By Akilah Monifa
Joe Biden owed an apology not just to Sen. Barack Obama. He also owed an apology to previous black presidential candidates -- living or dead -- including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Shirley Chisholm, former Sen. Carol Mosely Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton. And he owes an apology to all African-Americans.
Biden, who is white, called his fellow Democratic presidential contender "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Although Biden later issued an apology, he initially claimed he was misquoted and then tried to say that by "clean," he really meant fresh.
Biden's description of the former African-American presidential candidates revealed some of the racist thoughts that many have and don't articulate in mixed company or on the record.
I'm not calling Biden a racist, and, quite honestly, I doubt the thoughts are even conscious. But his comment uncovered the old split between the so-called "good Negro or black" and the bad one -- the house "n" word versus the field "n" word.
The controversy over the quote has centered on Biden's use of the words "clean" and "articulate," since the assumption behind it appears to be that blacks are naturally dirty and unintelligent. But his use of the word "mainstream" is almost as harmful. Is "mainstream" tantamount to "white"? Or is it that Obama is a more palatable African-American than, say, Sharpton or Jackson?
As an African American, I would not have been so publicly forgiving as Obama was at first blush when he stated, "I didn't take it personally and I don't think he intended to offend. But the way he constructed the statement was probably a little too unfortunate."
That is putting it mildly.
Most Americans don't want to think that they may be racist and don't want to acknowledge harboring racist thoughts. But the insidiousness of Biden's choice of words reveals far more than if he had used the "n" word.
Both Biden and Obama should do more to clear this up. We'd be a better country if they did.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Pressure to Keep Quiet Extends to Team Sports
by Akilah Monifa
Sometimes not only do I get confused about what day of the week it is, but also the year. I recently received an e-mail from a friend which directed me to an article that began: "Should gay athletes, more particularly, should gay men be accepted as teammates? Should they have the same privileges of a heterosexual person in a locker room, or the same shower privileges? Should they be allowed to sleep in the same hotel room with their teammates?"
At first I thought it was some article from the 50s dredged up and reprinted. But somewhat to my shock, but mainly my dismay, the article was written in November 2002. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It was at least a throw back to the 1993 U.S. military policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
As an out African American lesbian and mother, sometimes I think that the world, or at least the rest of the United States, sees life through my lenses, which are accepting of folks regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other identity.
But then I am snapped back in to reality. The quote above was written by Demetrious Johnson for the St. Louis American, a free weekly newspaper (circ. 68,500) covering the African American community. Johnson wrote a column titled, "Parameters need to be set on gay athletes."
The background is that former professional football player Esera Tuaolo came out as a gay man a full two years after retiring from football. Tuaolo was a nose tackle and weighed 300 pounds. Far from anyone's stereotype of a gay man. This guy was in the closet during his nine years of professional play, and of course long before that. In a print interview he spoke of his fear of coming out while an active player and said: "I'd wind up cut or injured. I was sure that if a GM didn't get rid of me for the sake of team chemistry, another player would intentionally hurt me, to keep up the image, because the NFL is a supermacho culture."
Johnson and others basically stated that in general they don't have a problem with gay folks or gay athletes, but that they should be in the closet if they play team sports or are in the locker rooms. Certainly a lot of journalists, athletes and other folks feel that way. But actions speak louder than statements. Johnson and others do have a problem with gay athletes and for that matter, gay people.
Somehow if you are gay and talk about your relationships or even have a picture of your partner you are "flaunting your lifestyle" but it is perfectly acceptable to talk about heterosexual relationships, even inappropriate ones. Rape, unprotected sex, cheating, physical and emotional violence are appropriate locker room talk -- but just don't be gay.
Tuaolo came out in October 2002 in a media blitz on HBO's "Real Sports" and "Inside the NFL," CNN, and ABC's "Good Morning America." But the real aftermath is being felt now with the homophobic reactions.
Charles Barkley, a former professional basketball player, put it best: "First of all, there are a lot of people in here that don't like gay people. It's not just athletes. Athletes are insecure. Man, we got the testosterone rolling. We don't want to be around gay men, that's just how it is. But it's not just in the locker room. I mean, people just don't like gay people in this country. And that's sad."
Sad indeed, but Barkley is right, it's not just sports. Is there any wonder folks from all walks of life are reluctant to come out? I applaud Tuaolo for coming out and remain saddened that a 34-year-old man cannot be out as a gay man. No professional athlete has come out while playing a team sport. I don't blame them.
For until we all see that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered folks have a "life" not a "lifestyle," "sexual orientations" (as do heterosexuals) not "preferences" we will continue to be driven into the closet. And that certainly is no way to live one's life.
One big step journalists can take in general in covering lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender folks is to not accept and reprint homophobic statements. Another very simple thing is to question language used to describe LGBTs and apply that same language to heterosexuals. For example, one sees the term gay "lifestyle" but there is no heterosexual "lifestyle."
LGBTs are like heterosexuals in how we live our lives and form our families. Using distinguishing words lessens our lives. Journalists covering gay athlete issues or who want to seek further education should also look to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for a style guide as well as the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) LGBT Media Reference Guide for Fall 2002/Winter 2003.
As for Tuaolo, hopefully he will have the last laugh. He is out of football and out in life and lives with his partner and their 23-month-old twins. Thank you Esera for breaking the silence and coming out of the closet. Here's to hoping that others will see the importance of being out and not be threatened by someone else coming out.
Sometimes not only do I get confused about what day of the week it is, but also the year. I recently received an e-mail from a friend which directed me to an article that began: "Should gay athletes, more particularly, should gay men be accepted as teammates? Should they have the same privileges of a heterosexual person in a locker room, or the same shower privileges? Should they be allowed to sleep in the same hotel room with their teammates?"
At first I thought it was some article from the 50s dredged up and reprinted. But somewhat to my shock, but mainly my dismay, the article was written in November 2002. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It was at least a throw back to the 1993 U.S. military policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
As an out African American lesbian and mother, sometimes I think that the world, or at least the rest of the United States, sees life through my lenses, which are accepting of folks regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other identity.
But then I am snapped back in to reality. The quote above was written by Demetrious Johnson for the St. Louis American, a free weekly newspaper (circ. 68,500) covering the African American community. Johnson wrote a column titled, "Parameters need to be set on gay athletes."
The background is that former professional football player Esera Tuaolo came out as a gay man a full two years after retiring from football. Tuaolo was a nose tackle and weighed 300 pounds. Far from anyone's stereotype of a gay man. This guy was in the closet during his nine years of professional play, and of course long before that. In a print interview he spoke of his fear of coming out while an active player and said: "I'd wind up cut or injured. I was sure that if a GM didn't get rid of me for the sake of team chemistry, another player would intentionally hurt me, to keep up the image, because the NFL is a supermacho culture."
Johnson and others basically stated that in general they don't have a problem with gay folks or gay athletes, but that they should be in the closet if they play team sports or are in the locker rooms. Certainly a lot of journalists, athletes and other folks feel that way. But actions speak louder than statements. Johnson and others do have a problem with gay athletes and for that matter, gay people.
Somehow if you are gay and talk about your relationships or even have a picture of your partner you are "flaunting your lifestyle" but it is perfectly acceptable to talk about heterosexual relationships, even inappropriate ones. Rape, unprotected sex, cheating, physical and emotional violence are appropriate locker room talk -- but just don't be gay.
Tuaolo came out in October 2002 in a media blitz on HBO's "Real Sports" and "Inside the NFL," CNN, and ABC's "Good Morning America." But the real aftermath is being felt now with the homophobic reactions.
Charles Barkley, a former professional basketball player, put it best: "First of all, there are a lot of people in here that don't like gay people. It's not just athletes. Athletes are insecure. Man, we got the testosterone rolling. We don't want to be around gay men, that's just how it is. But it's not just in the locker room. I mean, people just don't like gay people in this country. And that's sad."
Sad indeed, but Barkley is right, it's not just sports. Is there any wonder folks from all walks of life are reluctant to come out? I applaud Tuaolo for coming out and remain saddened that a 34-year-old man cannot be out as a gay man. No professional athlete has come out while playing a team sport. I don't blame them.
For until we all see that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered folks have a "life" not a "lifestyle," "sexual orientations" (as do heterosexuals) not "preferences" we will continue to be driven into the closet. And that certainly is no way to live one's life.
One big step journalists can take in general in covering lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender folks is to not accept and reprint homophobic statements. Another very simple thing is to question language used to describe LGBTs and apply that same language to heterosexuals. For example, one sees the term gay "lifestyle" but there is no heterosexual "lifestyle."
LGBTs are like heterosexuals in how we live our lives and form our families. Using distinguishing words lessens our lives. Journalists covering gay athlete issues or who want to seek further education should also look to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for a style guide as well as the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) LGBT Media Reference Guide for Fall 2002/Winter 2003.
As for Tuaolo, hopefully he will have the last laugh. He is out of football and out in life and lives with his partner and their 23-month-old twins. Thank you Esera for breaking the silence and coming out of the closet. Here's to hoping that others will see the importance of being out and not be threatened by someone else coming out.
Have You Seen Us? News organizations need to cover missing kids -- regardless of ethnicity or economics
by Akilah Monifa
Approximately every week I receive a flyer from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There are always two pictures of missing folks, usually children. Years ago missing children's pictures used to be on milk cartons. Rarely are any of the missing people folks of color. Likewise much media attention has recently been given to the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart, as well as the disappearance and killing of Samantha Runnion. That any person much less a child is missing, molested and/or murdered is truly tragic. But it is interesting to note the media coverage of these events and the interplay of race.
Alexis Patterson, an African-American girl, was kidnapped a month before Elizabeth Smart and has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream press. According to Charlie McCollum of the San Jose Mercury News, in the same time frame stories about Smart versus Patterson ran 1,000 to 100. Heck, even JonBenet Ramsey some five-and-a-half years later gets more press than a missing, kidnapped or murdered child of color.
So clearly the mainstream news media depictions in terms of both coverage at all and airtime do not accurately reflect what is happening. If so, only white kids are missing, kidnapped and/or murdered, and only African-American men get beat up by the police (particularly if there is a video camera present to record the beating.
What does the mainstream news media coverage of these children say about how kids of color are valued in our society? And why don't kids of color get similar coverage. Is it racism? Classism?
Of course the real answer is complicated. I certainly don't believe that there is a conspiracy to cover only white kids and not kids of color, but rather an intertwining of race, class, access and privilege. Missing children who get press coverage are more like the decision-makers of the news. Moreover it is about the destruction of our fantasies around safety and our expectations.
Are we surprised when a child of color living in the inner city gets harmed in some way? But what is the shock value of a kid like Elizabeth Smart getting kidnapped from a gated community in Salt Lake City, Utah? Salt Lake is supposed to be safe, particularly gated communities. The inner city is supposed to be dangerous, so the fact that children are harmed there isn't the breaking news.
And certainly the Smarts have available a full barrage of legal counsel and communications folk along with the access to the mainstream news media. So they can tell their story with ease and maximum print and broadcast coverage. As a general rule both race and class exclude folks of color from accessing the same press machinery.
But of course ultimately the responsibility for coverage, airtime and column inches falls back on the decision-makers of the news, almost all of whom are white. The few remaining media outlets can decide to examine their own race and class biases and look for stories beyond those easily presented to them by families of those privileged to have easy access to the press. They can go beyond Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klaas and Amber Schwartz and look for and give equal coverage to Alexis Patterson, Sherrice Iverson and countless other anonymous children of color who are missing or killed.
The privileges afforded by media access cannot be changed, but the media's self-critique and inclusion around race and class can be. It is about balance and examination. Here's to hoping that no child, regardless of color will need press coverage because they are missing, but if they do, let's not just cover the white kids.
8/12/2002
Approximately every week I receive a flyer from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There are always two pictures of missing folks, usually children. Years ago missing children's pictures used to be on milk cartons. Rarely are any of the missing people folks of color. Likewise much media attention has recently been given to the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart, as well as the disappearance and killing of Samantha Runnion. That any person much less a child is missing, molested and/or murdered is truly tragic. But it is interesting to note the media coverage of these events and the interplay of race.
Alexis Patterson, an African-American girl, was kidnapped a month before Elizabeth Smart and has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream press. According to Charlie McCollum of the San Jose Mercury News, in the same time frame stories about Smart versus Patterson ran 1,000 to 100. Heck, even JonBenet Ramsey some five-and-a-half years later gets more press than a missing, kidnapped or murdered child of color.
So clearly the mainstream news media depictions in terms of both coverage at all and airtime do not accurately reflect what is happening. If so, only white kids are missing, kidnapped and/or murdered, and only African-American men get beat up by the police (particularly if there is a video camera present to record the beating.
What does the mainstream news media coverage of these children say about how kids of color are valued in our society? And why don't kids of color get similar coverage. Is it racism? Classism?
