George Junius Stinney Jr.: Why "White-Wash" History of Child Execution?

In this blog post about the murder...

Aside: I say murder because a 14 year old Black boy found guilty and sentenced to death in one day by a court house full of White male jurors, all White spectators, and a White Judge in 1944 rural South Carolina is murder

...of George Junius Stinney Jr., I became horrified by the desire of the blogger to declare the system just despite all of the glaring evidence to the contrary easily discoverable on the internet with regards to this child's case. I had to post a response, especially as more may come to light about this case as a man in South Carolina fights to clear the child's name if only to bring to light our country's history of allowing the state to put children as young as 10 and 12 into electric chairs and hangman's nooses.

His entire blog post was filled to overflowing with ambiguous, ahistorical, and terrifyingly bad assessments of both the child's guilt and the course of events surrounding his ultimate execution. But it was his closing with the below statement that forced me to post some sort of response:

"However, nothing illegal was done during the investigation and prosecution of the case. All the procedures utilized by the police, courts, prosecution and prison system conform to the existing standards and legal requirements of the time and place."

And this was my response, we'll see if he allows it to show up on his blog:

What is at stake for you in making this ludicrous and patently false claim with regards to this child murdered by his own government? Why the insistence on his guilt and the right behavior of those who conspired to kill the boy?

To interrogate a child who just happened to be seen somewhere near where two girls were killed without anyone else there should horrify you! How difficult would it have been to intimidate a 14 year old boy in a time where even he knew that his life was worth less than nothing to those harassing him into confession? I saw a freakin' DiscoveryID show a few months ago where a fine upstanding White man from the midwest confessed to killing his own child when the cops interrogated him for 20hours - then a lawyer, DNA evidence, and his wife's support proved him completely innocent! The look in his eyes as he explained what it was like in that tiny room with those cops will haunt me forever. And that was a White man in 2000s America! This was a Black child in 1940's America.

What is your motive here? Because instead of honesty, compassion, and reality (because for some reason you need to believe race played no role and this child was not assassinated) this story compels you to defend a system which has many, many instances in even our current day and age of people (of all races!) railroaded by police and imprisoned or put to death when they were really innocent. This country has often made victims of innocents due to a system where, once the police decide you are guilty, you can forget any chance of reprieve unless you have the money to buy proper evidentiary procedure.

As a teacher, as a woman, as a human being, I am unable to adequately express my distress, sadness, and terror at the thought that after casually googling this poor child's name, I come across a blog that holds our history and this child's life so cheaply as to proclaim what happened to him just.

The Only appropriate, sustainable Path our country can take is to Own and Accept our history in all of its horror and ugliness and use it as a guide to avoid replicating the same mistakes and abuses of the gift of life and location. This begins with avoiding the desire to make history nice and ignore the incomprehensibly terrifying fact that seemingly nice people killed a child because they could not look at him and see a child and a human, but only their own fear, prejudice and hatred.

Please, henceforth if you discuss this type of situation as "fair," and make pleas on behalf of the "differing social mores" of our past, remember that those "different" mores do not make the actions produced any less worthy of condemnation! Injustice of this kind, just because it's in a "different time" is no less deserving of the full extent our of horrified disavowal of this thinking. Human life should never be so casually written off that this is called fair or acceptable.

College Women Use Sex Work to Pay For School, People Use it to Judge Them Harshly

In this Huffington Post article about women, and some men, entering sex work to pay off student loan debt, a lot of the commenters are engaging in uber-judgmental and harsh commentary. So this is my response to one comment that seemed tone deaf and ill-advised at best.

"HHGodd: How is your credit more important than your dignity and self respect? Whatever happens to them they deserve it."

Ouch. Your above comment feels a little apathetically judgmental.

And since when has society/popular culture in America/the West celebrated or encouraged women to have/maintain dignity, self-respect, positive body image, or any other attitude that would have lead to a different sort of social outcome?

