The Automatik

From This Pop Life:

“The Oppression Olympics” refers to the idea that somehow, you can deny someone their suffering in order to posit your own. People who play the Oppression Olympics get so hung up on their own entitlement to being the Chosen Ones of Fucked Up History that they’re defensive that anyone else would try to lay claim to that legacy, even in what is clearly a show of solidarity.

Or as someone on the LiveJournal community Debunking White put it: “the I’m-oppressed-so-you-can’t-be game.”

Graphic by Bint Alshamsa from her blog
Click on the graphic for a larger version.

Forget the Beijing Olympics and tune in instead to this year’s Democratic Presidential Nomination Badwill Games.

Gloria Steinem, in a recent debate with Melissa Harris-Lacewell, said the following:

“I think one learns a lot from parallels, and so it would be interesting to try to project what would have happened to Barack Obama in his life if he had been a female human being.”

But in her now-infamous New York Times Op-Ed piece she said that, “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.” She went on to ask why “the sex barrier [is] not taken as seriously as the racial one.” Steinem claims that she is “trying not to choose between race and gender.”

Here’s the thing, Ms. Steinem: you don’t have to.
Read more

In light all of the recent outrage about Barack Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I would like to weigh in.

Until today, I had not seen the Reverend preaching, although I had heard snippets of what he had supposedly said.

Here is a clip of Wright talking about how “Hillary has never been called a n***er.”

And here is a montage of clips from Fox News.
(I have to laugh at the irony of Bill O’Reilly warning of “offensive” content.)

I’ve watched both of these and I must say, I don’t understand what everyone is so upset over. Then I have to remind myself that for a lot of white people, there is only one America and that’s the great melting pot that espouses freedom.

But for millions of people of color, America is anything but a representation of freedom. How can it be when America was founded on the enslavement of African-Americans? For everyone who would cry, “My family didn’t own slaves” or “Can’t they get over it already?” I will add the following:

Racism isn’t the guys in the white hoods burning crosses on your lawns. It is a systematic oppression that has been so woven into the fabric of life that many white people don’t even realize they benefit from it. And that is called white privilege. Owning slaves is just the beginning of it.

Keep in mind also that slavery was legal in America until 1865. Even after it had been abolished, African-Americans still did not enjoy the same benefits as white Americans under the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race. Before that, separate water fountains for African-Americans and white people were the norm.

Think of it in numbers. For the first hundred years of America’s existence, slavery was legal. And then for another hundred years, discrimination based on race was allowed under the law. That’s two hundred years of oppression. It’s not something you just “get over.”

So Reverend Wright is understandably upset. And while I am not a religious person, I agree with his indignation and his anger and his passion about these issues. Reverend Wright is not lying when he says, “Hillary has never been called a n***er.” But that isn’t the only face of racism.

Tim Wise has a great article on this called “Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama and the Unacceptability of Truth: Of National Lies and Racial America.”

“But white folks have a hard time hearing these simple truths. We find it almost impossible to listen to an alternative version of reality. Indeed, what seems to bother white people more than anything, whether in the recent episode, or at any other time, is being confronted with the recognition that black people do not, by and large, see the world like we do; that black people, by and large, do not view America as white people view it. We are, in fact, shocked that this should be so, having come to believe, apparently, that the falsehoods to which we cling like a kidney patient clings to a dialysis machine, are equally shared by our darker-skinned compatriots.”

Please read the whole thing. And then, if you are a white person, think about it. Get mad, deny it, call me a racist, a traitor, or a bitch, but THINK ABOUT IT.

Many news sites are reporting that a Pentagon study has confirmed there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

A March 10 McClatchy newspaper article on this subject is being quoted by other news sites. The original piece states:

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida terrorist network.

On March 12, the same website reported that:

The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network.

Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters — if they asked for it. The report won’t be posted on the Internet.

The March 12 2008 story from the ABC News “Rapid Report” reiterates the idea of the Pentagon not making the report available online, but provides a link to a nine-page extract from the report.

Page two of this report notes that it is a “redacted version of the original Iraqi Perspectives Report—Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, Volume I dated January 2007. Page ES-1 from the Executive Study states:

This study found no “smoking gun,” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.

Other websites have provided links to a longer version of this report. ABC seems to be the first blog to provide a link to a 94-page—yet still redacted—version at 2:44 p.m. on March 13.

Websites like Hot Air and The Weekly Standard, find the claims of “no connection” misleading and provide links to the longer version of the report.

Hot Air reported on March 14 (with several subsequent updates) goes into great detail about the various connections between Saddam and al Qaeda such as the Army of Mohammed and Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, stating:

Nor was that Saddam’s only support for an AQ subsidiary. Saddam put money into Egypt’s Islamic Jihad. The IJ opposes the Hosni Mubarak regime for a number of reasons, but primarily because of Egypt’s shaky diplomatic relations with Israel. One leader of IJ that Westerners can easily name was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama’s chief deputy and primary mouthpiece to the world.

Hot Air provides links to The Weekly Standard article, The National Review’s post on The Corner called “CONNECTED: Iraq and al Qaeda” and The New York Sun which calls its analysis, “Report Details Saddam’s Terrorist Ties.”

The New York Sun article again mentions Saddam’s connection to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and states:

The report concludes that instead Iraq’s relationship with Osama bin Laden’s organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

Both Hot Air and The New York Sun article highlight the following passage from Extract 34:

One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

The Corner and The Weekly Standard print the abstract of the report from page 93:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

These four sites seem to find all of the above extracts to be proof of specific connections between Saddam and al Qaeda, stating the following:

The Weekly Standard: Really? Saddam Hussein “supported” a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda’s #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?

Hot Air: So we have Saddam supporting at least two AQ subsidiaries, one of which had open aspirations to attack American interests, and evidence from these captured materials that Saddam planned to use his terrorist capabilities to conduct war on the United States. Perhaps in the world of the mainstream media the big news from this would be “no smoking gun” connection to an actual attack, but for the rest of us, it shows that Saddam needed to go — and the sooner, the better.

The Corner: Once you read [the report], you might ask yourself (if you didn’t already know where the New York Times and the rest of the MSM are coming from), how anyone could read it and conclude “no link.”

The Sun: The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq’s relationship with Osama bin Laden’s organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Sun also goes on to quote a “long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe,” who says:

“I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran.” She added, “He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates.”

Additionally, they quote a “former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser,” who says:

“This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam’s involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I’m sure will reveal yet more. Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein’s involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa.”

Yet these two quotes don’t include statements that either of these folks believe in specific coordination between Saddam and al Qaeda, only that there are specific connections between Saddam and terrorism.

In fact, the extract that The Corner and The Weekly Standard quote says that the documents “do not reveal direct coordination and assistance” between Saddam and al Qaeda, but that Saddam would “use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda” and that “Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims,” creating the “appearance of and, in some way, a ‘de facto’ link between the organizations.” (emphasis mine)

Let’s review exactly what many news sites are saying:

McClatchy: “no evidence of any operational links”
ThinkProgress: “no evidence of any operational links”
NPR: “no direct link”
Rolling Stone: “no pre war operational link”
CNN: “no connection between the two”
Tehran Times: “no link” and “no direct link”
The Raw Story: “no evidence of operational links”
Arab News: “no link” and “no direct link”
The Guardian: “no direct ties”
Fox News: “no link” and “no operational link”

Although the uses of the term “no link” does appear (CNN, Fox, Tehran Times, Arab News), three of the uses also include the terms “no direct link” and “no operational link.”

The extract seems to support their claims when it says, “no direct connection.” Furthermore, Hot Air et. al. charge the other media sites with putting out misleading information, but their own articles on the subject only manage to link Saddam with anti-American terrorist groups. Their own articles, despite quoting the 94-page report, cannot provide specific evidence that Saddam was in league with or collaborating with or directly supporting al Qaeda nor can they prove that he was a part of al Qaeda.

They talk about his connections to terrorism and anti-American sentiment. No one should be shocked that Saddam Hussein had connections to terrorism and no one should be shocked that terrorists with anti-American sentiment would share interests. No one should be shocked that Saddam Hussein had anti-Israeli sentiment (and this would certainly explain his support of Egypt’s Islamic Jihad).

