Godheval.net

Read More »

Then there’s the matter of which movies are offered to either side.  If I’m the romantic type, I must want to watch some trite garbage like The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past or the insufferably pointless and overrated Paranormal Activity.  But if I’m not – if I’m the skull-crunching manly-man type, or the lonely lurker type – then I must want something involving drunken stupidity like The Hangover, the pulp sensationalism of Inglorious Basterds, gangsters in Public Enemies, explosions like G.I. Joe, or a healthy dose of racism like we find in The Goods - you know, because the target market probably isn’t Asian or anyone else who might be offended by Asian stereotypes.

Because all real chest-pounding manly men enjoy that kind of stuff.

As a guy in a successful heterosexual relationship, his ad was tailor made for me, right?  Except that I hate most romance movies no matter who I’m watching them with, because of their hackneyed storylines and characters who are either unrealistically beautiful or exaggeratedly hideous only to – by way of magic or hard work – become unrealistically beautiful.  Except that I don’t buy into the idea that ideals like love or tenderness or sensitivity or – you know, generally not being some chest pounding machismo asshole – are mutually exclusive from my identity as a man.

Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill, but the shit just annoyed me.  Maybe me and my girlfriend, instead of exchanging frilly pink hearts, like to share a cocktail inside of a flaming skull right before we headbutt each other.  With love.   You don’t know.  It’s just more evidence of how the consumer culture is so oblivious or indifferent to the many different types of ways that people can choose to interact with one another – and not just on Valentine’s Day.

«

Read More »

One of the many dimensions of racism is that people of color are seen first for their race and second – if at all – for their individual merits.  Along with this also comes the idea that the actions or experiences of one African-American somehow represents all African-Americans.  For example, the more salacious behavior of some African-American celebrities – like rappers or athletes – are taken as evidence of some moral depravity inherent to their race.

It is this way of thinking that gives rise to stereotypes.  Every stereotype has some basis in reality.  But where the actions, thoughts, or experiences of an individual or even a small group of people are taken to represent the larger group to which they belong, it becomes racism.

Where an African-American watches Precious and feels some personal shame or awkwardness, especially where they are in the company of white people, it suggests that they have internalized this idea that every African-American by default represents their entire race.  Where a white person watches Precious and somehow feels more “informed” about the black experience or feels some remorse for African-Americans as a whole, only shows just how ill-informed they are for assuming that all African-American experiences are the same.

I cannot pretend as though I am unaffected by this experience.  When watching Tyler Perry’s latest movie I Do Bad All By Myself, I was acutely aware of the fact that there were white people in the audience.  Part of my anxiety stemmed from the thought that while African-American audiences were laughing “along with” the movie, white audiences were laughing at the movie, in a finger-pointing sort of way.  Somewhere in my mind I assumed that white people would walk away from this movie with the idea that they obtained some glimpse into African-American life.   And found it hilarious. Which of course, in turn, must mean that they are laughing at me. The pathology of the black experience and institutionalized racism are deeply rooted.

Tyler Perry doesn’t claim to represent all African-Americans in his films.  Rather he is crafting stories that represent particular experiences that otherwise would not be shown in predominantly white Hollywood.  Because I have had this discussion about representation and institutionalized racism – both internally and with others – I am able to assuage any feelings of anxiety after the fact. But it would seem that this conversation is not taking place nearly enough.

No one watches a movie like 8-Mile and presumes that it represents all young white men, or even all young white men who grew up in Detroit.  No one presumes that American History X reveals the typical everyday experience of white people.  No one listens to a news story about a white mother murdering her child and assumes that such a thing is commonplace amongst white families.  So why should anyone take Precious to be a representation of African-Americans in general, simply because the main character and most of the cast happen to be African-American?

Precious is only one story – an extreme case, yet a case that undoubtedly reflects or touches on the real experiences of particular individuals in this country.  At no point did Sapphire – author of the original book, or Lee Daniels – director of the film (both of whom are African-American) – state that Precious was a “black story” or representative of the African-American experience in general.

Looking at the bigger picture, the existence of this paradigm of one-represents-all suggests something even more critical.  That “blackness” – in how it purports to categorize and define a large number of diverse people – and “individuality” are mutually exclusive. It highlights the shame inherent to the black experience, instilled by the history and present reality of racism, such that one feels an automatic need to distinguish themselves and their experiences from other African-Americans who are quite unlike them.

It suggests that we – as a nation – are past due for a revolution in our way of thinking, that is one that lies outside of race, yet not without serious consideration for how race has affected and continues to influence our social dynamics.

«

Read More »

This is where denial comes in – because in order for someone to want to improve themselves, they have to first accept that there is something wrong in the first place.  For those infected with the white virus, whether they realize it or not, their symptoms are not merely benign but ostensibly to their benefit.

I did not list hatred as one of the characteristics of the white virus, and that’s because it isn’t.  Hatred is a response – a coping mechanism for the fear that is a symptom of the white virus.  Whiteness juxtaposes people of certain features – mostly Western European – against everyone else.

