I’ve seen a lot of posts talking about OWS, police brutality, race, gender, & intersectionality. Many of those posts include links to the famous stories of police brutality. And those stories are important & should be told. But, by only talking about those stories I worry that we’re giving the impression that police brutality is relatively rare in communities of color. I’ve posted in the past about the cop who called me a nigger when I was 12 & the time my (then) 13 year old husband was beaten up by a cop. But, those weren’t our only run ins with abusive police officers. Experience has taught me to worry about the cops. I think of them as a risk to navigate more than I think of them as people who are here to protect me or my family. My husband & I have already had the talks with our oldest son about how to act when he’s stopped by the cops. Notice I said when he’s stopped.

That’s because I have been stopped while doing everything from taking a walk to grocery shopping to helping someone move. My father in law runs a Medicar service that primarily caters to the elderly who need help getting from their homes to doctor’s appointments. My husband used to ride along to help him out, since it’s a family business. One day they were stopped by the police because some cop decided a white van leaving a hospital on the West Side of Chicago fit the description of a tan truck that had been involved in a robbery in the Loop. They forced them out of the vehicle at gunpoint while a bunch of elderly people watched & worried. When it became clear that they didn’t fit the description? The cops told them they were free to go and left. That’s it. No apology, no consideration for all the people in the vehicle, but then everyone involved was a POC.

Matter of fact, let me tell you about Kourtney Wilson. I’ve known her since she was a teenager. She’s a nice young lady who unfortunately has lupus. Two years ago she had a seizure, her roommate dialed 911 & when the paramedics came (despite being told about her health status), they manhandled her & had the police arrest her.  As if that wasn’t bad enough they took her all over the place (two different precinct houses & two different hospitals) so that she was denied medical treatment for 9 hours. Think about that for a second. NINE HOURS after she had the seizure she finally got the help she needed. And that’s a case that only made the local news & the blogosphere before vanishing into the Wayback machine to be dug up by people like me with a reason to know her name. Imagine being afraid to call an ambulance when someone you love needs one because they could be arrested for being sick. Imagine being killed in your own home like Kathryn Johnston or Aiyana Jones. Imagine being harassed or having a gun pulled on you just because you’re going about your day while being of color.

We don’t have to be at a protest, or actually fit the description of a suspect to have a negative interaction with the police. Officers like John Burge have tortured POC into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit & gotten away with it for decades. We know the police cannot be trusted. So, to see the police using pepper spray on protestors, or going out dressed in riot gear to evict them from encampments? Not at all a shock. I know some will say “Well now we know, & we’re trying to fix it for everyone” but you’ll pardon me if I don’t buy that the changes OWS is fighting for will extend to POC. Not when every time someone brings up race and OWS there is invariably a “It’s not about race, it’s about class. Why are you being divisive?” response from multiple people. POC of every class have to be concerned with the possibility of police brutality, & until OWS addresses that reality, how can it represent the entire 99%?

On Police Brutality, Living While Of Color, & Why Brutality At OWS isn’t Shocking -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

I would have written an angry rant about Dr. Laura’s crazypants meltdown on air in which she just enjoyed saying the word nigger so much she had to say it about a dozen times while telling a black, female caller that she was hypersensitive, except I keep getting the feeling that a lot of this is about publicity. How many years has it been since Dr. Laura said anything anyone cared about? Her gay hate pretty much erased her from polite company. And while I’m sure she still has high radio ratings, it doesn’t take much to have high radio ratings amongst the kind of trogladytes that would listen to her silliness day after day. But now every network and talk show is up in this shit. I don’t have much to add.

Instead, I thought that I would devote the comments section of this blog to a couple of issues. The first being: if anyone out there is at all confused about why what Dr. Laura said is wrong on every level, please let me know and I will explain it to you. It’s more than just that she used the word nigger. She wasn’t just making a philosophical point. She was being an ass and engaging in racism. And her weak apology doesn’t erase it.

The second, and more important, is giving some good advice to the woman who called in. Jade is married to a white guy and apparently has to field a lot of clueless questions from her white in-laws or her husband’s white friends. They even use the word nigger around her¹. She was calling to ask the good doctor how she should go about getting these people to stop and point out to them how racially insensitive their remarks are.

This is a not uncommon problem. Probably every black person in America has been called on by some clueless white person in America to speak for an entire race of people and answer for stuff that the individual in question may have absolutely nothing to do with. But it’s especially sticky when it’s a  bit tied up in your relationship.

Those of you that have been in situations like this, do you have any advice for Jade? Dr. Laura obviously didn’t, so someone has to pick up the slack.

Since Dr. Laura Can’t Give Advice To Black People Without Being A Racist Twit, We’ll Give It A Shot -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Footnotes

1. Click here for the full transcript and audio of the conversation Jade had with Laura, if you can stomach it.

The recent incident with the Arizona elementary school mural and the city councilman who hated it with his racist, racist ways got me to thinking about how it always feels to me that no matter how many minds I change via this blog or through personal interactions, it still may not be enough. There are too many people who are mired in their mindset and never have it challenged because of where they live, or who they associate with, or whatever. It might be possible to write those people off except they have children, and they teach those children either directly or by example. And the cycle continues.

So how do you combat this? One of my thoughts was that if we could teach young people about the concepts we discuss here — privilege, unpacking the knapsack, the different levels and manifestations of prejudice, bias, and bigotry — could we give them the tools to combat them or, at least, change on an individual level?

I know such efforts occur on a college level. I have a piece in a book about key debates around race (though I’m not sure when that book is coming out). Though I wonder if this is too late? Or even enough?

Kids in elementary school deal with or perpetuate bias, so shouldn’t we start with them? Of course, kids that young might not be able to fully grasp concepts of privilege (adults seem to have a hard time). What I envision is a multi-step, multi-grade curriculum designed to teach different aspects of anti-prejudice thinking and behavior appropriate to the age level. Elementary, middle school, high school, then college. You’d have two tracks — one for kids who progress from one level to the next, starting in elementary, one for kids in middle and high school who get these lessons for the first time. As far as college goes, I think every school needs to have a mandatory freshman class on Understanding the Other.

This learning scheme will not only be about race but also gender as well. And higher level materials will also include sexual orientation, class, religion, and more. And there should be discussions and lessons for kids who are likely to be the target of prejudice on how to deal with it effectively. I would also love to see materials for kids of color that specifically deals with intra-POC relations. because it’s not as if there aren’t issues there, too.

There are three aspects to this curriculum that I see as key.

1. Books. We need different ones for each learning level as well as teacher materials and activities. While my choice would be for each child to have a book they can keep, it might be more effective to aim for each school getting books they can re-use.
2. An online component. Since there are always new essays, blog posts, and amazing discussions online, there should be a repository for links or full text that teachers and students can also access. This way the books won’t have to be updated as often, but the curriculum can remain fresh. I feel a wiki would be the most useful in this regard, as that would make it easy to categorize posts, articles, and essays and make interconnections between them.
3. Independent teachers. As much as I would wish that existing teacher could implement this curriculum, I know this would not always be the case. For many schools, it might be more useful if outside teachers came in and taught during one class period — perhaps for the one devoted to social studies? — for one week twice a year. Obviously the optimal situation would be throughout the year and all the time. But you have to start somewhere. The teachers wouldn’t have to be full-time in this case. Professionals who get the training necessary and could take a week off from their job or part of the day for a week to teach. I expect this would work best in any area where the program is just getting started.

To get started on something like this one would, of course, need money. We’ll need folks to come in and help design the curriculum for each age level, we’ll need folks to write, design, and print the books and materials, we’ll need teachers. And since all the news I hear about public schools is how people keep taking their money away, I assume that the best strategy for getting this into schools is to offer it at no cost. So, privately funded.

The whole time I was thinking about this, I was sure that I can’t have ever been the only one with this idea. And someone must have implemented it somewhere. i’d love to know, if anyone out there is aware of such things. I’d also like to know how they pulled it off, what the results have been for the kids.

This idea and the structure I’ve envisioned may not be perfect or exactly right. But it’s an open source idea. Build on it, improve it, whatever. What I want the most is for people to get together and make it happen. How? I am not even sure. I’m willing to have someone tell me. Or even just to go out and do it. I don’t need to spearhead.

