This week the U.S. House of Representatives passed Obama's 800 billion dollar stimulus package. As part of this bill, they included a clause that would require all infrastructure projects funded by the stimulus money to be made with domestic steel. There are indications that the senate will uphold this 'American-made' clause, and possibly expand it to require that all materials be of U.S. origin.
World leaders, including Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister, have cried foul play. It is against international trade laws to practice what is known as protectionism. The raising of tariffs and banning of imports is thought to have contributed to the intensity of the Great Depression. In Bush's last economic meeting with world leaders, he concurred with other countries that the only way out of the global crisis was to rigorously guard against protectionism.
Now Obama is being called on to strike down the 'American-made' clause in the stimulus bill. He has not yet made a commitment to leave it in, or delete it. His considerations are complex. Tax payers are already reeling from the recent news that Wall Street tycoons walked away with over $18 billion in bonuses in a year when they relied heavily on government money to prevent collapse. Many tax payers are not interested in seeing any of the $800 billion spent overseas as our own unemployment numbers swell. On the other hand, protectionism works both ways. If we begin to refuse other country's products, they can wipe out their markets for ours.
I propose that in light of this complicated conflict, rather than deciding whether to use a right or left hook, that we side step the whole issue. Well, admittedly it won't be possible to completely ignore the problem, but investing in a key area of need would go a long way towards helping our own economy without breaking any laws.
While the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and Canada are clamoring for us to avoid protectionism, they are not dealing with domestic populations at the same risk that Americans are. Unlike those countries, when Americans lose jobs, they lose health insurance. There are provisions in the stimulus package for expanding medicaid coverage and subsidizing COBRA expenses, but we could go much further.
As Paul Krugman argues, a major shift in the economy is a perfect time to enact a new social contract, like providing health insurance for all. In 2006 Massachusetts passed legislation that paved the way to providing universal health insurance in the state. To date it is the only state to provide this level of coverage. Three years later, it is instructive to analyze how their system is functioning.
While overall it is receiving support, the main problem for people has been accessing a primary care physician. There simply aren't enough of them working in the state to keep up with the new demand. If the entire U.S. were to be covered for health insurance, it is reasonable to assume that we'd experience the same bottleneck.
However, far from being a problem, this is a golden opportunity for us to stimulate our economy. Not only does a healthier work force translate into a more productive one, but health care is a non-exportable industry that currently accounts for 15-18% of GDP. Estimates for future costs show that it will continue to rise. Many people use this as an argument for why we shouldn't provide universal insurance. But what better way to keep our dollars at home, without breaking international law?
My proposal is this. There are millions of people out of work. Hundreds of thousands of them would be happy to train as primary care physicians. The stimulus package should include a huge sum for this retraining program, so cost isn't an issue for students. More of the stimulus package should go towards extending health coverage everyone. We could phase this coverage in to coincide with the graduation of our new physicians. More clinics and hospitals should be built right away (and granted, this may require us to spend money on imports, but at least the wages would stay here), of course with the blessing of stimulus money.
In this way, when we finally start climbing out of the recession, we will have a newly trained, non-exportable work force, healthy workers in all industries, and enough clinics to serve our country's needs. Then next time an economic disaster hits (and it will, we have alarmingly short memories), we'll at least be on an even playing field with other wealthy nations.
1/31/09
1/29/09
Tashi Wada
In addition to composing incredible music, Tashi Wada draws using a typewriter. Wada's music can be hypnotic, inviting the kind of contemplation that is too often reserved for quasi-religious experiences. But it also has a certain dryness that brings you into the present rather than pushing you away from it. Wada's typewriter works use simple patterns and mechanical repetition to achieve something similar. They aren't meditative, exactly, but like an Agnes Martin painting or certain drawings by Eva Hesse, their minimalism demands an intensity of focus. And because their repetitiveness induces optical illusions, they exist between the eye and the page. Just as the alternative tunings that Wada uses in his music can produce tones that aren't actually being played as a result of the combination of certain tones that are played, Wada's drawings create visual tensions, coloration and movement between the marks. The work itself consists of the effect of these marks upon us. Even so, they aren't psychedelic; instead of seeking to alter consciousness, there is a frank recognition that perception is the basis of any work of art.
1/26/09
There Is a Balm In Gilead
Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Ron Burton, Henry "Pete" Pearson, Robert Shy and
Joe "Habao" Texidor perform "Balm In Gilead" live, 1972:
Joe "Habao" Texidor perform "Balm In Gilead" live, 1972:
1/24/09
Cease Fire? Commence Protracted Suffering.