Women are mocked in comedy as not begin funny, mocked in sports as not being as able or as fun to watch, mocked in science as not being as bright (heck, that transgender Harvard prof said the major difference between being a woman versus a man is that as a man she is allowed to finish a sentence without interruption), mocked as being too emotional...

Women are mocked for all sorts of reasons beyond what I have mentioned here and which contribute to women being seen as objects. Objects of ridicule and sexual objects.

So not only is saying these women deserve some unmentioned but presumably horrible outcome a nasty and despicable thing to say, its also stated without consideration for the fact that one can only do what one's society has taught you to do, and wishing harm on other people is part of that culture too.

An Ode To Travel

Some folks were complaining over at NYMag on a post about a woman who doesn't know how to pack to fly in America about traveling being too consumery and there's no need for it. But that seems crazy to me as a reason not to see the world! So I had to post a response.
Why travel?

If you have ever seen Oahu sea turtles nesting on a beach that a seal just left in a "bad neighborhood" that still manages to have breathtaking natural beauty...
if you have ever seen whales breaching in the waters off Maui...
if you've ever seen the sun set in the Ocean from the Pacific Coast Highway in Nepenthe, CA...
if you've ever seen the glowing waters at night in the bio-luminescent bay in Vieques...
if you've ever stood in crystal clear waters with dolphins leaping out of waves a hundred yards out under the warm Caribbean sun as the sea gently laps at your body like a blessing....

If you have seen any of these things then you would understand that, despite my Abhorrence for all travel related elements - especially the TSA's insistence on defiling my person, sexually assaulting me, and invading my privacy - I still tough it out and will continue to as long as I can scrape the money together to voyage beyond my beloved NYC whenever I can!

Because traveling to new places leaves you new as well, and touched by the different energies, experiences, people, and points of contacts in ways profound and important.

Plus only through the attempt to learn and accept things, places and people different/other than yourself can you know how to see yourself in context, place your life in perspective. Through travel you come to understand that you are where the global and local meet, and you decide the rippled outcome.

This is why since the dawn of man people have felt compelled to venture out beyond their homelands.

Well, that, and to get drunk on white sand beaches and have steamy sex with hot strangers.

Summer's Eve Marked by Arrival of an Angry Vagina!!

So, Summer's Eve which is well known for creating ridiculous, mildly insulting commercials for their seemingly unnecessary crap has gone one further. They've made three ads which seem not only creepy but racist, stereotypical, and overall plain insulting too.
Sigh.

The Black women's version talks about hair because no other women have hair or spend time on it right?:



I don't know which is more Odd:

1)The fact that somehow Summer's Eve thought that using a Talking Hand as a stand in for women's Vaginae totally made sense, or

2)That they thought producing commercials implying that selling hygiene products for women's vaginal spaces requires a Talking Hand that speaks in stereotypical 'whooo sista' girl' accented commentary made sense.

And thank you Summer's Eve for giving the Black Vagina/Hand an Afro because I was wondering what the hair was like down there on myself! Oh Yeah, I hope they do the same for the other racial groups!!

Sigh.


Oh and that's just my feelings about the commercial targeting Black women... there's versions for White and Latina women too!


The White Vagina/Hand talks about going to the gym, and is White so I guess maybe it has an eating/body-dismorphic disorder:



Advertising Mad Men: Oh Boy, we'll have the White one mention working out because only White women do that! We all know those minorities are so Fat!


The Latina Vagina/Hand talks about wearing a leopard print thong, complains about having children, and goes "Ay, ay, ay", of course:



Advertising Mad Men: Oohh lets have the Latina's subtly reference the Anchor Baby conversations by having her complain about being mistreated despite the hard work of having had babies!!

Sigh.

I wonder where the Summer's Eve Asian women's commercial is - you know, one with a slightly yellowed Vagina/Hand advocating for a good cleaning of their vaginae after they've spent the day cleaning other people's laundry?

Or the Muslim women's version - with a Vagina/Hand in hijab that just mummers quietly, unintelligibly through the heavy, black fabric.

Why not pull out all the insulting stereotype stops!!


"I don't want to live on this planet anymore."
-Professor Farnsworth

Airline Arrests Black Man for Sagging Pants, Lets Fly White Man in Lingerie!!

Dear U.S. Airways:

This crazy photograph of a man barely covered in lace might as well be made of neon blue flexible silicone, conical in shape, with a handle at the wide end, and sold at an adult toys gift shops because of exactly where Deshon Marman's attorney is going to push it into you!!!*

Update:

U.S. Airways has a Black man ARRESTED for having pants allegedly "sagging a bit too low" - but we all know he was truly arrested for the crimes of 1) flying while Black with Dreadlocked hair and 2) believing too fully that the protections of the 1st Amendment apply to him as well.

So they have Marman arrested, and the freakin' week before, a White man in WOMEN'S LINGERIE was allowed to fly, despite other passenger's complaints about what he had on!! I mean, for the sake of decency and public good, just look at the picture of what he wore!!!

Sigh. One of my favorite quotes from Futurama summarizes my feelings when I hear about conflicting, crazy, OBVIOUSLY racially/prejudicially influenced different treatment like this:

"I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

-The Professor, Futurama

[*if innocent about what I am referring to in this section, go here to see an innocuous line drawing and some writing about... it...]

Racism Cloaked So Subltly

This was a response to a seemingly well meant, but ultimately un-reflective (and consequently tinged with racist overtones) article/blog post by Dr. Saturday about New Mexico football player (safety) Deshon Marman who was arrested for:

1) being Black and large of stature/width
2) having dreadlocks
3) wearing baggy pants
4) daring to ignore the power-tripping commands of the TSA agents that he pull his pants up higher - said TSA agents then followed him to his plane and had him arrested and charged with trespassing for #3 above... Sigh.

Dear Matt,

Your comment...

"Personally, I feel a little dumber for having spent a portion of my morning on it [Marman's story], and for actually feeling compelled to offer this parting advice, applicable to any situation you can possibly encounter in life: When in doubt, always pull your pants up."

...Should make you sad for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that your "advice" comes:
1- without recognition of its own racist underpinnings,
2- without any consideration of historical context, and
3- without real or simulated empathy/sympathy/attempt to accept that although some folks may live their lives differently than yourself, that does not make that difference inherently negative or in need of alteration/change.

Perhaps an example might make number 3 above easier to accept and assimilate. Impossible as it may be for you to believe, imagine, or comprehend, lets say tomorrow, all of US history is reversed: Brown and Black people were the imperial forces who conquered the planet and spread their ideology, and therefore - since 'to the victors go the spoils' - being White in and of itself carries a criminal undertone. So for example, folks get killed just for driving while White, you can and often will be harassed for shopping while White, and people will always believe you are less than capable, intelligent, and of sound moral constitution simply because you are White.

Then lets say in this flipped version of the USA, it is decided that an indicator of criminality worthy of being harassed in public or arrested and hauled off of an airplane, is wearing: Sperrys, polo shirts with the collar popped, LLBean anything, those hideous madras or Nantucket red shorts, or, God Forbid, simply having White skin! Then lets say, a White Man boards a plane wearing madras shorts and is expelled from the plane for it. Are you then going to say your final advice is "When in doubt, don't wear Madras on flights"? Because somehow I don't think you would tell someone that and really think it made any sense.

In the same way, your comment closing out reporting on this ridiculous incident doesn't make any sense.

Yes I agree with you, there will be tons of vitriol and horrible comments about this incident lacking in meta-consideration of all the elements that brought this epically-trivial power struggle to its depressing conclusion. And yet your awareness of this fact does not prevent you from ultimately judging Marman at fault - very unfairly - since he should have "just" pulled up his pants. As someone who hates seeing underwear in public, I might have supported this IF they also arrested women showing thongs above their jeans, or flashing photographers their genitals, or displaying bra straps and cups. If they arrested women equally as often as they harass and arrest young Black men for this allegedly horrific breach of public decency, perhaps... But, wait, no, its still not right in either case for clear reasons.

