Supremacism is not only a term that is wholely embraced by the U.S. government; it is a term that the U.S. government and other institutions created to perpetuate their own privilege and systemic oppression under patriarchy.
On May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller, one of only three nationwide self-identified as providing late-term abortions and largely considered to be the nation's most celebrated and terrorized abortionist, was shot and killed as he served as an usher during church. Anti-choice activist, Scott Roeder, has been charged with first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. An anti-choice extremist group is rumored to be attempting to purchase Tiller's Witchita clinic, Women's Health Care Services.
Nevermind the fact that Tiller was (and is, even in death) under constant threat of violence, political and social regulation, and disrepute. Nevermind that he was shot in both arms in 1993 and has seemingly had several brushes with death solely due to his ideologies and legal professional practice. Nevermind that the nation and its women have lost a health care icon and leader in the continuous movement for choice and reproductive justice. Let's acknowledge first that this murder was an act of Domestic Terrorism. Let's also acknowledge that this terrorism occured primarily on the basis of sexism.
On June 10, 2009, 88 year-old James W. von Brunn opened fire with a rifle at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, killing a security guard and wounding others. He is now hospitalized in critical condition after being shot by museum officers. Rumor has it that there were explosives found in his car, that he had a list of lawmakers on him when he entered the museum, and that his history of violence against the U.S. goverment and other individuals was pervasive enough to cause the government to track him. His racist website and his book entitled "Kill the Best Gentiles", alleging a Jewish conspiracy to kill the best white gene pools (along with the crimes he has committed) make clear that Brunn is a racist. His murder, too, is an act of Domestic Terrorism resulting from his racism.
Even though Obama responded to the shooting at the Holocaust Museum by stating that this act reminds us that "we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms" (Huff Post) - even though this statement at least hints at a recognition of racism being at the core of this terrorism - the media and the U.S. government (and in turn, the American People) refer to Brunn as a white supremacist.
The term "supremacist" is used to refer to someone who harbors intense and often violent hatred of a specific group of people due to race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, class, and anything else they can come up with that challenges their existence and pisses them off. It is used to cover up words indicating oppression - racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism - so that society doesn't have to acknowledge the problem, its cause, effect, and solution, perpetuating oppression and privileged institutions. It is applied to each of these protected categories holistically which means the term erases it having to be applied to anything individually and thus, the concept of systemic oppression all together.
"Supremacism" was coined by the U.S. government - an institution that powerfully maintains the privileged system in our society - and is only used in connection with people and cases which appear to be a threat to the nation and what it is theoretically founded upon. Exhibit A: Tiller's murder is viewed by left radicals as an incident of domestic terrorism but by the larger public as a tragic murder, some may go so far as to claim that it was fueled by the agenda of the religious right. Considering the press coverage, it seems that Tiller's murder was a rather significant event for the American public and its activists. Perhaps even EXTREME?! If Tiller's murder is clearly an act of domestic terrorism resulting from extreme sexism, why is his killer not referred to as a supremacist?
The U.S. government and American public refers to Holocaust Museum shooter, Brunn, as a supremacist and not Tiller's killer, Roeder, because this country has a need to protect the victims of a widely-taught racial genocide that it partook in before it protects everyday victims that it perpetuates. This country protects the predominately non-U.S. citizen victims of the Holocaust (even though, and perhaps because, the U.S. participated in Japanese concentration camps and persecuted the homosexuals in Nazi Germany, refusing to acknowledge their own participation whether in a history book or in a museum honoring their victims) but doesn’t protect the women who are citizens. Further, this nation's citizens and government are willing to admit the supposedly rare incident of racist violence but refuses to acknowledge the continual racist violence and sexist violence of every day American life. The U.S. government and its citizens are comfortable referring to someone as a white supremacist but feels the concept of a male supremacist to be fictitious (ignoring the realities of rape culture, which powerfully and most clearly demonstrates the notion of the male supremacist).