The Iraq war was not initiated because Saddam was a terrorist or sympathized with America-haters. According to what Vice President Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh (full text on the White House website):

Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated — after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He’s the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated in 2004, “I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”

President Bush said in 2002:

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

A July 9 2005 letter purported to be from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was released on October 11 2005 and only discusses “expel[ling] the Americans from Iraq”.

So why all the dissenting voices about there being connections between Saddam and al Qaeda?

Let’s look at Hot Air and The Weekly Standard’s position on political affairs.

Hot Air considers itself “the world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network!” There are eleven “Right Channels” links on their right menu bar and only three “Left Channels” links, however, closer inspection reveals more conservative links in other categories, such as Olbermann Watch, Drudge Report, Fox News Radio, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, etc.

The Weekly Standard has an article called “Character is Destiny” about the Elliott Spitzer scandal in which it refers to “the liberal media.” Another article about the Pentagon report casually mentions its connections to the President, stating:

If you talk to people in the Bush administration, they know the truth about the report. They know that it makes the case convincingly for Saddam’s terror connections. But they’ll tell you (off the record) it’s too hard to try to set the record straight. Any reengagement on the case for war is a loser, they’ll say.

The Weekly Standard does not indicate which people in the Bush administration they spoke with, nor how “we,” the readers, are considered part of the “you” in the statement, in other words, they do not detail could someone who is not in the journalism field could have access to those in the Bush administration. “We” don’t, therefore, “we” rely on the media to give us their sources.

Where is the full version of this report? Crooks and Liars has a 230-page report from the Iraqi Perspectives Project on their website.

A search of the report reveals not even one mention of al Qaeda. Clearly, this is NOT the same report. We need to see Phase 2, not Phase 1.

I don’t know if I can order the full report because I live in Canada (although I am an American citizen) but I will post a link to the full report once I find it online. Any American residents who want to order this report, can do so by going here.

Geraldine Ferraro’s recent racist remarks are actually nothing new for her. In 1998, she made similar comments about Jesse Jackson:

“If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

And sadly, but again, unsurprisingly, these types of comments are not limited to Ferraro. John Edwards’ wife Elizabeth was quoted in the August 2007 issue of Esquire saying:

“We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars.”

Only someone in complete denial of their own white privilege or the existence of racism would make such preposterous remarks. What is it that white people are not getting? Why is it that we refuse to see, to hear, to believe?

Photo courtesy Jakob Holdt

As a white person, I do not presume to speak for those who have experienced racism. So here are some words from people of color I’ve read recently, although to get the full effect you should read the entirety of each posting:

Jill Tubman, at Jack And Jill Politics writes:

“Being a black woman, I feel I have a perspective that I’d love to share with Geraldine. I’ve gotten few breaks BECAUSE of my race or gender. Instead, I have often received opportunities DESPITE my race (in particular) or gender.”

Resistance, at Resist Racism writes:

I’ve gotten into this argument any of a number of times with white people, almost always with the same dispiriting results. A white friend, after being wait-listed for grad school, complained that the selected cohort was 1/4 people of color and how they had taken “her” place. I pointed out that her assumption was predicated on the belief that she was more qualified than any of the students of color and was inherently racist. She didn’t complain about the white students who were admitted before her. She also seemed to have an underlying belief that she was entitled to a spot.

We went round and round on this, and finally I asked her whether or not it was true that I was academically more qualified than she was.

“Yes, but. . . ” she kept saying.

And Tamara K. Nopper writes of her recent experience on a Southwest Airlines flight:

Shortly after sitting down, an older white man sat in the seat next to mine. He then proceeded to spread his legs wide open as if, to quote a wise person I know, “he thought he had balls the size of pumpkins.” In response to the uninvited pressing, I requested room for my legs. The man then proceeded to imperiously point his finger to the floor to emphasize that his feet were within the boundary of his seats. He never addressed the fact that his legs were spread beyond them so as to invade my space and press up against my body. Instead, he said to me, “You’re a big girl.” Talking on my cell phone, I interrupted my conversation to calmly tell the man “Don’t fucking talk to me that way.”

