Don't you hate those out of office replies? Me too. I'm actually having such a time of it in Nairobi that I have too much information and thoughts, OCD-recorded into my journal(s), and little time to process them systematically, and in addition I'm working on some creative projects and collaborative things for the first time in my adult life (that are actually exciting!) In light of this, I will be putting a TEMPORARY pause on these blogs, and in any case I've been wanting to change the format into less personal, more 'academic/professional/thoroughly researched' writing, as that's what I like in other blogs. In any case, my friends, you can reach me at kevstudentemail@gmail.com or skype: kevinteryek. I will be focusing on reading, writing, building up my Kiswahili and rapping around Nairobi (Get at me-Kevlexicon @twitter @facebook @youtube @your mom's).
One love,
Kevin
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama dead: knee-jerk Reaction
Just saw on CNN 'Osama bin Laden killed in Pakistan.' The US media sucks, at least at 3am here in Kenya we have Al Jazeera. Thanks CNN for letting me know will.i.am's reaction video is online, followed by 5 minutes of jerking off to the news being 'leaked' a half-hour before pres. Obama's announcement on 'social media.' Oh, look, we have this networking technology that's a web for advertising that occasionally allows the spread of information. ...and of course no trial. I mean, we couldn't have expected that. Can't risk exposure or any sort of context. Easier to kill. Done and over with...the inevitable 'Celebration in NYC at the WTC', with less blasting on the context rendered subtext; [CELEBRATION OF OSAMA'S BEING KILLED].
Of course, this changes nothing. The US is still engaged in two wars/occupations (remember Iraq and Afghanistan? I would've been much more surprised if there was the announcement of the US pulling out of these two countries... possibly 3 wars/occupations depending on how Libya goes) Killing a body is pretty easy. It doesn't matter that Osama's dead. People don't engage in political violence because of a leader but because of grievances, and while it's cute that Oscar De La Hoya (who lost to my man Pacquiao) said something like 'Hitler muerto May whatever-the-fuck, Osama muerto May whatever-the-fuck,'...I guess I'm supposed to think in the American race binary that De La Hoya is 'black' and that, the response, given in Spanish is some kind of third-world endorsement/guilt assuasion for the West's general persecution of the Muslim world and crusade against African and Middle Eastern freedom. Americans are expected to idiotically latch on to the most immediate, cheapest and most easily exploited human emotions that the media feeds them--isn't it great to be an American? Now Obama doesn't look like a pussy to red states, and, we 'got him.' We went in and killed the bad guy. Weak.
sorry it's been a minute since my last post-I'm in Nairobi
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
'50 Under 30: A Gender War on America's Youth' human rights report
'Gender expression is a human right. State authorities’ failure to adequately investigate and prosecute
these murders constitute human rights violations. Authorities must take responsibility for ending the violence that is killing gender non-conforming youth. It is a matter of human rights.'
'Top 5
1. Recognize and investigate gender-based assaults as hate crimes (police)
2. Respond firmly to gender-based bullying and harassment (educators)
3. Report epidemic of gender-based violence (media)
4. Ratify laws and policies that track gender-based hate (legislators)
5. Reach out and educate local youth on gender and violence (youth, organizations)'
Please take the time to read this human rights report on violence against people based on their gender identity/expression. It primarily focuses on the brutal murders of young American, poor, urban, racial minorities (of biologically male sex) who express themselves in ways codifed by the governing cultural heterosexually normative binary as 'feminine'. It addresses the inaction of peers, the police, legislators, educators and the media in giving these gender identity and expression-related violent hate crimes an appropriate response. Failure of proactively recognizing non-conforming gender-based assaults as hate crimes, lack of appropriate diversity training for police, lack of disciplinary action from educators and lack of media coverage are a few of the grievances presented in the report. It is intolerable that such violence against free expression of gender can go unpunished and unreported, and that such a vulnerable and disinherited portion of the population (young, urban, racial minorities who express their gender out of the proscribed heteronormative binary), goes unprotected.
these murders constitute human rights violations. Authorities must take responsibility for ending the violence that is killing gender non-conforming youth. It is a matter of human rights.'
'Top 5
1. Recognize and investigate gender-based assaults as hate crimes (police)
2. Respond firmly to gender-based bullying and harassment (educators)
3. Report epidemic of gender-based violence (media)
4. Ratify laws and policies that track gender-based hate (legislators)
5. Reach out and educate local youth on gender and violence (youth, organizations)'
Please take the time to read this human rights report on violence against people based on their gender identity/expression. It primarily focuses on the brutal murders of young American, poor, urban, racial minorities (of biologically male sex) who express themselves in ways codifed by the governing cultural heterosexually normative binary as 'feminine'. It addresses the inaction of peers, the police, legislators, educators and the media in giving these gender identity and expression-related violent hate crimes an appropriate response. Failure of proactively recognizing non-conforming gender-based assaults as hate crimes, lack of appropriate diversity training for police, lack of disciplinary action from educators and lack of media coverage are a few of the grievances presented in the report. It is intolerable that such violence against free expression of gender can go unpunished and unreported, and that such a vulnerable and disinherited portion of the population (young, urban, racial minorities who express their gender out of the proscribed heteronormative binary), goes unprotected.