Thoughts?

Get Them While They’re Young: An Idea Toward Creating An Anti-Prejudice Future -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

At WisCon this year I participated in a panel called Writing the Other: Shout-Outs wherein the panelists named fictional properties they liked where the writers(s) wrote characters that were “other” to them. Not just white people writing POC, but also able-bodied people writing disabled characters, men writing women, etc. We had a great time on the panel giving each other recs and getting them from the audience. And I thought this would make a good regular post here on the ABW.

Each month we’ll have an open thread where people can list and discuss books, short stories, TV, movies, and comics where the writer(s) successfully wrote the Other. List as many as you like (just watch out for adding too many links, else the spam catcher grab thee!) and tell us why you think that media is a great example of writing the other.

To get started, here are some of the books and shows mentioned at the panel. Big thanks to coraa for posting this list on her journal.

• Richard Morgan’s Black Man, published in the US as Thirteen
• Peter Straub, The Hellfire Club
• Gwyneth Jones, Life
• Tananarive Du, The Good House
• Tobias Buckell, “In The Heart of Kalikuata”
• Tamora Pierce, Circle of Magic and The Circle Opens, Daja and Briar
• Alexander McCall Smith, Ladies’ #1 Detective Agency (and the TV show)
• Nnedi Okorafor, She Who Fears Death
• “The Pirates of Dark Water” (TV)
• “The Closer” (TV)
• “Dexter” (TV) (there was some lively discussion on this one)
• “Leverage” (TV)
• Catherynne M. Valente, The Orphan’s Tales
• “Gargoyles” (TV)
• Adrian Drake, Null Void
• Okasha Skat’si and Susanne M. Beck, The Growing
• Karin Lowachee, Gaslight Dogs
• China Mieville, Un Lun Dun
• Robert V. S. Redick, Rats and the Ruling Sea, published in the US as The Ruling Sea
• Justina Robson, “Silver Screen”
• Jon Muller and Krista Brennan, Virtuoso
• Maureen McHugh, China Mountain Zhang
• Kathryn Erskine, Mockingbird
• Ursula LeGuin, Powers series
• Elizabeth Moon, Remnant Population and Speed of Dark
• “Avatar: The Last Airbender” (TV) (not, as many people emphatically pointed out, the movie)
• “She-Ra” (TV)
• “Lincoln Heights” (TV)
• Samuel Delany, Babel-17
• Mike Shepherd, Kris Longknife
• Shannon and Dean Hale, Rapunzel’s Revenge

Leave your shout-outs in the comments or co-sign any of these.

Writing The Other Shouts-Outs – June 2010 -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

In the wake of unusualmusic’s ever-so-fun linkspam, let’s talk about cultural appropriation! Again. (C’mon, you know you love it.)

Or not. I’ve become aware in recent months of a growing movement in the creative world that I’m going to call, for lack of a better term, anti-appropriation. I’m seeing this mostly among fellow writers (probably because those are the circles I run in), some of whom are arguing that white writers should write only about white characters because they can never fully comprehend the experiences of PoC. But I’m seeing mutters about it in the filmosphere too, mostly in response to events like the amazingly racist casting of the Prince of Persia and The Last Airbender films, which take stories designed with PoC leads and replace them with white actors. (Except the villains.) There was some discussion along these lines in the comments of my last post on the Airbender film, suggesting that since no appropriation is without problems, maybe white TV and film producers just shouldn’t appropriate PoC cultures — instead they should open up their field to let more PoC creators in. I hear similar talk in the gamesphere: get more black people into game design, anti-appropriation folks argue, and that will prevent debacles like Resident Evil 5. We just can’t rely on white people (or Japanese people influenced by American culture, in the case of RE5) to do black people right. We have to take care of this ourselves.

This kind of thinking sounds good until you examine it more closely and notice the underlying assumptions. Namely:

• That the responsibility for incorporating PoC into white-dominated media — and stopping racism in same — lies solely with PoC.
• That all of us creator-types, despite being, y’know, creative, are incapable of understanding the experiences of people different from ourselves, so we shouldn’t even try.
• That there’s no need for consumers to see complete, multicultural worlds. Unless they’re designed by committee, anyway.

Here’s one big problem with insisting that it’s never OK to appropriate: the result is segregation. And here’s another: it’s a cop-out. The anti-appropriation argument applies a simplistic solution to a complex and nuanced problem — doing a good job of depicting The Other in fictional representation. It can be done, but it requires hard work. Research, self-examination, strategy. Rather than come up with this strategy, however, the anti-appropriation argument is a punt. Let the PoC handle PoC, while the white people stick to white people. Problem solved, the Jim Crow way.

(And yes, that’s a deliberate appropriation of “Jim Crow”. The same kind of thinking underlies the whole principle of separate-but-equal, anti-miscegenation laws, and so on.)

Now, I don’t mean to accuse the anti-appropriation movement of malice. In some cases, yes, adherents are simply trying to coat old racist notions with a veneer of thoughtful liberalism. But in many cases — particularly among PoC adherents of anti-appropriation — I think the problem is genuine misunderstanding. It’s the term “cultural appropriation” itself which causes this, I think. “Appropriation” just doesn’t ever sound like a good thing, especially not to those of us from individualistic, materialistic cultures, and certainly not to those of us whose cultures have had far too much appropriated in recent centuries. We’re still a little raw about it. So the logical assumption on the part of people who want to do the right thing is that appropriation is bad, period full stop.

But here’s the problem. If you’re reading this blog post, you’re doing so from an inherently polycultural position. (Avoiding “multicultural” here for clarity’s sake, since that term usually gets used in a very different way.) You’re reading it in English or a translation thereof, which has been exported all over this planet thanks to British imperialism and economic necessity, and which is itself a kind of lingua franca cobbled together from Germanic and Latin and some other tongues. You’re reading it on a computer, which probably contains components designed in Japan and manufactured in China and financed by Europe or the US. You might be listening to it or feeling it with software designed to make the web accessible to visually-impaired people as audio or Braille; whether you are or not, I’m using a text markup protocol (WordPress, which uses W3C-standard HTML and CSS) designed to work with that kind of software, because I want my words accessible to all. Because that’s one of the values of the cultural matrix in which I live — American/progressive/pro-diversity/blogosphere. And while we’re at it, you’re reading the words of a writer who is, like 80% of African Americans, not 100% African. So every word I speak is laced with the multiplicities of my heritage — some of which I don’t even know.

Every culture that I mentioned in the preceding paragraph — and probably quite a few that I didn’t mention — contributed to this blog post in some way. It’s impossible to separate them; they blend and impact one another in infinitesimal and profound ways. There are all kinds of power dynamics and codependencies tied up in these interactions. So by writing this, I’m appropriating from nearly all of them. And by reading this, so are you.

Should we stop? I don’t think so. But if you go along with the idea that cultural appropriation is always wrong, no matter what, then you should.

Go ahead; I won’t be offended. Click elsewhere. I’ll wait.

Not gonna? Good — though obviously I’m biased. Because I think a healthy polyculture is critically dependent on trust. (How many of you have noticed that I’m appropriating the language of both biodiversity and polyamorous relationships here? But I digress.) The citizens of a polyculture — you and me and everyone else reading this — must make certain basic assumptions regarding the equality and good intentions and mutual benefit of all the people involved, and these assumptions must be borne out for the relationship to function. This is tough for a lot of us because those assumptions have been repeatedly violated in the past thanks to colonialism, racism, and so on. But the problem here is not appropriation; we all appropriate. The problem lies in how we do it.

So I think we need to get away from the simplistic question of whether to appropriate, and get back to the nuances of when and how to appropriate correctly. Because it can be done. We’re doing it already. We just need to do it better.

Speaking of which, I’m fond of Nisi Shawl’s take on appropriate appropriation, which you can find in abbreviated form here, and in highly-recommended longer form here.

The Appropriateness of Appropriation -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

It is a truth universally acknowledged that when three or more black women are engaged in conversation for more than fifteen minutes, they will start to exchange hair-care tips.

Honestly, it’s uncanny. And in the spirit of that, here’s some of my ABW tips for Going into Battle with Your Natural Hair. (For the record: I love my hair, I do. But I admit that dealing with it can feel a tad antagonistic).

Nothing against texturizers, relaxers, hot combs and all other manner of hair-taming devices, but I ditched those years ago after I got sick and tired of watching my hair break off. If you do use a texturizer, may I suggest the Creme of Nature mild relaxer. Do it very carefully, as it’s a lye-based relaxer and will burn your scalp, but it’s actually paradoxically much easier on your hair than a no-lye relaxer. Don’t leave it in too long, seriously! But I used it for years and it was the only thing that worked on my shorter hair.

First, a description of my hair-type, to clarify whether or not any of this will be useful to you. My hair is long– about touching the end of my tail bone if I stretch it out. It used to be nappier when it was shorter and I was younger. For the last several years it’s been significantly easier to get through– I suspect that’s because once it got past a certain length, it started to grow differently. Still, it can get pretty nappy.

So, going into battle.

My chosen arena: The shower. I put in gobs of conditioner, wait a bit, and then comb it out with the conditioner still in, under running water.

My weapon of choice: A fro-pick, of course. And, equally important, a heavy boar-bristle brush, like this one.

My armor of choice: A good, heavy, moisturizing conditioner, like Herbal Essences. Shampoo only in small amounts about once a week.

The terms of surrender (uh, sorry, this metaphor is getting a little belabored): At the moment, I’m using great globs of beeswax, purchased from my local black hair care emporium. I have previously employed Mane ‘n Tail Leave-In Conditioner, which doesn’t work too well as an in-shower conditioner, but is a great, heavy moisturizer that prevents untamed fly-away afro-puffs and those giant knots you cry over in the shower.

Frequency of battle: About every other day, though sometimes I’ll use a do-rag/put my hair in a bun for a third day if I don’t want to deal with it.

Other tactical considerations: I use big hair clips to keep my hair up after I wash, comb and moisturize it. I have discovered that the longer I let my hair take to dry, the more manageable it stays. Sometimes I want the giant afro look, and then I’ll let it dry right out of the shower. But otherwise, I let it dry over the course of a day. That night, I put it in two braids, where it dries completely. And then the next day I have hair that looks nice, isn’t too tangled, and doesn’t break when I comb it in the shower the next morning.

Other products I have tried:

Frizz-ease– Didn’t work at all. Leaves my hair way too stiff and brittle. I want to prevent the ends from splitting, people!

Deva Curl “No-poo” cleanser– Expensive, but this is great! I couldn’t believe how easily I got the pick through my hair after using this stuff. Wow!

Deva Curl “Set Up and Above”– Not so great. I need waay more moisturizer in my hair creams. Left my hair feeling brittle and sticky. See: Frizz-ease.

Hair mayonnaise– Gross. I know some people swear by this stuff, but it smells funny and doesn’t actually seem to weigh my hair down enough.

Other products I want to try:

Anything by Miss Jessie’s. Anyone used this stuff? It’s expensive, but that Curly Meringue looks like hair-cream heaven.

Good luck! And if you have any tips for me, I want to hear ‘em.

Tips for Going into Battle with Your Natural Hair -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

These links are going up in the Required Reading (or, at the very least, a link to this) because I feel like both posts illuminate the core of how I feel about discourse around contentious issues such as racism and sexism and the pitfalls of said discourse.

First, from the Carl Brandon Society’s Open Letter to the SF Community:

…the Carl Brandon Society wishes to define some basic principles of discourse which were put into question as a result of this exchange. We hope community members will consider and respect these principles in future debates and disagreements.

These principles are as follows:

1) The use of racial slurs in public discourse is utterly unacceptable, whether as an insult, a provocation, or an attempt at humor. This includes both explicit use of slurs and referencing them via acronyms.

2) Any declaration of a marginalized identity in public is not a fit subject for mockery, contempt, or attack. Stating what, and who, you are is not “card playing.” It is a statement of pride. It is also a statement of fact that often must be made because it has bearing on discussions of race, gender, and social justice.

3) Expressing contempt for ongoing racial and gender discourse is unacceptable. Although particular discussions may become heated or unpleasant, discourse on racism and sexism is an essential part of antiracism and feminist activism and must be respected as such. There is no hard line between discourse and action in activism; contempt of the one too often leads to contempt of the whole.