With his right hand, the man reached across himself to grab my left arm. With my arm in his grip, he looked me in the eyes through his glasses and replied, “I’m going to slap you in your mouth.” I freed myself from him and then stood up. I called out to the steward at the front of the plane that I needed assistance since I had just been grabbed by the person sitting next to me. Hurriedly, the man bolted out of his seat, muttering that he would move. As he exited the row he made it a point to emphasize that I had cussed at him, neglecting the fact that he had made the comment that initiated our negative exchange.

I turned around to be met by a young, white woman steward named Crystal G. Webb. When I told her that I had been assaulted by the man who was now making a mad dash for a seat a few rows back, she began to laugh. As she bit her lip, a smirk escaped.

These stories are not isolated incidents. They are but a fraction of the hundreds, thousands, even millions of stories like them from around the world.

Why aren’t we more outraged about this sort of behavior? Why do we refuse to believe that racism is still alive and well?

When mainstream media reports on racism, it’s called “liberal bias.” When independent bloggers report on it, it’s not considered news because it doesn’t come from mainstream media.

What is the mainstream experience then, if it is not the voices of millions telling first hand accounts of the suffering they’ve endured due to racism?

We must see, we must hear, and we must believe.

Another currently hot topic in the realm of racism, is the series of comments made by former Vice Presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton campaign Finance Committee member Geraldine Ferraro.

Image from The Huffington Post

In case you haven’t heard about this, here’s what she said:

“I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against. For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

In their March 11 follow up story, the Daily Breeze reported Ferraro’s response to the accusations that she was a racist:

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

She defended her remarks on Good Morning America, saying she was “sorry people think it was a racist comment.” She goes on to say she’s been “fighting discrimination for forty years, not just about gender, but about race, and for the disabled, for the elderly, for gays. . .” She tries to say she meant her remarks in a good way, and singles Obama out for being a successful African-American.

She again defended her remarks on NBC’s Nightly News on March 12, saying:

“If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist.”

Despite the fact that she resigned of her own volition, Ferraro thinks she has been prevented from exercising her first amendment rights. She calls the accusations “hurtful” and again mentions how she’s been “fighting against discrimination for forty years.”

Is the new national pastime the Oppression Olympics? Who has it worse: gays or the disabled? Women or African-Americans?

Is this the new face of feminism, one which says, point blank, “Bow down to the woman?”

It’s not just Roseanne Barr, it’s Gloria Steinem and Erica Jong.

Steinem: “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).”

Jong: “If Michelle attacks Hillary, it’s news. If Hillary attacks Michelle — well she can’t because that would be racist. . . If I have to watch another great American woman thrown in the dustbin of history to please the patriarchy, I’ll move to Canada . . . ”

What do all of these women have in common? They are white.

The party line of white privilege is denial, so let’s translate Ferraro’s comments:

Racism is no longer an issue, but sexism against white women is an issue.
If a person of color calls me on my racism, they are being racist against me.
I am sorry if people thought what I said was racist, but I am not sorry for what I said.
I refuse to question my privilege because I am a white woman and therefore exempt due to the fact that I have been the victim of sexism.
I can’t be racist because I have black friends and I have fought against discrimination against women and other marginalized groups.
By calling attention to your own race, you are making race an issue not me.
I was only trying to say that I think it’s great that you people have gotten as far as you have even though you aren’t white.
I am hurt by your accusations of racism and since I am a white woman, my pain is greater than the pain you have suffered at the hands of racist whites.

Let’s be clear and see this for what it is: a giant load of bullshit.

No person of color who calls a white person out on racism should apologize to the white person for thinking the remarks were racist. White people do not get to decide what is or is not racist. We can’t because we are not victims of racism; it is not our call.

Furthermore, there is no trumping of feminism by racism or racism by feminism. Both originate from prejudice plus power, but then veer off in different directions. Sexism is the oppression of women by the patriarchal power structure while racism is the oppression of people of color by the white power structure.

Feminism is not the same as racism and they should never be conflated.

Many white people, and I have been guilty of this myself, try to come up with analogies to address racism, often in an attempt to deny their own. We will create alternate universes where race isn’t used to discriminate but instead substitute things like hair color, eye color, height, or whether or not someone has freckles. And then we will say, “Oh, isn’t that ridiculous? I would never discriminate against someone based on their hair color so why would I do that to a person of color?”

