Hosted by a Chick tract.
I, John Brown, Am Now Quite Sure...
***Decided to crosspost, because historian me is curious as to if and how others learned about John Brown.***
Trigger warning for graphic image at Redemption link
Yesterday marked 150 years since the failed raid on Harper's Ferry. In the aftermath, John Brown predicted, "that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood." The crimes to which he referred, of course, were slavery and the economically, socially, and racially hierarchical system it created.
John Brown proved prescient.
Some background to the raid and my thoughts below the fold.John Brown's plan seemed fairly straightforward: he and his men would establish a base in the Blue Ridge Mountains from which they would assist runaway slaves and launch attacks on slaveholders… But his plans would change.
The historical portrayal of him for so long was dismissive and ableist-- he had to have been wild and "crazy"-- what white man would risk all that for black people? It pissed me off badly. I adored John Brown when I heard of him in my history classes. In fact, while working on my M.A., I took on the haters in a paper entitled "John Brown: Crazy like a Fox." If I had known then what I know now, it might have actually been a good paper. :-)
Brown… met with Frederick Douglass in August of 1859, when Brown told his friend of his intentions of seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry rather than staging guerilla warfare from the mountains. Attacking the arsenal was in effect attacking the federal government and, in Douglass' estimation, a grave mistake. "You're walking into a perfect steel-trap," he said to Brown, "and you will never get out alive."
On October 16, Brown set out for Harpers Ferry with 21 men -- 5 blacks, including Dangerfield Newby, who hoped to rescue his wife who was still a slave, and 16 whites, two of whom were Brown's sons. Leaving after sundown, the men crossed the Potomac, then walked all night in heavy rain, reaching the town at 4am. They cut telegraph wires, then made their assault. First they captured the federal armory and arsernal. They then captured Hall's Rifle Works, a supplier of weapons to the government. Brown and his men rounded up 60 prominent citizens of the town and held them as hostages, hoping that their slaves would join the fight. No slaves came forth.
The local militia pinned Brown and his men down. Under a white flag, one of Brown's sons was sent out to negotiate with the citizens. He was shot and killed… In the end, ten of Brown's men were killed (including two blacks and both of his sons), seven were captured (two of these later), and five had escaped.
Brown, who was seriously wounded, was taken to Charlestown, Virginia (now Charles Town, West Virginia), along with the other captives. There they were quickly tried, sentenced, then executed.
Thinking of how he has been "written" reminds me of several things:
1) The people who dismiss slavery as the most significant factor leading to Civil War (again, the idea that this nation would've torn itself up over an issue that had black people at the heart of it? Impossible!)
2) Tim Wise's observation that so many people, when made aware of his anti-racist work, ask, "What happened to you?!" Hard to imagine that people would actually work to disinvest in whiteness--which shows how much we need to re-think the ideas that whiteness and related privilege are largely invisible*
3) H. Rap Brown's (Jamil Abdullah al-Amin) assertion that "violence is as American as cherry pie." It's been a primary tool of this nation-state; why are we surprised that citizens of any political position engage in it? And relatedly...
4) ...The absolute dissonance that allowed southern sympathizers to write about the Klan, for the longest time, as an honorable organization, that still allows my students to be taken aback by my use of "terrorism" when I describe Redemption, but permits the vilification of John Brown.
5) Another John Brown quote: I want you to understand that I respect the rights of the poorest and weakest of colored people, oppressed by the slave system, just as much as I do those of the most wealthy and powerful. That is the idea that has moved me, and that alone
which often makes me wonder how his position on class** also contributed to the portrayal of him.
__________________________
* And people are doing this work. Beyond the writings I've seen, a few weeks ago, I saw one of Jane Elliott's older films in which she asked an audience full of white people how many of them would like to be treated like PoC in this country. Not a single hand was raised.
** Respect for the poor and "weak" is derided now--imagine how it must've been 150 years ago.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison.
Drinks are on the QCoFM!
Congress to Move on DADT?
Dear Maude, please let it be so:
Congress could move early next year to repeal the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays serving in the military.JUST DO IT ALREADY!!! ARGH!!! FORGET THE 60 VOTES IN THE SENATE!!! THE REPUBLICANS DIDN'T WAIT FOR 60 VOTES!!! I KNOW YOU WANT TO PREEMPT A FILIBUSTER, BUT AMERICA IS ON. YOUR. BLOODY. SIDE!!! LET THE GODDAMNED REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTER AND LET THEM INCUR THE WRATH OF THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY'RE ON THE TOTALLY. WRONG. SIDE. OF. THE. ISSUE!!! JUST FUCKING DO IT ALREADY!!! LORDY FUCKING BEGORDY!!! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
...In the Senate, White House advisers have directly discussed repealing the law with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a key member of his chamber's Armed Services Committee. Lieberman, a hawk on defense, is a staunch opponent of "Don't ask, don't tell," and his support could prove influential in winning centrist votes.
Lieberman's office has confirmed the discussions took place but did not provide further details.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a leading proponent of gay rights and close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), earlier this week predicted the House would move on the issue.
"Early next year we will be moving on 'Don't ask, don't tell,'" Frank told Headline News.
...Legislation to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" has been pending in the House since March, and has 181 co-sponsors--nearly 40 more than such legislation has ever garnered before. A Democratic aide noted that another dozen lawmakers who have not co-sponsored the bill have privately committed to voting for it.
Democrats expect hearings to start up in winter of this year or early next year.
*clunk*
Random YouTubery
The '80s were so weird, and so awesome.
Seeding a Safer World
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the inextricable link between food and security:
For a billion people worldwide, the daily effort to grow, buy, or sell food is the defining struggle of their lives. This matters to all of us.Read the whole thing here.
Consider the world's typical small farmer. She lives in a rural village, rises before dawn, and walks miles to collect water. If drought, blight, or pests don't destroy her crops, she may raise enough to feed her family – and may even have some left over to sell. But there's no road to the nearest market, and no one there who can afford to buy from her.
Now consider a young man in a crowded city 100 miles from that farmer. He has a job that pays pennies. He goes to the market but the food is rotting or priced beyond reach.
She has extra food to sell and he wants to buy it. But that simple transaction can't take place because of complex forces beyond their control.
...[F]ood security is not only about food, but it is all about security. Chronic hunger threatens individuals, governments, societies, and borders.
People who are starving or undernourished and can't care for their families are left with feelings of hopelessness and despair, which can lead to tension, conflict, even violence. Since 2007, there have been riots over food in more than 60 countries.
...Revitalising global agriculture will not be easy. Indeed, it is one of the most ambitious diplomacy and development efforts our country has ever undertaken. But it can be done. It is worth doing.
Daily Kitteh
"Sit down, have a drink, tell me about your day, dahling...Oh, really? That's fascinating."
"O hai! U can haz my ergonomic keyboard impression! Is like this!"
(We don't use that grody thing, lol. It's dirty after coming out of garage storage because we needed something else in the box. Hence the wires scattered around, too. I don't know why we keep that shit. Wevs.)
"What the fuck was that?! Oh, it's just Olivia's giant tail. Phew."
Quote of the Day
"You guys said that, um, we did this for the show."—"Balloon Boy" Falcon Heene, the 6-year-old who was thought to be in a runaway balloon yesterday, but was later found hiding in the attic of his home, when asked why he didn't come out when he heard his parents calling for him.
His father says any suggestion that the balloon scare was staged is "disgusting" and "appalling."
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, starting wild rumpuses since 2004.
Recommended Reading:
Marcella: Carnival Against Sexual Violence 80
Resistance: Dude.
LeMew: Saletan and Polanski
Renee: Negotiating Disableism
Melissa: Interview with Doris Yeung, Director of Motherland
Lindsay: Contrarian Double-X Hires Anti-Friendship Asshole as Friendship Expert
Heads-up, Savannah Shakers: Holla Back Savannah is online!
Leave your links in comments...
Overtones of Bigotry
[Trigger warning.]
First, some background: Stephen Gately, 33, a member of the Irish boyband Boyzone, died last weekend very suddenly, of what was apparently pulmonary edema caused by an undetected heart condition, which, according to Gately's mother, runs in the family. Gately, you need to know, was gay. When he died, he and his husband were on holiday in Mallorca. That night, they'd been out to a club, and had brought with them back to their apartment a young man they'd met.
You need to know this because, apparently, these circumstances are "more than a little sleazy."
This, according to Jan Moir, in her piece run this morning by Britain's Daily Mail, already one of the contemptible publications on the planet and evidently keen to up the ante. Originally titled "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death"—and now titled "A strange, lonely and troubling death…" after outrage about Moir's piece consumed the British news and blogosphere—the article is positively shocking.
The coverage of Gately's death has been problematic right from the start, with his partner being called his "boyfriend" in many news reports, despite the fact they were legally bound by a British civil union. But Moir's piece is beyond the conceivable beyond. Shaker Richard, who sent the article to me, aptly called it "about as vile and hateful an article as I've ever read." By the time I was finished reading it, I was incandescent with rage, sputtering furiously and seriously wondering whether I would be able to write anything coherent.
The Guardian's Charlie Brooker does an epic takedown of Moir's gobsmacking fuckery:Still, if his death wasn't natural "by any yardstick", what did kill him? Moir knows: it was his lifestyle. Because Gately was, y'know . . . homosexual. Having lanced this boil, Moir lets the pus drip out all over her fingers as she continues to type: "The circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy," she declares. "Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta . . . was not what was on the cards . . . What happened afterwards is anyone's guess."
Kevin McGee recently hung himself. It bears absolutely no relation to Gately's death, except insomuch as they were both gay—and, thus, according to Moir, evidence that the total straw-tale of "happily-ever-after civil partnerships" is bullshit.
Don't hold back, Jan. Have a guess. Draw us a picture. You specialise in celebrity death fantasies, after all.
"His mother is still insisting that her son died from a previously undetected heart condition that has plagued the family." Yes. That poor, blinkered woman, "insisting" in the face of official medical evidence that absolutely agrees with her.
Anyway, having cast aspersions over a tragic death, doubted a coroner and insulted a grieving mother, Moir's piece builds to its climax: "Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. … Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages … in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened."
Way to spread the pain around, Jan. Way to link two unrelated tragedies, Jan. Way to gay-bash, Jan.
Which is, after all, the most important point to be making after the tragic deaths of two young gay men. Those straw-men won't knock down themselves!
And even after dragging the unrelated death of another young gay man into her absurd treatise on Gately's "unnatural" death and his "sleazy" lifestyle and how sleazy, unnatural death seems to be the inevitable result of civil partnerships between same-sex couples, Moir's statement in defense of the piece, released earlier this afternoon, incredibly claims:The point of my column—which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read—was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all.
All right then—how about this? Your article has homophobic and bigoted overtones.
…In writing that 'it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships' I was suggesting that civil partnerships—the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting—have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.
In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.
Never, ever, have I read anyone argue anywhere on the planet that same-sex civil unions and/or marriages are less problematic than marriages, that every gay couple will live happily ever after. That is an invented argument, and when people invent arguments with the express purpose of creating an opportunity to tsk-tsk at marginalized people and victim-blame them for their own deaths, that's called naked fucking bigotry.
No undertones about it.
Asshole.
[As an aside: The fact the headline was changed to reference a "lonely" death, despite the fact that Gately was with his husband, very tellingly exposes about what the Mail thinks of civil partnerships, too.]
The good news is that there is an incredible amount of outrage (and deservedly so); ads have been pulled and so many complaints are being made to Britain's Press Complaints Commission that the site is totally overwhelmed with traffic.
Let the Wild Rumpus Start!
Opens today. OMGOMGOMG.
Manohla Dargis reviews Where the Wild Things Are for the New York Times. Minor spoiler warnings, natch.
Related: There's a great documentary about Maurice Sendak on HBO this month.
