a duty to denounce him, we do not have a duty to apologise for him. We need to fight against the idea that all homosexuals should be collectively punished for the act of one - not feed into it.

There is nothing wrong with criticism. And when people have decoded to show their arses and arseholery there’s absolutely nothing wrong with calling them out or expressing your anger, disappointment or disapproval. But the how you express it - and the WHY. Well that needs examining. Because no amount of arsholery justifies bigotry

I’ve been reading a few blogs, thoughts and damn good rants on and around the subject of intersectionality. This basically touches on people who belong to several groups that face oppression or prejudice (for example: a black woman, or a differently abled homosexual) and there are so many big topics here that I could spend hours talking about it (from the oppression Olympics to the “dilution” argument, to under representation - gods it could take days and most of it has been said before and better - though I may visit them in the future.)

But there’s one point that strikes me most about it which I do firmly believe in. We’re all fighting the same battle.

Oh details vary, reasons vary, individual concerns vary, history most certainly varies. There’s a lot of variation here that we shouldn’t dismiss. But in the end there’s one unifying message:

People shouldn’t be ‘othered,’ devalued or treated as lesser be that through great big violent oppression and hate or small, subtle but prevalent societal assumptions and pressures.

That is the core. That is the foundation. This is the root of all our movements for freedom and justice. The ‘othered’ should not be disadvantaged by the dominant privilege and should enjoy the same rights, freedoms, opportunities, respect, position and advantages as they do.

To me, this means every victory is a universal one. Every battle against racism won, is a victory for gays, women, the differently abled, minority religions et al not just for people of colour. Every battle won against homophobia is a victory for all of us. Every battle won against transphobia won is a victory for all of us. Every battle against sexism won is a victory for all of us.

Similarly, it means that every incidence of sexism, ableism, racism, homophobia et al is an attack on ALL of us. In every instance the message is being sent that it is ok to treat people as less for being ’other’ in every instance it is saying that the privileged group deserve their privilege and others deserve to be treated as less. Even if we ARE privileged in that specific instance, it is still an attack on us if we allow any ‘othered’ group to be treated as less. We have a stake in that fight and we have a duty - not just from human decency - but from sheer self-interest to fight against that prejudice.

It also means that if an ‘othered’ person does something or says something sexist/racist/etc then they are hurting themselves.

The message is Prejudice is Wrong. You can’t say “some is wrong” or “it’s wrong when used against me” or “this prejudice is ok but prejudice against me isn’t” it doesn’t work that way. When you are prejudiced or allow prejudice to go unchallenged - even if you don’t perceive it as your fight - then you are giving a license to be prejudiced - you are allowing the idea that prejudice isn’t necessarily bad. That’s a message none of us can afford to send.

In practical terms what does this mean to me?
1) Even if a prejudice doesn’t touch me - I have a duty to fight it. The fight against sexism, racism et al may not be directly my fight, but in a wider sense they are. If I allow racism, sexism etc then I weaken the fight against homophobia

2) I have a duty to be an ally. That means being informed. That means being educated. That means not being a burden. That means not being a source of headaches. That means understanding what THEY need not what I THINK they should need.

3) All issues should be aired. I should not allow any ‘othered’ people to be silenced. I should respect platforms for them to air their views and battles. I should listen. I should not allow any ‘othered’ groups to be marginalised, their issues brushed aside or ignored - even if in doing so it would garner more attention to MY issue

4) I should acknowledge my privileges - because ignoring them annoys - and try to think past and beyond them and not use them to oppress. I should do all I can not to be part of the problem

5) I should never ever ever ever ever condone the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics that have been used so successfully before. We’re in the same fight - we can’t throw our allies under the bus if it will get us ahead.

Othering, prejudice, bigotry is wrong. Always. Allowing it in any instance opens the door for it to be allowed anywhere. If we recognise this we are much much stronger

Spark In Darkness

The Cabinet reshuffle - More Bigots in Power: Equality Minister and Justice Minister

Fictional Marginalised Oppressors: the new fad

Persecution - that word doesn't mean what you think it means

The difference between bad things happening and being marginalised

Privilege, Marginalisations - and which one's appropriate

Kicking victims for the sake of bigotry

On diversity and the judiciary

Cutting "red tape" apparently includes Equalities legislation

On Martin Luther King, the message and heroes

Mohammeds everywhere!

A note on Silencing

I see your true colours shining through…

A word on Hallowe’en

And when you think you've reached a new record for fail...

Accepting bigotry - Ignorance, Audience and Messages

When hyperbole is offensive

Legitimate Criticism is not an acceptable Doorway for Bigotry

Intersectionality - and how we’re all fighting the same fight

Profile

April 2015

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags