Zimbabwe and The Elders

A few days ago, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan and Graca Machal held a news conference in South Africa regarding the refusal of Robert Mugabe to actually follow through on his power-sharing deal with Morgan Tsvangirai. They were quite critical of Thabo Mbeki, amongst others, to exert more pressure on Zimbabwe in general and Mugabe in particular to stop his rabid handlling of his country and its citizens.

Carter, Annan and Machal are part of a group called The Elders who consider themselves in a way beyond politics because they have been so involved in politics, but because of their age have transcended the regionalism inherent in nation-state-based politics. In other words, they no longer act in the interests of a particular region since that would undermine their credibility but instead can descend upon different regions of the world, as necessary, to exert pressure and share their wisdom.

The irony is that one of the members of The Elders, Bishop Tutu, was quite vociferous in the ouster of Thabo Mbeki, who was ousted as president in part because of his corruption by the African National Congress party of South Africa.

But one of the most glaring components of the passivity of Mbeki's presidency was his constant blocking of the Pan African Coalition to censure Mugabe. Mbeki's continued support of Mugabe, even during the particularly heinous period of killing of all opposition members--the description of the way these people were killed was particularly grisly--essentially allowed Mugabe to continue on in this way and refuse to first deal with Tsvangirai and then honor his deal with him.

It is understandable that Mugabe does not want the interference of The Elders, primarily because many of them have lost credibility by either hailing from Western Europe/America or having been leaders who dealt with them. Unless one has grown up in a colony as a colonized person, one cannot understand the insistence of former colonies to not have the interference of white people. However the passivity of Mbeki has legitimized reasoning about his dictatorship and genocide that should have been addressed long before now.

Let's Talk About The Other Jobless Rate

I want to repeat again that the media needs to address the invisible cohort of those entering the job market after pursuing higher degrees: without any sign of work in their specialized fields, this cohort will have an even more difficult time than those who have just lost their jobs because of the following reasons:

1) They do not qualify for unemployment benefits
2) They have typically very high student loans they need to begin repaying
3) Their training is very specialized and thus there are fewer jobs available to them
4) Because they do not qualify for unemployment benefits, they do not qualify for any other government aid, either

It would be nice if both the media and the government were to address these issues.

Pets Reflect Their Owners

It has long been a trope that people's pets resemble their owners. That isn't all. Their temperaments, as well as the type of pet they choose, is extremely revealing.

I will draw one example and let conclusions be drawn: owners of Pit Bulls. Enough said.

On the Economy

Kenneth Rogoff, Professor at Harvard, had some interesting commentary to make today on The World regarding the inadequacy of the G-20 summit.

Some highlights include that he places today's global economic recession--let's not call it a "downturn" anymore, shall we--on the shoulders of the U.S. The last twenty years, yes, that implicates the vaunted Clinton years, of a U.S. economic policy that made certain all the other Western European countries knew that the U.S. thought its own policies were superior. Eminently superior. And that, moreover, our version of irresponsible deregulation, one that begin with Clinton but was embraced far more stridently by Bush and his cronies in the Administration, as well as its supposed superior free market, has actually failed. What was lacking, according to Rogoff, was the unwillingness of the U.S. representatives to the G-20 summit should have at the very least acknowledged the U.S.'s looming role in creating this global recession.

The Unspoken Cohort of this Recession

It is irritating that people are constantly talking about the "downturn"--who was the brilliant person who came up with that euphemism?--always talk about people losing their jobs.

But not about those people who have not been able to find jobs over the past year. These are people who hold multiple degrees. They are not competing in the job market with the people who just lost their jobs at Linens 'n Things or even will be losing them at GM, DHL, or any of these other corporations. No. These are people who occupied upper tier management positions in specialized fields. And hold multiple graduate degrees within those specialized fields.

And the worst part of this particular cohort is that they don't qualify for unemployment benefits. Instead, they live on their 401k's or what little savings they have left. While it is devastating that people are losing their jobs, from where I stand, at least they have benefits they can look forward to. And Congress is contemplating extending unemployment benefits for those who have already been on them for a while. Again, relatively speaking, the appear "lucky."

But not being able to find a job after going to school at least seven additional years to the four for a B.A. is absolutely devastating. Because the likelihood is that while receiving that additional education, that person was not being paid, or if they were for being either a Teaching Assistant or a Research Assistant, the actual pay is enough to qualify one for food stamps and other Federal Aid.

It would be nice if, finally, the mass media would address this very significant cohort of the population in their stories, rather than just focusing on the easy, sensationalist stories regarding lay-offs in large corporations.