Aid agencies, including Save the Children and the Red Cross, are reporting that they are still being turned back at the Gazan border. The Israeli government is giving ambiguous reasons for the delay, and the reasons change daily. Sometimes they claim that it is still too dangerous to cross, other days the reason is that it is simply the wrong day, sometimes the aid agencies are not the ones that Israel wants to work with, and on other days Israel is unable to provide guides.
The situation in Gaza remains critical. Sewage is leaking into the region's aquifers, tens of thousands are still homeless, and food is not arriving with any regularity. The external aid is badly needed, and the agencies are ready to move in, but Israel is preventing them from getting to the desperate residents of Gaza.
Doctors and surgeons have stated that the types of wounds they are encountering are not consistent with anything they've seen before. They suspect that Israel used new weapons in this last round of fighting, although Israel claims that they only used weapons allowed under international law. One of these new types of wounds initially presents itself with the symptoms of appendicitis. But within hours tiny lesions that are too small to be repaired surgically develop in the organs. When the organs are opened the surgeons find dozens of miniature particles that are slicing their way through the patient's body. Most people die within 24 hours.
As if these problems of getting and moving aid to assist the civilians caught up in the fighting were not enough, BBC has recently refused to air ads from the Disasters Emergency Committee requesting money donations. BBC claims that the ads, which are solely focused on obtaining relief, would ruin its commitment to impartial reporting. This concern comes to the surprise of many, since the BBC has a long history of running aid ads after other conflicts. Originally other broadcasters in the United Kingdom followed the BBC's lead, but due to a public outcry, stations such as ITV and Channel 4 have agreed to run the ads.
Meanwhile, workers are busy rebuilding the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt that Israel destroyed. These tunnels are used to smuggle goods into Gaza. Hamas is thought to use the tunnels to import weapons, but they are also a conduit for badly needed food and sanitation supplies. Many of the workers digging the tunnels have no other option for employment. And without a reliable source of aid due to Israel's shutdown at the border, how else is Gaza going to get the basic necessities?
In fact, the only reliable source of assistance for Gazans will soon be Hamas, which has announced that it will begin distributing aid to residents. Hamas originally won the support of Gazans by bolstering failing schools and providing medical services. This new bout of rebuilding is sure to secure loyalty for the only organization that is visibly supporting the war torn region.
If Israel wanted to ensure that their conflict with Hamas stretches into eternity, they are going about it in the perfect way. And the rich Western countries are certainly helping, by making flimsy excuses about impartiality when people are dying, providing weapons that cause damage doctors can't fix, and blindly supporting Israel even when they are making as many mistakes as the U.S. did in invading Iraq.
The situation in Gaza remains critical. Sewage is leaking into the region's aquifers, tens of thousands are still homeless, and food is not arriving with any regularity. The external aid is badly needed, and the agencies are ready to move in, but Israel is preventing them from getting to the desperate residents of Gaza.
Doctors and surgeons have stated that the types of wounds they are encountering are not consistent with anything they've seen before. They suspect that Israel used new weapons in this last round of fighting, although Israel claims that they only used weapons allowed under international law. One of these new types of wounds initially presents itself with the symptoms of appendicitis. But within hours tiny lesions that are too small to be repaired surgically develop in the organs. When the organs are opened the surgeons find dozens of miniature particles that are slicing their way through the patient's body. Most people die within 24 hours.
As if these problems of getting and moving aid to assist the civilians caught up in the fighting were not enough, BBC has recently refused to air ads from the Disasters Emergency Committee requesting money donations. BBC claims that the ads, which are solely focused on obtaining relief, would ruin its commitment to impartial reporting. This concern comes to the surprise of many, since the BBC has a long history of running aid ads after other conflicts. Originally other broadcasters in the United Kingdom followed the BBC's lead, but due to a public outcry, stations such as ITV and Channel 4 have agreed to run the ads.
Meanwhile, workers are busy rebuilding the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt that Israel destroyed. These tunnels are used to smuggle goods into Gaza. Hamas is thought to use the tunnels to import weapons, but they are also a conduit for badly needed food and sanitation supplies. Many of the workers digging the tunnels have no other option for employment. And without a reliable source of aid due to Israel's shutdown at the border, how else is Gaza going to get the basic necessities?
In fact, the only reliable source of assistance for Gazans will soon be Hamas, which has announced that it will begin distributing aid to residents. Hamas originally won the support of Gazans by bolstering failing schools and providing medical services. This new bout of rebuilding is sure to secure loyalty for the only organization that is visibly supporting the war torn region.
If Israel wanted to ensure that their conflict with Hamas stretches into eternity, they are going about it in the perfect way. And the rich Western countries are certainly helping, by making flimsy excuses about impartiality when people are dying, providing weapons that cause damage doctors can't fix, and blindly supporting Israel even when they are making as many mistakes as the U.S. did in invading Iraq.
1/17/09
Surviving the Arctic Blast
This past week the United States has been struggling with an extreme cold snap. Most people in the U.S. have been forced to deal with climatic conditions beyond their scope of resources. Electricity has gone out, school has been canceled, cars have stopped working, and regions that rarely dip below 32°F are enduring freezing temperatures.
Although the cold snap has been compared to the Arctic, our temperatures up here are still quite a bit colder. Lately we've been in the -40°F to -60°F range. At these temperatures even our insulated sewage pipes are bursting, but for the most part citizens are proceeding with life as usual. However, one group has become increasingly vulnerable.
Many people are surprised to learn that Arctic towns like Yellowknife have a homeless population. During the day the homeless people hang out in the entryways to businesses and spend time in the library or cafés. Unfortunately, unlike most towns and cities I've lived in down south, the problem up here is that there isn't a comprehensive support system for after business hours. Once the shops close down there are very few options. Yellowknife has four banks on Main Street with indoor ATM services. These spaces provide a warm shelter, but only temporarily. The law enforcement officers routinely patrol the main drag and force people to leave.
The one remaining option seems to be the vestibules for apartment buildings. I live in a downtown apartment that has one of these heated entryways. After 9pm there are generally about four people standing in the small space, trying to keep warm.
Usually there is a strong smell of alcohol in the space when I pass through. I do admit that at first this intimidated me because I know that use of alcohol can increase violence. But most people do not drink alcohol on cold nights because they are intending to cause physical harm. Alcohol makes the human body feel warm, even when it isn't.
Now I'm accustomed to the presence of my downstairs neighbors. Whenever I enter the building I take a few moments to chat with them. Showing a modicum of decency to them guarantees that they will also respect me and my requests. For example, one night one of the men tried to follow me into the building. While I hated barring entrance to him, there are signs all over the building underscoring the importance of respecting the living space by making sure that we only allow people we know personally onto the property. When I apologized to the man and said that I wasn't allowed to let him in, he immediately agreed that that would be against the rules and stayed in the entryway.
Two nights ago I was returning from a movie when I ran into a group of people in the vestibule. We chatted about the frigid weather for a minute. When I turned to go one of the men told me, "We promise that we'll leave really soon, we just had to get warm for a second." It was 9pm and no businesses would be open for 12 hours. The temperature was -40°F. I was confused about why he would say that he was leaving soon. Didn't he need a place to sleep all night? I assured him that he should stay as long as he needed to.
It wasn't until I had arrived in my apartment that I realized why he told me this. My neighbors must call the police to have the homeless people chased away from our building. While I understand the passing by a group of unknown people can be intimidating, this course of action is entirely unwarranted. Like all people, homeless people frequent familiar territory. The easiest way to avoid the problem of being intimidated by strangers is to make their acquaintances.
As I was relaying the story about being angry that my neighbors would call the police, a friend reminded me that most homeful people don't realize what limited options are available to people who are homeless. Even in cities with solid shelter systems, overcrowding is often a problem. In addition, there are many vulnerable populations for whom staying at a shelter is too dangerous.
When extreme cold hits an area, the homeless are at great risk for dying. Their only option for surviving may be to stand in the ATM that you'd like to use for a few minutes, or to huddle in the corner of the entryway to your building. As this cold wave sweeps across areas of the U.S. that are unaccustomed to frigid conditions, I'd like to point out that there are some who can't go home and curl up under a blanket. Instead of calling the police, try neutralizing any perceived threat by introducing yourself, or commenting on the weather, or offering predictions on the local sports teams. You'll most likely discover that the homeless people are just like you, only colder.
Although the cold snap has been compared to the Arctic, our temperatures up here are still quite a bit colder. Lately we've been in the -40°F to -60°F range. At these temperatures even our insulated sewage pipes are bursting, but for the most part citizens are proceeding with life as usual. However, one group has become increasingly vulnerable.
Many people are surprised to learn that Arctic towns like Yellowknife have a homeless population. During the day the homeless people hang out in the entryways to businesses and spend time in the library or cafés. Unfortunately, unlike most towns and cities I've lived in down south, the problem up here is that there isn't a comprehensive support system for after business hours. Once the shops close down there are very few options. Yellowknife has four banks on Main Street with indoor ATM services. These spaces provide a warm shelter, but only temporarily. The law enforcement officers routinely patrol the main drag and force people to leave.
The one remaining option seems to be the vestibules for apartment buildings. I live in a downtown apartment that has one of these heated entryways. After 9pm there are generally about four people standing in the small space, trying to keep warm.
Usually there is a strong smell of alcohol in the space when I pass through. I do admit that at first this intimidated me because I know that use of alcohol can increase violence. But most people do not drink alcohol on cold nights because they are intending to cause physical harm. Alcohol makes the human body feel warm, even when it isn't.
Now I'm accustomed to the presence of my downstairs neighbors. Whenever I enter the building I take a few moments to chat with them. Showing a modicum of decency to them guarantees that they will also respect me and my requests. For example, one night one of the men tried to follow me into the building. While I hated barring entrance to him, there are signs all over the building underscoring the importance of respecting the living space by making sure that we only allow people we know personally onto the property. When I apologized to the man and said that I wasn't allowed to let him in, he immediately agreed that that would be against the rules and stayed in the entryway.
Two nights ago I was returning from a movie when I ran into a group of people in the vestibule. We chatted about the frigid weather for a minute. When I turned to go one of the men told me, "We promise that we'll leave really soon, we just had to get warm for a second." It was 9pm and no businesses would be open for 12 hours. The temperature was -40°F. I was confused about why he would say that he was leaving soon. Didn't he need a place to sleep all night? I assured him that he should stay as long as he needed to.
It wasn't until I had arrived in my apartment that I realized why he told me this. My neighbors must call the police to have the homeless people chased away from our building. While I understand the passing by a group of unknown people can be intimidating, this course of action is entirely unwarranted. Like all people, homeless people frequent familiar territory. The easiest way to avoid the problem of being intimidated by strangers is to make their acquaintances.
As I was relaying the story about being angry that my neighbors would call the police, a friend reminded me that most homeful people don't realize what limited options are available to people who are homeless. Even in cities with solid shelter systems, overcrowding is often a problem. In addition, there are many vulnerable populations for whom staying at a shelter is too dangerous.
When extreme cold hits an area, the homeless are at great risk for dying. Their only option for surviving may be to stand in the ATM that you'd like to use for a few minutes, or to huddle in the corner of the entryway to your building. As this cold wave sweeps across areas of the U.S. that are unaccustomed to frigid conditions, I'd like to point out that there are some who can't go home and curl up under a blanket. Instead of calling the police, try neutralizing any perceived threat by introducing yourself, or commenting on the weather, or offering predictions on the local sports teams. You'll most likely discover that the homeless people are just like you, only colder.
1/12/09
Playing the Blame Game: Prop 8 Rears Its Head
Shortly after the November 2008 election I wrote the following essay in response to the tensions flaring between various communities in California around the issue of the passage of Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage).
Recently The Atlantic published this article about new data that has become available.
In response, or at least in the interest of continuing the conversation, I have decided to post the essay that I wrote in November.
The Blame Game
Whenever loss occurs it is natural to look for an explanation. Ever since the election last week figures have been thrown around about what percentage of black constituents in California voted for Prop 8. Some estimates were as high as 70%. Later that figure was disputed and estimated to be much closer to the statewide average of 52%. Regardless of the exact number, fierce debate has been sparked between the black and gay community in terms of voting reciprocity around issues of civil rights. Many op-ed articles that I’ve read have been venomous. But, predictably, voices of ‘reason’ have begun calling for an end to the ‘blame game,’ alleging that it only serves to divide our communities.
Here’s an example that I received via email yesterday:
“But in recent days there has been a tendency to assign blame to specific communities, in particular, the African American community. The fact is, 52 percent of all Californians, the vast majority of whom were not African Americans, voted against us. In addition, the most recent analysis of the exit poll that drove much of this speculation determined that it was too small to draw any conclusion on the African American vote, and further polling shows that the margin was much closer than first reported. Most importantly, though, none of this discourse changes the outcome of the vote. It only serves to divide our community and hinder our ability to create a stronger and more diverse coalition to help us overturn Proposition 8 and restore full equality and human rights to LGBT people.”
- Letter sent by NCLR (on 11/14/08) and signed by numerous GLBT and people of color community leaders
I wholeheartedly disagree that this line of discourse should cease. We have long known that large groups of people working in concert are usually able to affect more change than small groups operating without allies. But the fervent desire of various coalitions to work together without honestly discussing points of friction has resulted in smoldering rage that can flare dangerously in times of crisis. This is one of those times, and it would be to everyone’s benefit to seize this as an opportunity rather than continuing to idealistically assert that communities can become better allies by intentionally ignoring points of tension.
An op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times on November 8th articulated some of these frustrations. Jasmyne A. Cannick, who identifies as a black lesbian, wrote:
“At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.”
She goes on to say that it is a mark of privilege that white gay people can spend so much time and money on an issue that isn’t a matter of survival. While there is much to be said in regards to the importance of marriage insomuch as it allows people to protect themselves and their families both financially and psychologically, this is not the aspect of her piece that I would like to focus on.
Cannick clearly views the fight for marriage equality as one being waged by and for middle and upper class white people. She does not see herself as a part of this homosexual community, despite being a lesbian, because she feels a racial and class divide. While she conflates race and class in her argument, it is important to look at each of these factors in tandem as well as separately, and the issue of gender should not be ignored.
The movement for gay rights began with gender normative middle and upper class white men. This is not to say that people outside of this demographic weren’t trying to fight for rights, but being that they didn’t have the same access to resources that the rich white men had, they gained traction much more slowly. Many of them tried to join forces with the well to do white men. However, the fathers of the gay movement had a huge stake in keeping other people out. Their plan for attaining rights was to convince the American public that they were just like everyone else, and therefore not a threat to the mainstream way of life.
Any body that didn’t embody these normative values was a threat to the gay men’s argument. This meant that they refused entrance to effeminate men, almost all women and definitely all butches, people of color, those with disabilities, and the poor. Whether we’d like people to remember this or not, the gay movement as we know it was birthed from bigotry.
While other factions of the GLBT community have fought tirelessly to empower themselves and join the larger movement, there continues to be a co-opting and morphing that happens to the narratives of divergent bodies. For example, the conflict at Stonewall has become a national story of resistance for gay and lesbians. The Pride celebrations that take place in June are scheduled loosely around the anniversary of the uprising. What very few resources on the subject will reveal is that the people who fought against the police at Stonewall were primarily homeless transgender youth of color who were completely fed up with the impossibility of survival.
Similarly, the feminist movement, which informed the lesbian feminist movement, has a long history of speaking for all women without allowing all women to speak. When white women decided that they were tired of staying home and wanted to enter the workplace, they imagined that all women had the same experiences as them. They failed to recognize that women of color had always been working jobs out of necessity. In order to go to work the white women had to find someone to take care of their children and houses. These domestic responsibilities fell to the women of color who were not being invited to apply for the jobs that the white feminists were creating for themselves.
The tactic of gaining rights on the back of the rest of the community continues today. At the federal level there is still no employment protection for gay and lesbian people. Likewise, there are no protections for transgender individuals. While it would make sense to fight for both protections simultaneously, many gay and lesbian people have been vehemently opposed to combining efforts. They argue that American people aren’t ready to protect transgender people, but they may be ready to protect gay and lesbian people, so instead of transgender people jeopardizing the gays’ and lesbians’ chances to have protection, the transgender people should stop demanding rights for themselves.
This brings me back to Cannick’s assertion that the gay people who want marriage equality are all privileged and white and don’t have more significant civil rights concerns for themselves. This conceptualization is indicative not of the actual demographic, but of the image that the GLBT movement continues to project about its constituency.
In fact, many of the same oppressions and hurdles that plague the black community are also continuing to destroy transgender people. (Transgender in its broadest definition describes someone whose gender presentation does not align with the traditional expectations of their biological sex. This includes people who cross-dress, transsexuals, masculine women, effeminate men, and many other permutations of human identity.) Recent figures have reported that over 60% of transgender people have never made more than $19,000 in a year. This percentage is certainly in line with my personal experience of employment as a transgender person. In addition, we have no right to job or housing protection. We are profiled and arrested disproportionately. We are refused health insurance and care. And many of us can’t get married, so not only can’t we protect ourselves, we can’t protect our families.