As a writer in the public arena I expect more of you Matt. As benefactor and progeny of the First Amendment, and the freedom of expression and speech it enables and ensures, you should know better. You don't have to be a libertarian - although hearing stories like this may push you in that direction - to think this much government interference in folks expression through attire is too much. Nor do you have to be very well versed in American racial history to decry attempts like this to stifle people's expressive freedom simply because it is almost exclusively expressed by one racial group who've been vilified, so they're easy to beat up on.

The First Amendment, although often under attack in cases like this with TSA ego-explosions, requires that we tolerate and allow people to wear what they want. Nowhere does it say that Marman's, or anyone else's right to expression ends and their harassment begins at the point where some schmo on a power trip declares they don't like what they're saying/wearing.

Difference Between White & Black Men in Marriage? History!

This is my response to a disturbing article called 8 Reasons to Date a White Man, published over at Madame Noire, which does a great job at making Black men (en masse, without any historical reflection) out to be horrible, ignorant, jerks:

As a Black woman who always dated inter-racially, but is now married to a White man, I feel keen to comment. At first I felt a sense of the ridiculous in reading this piece and was only laughing - then when my husband began reading as well, he became really upset in part on behalf of my brother and father who do not fit any of the underhanded, vicious, evil stereotypes this scary, unsettling article heaps onto Black men!!

As I reflected on my husband's frustration I too got upset because, not everyone can or will laugh and dismiss this garbage - some people will come away thinking this is a valid list of "reasons" White men are "better" than Black men, which would be a crime! Because 1) one needs to find a person who fits or clicks with them regardless of race! Plus, 2) in relationships, all bets are off! And 3) these broad stereotypes just don't hold up to scrutiny or careful thought!

For example, the author clearly didn't do research when declaring white men free of "down low" behavior or she would have discovered that in strict religious communities, White gay men are just as repressed as Black. I had a gay Mormon acquaintance in college who readily admitted he planned to marry a woman, have a family, and have sex with men at the same time later in life. And what he was saying did not seem odd to him since there were many out there he knew planning to do the same. The only difference between White and Black is that Black people are amazing at clever language and naming things - hence the Down Low idea has more traction with us, but if you look up books or info on the internet about women finding out their husband is gay, you will find all races of women dealing with this.

Another example: as for babies out of wedlock, insecurity, financial intelligence, and all the rest, these alleged differences are wholly attributable to different economic and social situations rooted in historical inequities!! Of course it may be easy for a White man to be more secure: he can trace his family history back to a country of origin, he's never been assumed criminal simply based on his skin color, and he has never/seldom had to swallow his pride to stay alive! And neither has anyone in his family! Of course a White man "may" know about finances: when you have never been disenfranchised you have had your wealth long enough to learn how to make it work for you! (see film & history of Rosewood for what happened often/for a century or more to Blacks who tried to own, have, or build anything - success stories are the rule, not the exception)


Finally, of course White men aren't threatened by educated, accomplished Black women: as Cheryl Harris' brilliant essay "Whiteness as Property" makes clear, regardless of how brilliant you are, you're still not White - so even if this never occurs to your husband as a reason not be threatened by you, the fact that he's always had an easier time of it means your hard work in some sense means less. That may sound harsh in some ways, but the fact of the matter is: if you're with a White man, then there was never a time when it was literally illegal for he and his family to Learn, as it was for Black folks. Therefore, accomplishing the feat of gaining a lot of education means more within the Black community and inside Black relationships than in Black women/White men relationships.

And finally, considering that poverty is the determining factor for Many of these issues: if you go to any poor white community, you find these same problems/issues are not only pervasive but the norm. Has the author even seen MTV's show "16 and Pregnant" because I've only seen one or two featuring Black people, most are White! And that show "Sister Wives" on TLC - you would be hard pressed to show me a more insecure White man than the one on that show who needs 4 women adoring him to feel complete!! And you get the feeling that these women come from non-too-wealthy backgrounds.