The Carl Brandon Society assumes in this letter that everyone reading it shares the common goal of racial and gender equity, and general social justice, in all our communities. We hope for a quick end to arguments over whether or not unacceptable forms of debate should be allowable. These arguments obstruct the process of seeking justice for all.

(BTW, if you want to co-sign this, click the link.)

Second, from Jim Hines, who responds to those who say they’re being “censored” by the above, among other things:

• People disagreeing with you is not censorship.
• People stating that they don’t like your cover art and think its racist, sexist, or whatever, is not censorship.
• People banning you from their blogs is not censorship.
• For the writers out there, an editor rejecting your story for his/her publication is not censorship.
• People saying they don’t like something you said is not censorship.
• People telling you racial slurs are unacceptable is not censorship.
• People criticizing, mocking, or insulting you for choosing to use racial slurs is not censorship.

Yes. This.

Rules For Beneficial Discourse -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

As is often the case during major online blowups of one kind or another, I have lately found myself having to explain more often than I would care to the difference between “You said something racist” and “You are a racist.” Granted, a lot of people, including anti-racist activists, make a step from the first statement to the next with no problem. But it isn’t always the case that someone who says racist or sexist or other oppressive/prejudiced things is themselves a prejudiced, racist, or sexist person. They can be, certainly. And if you give certain people enough time and space to talk, they’ll prove themselves so.

But not always.

I want to try and unpack this in a way that will benefit future discourse because I think this is a very important point. I’m not the only person to point this out, of course. But it helps me to be a better debater in the future if I make posts and put my thoughts in order.

The truth is, everyone can make prejudiced, offensive or oppressive statements. Many people have prejudiced thoughts. And I mean people as in humans as in everyone, not just those whose groups have historical power.

In the case of those who do not belong to the dominant group, those statements can be hurtful, but often do not have the same impact. This is due to power imbalance.¹ When someone in the dominant group says something prejudiced or offensive, many people will (perhaps correctly) assume that they said such a thing because they really think and believe it. And if a person really believes that prejudiced thing, they must be prejudiced themselves. This is not illogical.

However, humans often are.

Bias, prejudice, wrong thinking can be the product of conscious thought or unconscious/unexamined thought. It seems to me that a large percentage of people who bust out with really ignorant statements often do so because they have not ever, ever truly thought them through to their logical conclusions. If they did, or if someone challenged them to, their thinking could change.

Most activists realized this about people long ago. And thus many attempt to make a distinction between “You said something X-ist” and “You are a X-ist.”

Doing this is hard. Especially when the words that come out of people’s mouths are so very, very hurtful or very, very ignorant. It also doesn’t help when the person is acting like a jerk, all prejudicial talk aside. That is usually when people make the leap from “you said” to “you are” — I include myself in this.

So, two thoughts. One for those who say things that get them in trouble, one for those who hear/read these things.

First, the guide to How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism is very, very useful and I suggest you read it. Also, I urge you to read or listen carefully when someone takes exception to something you said/wrote. Are they saying that you’re an X-ist? Or are they saying that what you said is X-ist? If they say the latter they’re trying to make the distinction I’ve been talking about here, and you will not help the conversation by assuming they’re accusing you of the former.

If you are being accused of X-ism, then it would behoove you to examine what about your statement made people say that about you. Do not attempt to destroy, suppress or otherwise derail the discussion of racism (it’s not helpful either to you or to other arguing against you). And remember that admitting that you were wrong to say that X-ist thing is not the same as admitting you are an X-ist yourself.

Second, for those who see or read offensive, X-ist, prejudicial, or stereotypical things, I suggest attempting to make a distinction between what folks say and what they are. It’s not an easy path to take, and it involves a lot of giving the benefit of the doubt, patience, and tolerance. But I think it does help to start by saying “you said something x-ist/offensive” instead of “you are an x-ist because you said that” unless this person has proven, through past or further statements and actions that they are indeed x-ist.

Then you can have at.

That’s my advice, take it or leave it as you will. I do admit that for the activist, this can be hard. Especially when you run up against the thousandth instance of a particular prejudicial or offensive mindset. I make no claim on being perfect or even halfway decent in this regard at all times. I’m just trying.

