Rebirtherism

With the resurrection

this election

season

from the debate 

debacle,

and the reason

for hope

for freedom

and our future,

comes the Weird-

Zombie -Former

Guy

who still

manages

to try

to outrage

us.

He is

outrageous

and his

comments

contagious,

which is

exactly 

what he wants.

His racism

haunts

us from 

the past

toward

an untoward

time 

of unknown

fear and chaos.

Pathetically,

yet effectively,

he brings 

back

the ugly

with a smile.

Anything

to avoid

a trial.

So now 

it’s her

blackness

and ethnic

origin

that he pretends

he needs

to question.

And raising

issues

academic

as 

being problematic?

The failure

liar

seeks to deny

her

any legitimacy.

His lunacy

is his 

opportunity

to change

the conversation.

Needing

to recapture

the rapture

of attention,

he tries to mention

while creating

tension

the same 

sort of drama

he did to Obama.

He gained

a following

and fandom.

And he lost

then.

Three Sum

The last time

I had dinner

with someone

I didn’t

know

was a few

months 

ago

by 

the pool

with

other friends

in common.

It was not

random.

We were

introduced

intentionally.

We realized

that,

like us,

they used 

to live

in Connecticut.

The guys 

play golf.

Commonalities.

We shared

likes and

dislikes. 

We would

learn more

background

each 

gathering.

In sum,

we were

introduced

with knowledge 

of some

sameness:

shared

experiences,

people,

and likes…

conversation

starters.

Imagine

sharing

a meal

with

a like 

minded

friend

(supporter)

and their

like 

minded

friend.

A conversation

starter,

“Nice 

to meet

you.”

Even

as

racist

white supremacist

neo

nazis

are the

dinner

companions!!

It was 

just

dinner, 

with 

gross

bigots—

whose calling cards 

are crazy 

bigotry—

who 

we can

only hope 

get

just

deserts.

They 

may

be

three

stooges,

but

their

audience

is

weaponized 

and

eager.

The sum

total

of the

dinner

is 

the horror

of hate–

racism

and

antisemitism

metastasizing

rapidly

as

the “dinner

party”

stayed

silent and

complicit.

Trickles 

of 

rejection

days

after

knowingly

avoiding

and

trying 

to balance

what?

Not 

staying aligned

with

a loser, 

versus 

aligning

with

hate

and

abetting violence

by abiding

all.

Make No Bones

Make no bones about it….telling someone (much less four women of color who are MEMBERS OF CONGRESS) to go back to their countries is a bigoted, hateful, racist, deplorably hideous statement. It is also reflective of an an ignorant and stupid person playing POTUS, as 3 of the 4 Congresswomen were born in the USA, and the 4th is a naturalized citizen. It’s a shameful and disgraceful statement to say to anyone, not to mention, immature and pathetic. 

In response to criticism that the POTUS is a racist, he declared that he doesn’t have “a racist bone in his body”.  And of course, the responses to that ranged from suggesting that he has a racist spleen, to a racist heart, and mind. 

Apparently, one can say that tweets are racist and have that be distinct from the tweeter being racist. We all know how absurd this whole thing is, and we all know how unacceptable this is from anyone, much less the POTUS.

Make no bones about it, bigotry is anti-Democratic; it is UnAmerican (in the aspirational sense).  Of course, the skeletons in America’s closet have always been about bigotry and discrimination.  The calcification of hate has allowed it to re-emerge front and center, and cause excruciating pain. 

Plenty has been said about the phrase, “I don’t have a racist bone in my body”, which only seems to be uttered by people who make bigoted comments, even if they don’t think they are saying something bigoted or racist. The obviousness is not lost. The certainty of exclusion and discrimination is definite, even if cowards refuse to acknowledge it. 

Make no bones about it, with the exception of 4 Republicans in The House, and one Independent, the Republican party stands in solidarity with a POTUS who is utterly reprehensible. They choose to defend the indefensible, and the shocking cowardice mounts daily.

If someone wanted to express dissatisfaction, they would “make no bones about it”.  It would be a simple, unequivocal statement, not a tortured word salad. In fact, the phrase “make no bones about it” derives from 15th century England. In this origin story, if one found bones in soup, it made it difficult and unsatisfying to eat. Make no bones about it—its consistency is satisfactory.

Make no bones about it, we know hate and fear when we have to digest it daily (if not hourly). We see discrimination and cruelty every day with policies; with cold cases and new cases; with ridiculous verdicts that let evil go unpunished and unchecked; with the megaphone that the Troller in Chief uses to expel gas that gets ignited by fearful, angry cowards who feel powerful by ranting and spewing hate, which they like to cloak in faux love and patriotism.  

People can have radically different views of patriotism and a vision for our country without discriminating. Make no bones about it, we know that those who stand with hateful words and actions are complicit, and we are so much better than those who seek to spoil. 

Stereo Types

The not-guilty verdict in the Zimmerman case may have punctuated this trial, but it opened up conversations about the legal system, Stand Your Ground Laws, and prejudice. President Obama’s remarks last week on why the not-guilty verdict had caused such pain for so many, were  an authentic and powerful acknowledgement of the everyday humiliations endured by black males– youths and adults.  He spoke about the experiences of black men (and teens) being followed while shopping in a department store; hearing the click of car doors locking as they stopped nearby; and watching as women clutch their purses tighter if they are close by or sharing an elevator. Many black parents have lamented that they have had to teach their children that being black in America includes the many indignities of being followed or singled out–just in case.  Mr. Obama was most powerful when he said, “When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son,” he continued,”Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, thirty-five years ago.”  Some people quickly distorted his words and cried race-baiting, as though mentioning (or even acknowledging) race (which was denied during the trial) is so taboo and so distorting, that all it does is provoke. (And who might it provoke????)

In so many ways our culture has evolved and become more inclusive, but scars and serious problems remain. The word “prejudice” doesn’t get thrown around as much as it did when I was young. After the seventies, as identity politics became more solidified, the word “prejudice” was an insufficient term for discrimination based upon race. We don’t hear the word “chauvinism” very much any more either. In the seventies, a chauvinist was usually a sexist male. The original meaning of chauvinism, however, is exaggerated patriotism. It later became used as a synonym for sexism. Today we see many chauvinists who embody the bellicosity of the original and later usages of chauvinism. They also tend to call others racists or race-baiters, as though any mention of race now is meant to reopen old wounds, while ignoring the mention of race (or any other means of discrimination) is somehow more evolved. We tend to treat racism, sexism, homophobia, and chauvinism as overt attitudes of bigotry. Even without chauvinism, we discriminate. “Discrimination” has become a term used to define unjust treatment of different categories of people. Discriminating also (and originally) means distinguishing characteristics among categories.  It is clear from so many events and stories, none less than the shooting of Trayvon Martin, that prejudice, in the most general sense, is ever-present. Because humans discriminate (not necessarily negatively), humans pre-judge (not necessarily negatively). Still, we constantly discriminate and pre-judge positively and negatively based on appearances.

From the moment that Trayvon Martin was shot, I was surprised that people equated the Hoodie with dangerous black males. To me, the Hoodie is part of the youth dress code. I suppose that regardless of race, any kid in a Hoodie (with the hood up) can arouse suspicions. Except if it’s raining. Then the hood has a utilitarian purpose, not a cultural reference. Suggesting that the way Trayvon Martin was dressed aroused suspicion is like blaming the girl or woman for wearing short shorts or a low cut top as though she “had it coming”.  The truth is, as parents and teachers, we must explain the categories that get distorted. For many, this is a sad commentary.  I agree that it is sad that as a culture we judge, and too often mis-judge, based on appearances. We must also acknowledge that in addition to prejudices, there have always been aggressors who use excuses for their behavior.  As parents and teachers, we must teach our children about the messages that clothes send, intended or unintended, that speech and physical presence shape perceptions in all ways. We must remind ourselves of our own categories and assumptions.  There will always be people who will have distorted perceptions, and we may be able to enlighten some, but many will just not get it. Because prejudice must always be examined, we must make our children aware that prejudice exists and that some may act on those prejudices.

I have read several articles in the past week that have noted that women have refused to say hello or respond when approached by a black man, as evidence of a still enforced stereotype of the “scary black man”. I have been thinking about the fact that women, often judged more on appearance than men are, often perceive threat by men regardless of race.   While the history of racism is undeniable, the lack of understanding of women’s experiences (regardless of race) from the dawn of time,  also needs to be reinforced. While not all men have threatened women, women have always been threatened by men. When women are called rude or prejudiced because they choose to be responsible for not sending any potentially confusing messages, men(regardless of race) need to understand women’s historical experience as well.

With a culture that glorifies violence, and gun laws that have not only not diminished violence, but include numerous tragedies beyond Trayvon Martin’s death, we must continue the conversations about our history and culture; about positive and negative discrimination, and about how we can reduce violence and bigotry. Neither hoodies nor short shorts are the problem. How we interpret is the problem. When we stereotype, we have an oversimplified (and distorted) image of a person. Hoodies and short shorts are stereo types.