Thursday, May 12, 2005
Are Asians and Latinos Just A Different Kind of White?
Tamara Nopper reviews George Yancey's sure-to-be-controversial new book. Much more on this to come...

UPDATE: Check comments below for more links and discussion.

posted by Zentronix @ 10:20 AM   110 comments

110 Comments:

At 5/12/05, 8:57 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

i hate to say i told you so, but...

 
At 5/13/05, 10:07 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

All due respect Jeff but I'm really surprised you'd give Yancey's argument any real run. First and foremost, there's nothing here that's being advanced that's radically new (and thus hasn't already been cast into doubt before). Yancey's book (which isn't that new - it came out in 2003 and has already received numerous reviews), at its most basic, repeats a belief that has existed for DECADES, namely that all brown and yellow people hate black people and secretly desire to be white.

I don't disagree with Yancey's postulation that anti-black racism is one of the formative ways in which immigrants can assimilate (though this idea has been a part of race relations scholarship for years). Nor do I disagree with the suggestion that many Latino and Asian Americans (immigrant or American born) desire the spoils of white privilege (Eric Liu, holla) and moreover, would seek to distance themselves, whether personally or strategically, from African Americans.

However (and these points have been made countless times in the past but apparently, they need repeating):

1) desiring to be white and actually being accepted as white are two wholly different things. Yancey's argument that Latinos and Asians will become "white" seems to fail to take into account that whites have not proven to be that historically - shall we say? accepting? - of non-whites. While I agree that there are different levels of acceptance that may apply to one racial group and not another, the idea that whites are going to extend the category of "whiteness" to Latinos and Asians by 2050 is beyond implausible. If anything, the shrinkingwhite population is going to create a reentrenchment of "I'm white, you're not" essentialism/exceptionalism as white folk feel under threat. See all the nativism that's happening throughout Europe.

2) Seems to me that rather than assimilating into a blank, white norm, most immigrants actually make great strides to retain much of their "cultural" heritage intact, including but not limited to ethnic-oriented businesses (i.e. visit any LA strip mall), cultural organizations and events, and the retention of languages that don't conform to a mono-lingual, English-only model. None of this means that Latino and Asian immigrants are automatically "black" but it sure would seem to distance them from "white."

3) Moreover, where is there any mention of the ways in which MANY Latinos and Asians seek to draw both personal and strategic alliances with Blacks? I think there are more than enough exceptions to warrant at least a mention. Yancey (or maybe it's just Nopper) seem to flatten racial groups into monolithic, homogenous entities - something I'd hope we can all agree none of these groups actually are.

4) Also, I doubt Yancey at all tries to challenge or interrogate the very category of "black" (though I can appreciate how he undertands whiteness in comparison). With the massive growth in the Black population coming from West Indian immigration, this is creating considerable tension between different "black" sub-communities, especially as better educated and higher class immigrants benefit from the same social programs that slavery-descended African Americans do, and therefore, create competition (and resentment) within the black community over limited resources. Where's Stuart Hall when you need him?

In short, Asians and Latinos are not a different kind of white. Nor are they a different kind of black. And I think if we're really going to take seriously the nature of race relations for the 21st century, it's going to take a more fully developed set of analytical tools than what I see being discussed in this review.

 
At 5/13/05, 10:58 AM, Blogger Zentronix said...

Blame me being in a cave for 4 years writing--which makes me a Cave Asian--that I didn't have any idea about this book. Gonna reserve entire judgment til I've had a chance to read. In the meantime, here's links to two reviews, which are very critical of the book from a Black and Latino angle.

Amanda Davis in African American Review
She mainly critiques his use of data, and his lack of recognition of diversity in Black communities.

Richard Delgado in Texas Law Review
Delgado is a well known Critical Legal Studies/Critical Race Theory scholar. He places Yancey in a category of racial neoliberals (in which he also includes his colleague Mari Matsuda, boy I've been out of this debate for a long time...), that emphasize the white-black divide and assimilation to the detriment of understanding race and racism as a whole. This is a partial download.

Also of interest, Yancey's speech to a Christian group called: "Is Homophobia (and sexism) the same as racism?"

Last I will say that I find this debate fascinating--even if on face I think a lot of Yancey's claims are ridiculous--because it reflects what I think is a new and growing divide among lefty intellectuals of color on the legacy of the radical multiculturalist movement of the 80s (which everyone knows I proudly repped).

I'm beginning to think--and this is what a blog is for, to have it out in public with lower stakes than an more "intellectual" debate--that during the 90s, hip-hop--esp. in its consumerist forms--allowed many of us to get happy about the triumph of multiculturalism.

Of course, it was largely an uneven, market-driven triumph, so we still have many of the same questions that plagued us at the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s.

I'll stop here and reserve more comment. Holla back once yall have dug into this stuff...

 
At 5/13/05, 11:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think oliver alludes to this by talking about the flattening of racial identities but gotta make it explicit: lots of latinos identify as black...

 
At 5/13/05, 5:14 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Lizz,

Question: are those Latinos who ID as black (I'm presuming Dominican, some Puerto Rican, etc.) in turn accepted as black by blacks? I was always under the impression that the latter was not always the case.

 
At 5/13/05, 5:46 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

"lots of latinos identify as Black"...

because, THEY ARE BLACK!!!!!


one of white supremacy's most devastating effects is the sense of shame it imposes on those of African descent in particular and to a lesser degree all other non-white peoples.

If the slave ships rudder had turned south instead of north, right instead of left, my ancestors could have landed in a number of destinations: Haiti, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc., etc.

would i be any less Black?...if i speak Spanish or French, would i be any less Black?...of course not!...but under the pressure of white supremacy i may seek to avoid the stigma imposed upon my African ancestry by seeking to define myself with euphemisms such as ex. "Latino" or through a national designation...ex."Puerto Rican".

This is the psychological shape-shifting non-white people engage in order to manage our shame in self. Under the present climate of multiculturalism, white supremacy must adjust and adapt to the new playing field. It has to find to absorb multi-lingual, multi-hued immigrant populations while keeping its caste pecking order intact.

"Whiteness", for people of color, is not COLOR but real or imagined STATUS...so lets dispense with the pussy footin' and acknowledge that Asian and Latinos are being offered a higher place on the racial food chain...for a price!


Oliver Wang, (i'm assuming this is you, if not, my apologies)

Would you provide some instances where Latinos and Asians are seeking to make "personal and strategic" alliances with Black folk???


Jeff,
Correct me if i'm wrong,(and i'm not puttin' you on blast, good brother) but i recall you mentioning that you have some Native Hawaiian ancestry...How many of your fellow brethren acknowledge their African bloodlines, in spite of all the intermarriage with other ethnic groups over several generations?...if you haven't had anyone mention it lately, it's because of the power and perceived status of "whiteness"..."status" is bestowed by underplaying or denying any African ancestry in your family tree or avoiding any aggressive political alliances with (and this includes immigrant Black populations) African-Americans...

in regard to this subject, its time we put ALL our cards on the table, no?

 
At 5/14/05, 12:04 PM, Blogger Zentronix said...

ronnie,

if the context is the continental US, i'm in agreement that the dominant axis remains white-black. in other places, it may be settler-native. the idea of blackness changes once you leave what chuck d calls "the box" of the upper 48. i like this--we're supposed to think outside the box, right?

in hawai'i, the native-settler axis is much more relevant than notions of blackness. native hawaiians don't tend to call themselves black--it's already a category that refers to african americans--or refer to themselves in terms of a relationship to africanness. (presuming you're talking about 'original man' africanness, no?)

if you mean 'africanness' in terms of skin color--in hawai'i, color is very important--i often joke that i'm the white sheep of the family, which does in fact carry a lot of the same implications that light-skinnedness carries in black/latino communities...s'posed to be smarter, s'posed to be less cool or authentic or funky, conferred more privileges, on and on. in hawai'i ideas of beauty and color are more complicated, but that's another discussion.

so in other words, the categories don't tend to work so good when you start getting deeper into the details. i wonder if yancey has ever seen fania in africa. my point being, how do you get to that conclusion if you ignore liz's point? the categories themselves don't work.

if we take this idea of "assimilation" on its face, which i don't, and that's another convo...to me, for instance, it's obvious that assimilation rates are different **within** asian and latino communities, and that that has a lot to do with class and language. i think there's lots of folks that can't apply for their white cards.

honestly, and i was supposed to withhold judgment til i read the book, but since you asked, i think that if you spend 15 minutes in south oxnard (largely chicano) or east oakland (where southeast asians, blacks and latinos live together), yancey's argument looks like a crock of psuedo-intellectual bullshit.

and honestly, if you got a theory that doesn't work in south oxnard or east oakland or similar type places, then you don't have a theory that's gonna move us where we gotta go.

and ronnie, i think that's an argument that goes both ways. i think african americans gotta look at building aggressive, principled alliances with other groups as well. not saying that your stuff needs to be watered down, either, but with all due respect, it's not about getting a chicano in south oxnard or a cambodian in east oakland to acknowledge that africans are original man and woman. if that's what you're saying...

but all that said, i'm ready to keep my mind open on this and be thoroughly convinced. my main thing is, and yall know me, what kind of theory is gonna help us get to where we need to go to get everyone free. if yancey's argument is gonna move us in that direction, i'm ready to listen...if anybody's argument is gonna move us in that direction, i'm ready to listen...

 
At 5/14/05, 1:29 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Jeff,
I'm gonna give you time to read to book...then we'll compare notes. I'll rest on this thought; i do think Yancy's premise was meant to be taken as an analysis of the overall climate. No doubt there are communities of color where multiculturalism in its truest essence is able to thrive...but sub-sets do not represent a national will committed to equality among ethnic groups.

Regarding Lizz's point on latinos identifying as Black; it's not that categories have no relevance, it's that certain categories were created as a means to diminish the value of African ancestry...Latino was one of those terms.

Lastly, with all due respect, the African-American resistance movement has ALWAYS been the catalyst for forging alliances with other groups. Have you forgotten that the political platform of the Black Panthers, MLK,jr., SNCC was the notion that the liberation of Black folk would create the tide that would raise the quality of life for all dispossessed people???

Black people reaching out to others is not the problem...it's the reluctance of the "others" to do likewise.

Jeff, i'm suprised you left your flank exposed on this particular point...i'll assume it's because it's a lazy Saturday. lol

 
At 5/14/05, 2:03 PM, Blogger Zentronix said...

ah kick me in the ass! of course you're absolutely right. tho i wonder if we can consider yancey to be part of the african-american resistance movement? again, don't know enough yet to comment.

but you make a really important point in the context that you and i live in--california, cause as i talk about in the book, african american populations are declining here--it's possible we've seen our last black mayor in the bay area with willie brown. he ran on a post-rainbow kind of ticket (LOL, lots of cali folks will disagree with me on that, i know, but listen, i worked in sacramento in the late 80s early 90s, and that was very much the idea and model, as per your first comment...).

the thing that's interesting about what yall have had going on with villaraigosa v hahn is exactly this question...african americans are trying to figure out how to position themselves in relationship to whites and latinos. again, not the resistance movement per se, but definitely a sign of things today.

back to the lazy saturday--these are always incredible convos...

peace!

 
At 5/16/05, 5:48 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

EMS,
the fact that SOME Latinos consider their blackness a stigma is a testimony to the power of white supremacy upon ones psyche.

 
At 5/16/05, 10:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is definitely an interesting discussion.

Blacks, in spite of all the leadership and influence on America, are still very much prisoners of racism. Meanwhile Asians and Latinos are often able to bypass the Black/White race paradigm.

I think another differentiation is that the Black community has always been about leadership and the collective. Asians and Latinos are more likely to play the background when it comes to racism and making a fuss in public. This benefits Latinos and Asians, but doesn't appear to extend the gains of Latinos/Asians to Blacks -- well, at least not immediately.

Let's face it, there ain't no replacing Black leadership or the role Black people have played in our history. In that sense -- yes -- all other groups are kinda "white" because no other group in American is gonna pay dues like that (lest we forget Native Americans though).

Will Asians and Latinos simply take up the yoke and inherit the Black/White race paradigm? I don't see how that is possible... who will be the target? Our new elite will be a racist white-latino-asian alliance? Will they intermarry and form a mixed-race racist elite? Please explain.

 
At 5/16/05, 10:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

_eric

 
At 5/16/05, 8:28 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Eric,
You pose an excellent question. MOST Asians and non-black latinos still treat the race issue like the crazy grandma one would banish to the upstairs bedroom...DENIAL, DENIAL, DENIAL!...As we saw with President Fox of Mexico, anti-Black sentiment is engrained in the culture of EVERY post 1492 society. Black folk are the universal representation of "the bottom"...and ANY non-black person of color who would dare to claim otherwise is a delusional liar.

 
At 5/17/05, 2:22 AM, Blogger Zentronix said...

The latest on Fox's comments.

 
At 5/17/05, 9:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Ronnie,

I would be interested in talking with you more about your ideas--I tried to find an email for you on your blog site but couldn't. In any case, I see that there is a great deal of hostility towards you and your arguments, as evidenced by respondents' desire to not deal with them but to find ways to discredit your arguments through the strategic arguments about 1) Black essentialism and the internal diversity of Blacks (Oliver Wang's specialty)--which doesn't undermine Yancey's argument at all; 2) a conversation about homophobia among Blacks--as if Asian Americans who are hostile to dealing with anti-Black racism really care about BLACK queer folks; 3) the selective willingness to take
Yancey "seriously" if he writes something that could be used strategically against him in order to not take him seriously when he is making an argument that challenges the worldviews of most on the multiracial left; 4) the strategic use of President Fox's "apology" (which had to be encouraged for the sake of diplomatic relations) to discredit your commentary about Fox; and 5) the efforts to "regionalize" race relations, which is common effort to localize race rather than globalize race and is also ahistorical, hostile and serves to undermine your point about anti-black racism and blacks in the GLOBAL modern world order, which of course, also includes Oakland.

BTW, I was out in Oakland when the review was circulated and if there is any empirical evidence that is needed to support Yancey's argument, it is indeed in Oakland. How else can you explain a) that the majority of Black people are homeless; b) that most of the people attending Berkeley are white and Asian; c) that Black people appear almost invisible there to the point where you start to wonder if Black people live in the Bay; d) the ability for Asians and Latino/as to penetrate trendy, white areas and make them multiracial; and e) that Asians could own many businesses in trendy white areas, have mainly Latino/a employees and that you rarely saw Black people in these areas as a worker or customer. If you saw them at all they were mainly homeless?

In any case, Ronnie, I agree with what you are saying. If you want to chat more, please feel free to email me at tnopper@yahoo.com.

Tamara K. Nopper
Philadelphia

 
At 5/17/05, 9:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction:

In my recent post, I wrote: "that the majority of Black people are homeless." I meant to say "that the majority of homeless people are Black."

Also, I would add the following questions: what would compel Black people to work with Asian Americans? Do both groups equally benefit? Have Black people ever EQUALLY benefitted from these coalitions with non-Blacks? And why do Asian Americans seem to think that being into hip hop and slang is the same thing as actually listening to a Black person?

Tamara K. Nopper

 
At 5/17/05, 11:05 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Tamara,
Thanx for your response. My e-mail is ronnie_58@hotmail.com

I'm in the middle of class on a slow computer, so i gotta be brief...anyhoo, the reality of racism/white supremacy as a global reality is a tough nut to swallow for ANYONE who's not Black...and for those who have embraced the pseudo "Blackness" of Hip-Hop culture there is even a deeper level of denial.

 
At 5/17/05, 7:43 PM, Blogger Zentronix said...

Hey Tamara,

Since it's probably not clear from the postings, and since you're new around here--I should be clear that I'm mainly (and usually) in agreement with Ronnie. I certainly wasn't trying to "strategically discredit" or undermine his arguments. I was trying to deepen the convo. He'd shut me down if I was that dumb. You see how he shuts me down when I'm trying to act smart...

I don't disagree with most of your points about my homeplace either. There is a history to the points about Berkeley's admissions, about gentrification, and other stuff you mentioned. There are other issues to consider, like rural poverty. But the larger point you're making is right on the mark.

To me, it's been one of the most depressing things about living in California. Especially in the Bay Area, I think the ideology of multiculturalism does hinder open discussion about anti-black racism. This fact is what makes the stakes over Yancey's argument (and isn't he based in the southwest as well?)--as well as your own work--so important to discuss.

Finally, I think that the importance of principled coalition building with a focus on those most lacking is self-evident.

California and New York provide vivid, even horrific examples of what happens when such coalition work fails or is destroyed. In turn, the problem of the left of color is a microcosms of the larger problem with the left in general.

And finally, for the record, I think that a coalition of the least, coming from poor and marginalized commmunities of color working from the grassroots up--as opposed to a coalition of the willing--provides the best chance of reinvigorating a popular progressive movement.

This is never to minimize the primary question of: whom does this coalition best serve? But I think that efforts to resolve both issues have to be simultaneous, not consecutive.

Anyway, those are the assumptions that I bring to the debate...

Peace,

Jeff

 
At 5/17/05, 9:30 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Jeff,
There are two quotes from Yancey that i pulled from Ms.Nopper's review that butress my contention that building coalitions between Blacks and other people of color is what the old folks described as being "more than a notion"...#1 "The rejection of African-Americans rather than the acceptance of European Americans is the best explanation of social distance in the U.S" #2 "The informal rejection of African-Americans rather than a tendency by the majority to oppress all minority groups in a roughly equal manner is the linchpin to the American contemporary racial hierarchy"...

White Supremacy doesn't need a uniformity of color, language or culture in order to maintain its pecking order...all it needs is a "wink and a nod" from a willing immigrant group to not make any strategic alliances with African-Americans...that's why some Korean, Arab, East Indian, white Latino merchant classes have such an adversarial and exploitative presence in Black neighborhoods.

 
At 5/17/05, 9:51 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Tamara,
To answer to question about the "equality" of coalition building...i think we both know that most are one-sided, with a self-serving agenda on the part of some and usually entered into as a last resort. The history of Black folk in America is the template of every group with a beef or a cause...not to cultivate any meaningful relationship with us, but only to use our liberation struggles as a way to establish an uncontestable moral high ground.

and in regard to hip-hop and slang, that's the pseudo "Blackness" i was talkin' about...it can come of as fast as Justin Timberlake snatchin' of his kufi when pressed about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction", it's as shallow as being a corporate head of "diversity" marketing...

 
At 5/17/05, 9:57 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

...and i'm still waiting for Oliver Wang to provide some examples of Latinos and Asians seeking to make those "personal and strategic" alliances with Black folk!

 
At 5/17/05, 10:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Without agreeing or disagreeing, I do wonder about the nature of the "wink and nod". Anecdotes would do much to paint a picture. My impression is that the racism of Latinos and Asians is generally one of fear, rather than opportunism, whereas many white people are still victims of that freaky biological racism shit.

A comparison of the specific influences on, and nature of, Asian and Latino racism against Blacks -- as compared to traditional white racism against Blacks -- might be illuminating.

I want to know the nature of this new racial hierarchy before I simply write off Latinos and Asians as "the new white people". After all, that's some pretty serious slander to accuse someone of acting white ;)

 
At 5/17/05, 10:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

_eric

 
At 5/18/05, 3:29 AM, Blogger Zentronix said...

[[[#1 "The rejection of African-Americans rather than the acceptance of European Americans is the best explanation of social distance in the U.S" #2 "The informal rejection of African-Americans rather than a tendency by the majority to oppress all minority groups in a roughly equal manner is the linchpin to the American contemporary racial hierarchy"...

White Supremacy doesn't need a uniformity of color, language or culture in order to maintain its pecking order...all it needs is a "wink and a nod" from a willing immigrant group to not make any strategic alliances with African-Americans...that's why some Korean, Arab, East Indian, white Latino merchant classes have such an adversarial and exploitative presence in Black neighborhoods.]]]

Ronnie,

Yes, white supremacy adapts to different ways for different folks. Question then: how do we deal with the emergence of Black elite like Russell or Henry Louis Gates or...? Do you think they comprise a problem similar to the problems that the merchant classes you named do for those trying to move those communities in a progressive direction? Not trying to divert the question, I'm really asking honestly: How do we deal with class within our communities?

I ask this, because part of what I'm understanding here is that the critique of what Tamara calls the "multiracial left" seems to stem directly from its inability to deal with the ongoing presence and problem of the Black underclass. I also ask this in an honest attempt to try to grapple toward solutions...what do your politics say we should be doing?

 
At 5/18/05, 6:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello,

Jeff, I find your way of debating really diversion tactics. For one, just because I am "new" to your site and that you generally agree with Ronnie Brown does not mean that you are not being hostile to his commentary regarding my review. Meaning, I made my list of ways in which people are not dealing with Ronnie Brown's comments by actually reading what people are saying.

Second, do Asian Americans REALLY want to honestly deal with class? I really doubt Asian Americans want to have an honest conversation about class given that no one seems to want to address what Ronnie Brown talks about in terms of merchants, ownership, or even, the dynamics of UCal Berkeley that Jeff mentions. Asian Americans frequently try to divert stuff to class (which is a major tendency of whites, no?), but really, do they want to go there? If so, they might have to confront more than they bargained for since Asian Americans are in no way anti-capitalist (if they were, why would there be such difficulty dealing with what Ronnie Brown raises in terms of the merchants in Black neighborhoods and why do Asian Americans seem to bring up Black elites in order to avoid the conversation)?

Third, how come Asian Americans are frequently pointing out to Blacks the internal diversity among Blacks whenever Black people raise criticisms of the power and privileges of Asian Americans?

Fourth, why are people so quick to want a solution when we haven't even agreed what the problem is? What is the point of telling one a solution if that person is just trying to tell me my analysis of the problem is wrong, even when they try to do so with the empty and insincere rhetoric of coalition and political urgency?

Fifth, I am not talking about the multiracial left's problem with the "Black underclass"--I am talking about the multiracial left's problem with Black people, including the Black people often emphasized in efforts to divert conversation. A focus on the "Black underclass," is a poor attempt to divert the conversation from one of global white supremacy/anti-Black racism (which of course includes dynamics around capitalism and capital) to a multiracial working-class model. The latter model is one that can dismiss the power and privileges that even poor Southeast Asians have over Blacks, including the richer ones people tend to quickly emphasize, just by virtue of not being Black.

Indeed, the urgency around poor Southeast Asians is in itself made possible through the naturalization of Black suffering. Here's an article I wrote regarding this issue:

http://www.aamovement.net/viewpoints/2000-03%20archive/camb_deport1.htm

Perhaps the questions I pose should not be answered right away and maybe just thought about.

Tamara K. Nopper
Philadelphia

 
At 5/18/05, 6:39 AM, Blogger Zentronix said...

LOL. Hey Tamara, if you find my "debate" diversionary it's probably cause I'm not debating, I'm trying to be persuaded. Gotta run right now, but more soon...

 
At 5/18/05, 9:40 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

(Warning: This is really long)

Ronnie,

Not avoiding your query but even though Jeff is like blood to me, I only have time to check his blog once a week or so. Onward:

1) Are you saying that in the history of American race relations there have never been Latino or Asian American organizations/individuals who've sought to forge meaningful political, cultural and social relations with African Americans? Your incredulity at my point would seem to suggest that we live in a world of absolute divisions and segregations.

Just so I'm not ambigious about this Ronnie: we don't all get along. Most of the time, our communities are jockeying for position in either explicit conflict with one another, or at the very least, our gains equate to other folk's losses. But there's a long history of anti-racist organizations and individuals that have TRIED (notice, I did not say "succeed") in bridging that gap.

And yes, I agree, most anti-racist social movements have used various Black-led movements as a template. And yes, I agree, most of those movements have come up in short in truly building meaningful solidarity across racial lines.

But to suggest that genuine (whatever that word means here) attempts don't exist between black/latino/asian communities seems to be a bit of an overstatement, no? This is what Amanda Davis raises in her essay too.