Facebook: Anonymity Masked as Keeping in Touch

The most pernicious effect of Facebook is that it is a forum that encourages narcissism, anonymity and social irresponsibility. But it masks all of these effects by allowing people to fool themselves into thinking that they are "keeping in touch with others."

Here is how it works. The page that you see after initially logging in is the page that shows all the other posts made by your other friends. And the content of these posts? All about ME. The definition of narcissism. And they are usually fatuous entries if they aren't photos. About people drinking coffee at that moment. Or about how they just got into work and they must prepare for the games, or some stupid entry. Entries that used to be part of one's diary. As in, a venue that was private.

But now? You can publish those thoughts! You can feel that your pathetic thoughts are witty! You're so "avante garde" and "cutting edge" and all those things you really are not. Because other people are reading these insignificant posts.

Then there is the ability to read other people's posts and think, "Gee, I know what so-and-so isdoing right now." You don't, really, because usually the content of these posts is unsubstantive and silly, but you can pretend that you know. And hey, you know they use Facebook a lot, just like you, so there is that knowledge.

The effect of logging in to Facebook to "find out what others are up to" is that you never actually have to communicate with those people on your friends list. It takes a lot of times less time to email a quick note. Not a phone call, no, just a quick email. Because the amount of time people spend self-aggrandizing themselves using Facebook in order to make themselves appear more cool and witty is much longer than they would sending a quick email. But they never do. Because they console themselves with the thought that they are really keeping in touch with their friends and their friends are also in touch with them, via these stupid posts that say nothing substantive.

What a great tool.

Alito, Roberts, the Navy vs. Whales and the Environment

Who says that Roberts and Alito aren't conservative? From the LA Times, on the issue of the Navy being forced to turn off its sonars when within 1.2 miles of espied whales. It is a display of blatant disingenuousness:

"Roberts faulted judges in California for "second-guessing" the views of Navy leaders. "Where the public interest lies does not strike us as a close question," he said.

Roberts also questioned whether whales have indeed been harmed by sonar. He said the Navy had been operating off the California coast for 40 years "without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal."

The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups strongly disagreed. They say studies conducted around the world have shown that the piercing underwater sounds cause whales to flee in panic. These studies said some whales have beached themselves and have shown signs of bleeding in their ears as a result of high-powered sonar."

The Washington Post offers further details:

"At issue in the case is the Navy's use of a type of sonar that can detect quiet new submarines deployed by China, North Korea and other potential adversaries. Environmental groups sued the Navy to demand restrictions on 14 training exercises scheduled from February 2007 to January 2009 in the waters off Southern California, which are shared by 37 species of marine mammals including whales, dolphins and sea lions.

Roberts noted in his opinion that the parties strongly disputed the extent to which the Navy's training exercises harm the marine mammals or disrupt their behavioral patterns. The Navy claimed it has used mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar in such exercises off the Southern California coast for 40 years "without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal," Roberts wrote. At most, that type of sonar might cause temporary hearing loss or brief disruptions of the mammals' behavioral patterns, the Navy asserted.

The plaintiffs in the case, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, contended that sonar can cause much more serious injuries than the Navy has acknowledged, including permanent hearing loss and decompression sickness, and that it can lead to mass whale strandings. Certain species such as beaked whales are especially susceptible to mid-frequency sonar, but the Navy would not necessarily be able to detect their injuries because these whales dive deeply and spend little time at the surface, the environmental groups argued."

As for worrying about China and Korea, they just really don't care about the U.S. except insofar as they can make money of the U.S. economy, which is a really long shot right about now. Why is the U.S. always searching for scapegoats to justify unnecessary expenditures that pad the coffers of their flunkies, lobbyists and others who have these politicians in their pockets? Oh, perhaps that is the answer.

How Will Obama Engage His Volunteers

It's a simple question. With a very complicated answer. After all, many of his volunteers are his contemporaries and older, not the Gen-Yers and younger who can move to D.C. because they don't yet have families.

And if this new administration is to truly represent the people, and it is built by those same people, then how can these same people all converge upon D.C.? Will that not make them representative of D.C., and a very self-selecting cohort at that, rather than representative of the place from whence they come? Because after all, if you live most of the time in D.C., it's rather easy to forget what happens in, say, a small town in Virginia like Appomattox Court House. Or in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Of course, that is what Congress is for, to represent the needs of its constituents. But not in the Executive branch, those people represent their constituents in the Legislative Branch. If Obama truly wants to involve these new volunteers, he needs to do it in a more substantive way than merely by making a "digital suggestion box" available to people across the country. He needs to establish an infrastructure that can incorporate people around the country into a system that will utilize their unique skills, visions to contribute to the shape of this new Administration within the Executive Branch of government.