I’m hoping for better discourse, but I have little hope of getting it from certain quarters of the population.

The Difference Between What You Say and What You Are -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Footnotes

1. A black person calls a white person a cracker: that’s not cool. But it does not have the same impact, or have the same level of wrongness, as a white person calling a black person a nigger. Still, doing both things is wrong, period.

I was having a conversation a few weeks ago with a friend about some very deep subjects and in the midst of it I said something like, “We all have our Fail moments. People fuck up. Even I fail sometimes. It’s what you do when you fail that counts.” My friend said, “Can I put that on a shirt? ‘Even the ABW Fails sometimes!’” It’s totally true.

Latest example happened just a bit ago. At WisCon I had a chat with someone about a post from my personal blog that they found very troubling and problematic. And there have been other instances in the past, some of which I’m probably not aware of.  I have no illusions of being perfect and know quite well that one can be an activist or be aware of issues and very intelligent yet still mess up.

I hope that what sets me apart from people who fail badly is that I am willing to admit when I’ve messed up, put the brakes on being defensive, listen to the people I’ve hurt or offended or angered, do what I can to make recompense, and strive not to fail in that way again. I personally only got to the point of being able to do this because I’ve been so involved in ABW stuff for the past few years. I feel that I can’t ask others to walk this path unless I’m willing to walk it myself. Plus, it’s the right thing to do, and I strive to do the right things.

It is rather frustrating when I have my fail moments because I go: WTF I should know better! But life is learning, everyone makes mistakes, and living a fail-free life is probably a lot like attaining enlightenment. It requires work, a lot of looking inside yourself, a lot of time, and possibly some Yoga training.

Moments of Fail -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

While at WisCon 33 I was on one panel that wasn’t going to be a panel.  Cultural Appropriation 101 was supposed to be a workshop.  At least, that’s what Programming asked us to do.  But then we only had your normal panel-length time slot of 75 minutes to do it in.

(“We” being myself and Victor J. Raymond of the Carl Brandon Society’s Steering Committee, plus Cabell Gathman of the University of Wisconsin.)

So we talked some, we took questions from the audience some, we did a couple of exercises from the Writing the Other book I co-wrote with Cynthia Ward.  Also, we made a stab at putting together a glossary.  It’s that last thing I’d like to work on a little more now with you.

Here are some of the defnitions we used during the workshop:

RACISM - A system of advantage based on race.  Unfortunately, racism is not dead.

HONORARY WHITENESS: -I first heard of this term from linguistic anthropologist and Carl Brandon Society co-founder MJ Hardman.  If a white person likes a person of color and thinks that person of color is righteous and good, and therefor like themselves, they may accord that person of color honorary whiteness.  This is usually done unconsciously.

PAWS: -As in the paws given out in the course of the children’s show “Blue’s Clues.”  Somebody who’s extraordinarily clueful about cultural and racial issues has four paws.  Four is the max.

COOKIE – A very public reward for behaving commendably in regards to racial or cultural issues.  Often, seeking said cookie is the secret motivation for such behavior.  (Note: cookies are the imaginary and parodic equivalent of paws; paws are often awarded without the recipient ever knowing they have received them.)

CLUEFULNESS - Of a certain level of empathy and understanding when it comes to the situations of those of a nondominant cultural background, race, etc.  Applied to those of the correspondingly dominant background.  Many of my white friends exhibit a high degree of cluefulness.

P.O.S.E.E. – An acronym of my invention, standing for Person of Southern European Extraction.  Some P.O.S.E.E.s argue that they are not white.

P.O.N.E.E. – My companion acronym, standing for Person of Northern European Extraction.  The whitest of the white; John Aegard is my little P.O.N.E.E.

THE UNMARKED STATE - Posessing characteristics which are seen as “normal,” and thus not worth being mentioned.  In this society, at this time, this includes being white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, affluent, and with certain physical abilities.  Just about everyone deviates from the unmarked state in one way or another, though some ways are deemed important and others are not.

Here are a few terms that could use definitions.  Try to be smart and nice.

PEOPLE OF COLOR

MAGICAL NEGRO

EXOTICIZING

ESSENTIALISM

And I’m sure there must be others.

Glossophilia -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman