Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Zondervan Repents

In my earlier Kung Fu Publishing post I reported on the appropriation and exploitation of Asian culture in the marketing of the book Deadly Viper Character Assassins: A Kung Fu Survival Guide for Life and Leadership, published by the Christian publishing house Zondervan. I also posted the apologies of the authors. Now Zondervan has repented.

Zondervan Statement Regarding Concerns Voiced About “Deadly Viper: Character Assassins”

From Moe Girkins, President and CEO

Hello and thanks for your patience.

On behalf of Zondervan, I apologize for publishing Deadly Viper: Character Assassins.  It is our mission to offer products that glorify Jesus Christ.  This book’s characterizations and visual representations are offensive to many people despite its otherwise solid message.

There is no need for debate on this subject.  We are pulling the book and the curriculum in their current forms from stores permanently.

We have taken the criticism and advice we have received to heart.  In order to avoid similar episodes in the future, last week I named Stan Gundry as our Editor-in-Chief of all Zondervan products.  He will be responsible for making the necessary changes at Zondervan to prevent editorial mistakes like this going forward.  We already have begun a dialogue with Christian colleagues in the Asian-American community to deepen our cultural awareness and sensitivity.

Zondervan is committed to publishing Christian content and resources that uplift God and see humanity in its proper perspective in relation to God.  We take seriously our call to provide resources that encourage spiritual growth.  And, we know there is more to learn by always listening to our critics as well as our advocates.

It would be unfair to take these actions without expressing our love and support for the authors of this book, Mike Foster and Jud Wilhite.  Both gentlemen are gifted writers and passionate about their ministry. We do believe their message is valuable and plan to work with the authors to come up with a better presentation of that message.  We will jointly ensure we do our due diligence on the appropriateness of the creative side.  This will include reaching out to a broad spectrum of cultural experts.

Finally, I want to personally thank Professor Rah, Ken Fong, Eugene Cho and Kathy Khang for their input and prayers during this discussion.   We appreciate everyone’s concern and effort and look forward to working together for God’s kingdom.

Warmly,

Moe

Found at Professor Soong-Chan Rah’s blog. Prof. Rah writes:

It reflects a genunine repentant spirit and a deep willingness to hear and to act.  I am moved by Zondervan’s willingness to act in this decisive and dramatic manner.  Many thanks to the authors Mike Foster and Jud Wilhite and to Moe Girkins, Zondervan’s CEO and the team at Zondervan that have spoken in a decisive manner with a high level of integrity.

“We are pulling the book and the curriculum in their current forms from stores permanently…. We already have begun a dialogue with Christian colleagues in the Asian-American community to deepen our cultural awareness and sensitivity.” This exhibits true Christian contrition and repentance: Instead of wallowing in guilt, they are turning from wrongdoing, striving to put things right, and starting fresh. Good work! :)

Apparently, some local officials are concerned that New Orleans, of all places, is a little too black.  Builders in St. Bernard Parish have been blocked from renovating existing and building new rental properties because of fears that crime will increase if the area continues to attract renters.  Coincidentally, the increase in renting has accompanied a drop in the white population of the parish (down to 77 percent from 84 percent, pre-Katrina). Thankfully, federal court Judge Helen Berrigan has overruled these local decisions identifying them as “camouflaged racial expressions.”

But, St. Bernard Parish councilman Wayne Landry says:

‘I’m absolutely sick and tired of being called a racist!’  Landry admits that in the rush to rebuild, mistakes were made, especially with the blood-relative ordinance. But he says the intent was not racist—it was to bring back the people who lived there before the storm.

‘We had a bedroom community. Everybody knew everybody. Houses got passed down from generation to generation. They were trying to preserve that. Nothing wrong with that,’ he says…

…’We should have the God-given and government-given right to govern this parish to protect the property values and the people for their life, and for all of the values of their community,’ he says. ‘It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the economic stability of the people of this parish.’

Gotta love it when “protecting our values” means keeping it all-white.  One resident so eloquently states:

‘It’s not discrimination,” Buras says. “It’s called self-preservation.’ Buras says he doesn’t want the kind of crime problems that have plagued housing projects in New Orleans. ‘You see what’s going on in those,’ he says, ‘not just in the black community. I mean, there’s good and bad. Some of them could be Nobel Peace prizewinners. With any low income, you have bad element: You got your prostitution moves in, you got your drug gangs come in.’

Self-preservation?  Hmm.  I wonder what kind of “threat” you’re facing there, bud.  Nobel Peace prizewinners?  Like, ahem, a certain sitting U.S. President?  I guess we’ve narrowed our stereotypes down to two options now.  Black folks can be criminals or they can be president.  Either way, they wouldn’t be allowed to rent a house in St. Bernard Parish, New Orleans.

From the Nov. 8 New York Times: Adopted from Korea and in Search of Identity

I’m a bit late addressing this; it made the rounds of several other blogs last week, but I was swamped at work and then out of town, and this is the first chance I’ve had to address it.  (Sorry for how hideously long this post is, guys.)

I am an adoptee.  Some people find this term problematic and objectifying, but honestly? I don’t mind it.  On the contrary, I appreciate its succinctness. However, because some people don’t like it, I try to use this term only to reference myself.

I am also Korean, though I was not adopted from Korea; my case is rather unique, even in the strange and wacky world of adoption stories.  My birthparents emigrated to the United States, found out they were expecting me, and decided they didn’t want “another girl” (they were already raising two).  It was too late for an abortion, so, after being born dangerously premature, I was placed for adoption.  Two and a half months after my birth, and still a few weeks before my original due date, I was finally discharged from the NICU, and my adoptive parents took me home to Oregon.

My adoption was closed, and I knew very, very little about my birthparents for most of my life.  Most of what I know now is thanks to my sisters, with whom I was reunited (after a series of strange and unlikely events) at the very end of 2007.  They are both wonderful people who have welcomed me with open arms, and expressed great joy at finding out I was alive (they had been told I died at birth), but they were the first to say how fortunate I was to be adopted.  To put it in bluntly, and without going into all the unpleasant details, my birth family was completely effed up.  There is no question I was far better off being raised by my adoptive parents.

I’ve always known I was lucky, because I had great parents who always gave me their unconditional love and encouragement.  Unlike some adopted people and most of the adoptive parents I know, however, I don’t think of the whole matter as preordained, or even especially Providential.  To be quite honest, what strikes me most about my own adoption, despite my faith, is not the All Powerful Hand of God directing me to the care of my adoptive parents, but rather the total and almost frightening random roulette of adoption placements.  I could have ended up with anyone, and my life would have turned out radically different.

In terms of my birthparents, I certainly dodged a major bullet.  I’m grateful to be adopted.  I think I always will be. But transracial adoption, as the New York Times article notes, can also cause plenty of confusion and identity problems for adopted kids.  (You may say that lots of kids have “identity issues” throughout adolescence. Fair point. It doesn’t negate the particular issues faced by adopted youth, however.)

Because my parents are Caucasian, I had no choice but to talk about adoption from a very early age.  People noticed right away that I looked different from my parents, as well as different from 99.9% of the other people in our town, and so — ah, the “good old days” before “political correctness”! — they asked me about it, naturally.  Even before I started school, I remember the questions: Where were you born?  Where did they get you?  Do you know who your real parents are?  Don’t you want to know?

In response, I always drew from my standard repertoire of pat little answers, all designed to keep the conversation light, positive, and brief.  I was on constant spin control.  I came to think of myself as a kind of spokesperson for adoption; not only did I have to explain what it was to the ignorant, I had to take it a step further and become its vocal apologist.  I could tell how unnatural the whole thing seemed to many of the people who asked me about it, and thus it became my goal to make my life and my family appear as “normal” as possible.  (In my family, trust me, that was one tall order.)  To do that, I had to convince them that adoption itself — and transracial adoption in particular — was “normal.” Yes, I am Asian, and yes, my parents are white – so, what’s the big deal?

My role as unofficial adoption spokesperson meant that I couldn’t ever focus on the differences between me and my adoptive family, and of course, that was the last thing any of us wanted to do.  My parents pretty much raised me exactly as they would have raised a biological white child, to be “colorblind,” to believe that race meant nothing and how I looked wasn’t important.  As a result, I had no connection to my Korean heritage, and thought of myself as “basically white” for most of my early life.

Yet I couldn’t ignore the fact that how I felt and how I looked were two very different things.  I didn’t feel like a “real” Asian — I almost wished I could, but I knew I was an imposter there.  And yet I never felt totally white, by which I mean, totally accepted. According to the survey of 179 people adopted from Korea as children, referenced in the Times article above, my experience was fairly typical of transracial adoptees of my generation.  Quoting Heidi Weitzman, from the article:

“I didn’t want to do anything that made me stand out as being Korean. Being surrounded by people who were blonds and brunets, I just thought that I was white.” It was not until she moved to New York after college that she began to become comfortable with being Korean.

“I was 21 before I could look in the mirror and not be surprised by what I saw staring back at me,” she said. “The process of discovering who I am has been a long process, and I’m still on it.”

Ms. Weitzman’s road to self-discovery was fairly typical of the 179 Korean adoptees with two Caucasian parents who responded to the Donaldson Adoption Institute survey. Most said they began to think of themselves more as Korean when they attended college or moved to ethnically diverse neighborhoods as adults.

The mirror quote — the whole article, really — hits very close to home.  I didn’t fully realize how hard and, yes, damaging it was for me growing up as one of very few nonwhite kids in my town until I had quite a bit of time and distance from it.  But if I’d ever allowed myself to think about it at the time, rather than stubbornly and desperately ignoring it, I know I would have realized how much it affected me.

I always knew I was adopted, and once I understood what it meant, that was easier to deal with.  But when I went to my tiny all-white parochial grade school, and of course had a hard time making friends or bonding with anyone except my teachers, that’s when the really fun symptoms started.  I began fervently wishing for blue eyes and blond hair. I avoided opportunities for socialization, like recess, instead asking for a pass to the library.  My grades never suffered — I loved reading and studying — but by first or second grade I had started twirling my hair at school, an anxious habit, and eventually enough fine hairs broke off to leave me with a tiny bald spot.  I made myself stop and my hair filled in, but my parents were (quite rightly) convinced there was a problem.  Enter Charlotte, the excellent play therapist.

Charlotte was great, but I don’t honestly remember much of what we talked about.  I certainly don’t remember having any big “breakthrough” moments when I said, okay, this is The Problem, now I can fix it.  I know that after a year or so with her I felt much, much better. I still hated my school, and I didn’t have many friends at school, but I had friends outside of it, through soccer and Girl Scouts and children’s choir.  The years passed, and eventually I got to go to the big public middle school and then the even bigger high school, which was a Godsend, truly.  I was still surrounded by white people, but they were different white people, and there were a lot more of them, so I could start afresh.

Like Weitzman, with every move into a somewhat larger school or community, I’ve grown more comfortable with myself as a Korean.  I had a couple of Asian (Vietnamese and Japanese) friends in high school (there were perhaps six or seven of us in the entire school, including full and half-Asians), which ended up being a big deal to me, as they  – perhaps because they had Asian families to connect them to their heritage and remind them of it — were actually proud to be Asian.  When it was time to choose a college, I went to one that was one-quarter Asian.  There, for the first time, I had a lot of nonwhite friends, and my features didn’t draw any attention, positive or negative.  By the end of my freshman year, I’d stopped hating what I saw in the mirror.

Ever since, I’ve lived in a series of east coast cities, and while of course I always feel conscious of being minority, I’m not alone any longer.  And I am proud of who I am.  I have a lot to learn, so much it overwhelms me sometimes, but at least I’ve gotten over the worst part, the hatred of being Korean — which was nothing but self-hatred.  I have come a long way.  All the same, I sometimes wonder how easy it would be to slip back into it, into feeling that old isolation and shame.  I know I’ll never again live in a small white town, and I know I won’t raise my daughter or any children — biological or adopted — in one, either.

How is the experience of a transracially adopted person of color different from the experience of other minorities?  All minorities in our society, after all, face discrimination or prejudice or ignorance to varying degrees.  But many of them live with and are raised by people going through the same thing, and have that connection, that clan, natural allies and people who personally empathize.  I know a few things were harder for me because I was adopted.  When one of my classmates made fun of me, using a fake Asian accent I never had, pulling his eyes back into slits, my parents couldn’t really understand what that was like.  Until high school and college, I didn’t have any Asian friends — or nonwhite friends, for that matter — who could understand, either.

Still, like many people within the adoption community, I do consider myself a strong supporter of adoption.  I have worked as a professional adoption advocate, and my husband and I would love to adopt a child (or children) one day.  Sometimes, at the gym, I catch Adoption Stories on TV, and I get a little weepy on the treadmill.  I feel awed and inspired by our friends who have adopted from other countries, and I think they are phenomenal parents.

I also believe that the “ideal” would be for more countries to establish ethical, transparent, and thriving domestic adoption programs, allowing more children to be adopted by parents within their own country and culture.  Currently, however, domestic adoption is far from a realistic option for the vast majority of children in many, many sending countries, due to a variety of economic, cultural, and political factors.  The U.S. is one of only a few nations whose citizens enjoy both the financial ability to adopt, and a general cultural openness and friendliness to adoption.  And for many thousands of orphaned and abandoned children worldwide, their only chance to have a family of their own and escape institutional/foster care is through intercountry adoption.

For these reasons, and I suppose for personal ones — the respect I feel I owe my parents, as well as the many adoptive parents I know — it is impossible for me to disapprove of transracial adoption, or to even want to.  I think it is a good thing, and can even be a great thing, if parents commit themselves to living in a diverse area and helping their children maintain connections to their culture and (this is key!) real relationships with people who share their background.  It helps that far more emphasis in today’s adoptions is placed on learning about the child’s country of origin and the importance of “culture keeping” — which can be awkward, yes, but also worthwhile for the whole family, and far better than the void experienced by past generations of transracially adopted people.

As for the inevitable experience of racial prejudice, white adoptive parents must realize that just because race is a “non-issue” in their family, that does not mean it is a non-issue to everyone else.  There will be comments and questions aplenty, trust me.  Helping a transracially adopted child learn to deal with insulting, invasive, culturally insensitive, or outright racist comments is critical.  It’s not about giving back as good as you get, or even developing a “thick skin”; it requires constant education, discussion, and active combating of racism, as a family.  And the recognition that it won’t be easy.

As for those detractors of intercountry and transracial adoption who say, look, white people just don’t know what it’s like and they can never understand…I get where you’re coming from, believe me.  We all have those days.  I love my parents, and we still can’t talk about race; every time I try, they usually laugh at me.  But I keep trying. And they keep loving me.

To make an imperfect comparison, should interracial marriage be universally disparaged because the white partner may not fully grasp what the nonwhite partner goes through?  I don’t think so.  I think that, while interracial marriage may present unique challenges, it’s also one of the few opportunities a white person has to truly be “in the trenches” alongside a person of color, sharing their experiences — good and bad — out of love and an honest desire to share their lives.

Transracial adoption may do — and I think does — the same thing, for many white adoptive parents who love their adopted kids more than they love their own lives, and fiercely guard their health and dignity and look out for their best interests.  They are natural allies and anti-racists, if they can get themselves (or be helped and encouraged!) to that point.  Maybe the empathy for and solidarity with people of color isn’t always instantaneous; certainly it doesn’t grow without real and conscious effort.  But for many adoptive parents, and more every day, I think it’s there for their children, along with a bottomless well of love and support; and that — particularly for children who once had no real family, no permanent home, and no true advocates to call their own — can only be a good thing.

A Lower Moreland, Pa., swim club that made national headlines after being accused of racism for turning away minority day campers plans to file for bankruptcy, according to an e-mail from the club’s president to members.

The announcement comes as the Valley Club struggles to cope with mounting debt and the cost of legal proceedings and lawsuits filed by families of children from Creative Steps Day Camp, a summer camp in Northeast Philadelphia whose members are minorities.

“The truth is that the club has struggled to stay out of the red for the last decade,” Valley Club President John Duesler Jr. wrote in an e-mail that was posted on a Daily News blog at philly.com. “Our current debt from this year’s operation and legal fees exceeds $100,000.”

The Valley Club found itself amid a firestorm of unwanted attention in July after Creative Steps claimed that the club revoked the memberships of about 60 city youth because the children are black and Hispanic.

While the club vehemently denied that race factored into the decision to the pull the plug on the city campers after their first visit to the Lower Moreland pool, a report from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission determined Valley kicked out the campers because of their skin color…

“We are all tired and beaten down and just sickened by how our club has been improperly portrayed,” Duesler wrote in the e-mail. “My sense is that mostly everyone wants to move on.” …

Brian Mildenberg, an attorney representing families suing the club, said Saturday that a bankruptcy filing would put a hold on legal proceedings against Valley. If the bankruptcy proceeds, the club’s assets will be sold and the proceeds used to pay off creditors, Mildenberg said. Creative Steps campers who sue successfully could be in line for some of the money.

Attempts to reach Creative Steps President Alethea Wright Saturday for comment on Valley Club’s financial predicament were unsuccessful.

E-mails reviewed by the human relations commission showed that members of the pool and its board had strong but mixed feelings on whether, and how, the Philadelphia campers should be asked to leave.

Two people threatened to leave the club because of the campers.

The Valley Club was reacting to the alleged racial animus and racially coded comments of some members when it turned away Creative Steps, the commission found.

Those comments allegedly included one member asking “What are all these black kids doing here?” and “I am scared they might do something to my child.”

When Duesler reportedly commented that “there was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion” of the club, the final word of his statement was interpreted by many to be pregnant with racial undertones, whether intended or slipped.

An online friend of mine posted this link this morning, along with a comment about schadenfreude.  I understand that, but I do think it’s too bad about the bankruptcy, if only because it means that the children and the community no longer have access to the pool.

“We are all tired and beaten down and just sickened by how our club has been improperly portrayed.” Hmm. Is it just me, or do you feel as though the people running this club still don’t get it?  It’s a shame that after everything that’s happened — including the impending loss of their business — they still don’t seem to understand why families of the campers discriminated against responded the way they did.  They are still chalking up the whole snafu to those angry, oversensitive minorities.

Read the full story here.

About a year ago, my husband and I were out with a white acquaintance and somewhere in our extensive conversation about real estate, the man made a racial joke.  There was that inevitable uncomfortable moment where neither my husband nor I were laughing, so the man quickly covered his tracks by saying, “well, I can say that because my wife is black.”

derailment (n): a defensive argument, statement, or question that dismisses or seeks to undermine anti-racist arguments in an effort to preserve privilege or the status quo

We’ve all either done this or heard this in discussions about race.  An errant comment is dismissed by a disclaimer: “I’m not a racist.  I have black/Asian/Latino friends/coworkers/or in this guy’s case, a spouse.”  Because we know or have affection for a person of color, somehow that makes it okay to make a racial slur. [This is the point where I would express a certain amount of ?!@#$%$^$??]

What struck me about the situation at the top of this post was that the man’s black wife was not present for our conversation.  I often wonder if our “black friends” were around, would we say the same things?  Perhaps.  But often, we have better judgment when we are among a more diverse group.  Even if we say such things in that context, do we ever really consider how that makes our “friends” feel?

Occasionally, I’ve seen conversations among a diverse group of colleagues or friends go like this:  a white person utters a regrettable remark and then asks the representative person of color if the comment offended him/her.  “You know I’m joking, right?” or “No offense, k?”  At which point the person of color is faced with these choices: 1) call even more attention to himself/herself by rebuking their colleague, 2) laugh and ignore it like it wasn’t a big deal, but it really might be a big deal or 3) laugh because they, too decide to embrace the stereotype in order to be accepted in the group.  In any of these options, the imposed-upon person is being asked to pardon the offender without any condemnation of the act itself.  Is this something we really want to do to “friends”?  Create awkward situations where they cannot voice the hurt we’ve caused them? Or worse, compel them to accept and adopt our prejudices in order to fit in?

The whole idea makes me question the nature of our friendships with people of color.  At least two of my grandmothers regularly referred to all black people as “colored” but had befriended their black neighbors or nurses.  At least one of them still used the n-word from time to time.  In their minds, these women were “exceptions” to the “rules” they had accepted about black folks.  Even while my white grandmothers accepted these women into their lives and homes, the invisible social dynamics of our country, reinforced by the language and behavior of my grandmas, kept them from ever really knowing and loving one another as friends.  They were still unflinchingly attached to a system of prejudice that made egalitarian friendship impossible.  With this attitude, were my grandmas truly acting as friends to their black “friends”?

In a more contemporary example, I’ve heard younger relations make racial slurs against black folks, Native American folks, and Latino folks all with the disclaimer that they have friends of those races.  Again, those “friends” are never around when those things are said because all of us know that those hurtful words would never be spoken in their presence.  If it would hurt our friends to say these things in front of them, do we not think it would be as injurious if not more so to say these things when they aren’t around and evoke their names and friendships in defense of our bad behavior?

In my experience, when I become friends with a person different from me, I become more defensive of them or their cause, whatever that might be.  Having friends of color makes me more sensitive to the things that threaten and injure them, not less. Having Republican friends makes me more likely to stop one of my liberal friends from ranting about the collective idiocy of conservatives.  Having a cousin with intellectual and physical disabilities makes me more likely to call someone out for making offensive comments about “short buses”, etc.  I would think that if we really care about our friends of color, we’d be quick to correct false stereotypes.

If we were really a friend to those folks, we’d certainly not be perpetuating prejudice and using our friendships to prop up our wrongful behavior.  To those who say, “I’m not racist [despite the racist comment I just made], I have black friends,” I have to ask, which part then is the lie?  The comment you just made, or the affection you claim you have for your friends?  Let us not betray our friends of color by participating in conversations, ideas or ideologies that tear them down.

From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers,these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.   -James 3:10-12

“If you wake up and your black face is smudged on your pillow, it’s not OK.”

more about “Video: Is Blackface Ever OK? | The Da…“, posted with vodpod

And don’t tell me that Australia doesn’t share our racist history. Plenty of racism in Australia.

Lou Dobbs has resigned from CNN.

“Lou Dobbs, more than any other media personality, is responsible for spreading myths and misinformation about immigrants and Latinos.”

This one is just too bizarre. Bo Dietl, a regular on Fox News, told Don Imus that he thinks Katie Couric looks like “an Oriental” now? (He also referred to her as “a Halloween cartoon.”) What?

He then made allusions to her “face lifts” and “cougar” tendencies (?), and went so far as to pull his eyes back in imitation of Katie’s.  Ohhh good. Because unless someone does the chink eye, I am just never sure what they mean by “Oriental.”

Racism and sexism, they go so well together.(Hat tip Angry Asian Man.)

more about “Katie Couric looks “Oriental”?“, posted with vodpod

AFK

If it seems like we’ve disappeared it’s because this week, the three of us are busy with some “family” business.  Nothing tragic, just time-consuming.  We’ll be back this weekend, and maybe before then if we can scrounge up some free time.  We’re also expecting a guest contributor pretty soon, so we’ll let you know when she lands on the blog.  In the meantime, we hope to offer you a little something to remember us by.

PS-Feel free to talk amongst yourselves in the comment thread(s). :)

derailment (n): a defensive argument, statement, or question that dismisses or seeks to undermine anti-racist arguments in an effort to preserve privilege or the status quo

When talking about race in the U.S., it’s not uncommon for the conversation to derail at the point the discussion turns to entitlement and white privilege.  Conversations about affirmative action are a breeding ground for responses like, “No one ever gave me anything,” or “I worked hard for what I have, why can’t they?”

The first comment implies that affirmative action is “giving” something to people of color or to women, when really the  concept depends entirely upon an applicant for employment or school admission meeting the qualifying criteria of a job or school.  The second comment, really a rhetorical question assumes that people of color and women benefiting from affirmative action policies did not work hard.  Employers and schools are not encouraged in any way to “lower” standards.

Once a person qualifies for a position, they are qualified for that position.  One cannot be “more qualified” than another person.  Anything beyond that basic level of acceptance is used to differentiate equally qualified applicants.  Say Kate, Nikki and I all meet the following requirements for a job running a lemonade stand:

  • Applicant must be able to use a calculator
  • Applicant must be able to squeeze lemons without letting seeds fall into the pitcher
  • Applicant must be able to accurately measure sugar and water in varying amounts

Each of us takes a test to determine our skill levels at each of those requirements.  Each of us is able to do all of them.  But Nikki is faster on the calculator.  Kate can squeeze more lemons than I can in a shorter period of time.  I have the best handwriting and an outgoing personality.  We are all “qualified” for the job, but each offer something in addition that might make us a more desirable candidate.  If any one of us gets the job, we earned it.  If the two not chosen walk away, they can leave thinking the same thing, “but, we earned it.”

I’ve had moments like that in my life, where I thought a job, a spot, a coveted internship was mine.  I believed I was entitled to it yet clearly someone at HR disagreed.  My sense of entitlement usually fades after something like that.  I move on, realizing I had no claims on that position.  Despite my best effort, it really wasn’t up to me who got the job.

But when it comes to disputes about affirmative action, we tend to hang on to that initial sense of entitlement and disappointment.  We white people decide to use people of color as scapegoat for what we see as an injustice.  That sense of entitlement is exactly what white privilege is all about. The fact that we can look at people of color as “taking” anything from us implies that we had it to begin with.

The second thing that is problematic about this line of reasoning to me is that it leans too hard upon that good ol’ belief in American individualism.  You know what I’m talking about, the one that says if a person pulls up on his or her bootstraps, success is imminent.  “I think I can, I think I can.”  It’s all on me to make my way in this world.  I don’t need any handouts.

But the truth is, no one goes it alone.  At the very onset of life, we are dependent upon other people to conceive us, to carry us through nine months of development, to feed and clothe us once we’re on the outside.  As children and as adults we are nurtured and taught and kept safe by families, communities, and government. We’re all informed by history, whether or not we are conscious of it.

Even if you went out into the frontier completely naked with nothing but your wits to help you survive, odds are the capacity of your wits would have been in some way shaped by whomever you had contact with before you went rogue.  You may even stumble upon a trodden path or some tool or marker (or, please God, pants or a bathrobe) left behind by another traveler who had that same idea long before you did.  Even if it were possible that no human being helped you out, God is still sustaining your very life.  I think Jesus said it best in his own time spent in the wilderness:

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.  Matthew 4:4

None of us are self-existing, or these days with grocery stores and an entire industry based on hospitality, self-subsisting.  None of us got here of our own volition, and no one will get through life alone.  Anyone who says otherwise is a proud fool.

There can be no doubt that historically people of color in America have been victimized for the profit and well-being of white people.  Even the most fervent derailers concede that.  Clearly, somewhere along the line, white people “took” something from people of color, regardless of the fact that they did not freely offer it.  Why then is it hard to conceive of the idea that as a result of that systemic oppression there might just be remnants of those systems still in place in our government, in our markets, and in our social psyches?

White privilege is still an active force in our society, and for as long as it is, every white person in America, regardless of class has some degree of opportunity afforded them by their race.  Clearly, all of us white folks have been “given” something, whether we asked for it or not.

Since this is already a rather long post, I’ll spare you my attempt at a catchy closing paragraph and leave you with this comic by Barry Deutsch and a link to a great analysis of the concepts therein. Keep in mind it is a concise history…

concise

Racist Compliments

A video by Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder of the Racialicious, Love Isn’t Enough, and Addicted to Race:

Sunny days…

This week Sesame Street celebrates its 40th anniversary.  I think the appropriate gift for 40 years is rubies, but since wisdom is better, I thought I’d share a little Street smarts:

If you have a favorite memory or clip from the show, feel free to post it in the comments.

I’m sorry, I have loved–and love–many people in my time. Many of them were bigoted against some group, somewhere. This expectation that “good people” won’t be bigots is rather amazing. I came up in a world where it was nothing to hear the word “faggot” bandied about. Where those people awful human beings? Nah. Where they bigots? Yep. And I will tell you, without a moments hesitation, that I was one of them.

Ta-Nehisi Coates

A couple of friends who have known me for a long time have asked me, over the past few months, “So…you seem to be thinking a lot more about race lately.  Um, what’s the deal?”

