Obama Effigy at George Fox University

Read Article about Obama Effigy

The fact that someone would hang an effigy of Obama is shocking to me, not because of the action itself (I'm sure there are plenty of KKK members who would love to take credit for it), but because of the time and the place. Time: 21st century America. Place: small liberal arts college on the west coast.

George Fox University is a small liberal arts college with Quaker roots very close to Portland, Oregon. When I lived in Portland I attended a small Quaker church that was very white in its membership, but also had a very strong emphasis on social justice, peace, acceptance, and open-mindedness.

So for this reason I'm saddened and disappointed to see that there are people who will commit acts of hate even in the least expected places - the places that you would expect to be impervious to racial hatred. I guess this just shows that there is no place that is perfectly safe.

As someone who is white I have grown accustomed to the illusion of safeness that I have been raised with. From a young age I have been taught to think that I am protected, that the law and law enforcement is there to protect me, and that the world is safe. Obviously anyone from a minority background would see things quite differently, and with good reason: the law is often not their to support you, but to make you appear guilty for a crime you didn't commit. The world is not a safe place, but full of people who hate you for no reason but the color of your skin.

Presidential Debate at Ole Miss

Article about Klan involvement at University of Mississippi

This article interested me because it takes place on a university campus, and also because of its ties to the current presidential election. Frankly, I am surprised that race has not been more of an issue in this race. While I might not be in touch with the racial undercurrents, it seems that having the first black presidential candidate has been overshadowed by issues such as the economy and the failed bailout program and by having Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket. To me, it seemed like there was a much stronger sexist reaction to having a woman presidential candidate (at least Hillary Clinton) than a black candidate; although, I might just be more in tune to this because I am a woman.

Regardless, the prospects of having KKK show up at the debate to try to recruit members shows that they still have a presence in our society, and that racism is still present, even on university campuses. The university has come a long way since the civil unrest of the 60s, but there still appears to be some underground racial currents.

At first I thought the comment made by the editorial board to the KKK to "take our indifference as the ultimate symbol of your failure" showed that they do indeed no longer have a strong influence. But then I thought, shouldn't the response be outrage that such a group still exists, even if they pretend to "play nice"? I supposed indifference is better than actively supporting the group, but if I were black I think I would feel more than indifferent to the presence of the KKK - I would feel angry and afraid. This seems to be another case of the ignorance of white privilege speaking.

The story of Taylor was also enlightening in showing that racism still has very real effects on college campuses today. Obviously, in this situation, the white fraternity had more power than the black visitor. But I wonder if a white person visited a black fraternity party, what kind of reception would he/she get? In this case, the power might be reversed, since there is power in numbers. (This reminds me of Michael's suggestion that we all attend a black fraternity party!) Undoubtedly, racism is still a problem, and with only 14% African American students, there is still s strong majority of whites. I wonder how the situation at U of M compares to that at Kent State - would we have similar segregated parties and racial incidents that get swept under the carpet?

Charging Women for Rape Exam

Link to the Story

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Wasilla charged women for their own rape exams while Sarah Palin was the mayor - but really, come on people! Sarah Palin's taking the Republican VP platform should demonstrate that women can be strong leaders - yet she's not strong enough to stand up against a policy that discriminates against her own sex? Of course, there is no public record that shows she knew of such a policy, in which case I wonder how ill-informed she really IS.

This is an issue of money as much as it is about sexism - how is Palin going to spend tax-payers' money if she WOULD be in the position of president? This is just one small example, but it seems to me that Palin is not concerned on spending money that to help minorities, or to help with any social causes except those defined by her narrow religious perspective (which causes would be to prevent gays from getting married and to make sure no one has sex before they get married!)

In many ways I admire Palin, and to be honest, I would love to see a woman in the position of president. Just not her. I want a woman that will do something for other women besides charge them for their own rape exams. A woman who doesn't have to be part of the "good old boys" club in order to get on the platform. All the things that the media has honed in on - her hockey-mom status, her moosehunting hobby - are things that make her stand out because she is so rough and tough like one of the guys.

A college woman who I heard interviewed on NPR said it best: "I see it as a sign of progress that Sarah Palin is nominated to be VP. After all, there have been a lot of underqualified men out there who have had positions of power, so if we have a woman with her low qualifications, at least we're making progress!" (paraphrased) Although I don't agree with Sarah Palin's political views, I do admire her willingness to step up to the challenge. I hope that someday we will have a qualified woman candidate who holds more similar views to mine that I can stand behind.

Justice: American Style

Troy Davis Story

This is a story that jumped out at me as I was listening to NPR on the way home from school. Troy Davis is a black man accused of murdering a white police officer in 1989 - and tonight he is scheduled to be executed despite the recantation of several key witnesses and some evidence that the witnesses were pressured to testify against him in the original trial. The story points out some weaknesses of our justice system as well as being a powerful demonstration of how LITTLE power African American men have in our society.

On one hand, I am outraged that this kind of injustice happens in our society - "the land of the free." Yeah, if you're white, maybe. This story demonstrates more than any other I have encountered in recent memory exactly who holds the power (the white policemen) and who doesn't (the African American male). It doesn't seem to matter to the parole board (I wonder if they are white or people of color?) that 7 of the 9 witnesses have recanted their account of the crime, or that a few have pointed their fingers at another suspect. To me, this story seems like a modern-day lynching at the hands of our justice system. I want to hope that there is a better story, something the parole board knows that we don't, but I doubt it - this seems like a case of black and white injustice.

On the other hand, I am inspired by the actions that numerous people have taken to try to change the situation. Not only Davis' family - who you would expect to be rallying for his life - but also international groups and many leaders such as Pope Benedict XVI, former President Jimmy Carter, and former FBI Director William Sessions to name a few. I am inspired by these positive role models who are able to stand up and take action to say, "This should not be happening!" I'm also inspired to see whites and people of colored working together to try to prevent this injustice. And yet...it still seems to be happening.

Finally - to reflect on the media's role in this system, I want to examine how readily available this story is to the public. I heard it on NPR's morning edition, and was blown away by the story. I thought, "Wow, this story must be all over the news!" (By now you may have guessed that I'm not that up on the news) So I went to CNN online to see if I could find the story. I typed in "Troy Davis" and what did I find? Nothing. Or a least nothing that related to this story - a lot of other Davises seem to be more important in the news. Apparently a lot of things are more important than a black man being executed - such as the presidential election, the economy, and lest we forget the plight of polar bears starving.

But wait! I just did a new search on CNN and what did I see? A story about Troy Davis (put up 58 minutes ago).

Read CNN's Version of the Story

As you can see, this story - titled the very UNbiased, "High court to rule if convicted cop killer Troy Davis dies" - takes quite a different slant than the NPR story. It focuses on the victim's family and the loss they feel - and how they are certain they are executing the right man. Just HOW they are so certain is not exactly clear. I am against the death penalty to begin with, so I have my own biases in this case, but I still don't see how anyone - even the victim's family - could be convinced that this is a case of justice being served.

Racist Commercials

I don't understand how anyone - ANYONE - could have thought these commercials were a good idea (with the possible exception of the Comedy Channel who later used them for fodder). In the Gary's Mattress commercial at top, he manages to make racist statements against not one, not two - but FOUR different American ethnic groups. Wow! I'm impressed that this is even possible in a 53 second sound bite.

He starts by stereotyping Japanese and Chinese by saying "We are karate-chopping prices just for you" while wearing an funny hat. Then he plays on a Jewish stereotype and says, "Even we would buy it." For the Arabic community he puts on a long mustache and says "At Gary's Mattress, we're blowing up prices." Finally he dresses up as an American Indian, with a tomahawk and says "We're scalping prices." Like I said, I don't even understand how anyone could consider this a good commercial. He's essentially insulting a good portion of his potential clientele - unless he's hoping the commercial will draw in whites, or other groups he doesn't stereotype. This commercial is just a train wreck on so many levels.

The commercial for a Dodge dealer, pins the evil import man (Chinese or Japanese?) against the American superhero who is fighting for domestic products. While I have no problem with buying American, I do have a problem when people make a blanket statement about imports being "evil." First of all, our economy could no longer survive without imports - as much as some people might hate to accept this, it's true. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with supporting the economy in China or Japan or anywhere else - we do it inadvertently whether we want to or not. The only exception I can think of are the Amish who don't use cars, make their clothes, grow most of their food, and buy the rest from local grocers. But even most Amish probably have purchased an imported product at some time or other.

My point is that we should want to support the global economy and strive to work on building symbiotic relationships with other countries - not taking a negative view of them or making THEM out to be the parasites. Right now, with our present economy in a downward tailspin, most Chinese probably see US as the evil importers who are hurting THEIR economy!

Wildest TV Commercials

Last night the hubbie and I watched part of a show on the E channel that showed some of TV's "wildest" commercials complete with commentary by three comedians. Some of the commercials were completely ridiculous - i.e. a local furniture store advertising furniture by the store owner zapping "aliens" (people dressed up in cheap outfits) off of the sofas. As I watched the advertisements, I became more and more reminded that "sex sells" in our culture.

One ad stuck out in particular, an ad for Carl's Jr. Burgers that consists of a woman riding on an electric bull while eating a burger.



I find it interesting that this ad is geared towards a specific demographic - most likely, men, and possibly women, living in the western part of the U.S. I am not sure what message the marketers are trying to convey by this ad: that it is sexy and attractive to eat a burger while riding an electric bull? That men want beef and sexy women? That if you want to attract a man you should be bold and brazen? That a cheap burger tastes better on an electric bull? Frankly I find it more confusing than I do offensive.

I think the ad is meant to entertain and captivate men especially by combining the trifecta of sexy woman, bull-riding, and beef. I don't know that this ad operates on a fear of the other so much as it does put women in a position of toy/sex object to attract men. At least this woman seems to be enjoying the ride.

Some of the other commercials in the show were more disturbing - for instance, an advertisement for a strip club in Ohio, Dayton Gold. It showed a woman trying to find work at some other "sleezy" strip club, and then it showed all the happy women who were working at Dayton Gold where they were treated right. Please! Like any woman wants to work at a strip club because they are treated right. I will respect the women who choose to work there, but I think strip clubs prey on women and certainly put men in a position of power over women.

What I want to know is why sex sells for men, but not for women? Why are there no pictures of shirtless men riding electric bulls eating burgers? Or ads for chip n dale strip clubs? Obviously because men are - or traditionally have been - the ones in power in our society and it's okay for women to be seen as sex objects. But to do it the other way around is either impossible or a joke.

Homosexuality is an Abomination

The following letter is something I stumbled upon on the internet; at the bottom is a short video clip from the television show West Wing that probably preceded the actual letter. In any case, they both demonstrate a reaction to Dr. Laura's condemnation of homosexuals as an "abomination" of God's standard of living as set forth in the old testament book of Leviticus.

Click to view reaction letter to Dr. Laura

Now I think that everyone is entitled to their own religious or cultural perspective; however, when that perspective endangers or discriminates against someone or a group of people, I have a problem with it. Our culture (and most cultures - frankly, the U.S. is one of the more tolerant cultures as far as the issue of homosexuality is concerned) has always discriminated against and refused to give civil rights to gay men and women. This appears to be changing, as California at least is recognizing gay marriage.

For the Christian church and other religious groups this is an especially hot topic - since obviously passages of scripture speak out strongly against it. I think that most Christians zone in on those particular passages of scripture to justify their fear of the "other" rather than because they wholeheartedly follow everything the scripture says. As the letter and video point out, it is absurd, and even impossible in our contemporary culture to follow the exact letter of the biblical law. Hasidic Jews are the only ones who still try to follow the old testament literally, although with some obvious exceptions (I don't know of any stonings!).

I think one reason our culture and religious groups especially fear the "other" of homosexuality so much is because people see it as a threat to the traditional family system - a mom, a dad, 2 or 3 children, some pets, and a picket fence. Suddenly when 2 women get together, it is not like the family that we are used to and expect to see. On a darwinian scale, it also poses a problem for reproduction - not that humans are in any way under-populated!

I know that I was brought up to believe that 1) gays were an anomaly in our culture (and they CERTAINLY didn't exist in my Mennonite subculture - gasp!) 2) gays should not be allowed to be part of the church, UNLESS they agreed to live a celibate lifestyle - because that is SO healthy. Since I moved away and lived in urban regions where I had some gay and bi-sexual friends I realized that 1) gays are PART of our culture and 2) gays should have the same rights as everyone else. They should be able to go to church, get married, have the same freedoms as I have.

Harry Potter and the One Black Character

George Harris as Kingsely Shacklebolt

Harry Potter has become a national phenomenon in the past ten years, one that I have only started to participate in the past year or so since I read the book series. The premise of Harry Potter is a make-believe world made up of people with magical powers - witches and wizards - who exist along with muggles, or ordinary people. The series follows the coming of age of its protagonist, Harry, over a period of seven years during his training at Hogwarts school of wizardry and witchcraft. It is classified as young-adult fantasy fiction, and as such offers an escape into the imagination for the readers and viewers of this alternative reality.

I did not think of Harry Potter (HP) in terms of multiculturalism until I began watching the most recent movie "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" a few days ago. When I began watching the movie I was surprised to find that there was one black character. Note that I was not surprised to find ONLY one black character, but rather I was surprised to find ANY black character. This is a new character that Rowling introduces into the 5th novel who goes by the name of Kingsley Shacklebolt. In the book she does not indicate that he is black, so I assume this is a liberty taken by Hollywood.

When I analyzed my reaction to the black character in Harry Potter, I had to ask myself some uncomfortable questions. 1) Why was I surprised to see a black character? 2) Why does seeing a black character not fit with my view of HP's reality? 3) How would a black person see the situation differently? This jarring experience brought to mind Peggy McIntosh's article on white privilege and her list of some of its daily effects. I think I can add a few more: 1) I can expect to identify with the hero or heroine of most Hollywood movies as sharing my white privilege 2) I can expect even a "fantasy" world to follow the rules of white privilege.

I don't purport that HP is essentially racist, but I do think it is an interesting slice of pop culture that shows how marginalized blacks still are in our society, and also the luxury whites have of ignoring it. Note: in the movie, Kingsley is on the good side - that is, he is part of the Order of the Phoenix that is fighting for the powers of good. So I think having a black character in the movie is a good thing, but I'm surprised that I sat up and took notice as much as I did. I guess since I have been programmed by my culture - as well as the four previous HP movies, of which all the main characters were white with the exception of one Asian - I should not be surprised at my own surprise!