When referring to someone as a supremacist, the U.S. government is concealing the systemic oppression that it is. The government is concealing Brunn's racism by calling him a white supremacist. The government is concealing Roeder's sexism by skipping over supremacist and referring to him simply as a murderer. The term "supremacist" is a convenient tool for the U.S. government and American People to ignore systemic oppression, the impact it has both on individuals and society, and significantly, the role they play in perpetuating it, making this domestic terrorism easier and easier to come by and easier and easier to dismiss as crazy. As long as racism and sexism are covered by the term "supremacist", then the term will serve to write off all acts of racism and sexism as non-existent and the acts of violence in the name of racism and sexism that are worthy of headlines as crazy, isolated incidents... In a nut shell, it's the "little acts" of racism and a lack of discussion around them that enable supremacist acts to continue. We must talk about racism and sexism in order to combat supremacism; we must recognize all acts of sexism and racism as extreme (or supremacist) as well.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
~empowerment~
empowerment
women's sexualities
women's bodies
red with power
red as bold
"m" on the hat = menace
"m" = menstruation
pride
happiness
comfort and knowledge
redhead
blood's personality
liberation
love
tolerance
beauty
passion
appreciation
RED MENACE
Revolutionizing Through the Mestiza Class
The Land of the Free mocks itself in order to distract its citizens from the caste system it imposed on them long before the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps the classes weren’t as distinct, black and white, before industrialization as they became afterwards, but to refute their existence is to refute the patriarchy this nation was founded upon. And to recognize the system as anything but caste – to misinterpret the American class system - is to ignore the realities, the institution, keeping it in place.
How firmly the class system is kept in place is wrapped up in this notion of liberal individualism – another component of America’s foundation. The Land of the Free announces both to American citizens and Global citizens that here, you have the ability to move up and down in the caste system as well as within the class you belong to. Never mind what the “pull yourself up by your boot straps” narrative ignores: SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION. Let’s consider the viability of the belief that citizens can move up and down and all around in the American caste system.
Though caught in the middle as a student in a university of wealthy Chicago-ites, I am working-class. From single-motherhood, waitressing, Dollar General school supplies, Ramen noodles, and assisted housing. The last year of my life has been one of transition in every dimension, but I have felt one of the greatest tensions in the relationship between my class identity and my identity as a student.
A working-class college student sounds like an oxymoron. (Mind you, that says working-class college student – not poor college student, and yes, there is a difference.) To negotiate a class identity seems absurd and unnecessary but for the class-conscious, personally aware individual, it is important to situate the self in a specific class with which to identify an upbringing, a culture, a belonging. If all of your life you have belonged to the working-class, then where do you belong once you’ve obtained an education? What happens when your eating habits change? What happens when you move to the other side of town? What happens when your speech, wardrobe, and perhaps even mannerisms change? What happens if they don’t????
Feminist theorist Gloria E. Anzaldua coined the term “mestiza” to mean a mixed identity - a state of being beyond binary constructions. Mestiza consciousness calls for an individual to be aware of her diverting and intersectional identities and accept that her identity – and the compilation of her many identities – does not fit on either side of the spectrum but rather, somewhere within it. It is easy to see how the mestiza consciousness relates to race, sexuality, even gender. But it seems improbable that an individual can belong to two classes at the same time.
There are some educated individuals coming from working-class backgrounds who never forget their roots and retain their classed upbringing, but they still live in a middle-class framework with a college degree, livable income, and professional career. To negotiate this reality is beyond complex and while it seems that claiming two class identities is both ignorant and idealistic, when understanding that class encompasses both a cultural and economic component, the mestiza class is entirely possible.
Economically, class refers to the amount of monetary income an individual or household receives on the average. Also included in this equation is the amount of people this income is supposed to support, the material lifestyle attempted to live, and the too often overlooked geographic location (which heavily determines the cost of living). In this sense, it is impossible to be of a mestiza class.
Culturally, class refers not only to the aforementioned economic component, but also to social customs and norms of a particular class identity. Mannerisms, language and speech, attire, eating habits, the way in which people interact with each other, even preferred entertainment are all cultural aspects of class identity. For example, country music is stereotypically thought of as a white working-class cultural norm while rap music is stereotypically seen as a black (potentially working-class) cultural norm. Beer is stereotypically associated with working-class people while fine wines are associated with wealthier people. Foods like shit on a shingle (country gravy over toast) and hamburger on a plate are typical foods of (white) working-class households whereas humus, steak, and caviar are typical of wealthier households. Levi jeans, Carhart products, and knock-offs are clothing that (largely white) working-class populations wear while name brands are available to wealthier populations. Improper grammar and ebonics are stereotypically associated with working-class peoples while proper grammar is a sign of an educated and wealthier individual. Of course, these are just a few quick examples and they vary when incorporating race, gender, and sexuality identities. But key to these examples is that there is a cultural distinction between classes that American society loves to ignore, ironically so as it is typically blatant in every day interactions each of us has with one another. In the U.S., you are hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t at least inherently know who/what is considered respectable and who/what is considered “trash”. While most people refuse to acknowledge that this construction of respectability is essentially a product of class and systemic oppression, it is imperative to recognize that these constructions do exist and for the benefit of the privileged institution.