Let me throw out a few names since you ask:
Yuri Kochiyama
Grace Lee Boggs
Jeff Chang
Fred Ho *cough cough*

Also, keep in mind, I'm not a social movement scholar: holler at one of my former schoolmates like Dylan Rodriguez if you want a longer list. I just dropped the first four names that came to me.

(This is where I'd normally invoke the names of Vijay Prashad, Robin Kelley and George Lipsitz, aka the Holy Trinity of race/culture scholars, but I'll leave "polyculturalism" at home today).

2) Also Ronnie, I was wondering if you might address the point I made earlier: that if there's a divide b/t Black/Latino identities/communities, it's perpetuated on BOTH sides. You may want to embrace what we typically talk about as the "Latino community" is really just Black (insofar as most of that population can trace African ancestry) but my sense of it - and this is absolutely open to correction - is that most Black Americans don't automatically presume that Dominicans or Puerto Ricans or Panamanians, etc. are "Black" like they are simply on the basis of skin color. Mind you: I might be overusing New York as a template since the segregation of different racial AND national groups is more pronounced there.

As you probably know, in the Bay Area, the main Latino population is Chicano, most of whom have ancestral roots that are a mestizo mix of Native and Spanaird but not as African-derived compared to the Caribbean context. I doubt many of them would self-identify as African American not just out of racism but out of the fact that they don't have African roots.

By the way Ronnie (or Tamara since she's now in the mix), I'm curious how you'd respond to some of the arguments put forward by PR scholars like Juan Flores and Raquel Rivera that Blacks only include Puerto Ricans amongst their ranks when it serves their purpose but in other contexts, will seek to separate themselves. (Mind you - I'm not suggesting that PRs don't play a leading role in that separation as well.)

And Ronnie, I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the expanding competition and tension b/t African Americans and recently arrived West Indian and African immigrants. To me, this is evidence that the category of "Blackness" is becoming increasingly destablized - not to the point of racial erasure (I mean, c'mon) but at least falling more into line with the kind of fractured/Balkanized identity structure that pan-ethnic communities like Natives, Latinos and Asian Americans have dealt with.

To me, this is what the future of race relations (intra and inter) is going to increasingly resemble, for better or for worse.

 
At 5/18/05, 9:41 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5/18/05, 9:58 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5/18/05, 10:03 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

I'm going to take it back to Yancey's main argument (at least on how Tamara expounds it): the biggest fundamental flaw I see in his thesis is that just b/c Latinos and Asians aspire for the privilege of whiteness (I don't fundamentally disagree with Yancey on this, by the way) doesn't mean they actually attain a state of honorary whiteness.

My postulation from my first post in this thread was that, if anything, I think we might very well see an re-entrenchment of virulently exclusionary white identity as that population begins to feel shrunken and squeezed. Look at the popularity of red neck humor by Larry the Cable Guy. Dude is tapping into a lot of anxiety around the steadily shrinking white population. Are they going to open their arms to embrace their brown and yellow brethren, just to swell their ranks?

I seriously doubt that.

I'm more open to Yancey's idea that, as whites do fall back, it's more likely to be Asians and Latinos taking their spots - whether in physical spaces (housing patterns, business ownership) or a more abstract social/cultural sense. But to me, this doesn't make them white. I think what I would have wnated to see from an analysis like Yancey's is a more nuanced and complex discussion of race that doens't reduce it (as it always seems to be) to Black/White.

The defining colorline in the 21st century, to me, is emerging along at least three fronts, not just two.

 
At 5/18/05, 10:28 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

I'm on a roll...

Tamara asks, "Third, how come Asian Americans are frequently pointing out to Blacks the internal diversity among Blacks whenever Black people raise criticisms of the power and privileges of Asian Americans?"

Example? I'm assuming you're tossing this my way since this is, of course, "my speciality". Fine, I'll bite.

You're confusing two completely different issues at play here so let me spell this out:

First of all, I think it is perfectly reasonable for "Black people to raise criticism of the power and privilege of Asian Americans." We do not live in an equal society and I agree that Asian Americans enjoy certain privileges of power that African Americans do not (moreover, such privileges are often enjoyed AT THE EXPLICIT EXPENSE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS).

(Sidebar: I've had a convo with Jared Sexton about whether or not Asian Americans are less disenfranchised than Blacks when it comes to notions of American citizenship. That's a whole 'nother topic but an interesting one).

Second, the reason I raise the internal diversity of the African American community is because it seems to me that folks like Yancey are presuming that the Black community is a monolithic whole, lacking in any fractures that might suggest that to talk about Blackness in our contemporary moment requires more complexity and nuance that he and others seem willing to concede. (Ok, that was a really bad run-on sentence but hopefully, you get my drift)

I guess this is reflective of my larger concern with Yancey's argument: that it's flat and reductionist. As Ronnie and Lizz's posts point out, there's considerable debate over racial categories such as Latino and Black to begin with and as you (Tamara) point out, how can you talk about the solution if you can't adequately articulate the problem. To me, it's problematic to talk about Blacks vs. Latinos vs. Asians if those categories themselves are in play. I think for all of us concerned, there's some common sense definitions being brought to bear but even that's reflective of hegemonic categories imposed on us as well, no?

Again, please see my first point above: I am absolutely not denying that severe, systemic inequality exists. But please don't conflate my asking the second question with a denial of the first. to me, they are two comletely diferent issues. I tend to write about them together however because I question the logic that there is a unified Black stance about race relations when the very definition of Blackness is already contested terrain - now more than ever.

To put it another way, if some Blacks don't think West Indians should have access to the same social resources that they do (note: we're mostly talking about middle class privileges such as college scholarships, work grants, etc.), I actually think this would serve to collapse some of the social distance between Blacks and non-Black people of color (NBPOC - terrible acronym, I'm open to an improvement) and suggest that what we're seeing is less a battle between four food groups and more about dozens of skirmishes being found both intra and interracially.

I mean, why not write a book about how Ethopians and Somalians are the new whites? Using Yancey's scale of educational/employment achivement and ambition + rejection of traditional Black American communities/culture, I think one could easily make the argument that you have an emergent generation of White Blacks that's different from earlier generational debates around the split b/t the Black bourgie and the underclass (Bill Cosby, holla.)

But you know what? Jared once argued to me that what Asian Americans want, more than anything, is to stop being treated as "the enemy." And it's a bitter pill to admit this, but yeah, many times, w are enemies and not allies as we might want to think otherwise. I suppose, the sooner we can all agree on that, the sooner we can all begin on changing it.

However, my point is that there are "enemies" all around us and therefore, if you're going to talk about improving race relations, it's going to take a larger scorecard than just one with four or five columns.

 
At 5/18/05, 11:07 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Jeff,
I've admired your work from afar for many a year. We have mutual friends in both the writer's fraternity and in our personal life...and of course, we've met (however briefly) face to face. For me, there's no need to qualify your honesty, it's a given. I did not consider your inquiry "hostile" or "evasive" as such...perhaps a better definition might be what Tamara described as attempting to come up with a solution without having come to a comprehensive agreement of what the problem actually is.

 
At 5/18/05, 1:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of you shut up!

United we stand, divided we have fallen and are continuing to fall!

Put the color shit aside (cuz from this convo the white man got all of you hooked on his wacko race shit) and let's organize to take this land back and create a better future-send whitey back to europe for starters.

 
At 5/18/05, 1:27 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
thanx for checkin' in. I'll address the issues you brought up as soon as i get home from work. Needless to say i approach this topic from many levels, but my main concern is that we resist the temptation to engage in a circular arguement. Mankind has imposed caste systems upon each other from the beginning of time. Post 1492 racism/white supremacy is just the latest in a long line. Thing is, folks get a little shakey talkin' about it depending on your place in it. I'd rather cut around the soft talk and declare "it is, what it is" and deal with this thing straight up.

This is why i can appreciate Tamara's approach to this topic...not that she needs any defense from me, but i like the way she holds folks feet to the fire; for to long these discussions get bogged down in scholarly tit for tat...okay back to work, i'll get backatcha later...

 
At 5/18/05, 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm ready to deal with this thing straight up.

Where's my To Do list?

;) eric

 
At 5/18/05, 5:27 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Jeff,
i don't know how long you'll be in NYC, but if you were able to get in contact with Rosa Clemente and direct her to this blog, i believe she would be able to offer a unique perspective from a Afro-Latino viewpoint...

 
At 5/18/05, 5:28 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Ronnie,

Believe me, the last thing I want to get into is a post-structuralist argument where we end up talking about "the perceiver's perception of the perceived" or some other rhetorical nonsense.

However, when you talk about "it is what it is", would it be fair to say that *this* is what it is?

Whites = oppressors
Blacks = oppressed
Latinos/Asians = wanna-be oppressors

I'm not being defensive in asking this - just seeking clarification.

 
At 5/18/05, 7:14 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
I can appreciate your desire for clarification; and i don't fault you for askin', but your question reminds me of the angst/anxiety expressed by white folks during my years of activist work dealing with issues of racism/white supremacy. So-called well- meaning whites couldn't grasp the simple concept of white privilege because the only thing that could come out of their mouth was: "you're not talkin' about me, right?"

Maybe i'm a little jaded, but is it really necessary to state for the record that ALL whites are NOT the oppressor and ALL Latinos/Asians are NOT the next oppressors waiting in the wings?

 
At 5/18/05, 7:50 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
In regard to the questions you brought up in your recent posts, i (for the purposes of not getting sidetracked from the meat of the matter) will give you the short stack...

1. Of course there have been Asian-American/Latino activists partnering in the struggle...Yuri Kochiyama lived and breathed the spirit of Malcolm X, the Young Lords, Brown Berets, etc...but i'm not concerned about the EXCEPTIONS to the rule.

2.Issues of identification and cooperation between members of the African diaspora (African-Americans, Afro-Caribbeans, Afro-Latinos and Africans from the Motherland) are an "in-house" discussion. For the purposes of clarifing the pervasiveness of GLOBAL anti-black sentiment, the Black community/diaspora IS A MONOLITHIC WHOLE, group fractures nonwithstanding...

 
At 5/18/05, 8:10 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

For me, white privilege and honorary white status/anti-Black anxiety is summed up like this: You're in a fancy eatery w/your girl, suited and booted, dressed to impress...the couple ahead of you is being led to their table, while on the way they slip on a wet spot on the floor and ebonically speaking, bust they ass!...and the only thing runnin' through your mind is: "i'm glad it wasn't me!"...

honorary white status for people of color is simply this: you won't receive all the benefits of being in the white club, you may get snubbed or profiled from time to time, but at the very least, YOU BE TREATED AS BAD AS BLACK PEOPLE!

it is, what it is...you feelin' me now?

 
At 5/18/05, 8:12 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

correction: "you won't be treated as bad as Black people"...

 
At 5/18/05, 9:55 PM, Blogger Zentronix said...

damn yall. i've been out all day to do two hip-hop aesthetics events--sister rosa was at one of them today actually--and yall take it to an entirely different level! i was already trying to process tamara and ronnie and now it's gonna take me a week to catch up. gimme a minute.

btw ronnie--never any worries, peace.

 
At 5/18/05, 11:18 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Ronnie,

I had a much longer reply but deleted it because it wasn't turning out very constructive.

As you note, the problem with these convos is that they tend to get circular and I think, in the process, we do get - as you write - "jaded" because we presume we're hearing the same questions and answers being stated over and over. To be candid, I've felt that way about your comments in this thread which is why I sought clarification but I fear that, in that process, I ended up coming off overly defensive. I tried to take pains not to be and I'm personally appalled that I would come off on some "ain't I a special white boy?" whine ala Upski's essay. Clearly, I've done a bad job of clarifying my own position.

Alas, the hour is late and I still have other work that needs to be done. I'll try to pick this back up tomorrow.

 
At 5/19/05, 1:18 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
Comin' to an understanding for the process of solutions is a "push/pull" process. We're supposed to be allies, right? My comments may be redundant, tis' true...but i say, why ask new questions if you can't deal with the answers you've already received?

The hour is late...i just typed this post after waking up from falling asleep at the keyboard.

tomorrow is a new day...

 
At 5/19/05, 6:22 AM, Blogger Zentronix said...

Our boy Lalo takes on Fox.

 
At 5/19/05, 8:01 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

Tamara,

You ask: "And why do Asian Americans seem to think that being into hip hop and slang is the same thing as actually listening to a Black person?"

The question that comes to mind is: who are you talking about? You're painting with an incredibly broad brush and while I certainly don't disagree that many people confuse cultural consumerism with actual social contact, it'd be helpful to know who you're talking about.

Kids on the street?
Rappers with contracts?
Spoken word poets on the circuit?

If if it's all of the above, in what instances have they conflated their adoption of Black cultural style with meaningful social contact and solidarity?

Moreover, I agree that it's absolutely foolish to presume that the adoption of a culture equates to acceptance of the community that created said culture. However, you seem to suggest this is unique to ALL Asian Americans whereas I'd argue this is a larger problem with cultural consumerism in America, writ large. None of this minimizes the importance of what you're raising - I just think if we're going to talk about the problem, let's talk about the problem. To me, ignorant Asians dropping ebonicized slanguage is as troubling as dumb ass white folks with kanji tats or Blacks who use kung fu films as their sole point of cultural contact with Asians.

(Disclaimer: in stating the above, I am not saying that we all are equal in social standing to begin with. Cultural appropriation is obviously relative to positions of power and inequality but I don't see that distinction being made anyways).

 
At 5/19/05, 8:42 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

Jeff,

Is that sambo-esque character a Mexican pop culture icon, I presume?

Ronnie,

I ask new questions because I'm not fully understanding the old answers. It's not because I'm unwilling to listen to or accept unpopular wisdom. Believe me, I'm not trying to desperately hold onto the traditional pluralist, multiculturalist position that's been the idealized norm in American race relations. Even though Fred Ho thinks otherwise, my dept. at Cal (Ethnic Studies) hardly practices a pluralist approach and if race relations within our dept. is any indication, we've already entered a heady new world racial order.

But what I find dissatisfying about Yancey is not primarily his conclusions (though I do think he passes over some important areas of inquiry but I don't want to get sidetracked into them). The question that naturally comes to mind is, "ok, now what?" If the new race relations paradigm (or maybe it's just been there all along?) is not white/non-white but rather, black/non-black, what do we do with that realization? How do anti-racist movements retune their strategies? How do communities of color build meaningful relationships with one another if, at the core, everyone is trying to distance themselves from Blacks?

Simply naming the problem doesn't intuitively produce answers to those sets of questions, which to me, is the more important issue at hand. Sure, you can't work out as solution until you've named the problem but personally, I've already heard this problem detailed before. I'm still waiting on the solution.

The only thing that's been suggested to me is - and this is a direct quote - "a dictatorship of the black masses." Provided, I understand that the term "dictatorship" is being used in the Marxist fashion (i.e. Marx's dicatatorship of the proletariat) but you can appreciate, for rhetorical reasons, why this doesn't sound like a great marketing slogan for inter-ethnic cooperation.

 
At 5/19/05, 8:48 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

I went back to a series of long emails Jared and I exchanged, much of which touches on the topic at hand here and I pulled out this comment too which I found provocative:

"unless and until black political motion and movement can again
become popular (and mass-based, a grassroots mobilization), other
communities will find themselves spinning their wheels."

 
At 5/19/05, 5:10 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

"How do communities of color build meaningful relationships with one another if, at the core, everyone is trying to distance themselves from Blacks?"


Oliver,
You've asked the $64,000 question, my man!...You've basically summed up America's race relations paradigm: white/non-white/Black...

This is white supremacy's pecking order...nothin' new, just puttin' out into the open... language, cultural appropriation, "diversity" represent no threat to the status quo because these are categories people can lose themselves in while at the same time toeing the caste line; not even seeing the contradiction. That's why a Black elite can be created and maintained without doing damage to the racist superstructure. Please believe you can cop Black cultural style (language, dress, art, etc.) and not respect Black people!

That's why Tamara's question( "Why do Asians seem to think being into hip-hop is the same thing as actually listening to a Black person?") is so relevant...

That's why Hip-Hop has yet to become the politically unifing force we all hoped that it would become.

Yancy's premise is not new. Richard Pryor called it in his 1975 "new niggers" routine...For me, Yancy is puttin' a fresh shine on a very old car...

 
At 5/19/05, 7:33 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Since we're being candid here and telling things as they are, let me just say that a question like, "Why do Asians seem to think being into hip-hop is the same thing as actually listening to a Black person?" is both leading and reductive. You might as well just ask, instead, "Why are Asians so racist and stupid?" since the question, the way it's worded, clearly implies both.

If the issue is about cultural appropriation, let's state it correctly:

In an age of rampant cultural commodification, how can we get people to stop confusing cultural consumption with social interaction?

And more importantly, how can we use popular culture as a way to forge contact between different communities? (I'm thinking of "contact" here in the way that Samuel Delany describes it in "Red Square, Blue Square" - as meaningful intereaction between people who would otherwise be forced apart by social divisions.)

In other words, you can't stop cultural consumption - that's going to occur regardless of the balance of power, regardless of moral authority. However, you can find ways of using that consumption as a beginning to enact real contact, rather than the vicarious, virtual experience that attracts people to begin with.

I think hip-hop offers that potential but as I'm sure most of us would agree - it's very rarely realized. I do think performers are more likely to take advantage of the opportunity for contact but I agree - the "average fan" is either unaware of the potential or unwilling to see it through. It also doesn't help that hip-hop audiences are becoming more specialized, and thus separated, as time goes on.

Ok, hip-hop aside, the $64,000 question is still on the table. Any takers?

 
At 5/19/05, 8:50 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
On first glance, Tamara's question didn't strike me as racist and stupid ( though your opinion is as valid as any)...as much as it brought into focus the ability of humans to compartmentalize our interaction with each other. We can harbor racial bias and stereotypes against certain people and at the same time imitate and enjoy the cultural contributions of the same.

Substitute "Asian" for any other ethnic group, it makes no difference.

I respectfully challenge you and Jeff to pose that "$64,000 question" to your readership. Perhaps then we will see efforts to promote meaningful coalitions among communities of color finally gain some traction...

 
At 5/19/05, 10:45 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Ronnie,

You misread my comment. I didn't say that Tamara's question was either racist or stupid.

What I said was that her question presumed that Asians into hip-hop were racist and stupid.

And I'd be happy to post my question to my blog but seriously, I'd be a little scared as to the answers that most of them would float out. Jeff's readership, from what I've seen, tends to be a bit smarter on race issues than my readers.

 
At 5/20/05, 2:51 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
The presumption that Asians (or any other white/non-black group)into Hip-Hop were racist and stupid was what i was referring to...sorry i didn't make that clear.

In regard to posing your question to your readership, your anxiety about the responses that may come forth would seem to prove the point i was trying to make; that it IS possible to indulge with great fervor the cultural phenomenon that is Hip-Hop (or jazz, blues, R&B for that matter) without having a corresponding respect for the people who brought it into existence.

You may feel like your readership is not up to the challenge, but it's a conversation that has to take place; the music conference, the clasroom, wherever...

If not, any talk about forming "coalitions" is just spittin' in the wind, no?

 
At 5/20/05, 7:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Oliver Wang's interpretation of my question is hyperbolic at best and racist at worst. It attempts to treat the question as not a real or substantial question that is at best, misleading and confused. But it is a genuine question that is open to anyone to consider and one that of course Black people have been raising for a long time. The fact that many of these questions are indeed old questions, reveals not so much the trite nature of academic or intellectual work, but more so that they have yet to be substantially dealt with in real and meaningful ways from non-Blacks.

More, I think that the way in which hip hop is talked about reveals in many ways the problematic ways in which people are willing to see anything Black consumed and will defend or "explain it" by saying that is the nature of cultural consumption/commodification, which is NOT a natural or inevitable process but becomes so when we treat it as such. However, why is it that when Asian Americans feel that their "culture" is being transgressed or disrespected, suddenly the boundaries of culture are real and should be respected? Why is it that anti-globalization movement activists can simultaneously defend boundaries and borders and the sanctity of culture AND use hip hop or appropriate slogans and slangs from Black people to do it and defend it by using a pro-capitalist and pro-globalization commentary? The rhetoric of pro-globalizationists and pro-capitalists is one in which no boundaries will deter consumption. This is not to suggest that everyone who has participated in this conversation on this blog is part of the anti-globalization movement but it is to point out some seeming contradictions that are common among the left.

Kenyon Farrow, an activist and writer in NY, addresses these issues in his piece "We Real Cool?: On Hip-hop, Asian-Americans, Black Folks, and Appropriation"

http://www.nathanielturner.com/werealcoolkenyon.htm

In Farrow's piece, Oliver Wang is mentioned. In other spaces, Wang has attempted to discount what Farrow has said by arguing that Farrow is misrepresenting what he is saying or that he never said what Farrow said he did. It is problematic that a non-Black has to legitimize a Black person's argument, but I was there at the event that Farrow writes about and what Farrow says happened indeed did.

Tamara K. Nopper
Philadelphia

 
At 5/20/05, 12:49 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Tamara,

80% of what Kenyon had to say in that essay are either points that I completely agree with, or at least, think are valid for debate. However, the remainder of his essay was a blatant (and uncalled for) ad hominem attack on me.

I never wrote a single disparaging thing about Kenyon prior to him writing the "We Real Cool" essay but in that piece, he goes after me on a level that belittling and unprofessional. After 13+ years at UC Berkeley, I know that many activists treat the concept of "civility" as so much bullshit, but Kenyon's pettiness was hardly warranted.

As for my reaction to your question: to ask a question that's worded as, "why do [insert ethnic group here] do [insert activity here]?" is rather hyperbolic itself since it exaggerates the issue as to flatten any differences.

At the very least, it's not the kind of critically precise language which such an important question would demand. At worst, it's makes troubling presumptions about entire communities, Asian or otherwise.

As for whether cultural consumption is "natural" - I never used that term. "Inevitable" is more open to debate. Not to get all Adorno up in here, but within the logic of capitalism and a mercantile democracy, once any cultural form enters into the modern mediascape, it's commodification is practically impossible to prevent so long as there is a desire out there for it. (See my next post, following this one).

What we can do, however, is problematize it and I think you, I, Jeff, Ronnie, and many, many others have done our share to attempt to crtique the process in which commodification happens and the negative consequences as such.

Now this is where I think we crucially differ and please correct me if I misrepresent your views here:

Your priority seems to me to be to focus on naming the problem. I'm not just thinking about what you've written here, but also that essay you circulated about Asian American rapper and spoken word artists. Personally, I don't agree with all the conclusions you draw in that essay, but I agree with some of the core points you're trying to make clear, especially around the peril of what one might call "non-strategic anti-essentialism" though I'm fairly certain you didn't use that term.

I don't think we need to rehash what those perils are (and believe it or not Tamara, but I'm probably far closer in agreement to many of your views than you might presume). Suffice to say though, uncritical appropriation and adoption of cultural forms can often times unwittingly replicate hierachies of power and social inequalities even though, on the surface, one might think the syncretism is wholly positive.

I freely admit - in some of my previous writing and work, I could have stated this more clearly and perhaps my mistake is that I too easily presumed that everyone else out there knows that un-strategic anti-essentialism = bad.

However, my main focus these days is still on what I wrote earlier: how do find ways to turn popular culture forms into transformative tools that help build meaningful (i.e. non-exploitative) relationships betwen communities.

In my experience with scholars, critics, activists, etc., naming the problem is something we excel at (getting people to listen? Not so easy). But my question is: ok, what comes after naming the problem? These are, as Ronnie said, the $64,000 questions. Maybe that's why I'm not really struck by Yancey's points (well, that and I disagree with some of his basic assumptions): I'm far more interested to know what he thinks "we" should do with his ideas. Is he advocating for Black liberation movement people to treat Latinos and Asians are competitors rather than allies? Is he suggesting that we need greater outreach between communities to rebuild commonalities lost to the seduction of honorary white status?

Back to hip-hop: I agree with you Tamara, there's many Asian American youth out there who adopt hip-hop without also adopting a firm commitment to building relationships with African Americans. In simpler terms: they like the style, just not the people. And yes, this is incredibly problematic, not just morally speaking, but it does no service to help improve relations between communities have so much emnity already stored up.

Can hip-hop become a tool that can transform this one way, one-sided relationship? And if so, how?

--O.W.

 
At 5/20/05, 1:31 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

One more thing about hip-hop and commodification:

A colleague of mine who does ethnography on hip-hop artists pointed out to me that the actual PRODUCERS of hip-hop music almost never complain about hip-hop's diverse appeal. The cliche (which isn't to say that it isn't true to them) is, "I want my music to be heard by everyone."

I'm not at all briging this up to negate the ways in which we can or should problematize some of what's going on with that appeal (i.e. the fetishiziation of black masculinity, et. al.) nor its limitations (the oft-mentioned "I'll buy your record but I won't sit next to you on the bus").

What I think this points out though is that hip-hop's complicity with capitalism happened the moment Sylvia Robinson decided to put out "Rapper's Delight" - itself as blatant an attempt at "manufactured authenticity" as you could imagine - and hip-hop went from being a dying street culture on Bronx blocks to something people could actually put into physical form (i.e. commodities like records or cassettes or shoes, etc.) That crucial moment is when hip-hop didn't begin so much as was reborn - but importantly, it was reborn THROUGH capital, not despite it.

Therefore, if hip-hop's commodification is "inevitable" then, maybe it's because its public face was only made possible through capitalist modes of distribution, which, once entered, strikes a Faustian bargain that cannot be reneged on. The genie doesn't move backwards, only to the east, blackwards (apologies to X-Clan).

The legacy of that today is how, as I noted, even those rappers who rail against rampant consumerism and cultural co-optation: they still want their albums to sell. How can you hope to stop commodification in the face of those kinds of contradictions?

Moreover, if hip-hop is seen as a repoistory and signifier of black public culture, that's only come into our common awareness vis-a-vis the machinery of capital. When kids were throwing park jams alongside the Bronx River in '76, it's not as if hip-hop, as a cultural form, existed in other black communities simultaneously. That only happened when hip-hop became an object that other black youth - from the projects to the 'burbs - were able to acquire and circulate - along with everyone else. And like I said, once that happened, it's not as if you could selectively dictate who could "be down" and who couldn't, not with any real authority at least.

So, if we're really going to name the problem, we can't just point at the consumer and say, "wrong!" You'd also have to include, in that critique, every participant who abetted hip-hop's distribution and proliferation: from Sylvia Robinson to DJ Red Alert to Crazy Legs to Russell Simmons as well as Martha Cooper, Rick Rubin, and Lyor Cohen (just to name a tiny, tiny handful).

In other words, if it's morally right to problematize the ways in which people consume hip-hop un-critically, it's also necessary to include producers into that critique as well. And I think, in doing so, one would develop a far more nuanced understanding of how hip-hop functions in American society.

I got one more thing to add about what the question of hip-hop and "deracialization" but the baby's fussing. Gotta run.

And hey - where did Jeff go? I want to hear his two cents on all this.

 
At 5/20/05, 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

interesting... i'd like to hear more about this. debate on~!... gtg class.

 
At 5/21/05, 6:29 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

you'd think after all these posts there would be more individuals who would attempt to answer the question : "Are Asians and Latinos just a different kind of white?"

well...are they?

 
At 5/21/05, 10:54 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Ronnie,

Answer = no.

 
At 5/22/05, 6:30 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
A question that has yet to go beyond the confines of this blog into the public discourse cannot be answered with such certainty...unless you are just referring to yourself, of course.


it's a hard question; cuts right to the bone.

 
At 5/22/05, 5:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nopper says:

"Contrary to the popular image of blacks as racially restrictive, Yancey discovers that black respondents are the most open to all other races."

and

"he labels a white racial identity, which, according to the sociologist, emphasizes individualism, color-blindness or an aversion to dealing with race, and a belief in European cultural normativity."

At first I thought there was some contradiction here, maybe not, could someone explain this to me?... Aren't black people exhibiting these traits more and more often?

Also, when did anti-capitalism become essential to being black? Sounds like pretty imaginative idealism to me.

-vince

 
At 5/22/05, 10:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

speaking on the behalf of my asian people, more specifically Chinese people, I'd say no. Why, no? Having taken Chinese history courses (@ a UC), how historians took down history and deemed things as Chinese, one must adopt customs/culture to BE Chinese. Essentially, one can be of Chinese descent but one can be viewed as Non-Chinese because one is not actively BEing Chinese. From the Shang Dynasty to Qing Dynasty, there have been about only 5-6 ethnic Chinese Dynasty, the rest (about 12) where non-ethnic Chinese rule. But why did we (Chinese folks) take them down and deemed them (non-ethnic Chinese folks) as the 'sons of Heaven'. It is because the conquerors adopted our culture/customs to the extend to be deemed as "Chinese". Since I haven't (nor do I now desire to read Yancey's book cuz, as the kids say, "ain't feelin it") I do not know how he defines 'whiteness' but speaking for the people, being Chinese is the sh!t.
my two cents
-like_water

 
At 5/22/05, 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"how historians took down history "
*Chinese Historians that is

-like_water

 
At 5/23/05, 8:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie- "A question that has yet to go beyond the confines of this blog into the public discourse cannot be answered with such certainty..."
Yet to go beyond this blog? The question of identity, the color line, and where to place oneself relative to it is CONSTANTLY in a state of being interpreted, and actualized for Asians and Latinos alike. In high school, in college, in the workplace, in the streets, in hip-hop, in prison.

I've been harassed by LAPD, and when responding with my race (mixed Asian) the officers get confused... they wanted me to be what I looked like, Latino, in order to justify classifying me as a gangbanger and car thief right off the bat.

My afghani friend is sometimes grouped with Chicanos while in the system. Is he 'just a different kind of Chicano' because of this? No. In fact that conclusion sounds almost infantile in its simplicity. The way classification is designed in many key points in our society (institutions - from prison to universities) force groups to either remain distinct or meld together based on convenience. My incarcerated friend is not Chicano, but looks more Chicano than Asian, White, or Black, so they put him with the Mexicans in the system. Conversely, at many universities, NYU to use an example, you have a whole office dedicated to the workings of the community of color, grouping Asians and Latinos with Blacks as 'people of color'. In academia, it serves to keep Whiteness the status quo, and thus all of the minorities are given an office for their own affairs, collectively. (although frats and such remain completely distinct - the Latino frat, the Asian frat, the Black frat, and then the mostly white mixed frats - this hints at the different levels of racial grouping in academic / work life versus social / recreational life).

Do whites seek to incorporate Asians and Latinos into their sphere of influence when it benefits them or when they see themselves as potentially isolated and vulnerable? yes. Do Asians and Latinos take advantage of the benefits of 'extended whiteness' whenever possible? Yes, oftentimes. Does this mean they are 'just a different kind of white'? No. Stop being ridiculous. This theory is offensive to people like me.

 
At 5/23/05, 10:12 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Anonymous,

your question: "Do Asians and Latinos take advantage of the benefits of "extended whiteness" whenever possible?"

your answer: "Yes, oftentimes."


Now, what's more offensive or ridiculous, the theory of being considered a "different kind of white" or ACTUALLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE BENEFITS OF "EXTENDED WHITENESS"???...

 
At 5/23/05, 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie - You're misunderstanding me. Racial naivety comes from equating all minorities together, not accepting that it is a reality that Latinos and Asians often enjoy some degree of preference / coddling by whites. Without EVEN REALIZING, at this VERY MOMENT I might be taking advantage of some 'extended whiteness', because oftentimes this extends from the side of whites, rather than Asians or Latinos, who have a more clear cut self-realized ethnic identity through socialization (as opposed to whites who are raised with a consciousness of simply being 'the norm'). I am willing to accept that, despite how I categorize MYSELF, that the status of 'a different kind of white' is being applied to me without me even being aware. NOTABLY, IN THIS CASE it is being applied BY AN AFRICAN AMERICAN PROFESSOR. Is it unrealistic to assume that I might also be unknowingly categorized as 'honorary white' by whites as well (a phenomenon which Yancey supposedly writes about as an objective observor, rather than a person making his own judgments) and be treated preferentially? Shoot, I can give plenty examples of being labeled, Samoan, Light-Skinned black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and White, all with their own special consequences given the circumstance (believe me white was far from my favorite). I don't know if you've ever sat in an interview and had some white guy physically cross out your name and say 'we have to anglicize this', but I for one have experienced that. But hey, I get the 'honorary black' thing applied to me too. So 'call it what you want'.

 
At 5/23/05, 11:35 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Anonymous,

I don't understand the misunderstanding...Acknowledging the fact that Asians and Latinos can and do take advantage of the social spoils "extended whiteness" offers automatically makes one the exception that proves the rule by virtue of the choice one makes.

For the purposes of being complicit with white supremacy, "white is (honorary or otherwise) as white does"...

 
At 5/23/05, 12:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

'white is as white does' is NOT the protocol of white supremacy, White is something that comes STRICTLY with genetics and birthright in white supremacist doctrines.

Whatever extending notion of whiteness beyond genetics is really taking place on the side of power structures outward, isn't it? Isn't that what defines racism from prejudice: the social power to enforce an attitude economically, socially, politically? Can we realistically say that it is indeed Asians and Latinos making political decisions to alienate Blacks? Really, Yancey is not objective at all about this issue, or he would take into account that Asians and Latinos mostly SEE THEMSELVES as distinct from Whites culturally. Instead he is telling us that Asians and Latinos, despite their cultural differences, are, to him, 'another type of white'. To me, that's like a white girl telling me I must be Puerto Rican because I'm too tall to actually be Asian. All types of problematic. It's a conclusion that is drawn with too little contact made with either community, I feel.

 
At 5/23/05, 1:29 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Anonymous,

In an earlier post, i defined whiteness as real or imagined STATUS. When i use the phrase "white is as white does", i'm sayin
that anyone who chooses to accept provisional or honorary white status (which includes a conscious decision to not make any personal or political alliances with Black people) is, for all intents and purposes, acting as a white person.

 
At 5/23/05, 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alright, all is well, then. I agree with you.

 
At 5/23/05, 3:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie,

Are you suggesting that when Asians and Latinos accept their "honorary and provisional whiteness," they will be ready to join forces with Black people and eliminate racism?

_eric

 
At 5/23/05, 3:37 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Eric,
Not in the least! It's when Asians and Latinos can acknowledge that they have been offered and accepted from time to time honorary white status...and are ready to RENOUNCE it. When that becomes a reality, meaningful coalitions among people of color and principled whites won't seem so far fetched.

 
At 5/23/05, 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess then it comes down to how one renounces white status.

Alas, if only my own whiteness were merely honorary and provisional. ;)

I guess I can settle for being "principled".

_eric

 
At 5/23/05, 4:27 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Eric,

some tips from a friend of mine:
http://www.racetraitor.org

 
At 5/23/05, 7:19 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Ronnie,

I was being tongue-in-cheek with my curt reply. I don't think that, as a whole, the Asian and Latino communities are a different kind of white. Not that I don't appreciate the nuances to Yancey's argument but his definition of what "whiteness" entails isn't the same as mine.

I'll try to expound on this more when I have some time.

But quick Q: while I think we can all agree that the whole of the Black community cannot have honorary whiteness conferred upon it, are there sufficient exceptions to such a rule? In other words, are there any Blacks who possess a "different kind of white" privilege? BTW, I'm not asking in order to say that the exception proves the rule. I just want to know what the rules of whiteness are in this construction.

 
At 5/23/05, 8:39 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
Firstly, I would say Asians and Latinos aren't a "different kind of white" only to the degree that they choose to reject any offers of "honorary white" status.

Secondly, under this present racist economy, Black people are viewed as PERMANENT opposition. What we are offered is a type of conditional freedom as a OVERSEER, a colonial middleman; a buffer between the Anglo-American ruling class and the Black masses...this is the purpose of the Black elite/"Black Leadership.

This "leadership" is given one mandate. To discourage the Black masses from seeking any remedy apart from a integration/assimilation model.

The history of our people in America is written in blood. Those of us who encouraged Black folk to INDEPENDENT struggle with or without allies were marginalized or MURDERED...Marcus Garvey-marginalized, Robert Williams-marginalized, Medgar Evers-murdered, Malcolm X-murdered, Martin Luther King-murdered, Nat Turner-murdered, John Brown-murdered, etc., etc., etc.

Black leadership/elites for the most part are only interested in "better treatment or opportunity" under the status quo. You will certainly live longer than most.

I liken it to the family dog chained to a tree in your backyard. You at some point in time may allow more slack in the chain so the dog can move with more freedom in the yard...but the dog is still chained!...the dog is not free!!

 
At 5/23/05, 8:49 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

and one more thing Oliver, I finally got around to reading the "We Real Cool?" piece by Kenyon Farrow and your rebuttal. If i had been at that "Changing the Face of The Game, Asian Americans in Hip-Hop" panel discussion, i would have jumped in with both feet just for the title alone...but that's a discussion for another time...

 
At 5/24/05, 9:16 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

Ronnie,

I understand where Kenyon was coming from in regards to the title, but that seems classically mountain-from-molehill. The problem there is that the planners were trying to be too clever (IMO) with some kind of phrase that conveyed "hip hop" yet could also address the issues at hand.

What I think is worth noting is that if you simply switch the position of a few words and go from "Changing the Face of the Game" to "The Changing Face of the Game" you get two entirely different interpretations. The former is open to Kenyon's critique: that it expresses a desire (though truly, I don't think that's what it was meant to convey). The latter is an observation, presumably value free.

 
At 5/24/05, 10:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is so funny and depressing about this rich debate is how very limited the range of your discussion. Just like hip-hop polarized itself with east coast/west coast battles, so has this discussion.

I would strongly suggest to Oliver, Tamara, and Ronnie to come take a trip down south, i.e. NC, SC, TN, AL, GA, etc...in the near future. The issue of race in the South is still clearly defined as strictly black/white, leaving other minority groups scrambling to choose one side or the other.

As a native Californian living in North Carolina, it's been my experience and observation that Asians and Latinos in North Carolina, clearly do not view building relationships or coalitions with African Americans as a postive position.

In fact, the popular positions as impossible as they seem to be are "passing", "mute neutrality" (no matter how racist or stereotypical the discussion or the action, I pretend not to see it or have an opinion about it) or "quiet invisibility" (as long as no one points out I'm Asian or Latino, I'll just blend in with the Whites).

In the southern ivory tower of academia where all minorities are few and far between anyway, this is a devastating stance. I have witnessed my fellow Asian and Latino doctoral and masters students skip classes or remain mute when the classroom discussion or assigned reading were directed as their particular racial group. Yet, when discussions or readings where about African Americans, suddenly voices were regained and everyone had an opinion. Leaving black students, angry, confused, betrayed, and the singular other.

Recently, at a panel discussion, our campus chapter of Young Republicians spoke out against scholar Cornel West's on-campus appearance to support his new book "Democracy Matters." Who was leading the young republians in this protest? Their Latino president with a significant number of Asian students among their membership ranks.

As a panelist, I found myself wanting to shout to the minorities within this group - "DUDE YOU'RE NOT WHITE and THIS IS THE SOUTH", but having to remember, I am an instructor and I must support their right to a different opinion. Instead, I asked had they read Dr. West's book and the none had read the book!!! As a black professor, I was sitting there thinking, you have the nerve to protest one of the leading black public intellectuals without reading his work and you're an underrepresented minority yourself? I don't know if this was being "a different kind of white", but I do know the experience was a different kind of scary.

I'm not sure if Asians and Latinos want to be white or a diffrent kind of white. In my heart of hearts, such statements are unfair, but I am
not convinced that these minorities groups don't view abandoning blacks to stand alone in debates and issues about race as a bad thing.

 
At 5/24/05, 10:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And a special shout-out to Oliver and Jeff, I would love to know your opinion on Jin's recent "I Quit" mea cupla. Quite frankly, Jin pisses me off. He was down with HOT 97 when they made fun of him for being Asian when he thought it would sell records, then he wanted to be down for his "peeps" when the racist Tsunami song business jumped off. Very contradictory in my book.

Now he wants to quit hip-hop and become the Asian Mark Walberg? Talk about when the going gets tough the tough get going. Does he really think that the acting business is going to be any different than the music business?

 
At 5/24/05, 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm reading the discussion, and I must say I am confused by Oliver's comments.

A while back, Oliver you wrote:

"I'm more open to Yancey's idea that, as whites do fall back, it's more likely to be Asians and Latinos taking their spots - whether in physical spaces (housing patterns, business ownership) or a more abstract social/cultural sense. But to me, this doesn't make them white. I think what I would have wnated to see from an analysis like Yancey's is a more nuanced and complex discussion of race that doens't reduce it (as it always seems to be) to Black/White."

Um......yes it does...and you just contradicted yourself. From a positional standpoint, people who take over white people's positions as oppressor to Black people do become...white. Not in a cultural or phenotypical sense, but in a political, social, and economic sense they do. If your actions toward the Black community are identical to those actions of the White community, then for all intents and purposes, your relationship to Black ppl is that of a white relationship.

To put it in Yancey's terms, as I read it through the review, it's less a question of how pro-white, or how assimilated to white culture you become that makes you white, it's how ANTI-BLACK you become that makes you white...being that whiteness as a racial category was created, and is still maintained, in total opposition to blackness, or what whites perceive as blackness.

The question to me for Asians is not really how much Asian people have accepted white culture. Nor is it how much white culture has accepted Asians. Both have happened, and we can argue to what extent each has happened. But it would be missing the point entirely. The question should be how ANTI-BLACK have Asian people become? Specifically, borrowing a question from Kenyon Farrow's article on Asian's appropriation of hip-hop and expanding it a little, how are the actions by Asians toward Blacks any different from the actions by Whites toward Blacks, politically, socially, economically, and culturally? How are the justifications for those actions by Asians toward Blacks any different from the racist justifications whites gave for their oppression of Blacks?

If you can't find a way to differentiate Asian ppl's actions from White ppl's actions, then, by-golly, you are white.

Before anyone jumps and says that I'm succumbing to the black/white paradigm, and that race relations are actually more complicated and occur on multiple fronts, I would say, yes, race relations are more complicated and they do occur on multiple fronts. It just so happens that currently those multiple fronts are all against the Black community. As groups of non-Black people begin aligning themselves politically, socially, and economically with whites in exploiting the Black community, that's just more folks that Black folks have to fight. Race relations have gotten more complicated than white vs Blacks. It's now Whites, Asians and Latinos vs. Blacks.

Isaac Lai
Philadelphia, PA

 
At 5/24/05, 11:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more thing....

For the ppl who want unity above all else. If Asians are aligned with Whites in oppressing and exploiting the Black community, why would Black people want to ally with Asians? How would it be beneficial for Blacks to ally themselves with their oppressors?

Isaac Lai
Philadelphia, PA

 
At 5/24/05, 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tracey... thanks for the elaboration. I find such anecdotes are the best way to get a deeper understanding of the situation.

Isaac... I agree that we should examine the extent to which Latinos and Asians are part of oppression and racism against Blacks. But I don't think it is helpful to reduce racism to "all groups against blacks". Nor do I think that is a reality... yet.

As I mentioned before, we need anecdotes and specific examples. Prop 187 is a good example of racism-backed legislation that did not target Black people. Latinos, not Blacks, continue to be seen as dragging California down economically. Need I argue there is racism flying in all directions? Long live oppression olympics!

The labeling thing is helpful... to a point. But where does the abstraction end... and the agenda begin? Does anyone here have a sense for what level and type of consensus we are seeking? Race Traitor posits that consensus as the elimination of whiteness. I would concur, but how do we get there?

Do people really think there will be a magical Asian / Latino / Black / principled-whites consensus? Let's say we agree that Asians and Latinos are picking up the yoke of oppression and racism? Is there anything we can do about it?

_eric

 
At 5/24/05, 11:51 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Tracy,
I'm also a native Californian with roots in Alabama, Georgia AND North Carolina (Huntersville); so i'm in total agreement in regard to the long-standing Black/White racial dynamic. The point that i've been tryin' to make in my posts is that racism/white supremacy has NEVER been limited by region. This thing is global in scope and the only difference now is that there is a greater influx of people of color putting their finger to the wind to see where the racial winds are blowin'; to determine whom they are going to make an alliance with.

As you stated, in academia, some Asians and Latinos, both teacher and student alike are using the classroom to "pledge allegiance" so to speak, to curry political favor from the Anglo-American ruling class. It's a hard pill for some to swallow, but your experiences on your campus mirror simliar scenarios in colleges across this country...



Issac Lai,
I second your emotion. As a stated in a previous post..."white IS as white DOES"...

 
At 5/24/05, 3:27 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Isaac,

I just want to say - I went back and re-read everything in this thread plus the OG essay again, and your distillation of Yancey's argument was probably the most cogent thing I've read so far.

More to follow later

 
At 5/24/05, 9:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...which is a sad thing because the point I made was the exact same point Ronnie Brown was making over and over again (white is as white does) and yet it takes an Asian person to say it for you to understand...

Why was it that when Ronnie Brown was making the points, that there were all these attempts to subvert his argument's legitimacy, yet when an Asian person makes the same exact points, he is understood to have clarity?

Also, I read your response to Kenyon Farrow's piece. The same question applies. Why the undermining of Farrow's arguments and not the undermining of mine, when all I did was restate, almost verbatim, Farrow's question (the one he posed to the panel as well as in his article)?

??????
Isaac Lai
Philadelphia, PA

 
At 5/24/05, 9:38 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

"The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."

-William Faulkner



Issac, good lookin' out, man.

 
At 5/24/05, 10:30 PM, Blogger O.W. said...

Isaac,

1) I didn't say that your point was the ONLY cogent one made. I said it was the MOST cogent. That wasn't a slap at Ronnie, who I've given dues to throughout this conversation.

2) While "white is as white does" is a simpler way of stating things, I found your distillation of the main talking points to be more articulate and informative. In fact, why would you have bothered to say anything if you thought that what was said already did the job? By virtue of you adding .02, one would assume you thought you were actually ADDING something rather than retreading what had already been said. Did I get that wrong?

3) Frankly, it's presumptuous on your part to assume that it'd take someone with an Asian surname to get my attention. I'm not even hostile to Ronnie or Tamara's opinions. And even if I were, it wouldn't be because he was Black or she's a woman. Likewise, my disagreement with Kenyon has nothing to do with who he is or what he does for a lving whereas who I am and what I do is at the center of his critique of my opinions.

4) Lastly, I didn't get a chance to post this last time b/c I was short on time but I find your analysis to be well-stated.

I didn't say I agreed with it.

 
At 5/24/05, 11:05 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
I must admit, i'm slightly perplexed. The nature of your disagreement is rooted in what? It seems to me that your desire for a more "nuanced and complex" discussion of race is looking more and more like scholarly form of denial...

 
At 5/25/05, 12:34 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

Ronnie,

Been working on that explanation for the last few hours, literally. I'm currently at 1500 words and still counting.

In the meantime, it's funny that you would say that "my desire for a more "nuanced and complex" discussion of race is looking more and more like scholarly form of denial..." since I've felt that way about other people's arguments throughout this thread only that they were using their own brands of scholarly discourse as a form of denial. Not you however - you've been a straight shooter the whole way through even if I'm not always feeling your one line summations (but hey, different strokes, different folks).

Anyways, back to this behemoth post.

 
At 5/25/05, 1:27 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

...to continue.

Isaac,

I'll try to address what you call a contradiction in my thinking: at risk of splitting hairs, what one might call "conditional Whiteness" is not the same as "a different kind of white." Perhaps this is my turn to make a semantic mountain from a molehill but the idea that "white supremacy" = "anti-Blackness," at least in the way you interpreted it from Yancey, doesn't work for me since Whiteness is not simply an opposition to Blackness but an opposition to Otherness writ large. That would, historically speaking, certainly include many moments where Latinos and Asians have also been "Other-ed" as a way of shoring up White Supremacy (WS).

This does NOT mean that different racialized groups have all had the pay the same cost. As stated before, I very much agree with Ronnie that America's racial hierarchy is vertical, not horizontal and as such, where different communities of color are plotted is not just under the yoke of White Supremacy but also in unequal competition with one another.

But throughout American history, "who's on bottom" has shifted depending on context. Privilege/power, however you want to describe it, is conferred upon different racial communities at different times as part of larger strategies to perpetuate WS, no? Wouldn't it hold that interracial strife and oppression dynamically reflect the changing face of WS rather than being a static model?

It's not like anti-Blackness ever fades away. But at the risk of sounding too Third World College, isn't the ultimate goal of WS anti-Other?

That's why I keep insisting that conditional/honorary Whiteness is not really a "privilege" insofar as no real power is being shared or delegated. It's simply a way of shuffling targets and breeding infighting but no one is really being rewarded in the process. I could be wrong about that and really, I need to sit down and read Yancey’s empirical findings.

Moreover, I don't know what Yancey would say to this, but if the 20th century was all about fear of a Black planet (or at least, Black America), then the 21st century seems to be focused on a fear of a Brown America/planet, or, if you believe the Atlantic Monthly, fear of a Yellow planet (the Red Scare + Yellow Peril = two great tastes, now combined). It's not as if WS fears are some zero sum game. Anti-Blackness is still in full effect, but couldn't you say that it's also been conjoined (however equally or unequally) with other crises of racialized paranoia?

I disagree with the presumption that what we're going to see this century is a coalition of different multiracial communities lined up on an anti-Black agenda, as if WS doesn't have any other targets to direct its hatred and paranoia at. Look at the Minutemen, look at the INS vigorous policy to deport any alien convicted of a felony under the auspices of "national security," look at the effects of environment racism on multiracial neighborhoods like Richmond, CA, or Globeville, CO.

If there's a core basis for much of my skepticism of Yancey's argument it comes from this: for the last 15 years, I've lived in the Bay Area and during that time, I've come to know an entire community of social justice organizers, many of whom work for multiracial organizations with either explicitly or implicitly anti-racist agendas. These include, but are not limited to the Center for Third World Organizing, the Applied Research Center, Californians for Justice, various chapters of SEIU, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, etc. Some of my closest friends have dedicated their lives to this work and for them, their focus is on addressing the myriad social ills facing multiracial neighborhoods all over the Bay Area - not just Asian ones or Latino ones or Black ones because neighborhoods in Vallejo, East Oakland, south San Francisco, etc. find residents facing many of the same problems associated with the police, the environment, education, health care, poverty, etc.

Could one sit down and quantify who is oppressed more, Laotians or Chicanos or African Americans in Richmond? I suppose one could. But what is both the most moral and most effective way of addressing these shared problems - even if there is a difference in how "shared" they are?

I've said this many times in this conversation but to me, the frustration with naming the problem, is what Ronnie has called "the $64,000 question," i.e. what comes next? Even if we accepted (and I don't) the idea that everyone but Blacks are turning white, what does that realization do for social justice efforts? Does that mean Black liberation movement activists suddenly stop trying to build coalitions with other ethnic groups? Does it mean those multiracial social justice advocates currently trying to enact interracial justice should abandon their efforts until they pass a litmus test for potential anti-Black bias?

Naming the problem, from what I've seen, more or less builds in a kind of fatalism that doesn't seem to encourage a proactive agenda. I did actually throw out a few suggestions I had heard, such as Jared Sexton's suggestion of a "dictatorship of the black masses" but no one responded to that.

Instead, the main thrust seems to be about making Latinos and Asians be accountable to their anti-Blackness (which itself rests on the shaky assumption that there is a uniformity to any of these communities that would allow "them" to act as a single unit - but hey, why beat that dead horse again?) but if that's the first step that needs to happen, what comes next? I know the sentiment exists out there that other communities of color (that is, other than African American) should subordinate their social justice agendas to the cause of Black Liberation and honestly? I'm not even that mad at the idea because, theoretically speaking, if we, as a society, actualized Black Liberation, that would surely lift all our boats, so to say. Flipping the logic of James Baldwin's letter to Angela Davis, if Blacks found liberation in the morning, would it not follow that other racial communities might also find liberation by evening? (Though if the history of interracial justice efforts is any indication, I know more than a few people that would be wary of that logic).

Maybe others don't find these questions as interesting or pertinent, ok, that's cool. But personally, after finally completing 8.5 years in an Ethnic Studies PhD program, I've heard the nature of the problem stated and restated more times than I care to remember - often in completely contradictory ways. What I struggle with, as many do, is the gap between theory and praxis.

So hey, just for kicks and giggles, why don't we try batting around some potential answers to that $64K? Let's talk about the feasibility of a dictatorship of black masses. Or new formations of multiracial social liberation movements. Or how we're all going to go to hell in a handbasket.

What I find telling - and Isaac will have to forgive me for cribbing this from his blog (btw: sorry about the Sixers season, but yeah man, Webber was not The Truth) - is that what he says he is committed to is, "to study and analyze a situation, and to understand it fully, without making any pretense nor plans for any future actions."

I think this, more than anything, explains whatever distance may exist between people who share his view and the people with whom I feel like I share my views. I respect where Isaac is coming from, especially since, as he points out, "organizing hastily, without self-study, without an analysis of anti-Blackness and how empowerment for individual races can still lead to the oppression of Black people in an anti-Black world, can be very damaging for Black people politically." I wholly agree: self-analysis of one’s potential bias is essential to the cause of social justice.

But personally, while I respect what he’s saying, I can't agree with the idea that what we need to do is analyze in lieu of planning. To me, a phrase like "analyze a situation...fully" doesn't exactly set a time table for action. And frankly, it's incredibly easy to criticize any organization - regardless of its make up - for shortcomings in its mission/agenda/accomplishments. All the groups I mentioned above have been rife, from time to time, with everything from misguidance, infighting, general dysfunction, poor planning and whatever else occurs in the course of trying to organize people around common causes. However, if it was the case that the fight for social justice could only move forward once the study groups of the world gave their blessing, I’m skeptical that the world would have ever seen bodies such as the SCLC, SNCC, UFW, Young Lords, I-Hotel Tenants Association, etc. form or accomplish anything.

One last thing, many of my ideas on social justice have most profoundly been shaped by people like James Baldwin, Malcolm X, Yuri Kochiyama, the late June Jordan, et. al. What I think all these people share in common are their deeply humanist ideals about the liberation of people everywhere. I obviously can’t and wont’ speak for them but based on my understanding of their teachings and beliefs, there’s just nothing in Yancey’s argument (as we’ve discussed) that I find useful (let alone accurate).

But you know what? I still need to read the book (yeah, yeah, I know, I know). I’m supposed to be finishing an anthology essay on hip-hop as a site for Afro-Asian connections (and tension) and yet, I’ve managed to spin out far more words here than for that essay. *sigh* Go figure.

 
At 5/25/05, 6:01 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

"But throughout American history, "who's on bottom" has shifted depending on context."

really?...must have happened when i wasn't lookin'...

Oliver,
On one hand you acknowledge that "different racialized groups" (huh?...no more euphemisms, please)
have not had to pay the same cost under white supremacy and yet you insist that anti- "the Other" and anti-Blackness are one in the same...

 
At 5/25/05, 8:25 AM, Blogger O.W. said...

Ronnie,

"different racialized groups" isn't a euphemism. I just meant other people of color.

I say "racialized" group instead of "racial" because the latter presumes a fixed, static identity, the former argues that the category of race changes over time.

Anyways, I think what you meant to say is that, "you insist that anti- "the Other" and anti-Blackness are NOT one in the same."

My point was simple: "the Other" includes other people of color. When WS looks over at "the Other" they don't just see Yellow, or Brown, or Black, as if any single group has a solid monopoly on Otherness.

 
At 5/25/05, 10:04 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Oliver,
The hazy nature of my early morning post notwithstanding, i meant what i said. I maintain that a chief component of white supremacy is "divide and conquer" with confusion following hard after. White supremacy does in my estimation, make clear distinctions between "The Other" (non-black people of color) and Black folk. That's the central theme in all my posts. There's a two-track oppression goin' on. You wouldn't have "honorary whiteness without it.

Also, in regard to multiracial coalitions; history is replete with examples, co-existing side by side with the two-tracked oppression that i spoke of...but i'm not interested in the extraordinary effort of some. A caste systems strength is based on its appeal the average Joe, the regular guy/woman, the ordinary individual who goes along to get along. That's what the world is mostly made of. Every Basketball player doesn't make the NBA and every NBA player doesn't make the all-star team.

"Honorary" whiteness to some, may be nothing more than a psychological salve...to be included in "top tier"...but it's real as real can be. multiracial coalitions are built on a perceived self-interest, a commonality, they don't form out of thin air. Like i say, make this topic the subject of your next panel dicussion and then watch the fir fly....

 
At 5/26/05, 9:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to take away from the legitimacy of the White/Black oppression dynamic, but let me just introduce the idea that Blacks, from the eyes of Latinos and Asians, are coddled in their own way by White America. It's a common notion that 'nobody is more American than Blacks', and this plays a part in solidifying Black folks' unique but seemingly fixed place in American society.

Interestingly enough, this protection or preservation is shown in a trend we see all the time: Whites protecting the exclusive use of the word 'nigga'. Now there was a recent diatribe in some local independent news source, written by a white guy, regarding his displeasure at being called a 'nigga' (as in 'you could say excuse me, nigga') at a hot dog stand by a Puerto Rican individual. Now we all know Latinos in NYC and all over use the word 'nigga', and you can hate that or accept it. But the author of the article says, upon hearing himself be called 'nigga' by a Puerto Rican, he immediately turned to the Black patronage of the hot dog stand and wondered 'why don't they say something?'. Feeling threatened, I guess, by the Latino individual, he turns to the Black patronage and says "Are you guys gonna let him say that?", similar to the lone white kid in elementary school that initiates playground fights between Mexicans and Blacks so that he won't get picked on. (I know a guy who admits to doing this as a youth survival tactic in South LA) My point is this, do whites even have a say in who gets to use this word anymore?

It's not new that phrases like black nigga, white nigga, asian nigga, spanish nigga are used to determine race, and not the word nigga itself. But yet mainstream white culture, as well as mainstream black culture, (people who are afraid of the word) HATE when non-black minorities use this word. Why is this? Both parties have become so familiar with eachother's histories and identities, that when another group steps in and uses the term out of familiarity / accessibility and osmosis, they unite against them. I'm not saying the word should be taken lightly, I'm just showing that a shared black-white American history is present and can be drawn upon to alienate or 'other' non-black minority groups (as seen after 9-11).

It is not rare to see Whites encouraging Blacks to discriminate against Arab or Asian employees in the workplace. White and Blacks have their own united front as 'the Real Americans', and unite in xenophobia to Latinos crossing the border, Asians coming off the boat.

The 'two-track system of oppression' as Ronnie calls it, protects Black America's identity as much as it does separate Latinos and Asians into 'another kind of white'. This protection is a double edged sword, and yes Blacks enjoy it too.

 
At 5/26/05, 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If White people are "coddling" and "protecting" Black people... they got a funny way of showing it.

Sure, Blacks and Whites might gang up in these sorts of mild acts of discrimination against Asians and Latinos. But it's doesn't necessarily reflect broader, long term racial dynamics, particularly with regard to politics and economics.

When all is said and done, it's still White people at the top, Asians rapidly gaining, while Latinos and Blacks continue to bear the brunt of discrimination and disparities.

In the USC office where I work, it is maybe 42% white, 33% asian, 15% latino, 10% black. I don't know if this is representative of the larger picture, but statistic do suggest that Asians and Latinos -- especially in Los Angeles area -- have much greater access to traditionally white environments.

Whether you face discrimination on the job -- I think -- is much less significant than simply being able to get the job in the first place. That said, racially-speaking, things seem pretty chill in this office.

_eric

 
At 5/26/05, 11:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm saying they are protecting the identity of black america, keeping it familiar and static in a lot of ways (relegating high paying Black employment to entertainment, in sports / music). so you see it and watch it, but do not necessarily encounter it. I mean protecting like preserving.

In both cases, it is an honorary status that is false, or a half-truth. Blacks calling Asians and Latinos the sell-outs of the minority world, and Asians and Latinos still not 'American enough', 'cultured' enough, 'talented' enough, compared with Blacks. I'm saying point the finger where it needs to be pointed (white power structures).

And also, 'mild discrimination'? F that.

 
At 5/26/05, 12:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because of the universal and ingrained nature of "black = bottom" -- as discussed by Ronnie -- I don't think white people spend much time figuring out how to oppress Black people. I think the system does it out of habit. And I think people of all races play into it.

In many ways, white people are unwitting conspirators. They don't view themselves as racist, and thus are unable or unwilling to "renounce" and work towards a solution.

White people don't sit around saying, "we gotta keep black people in entertainment/sports, and keep them out of other areas." The success of Black people in entertainment/sports is a response to white dominance of other fields. There are also a lot gay people and Jews in entertainment.

As for "mild discrimination", I was simply pointing out that there are different levels of discrimination. Maybe that wasn't the best choice of words. I am not suggesting we tolerate certain types of discrimination. I am merely suggesting that use of the word "nigga" and schoolyard race relations are not a microcosm for racism in all areas/levels of society.

_eric

 
At 5/26/05, 1:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My examples can be construed as oversimplified and maybe naive, but I'm trying to look at race relations at a more tangible level, just as you did with your specific workplace, which is not like mine but worthy of taking into consideration nonetheless. The fact that you view race-relations at your office as 'chill' does not affect or indicate anything about the big picture, but it could be worthy of comment.

You can't ignore 'playground politics' or how whites may view the word 'nigga', they are aspects and indicators of how race is socialized and ingrained into the mind.

Also you are kind of depersonalizing racism and saying the 'system' oppresses out of habit. What does it accomplish to approach racism like something floating in the air, or something that is in the brick of a building.

 
At 5/26/05, 2:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your make some good points.

I definitely don't want to imply that my workplace is representative, either of workplaces in general, or of racially-diverse workplaces. I was merely noting that my workplace is consistent with the theory that Asians and Latinos have greater access to economic resources and enjoy less racial antagonism with whites.

I definitely concur that ultimately the "system" is comprised of people and their behavior. I wasn't writing off your example, only the conclusion. That said, I guess my own conclusions are just as unfounded.

_eric

 
At 5/26/05, 4:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

since most of us here hasn't (or will never) read Yancey's book, what is everyone's definition of 'whiteness'? anti-black? anti-other, acessibility to material entities, etc...?

i'm going off on a limb and proportiate (is that a word?) 'whiteness' (~) to the suburban culture. Suburban as not a place outside the city but as a community which main reason for existence is to avoid the ills of "the ghetto". Clearly this is broad statement, but my skills in this subject matter is not great, so I'd rather make broad statements instead of acting like I know something about it.



-like_water

 
At 5/26/05, 5:16 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Anonymous (of the 9:22am post),

What you call "coddling" by White America is nothing more than a form of "divide and conquer". Of course whites continue to exibit a perverse form of protectionism regarding the word "nigga"...They created it!!...If they could, they'd like to monopolize the use of the word for their own personal use. (cause they just loooove black folk like that!) Your example of the white guy attempting to use the Black man to put the Afro-Puerto Rican in check is classic example of the saying: "the enemy of my enemy is a friend". Two factions ally themselves for so-called "mutual gain" against a "common foe"

Please believe, whites are using unthinking Blacks as a club against Asians and Latinos..."Real" Americans?...please!...Our history in the United States makes us the living contradiction to every principle this country claims to stand for...

 
At 5/27/05, 10:29 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Found an interesting editorial in today's L.A.Wave newspaper (www.wavenewspapers.com) by Sharon Woodson-Bryant "Mexico plays its own race card"

some excerpts...

"The fact that many Mexicans did not see their president's comments about Blacks as offensive should tell you something about a culture where black-face comedy is still considered funny and many people hand out nicknames based on skin color."

"Although Mexico has a few isolated Black communities, the population is dominated by descendants of the country's Spanish colonizers and its native Indians. Comments that would generally be considered openly racist in the United States generate little attention here.

There they say things like "He works like a Black person," according to the Associated Press story. The article also describes an afternoon television program that regularly features a comedian in blackface chasing actresses in skimpy outfits and an advertisement for a small chocolate pastry called the "negrito"- the little black man-that shows a white boy sprouting an Afro as he eats the sweet.

Do you really believe that these attitudes toward Black all get left at the border?

That is why i ripped up my "people of color" card years ago. The term has become inconsequential, merely a big tent providing cover for politicians and single issue groups looking for wider community clout.

Instead of transcending race, it denies it. I am not a multicultural blur. I am Black-an African-American who wants an honest look at race relations, an examination that goes beyond black and white and accurately assesses racism and bigotry in this country."

 
At 5/27/05, 11:10 AM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

more highlights...

"But no one wants to discuss the racial attitudes among other people of color toward African-Americans. The subject is TABOO (emphasis mine) Although not the usual suspects, Latinos are just as vulnerable to the drug of superiority as whites."

"Why doesn't anyone discuss racism against African-Americans by non-whites? Possibly because too many Americans share President W. Bush's intellectual modesty and have no clue to the HISTORY OF OTHER CULTURES AND THEIR TREATMENT OF BLACKS (emphasis mine) When Bush met with Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso a couple of years ago, he asked: Do you have Blacks too?" unaware that Brazil was home to more Blacks than any country in the world outside of Africa.

"More importantly, Americans need to recognize how Latin America views its Blacks. Many Latinos see Blackness as a liability in this country, perpetuating the long-standing racism in South America. In Peru, Blacks are still being used as ornamental images, chauffeurs, valets and servants. And Blacks in Brazil are still considered marginal members in society.

Most Americans, and even many Mexicans don't realize that s significant fraction of the Mexican population once looked markedly African. Yet Mexico seems to have "racial amnesia" that at least 200,000 Black slaves were imported to Mexico from Africa. By 1810, more than 10 percent of the population was considered at least part African."

"In countless other Latin American countries, Blacks are shut out of government positions of power and Black faces are omitted from news programs and magazines. This lack of racial diversity in their homelands in many ways is perpetuated in their behaviors and attiudes toward African-Americans in this country.

It is naive to think that a change in geography will bring a shift in a deep, insidious racial consciousness that continue to define Blacks as inferior. Too much is still skin deep in their minds."

Meanwhile, we distract ourselves with superficial diversity. We hold ethnic festivals featuring food, dance, and music IGNORING THE DEEPER POLITICAL AND RACIAL IMPLICATIONS WITHIN THESE CULTURES. (emphasis mine) RACIAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS AMONG ETHNIC GROUPS ALSO NEED TO BE STUDIED (emphasis mine)

We are too comfortable with our compulsive dependence on white views of Black people. Non-white groups are becoming the new majority and will soon secure more positions of authority and opportunity. WHY SHOULD THEY BE ABSENT FROM THE BAROMETER OF WHERE WE ARE IN THIS COUNTRY AS IT RELATES TO UNDERSTANDING RACE RELATIONS AND CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS??" (emphasis mine)


Sharon Woodson-Bryant is a Wave columnist and can be reached at woodson-bryant@hotmail.com

 
At 5/31/05, 11:58 AM, Blogger Zentronix said...

this has definitely been one of the most interesting, enlightening, and intense convos yet on this blog.

continue please, but please do so with respect for each other.

here's another article link via tamara (also via ronnie), from la times, circa 2002:

The Great 'White' Influx

Regardless of color, two-thirds of immigrants choose that designation on census replies. For some, it's synonymous with America.

 
At 5/31/05, 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

quick note before i forgot. i only read half of the la times article. but that actress kinda did what the Sheens did. Back in the day, when Martin Sheen was trying to get into Hollywood, he changed his name from Ramon Esteves (sp?) to Martin Sheen cuz the "others" category did not get much love in Hollywood. I don't know why Charlie Sheen did it but his brother Emilio kept his name.

-like_water

 
At 5/31/05, 5:28 PM, Blogger ronnie brown said...

Jeff,
I appreciate that you appreciate (the intensity of the convo)...but i'm waiting for you to finally throw your two cents in...I would hope that you would keep this topic front and center long enough so that other Asians and Latinos would weigh in. The sphere of influence you and Oliver have in your respective communities is such that you can put out a wide call to invite others to this blog.

As far as i'm concerned, this is the question of the hour. All of the panels, symposiums and conferences held over the last few years dealing with race, culture, and coalitions must eventually end up HERE...to ignore this issue is NOT an option!

 
At 5/31/05, 9:22 PM, Blogger Zentronix said...

ronnie,

not ignoring, but absorbing! i agree this is the question of the minute. i'm actually thinking about this day and night. i'm returning to ucla to talk at the asian am commencement, and the things that brought me there in 1992 are the same things that are pressing today. so ronnie, i'm taking my time, true, but trust that i'm the furthest thing from ignoring this.

peace,

jeff

 
At 7/21/05, 2:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

just came across this article and since we onthe topic of people of color all latinos are not colored people if you look at many of their countries they have large amounts of europeans there like brasil, argentina, ecuador, and chile and puerto rico 80% of puerto rico is white(spanish origin) so why is it that blacks look at puerto ricans and other latinos thats not black as brothers and why do black americans need asians?

people always talking about the institution of america but look at the institution of where these immigrants come from its ironic when they get here and hang around blacks they are no longer spanish or white just cause they are from puerto rico people need to realise that latin america has asians, africans, europeans and mixed people.

i don't see puerto ricans as the same as i unless they are afro-boricua nothing against white ones or ones that say theyt are taino but facts are facts.

one thing i don't understand is how white-hispanics/latinos who migrate here automatically qualify for aid/assistance cause and they are a minority simply cause they came from latin america that don't sound right esp if they are some kind of white in origin only! people who come from germany don't get those opportunities so why should white hispanics?


latino is not a race but an ethnic origin there are black ones white ones asians ones middle eastern ones an etc

 
At 3/13/06, 4:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Latino is not a race, it is an ethnic origin. The ethnic designation "Latino" will, I believe, shatter the institution of race because it definitely defies it. There are Mestizos (people that are of mixed Spanish and Indigenous descent). But then there are Mestizos with blood other than Spanish or Indigenous, say African, or other European or other Asian. Or a Mestizo might be 65% European and 35% Indigenous or vice versa. There are people of European descent in EVERY Latin American country. There are people of African (pure or mixed) descent in some countries, namely Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, the Dominican Republic. There are Middle Easterners, Asians, Europeans, and mixes of all kinds.

My Argentine friend who was raised here in the U.S. acknowledges he is a person that is of fully European ancestry (Basque, German and English), but that his ethnic designation is Latino.

Argentina is WHITER than the U.S.

I think that differences within the Latino community (that was created in the U.S., btw), should be looked at and acknowledged but only to serve the purpose of unification.

 

Post a Comment

 

Previous posts
Hip-Hop Appreciation Week
The Huffington Post Is Up
Jay Smooth Talks To Kim Osorio
Vlad's Volga
Hip-Hop Aesthetics
Dave Mays: Allegations Against The Source "A Form ...
I Predict A RIOT
Where To Be + What We All Want
PETITION: Stop Sexual Discrimination at The Source
New Prison Stats: Nearly 1000 New Individuals Inca...


select * from pages where handle = "BlogLinks" #content#

Archives
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
 

Email list

Add me to the Can't Stop Won't Stop email list, an irregular update of what's new in our world:

Submit