Among this list of disparities that are enforced through federal action (or inaction as the case may be), marriage is not the right that I would choose on my own to fight hardest for. But the opportunity to have even a sliver more protection is better than none at all, and I’ve clung to it. I recognize that there is more interest for this right within the GLBT community because it affects all of us, rather than just those of us who are transgender. This was why the passing of Prop 8 was so upsetting for me. If even marriage can’t pass, then I know that my right to safe housing, a job that pays a cost of living wage, healthcare so I can protect my body, and dissipation of police brutality will be a long time in coming.
On election night I cried with grief during Obama’s acceptance speech because the change that he so impassionedly spoke of seemed not to have come for me. The political pundits for days afterward were asking everyone whether prejudice in the U.S. was dead. The general consensus seemed to be that as a nation we had defeated our demons. This alarmed me in light of the struggles that continue in much of the GLBT community, and it also alarmed me in light of what I know about the dire situation that continues in communities of color. At this time when we are balancing on the precipice of possibility for a real alteration in the social landscape of the U.S., I am concerned about who will be forgotten.
The gay movement has been effective in creating and sustaining a myth that all GLBT people are well off and white. This story has been so deeply ingrained that someone who is a lesbian, but black, can feel that gay people who want rights are so privileged that their concerns should be secondary. Will the myth of a black president connoting the end of racism be just as damaging to movements within people of color communities?
These fears lead me to feel that people of color should be my closest allies at this point in history. The transgender community and black community share many of the same oppressions, although the ways that we have arrived at this juncture are different. When I hear or read that black people disproportionately, or even proportionately, voted against my rights, I do feel betrayed. I cannot understand why the people who I have lived on the streets with, and starved with, and worked the minimum wage jobs with, would want to deny me rights.
What it takes for me to find the answer is not the conciliatory words of leaders who are in power, but the desperately angry words of people who aren’t in the most privileged positions. Cannick’s dismissive stance on any rights as secondary, and positioning of gay marriage as so unimportant that she didn’t feel black people should vote for it, made me wonder about the origins of this anger. It wasn’t until I read her piece that I began synthesizing what I knew of the history of the gay rights movement with her reaction. Why would someone who has constantly been degraded, used, dismissed and rendered invisible by a movement that claims to be about her, want to collude in any way with that movement’s objectives? And what is meant as a rhetorical question suddenly becomes very personal. Wait a minute, why do I?
This is what the leaders of most movements want to avoid. It is safer to pledge alliances and promise to work for each other’s causes without admitting that all movements have histories of exclusion and subjugation. It is difficult to apologize and atone while struggling with oppression that threatens your survival. It is easier to tack terms like ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ onto the mission statement than it is to take responsibility for the origins of movements that began before any of us were alive. But studiously avoiding the blame game will never solve this problem.
What we need is honesty, and oftentimes we are trying so valiantly to embody the ideals that we believe in, that we don’t realize our subconscious fears and rage. Sometimes it takes periods of conflict, with accusations flying in every direction, for us to articulate the beliefs and feelings that we want so badly to repress out of existence. How can I know that people really view the GLBT community as being rich and privileged, when I have been chronically homeless for six years as a result of being transgender? How can the black community recognize that GLBT people don’t get the difference between their civil rights movement and ours, until we’re shouting about it?
We cannot waste this opportunity to actually learn from one another. Let’s articulate our anger, quote the information we think we have, and express the betrayal we feel. Then let us listen and be willing to seek out the correct information. Obama’s election does not indicate the end of a journey to reach safer ground. His presidency is only the inertia we need to begin running. Let’s not squander the force he has enacted on our country’s body. The marathon will of necessity be painful, but at the finish line we will truly be able to say, “We have won.”
Recently The Atlantic published this article about new data that has become available.
In response, or at least in the interest of continuing the conversation, I have decided to post the essay that I wrote in November.
The Blame Game
Whenever loss occurs it is natural to look for an explanation. Ever since the election last week figures have been thrown around about what percentage of black constituents in California voted for Prop 8. Some estimates were as high as 70%. Later that figure was disputed and estimated to be much closer to the statewide average of 52%. Regardless of the exact number, fierce debate has been sparked between the black and gay community in terms of voting reciprocity around issues of civil rights. Many op-ed articles that I’ve read have been venomous. But, predictably, voices of ‘reason’ have begun calling for an end to the ‘blame game,’ alleging that it only serves to divide our communities.
Here’s an example that I received via email yesterday:
“But in recent days there has been a tendency to assign blame to specific communities, in particular, the African American community. The fact is, 52 percent of all Californians, the vast majority of whom were not African Americans, voted against us. In addition, the most recent analysis of the exit poll that drove much of this speculation determined that it was too small to draw any conclusion on the African American vote, and further polling shows that the margin was much closer than first reported. Most importantly, though, none of this discourse changes the outcome of the vote. It only serves to divide our community and hinder our ability to create a stronger and more diverse coalition to help us overturn Proposition 8 and restore full equality and human rights to LGBT people.”
- Letter sent by NCLR (on 11/14/08) and signed by numerous GLBT and people of color community leaders
I wholeheartedly disagree that this line of discourse should cease. We have long known that large groups of people working in concert are usually able to affect more change than small groups operating without allies. But the fervent desire of various coalitions to work together without honestly discussing points of friction has resulted in smoldering rage that can flare dangerously in times of crisis. This is one of those times, and it would be to everyone’s benefit to seize this as an opportunity rather than continuing to idealistically assert that communities can become better allies by intentionally ignoring points of tension.
An op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times on November 8th articulated some of these frustrations. Jasmyne A. Cannick, who identifies as a black lesbian, wrote:
“At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.”
She goes on to say that it is a mark of privilege that white gay people can spend so much time and money on an issue that isn’t a matter of survival. While there is much to be said in regards to the importance of marriage insomuch as it allows people to protect themselves and their families both financially and psychologically, this is not the aspect of her piece that I would like to focus on.
Cannick clearly views the fight for marriage equality as one being waged by and for middle and upper class white people. She does not see herself as a part of this homosexual community, despite being a lesbian, because she feels a racial and class divide. While she conflates race and class in her argument, it is important to look at each of these factors in tandem as well as separately, and the issue of gender should not be ignored.
The movement for gay rights began with gender normative middle and upper class white men. This is not to say that people outside of this demographic weren’t trying to fight for rights, but being that they didn’t have the same access to resources that the rich white men had, they gained traction much more slowly. Many of them tried to join forces with the well to do white men. However, the fathers of the gay movement had a huge stake in keeping other people out. Their plan for attaining rights was to convince the American public that they were just like everyone else, and therefore not a threat to the mainstream way of life.
Any body that didn’t embody these normative values was a threat to the gay men’s argument. This meant that they refused entrance to effeminate men, almost all women and definitely all butches, people of color, those with disabilities, and the poor. Whether we’d like people to remember this or not, the gay movement as we know it was birthed from bigotry.
While other factions of the GLBT community have fought tirelessly to empower themselves and join the larger movement, there continues to be a co-opting and morphing that happens to the narratives of divergent bodies. For example, the conflict at Stonewall has become a national story of resistance for gay and lesbians. The Pride celebrations that take place in June are scheduled loosely around the anniversary of the uprising. What very few resources on the subject will reveal is that the people who fought against the police at Stonewall were primarily homeless transgender youth of color who were completely fed up with the impossibility of survival.
Similarly, the feminist movement, which informed the lesbian feminist movement, has a long history of speaking for all women without allowing all women to speak. When white women decided that they were tired of staying home and wanted to enter the workplace, they imagined that all women had the same experiences as them. They failed to recognize that women of color had always been working jobs out of necessity. In order to go to work the white women had to find someone to take care of their children and houses. These domestic responsibilities fell to the women of color who were not being invited to apply for the jobs that the white feminists were creating for themselves.
The tactic of gaining rights on the back of the rest of the community continues today. At the federal level there is still no employment protection for gay and lesbian people. Likewise, there are no protections for transgender individuals. While it would make sense to fight for both protections simultaneously, many gay and lesbian people have been vehemently opposed to combining efforts. They argue that American people aren’t ready to protect transgender people, but they may be ready to protect gay and lesbian people, so instead of transgender people jeopardizing the gays’ and lesbians’ chances to have protection, the transgender people should stop demanding rights for themselves.
This brings me back to Cannick’s assertion that the gay people who want marriage equality are all privileged and white and don’t have more significant civil rights concerns for themselves. This conceptualization is indicative not of the actual demographic, but of the image that the GLBT movement continues to project about its constituency.
In fact, many of the same oppressions and hurdles that plague the black community are also continuing to destroy transgender people. (Transgender in its broadest definition describes someone whose gender presentation does not align with the traditional expectations of their biological sex. This includes people who cross-dress, transsexuals, masculine women, effeminate men, and many other permutations of human identity.) Recent figures have reported that over 60% of transgender people have never made more than $19,000 in a year. This percentage is certainly in line with my personal experience of employment as a transgender person. In addition, we have no right to job or housing protection. We are profiled and arrested disproportionately. We are refused health insurance and care. And many of us can’t get married, so not only can’t we protect ourselves, we can’t protect our families.
Among this list of disparities that are enforced through federal action (or inaction as the case may be), marriage is not the right that I would choose on my own to fight hardest for. But the opportunity to have even a sliver more protection is better than none at all, and I’ve clung to it. I recognize that there is more interest for this right within the GLBT community because it affects all of us, rather than just those of us who are transgender. This was why the passing of Prop 8 was so upsetting for me. If even marriage can’t pass, then I know that my right to safe housing, a job that pays a cost of living wage, healthcare so I can protect my body, and dissipation of police brutality will be a long time in coming.
On election night I cried with grief during Obama’s acceptance speech because the change that he so impassionedly spoke of seemed not to have come for me. The political pundits for days afterward were asking everyone whether prejudice in the U.S. was dead. The general consensus seemed to be that as a nation we had defeated our demons. This alarmed me in light of the struggles that continue in much of the GLBT community, and it also alarmed me in light of what I know about the dire situation that continues in communities of color. At this time when we are balancing on the precipice of possibility for a real alteration in the social landscape of the U.S., I am concerned about who will be forgotten.
The gay movement has been effective in creating and sustaining a myth that all GLBT people are well off and white. This story has been so deeply ingrained that someone who is a lesbian, but black, can feel that gay people who want rights are so privileged that their concerns should be secondary. Will the myth of a black president connoting the end of racism be just as damaging to movements within people of color communities?
These fears lead me to feel that people of color should be my closest allies at this point in history. The transgender community and black community share many of the same oppressions, although the ways that we have arrived at this juncture are different. When I hear or read that black people disproportionately, or even proportionately, voted against my rights, I do feel betrayed. I cannot understand why the people who I have lived on the streets with, and starved with, and worked the minimum wage jobs with, would want to deny me rights.
What it takes for me to find the answer is not the conciliatory words of leaders who are in power, but the desperately angry words of people who aren’t in the most privileged positions. Cannick’s dismissive stance on any rights as secondary, and positioning of gay marriage as so unimportant that she didn’t feel black people should vote for it, made me wonder about the origins of this anger. It wasn’t until I read her piece that I began synthesizing what I knew of the history of the gay rights movement with her reaction. Why would someone who has constantly been degraded, used, dismissed and rendered invisible by a movement that claims to be about her, want to collude in any way with that movement’s objectives? And what is meant as a rhetorical question suddenly becomes very personal. Wait a minute, why do I?
This is what the leaders of most movements want to avoid. It is safer to pledge alliances and promise to work for each other’s causes without admitting that all movements have histories of exclusion and subjugation. It is difficult to apologize and atone while struggling with oppression that threatens your survival. It is easier to tack terms like ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ onto the mission statement than it is to take responsibility for the origins of movements that began before any of us were alive. But studiously avoiding the blame game will never solve this problem.
What we need is honesty, and oftentimes we are trying so valiantly to embody the ideals that we believe in, that we don’t realize our subconscious fears and rage. Sometimes it takes periods of conflict, with accusations flying in every direction, for us to articulate the beliefs and feelings that we want so badly to repress out of existence. How can I know that people really view the GLBT community as being rich and privileged, when I have been chronically homeless for six years as a result of being transgender? How can the black community recognize that GLBT people don’t get the difference between their civil rights movement and ours, until we’re shouting about it?
We cannot waste this opportunity to actually learn from one another. Let’s articulate our anger, quote the information we think we have, and express the betrayal we feel. Then let us listen and be willing to seek out the correct information. Obama’s election does not indicate the end of a journey to reach safer ground. His presidency is only the inertia we need to begin running. Let’s not squander the force he has enacted on our country’s body. The marathon will of necessity be painful, but at the finish line we will truly be able to say, “We have won.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)