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strips One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
I Write Letters
Dear Meghan McCain,
When you finally get totally fucking tired of this bullshit, especially the part where you effectively have to apologize for having boobs, and all the rest of the nonsense, and you're done with the whole "progressive Republican" thing, and you're ready to be a progressive progressive, we'll so be ready for you.
Love,
Liss
P.S. We already support gay rights.
This is the Stuff Obama Gets So Right
Blub:
The Dow Jones reached a significant milestone yesterday, and news outlets were abuzz with excitement. Olympia Snowe's vote for the Baucus bill was plenty fodder for the 24-hour news cycles. But, for Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists in the United States, an epochal event transpired at the White House afternoon that should not slip notice.What I love most about the Obama presidency so far is its genuine commitment to ethnic multiculturalism. And I love seeing a non-white First Family, and a multi-ethnic non-white First Family, at that. And I love pictures like this one, and these ones, and this one over here. I love the leadership of our country looking more and more like the country in which I actually live. And I love that President Obama knows that symbols matter, and that it's not a small thing for millions of people to feel a little bit more like this country is a home to them as much as it is to the most privileged among us.Lead me from Untruth to Truth.
Lead me from darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.
(from the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad -- I.iii.28)
As the ethereal sounds of a Hindu priest's chanting of this Sanskrit prayer from ancient Hindu scripture filled the East Room, President Obama lit the ceremonial White House diya--and he used this Sanskrit word for lamp--with dozens of Asian, Indian and Hindu Americans in attendance. Never before had a sitting U.S. President personally celebrated the Diwali holiday, and with that one gesture, two million Hindu Americans felt a bit more like they belonged--one more reason to feel at home. Maybe that cliché that all of our diversity adds unique patches to the American quilt is not as tired as we thought.
[H/T to Shaker TinaH.]
News Fail
by Shaker TBJ
[Trigger warning.]
There is a heated debate among feminists about the value of images that show people sexually degrading women. Some folks argue that free speech is important, and pornography or art can be empowering even when it shows degradation. Therefore, we should not limit such images. Others argue that even if women consent to participate in degrading images, the images do harm to society as a whole and we should discourage them. But until recently, I thought all compassionate people agreed that when women do not consent to sexually degrading acts, and do not consent to recording images of those acts, we should not be spreading those images around.
According to an October 13, 2009 online article in the independent Michigan Messenger, in 2007, a woman reported to police that people whom she thought were her friends sexually assaulted and "drunk shamed" her. (I won't link, for reasons that will become clear later. And I won't write the woman's name, because although she has made her story public, she is a victim and I do not want to participate in making victims' names public.)
The woman was a teacher in Haslett, Michigan – a suburb of East Lansing. She is an out lesbian, which is relevant because of the way in which the people assaulted her. She and five of her fellow teacher friends decided to celebrate the end of the school year. All of the teachers spent the evening drinking and smoking pot. The party ended up at another teacher's house. The woman eventually passed out between a coffee table and a sofa.
After the party, the woman discovered that her friends had assaulted her after she had passed out. The woman suspected she had been given a drug and sexually assaulted (I usually wouldn't use the passive voice, but the news article doesn't give any hint who the woman suspects, so it's difficult to write in the active voice.). She also discovered that her friends had "drunk shamed" her. Two of the teachers drew offensive drawings and sayings on her body with marker. Among other things, they drew penises on her legs and wrote names on her stomach. Some of the drawings were, according to the woman, an inch from her vulva.
Like many degrading acts against women, the people involved took photographs. They used a digital camera and a cell phone.
The woman reported the incident to the police the next day. She wanted to press charges of sexual assault. After reviewing the case, prosecutors would not charge sexual assault, but they said they might be able to charge battery. Eventually, no charges were filed. The woman suffered personally and professionally; she felt "degraded, defiled, lifeless" – like her friends had treated her as a bathroom stall.