Identity Politics

Whenever I begin discussing race, the double bind of hyphenation in the U.S., I am often told by some extremely smart person who is inevitably Euro-American (read: white) who scoffs and says s/he just hates identity politics.

And the other day, I was having a conversation with a woman who teaches Anti-Bias Curriculum to budding teachers and therapists, as well as classes on how to deal with identity issues in K-12 classrooms. So I asked her how she would respond to such scorn in re: identity politics. She replied that it is not something that you can have a single conversation about and change another person's mind. Rather, she would point out inherent particularities in that other person, who is most likely white, has in his/her identity. They aren't just "white," but they are from Idaho. Their parents immigrated from Ireland. And so on and so forth. Because normally these people don't have to think about their identities, because they are part of the dominant culture. Actually, that's my observation because she seemed to think that white people are not. But so long as they are in control of all the institutions in our society, so long as they dictate the rules, they are the dominant culture. Hey, I don't like it, I just tell it like it is.

So anyway, her point was that over time, this person would realize that his/her identity was also particular, and that just because s/he doesn't have to defend him/herself by explaining that yes, actually, I'm American and my family is a fourth-generation fill-in-the-blank, that they, too, have a quite possibly contested identity.

This answer struck me as fundamentally unsatisfactory. It was, for one, far too touchy-feely. It had no strength behind it. No academic credentials behind it. No one like Susan Stanford Friedman arguing for the fluidity of constructing identity. A constructed narrative of identity that is simply that: a construction. And it is a relational construction defined in terms of the other. Consisting of intentional deletions, insertions and highlights. No one like Ella Shohat to give us a resounding, often extremely, painfully incisive summary of the problems of equating Euro-American definitions of self, agency with authoritative, either when trying to understand people from other countries and especially those in this country but who have different racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. No one invoking Anne McClintock or Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.

So now, I'm doing it. To reject identity politics is to reject the idea of a dominant white culture. To reject that is to not understand that there is privilege in the ability to ignore that identities are constructions. After all, if you're part of the dominant culture, no one questions your identity. But identities are narratives that depend upon not just a careful selection of what gets included in that narrative, but also upon systemic, institutionalized constructions of self and other. And those, in turn, rely on the silencing of minority narratives. They rely on the false assumption that identity is fixed, rather than fluid. Indeed, if it were fixed, not so many people who wanted to silence the Obama presidential run would have been quite as threatened as they were.

I intend to keep refining my understanding of identity construction. And next time, if some friend tells me s/he hates it, I will have a few things to say.

Obtuse, Ignorant Republicans

I was just at a symposium at UCLA and I was accosted by a woman named Halie who asked me why I liked Obama. I said that I had liked him since 2004 when Bush won re-election, I had made a bumper sticker for Obama. What did I like? That he was smart. I then told her about an Op-Ed letter in the L.A. Times in which I paraphrased a woman who said many people like her cared about others, wanted policies on Health Care and Education that did not just serve themselves. And that there were many others like her. They were called Democrats. She laughed.

And then this woman named Dolly (can you believe that name??), turned to me and began lecturing me. Did you know that Chris Rock was a Republican? Did you know that Republicans vanquished the KKK? They didn't. They aren't vanquished and certainly were not during the 1960's, when they hung black people at will. And did you know Don King was a Republican? And that means what?

First, I wonder why she kept bringing up all these black examples of Republicans. And then referencing the KKK. If you think Don King is your best example of what a Republican is, you are two things. You are a bigot. Another word for racist. Because you automatically assume that simply because a few black people are part of the Republican rolls, that fact somehow mitigates racism. And she also proved her racism because she was evidently assuming because I am colored, though not black, I MUST have voted for Obama because he is colored, too. Because she kept saying things about black people in trying to prove me "wrong"--of what, I have no idea. And it was shown by the Pew Research Center that this year's Republican National Convention had the lowest number of black people in recent history: less than 6% black. Just for comparison, the Democratic National Convention had over 40%.

And she also proved her unrepentant, uninformed obtuseness. Because what does Don King being in your political party mean? You have bad taste in hair? Oh, right, you're not very smart. I forgot.

But like I said, evidently she thought that I was just voting for Obama because I'm not white. Even though I never said anything about race. I said I thought he was smart. Twice. That's it. And that Democrats vote on policies, even if it does raise their taxes, because they want to help other people. Today. Not 100 years ago. What kind of argument is that if you have to say that your party helped squash the KKK over a hundred years ago? Especially if you're wrong?