I have always thought about racism and racial prejudice; it’s nothing new.  I do think — and especially talk — about it more than I used to; but then, it would be impossible not to talk about it more than I used to, as it was a topic I went out of my way to avoid for many, many years.

There were a lot of reasons I didn’t talk about it.  I didn’t want to talk about racism I had personally experienced because I was ashamed.  I didn’t want to talk about it because I was afraid it might make other people believe those things about me were true.  I didn’t want to talk about it with my white family and friends because that seemed like setting up walls between us.  I didn’t want to be seen as an angry person of color, or an object of pity, or a victim hoping to make others feel guilty, because — well, who does want to be seen as any of those things?

I don’t think I am a victim now, though I realize that many people, even many friends or family members, may think I have embraced what they disparagingly refer to as “the culture of victimhood” when they hear me talking about racism. But I don’t talk or think or blog about it because of other people’s racism, as horrifying as it can be.  I talk about it, and think about it, because of my own racism.

My family was not really sensitive to anyone who might be “different.” They didn’t care so much about the differences, but they noticed them.  They aren’t bad people, but they are extremely brusque, many of them quite judgmental, and they all hold “political correctness” in contempt.  No one in my family has any verbal filter whatsoever — everything they think is just put out there, no matter what, and there’s no snatching it back and rarely any apologies.  So I grew up hearing various thinly veiled jabs or blatant stereotypes about the Mexican immigrants in our town, black people, gay people, Asians (!), non-Christians, non-Catholics, and of course the big-government liberals; and even if I didn’t care to repeat any of these opinions, did I soak them in somehow?  I know I did.

It’s not all my family’s fault.  I am a terribly judgmental person.  I am prone to great lapses in charity.  I’m not always sympathetic to the weaknesses of others, quick as I am to ignore or excuse my own, of course.  I tend to get caught up in my own experiences, because those are all I know; and so I think that if something is a certain way for me, it’s probably like that for everyone, more or less, right?

It’s taken me a long time to realize just how untrue that is.  It’s taken me a long time to train myself into a new way of thinking.  But I still have many thoughts about people that I feel ashamed of.  That these thoughts are unintentional, automatic, in some cases quickly caught and repented of, doesn’t really make much of a difference, does it?  I am still racist.  I still harbor terrible prejudices.

This is not to engage in pointless self-flagellation, or say there is no hope, for me or for others.  There is a great deal of hope, but I think, for me personally, it has to begin with the realization of my own faults.  When I write about racist people or racist actions or racist words, I am not doing so as an outsider.  The reason I focus so much on these issues is because I’ve witnessed and am only beginning to understand my own capacity for sin in this regard. Which is how I know that I may criticize, but can’t hurl stones at anyone else.  I’m fighting my own battles, and losing some of them, and I know how very far I still have to go.  And that is why I’m here.

Tour guide fail:

A controversial history lesson left parents and teachers upset in Union County.

The teachers plan to write letters to leaders at the historic Latta Plantation about their disapproval of a hands-on history lesson during a Rea View Elementary class trip Wednesday.

During a lesson on the Civil War, tour guide Ian Campbell, who is himself black, made black students pretend to be slaves in front of their white classmates.

Campbell said he’s been a historian for more than 15 years.

“I am very enthusiastic about getting kids to think about how people did things in 1860, 1861 — even before that period,” he said.

One parent said Campbell took his enthusiasm too far when he picked three black elementary school children out of a group of mostly white students to play the role of cotton picking slaves during a his hands-on history lesson. The parent said the students were also made to wear bags used to gather cotton around their necks.

Campbell said, “I was trying to be historically correct not politically correct.”

(Thanks to Tope for the link.)

Reading Outside the Box

Many people are familiar with the story of the “flesh” colored crayon.  Part of Crayola’s second wave of color creation and from 1949-1962, the “flesh” crayon was a peachy-pink indicative of the white supremacist culture of the day.  There is no way of knowing how many children of color told their stories with colors deemed less-than-flesh:  goldenrod, sepia, raw sienna, raw umber.  Many of us even remember the “indian red” crayon that was only recently renamed in 1999 for obvious reasons.

Flesh-colored crayons

Crayola’s chronology website is open about its shady past, and while this particular staple of American childhood has grown up, many of the tools parents trust in their attempts to raise well-rounded, confident kids remain problematic.

Since the inception of Irene’s Daughters a few months ago, Nikki, Kate and I have all been talking about “bookshelf diversity.”  In case you are just getting to know us, I highly recommend our Reading List tab where you can find great resources for a beginning or veteran anti-racist that might serve to balance your bookshelves.

Tilted Bookshelf
Over the last week or so, we’ve been having an off-blog e-mail discussion about kids’ books.  Kate has a young niece and Nikki and I both have children, so the topic is important to each of us.  As a parent, I am always on the lookout for books that feature situations, themes, and topics that will help my kids learn about their world and themselves.  These books can vary from those that teach about colors, to those that teach about family, to those that teach about feelings and friends, and some that teach about all of that.

While we three could all spend countless hours crawling the internet for helpful articles, bookstores or websites, we decided that we’d let our readers in on the fun and create a new tab just for Children’s Books.  We will continue to add to the current list, but we wanted to open the floor to you folks and see what books you recommend.

We are also trying to provide information about the books, such as:

  • Reading Level: what age group is this book intended for? (these numbers indicate reading skill level, not necessarily age-appropriateness; many of these books could be read aloud to younger children)
  • Time Setting: is the story contemporary, historical (e.g. historical: 19th century; historical: Civil Rights movement), or myth/folktale/fantasy?
  • Place Setting: what country (e.g. United States) or region (e.g. New England, Southwest) is the book set in? is the setting urban/suburban/small town/rural/ambiguous?
  • Characters: are the main characters multiracial/multiethnic or predominantly one race/ethnicity?
  • Theme: is race or racism a theme?
  • Author(s)/Illustrator(s): what race or ethnicity are they?

At this point, we haven’t grouped the books by any sort of category.  We’re still debating the best way to organize it, but our main goal is to present works that promote bookshelf diversity.  We are looking for authors of color, characters of color or multiracial storytelling, contemporary and historic depictions of anti-racism, and anything that almost fits or fits all of the above criteria. We’re going for quality here, though quantity is also welcome.

We may also periodically offer our own reading lists and reviews in the form of blog posts, just as we do from time to time about reading material for grown-ups.  As we’ve discussed before, the world of publishing is tricky to navigate when it comes to these issues.  Many books about African Americans are set during the time of slavery.  Many books about Asians are set in foreign countries or ancient times.  Books about Native Americans often focus on folklore only.

We will undoubtedly talk about all of these subjects at various points, but know that we are not going into this endeavor “colorblind” to the tendency of the publishing world to stereotype or ignore authors and characters of color, and cater to certain “desirable” market demographics in discussions about race and prejudice.

We hope you’ll join us.  As we’ve said before and as we will continue to say, we’re all learning here.  Feel free to pick up a crayon (or more helpful, put your hands on the keyboard) and share a story or two with us.

Cave Bookshelf

Over at The Root, John McWhorter lists ten books on race “that should be more widely read…[and] haven’t taken their place as fundamental sources in the way that they should.” Go check them out!

Ten Books That Didn’t Get ‘The Treatment’

We will make an effort to read some of these books and, as we do, add them to our reading list.

And speaking of literature, my friend Jill wrote an interesting post yesterday in which she asks the question, “What is ‘world literature’?” — prompted by hearing a professor refer to “world literature” as an “emerging” field (uh…since when?).  From her blog:

As a friend pointed out when I complained…the statement could potentially have referred to the emergence of interest in so-called world literature, or the increase in translations of world literature, but somehow, I doubt it.

No, instead the statement seemed to me as if the professor was anchoring literature firmly in the west, conflating “standard” literature with “white” or European literature.  The rest of the world’s literature, of course, is confined to one category on the shelves of bookstores, just as “world music” and “foreign films” have been for decades.  When I visit a bookstore, I find the generic literature section, sometimes a section of “women’s literature,” African-American literature, or even Christian literature, and then simply a section of “world literature” (you can surely see that even having the “African-American literature” section and not, say, a “Latin-American literature” or “Asian-American literature” section is troubling, in terms of demographics and U.S. race divisions anyway).  Even the Wikipedia article for this mystery genre is shockingly sparse (and perhaps even a bit wrong).

The point I’m driving at is this: If “world literature” refers to everything but Western European literature and now, American literature, then “Western” literature is therefore made the norm, and everything else the Other.  I find that extremely troubling, and racist to boot.  It ignores the historic greats of literature (Persian or Chinese, for example) and situates the “West” as the center of the earth to which the rest of the world should orient.

I think Jill makes a great point, not only about the notion of “world” (non-Western) literature as so different and somehow less legitimate than Western literature, but also about the problematic organization of your local bookstore, which Kate has also written about.

Finally, also via Jill — in this case a shared link on her Facebook page — here’s a healthy bit of snark to brighten your day: The Year of Living Postracially:

I have observed that journalists employ Google searches to lend credence to trend articles, so I compared recent hits on the word “postracial” with those of a previous year. There have been more than 500,000 online mentions of postraciality this year, as opposed to absolutely zero in 1982. Some say that’s because the Internet didn’t really exist back then. I prefer to think it’s because we’ve come a long way as a country.

There are naysayers, however, who believe that we can’t erase centuries of entrenched prejudice, cultivated hatred and institutionalized dehumanization overnight. Maybe we haven’t come as far as we think. That’s why I’d like to throw my hat in the ring for the position of secretary of postracial affairs. (I like postracial czar, but czars have been getting a bad rap lately.) …

As the secretary of postracial affairs, I want to get out there and engage the people, organize town halls, get up in people’s homes and faces. Eat their food. There’s a variation on an old parlor game that I use to ease people in. You write down on a card what race you were pre-postraciality, and stick it on your forehead so the other players can see. Then, prompted by their clues, you try to figure out what color you were before everything changed. It’s a real icebreaker.

See, Kate, now we have a great party game to play when you come visit for Thanksgiving.

At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation. This is tragic. Nobody of honesty can overlook this…. The first way that the church can repent, the first way that it can move out into the arena of social reform is to remove the yoke of segregation from its own body. –Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I’ve been wanting to post this for a while, and linking to Professor Rah’s blog made me remember it. A short interview with Soong-Chan Rah, in which he explains that the so-called “death of Christianity in America” is really a decline among white upper-and-middle class Evangelicals. Other churches are experiencing lively growth. What’s next for Evangelicalism?

Don’t miss part 2 at The Ooze!

I AM Somebody

This video was featured last week on one of our favorite race blogs, Racialicious (as captured from Sociological Images as seen on and at Sesame Street.  And I know this parenthetical reference is starting to sound like the old woman who swallowed a fly, but I wanted to give credit to everyone in the lineage).

I love Jesse Jackson.  He’s great with these kids.  But what can you expect from a man who so artfully reads Green Eggs and Ham (and with good humor).  He leads these kids in a defiant chorus that publicly denounces many of the lies the forces of this world will aim at them.  Knowing the prejudicial power of the overwhelming undercurrents in our culture, I wonder how many of those children grew up believing the truths they shouted down Sesame Street.

I hope mine will believe it.  I hope that if you have kids, yours will, too.  And I hope that us grown ups will continue to shout about it until they do.