Let me counter with a question: Why on earth would we need to create an alternate universe to deconstruct racism when we already live in a world where people continue to perpetrate oppression based on race?

There are no analogies needed for racism because there are none. No other oppression of any marginalized group is akin to racism because only racism oppresses people on the basis of their race. To create analogies avoids addressing the fact that racism exists.

Period. That’s it. So leave feminism, homophobia, and everything else out of it.

The March 12 story about an African-American female reporter being brutally attacked by the white family of a murder suspect has been all over the news.

I urge you to watch the video from the WLTX-TV link as it has the most accurate description of the events in question.

Photo courtesy WSPA-TV

The version I saw on our local news last night had clearly been edited to excise what I assumed to be racist name calling or swearing, and I missed the lead in which described the background of the situation.

On a purely visual level, however, it was immediately and blatantly obvious to me that this reporter was attacked because of her race. How anyone could feel that racism was not a part of this attack is upsetting to me, but unfortunately not surprising.

The reporter confirms that throughout her morning coverage of the murder investigation, the suspect’s family shouted racial slurs at her. It’s also important to note that the suspect is accused of killing his own grandfather.

Many of the various viewer comments not only deny the racist actions of the family, but think the reporter deserved what she got:

“Yeah! Fight back against the Paparazzi!”

“What’s the difference between trash, and those who report it? Nothing!”

“This is NOT about race.”

“It is a shame there were racial epithets thrown around. That unfortunately will take the lead over a story of a vulture preying on a grieving family, trying to invade their space, and rightfully got what she deserved.”

One of the Huffington Post commenters says:

“not being racist at all…i’m saying watch the complete unedited video from the beginning. it’s the reporter that rushes around her camera man and throws a punch. the reporter is attacking. doesn’t matter if she’s black or white…she rushes around her camerman and throws a punch…she is instigating…period.”

Buck Denton, on his blog, The Conservation Report, disagrees, saying, “. . . Furthermore, any reasonable person could conclude from the video evidence that she did not throw the first punch or antagonized the situation. . . . The situation could have become a homicide if not remedied by on lookers and the police.”

Unfortunately, the majority of the clips online do not show the beginning of the incident, but the WLTX-TV video clearly shows what happened. Again, the reporter is across the street from the family, on a public sidewalk, and it is the white family who instigates the attack, not the reporter. Any human being is certainly allowed—and instinctually predisposed—to defend oneself against an angry mob.

The WLTX-TV video also shows other white people nearby—a man crosses the camera near his car and looks like he might be on his cell phone—while a group of African-Americans observing the situation go over to help. Also notice how the one white person who walks over to the fracas—an older woman—consoles the white attacker, not Ms. Brown, the victim.

And inevitably, someone tries to accuse the African-American bystanders of “not bothering to get involved” even though one man is obviously placing himself between Ms. Brown and one of the attackers, and is actually interviewed after the attack, saying, “They should be sad because it’s a murder, but instead they’re sitting here wanting a fight.”

Thankfully, someone speaks up in the bystanders’ defense: “How about they were afraid they’d get arrested and get blamed for what happened?”

When you’re a person of color, in this case an African-American, you can’t win.

If you get attacked by white people, you must have started it.
If you get attacked by white people, it’s because you’re a scum-sucking reporter, so you deserved it.
And if you’re an African-American, you don’t “bother to get involved” because you don’t care about others.

I just read this post from Holly at Feministe.us—Sixteen Maneuvers to Avoid Really Dealing With Racism.

Image from Slow But Steady

I’m reposting it in its entirety because it’s so good. I suggest also reading the comments.

Holly herself comments on it about halfway through. What she says should actually be read before anything else because it’s so integral to the discussion:

If you think this is about individuals being racist, you’re still missing the point and not reading closely enough. Part of the idea is that the focus on individuals as racists is a dangerous distraction from the real systemic problem of racism. Racism is a system, larger than any individual; it’s not one person getting wet, it’s an ocean. So yes, discussions of “OMG — am I racist or not?” are in fact, meaningless.