So it is possible to maintain some, many, perhaps even all of the cultural components of an individual’s classed upbringing while shifting their economic component to make a mestiza class identity. My education will pull my economic status up but many of my social roots will remain the same. In getting rid of cultural factors in our upbringing, do we disregard where we came from, the people that shared the identity, our families? Do we better ourselves or do we accommodate for the lifestyle we want to live, and where does that want come from? It is clear that these questions would not exist if materiality were not so American – if patriarchy did not construct class identities in such a way as to privilege some for the oppression of others. What is key: the classed mestiza doing something revolutionary with the privilege earned.
How firmly the class system is kept in place is wrapped up in this notion of liberal individualism – another component of America’s foundation. The Land of the Free announces both to American citizens and Global citizens that here, you have the ability to move up and down in the caste system as well as within the class you belong to. Never mind what the “pull yourself up by your boot straps” narrative ignores: SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION. Let’s consider the viability of the belief that citizens can move up and down and all around in the American caste system.
Though caught in the middle as a student in a university of wealthy Chicago-ites, I am working-class. From single-motherhood, waitressing, Dollar General school supplies, Ramen noodles, and assisted housing. The last year of my life has been one of transition in every dimension, but I have felt one of the greatest tensions in the relationship between my class identity and my identity as a student.
A working-class college student sounds like an oxymoron. (Mind you, that says working-class college student – not poor college student, and yes, there is a difference.) To negotiate a class identity seems absurd and unnecessary but for the class-conscious, personally aware individual, it is important to situate the self in a specific class with which to identify an upbringing, a culture, a belonging. If all of your life you have belonged to the working-class, then where do you belong once you’ve obtained an education? What happens when your eating habits change? What happens when you move to the other side of town? What happens when your speech, wardrobe, and perhaps even mannerisms change? What happens if they don’t????
Feminist theorist Gloria E. Anzaldua coined the term “mestiza” to mean a mixed identity - a state of being beyond binary constructions. Mestiza consciousness calls for an individual to be aware of her diverting and intersectional identities and accept that her identity – and the compilation of her many identities – does not fit on either side of the spectrum but rather, somewhere within it. It is easy to see how the mestiza consciousness relates to race, sexuality, even gender. But it seems improbable that an individual can belong to two classes at the same time.
There are some educated individuals coming from working-class backgrounds who never forget their roots and retain their classed upbringing, but they still live in a middle-class framework with a college degree, livable income, and professional career. To negotiate this reality is beyond complex and while it seems that claiming two class identities is both ignorant and idealistic, when understanding that class encompasses both a cultural and economic component, the mestiza class is entirely possible.
Economically, class refers to the amount of monetary income an individual or household receives on the average. Also included in this equation is the amount of people this income is supposed to support, the material lifestyle attempted to live, and the too often overlooked geographic location (which heavily determines the cost of living). In this sense, it is impossible to be of a mestiza class.
Culturally, class refers not only to the aforementioned economic component, but also to social customs and norms of a particular class identity. Mannerisms, language and speech, attire, eating habits, the way in which people interact with each other, even preferred entertainment are all cultural aspects of class identity. For example, country music is stereotypically thought of as a white working-class cultural norm while rap music is stereotypically seen as a black (potentially working-class) cultural norm. Beer is stereotypically associated with working-class people while fine wines are associated with wealthier people. Foods like shit on a shingle (country gravy over toast) and hamburger on a plate are typical foods of (white) working-class households whereas humus, steak, and caviar are typical of wealthier households. Levi jeans, Carhart products, and knock-offs are clothing that (largely white) working-class populations wear while name brands are available to wealthier populations. Improper grammar and ebonics are stereotypically associated with working-class peoples while proper grammar is a sign of an educated and wealthier individual. Of course, these are just a few quick examples and they vary when incorporating race, gender, and sexuality identities. But key to these examples is that there is a cultural distinction between classes that American society loves to ignore, ironically so as it is typically blatant in every day interactions each of us has with one another. In the U.S., you are hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t at least inherently know who/what is considered respectable and who/what is considered “trash”. While most people refuse to acknowledge that this construction of respectability is essentially a product of class and systemic oppression, it is imperative to recognize that these constructions do exist and for the benefit of the privileged institution.
So it is possible to maintain some, many, perhaps even all of the cultural components of an individual’s classed upbringing while shifting their economic component to make a mestiza class identity. My education will pull my economic status up but many of my social roots will remain the same. In getting rid of cultural factors in our upbringing, do we disregard where we came from, the people that shared the identity, our families? Do we better ourselves or do we accommodate for the lifestyle we want to live, and where does that want come from? It is clear that these questions would not exist if materiality were not so American – if patriarchy did not construct class identities in such a way as to privilege some for the oppression of others. What is key: the classed mestiza doing something revolutionary with the privilege earned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