Where those others are seen as a threat to safety or resources, the whiteness virus fosters an adversarial relationship.  Ironically, the only real threat is the white virus itself which, as one of the most formidable memeplexes in existence, reinforces its hold over the infected by encouraging either the assimilation or annihilation of those others.

As its purpose since the onset has been propagation – and again we see this manifest physically and memetically – the whiteness virus instills fear of change most of all.  Change in the form of any shift in the social or political dynamic, in the form of miscegenation, in the form of multiculturalism.

Whiteness cannot thrive in a non-hostile environment, and so its survival as a cultural phenomenon – also manifest in the misguided survival instincts of the infected – depends on conflict between groups, namely any conflict that allows the infected to maintain any real physical, social, cultural, economic, or emotional distance between themselves and everyone else.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say, so let us dispense with any “intentions” and be straightforward with what is absolutely essential to reconciliation – the absolute annihilation of the whiteness virus, and the vaccination of the youth against future infections.

If it is not clear that I am speaking metaphorically, let me state plainly that I am, and that I am not advocating any physical action against any group of people.  Even though the whiteness virus has allowed for unconscionable violence on the part of the infected, to react with violence would only strengthen the adversarial climate that allows the virus to thrive.

The ultimate weapon against the whiteness virus?  Information.  But information alone is nothing without incentive.  And that incentive can only come from the infected themselves, by sheer strength of will, out of a sense of right and wrong.

The first stage is always denial.  But it’s about time to move on.

«

Read More »

Speaking of prejudices, another interesting point was made by Andrew Liepman, deputy director for intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center.  He said:

The potential terrorist indoctrination and recruitment was a consequence of these clusters, and is the product of “the refugee experience of fleeing a war-torn country combined with isolation, perceived discrimination, marginalization and frustrated expectations.

“Perceived discrimination” is a troublesome phrase, because it eliminates by default the suggestion that the discrimination was real.  It suggests that not only did Liepman consider discrimination as a potential cause for radicalization, but that he then consciously decided that it was only a matter of Somali perception.  He could’ve simply said that the Somalis face discrimination – something no one would’ve doubted – without any additional qualifiers.  It could’ve been left to the audience to decide whether or not it was real or perceived.

To downplay the possibility of discrimination as a mere matter of Somali perception is to potentially ignore a critical aspect of their experience.  Xenophobia, after 9/11, has reached new heights, and so it is not only possible, but likely that Somali-Americans experience discrimination as a result of this fear.  Nevermind the prevailing prejudices that mark the experiences of anyone considered “black” in the United States.  Perceived discrimination indeed, Mr. Liepman.

It is all too common for members of the demographic majority, who are not likely to experience any meaningful discrimination, to downplay the discrimination of minorities as either exaggerated or as cases of “hypersensitivity”.  This turns responsibility for discrimination away from the perpetrators and towards the aggrieved, in effect blaming them for their own negative experiences.  Framed within a discussion about homegrown terrorism, this diminishes any attempts at empathy, and bolsters the case for considering Somali-Americans a threat, because not only are they frustrated and isolated, but also delusional.

Ultimately, in identifying discrimination as a risk factor for radicalization, it doesn’t even matter whether it is real or perceived, and either way suggests a need for a more equitable interface between the Somali-American community and the greater American society.

If we are going to dismiss any or all experience of discrimination as existing only within the perception of the aggrieved, then perhaps this rising threat of homegrown terrorism is a mere matter of perception as well.  At what point does a problem cross over from simple perception to a living breathing phenomenon?  Is it only when it affects the demographic majority?  Which then is more real, the “threat” presented by innocent Arab and Muslim American citizens in the aftermath of 9/11, or the prejudices those Americans have faced since that fateful day?  Which then, was a mere matter of perception?

Shirwa Ahmed, if we can even be certain that he was involved in the Hargeisa-Bobaso bombings, would be the only known example of terrorist threat emerging from the Somali-American community.  It is important to note in this case, that the attacks were conducted in Somalia, probably in response to the lingering tensisons and political instabilities there.  It is not completely unreasonable for a recent Somali transplant, culturally isolated in the United States, to seek purpose in his homeland, where his memories and emotions are still tethered.  None of this implies that any other individual with similar experiences would turn any such frustration or isolation into a desire to attack the United States.

Connecting terrorist activities in another country to the fears of potential terrorist attacks in this country is not only reckless, but intellectually irresponsible.  At the same time, to dismiss what may be a very real experience with prejudice as only a matter of perception is to ignore one of the factors that may make certain members of the Somali-American community susceptible to radical ideology.

Terrorism is too often viewed as a random and/or purely evil act, with no precedent or rational cause.  There is no group of people, national, cultural or religious, that in itself presents a greater threat of terrorism than any other.  It is always the situations surrounding a group that increases the risk – situations that create fear, desperation, or a hopelessness so pervasive that death becomes a viable option.  Addressing the problems facing any community before they become risk factors is vital to reducing the threat of terrorism.  Addressing a problem begins by acknowledging it, rather than dismissing it as a mere matter of perception.

«

Read More »

There have been some mutterings that the Steele appointment was akin to Affirmative Action – that is to say, that he was chosen exclusively for his ethnicity.  However, while it is true that Steele was probably chosen at least in part for being African-American, it is hardly an example of Affirmative Action, because the Republican National Committee is under no obligation to fulfill any quotas in their appointments.  The Steele appointment, unlike Affirmative Action, was not an attempt to foster greater inclusion, but the kind of exercise in racial politics for which the GOP has become notorious.

President Obama’s ethnicity played no small part in his election.  While he certainly was elected by virtue of his vision, his eloquence, and a message which resonated with a country’s desperate grasping for change, it is true that he may not have gotten as much attention were he not African-American.  He galvanized the vast majority of African-American and other non-white voters by virtue of being non-white himself.  He powerfully contradicted long-standing stereotypes of African-Americans in the public consciousness, and made people pay attention long enough to hear his message.  And out of a resistance to the racism that they had long denied but were forced to acknowledge as it reared its ugly head at Obama, many Euro-Americans voted for him as well – at least in part as an affirmation that they, unlike the nationalist fringe, were not party to such ugliness.

Given all this, it becomes clear that the dynamic between Obama’s ethnicity and his success as a politician is rather complex, not a simple 1-to-1 correlation.  In other words, he most certainly was not elected because he was African-American, but it was in part because he was African-American that people paid attention long enough to notice that he was a strong candidate.  A misunderstanding of this dynamic illustrates a greater misunderstanding of American racial dynamics in general.  And it is this kind of misunderstanding that has virtually ensured that the African-American vote, and that of other minority groups, have been lost to the Republican party for generations.

During the Illinois Senate race of 2004, the GOP found itself up against a strong Democratic candidate, one who happened to be African-American.  Their response to then Senate contender Barack Obama was Alan Keyes, a last minute substitute for Jack Ryan, who had suddenly withdrawn from the race.  Keyes, who had never been a viable candidate for any office, and had near zero political power or influence, was remarkable only for being one of very few visible African-American Republicans.  Predicated on the false assumption that Barack Obama’s singular claim to fame was his ethnicity, the GOP seemed to think that putting up an African-American candidate themselves would cut into his market share.  They were dead wrong.  Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes’ 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.

The GOP attempted a similar strategy in the 2008 Presidential campaign by selecting Sarah Palin as their Vice Presidential nominee, in an apparent attempt to draw the female voters they perceived the Democratic party to have lost by not selecting Hillary Clinton.  It backfired.  Women resented the suggestion that they were voting based on gender rather than an understanding of the issues – an understanding Sarah Palin vividly illustrated that she did not possess.

Now with Michael Steele we see the GOP again using blackface [sic] in an attempt to counter the widespread popularity of Barack Obama.  Strange that they would attempt the exact same strategy that failed not only once, but twice – a further indication of how out of touch they are with the electorate.  While Steele may have merits outside of his ethnicity, they have not gained him any worthwhile recognition, and until now he has been a barely relevant figure in American politics.  It is noteworthy to mention that his popularity was most significant amongst African-American Republicans, who as a minority within a minority, sometimes find public representatives hard to come by.

Since his appointment, Steele has hit the ground stumbling, making a number of gaffes and self-contradictions, all the while demonstrating that he, like much of the party, is out of touch.  Were he not African-American, would he have referred the economic stimulus as “bling bling“?  Would Minnesota representative Michelle Bachman have said to him, in a laughable attempt to speak AAVE, “You be da man“?  Or would Steele have declared it necessary for the GOP to have a “hip-hop makeover“, by initiating an “off the hook” public relations campaign?

It is as if Chairman Steele is trying to remind everyone that he is African-American, just in case they’d forgotten since they last time they saw his face.  And of course blackness – nevermind the 400+ years of rich history and traditions, struggle and accomplishment – is foremost defined by stereotypes and pop culture slogans.  Perhaps to people with zero knowledge of history, and whose only frame of reference when it comes to African-Americans is the television.  It may be that Steele is so out of touch with African-Americans that he has felt a need to mentally renew his own “membership”.  In the process, he is making a complete fool of himself.

Given hip-hop’s political origins, a case actually could be made for the GOP using the culture as a medium for galvanizing new party recruits.  However, doing so would require the GOP to take hip-hop seriously, not condescend to it by throwing around obsolete catch phrases.

If Michael Steele knew anything at all about hip-hop, he would know of its capriciousness, its capacity for rapid change, that the flavor of the day can easily be replaced by the flavor of the next minute.  Had he known anything about hip hop, he might’ve paused before making statements that were not only long out of circulation within the hip hop lexicon, but have since been co-opted by those who would ridicule the culture.  Probably everyone who embraces the culture, and anyone who at least appreciates the music, cringed collectively every time Michael Steele invoked hip-hop from some podium.

African-Americans as a group – diverse in their interests, their concerns, their ideologies, their practices – are a microcosm for the larger American population.  It stands to reason then, that in spite there being some unique issues to contend with, African-American concerns are simply American concerns.

The Republican party, in its stalwart resistance to change, its clinging to static values and obsolete principles, has proven itself of late to be ill-representative of the American population, and ignorant of those concerns.  Michael Steele therefore, as a man equally out of touch with the group from which he was selected, is the perfect choice to lead them.

«