One of the commenters, Doug, posted this great bit of insight:

Also, its important to note that the one common element in each of those items is that they are said by privileged people who are trying to retain their privileged position. Even the ones that admit “fault” are phrased in such a way as to retain the special status of the speaker. Being privileged does not automatically make you a bad person, but it does require self awareness. When you discuss racial issues, ask yourself “why am I saying this? How would this sound to someone without my privilege?”

Holly’s list—and the comments—cover a lot of ground, both negative and positive. I sort of wish I could carry this around with me at all times so that whenever these issues (i.e., white privilege and racism) come up, I could just whip it out of my pocket as a reference guide. (Actually, that’s not a bad idea the more I think about it.)

I say that because it can be very exhausting to say the same things over and over in discussions about racism and privilege and if people would do just a modicum of reading before they open their mouths, they would be much less likely to be subjected to the taste of their feet.

Let me state that I am a white person and over my lifetime, I have used every one of these excuses. The one I am most guilty of falling back on these days is “The Bending Over Backwards.” Just admitting it and typing it doesn’t make it okay, but I need to come clean. I’m no less racist than any other white person because I know that I’ve benefited—and continue to benefit—from the long, entrenched history of the white power structure.

I try to question my privilege and my racism. Often I fail, and then I try again. I’m sure I’ll fail again. But I will still try.

Sixteen Maneuvers to Avoid Really Dealing With Racism

The Bootstrap Myth
“Racism is a thing of the past. . . this is a free country, and anyone who works hard can make it in America.”

The Backtrack
“Hey, wait a second, that’s not what I meant. . . I mean. . . you took my words out of context, don’t make it try to sound like I’m racist!”

The Remove the Right To Be Angry
“You’re too sensitive. . .if you weren’t so aggressive, vocal, hostile, angry, or upset, people would listen to you and you wouldn’t get in trouble!”

The Utopian Eye-Gouger
“I’m colorblind, personally. . .why can’t we all just ignore race, it’s not like it’s even real. . . it’s not like I tangibly benefit from being white every day or anything! Can’t we all just get along?”

Turning the Tables
“You’re being just as racist against white people, you realize. You’re being racist against me right now, you reverse-racist hypocrites!”

The Good White Person (not like those obvious racists!)
“Whoa, that guy over there is SUCH a racist, unlike me. . . I know exactly the right things to say and I’m never racist. By which I mean overtly offensive about it. Hold on, I think I’m going to go spit on that guy. I hate him.”

The Unblemished Family History
“Hey, my family never owned slaves, so it’s not like I, as an individual, get any benefit from racism!”

The Bending Over Backwards (makes you look flexible, but accomplishes little else)
“You people of color are so right. I agree with everything you say. Because you’re right, of course. . .not just because I’m guilty and white and wrong!”

The Personal Justification
“But a black person, Mexican, mean old Asian lady, or Native American once cut in front of me in line, said something stupid, mugged me, or took my hubcaps! So as far as I’m concerned, they proved all of my prejudices!”

The Loophole of Escape
“I can’t possibly be a bigot or a racist. . .I’m part of the oppressed due to the fact that I’m a woman!” (or gay, poor, young, trans, etc.)

The Culture Appropriator
“Damn, bro! You know I’m down with the homies, I ain’t no wack racist cracker, shiznit.”

The Lean On You When I’m Not Strong
“Teach me, help me. I’m just a white person, so I need your wisdom as a person of color to show me how not to be racist. Wait, is what I said earlier racist? How about this shirt I’m wearing? Can you come with me to this party, so they know I’m not a racist?”

The Pause for Applause
“Unlike all those other white people out there, I’m an anti-racist.” (. . .) “I do anti-racist work and I try to educate other people about anti-racism.” (. . .) “Wait, did you hear me?”

The Smoke and Mirrors
“I totally agree. Racism is one system of oppression among many interlocking ones, that specifically awards more privilege and power to all white people, whether they like it or not, and serves to keep the existing power structure in place. Oh… what? You want me to volunteer in a community organization, contribute money, do security for your protest march? Uh. . .yeah maybe next time, I’ve got to wash my hair tonight. And walk my dog, see the latest episode of Lost, manage my stock portfolio. . .”