Kung Fu Publishing

A friend just sent me a link to this post on Soong-Chan Rah’s blog:

Why can’t Christian publishers get a clue?

Recently, I received my copy of the Zondervan catalog. In one of the circulars, there was an advertisement for a book called Deadly Viper Character Assassins: A Kung Fu Survival Guide for Life and Leadership.

So the “Kung Fu” part got my attention, as well as the dragon on the cover and the Chinese characters. I guess I was hoping against hope that it was the story of an Asian-American Christian rather than another example of Asian culture being pimped out to sell products….

I’m trying to engage in dialogue with the authors. Not a good response so far, but if given the chance what would you say to them?

Update (11/5/09): Apology from the authors of Deadly Viper Character Assassins: “we deeply regret anything we did to offend our Christian brothers and sisters in the Asian and Asian-American communities.”

Another apology from the authors: “We, Mike Foster and Jud Wilhite…. are learning a lot. For one, we deeply offended some members of the Asian-American community who feel like we hijacked their culture for our purposes. We sincerely apologize for this and want to take steps to listen and respond to concerns. We will be removing a video and some content immediately and we’ll talk with our Asian friends to make sure our community embraces all peoples. We are on a learning journey here. Please have grace with us. This was never done intentionally or with any malicious forethought…. We desire to honor Asian culture and [our] friendships [with Asian people].”

Update (11/19/09): Zondervan, the publisher, has also repented!

derailment [n]: a defensive argument, statement, or question that dismisses or seeks to undermine anti-racist arguments in an effort to preserve privilege or the status quo

When faced with evidence that racism is still alive and well in our society, many white people will try to avoid responsibility for promoting racial justice and reconciliation by attempting to dismiss or undermine the evidence with derailment techniques.

“But what about Oprah?” Pointing to people of color who have achieved fame, popularity, wealth, or political leadership is a popular derailment tactic. The names vary (Barack Obama, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods), but the argument is basically the same. People who employ this tactic are suggesting that Oprah proves everyone has equal opportunity and the means to attain success, and racism is not (or no longer) a significant obstacle.

History shows time and again that it is fallacious to argue that the success—even great success—of a few is a good indicator of equal opportunity.

Frederick Douglass’ autobiographical Narrative, published in 1845, quickly became a bestseller in the United States and was even translated and published internationally. But Douglass’ great fame was no indicator of equal opportunity. Race-based slavery was still legal in the United States, and fellow abolitionists feared that the book’s popularity might provoke Douglass’ former owner to try to recover his “property.”

Madam C.J. Walker became the first female millionaire by creating a hugely successful line of beauty and hair products for black women. Walker’s financial success did not mean racism was “a thing of the past,” nor could one plausibly argue that it meant women and people of color enjoyed equal opportunity. Walker could not legally vote and racial segregation, both legal and illegal, was the norm in many states, including the one in which she began to build her business. Over 3000 African Americans were lynched between 1880 and 1951—more than one a week in the year Walker became a millionaire.

Ralph Bunche was the first African American, even the first person of color, to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Again, his great achievement was no indicator that people of color already enjoyed equal opportunity or that racism was not a very significant obstacle. Years would pass before Brown v. the Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And, of course, a number of entertainers of color enjoyed a measure of fame and popularity in times when no one could reasonably argue that people of color enjoyed equal opportunity. It is easy to name people like Hattie McDaniel and Sidney Poitier, Nat King Cole and Ella Fitzgerald.

Tim Wise, in discussing this topic, quotes the words of James Baldwin: “A few have always risen—in every country, every era, and in the teeth of regimes which can by no stretch of the imagination be thought of as free.”

People who appeal to the “But what about Oprah?” excuse believe that her success is an indicator of opportunity. But what happens when we compare not extremes or exceptions, but average folk?

When it comes to wealth, the typical white family has eleven times the net worth of the typical black family, and eight times the net worth of the typical Latino family. More could be elaborated on this point, but I’d like to turn to Asian Americans (who typically have higher incomes than African Americans and Latinos) because many people have an exaggerated idea of their socioeconomic achievements. We hope to address the “model minority” myth at greater length sometime in the future, but here’s a little foretaste.

Native-born Asian Americans earn less money than native-born white Americans, and possibly less than white Americans who are foreign-born. White Americans are paid more than Asian Americans who have equal or even more education. Even when they have the same qualifications, Asian Americans earn less than white Americans in many occupational categories: 10-17% less for men and as much as 40% less for women.

Comparing household incomes might appear to indicate parity between whites and Asian Americans, but it is an illusion. The typical Asian American household includes more people than the average white household, and more members of the Asian household are likely to be working. “It is not an apt comparison,” Frank Wu writes, “to match an Asian American family that earns $50,000 per year by pooling the wages of a husband, a wife, a grandparent, a child, and a cousin with a white family that earns the same amount through the salary of a single breadwinner.” And there are other factors to consider too. Asian Americans are more likely to be self-employed, putting in longer hours with fewer benefits and increased risk of bankruptcy. Asian Americans are more geographically concentrated in states and urban areas with high costs of living. Controlling for other factors shows these inequalities are based on race—or more accurately, racism.

White privilege may be discerned in other areas of life as well. In addition to wealth disparities, there are significant health disparities. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights revealed this year that “racial and ethnic minorities continue to have more disease and related conditions of hypertension, disability, and premature death than non-minorities.” People of color tend to receive a lower quality of health care than white people, even when access-related factors such as patients’ insurance status and income are controlled. Doctors at the Institute of Medicine have argued in a report that these racial disparities are rooted in bias, discrimination, and stereotyping on both individual and institutional levels.

There are also significant racial disparities in education, which Cayce has recently written about.

Oprah’s exceptional success cannot excuse anyone, least of all privileged white people, from promoting racial justice and reconciliation.

Older Posts »