Of course the real answer is complicated. I certainly don't believe that there is a conspiracy to cover only white kids and not kids of color, but rather an intertwining of race, class, access and privilege. Missing children who get press coverage are more like the decision-makers of the news. Moreover it is about the destruction of our fantasies around safety and our expectations.
Are we surprised when a child of color living in the inner city gets harmed in some way? But what is the shock value of a kid like Elizabeth Smart getting kidnapped from a gated community in Salt Lake City, Utah? Salt Lake is supposed to be safe, particularly gated communities. The inner city is supposed to be dangerous, so the fact that children are harmed there isn't the breaking news.
And certainly the Smarts have available a full barrage of legal counsel and communications folk along with the access to the mainstream news media. So they can tell their story with ease and maximum print and broadcast coverage. As a general rule both race and class exclude folks of color from accessing the same press machinery.
But of course ultimately the responsibility for coverage, airtime and column inches falls back on the decision-makers of the news, almost all of whom are white. The few remaining media outlets can decide to examine their own race and class biases and look for stories beyond those easily presented to them by families of those privileged to have easy access to the press. They can go beyond Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klaas and Amber Schwartz and look for and give equal coverage to Alexis Patterson, Sherrice Iverson and countless other anonymous children of color who are missing or killed.
The privileges afforded by media access cannot be changed, but the media's self-critique and inclusion around race and class can be. It is about balance and examination. Here's to hoping that no child, regardless of color will need press coverage because they are missing, but if they do, let's not just cover the white kids.
8/12/2002
Thursday, December 28, 2006
By Race Divided
By Akilah Monifa
I'm literally an American; I have a passport issued by the United States of America. I am, in fact, a citizen, born in the state of Kansas. But I am not an American, not figuratively.
I was born in 1957, three years after the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision that purportedly made segregation in public schools illegal. You know, ``separate but equal is inherently unequal.'' Yet it was 1968, a full 14 years after the Supreme Court ruling, before I attended a public school that was integrated. And I alone provided that integration.
To this day I do not stand for the national anthem at sporting events or elsewhere. I sit quietly in protest. I refuse to ignore the ``pink elephant'' of racism and inequality so pervasive in this country. I do not deny that things are better in 2000 than when I was born, but change has been slow in coming, and we still live in a largely segregated society.
I am constantly mistaken for other black people who look nothing like me -- most recently for a friend who is four inches shorter, has longer hair and much darker skin. I am not an American, because if I were not so akin to Ralph Ellison's ``Invisible Man'' or Audre Lourde's ``Sister Outsider,'' Americans of European descent (read: white people) would see me, and I mean truly see me, and acknowledge in word and deed that we do not all look alike.
I am not an American and will not be an American until people of color are accurately depicted and reflected in the media. Likewise for government representation and corporate and nonprofit ownership.
I am not an American and will not be an American until folks recognize that race and color are not synonymous. That the term ``people of color'' is not literal and that people of color come in a multitude of shades, from very light-skinned white to very dark-skinned black and all shades in between.
Our differences and similarities based on race, gender, sexual orientation and socioeconomic class/status should be recognized, acknowledged and celebrated. The melting-pot theory robs us all of this wonderful diversity, and I refuse to participate in that assimilation.
I will be an American when diversity based on race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic class, national origin, sexual orientation, gender and disability is valued, accepted and pursued.
Until then I will remain a lesbian of African descent, born in the United States, holding citizenship and a passport. I do in fact recognize my privileges and choose not to live elsewhere. But I also see how far we as a society have to go to ensure full rights and access to all.
Akilah Monifa is a lesbian of African descent, born in the United States, who is a free-lance writer living in Oakland.
July 2, 2000
Page ED - 9 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/07/02/ED98504.DTL
I'm literally an American; I have a passport issued by the United States of America. I am, in fact, a citizen, born in the state of Kansas. But I am not an American, not figuratively.
I was born in 1957, three years after the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision that purportedly made segregation in public schools illegal. You know, ``separate but equal is inherently unequal.'' Yet it was 1968, a full 14 years after the Supreme Court ruling, before I attended a public school that was integrated. And I alone provided that integration.
To this day I do not stand for the national anthem at sporting events or elsewhere. I sit quietly in protest. I refuse to ignore the ``pink elephant'' of racism and inequality so pervasive in this country. I do not deny that things are better in 2000 than when I was born, but change has been slow in coming, and we still live in a largely segregated society.
I am constantly mistaken for other black people who look nothing like me -- most recently for a friend who is four inches shorter, has longer hair and much darker skin. I am not an American, because if I were not so akin to Ralph Ellison's ``Invisible Man'' or Audre Lourde's ``Sister Outsider,'' Americans of European descent (read: white people) would see me, and I mean truly see me, and acknowledge in word and deed that we do not all look alike.
I am not an American and will not be an American until people of color are accurately depicted and reflected in the media. Likewise for government representation and corporate and nonprofit ownership.
I am not an American and will not be an American until folks recognize that race and color are not synonymous. That the term ``people of color'' is not literal and that people of color come in a multitude of shades, from very light-skinned white to very dark-skinned black and all shades in between.
Our differences and similarities based on race, gender, sexual orientation and socioeconomic class/status should be recognized, acknowledged and celebrated. The melting-pot theory robs us all of this wonderful diversity, and I refuse to participate in that assimilation.
I will be an American when diversity based on race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic class, national origin, sexual orientation, gender and disability is valued, accepted and pursued.
Until then I will remain a lesbian of African descent, born in the United States, holding citizenship and a passport. I do in fact recognize my privileges and choose not to live elsewhere. But I also see how far we as a society have to go to ensure full rights and access to all.
Akilah Monifa is a lesbian of African descent, born in the United States, who is a free-lance writer living in Oakland.
July 2, 2000
Page ED - 9 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/07/02/ED98504.DTL
Kwanzaa turns 40, remains misunderstood holiday
by Akilah Monifa
I celebrate Kwanzaa, a holiday that honors family, community and culture. My family and I have done so for years. But five years after Sept. 11, in this climate of religious and cultural intolerance in America, I can sympathize with Muslims here who feel like outsiders.Many white Americans are suspicious and fearful of Kwanzaa. Like other holidays that are celebrated predominantly by people of color -- such as Ramadan, Juneteenth, Holi, Hispanic Heritage Month -- Kwanzaa ought to be an opportunity for those who are unfamiliar with it to learn more.It is a seven-day, Pan-African, secular holiday that has cultural roots. Because of its Swahili name and because it begins the day after Christmas, many folks think Kwanzaa is a religious holiday. Many refer to it as the "black Christmas."Its origins are from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But because of founder Ron Karenga's former ties to the United Slaves Organization, a black nationalist group, Kwanzaa is constantly attacked for being separatist and black nationalist.It is neither.Over the years, there have been quite a few non-African-Americans present at our gatherings, and the atmosphere has been celebratory. People who are not of African descent are happy to be included because they often have family members or friends who participate.Kwanzaa's seven principles -- of unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith -- are ones that many people, irrespective of background, can appreciate.Millions of people, regardless of race or religion, now celebrate Kwanzaa worldwide. But even as our communities become increasingly multicultural and cross-cultural, acceptance has diminished for those who don't follow mainstream traditions around this time of year.In the age of terror, we would all benefit to learn more about one another, and to embody Kwanzaa's ideals of happiness, unity and peace.Akilah Monifa is a freelance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
I celebrate Kwanzaa, a holiday that honors family, community and culture. My family and I have done so for years. But five years after Sept. 11, in this climate of religious and cultural intolerance in America, I can sympathize with Muslims here who feel like outsiders.Many white Americans are suspicious and fearful of Kwanzaa. Like other holidays that are celebrated predominantly by people of color -- such as Ramadan, Juneteenth, Holi, Hispanic Heritage Month -- Kwanzaa ought to be an opportunity for those who are unfamiliar with it to learn more.It is a seven-day, Pan-African, secular holiday that has cultural roots. Because of its Swahili name and because it begins the day after Christmas, many folks think Kwanzaa is a religious holiday. Many refer to it as the "black Christmas."Its origins are from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But because of founder Ron Karenga's former ties to the United Slaves Organization, a black nationalist group, Kwanzaa is constantly attacked for being separatist and black nationalist.It is neither.Over the years, there have been quite a few non-African-Americans present at our gatherings, and the atmosphere has been celebratory. People who are not of African descent are happy to be included because they often have family members or friends who participate.Kwanzaa's seven principles -- of unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith -- are ones that many people, irrespective of background, can appreciate.Millions of people, regardless of race or religion, now celebrate Kwanzaa worldwide. But even as our communities become increasingly multicultural and cross-cultural, acceptance has diminished for those who don't follow mainstream traditions around this time of year.In the age of terror, we would all benefit to learn more about one another, and to embody Kwanzaa's ideals of happiness, unity and peace.Akilah Monifa is a freelance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
A Matter of Words
by Akilah Monifa
When covering complex issues, start small and watch your language.Parenting by folks in the LGBT communities is a hot media topic. Rosie O'Donnell came out and is also a spokesperson in particular for the rights of LGBTs in Florida as foster parents. This has sparked a great deal of renewed conversation about LGBTs and parenting. Ted Koppel's "Nightline" (ABC) had a five-part series on gays in America beginning May 20 titled, "A Matter of Choice?: Gay Life in America," which was delayed from Sept. 11. The use of the word "choice" in the series is sure to annoy many in our communities. Particularly those who live in a major media market, who are knowledgeable about the issues, don't think it is a matter of choice. But therein lies the problem: we want to educate while simultaneously using politically correct language. Since O'Donnell is both a lesbian and an adoptive parent, consider this: if adoption issues are out in left field for most folks, then gays and lesbians adopting are not even in the same town, much less in the ballpark. Folks are not familiar with issues around adoption and don't know the correct language to use unless they have been impacted by adoption or educated on the issues. Likewise with the LGBT community - even the term LGBT doesn't play in most media markets. LGBTs are perceived differently by both the media and the consumers of media when we are out of the five major media markets, which are all in urban areas. So a national show like Koppel's must play to middle America and the so-called "fly-over" states. If such a show were directed exclusively at a major media market with a large and active LGBT community, then the word "choice" would not be in the frame at all. Decisions need to be made. We must first educate the masses on the simplest issues before demanding that the correct language be used. If folks can't at least understand the basic issues then mere use of the correct terminology makes no sense and doesn't enhance our cause. Without education, two men adopting a child are seen by most in this country as two "fags" taking away a child from his/her "natural" mother rather than a couple forming their family. Here the education is both around adoption issues and LGBT issues. Journalists aren't the only ones who have difficulty knowing what language to use when speaking of "the other," which can be anyone from someone of a different race/ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or gender. When "the other" is seen and viewed as "the other," we are dehumanized. To borrow from San Francisco Chronicle TV columnist Tim Goodman, shows like the "Nightline" series for those in "urban gay-familiar areas" are "... not even Gay 101. It's gay kindergarten." Therefore, more stories need to be generated about LGBTs and specifically LGBTs who are parenting, and not just the sensationalistic stories. Having a celebrity come out the closet does nothing to help folks see that me, my partner and our daughter as a family are virtually no different than another two-parent heterosexual couple with a child. Certainly LGBTs using adoption as a way to form our families is but one tiny piece of the media and education puzzle. Journalists and activists must constantly address the concerns and educate folks about other folks who they may have never seen. The complete stories need to be told with all diversity factors included. When our stories are less of an anomaly and our presence is known throughout the country then, despite the religious right, we will cease to be seen as "the other" and merely be another family in the neighborhood in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's largest pediatricians' group, estimates that more than 9 million children in the United States have at least one gay or lesbian parent. For me, what really matters is family, not how it is formed nor the specific characteristics of the parent(s). We must continue to find ways to tell our stories to the press and celebrate our families.
June 2003
When covering complex issues, start small and watch your language.Parenting by folks in the LGBT communities is a hot media topic. Rosie O'Donnell came out and is also a spokesperson in particular for the rights of LGBTs in Florida as foster parents. This has sparked a great deal of renewed conversation about LGBTs and parenting. Ted Koppel's "Nightline" (ABC) had a five-part series on gays in America beginning May 20 titled, "A Matter of Choice?: Gay Life in America," which was delayed from Sept. 11. The use of the word "choice" in the series is sure to annoy many in our communities. Particularly those who live in a major media market, who are knowledgeable about the issues, don't think it is a matter of choice. But therein lies the problem: we want to educate while simultaneously using politically correct language. Since O'Donnell is both a lesbian and an adoptive parent, consider this: if adoption issues are out in left field for most folks, then gays and lesbians adopting are not even in the same town, much less in the ballpark. Folks are not familiar with issues around adoption and don't know the correct language to use unless they have been impacted by adoption or educated on the issues. Likewise with the LGBT community - even the term LGBT doesn't play in most media markets. LGBTs are perceived differently by both the media and the consumers of media when we are out of the five major media markets, which are all in urban areas. So a national show like Koppel's must play to middle America and the so-called "fly-over" states. If such a show were directed exclusively at a major media market with a large and active LGBT community, then the word "choice" would not be in the frame at all. Decisions need to be made. We must first educate the masses on the simplest issues before demanding that the correct language be used. If folks can't at least understand the basic issues then mere use of the correct terminology makes no sense and doesn't enhance our cause. Without education, two men adopting a child are seen by most in this country as two "fags" taking away a child from his/her "natural" mother rather than a couple forming their family. Here the education is both around adoption issues and LGBT issues. Journalists aren't the only ones who have difficulty knowing what language to use when speaking of "the other," which can be anyone from someone of a different race/ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or gender. When "the other" is seen and viewed as "the other," we are dehumanized. To borrow from San Francisco Chronicle TV columnist Tim Goodman, shows like the "Nightline" series for those in "urban gay-familiar areas" are "... not even Gay 101. It's gay kindergarten." Therefore, more stories need to be generated about LGBTs and specifically LGBTs who are parenting, and not just the sensationalistic stories. Having a celebrity come out the closet does nothing to help folks see that me, my partner and our daughter as a family are virtually no different than another two-parent heterosexual couple with a child. Certainly LGBTs using adoption as a way to form our families is but one tiny piece of the media and education puzzle. Journalists and activists must constantly address the concerns and educate folks about other folks who they may have never seen. The complete stories need to be told with all diversity factors included. When our stories are less of an anomaly and our presence is known throughout the country then, despite the religious right, we will cease to be seen as "the other" and merely be another family in the neighborhood in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's largest pediatricians' group, estimates that more than 9 million children in the United States have at least one gay or lesbian parent. For me, what really matters is family, not how it is formed nor the specific characteristics of the parent(s). We must continue to find ways to tell our stories to the press and celebrate our families.
June 2003
5 Subjects White People Should Never Initiate in a Conversation with People of Color
by Akilah Monifa
It used to be that most white people would start a discussion with me, a woman of African descent, by referring to someone or something they thought they knew about another person of African descent, or about my culture.For example, in the 1980s folks would often mention someone they saw on television (or heard about), like Bill Cosby. Those who thought of themselves as hip might lead off with a musical reference -- "that Stevie Wonder is talented," "Lena Horne sure looks good for her age." And, of course, sports were also popular.People would feel free to initiate these discussions, but accepting for their limited knowledge of these folks from the media, their lives were not racially or ethnically diverse. These conversations were always awkward for me and never satisfying. For years, I have denied this, but now that white people are a certified minority, I have devised a list of five subject areas white people should never bring up in conversation with people of color.In no particular order, they are:1. Color, Race and/or Ethnicity -- White people, like people of color, are obsessed with it. (By the way, the term "people of color" is not literal. People of color come in various shades, tones, and hues.) We are aware of this. We don't enjoy you putting your arm next to ours and remarking how you are darker than we are.The prejudice linked to being a person of color is not solely generated by the color of the skin. There are definitely some links, such as how police stop disproportionate numbers of people of color while driving or shopping.But many people of color are discriminated against even though they are not initially seen as a person of color. Most white people would not accept discrimination associated with being a person of color as a fair price to pay for being "exotic" and darker.2. Hair -- Another area considered exotic, and a reason for envy. Plus white people must unconsciously believe that if you rub or touch our hair/head, you will have good luck.You can certainly admire my hair, but if you saw someone of your own race with a nice hair cut, you might compliment or ask where they got it done, but never would you touch it.I also get white people arguing with me about how I groom my hair, particularly after they have seen a documentary on the topic.If the terms "nappy," "kitchen," or even "Jew fro" are not from your particular culture, believe me it is inappropriate and often insulting to approach someone from a different race or ethnicity and use these terms in reference to their hair.3. Clothing --- A huge quagmire.Again, compliment the person just as you would if you saw a polo shirt in a color you like that was particularly flattering on the person.If you choose to wear clothing that is indigenous to another culture, you should not approach someone from that culture and initiate a conversation about how you now "look like them." Remember the expression "a sheep in wolf's clothing." Clothing does not define your race or ethnicity.Nor should you question whether or not someone is wearing clothing associated with her culture.4. Age -- Many people will note that it is difficult to determine the age of people of color, in particular women.Many a comedian of color has made sexist and ageist jokes about white women. The aging process and its effects on looks are not attributes of race and ethnicity, but of a multitude of factors including genetics, luck and individual maintenance.5. Class -- Many a white person mistakenly assumes that all people of color came from a lower socio-economic background and live in their neighborhoods only because they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.The days of that Booker T. Washington mentality are over. The statement is ridiculous on its face. The reality is that race and/or ethnicity does not solely define us.But when we are initially approached in this way, the walls that divide us continue to grow. Stereotypes dehumanize people so we relate to one another as caricatures instead of human beings.There are many ways to approach folk who are different without initially and awkwardly commenting on those differences.Differences have no intrinsic value. They are neither good nor bad, they just are. So if you wonder about the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in your life, could it be you are inadvertently dehumanizing and/or exoticizing folk rather than reaching out on a more basic human level?As my late grandmother Lizzie used to say, the weather is always a safe topic of conversation and if that goes well, you can move on to another subject area.
April 11, 2001
It used to be that most white people would start a discussion with me, a woman of African descent, by referring to someone or something they thought they knew about another person of African descent, or about my culture.For example, in the 1980s folks would often mention someone they saw on television (or heard about), like Bill Cosby. Those who thought of themselves as hip might lead off with a musical reference -- "that Stevie Wonder is talented," "Lena Horne sure looks good for her age." And, of course, sports were also popular.People would feel free to initiate these discussions, but accepting for their limited knowledge of these folks from the media, their lives were not racially or ethnically diverse. These conversations were always awkward for me and never satisfying. For years, I have denied this, but now that white people are a certified minority, I have devised a list of five subject areas white people should never bring up in conversation with people of color.In no particular order, they are:1. Color, Race and/or Ethnicity -- White people, like people of color, are obsessed with it. (By the way, the term "people of color" is not literal. People of color come in various shades, tones, and hues.) We are aware of this. We don't enjoy you putting your arm next to ours and remarking how you are darker than we are.The prejudice linked to being a person of color is not solely generated by the color of the skin. There are definitely some links, such as how police stop disproportionate numbers of people of color while driving or shopping.But many people of color are discriminated against even though they are not initially seen as a person of color. Most white people would not accept discrimination associated with being a person of color as a fair price to pay for being "exotic" and darker.2. Hair -- Another area considered exotic, and a reason for envy. Plus white people must unconsciously believe that if you rub or touch our hair/head, you will have good luck.You can certainly admire my hair, but if you saw someone of your own race with a nice hair cut, you might compliment or ask where they got it done, but never would you touch it.I also get white people arguing with me about how I groom my hair, particularly after they have seen a documentary on the topic.If the terms "nappy," "kitchen," or even "Jew fro" are not from your particular culture, believe me it is inappropriate and often insulting to approach someone from a different race or ethnicity and use these terms in reference to their hair.3. Clothing --- A huge quagmire.Again, compliment the person just as you would if you saw a polo shirt in a color you like that was particularly flattering on the person.If you choose to wear clothing that is indigenous to another culture, you should not approach someone from that culture and initiate a conversation about how you now "look like them." Remember the expression "a sheep in wolf's clothing." Clothing does not define your race or ethnicity.Nor should you question whether or not someone is wearing clothing associated with her culture.4. Age -- Many people will note that it is difficult to determine the age of people of color, in particular women.Many a comedian of color has made sexist and ageist jokes about white women. The aging process and its effects on looks are not attributes of race and ethnicity, but of a multitude of factors including genetics, luck and individual maintenance.5. Class -- Many a white person mistakenly assumes that all people of color came from a lower socio-economic background and live in their neighborhoods only because they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.The days of that Booker T. Washington mentality are over. The statement is ridiculous on its face. The reality is that race and/or ethnicity does not solely define us.But when we are initially approached in this way, the walls that divide us continue to grow. Stereotypes dehumanize people so we relate to one another as caricatures instead of human beings.There are many ways to approach folk who are different without initially and awkwardly commenting on those differences.Differences have no intrinsic value. They are neither good nor bad, they just are. So if you wonder about the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in your life, could it be you are inadvertently dehumanizing and/or exoticizing folk rather than reaching out on a more basic human level?As my late grandmother Lizzie used to say, the weather is always a safe topic of conversation and if that goes well, you can move on to another subject area.
April 11, 2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
