Sotomayor, white men, and identity politics

In the past few weeks, we’ve all been inundated with news about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court and now well-known 2001 speech at Berkeley Law. 

All of the major media outlets and political talk shows, including this morning’s Meet the Press and State of the Union, have taken this on as one of their primary topics.  In fact, they’ve replaced coverage of their favorite national security issue with policymakers, pundits, and regular folks debating back and forth about whether or not Sotomayor is a “good pick” for Supreme Court Justice. 

It is, however, understandable why Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court has captured the nation’s political imagination!  President Obama has just nominated the first Latina woman to serve on the highest court of the land!  Sotomayor’s nomination represents the hopes and dreams of so many who have fought for or otherwise believe in gender equality and racial justice—of those who believe in the representation and full, meaningful engagement of women and people of color in all aspects of this country’s leadership. 

But I also don’t have to tell you that Sotomayor’s nomination represents some folks’ worst nightmare!  I can just hear it now: “Wasn’t electing a Black President enough?”  “What happened to the ‘post-racial’ Obama (if you’ve been reading between the lines of his speeches, you know that he never existed to begin with!)?” “What is this? A Black and Brown takeover?”

Fear of gender and racial justice has stirred many conservatives to their core…leading de facto party leaders such as Rush Limbaugh to call Sotomayor a racist.  Or rather, excuse me, a “reverse racist”—whatever that means given that the very definition of racism involves a dominant or hegemonic racial group exercising social, economic, and political power over another based on some socially and historically constructed definition of “race,” which the dominant group holds near and dear to its heart because of the privileges that it confers upon its members. 

An important focal point of these conversations has been whether or not Sotomayor’s statement that her identity as a Latina woman shapes her judicial judgment makes her unfit to serve on the Court. We’ve heard all sorts of accusations that Sotomayor is playing “identity politics”—which is of course, completely unacceptable given that the playing field is entirely level  for everyone in this country and that struggles for gender and racial justice are oh so passé!  

Wherever you stand on the issue, whatever “identity politics” means to you, and regardless of whether or not you like or agree with the use of the term, I’m sure you can appreciate how ironic it is that accusations of “playing identity politics” only come up when we’re talking about women or people of color or both, but never when we’re talking about white men. 

Is being a man not a gender identity? 

Is being white not a racial identity?

The way that the debate has been unfolding, you would think not! 

In fact, the only people whom I’ve heard throw around this accusation of “identity politicking” are white men.  The white women, women of color, and men of color who have appeared on political talk shows have all acknowledged and reaffirmed the inevitable truth that one’s life experiences, which in turn affect one’s professional judgment and interpretation of seemingly objective aspects of social life such as the law, are shaped by one’s gender and race/ethnicity.  Is this really surprising given that where you stand in the social hierarchy—which is based on not only your gender and race/ethnicity, but also socioeconomic position, sexual orientation, and immigrant status (among others)—affects the types of social, economic, and political opportunities that you are not only exposed to but afforded? 

The conversations surrounding the Sotomayor nomination have made it crystal clear that white men constitute the “baseline,” “standard,” or “normative” identity in this country—a kind of apolitical hegemonic identity-less identity, if you will—that is thus above any kind of “identity politics.”  Anyone who somehow deviates from this norm—and dares to bring it up in the context of social or political life—is a whiner or agitator.  Never mind that being a white man is attached to social, economic, and political power and that this power has been secured through violence (physical, economic, sexual, cultural, structural, and symbolic) against other social groups.  And never mind that being the hegemonic social identity is a source of power in and of itself.  It’s the norm and therefore beyond any scrutiny.  

In his book entitled “The Gendered Society,” Michael S. Kimmel (2000, p. 7) states: “Sometimes, I like to think that it was on this day that I became a middle-class white man. Sure, I had been all those before, but they had not meant much to me.  Until then, I had thought myself generic, universally generalizable.  Since then, I ‘ve begun to understand that race, class, and gender don’t refer only to other people, who are marginalized by race, class, or gender privivlege.  Those terms also describe me.  I enjoyed the privilege of invisibility.”  He goes on to note: “Invisibility is a privilege in another sense—as a luxury. Only white people in our society have the luxury not to think about race every minute of their lives.  And only men have the luxury to pretend that gender does not matter.” 

The reality is that no decision is ever devoid of “identity politics.”  You could easily see how having all white men on the Supreme Court could also constitute “identity politics.”  Having all white men on the Board of a major financial institution?  Easily “identity politics” as well!  Even if they are not blatantly made on race or gender (although many still are), these are political decisions made on factors such as level of experience, level of education, socioeconomic status (including occupation and social prestige)—all of which are shaped by one’s social position.  And, you guessed it, one’s social position is influenced by one’s identity—or rather, I should say, the value that our society has assigned to that particular identity.

“Identity politics” just seem more covert, less obvious, and even non-existent when white men are appointed to positions of power.  Afterall, these are the images that have dominated our social, economic, and political landscape throughout history.  It’s just business as usal.

So because people like Sonia Sotomayor, who deviate from the “normative white male identity,” are challenging the baseline assumptions of who can be in a leadership position—while noting their gender and race/ethnicity in the process—they’re playing identity politics? 

What they’re really doing is pointing out who’s been dominating the game all along.

 m.

“American Gangster”: A Glimpse into the Making and Unmaking of an “American Dream”

Being a truly devoted Denzel fan (I forgave him for Inside Man and Man on Fire a long time ago…), I pre-ordered tickets to see American Gangster on its opening night.   The movie lived up to the hype, with an all-star cast consisting of Denzel Washington,  Russell Crowe, RZA, Common, and, last but not least, T.I.  The characters were well-developed; the plot was intriguing; the acting was flawless; and the supsense was high.  You get the idea: the movie was a hit.

But more than just being a blockbuster, American Gangster was a sociological inquiry into one of American society’s most hegemonic values: the American Dream.  The concept of the American Dream dates back to the 16th century.  Since then, it has been publicly and actively endorsed by prominent historical figures  ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Franklin; politicians, including Alberto Gonzales and W. ; and a number of celebrities, such as Diddy and Britney (remember their “I Am the American Dream”  shirts?). 

At first, the American Dream was used to bring English settlers to America, which was depicted as the land of abundance, opportunity, and freedom.  Throughout history and in the present-day, the American Dream has relentlessly promoted the idea that “hard work,” self-reliance (read, rugged individualism), and one’s innate abilities will lead to prosperity and financial success and in turn, in the context of capitalism, happiness and freedom.   

The American Dream has also been used to keep people ”in line” and keep potential “agitators” ”in their place.”  For example, false promises of success and equality for all, were used to lure Civil Rights activits towards civil obedience  and mitigate a movement that could have lead to an overhaul of an entire system of social, political, and economic oppression.  However, as history has shown with both Dr. King and Malcolm X, when people challenge the American Dream and its mythical premise, they often end up dead. 

The American Dream is not just a myth.  It is a form of social control used by those in power to ensure that we all–especially the most “threatening” of us–are kept ”in check.”  The American Dream is a powerful force that has been used time and time again to distract us from the reality that profound (and increasing) social inequalities exist in American society, which prevent most of us from achieving prosperity and economic security.

But we all buy into it.  Afterall, who doesn’t want freedom, equality, and success?

Frank Lucas, played by Denzel, was no exception.  Lucas, who was born in North Carolina in 1930, is often described as a drug lord and the orchestrator behind the epidemic sale of heroin in Harlem during the 1960s and 70s.  But he was much more than that. 

He was a calculating and confident, yet desperate and tragic, man. 

Like many of us then and now, Lucas was just trying to get a piece of the pie.    Lucas was a brilliant strategist and businessman who used his innate capabilities and worked hard to achieve prosperity for himself, his family, and friends. 

Isn’t that what the American Dream is all about? 

Isn ‘t that what the American Dream wants for all of us?

Well, not quite.  See, Lucas was Black.  Black people were never supposed to actually achieve the American Dream.  While the powers that be are content with letting Blacks think that someday we will be succesful and prosperous (i.e., as a form of social control)–this was never supposed to happen.  Blacks achieving prosperity and success (as a group, not as individuals) would upset the “natural order of things.”  Just like the movie pointed out, Blacks were never supposed to outdo the Italian mafia.  The world is just not supposed to work that way. 

In the case of Frank Lucas, it did–at least for a little while.  But at what cost? In order to achieve the American Dream, Lucas exploited an entire group of people to which he belonged, an entire community of people that he was a part of.  

In many ways, Lucas had no choice.  Faced with the reality of racial inequality and restricted economic opportunities, Lucas saw selling heroin in Harlem as his only way “out” of economic insecurity and towards the promise of the American Dream.  The American Dream left him with no other choice but to exploit his own community to achieve its promise. 

Herein lies the tragedy of Frank Lucas. 

And herein lies the tragedy of the American Dream for those who are not born with power, prestige, money, wealth, and beneficial social and economic networks.  Every day of our lives, we are encouraged to “work hard” in order to “make it” in this world.  But what happens when your hard work doesn’t pay? What happens when hard work hasn’t payed for generations and generations of people like you?  Some people give up.  Others keep on keeping on with the hope that it will get better someday–if not on earth, then somewhere up there.   And others, like Frank Lucas, look for a loophole. 

Lucas realized that the American Dream was never meant to be for him, but he decided to take it by any means necessary.

 Except, those aren’t the rules of the game.  Selling heroin doesn’t count as hard work.  Even when it is the only option you have.  But again, the American Dream was never meant for people like Frank Lucas to achieve. 

And when a game isn’t meant for you, what other option do you have but to make up your own rules?

This is probably why I, and many others, left the theater feeling admiration and empathy for Frank Lucas.  He was just another Black man in America trying to get what is constantly being dangled in his face, but has a big red warning sign that reads “Sorry, not for you” on it.  He did what he had to do to rise to the top in a country that spits on the very ground he walks on.

But I also felt sorrow and pain.  How could Lucas do that to his own community? How could he exploit his own people to achieve the American Dream?

We have to create a better way. 

m.

Genarlow Wilson is free!

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that Genarlow Wilson’s sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. This comes after he served two years of a ten year sentence for, at the age of 17, engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.

Here we have it: Yet another case that exemplifies how unjust our criminal justice system truly is, especially for people of color. With 2.2 million folks in prison, most of them black and brown, and with 5 million on parole or probation, isn’t it time we take a long walk around the block to think about what our draconian law and policy is actually doing to our communities?

The 7 facts you may or may not know about Genarlow’s case:

1. Had Genarlow actually had sex with the girl, the act would have been charged as a misdemeanor.

2. Under Georgia law, until 1998, oral sex between a husband and a wife was illegal.

3. Five of the other high school-age boys who had consensual oral sex with the girl on that same night were offered — and accepted — plea bargains. Genarlow, the one without a criminal record or knowledge of court workings, decided to trust the American (in)justice system.

4. The jury acquitted Genarlow of one charge of rape but were forced to render a guilty verdict for the second charge, aggravated child molestation, because the girl was under the 16-years-of-age consent limit.

5. The conviction automatically registered Genarlow as a sex offender.

6. Because of mandatory minimum sentencing (the kind in which a drug dealer slinging 1 gram of crack cocaine is sentenced to the same time as someone selling 100 grams of powder) Genarlow automatically received 10 years without the possibility of probation or parole.

7. Many people have derided Thurbert Baker, the black Georgia DA who seems not to think that Genarlow’s sentence was cruel and unusual. Jimmy Carter wrote a blah blah state-the-obvious letter to Baker that put a crazy notion out there: “The racial dimension of the case is likewise hard to ignore and perhaps unfortunately has had an impact on the final outcome of the case.” (Wow, who would have thought? Race and criminal justice, there’s a heinous intersection there?!) He also noted another shocker: white defendants have — historically received and currently receive — milder sentences for similar acts. Thankfully, more nuanced and with-it Baker critics included Rev. Joseph Lowery and the Congressional Black Caucus.

While I planned to concentrate on the criminal justice side of this case (i.e. the utter disregard for reason in mandatory sentencing and the more specific racial underpinnings in Southern criminal law), I kept reading articles where (mainly white) op-ed writers and others in the mainstream media were using the same phraseology: “honor student” and “son of a single mother” and “football star.” Even ESPN picked up on Genarlow’s case and, er, “ran” with it because he had such a great football record.

Hmm. Now, don’t get me wrong: Any time the American people are turned on to the injustice in the criminal justice system, I’m glad. I’m just worried that many may gloss right over the important parts of this case because of a few loaded phrases.

“honor student” “son of a single mother” “football star”

We know why they use these buzz phrases, don’t we? Because the more acceptable YBMs (young black males) — the ones who “overcame” their “circumstances” to make good grades — are the ones who are championed. I’ll say it again: Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hating on Genarlow for his acheivements and I’m not disregarding how this case can be used to make changes to crazed sentencing policy. I’m just hesitant to buy into what some in the media and public sphere emphasize about this case’s tone and meaning. Yeah, he seemed like a good guy. But there are plenty of good guys out there who, because of social, economic, familial and other circumstances, don’t have the access or opportunity to acheive, especially not to acheive the way that middle America folks think is “good” or “worthy” or “acceptable”…for a black man…

There are notions of a chosen-because-of-his-acceptability, Rosa Parks-like dimension to the coverage and amplification — and the corresponding outrage — of Genarlow’s case, especially in the white media. Let’s be real: Rosa should be celebrated because of her sit down and the way she pushed (or, um, was pushed) out into the public consciousness, but Claudette Colvin (one of four young black girls who refused to give up their seats to white people way before Rosa Parks and even went to court for it) was deemed unworthy of championing by the white liberals and the civil rights establishment because she was low-income and had a child out of wedlock. I just wonder what would have happened if Genarlow had had a criminal record, was a D student, or wasn’t in school. Maybe everyone would be similarly outraged. Perhaps the mainstream media would have pushed the case of a D student to their front pages, like they did with Genarlow.

But, then again, there are Genarlows all around the country, every day, convicted because of structural and policy obsurdities like the crack/powder disparity or Jena-like assault charges. Yet very few of them have the grades, the sport, and the overcoming narrative to get press coverage. Not all of them are acceptable.

Controversial Headlines: ‘Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer’

This heading leaped out at me from one of my favorite UK newspaper The Independent, last Thursday, and as expected, led to a great surge of controversy and debate for days to follow. What I found particularly striking about this, besides of course the obvious problems of continuing to perceive of race as a biological fact, one with a determining role in a group’s intelligence, was the manner in which this story was first covered.

The above caption screams out in large font, beside a picture of James Watson, a renown scientist and winner of a Nobel Peace Prize for his research on DNA, with only a small addendum at the bottom: ‘Fury over scientist’s theory: “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.”’ This headline could incline the reader to believe that because the person making this claim is a ‘DNA pioneer’ there must/could be some truth in it. Furthermore, allocating the entire front page to this title and the story associated with it places a lot of importance on Watson’s theory, without making the questionable aspects of this theory as obvious. This can be quite dangerous in a society where racism and racial discrimination are still predominant.

Bill O’Reilly. He knows black people.

If you haven’t heard already, Bill O’Reilly is really surprised that black people are civilized. He was taken aback when, entering Sylvia’s restaurant, no one yelled, “M-Fer give me more iced tea.”

Now, let’s take a moment.

There have been various news articles and bloggers tracing the O’Reilly, um, phenomenon. Most recently, in the New York Times, Mike Nizza notes that a local New York TV station interviewed a patron at Sylvia’s, who wasn’t upset at O’Reilly’s race-dumbed comments; he was just concerned about the mindset. Somehow, the fact that O’Reilly was speaking in the past tense — “they weren’t all yelling and cursing” — rips racism from his statements.

Nah, it doesn’t.

I feel almost guilty giving this time, as I do whenever O’Reilly does something stupid. Yet, once again, we have a television personality uncritically celebrating how “similar” we all are, how black people are no different than white people!, how he doesn’t even notice color when they go to an Anita Baker concert and everyone is dressed sharp!!

This doesn’t even fit in colorblind racism, folks.   It’s just racism.

What’s more, a while back Glenn Beck explained that he doesn’t have black friends because he is afraid THEY will MISUNDERSTAND something that HE IS SAYING. It’s their fault, of course, not his own for uttering the words.  O’Reilly echoes the same crazy logic.

Glamour warns: Don’t sport afros and locks to work!

Outrageous.

According to a Glamour editor, afros and “dread locks” are inappropriate hair styles for the work place.  The editor justified her/his position during an info session on corporate hairstyle dos and donts at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton by citing the styles’ historical ties to political activism.  Not surprisingly, political dissent apparently has no place in corporate America’s boardrooms. 

But the worst part is that the editor makes sweeping generalizations about why women sport the hairstyles and wrongly assumes that all are motivated by political dissent. Hmmm. Let’s see, maybe women wear locks and afros because they like them! Go figure!

But don’t get too alarmed.  As Clearly Gottlieb’s managing partner reassures us: “I assume she was oblivious; I doubt she’s racist.”

Because being “oblivious” and ignorant are valid excuses for making racist statements. And because racism only refers to blatant and extreme racially-motivated actions, like lynching or de jure segregation…and not to the more subtle yet just as problematic and harmful day to day insults of having your values consistently questioned and dismissed by the dominant group.

Riiiight.  Could have fooled me.

m.

Jena 6: “Pastoral Scene of the Gallant South”?

A tree. A noose. The American South.  If that doesn’t conjure notes of that old Billie Holiday song “Strange Fruit,” I don’t know what would. Let’s also add “Playground fights and Sentencing disparities” to the above images, just to move us into the 21st century…

In case you haven’t heard of the Jena 6, take a look.  While there’s a lot of analysis to do, and many in the blogosphere have deepened our understanding of the intersections of American justice, racism, and historical oppression surrounding this case, it has not – ta da! – received  attention in the mainstream media, especially not on TV, where most Americans get their news.  The only intelligent, caustic criticism I’ve heard has been from Mos Def and Dr. West last week on Bill Maher.  (Note Bill’s quotation, “White America does not know this story.”  Yet another case of stating the obvious.)

There’s a rally down in Jena on Sept. 20th, with Mos Def, NAACP members, and others.  People all over the country will be wearing black in solidarity.

 Sign the petition at COLOROFCHANGE

The 2007 VMA’s: “A Beautiful Disaster?”

I think not.  There was nothing beautiful about the VMA’s this year.  In fact, they were quite possibly the worst I’ve ever seen.  Poor Timbaland (he produced this one…).  He certainly won’t be adding this one to his long list of accomplishments.

The show started with a lackluster performance by the dethroned Pop Princess herself — Britney Spears.   By the looks of it, alcohol and drug abuse can do more than just make young starlets do outrageous things; it also makes them forget how to dance and sing!  Britney’s long years of dance training and video-move making both seem to have gone out the window.  Not only was her choreography washed out and uncreative (think one body roll after the next…), but she performed them with the energy, confidence, and enthusiasm of someone who just knows they fell off.  Britney couldn’t even get it together enough to match her lip syncing to the wording of the song.  Not even her black leather-wearing backup dancers could save the performance.  They too seemed lost and confused on stage.  This was a long cry from Britney’s raved about “Slave For You” VMA performance several years back.

But it wasn’t just Britney.  They whole show was a disaster.  First of all, where were all of the celebs? Even Fergie was MIA.  Apart from Diddy, Beyonce, and Eve, the biggest star there was Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls. 

Enough said. 

The entire concept for this year’s VMA’s left a lot to be desired.  Even though the stars throwing their own individual suite parties seemed to be having a heck of a lot more fun than the celebs with front row seating at the awards show, the whole ”suite party” concept was pretty confusing.  With the dim lighting and frenzied camera shots, we were lucky if we caught a glimpse of the performers running up the stairs or navigating the overly zealous crowd.

My least favorite performance of the night, however, was during the pre-show when Nicole Scherzinger attempted to up her “street cred” by teaming up with the one and only Lil’ Wayne.  She also tried to increase her hip hop appeal by throwing in a little booty shaking, mean mugging, and asking the crowd to “throw [their] hands up.” Sorry, Nicole.  You’ll have to do more than that to prove that you’ve got what it takes to run in hip hop circles.  Maybe if she knew anything about the social and political roots of hip hop in 1970’s New York City’s black and Latino neighborhoods, and its close ties to political activism and liberation movements (see Public Enemy for old school versions of this and Dead Prez for current interpretations), she would realize that there’s a lot more to the game than sex appeal, bling, and expensive clothes.

Even Jennifer Garner, presumably one of “America’s sweethearts,” couldn’t get her act together during the show.  Come on Jenn—”Gym Class Fallout?!?!”  To her defense,  she was probably distracted by Jamie Fox who couldn’t seem to stand still or stop interrupting her.  I’m sure Jenn’s PR rep was probably thinking: “I knew we shouldn’t have agreed to her co-hosting with Jamie.  Those black people, they just don’t know how to act.”  By the looks of it, Jenn was thinking the same thing.

Last but not least, the VMA’s featured a commercial for the soon-to-air new MTV show, A Shot with Tila Tequila.  In this latest version of reality dating shows, My Space vixen, model, and singer Tila Tequila announces that she’s bisexual and that “16 gorgeous lesbians” and “16 gorgeous straight guys” will be engaging in the “ultimate battle of the sexes” for her affection.  Why bisexual men and women were ineligible to participate as contestants, I’m not sure.  But most importantly, while I understand that this show is a big step for bisexual representation in popular media culture, it unfortunately perpetuates the same old stereotypes about bisexuals — mainly that men and women who identify as bisexual are 1) attracted to both men and women at any given point in time; 2)  equally attracted to both men and women at any given point in time; and 3) pinning men and women head to head when deciding who they want to engage in an intimate relationship with.  

Contrarily to what the commercials for this show might suggest, bisexuality is much more fluid than that. In fact, men and women who identify as bisexual are rarely always and unequivocally attracted to both men and women 50/50 at any given point in time.  Also, from my own experiences and those of friends and acquaintances, bisexuals’  rationale for selecting a partner rarely involves a full-on “battle of the sexes” between men and women.  Instead, bisexuals are much more likely to be attracted to a person as a result of his/her individual character, personality, and physical traits, with the person’s gender featuring more or less prominently in that decision.  The person’s gender can often be an afterthought when evaluating their ”pontential” as a partner.

With that said, I will definetly be watching Tila’s show and sounding off here on the range of issues that it will likely raise about sexuality and gender.

What I probably won’t be watching, however, are next year’s VMA’s… 

m.

Racial profiling? Civil liberties? Weird, never heard of that.

Wow.

“Following a pattern of past fashion bans, the sagging prohibitions are seen by some as racially motivated because the wearers are young, predominantly African-American men.”

Wow.

They love stating the obvious.

Let’s break it down…
A. Did we incarcerate young, white, 60’s-era hippies for their sartorial styling — for their ponchos and long hair and counter culture, drug-championing aesthetic? (Or, even more, did we put them in jail for low-level drug offenses and create draconian sentencing policies based on an unfounded and unscientific fear? …present day crack/powder disparity…)

B. Can we move beyond simply tracing it back to “prison fashion”? Really. Can we please step deeper into our mention of incarceration, and open the door on the prison industrial complex, and walk back out talking about the 2.2 million people in prison, less than 30% of whom have committed violent offenses, and the 5 million either on parole or probation?

C. Please, can we give Dr. Dyson a better quotation?

D. There’s just so much wrong with this article. It doesn’t even start with the right question.

 But, in NY Times style, it does leave us with some hope that people are getting it right. Like Dr. Chavis: “The focus should be on cleaning up the social conditions that the sagging pants comes out of,” he said. “That they wear their pants the way they do is a statement of the reality that they’re struggling with on a day-to-day basis.”