The Penitent Paralysis (will not truly absolve you)
“Oh my god. . .that is so awful. I’m so sorry. Sorry. I can’t imagine what it must be like. . . I’m sorry. That’s so awful. I feel so bad for you. Sorry.”

Whipping Out Your Best Friends
“Hey, I’m not a racist, OK? Some of my best friends are black. See?”
Best Friend: “Yeah, I’ve known him since we were kids, and he’s never said anything racist to me!”

And then she added this one in the comments:
Throwing Up Your Hands
“What do you mean I’m part of a racist system no matter how I try to distance myself from it or prove that I think differently?! That’s ridiculous. . . I guess I might as well give up and join the Aryan Nation!”

. . .and one bonus one for all your folks of color out there.

It Doesn’t Matter What Comes Out of My Mouth, Just Look at My Skin
“What? I can’t possibly be racist. I AM a person of color. How can I be racist against myself, huh? No, I haven’t heard of internalized racism, and I still think affirmative action is reverse racism!”

In a development reported in multiple Internet news sites and blogs, “a federal appeals court has struck down a Texas law that makes it a crime to promote or sell sex toys.” (1)

It’s difficult to get one’s head around the idea that any state would consider sex toys a threat, but apparently that is the case. According to Statesman.com:

The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate “morality based” reasons for the laws, which include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.” (2)

This implies that it is not merely the termination of a pregnancy—abortion—that is construed as murder in Texas. We should also include sperm and eggs as victims of the Great American Holocaust. After all, according to the U.S. Government, I am pre-pregnant, “regardless of whether [I] plan to get pregnant anytime soon.” (3)

Feasibly I could rack up one murder a month per annum; the unfortunate male members of my species will be charged as serial killers.

And the weapon of choice? “[A]n artificial penis or vagina [used] ‘primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs’.” (4) Thankfully, there is always an exception, in this case, “for instances in which the purchase meets a ‘medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement’ need.” (5)

I’m trying to imagine what police officers, lawyers, and judges, might need a sex toy for in the course of their chosen professions, None of the scenarios are anything less than horrifying and all involve the word “rape.”

As for doctors, I suppose they invoking the long-standing tradition of Dr. Freud’s favorite, hysteria, when the woman in question was herself under threat of strangulation by her own uterus (6) and needed the “manual stimulation of the [her] genitals by the doctor to ‘hysterical paroxysm’.” aka orgasm. (7) Now what exactly is a threat here? Oh right. . . sex toys.

It’s not bad enough that one would want to self-pleasure in the privacy of one’s own home; the statute also indicates that, “[a]nyone in possession of six or more sexual devices is considered to be promoting them.” (8) Let the War on Dildoes begin in earnest! (Kids, remember: JUST SAY NO. . . orgasm.)

However, thankfully, a brave soldier in this ongoing battle, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, has recently asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case, yoking masturbation to those old chestnuts, bigamy and incest, (9) the same nasty things that threaten to run rampant in a world where homosexuals are allowed to exist and engage in sexual interaction. (10)

Personally, I’m grateful that Mr. Abbott is so dedicated to this cause because without him, I might try to rise above my station and seek sexual pleasure for its own sake. I’m indebted to him and his brethren for instructing me on what to do with my sexual organs since I honestly had no idea what to use them for! With him around I am reminded that I am after all, a woman, nothing more than a baby-making machine, a vessel who willingly and gratefully accepts the tool of the state.

1. Stephen Kreytak, “Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys,” Statesman.com, February 14, 2008.
2. Ibid.
3. January W. Payne, “Forever Pregnant,” Washingtonpost.com, May 16, 2006.
4. Bonnie Goldstein, “The Texas Dildo Massacre (NSFW)”, Slate.com, March 3, 2008.
5. Ibid.
6. Wikipedia, “Female hysteria.”
7. Ibid.
8. Stephen Kreytak, “Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys,” Statesman.com, February 14, 2008.
9. Bonnie Goldstein, “The Texas Dildo Massacre (NSFW)”, Slate.com, March 3, 2008.
10. Sean Loughlin, “Santorum under fire for comments on homosexuality,” CNN.com, April 22, 2003.

Photocollage by The Automatik

CLICK FOR IMAGE DETAIL