Clearly, this woman does not know history. Does she know that, statistically, immigrants who become citizens become Republicans? Because they read the original ideals of Republicans. No, she says, she did not. Does she know that it was the 1960's that turned the Republicans into the kind of Neo-Cons they are today? That it was part of a grand strategy to retake the South (boy, did they ever) as Republican territory? No, she did not. Did she know that Republican politicians have made it a dirty word to be "smart?" And that is what I and the letter-writer (which admittedly I have probably decontextualized) were referring to in asserting that "we care": because Republicans are always labeling Democrats, and not just the politicians but everyone else, as "Limousine Liberals" and that we're intellectuals. As if policies like Healthcare for ALL children--which Democrats want but Republicans don't--is not humanitarian but merely "Elitist."

How did this conversation with this bigot begin? Because she overheard me say Democrats value taking care of others and that I thought Obama was smart. So she just HAD to say something "because I have been standing here listening to her and I have some things to say!" Again, my question is, who asked her? This wasn't her conversation. But, like so many white people, she just feels she is entitled to intrude on any conversation. So she evidently objected to my observation that Democrats care? Or that Obama is actually smart? Gee, you're right. If you're a Republican, evidently those things are offensive! They aren't true!

I am so sick of rabid idiots who are rude and intrude on other people's conversations. And I'm sick of Republicans. Not coincidentally, they seem to go together.

The Aftermath...

So Obama won. Seeing a Black U.S. President is an emotional thing, for sure.

But of course Gay Marriage took a big hit nationally.

Affirmative Action (or what's left of it) was banned in two (more) states.

California (the big, blue, leftist state) decided to continue its project of criminalizing and subjugating people of color. (If we didn't have prisons, what would we do with them all?)

And I'm not even sure what other nefarious state measures were passed...

So what direction is this country headed in again?

Cynical, But True

I've been hearing some rumblings about the campaign, now that it is a presidency, which trouble me.

The issue of a black man being elected has now become associated only with black people, i.e. it will raise black people. Amazing that all other people of color have become, well, insignificant. They have faded into the background. Who cares about them? That's the problem with this country: too focused on black and white. Not enough focus on all those other, inconvenient minorities.

And the hypocrisy of Hillary supporters is also disturbing. They hated Obama during the primaries all the way to the end of the election. They were quite vocal in their criticism, from his naivete/inexperience to his wife's comments. But now they are clamoring for their old Clinton-era positions. Not the high-level cabinet positions, all those other, less visible, but well-paying nevertheless, positions. Working their "connections." Disturbing.

Some Thoughts

In an article in the LA Times, which is a far more liberal newspaper than any of the other national newspapers, including the Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times, I read an article about race, white voters and Obama.

I thought this one quote, by a 47 year old man whose ancestors were slave owners, was really on point. Bear in mind that while this was in the context of voting, it is generally relevant to Euro-Americans and their approach and reluctance to discuss racism.

He says: "For me, the Obama thing is a giant step forward for America," he said. The 47-year-old's ancestors once lorded over black slaves as owners of one of the Old South's largest plantation empires. Electing a black candidate, he said, would show that "we're not just the slavery nation, the Jim Crow nation." He then later observes, that Obama, if elected, would quell overseas critics who accuse the United States of racism. If critics like Steele called that "white guilt," he said, then so be it.

Guilt, he said, "has a place and a role. Those who fail to feel guilt are sociopaths."

It is good to see this kind of article in a national newspaper that can also be accessed online. Though whether people will read this, and whether more importantly it will spark the kind of critical self-examination needed, is another question.

Too long, those of color have been forced to dance around the "politically correct" position of not raising the issue of racism, or indeed even mentioning the word, around Euro-Americans. Too long. It is as if we must acknowledge that, "Hey, if I feel guilt, isn't that enough?"

No, it isn't. Changes must be wrought, not simply in individual minds, but collectively. So that the Neo-Nazis who hatched a plan to assassinate Obama are not merely brushed under the media rug. This is not a mere blip on the screen of information. This is a postule that reveals a much deeper, systemic rot underneath: the systemic, institutionalized racism that is symbolized by Palin's followers. Immoral. Radical. And yet, knowing that they are referencing hundreds of years of domestic terrorism, otherwise referred to as racism, that they are buoyed still by institutions that inadequately address Neo-Nazism, racism, and "hate-based" crimes. Because today, these crimes are treated as individual acts, rather than collective acts that reference history. And becuase of that referencing, have a greater deleterious and pernicious effect on the psyche of its victims: people of color.