The woman decided to go to the independent newspaper I mentioned above, the Michigan Messenger. She gave the Messenger the police report and the photographs. She wanted the Messenger to publish her story, so that she could expose how degrading the actions of her friends were, and how unjust she felt the law enforcement response was. The woman even gave the Messenger permission to publish the photographs.
And publish the photographs they did. On the Michigan Messenger website, viewers can see images of the woman, passed out, with her former friends actively degrading her. The degradation is sexual. It is misogynist. It is proprietary – a show that the woman should be accessible to the men – and therefore homophobic.
To sum up, the woman did not consent to what the other teachers did to her. She did not consent to them touching her. She did not consent to them moving her shirt and exposing her abdomen. She did not consent to them pulling up her shorts. She did not consent to them dragging markers across her exposed flesh. She did not consent to any sexual activity. She told the newspaper that there was nothing more humiliating.
The woman also did not consent to the other teachers taking photographs.
There is no ambiguity about the lack of consent here. She could not consent to the acts or their recording – she was passed out.
So even though the woman eventually wanted to tell her story, the question remains – should a newspaper publish images of people sexually degrading a woman without her consent?
To use an analogy, in law enforcement, we do not say "child pornography." We say, "images of child sexual abuse." Such images are not just pictures of kids in dirty poses. Those images are in reality photographs and videos that record a crime scene. What is going on in those images is that someone is abusing a child. Pedophiles trade these images, and use them to desensitize additional child victims. The images spread over the Internet like oil on water, and even if authorities are lucky enough to rescue the child, they can never take back the proliferation of the child's shame. That is why it is a crime to possess and distribute, as well as to produce, images of child sexual abuse.
Likewise, in this news article, the photographs are not fun party pictures. They are depictions of people sexually degrading a woman without her consent. It's true that the woman wanted the photos made public in her effort to raise awareness about the injustice she suffered. But they are still photos that depict violence against a woman – in Michigan, apparently the crime is battery; in other places, maybe the acts would be different crimes. Everywhere, as the woman said, those acts are degrading, defiling, and life-destroying.
The defense that free speech enthusiasts usually give to sexually degrading material does not apply here. Usually, the defense to sexually degrading images consists of saying that the woman is choosing to perform the acts, she is choosing to record the images, and she can always say no – in short, she consents. But these images are of people violating an unconscious woman. The photos show an attack, something that happened without consent. And not only is there a lack of consent as to the physical acts, there was no consent as to their recording.
The only possible argument to support publishing these photos online is that the victim wanted them published so that she could obtain justice. In fact, when I emailed the newspaper to complain, I received a polite response from an assistant editor. The editor assured me that the Messenger published the photos at the request of the victim, because she wanted her community to share her outrage. So I do not want to discount this woman's agency or assume that I know better how to fight this injustice on a personal level.
On a societal level, however, I still disagree with the Messenger's decision to publish the photos. What does it say that a woman must publish sexually degrading images of herself in order to beg society for justice? And how many viewers are finding these photos online because they care about violence against women, versus viewers who are looking to see the sexual degradation of an unconscious lesbian? The photos look like one of those exhibits from the Sociological Images blog – disembodied body parts, a passive woman, her body a receptacle for the desires of others. People will pay to see images like that. Or click, and register an increase in web page hits.
If the woman had published the photographs herself, I would not be so critical. She is a victim and her agency deserves some respect. And maybe the Michigan Messenger's true motive really is to expose the injustice that the woman suffered, rather than to profit from titillation. But maybe a rape victim will see those images and suffer flashbacks. Maybe a predator will use those images to persuade someone that it's acceptable to use an unconscious woman like a bathroom stall. In the end, maybe compassionate people should not promote images that show attacks on women.
(Readers can Google; now you know why I won't link.)
For the SYTYCDancers...
Mia Michaels, much discussed in any So You Think You Can Dance thread at Shakesville for her occasionally violent choreography, her weird misogynist comments, and her evident preference for male dancers, has announced that she's quit the show.
Michaels is a genius, and I love much of her choreography, but she infuriated me on a regular basis. I can't say I'm sad to see her go.
More Wade and Amanda Robson, please.
