You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November 2006.
On August 2000 I flew to the Republic of Korea to visit my grandparents, and my arrival coincided with the fifty-year anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War. A major part of the commemoration was the highly televised reunification of 100 families between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea.) It was the first time that I, a third generation Korean American, witnessed the real ramifications of that devastating time period. My parents, born one year after the 1953 armistice, never spoke of it. Neither did my grandparents.
My family’s silence about this topic during my youth mirrors the silences in children’s literature. Only within the past decade or two has there been an outpouring of voices telling stories about cruelty, family separation, violence, death, murder, hate, trauma, etc. for young audiences. Some say that children should not be exposed to such atrocity. Others argue that only by sharing trauma will there be healing and social transformation. It’s an ongoing argument. In the meantime, publishers continue to publish books about atrocity – the Holocaust, Hiroshima, colonialism, and so on. Some are about Japanese Colonialism (1910-1945) and the Korean War (1950-1953).
Over the past several years I’ve been analyzing the way children’s books portray colonialism and war, but this time was different. Over the past month, I went deeper and wider; I considered how Hiroshima and Japanese internment are depicted in children’s books and have been reading more about the Holocaust in youth literature. And I’m struggling. I struggle reading stories about the brutal oppression of one nation to another; about a family torn apart by war; about ideologies that perpetuate prejudiced and dangerous ways of thinking; about a bomb dropped on an entire city; about the mass murder of millions of people; about the murder of a single person. And I struggle to think, analyze and write about it all. So many times I had to put a book down and walk away.
I really want to get past this intellectual and emotional paralysis, but I can’t force it. The literature simply won’t let me.
In honor of children and children’s literature, buy a children’s book for someone you know, or spend some time reading with youth. Please remember to select books that are 1) of only the highest literary and visual quality (the rarest kind of best!) and 2) culturally conscious. You can do so by thinking about the following guidelines, based on the landmark article “Ten Quick Ways to Analyze Children’s Books for Racism and Sexism,” published by the Council on Interracial Books for Children.
1. Check the illustrations. Do pictures of black children look like Sambo? Do pictures of Asians and Asian Americans have slanted eyes and rice bowl haircuts? Are girls dressed asnurses and boys dressed as doctors?
2. Check the storyline. What does it mean to be successful? Does it require complete assimilation and giving up ethnic roots? Are ethnic children proactive problem-solvers or do white children solve problems for them?
3. Look at the lifestyles. Are ethnic families consistently portrayed as different from the majority white mainstream middle class and in need of “Americanization”? Are their homes located in urban ghettoes or rural farms, or is there a range of experiences and lifestyles?
4. Weigh the relationships between people. Are whites always in positions of power compared to ethnic characters? Are Asian women portrayed as submissive? Do Latino/a families have a lot of children? Are black mothers portrayed as dominating in their families?
5. Note the heroes. What does it take to be heroic? Do minority characters take risks against majority institutions or do they passively accept their issues and wait for problems to go away?
6. Consider the effect on a child’s self image. Is whiteness portrayed as normal, angelic, pure, etc., and blackness always associated with evil, dirty, ghetto, etc.? Are males always portrayed doing heroic deeds and rescuing females?
7. Consider the author’s and/or illustrator’s background. What qualifies the author to write about or include ethnic characters? Has the illustrator done justice in capturing the essence of ethnic cultures in the pictures?
8. Check out the author’s perspective. Is the author a feminist or does s/he submit to patriarcal ideologies? Is the author’s perspective mainly informed by Eurocentric ideologies?
9. Watch for loaded words. Are the words “submissive” “quiet” “smart” “docile” “crafty” always used to describe Asians? Are blacks “athletic” “musical” “primitive” “savage”? Are male pronouns used when referring to both females and males?
10. Check out the copyright date. Books published prior to the 1960s tend to contain more racist and derogatory images and stereotypes than those produced in the 1970s and onward. That’s not to say that current books don’t have problems. Thus, please observe the first 9 guidelines.
Why does this matter? Children’s literature scholar Rudine Sims Bishop says “The literature we choose helps to socialize our children and to transmit to them our values.” She also contends that “children need literature that serves as a window onto lives and experiences different from their own, and literature that serves as a mirror reflecting themselves and their cultural values, attitudes and behaviors.”
When celebrating children’s book week, let’s help each other and young people think critically about the subtle and overt messages embedded in our literatures, attitudes, and actions.
A great way to start is by looking at issues in thanksgiving stories. Professor Debbie Reese’s blog on American Indians in Children’s Literature is a phenomenal resource.
Autumn is in full swing in Urbana-Champaign, and I am under house arrest for two weeks because of my specialty field exam. Today I stepped out to grab some lunch, and although the sun was hidden behind a blanket of grey, I was struck by the beauty of the trees and leaves and nature all around. I love Autumn. There’s nothing more beautiful than watching the entire world change around you, not just one time, but four times every year.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about my role models: children’s youth advocates, pastors and their wives, politicians, politicians’ wives, etc. Specifically, three of my role models are Laura Bush, Audrey Hepburn and Jackie Kennedy. Aside from other problems inflicted by the Bush administration, Laura Bush invests a lot of time and money in librarianship. Her tenure as First Lady has significantly altered the landscape of and attention to libraries in this country. Hopefully whoever comes next will not drop us from her agenda. Hepburn, whose childhood was anything but comfortable, spent many years working with children and lobbying for children’s rights in other countries. She didn’t just give money; she gave her heart and her hands. Jackie O instilled pride in Americans at a time when Americans weren’t feeling very proud. Also, she was an avid reader and writer througout her life. With the exception of the “gypsy” comment, I really like this poem:
I love the Autumn,
And yet I cannot say
All the thoughts and things
That make me feel this way.
I love walking on the angry shore,
To watch the angry sea;
Where summer people were before,
But now there’s only me.
I love wood fires at night
That had a ruddy glow.
I stare at the flames
And think of long ago.
I love the feeling down inside me
That says to run away
To come and be a gypsy
And laugh the gypsy way.
The tangy taste of apples,
The snowy mist at morn,
The wanderlust inside you
When you hear the huntsman’s horn.
Nostalgia – that’s the Autumn,
Dreaming through September
Just a million lovely things
I always will remember.
The University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign is smoking hot right now. Last month the ZBT fraternity and DDD sorority held an exchange themed “Fiesta,” during which members came dressed as pregnant mothers with brown dolls tied to their shirts, or in sombreros and ponchos, claiming to be “illegal aliens.” This past weekend a fraternity at Johns Hopkins University threw a “Halloween in the Hood” party where invitees were encouraged to dress like OJ Simpson and other black Americans. Some students came dressed as pimps, prostitutes, and slaves!!!
As president of the Asian Pacific American Graduate Students Organization, I was invited to a meeting yesterday by the 4 Greek councils. They’re planning an educational forum onNovember 30 (100 Greg Hall, 7:00-9:00p) and wanted to partner with other culturally based student organizations. Relatedly, on December 1 (134 Temple Buell Hall), Robert Jensen, scholar of critical white studies, will be on campus. He was scheduled to come even before this event occurred, but man, what awesomet timing.
I’m posting some documents here so you can read about the event as well as the university’s (slow) response. I also provide links at the bottom to help educate you on these issues.
October 18, 2006
The campus is aware of a social function held on October 5, hosted by Delta Delta Delta sorority and Zeta Beta Tau fraternity, at which some members dressed in culturally insensitive attire and engaged in activities insulting to other members of the University community. Such behaviors are not only unacceptable; they are antithetical to the values of the University of Illinois.
Staff members from Fraternity and Sorority Affairs have been working with student leaders from both chapters and with the Greek governing councils for several days regarding the event. Additionally, investigations are underway by the Office for Student Conflict Resolution for possible violations of the Code, and the Office of the Dean of Students for acts of intolerance. The Office of the Dean of Students has been in consultation with each chapter’s national and local organization, the campus Greek governing councils and educational and punitive actions have been prescribed, even while the campus review continues. Delta Delta Delta has been placed on probation by its national office while this incident is being reviewed, and no sorority events may occur during that time. All social events for the semester have been cancelled.
Delta Delta Delta and Zeta Beta Tau have each issued a letter of apology to the United Greek Council and campus community. They will each be hosting a workshop conducted by the coordinator of the Urbana campus’ Program on Intergroup Relations in November. The staff of the Program on Intergroup Relations facilitated a dialogue for the Interfraternity Council this past week and will facilitate a similar session with the Panhellenic Council Presidents in the immediate future.
The fraternity and sorority governing groups have been advised of the campus expectation that a mandatory workshop for all new members will be provided effective fall 2007. The Office of the Dean of Students/Fraternity and Sorority Affairs will coordinate the staffing and program development for that experience.
To describe this incident as “unfortunate” does not appropriately capture the degree to which the campus and greater community are distressed, offended and aggrieved. But from this dismay we anticipate an opportunity to engage the students in dialogue that advances students’ understanding of and respect for diversity and social justice issues. The campus is committed to expanding structured opportunities to explore the intellectual and emotional aspects of identity and stereotypes, commonalities and difference. For fall 2007, we will be developing a mandatory educational workshop for first year students to advance their understanding of and respect and appreciation for cultural and social difference. Additionally, the campus will pursue the enhancement of the diversity module in the University 101 course taken by freshmen in most of the colleges. It is hoped that in the future all students will have the opportunity to participate in this learning experience.
While this incident occurred within the fraternity and sorority system, the campus as a whole needs to remain committed to advancing our understanding and appreciation of differences among those coming to the University, learning about our many cultures, and benefiting by integrating that knowledge into our development as better citizens of the community.
Bill Riley, Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of Students
Renee Romano, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
A mass email that went out on October 31, 2006 by Chancellor Richard Herman:
I was saddened and disappointed when I learned about the recent ZBT and Tri Delta party that ended up portraying Latino/as in stereotypical and denigrating ways. Students who took part in such behavior were being insensitive, thoughtless and, quite frankly, juvenile. Although I’m not in the business of telling students how to think, I expect more of our Illinois students. They are the best and the brightest of the next generation, and such callous behavior is beneath them. The challenges of our multi-cultural society demand that each of us constantly examine our biases and work hard to put ourselves in the shoes of people who come from widely varying backgrounds, cultures and experiences. We can have strong and differing opinions about culture, politics and policy, but we must never lose touch with granting everyone the kind of respect and dignity we would like others to grant to us. Everyone of every background is welcome at Illinois, and I want them to feel welcome.
As is so often the case with these kinds of incidents, the ensuing debate is an education in itself. The controversy has spurred a great deal of conversation about treating one another with common decency, and that is good. The process of reviewing the incident is now underway, and I believe a deeper appreciation of our cultural diversity and individual responsibility will be the result. Vice Chancellor Renee Romano has been working with the various groups involved to turn what I believe to have been poor judgment on the part of students into a learning experience. Already, the controversy has added impetus to our plans to heighten diversity education on campus.
Yet, for the insensitivity that was shown, I apologize.
Young people are always works in progress, and I believe this event will help remind us all to be better and more thoughtful people.
An article by Dr. Robert Jensen, scholar of critical white studies at UT-Austin:
“Ghetto Fabulous” Parties: the New Face of White Supremacy Racism and Cheap Thrills at the University of Texas Law School By ROBERT JENSEN CounterPunch October 16, 2006
When one of the first-year University of Texas law students who participated in a “ghetto fabulous” party posted pictures on the web, we saw the ugly face of white privilege and the racism in which it is rooted.
But the depth of the problem of white supremacy at the university – and in mainstream institutions more generally – is also evident in the polite way in which the university administration chastised the students.
While the thoughtless actions of young adults acting out the racism of the culture are disturbing, the thoughtful – but depoliticized – response from the law school is distressing. The actions of both groups in this affair are a painful reminder of the depth of white society’s commitment to white supremacy.
This controversy is not unique to UT. It seems that every year students at a prestigious university – the University of Chicago last year, Cornell in 2004, and Texas A&M in 2003 – hold one of these parties, in which white students revel in what they believe to be the appearance and behavior of the black and brown people of the “ghetto.”
The student from the UT party who posted the photos has taken them off the web, but news reports describe a party in which the students “carried 40-ounce bottles of malt liquor and wore Afro wigs, necklaces with large medallions and name tags bearing historically black and Hispanic names.”
No one involved has contested the characterization of the event.
The motivations and views of participants may vary, but these parties have two consistent features:
(1) white people mock African American and Latino people through stereotypes of the residents of low-income urban areas, while at the same time enjoying the feeling of temporarily adopting these looks and poses; and
(2) the white folks typically do it without pausing to ponder what right they have as members of a dominant racial class to poach in this fashion on the lives of people of a subordinated racial class.
In other words, white people find pleasure in insulting non-white people while at the same time safely “slumming” for cheap thrills in that non-white world, all the time oblivious to the moral and political implications.
Also typical in these university controversies is a tepid reaction from administrators, who tend to avoid the contentious race politics at the core of the problem. At UT, the email that went out to all law students from Dean Larry Sager is revealing.
Let me be clear that this critique is not focused on the dean, or any other administrator involved. Sager, who has a distinguished record as a teacher, is a widely recognized constitutional scholar who has published important work on civil liberties, especially freedom of religion. He consulted other administrators and students before communicating to the entire student body, and his commitment to equality and diversity is clear. Still, his characterization of the incident is troubling.
The email to students doesn’t use the terms “racism” or “white supremacy.”
The only reference to the racial politics of “ghetto fabulous” is the description of the party as being “named in a way that was easily understood to have negative racial overtones” and a reminder that being “racially insensitive” is inappropriate. While many of the students at the party may not have thought they were being racist, it’s essential that we name such activities as rooted in white people’s sense of privilege and entitlement, the result of historical and contemporary racism in a white-supremacist culture.
This language is crucial. Even with the gains of the civil-rights movement, U.S. society is still white supremacist in material terms (there are deep, enduring racialized disparities in measures of wealth and well-being, some of which haven’t improved in the past four decades) and ideology (many white people continue to believe that the culture and politics of Europe are inherently superior). To pretend that things such as a ghetto party are not rooted in those racist realities is to ignore fundamental moral and political issues in an unjust society. It’s not about “negative racial overtones” – it’s about racism, whether conscious or not. It’s not about being “racially insensitive” – it’s about support for white supremacy, whether intended or not.
The dean’s email to law students goes on to give three reasons the party was “thoughtless.”
First, Sager suggests that some students “might be seriously offended by the party, and especially by the pictures taken at the event.” No doubt many people were offended, and we all should avoid unnecessary offense to others. But the key problem is not that such images are offensive but that they are part of an oppressive system of white supremacy. In a pluralist society, we all can expect to be offended by some things other people say and do. Such offense becomes an important political issue when connected to the ways in which some people are systematically devalued and discriminated against.
Racist, sexist, and heterosexist images and words are a problem not merely because they offend but because they help keep non-white people, women, and lesbians and gays in subordinated positions. Framing the problem of oppressive systems as a question of offensiveness often leads people to argue that the solution is for the targets of the offensive speech or actions to be less sensitive, rather than changing the oppressive system.
Sager’s email doesn’t suggest that, but it could play into that common feeling among people in the dominant classes. We live in a world in which the legitimate concerns of non-white people about racist expression and actions are often met by white people saying, “Stop whining – get over it.” In such a world, white people trying to resistracism should be careful not to do anything that could contribute to that.
Second, the email suggests that the partygoers didn’t consider “the potential harm they were causing to UT Law” by doing something that could make some people “feel uncomfortable simply because of who they are.” Most would agree that it’s important at a public institution of higher education for all people to feel accepted as part of the university community, but the real harm is not to the institution but to the people who are targeted. By highlighting the effect of this on “UT Law,” Sager risks elevating the institution above the principles involved and may well leave people wondering if the university isn’t worried most about its image.
Finally, and most important, the dean’s message warns the partygoers that they failed to consider “the extraordinary damage they could do to their own careers” in a society in which those who employ lawyers might not want to hire people who engage in such conduct. Sager warns that it is “genuinely foolhardy to engage in conduct (and even more foolhardy to proudly disseminate proof that you have done so) that could jeopardize your ability to practice law.” That’s certainly true, though it’s also true there are many places in Texas (and around the country) where the good old boys in power would find no problem with this kind of “harmless fun.” There are no doubt lots of practicing attorneys who enjoy similar kinds of fun themselves.
But whatever the case, should we be stressing to students that the reason they should not be white supremacists is that it might hurt their careers?
What does such a message convey to students and to the community?
What’s missing in this official response is a clear statement that these law students – many of whom go on to join the ranks of the powerful who run society – have engaged in behavior that is overtly racist. Whatever their motivations in planning or attending the party, they have demonstrated that they have internalized a white-supremacist ideology.
When these students are making future decisions in business, government, and education, how will such white supremacy manifest itself? And who will be hurt by that?
Here’s what we should say to students: The problem with a racist “ghetto fabulous” party isn’t that it offends some people or tarnishes the image of UT or may hurt careers. The problem is that it’s racist, and when you engage in such behavior you are deepening the racism of a white-supremacist culture, and that’s wrong. It violates the moral and political principles that we all say we endorse. It supports and strengthens an unjust social system that hurts people.
These incidents, and the universities’ responses, also raise a fundamental question about what we white people mean when we say we support “diversity.” Does that mean we are willing to invite some limited number of non-white people into our space, but with the implicit understanding that it will remain a white-defined space? Or does it mean a commitment to changing these institutions into truly multicultural places? If we’re serious about that, it has to mean not an occasional nod to other cultural practices, but an end to white-supremacist practices. It has to mean not only acknowledging other cultural practices but recognizing that the wealth of the United States and Europe is rooted in the destruction of some of those cultures over the past 500 years, and that we are living with the consequences of that destruction.
We white people can’t simply point to the ugliest racism of the KKK as the problem and feel morally superior. We can’t issue a polite warning to a few law students about being thoughtless and think we’ve done our job. The problem is that most of us white people – myself included – are comfortable in white spaces, and we often are reflexively hesitant to surrender control of that space. Real change – the process of truly incorporating a deep multiculturalism into our schools, churches, and businesses – is a long struggle. The more I make some progress in my own classes, for example, the more I see how much I have left to do and the more aware of my mistakes I become.
An easy place to start is by clearly marking racist actions for what they are – expressions of white people’s sense of entitlement and privilege that are rooted in a white-supremacist system. We can start by saying – unequivocally, in blunt language – that such racism is morally wrong, that white supremacy is morally wrong, and that we white people have an obligation to hold ourselves and each other accountable until we have created a truly just multiracial society.
We’ll know we are there not when white people have stopped throwing ghetto parties, but when we have built a world in which there are no ghettos.
We have a long way to go.
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and a member of the board of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center . He is the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Some resources to help educate people about “ghetto party” issues in particular (including links to Greek organizations for those of you unfamiliar, as I was), and racism, white privilege and intolerance in general:
Daily Illini Feb 25, 2005- Other campuses; pledge event sparks investigation
Daily Illini Oct 17, 2006- Greek part causes turmoil across campus
Daily Illini Oct 17, 2006- Column: on tequilas, tacos, race and understanding
The Examiner Oct 31, 2006 – “Johns Hopkins fraternity suspended after racially themed Halloween party“
Daily Illini Nov 1, 2006 – Quad protest targets racial stereotyping
InterFraternity Council: http://www.illiniifc.com
Black Greek Council: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ro/www/BlackGreekCouncil/
United Greek Council: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ro/www/UnitedGreekCouncil/
Panhellenic Council: http://www.illiniphc.com/