All this is to say, generalizing about men like this does a grave wrong by ignoring the history and present and the fact that at the end of the day, every man wants someone to take care of them!

Don't Sue Your Students! Survive Ivy League Teaching or Move On!

This is my response to story of coo-coo Professor Priya Venkatesan who threatened to sue her students over harassment when she tried to teach!


All I want to say - without in any way supporting the profoundly bizarre and odd act of attempting to sue your students for being their silly, young selves - is that, if you have never been a woman of color attempting to teach in the humanities (or any other discipline for that matter) in one of these Ivy League institutions, then its going to be extremely difficult bordering on impossible for you to understand what it is like in these environments, and why this poor woman may have snapped like she did. Let me explain:

There is an inherent competitive hostility (even with/against a student's professor/instructor) because it is The Ivys. Then add in the "naturally" socialized prejudices/biases and argumentative predilections of young people who are in fact untutored and unschooled but believe themselves already perfectly brilliant - after all they were valedictorian of their school or whatever - and you have a recipe for some often very difficult classroom moments as an instructor/professor of color. And being a woman can often make things ten times worse! Heck, in discussing teaching pedagogy, we have to make sure we cover the chapter titled:

"How to deal with an extremely stubborn and hostile student who is targeting you for harassment - probably/possibly due to race or gender - in a neutral and diplomatic fashion"

And this is even if you are teaching something very rote and basic and widely accepted. In the past with difficult students, teaching simple reading/writing techniques, I have had to literally blanket the table/desk at the front of the classroom in paper/texts from other, respected, published, usually White sources that echo whatever I've been trying to teach, just to get students to lay off! Even now I can hear myself saying, "Look, Plato started doing this first, not me, and that's why the university feels it is important for you to learn." Sigh. It can drive one insane.

That said, I have pity on her, although I think she only made things worse with all this lawsuit business. She just should have written it off as a bad semester and moved on! You can't win every group over every term.

Objectionable Prescriptives for Women's Viewing Behavior...

Response to Edelstein's review of BrideWars over at NPR:

Dear Edelstein,

As a female-of color-English Ph.D. student with very broad interests and sensibilities, I am having trouble figuring out in what way your 'review' of this film is most offensive! Is it:

1)In its essentializing of the female experience - as if there is some exclusively female frailty that is inherent and prohibitive of certain behavior. In other words, you seem to believe that if men find it funny women can't as well because...?

2)In your presumption that to be Female is to only find specific (what, "ladylike"?) forms of humor funny or acceptable. The scene at the bridal shop became more funny for me than for my husband because he doesn't know the value/cost of bridal gowns (I do) nor the strain women regularly are under Not to allow any untoward smells to escape their person- let alone a food poisoning explosions. For the women of our group, this made the scene a cathartic rush revealing that we too are human... and in pain over that gorgeous ruined gown!

3)Your reduction of Melissa McCarthy's wonderful and emotionally complex performance to one of playing off of her Girth! There was more nuance and grace to her portrayal than you give her credit for, and your review smacks of your inability to see beyond her weight.

Part II:

I'm sorry, but I must make one more comment or suggestion about what makes this review problematic - as 'Analytical Ph.D. Student' I cannot fail to give "suggested reading" if I take issue with an argument.

It seems that at best, this Review would be better described as an ill-intentioned and oddly toned Referendum on what women are or are not permitted to find humorous, or what experiences women are or are not entitled to have/claim as part of their functioning as human beings in an American cultural setting!

I suggest you watch the South Park episode on queefing. (Though unladylike I suppose, there is no other more appropriate and simple word to choose.) I thought they did a great job at highlighting that women have a sense of humor as well that can intersect with bodily (mal)functions.

Women have bodies too, and in some ways are more of our bodies than men are by virtue of our frequent object status. (See fast food places giving girls dolls and boys trucks in kid's meals.)

There is a prim propriety thrust upon women which I am happy to see these hysterical, bright women shake off the yoke of in this film! Please stop trying to tie them back down with antiquated, prescriptive genre titles.