How the Boys in Blue Betray Our Trust

Perhaps this could be considered late news, but it appeared just today on the cached-news Web site Reddit. It's a nice article about police brutality under the then-elected Mayor of New York, Rudy Guliani. He let slide plenty of police brutality complaints. I love it when bloggers and forum members dig up dirt on a rotten politician. And if you didn't think this guy was rotten before--what with using his office and other public rooms for sex with his mistress and having her use the NYPD as her personal taxi service--maybe this will finally penetrate your dense skull.

Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated incident. These kinds of brutalities happen pretty regularly, and it's just one more reminder of the disintegration of state support that minorities face. I can't recall the last time I heard a story about a white man who was relaxing in a club and was subsequently arrested and raped by police officers after a fight broke out.

Come Together or Come Apart

This is a paper I wrote for my Race and Social Change class. I think it makes one important point about the struggle for complete equality: we have to form coalitions. Unfortunately, in any given civil rights organization, there are several different groups that have other alterior goals. If we want to find an effective way to create a group large enough to affect socail change, we need to reconcile our various agendas.

Black Female Participation in the Fight for Civil Rights

Social identities do not exist in a vacuum. While individuals can share a characteristic that binds them to a common cause, the intersection of various socially constructed identities still dictates—and limits—how certain members of a group can participate. Such was the case with black female involvement in the fight for civil rights. While black women and men share their “blackness” and are thus exposed to many race issues that blanket both sexes, historically, black rights movements have adhered to the patriarchal tenets of dominant American culture that advocate strict limits on female participation. Robnet’s How long? How long? and Abu-Jamal’s A Life in the Party discuss black women’s roles in the Montgomery bus boycott and the Black Panther Party, respectively. In this paper, I will examine the different forms of restriction and limitation under which black women operated in each movement, using excerpts from each author to flesh out my analysis.

While Robnet’s article adequately chronicles the resourcefulness and determination of the black women involved in the Montgomery bus boycott, it also illustrates the crippling male-oriented bureaucracy in which the women operated. Even the inception of the boycott was strategically planned to foolproof it from attacks that utilized the power of male hierarchy. At least two women refused to give up their seats before Parks’ famous stand and went unsupported during their trials; one woman’s legitimacy as a symbol for integration would have been attacked by proponents of male hierarchy because she was not only “an immature teenager but pregnant as well” (Robnet, 217). Even with the struggle underway, women were no less subject to patriarchy. While women argued that it was “mostly women who were affected by the conditions on the buses” (Robnet, 219), they realized that they would not achieve enough support without the aide of some other “‘legitimate,’ well-respected leader in the black community” (Robnet, 218), such as male ministers or politicians. Robnet concludes that women were important “bridge” leaders, and that their leadership was no less responsible for the movement’s success than that of men. But while women may have performed aptly, they would not have been relegated to strictly secondary leadership roles without our society’s innate male-oriented bias.

While Robnet concedes that women did what they could for the Montgomery bus boycott while adhering to gender roles, Abu-Jamal’s article attempts to debunk the “supposedly” wide-ranging chauvinism that scholars (particularly Pearson) say women endured in the Black Panther Party. While actual physical abuse of women may have been rare, Abu-Jamal’s argument in regards to chauvinism seems tenuous; he is prone to misinterpreting primary sources to “debunk” the accusations of misogyny. For example, his iteration of Frankye Malika Adams’ assertion that “Women pretty much ran the BPP” fails to correctly analyze the quote in its context. Adams states that she believes women were integral to the implementation of street-level operations, such as “taking care of the sick and uh, so” (Abu-Jamal, 231). But she does not base her conclusion of female importance in the Party on women’s attainment of leadership positions. Abu-Jamal refuses to view the community leadership roles described by Adams in the same way that Robnet viewed similar roles held by women in Montgomery: crucial, but secondary. Male BPP leaders still made most of the decisions and represented the Party on a national level. Unlike Robnet’s conciliatory stance that women at least made an influence even with limitations, Abu-Jamal’s conclusion leads him to unrealistically claim that we should not seek to promote a “macrocosm” where groups with different interests, i.e. women, will always make organizations inherently fissiparous.

While Abu-Jamal’s article fails to legitimize the limited leadership mobility that plagued women in the BPP, championing Robnet’s ambivalent acceptance of the limited roles presented to women would also perpetuate the current patriarchal structure that plagues black rights movements. Abu-Jamal’s conclusion is inherently flawed in that it posits the incapability of people to completely unify under one cause. I believe that this argument seriously undermines the effort that would be needed to bargain for equal economic and educational rights by denying the importance of coalition. And while Robnet at least agrees that there are limited group roles given to women, she praises female resourcefulness despite women’s limited leadership instead of criticizing the patriarchal structure that keeps them in lower leadership positions. This passive acceptance is no less detrimental to progress of black equality—and ultimately, neither author discusses the gender inequality that must be bridged before black rights movements can move forward as a strengthened, unified front.

Yesterday's News Is Old Today

I'm pretty disappointed. A professor in one of my classes just gave us a lecture on race based entirely on statistics from 1973. THAT'S 34-YEAR-OLD DATA. As I sat there listening to him talk about how the statistics reflected recent trends in racist lending practices, I couldn't help but feel a bit embarrassed for him.

Folks, if you're gonna use data to persuade others, make sure it's new data. There's nothing more annoying than listening to an entire lecture under the explicit disclaimer of "Well, this isn't new data, but it's still happening, I assure you." If it is still happening (and I have no doubt that it is), then go out and find the data. It might ake you a few hours, but your point will be much more believable.

Two Years Ago, but Today, too

It's really odd that we talk about Katrina as if we've actually overcome the problems with FEMA and getting a reliable means of transportation back to people so that they can eventually re-inhabit New Orleans.

Look at this article in the New York Times.

I want to share with you a short story to give you an idea of how bad the problems for the black New Orleans diaspora really are.

A week ago, I was getting into my car after coming out of Jimmy John's Sandwiches off of 32nd Street and Red River at about 9 p. m., when a lean black man about 100 yards wearing a buttoned-down shirt and tie shouteded something at me. I turned to look at him, and as soon as he realized I was going to wait for him to approach, he jogged up to me.

He explained the situation. He was a victim of Katrina, and after the house he owned in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans was destroyed in the flood, he was relocated to Houston with other unfortunate people from his neighborhood. He told me that he moved here to stay in a family friend's house until he found some work; he had spent all day searching for jobs in West Austin, he was out of luck and out of cash, and he needed two dollars to get himself and his son home. He motioned to a frail boy sitting at the bus stop across the street who raised a hand and waved as soon as the man gestured.

I took out my wallet and handed him the only cash I had left--exactly two dollars. "Thank God!" he said. "You're the first dude who didn't run away when I asked for two dollars." He took the money, thanked me and walked across the street. When he got to the bus stop, he sat down and hugged his son.

This is unacceptable. If something like this were happening to rich white people on Staton Island, Long Island, or somewhere in Florida, the government would pull out all stops to make sure that those "viable" people had every opportunity to stay in the same place and rebuild their houses.

Telling poor black people from the Lower Ninth Ward that they can't stay in or go back to New Orleans is the same as telling them that everything they've got--everything they've worked for--is gone and will never be replaced. Asking them to move doesn't solve the problem, it just takes away their only property and gives them no money and no housing. And since many of the families in the Lower Ninth Ward cannot afford new property values, when they're left without a home and told that there's no way to rebuild it, that's the end of the only financial stability that many of them have. It's devasating; it's like cutting the roots off of a tree.

This is despicable.

Lower class life,

This is a pretty shocking study. A group of British researchers concluded that social class categorization has a profound effect on the biological aging process. I'll let you guess which social classes tend to age the fastest...

The shorthand version: out of 1,552 women, all from various classes and all with an average age of 46, those in lower classes were seven biological years older on average. This resulted from the high levels of stress that lower classes were subjected to on a daily basis.

This study may have been based in Britain, but the results can be applied anywhere. Stress is stress, whether you're a British manual laborer or an American one. I think this is all the more reason to invest in a more nationalized healthcare system that would also encompass some of the psychological aspects resulting from social class-induced stress.

Racebook?

I realized something very interesting recently. The Facebook group "1, 000,000 Strong for Stephen T Colbert" has become a sounding board to contest--or reinforce--racial stereotypes.

To give you just a little bit of information about the group, it does have more than 1 million members. In fact, the group's membership is nearly 1.5 million. You need a Facebook account to visit it, but if you have an account, you can view the group here.

But why, in such a large and unmoderated venue, do members feel comfortable discussing race and racism? I know, I know, Stephen Colbert is all about sarcastic stereotypes. But I belong to a few Facebook groups myself and I've never seen anything like this before. In an age when almost any Internet comment can offend, why in this group are members grappling with such a difficult issue?

There have been several controversial topic names and discussions on the message board for the group, some of which must (or at least, I hope they must) be sarcastic. But sometimes, one sarcastic, inflammatory comment prompts another member to respond with the opposite...and not always sarcastically.

Particularly noteworthy is a post titled "Why are all white people racit?" No, I didn't spell that wrong. The original poster, apparently (I say apparently because it's hard to confirm anyone's actual identity on the Internet) a black man from Detroit named Plaxio Towers, posted the question and created a definition for the word "racit" on www.urbandictionary.com. While some people saw it for what it probably was--a statement meant to be partially sarcastic and partially truthful--others saw it as an unacceptable condemnation of white people.

The controversial post has since been removed, either by Facebook or its original poster. But when it was up, Towers made good on, what I assume, was his goal. Many people who believed he was being serious attacked him by using racial slurs and parroting stupid, baseless stereotypes about black people. Ironically, of course, this proved that they still held on to some ugly stereotypes. I like to think of Towers sitting there at his computer, smiling as he watched his post prove itself.

But what good does it do to discuss racism and stereotypes on the Internet? Well, I'm going to go ahead and say that I don't advocate it. In particular, I think looking at the demise of the Chappelle Show would provide us with a good argument against it.

Dave Chappelle's show was very successful, but it hinged on one principle: contesting stereotypes from within. With this tactic, the Chappelle Show intended to show viewers the absurdity of stereotypes by overexaggerating them. It's a hard tactic to master and unfortunately, Chappelle wound up canceling the show in its third season primarily because he believed people were laughing with the stereotypes and not at them.

So how does this relate to the Internet posts in the group I mentioned above? Well for one, even sarcastic posts can give those who still believe in stereotypes a sense of affirmation. And to those who don't understand Internet sarcasm, the result is usually even worse--they come away believing that others share in their stereotypes.

It may seem rather Spartan of me to think that discussions of race and racial stereotypes should be saved for face-to-face discussions, but I think that in the long run it could save us a lot of misunderstanding and inadvertent reaffirmation of stereotypes.

What the? A high school ROBOTICS CLASS?!

Yesterday, a friend of mine completely blew me away with a description of her high school education. She divulged that she had a high school robotics class. A robotics class. Jeeeesus. Did any of you have a robotics class? I didn't think so. What surprised me even more was how nonchalantly she mentioned this. I wondered what she'd spring on me next. Aircraft design? Alchemy? "Yeah, you know, plain ol' robotics," she almost seemed to say. "I just HAD to complete it before I could get to what really interested me--transmutational logarithms."

I found myself choking back some unexpected envy. I honestly thought that my suburbian refuge was the epitomy of educational opportunity. I thought of how much I could have benefitted from a robotics class. Perhaps the mathematical concepts involved in robotic creation would have helped me with my SAT scores. Hell, at the very least I could have made some ungainly creature that hobbled around. Okay, okay...convulsed violently. I'll admit, I'm not much good with electronics and programming, but the option would still have been nice. It was the principle of the thing.

Then it hit me. If I felt like my exemplary high school education put me at a disadvantage, what was offered to students at low-income schools? That really put things into perspective for me. I was always told that my high school gave me an excellent education, and I certainly don't disapprove of that assertion now that my friend told me about her uberprogram. I'm doing just fine; I made a relatively smooth transition from high school into my freshman year at college. But it is true that I could have had other high school courses to prepare me for the kinds of things I'd do in college.

But what about economically disadvantaged kids? I'd hate to think about their predicament. I know, I know but the Robin Hood clauses really help things out, don't they? Yeah, right. It's no joke that wealthy public school districts have sufficient funding to provide teachers with stipends and incentives that reward specific teaching qualifications or achievements. This is all completely state sanctioned, of course. And just look at what happens when someone wants to buck the trend and teach "undesirables." This disconcerting story makes its way to us from Westlake High School in Austin, Texas. If there's that much hell to pay for helping kids from the other side of the tracks--literally and figuratively--I can see why it's so hard for low-income school districts to recruit high-quality teachers. Not only do they not have the money to offer incentives and update facilities, but the heavy-hitters keep their acquisitions in check, even with legal measures.

Let's face it, folks. All education is not equal. It's getting harder for some districts to find or recruit good teachers and pay for new materials. I think it's kind of sad that some public schools offer high-tech robotics classes while others struggle to come up with enough money for a new set of chemistry books.

Something just doesn't seem right here. For someone with my relatively privileged education, it took the lack of a robotics class to make me feel inadequately prepared. Spurned by the lack of a robotics class. Go figure, eh? Imagine what the kids with broken desks and 30-year-old textbooks feel like...