Friday, April 8, 2011
I want y'all to get angry
'My Student, the 'Terrorist'' -The Chronicle of Higher Education.
(see also, The Muslim Justice Initiative, Educators for Civil Liberties,)
Bit this off a professor's facebook page. It covers the illegal detention and 'trial' of Syed Fahad Hashmi, a CUNY Brooklyn College poli-sci professor's student who was looking to study Islam in global politics in England and become a professor, a Muslim who was extradited to the US from Britain for allegedly aiding Al Qaeda, by allowing an acquaintance, Mohammed Junaid Babar to stay in his London apartment. The luggage (raincoats, waterproof socks, ponchos) later was later delivered by the acquaintance to Al Qaeda. It tells the story of the US media's sychophantic complicity with the government-issued version of events, and the media's silencing of details concerning cases involving suspected Muslim 'terrorists' post-9/11. Legal manoeuvrings like the '1980 Classified Information Procedures Act' (expanded since 9/11, the article explains) and 'material support' ban which, because he let an acquaintance stay in his room, Fahad falls under, allow evidence to be kept classified.
"
By the 1990s, with the end of the cold war, and following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Islamic fundamentalism became the new lurking enemy. The subversion of liberties in what came to be known as the "war on terror" married old practices to new tactics. Political association could now be criminalized through the fearsome-sounding material-support bans instituted under President Clinton (and later expanded under the Patriot Act). The federal government would sponsor bold public indictments but avoid public show trials—the evidence and proceedings largely kept hidden. There would be no mass-based internment, but a broad swath of interrogations and prosecutions aimed at those deemed disloyal. And the politics of fear and patriotic loyalty would keep journalists and many civil-rights organizations silent.
Fahad's due-process rights fell victim to the 1980 Classified Information Procedures Act, which allows evidence to be kept classified. Its use has drastically expanded post-9/11. As a citizen in federal court, Fahad faced evidence he was not allowed to review. Fahad's lawyers went through intensive security clearances to view it—but were not allowed to discuss it with him.
Under material-support bans, all sorts of constitutionally protected activities can be classified as suspect, if not criminal. Material-support charges require no criminal act nor direct contact with terrorists, just the knowing "support" of a foreign terrorist organization. They often focus on small acts and religious and political associations, which take on sinister meaning as ostensible manifestations of forthcoming terrorism.
So-called "jihadist" ideas and membership in radical Islamic political groups thus become indications of "support," rather than constitutionally protected speech and association." [my emphasis]
It's a propaganda crusade that attempts to keep the limping monster of failed wars and US economic and naked force imperialism abroad justified enough domestically; an increasingly untenable position. The hate campaign of 'homeland security,' 'Patriot Act', ect. fueled by fear and actual US domestic terrorism perpetrated by 'our' government which is the denial of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The article cites numerous public figures and legal professionals complicit with torture and the already extensively corrupt incarceration system within the United States. 'Dissent is illegal' is the message for the current 'anti-American' 'enemy,' the Muslim. Like McCarthyism in the US during the 1950s, Mau Mau 'trials' in late colonial Kenya controlled by Britain, and doubtless many other examples, hearsay becomes basis for conviction in these political show-trials, though in their current manifestation, we don't even get to see the trial, just the already undermined reporting of it: 'The federal government would sponsor bold public indictments but avoid public show trials—the evidence and proceedings largely kept hidden. '. It becomes clear as you read this that the real 'enemy' is informed public discussion of evidence in alleged 'crimes' in a climate of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, can I add Libya now? that could possibly lead to public action against the crimes perpetrated by these trial lawyers and judges in homeland security's pocket.
(see also, The Muslim Justice Initiative, Educators for Civil Liberties,)
Bit this off a professor's facebook page. It covers the illegal detention and 'trial' of Syed Fahad Hashmi, a CUNY Brooklyn College poli-sci professor's student who was looking to study Islam in global politics in England and become a professor, a Muslim who was extradited to the US from Britain for allegedly aiding Al Qaeda, by allowing an acquaintance, Mohammed Junaid Babar to stay in his London apartment. The luggage (raincoats, waterproof socks, ponchos) later was later delivered by the acquaintance to Al Qaeda. It tells the story of the US media's sychophantic complicity with the government-issued version of events, and the media's silencing of details concerning cases involving suspected Muslim 'terrorists' post-9/11. Legal manoeuvrings like the '1980 Classified Information Procedures Act' (expanded since 9/11, the article explains) and 'material support' ban which, because he let an acquaintance stay in his room, Fahad falls under, allow evidence to be kept classified.
"
By the 1990s, with the end of the cold war, and following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Islamic fundamentalism became the new lurking enemy. The subversion of liberties in what came to be known as the "war on terror" married old practices to new tactics. Political association could now be criminalized through the fearsome-sounding material-support bans instituted under President Clinton (and later expanded under the Patriot Act). The federal government would sponsor bold public indictments but avoid public show trials—the evidence and proceedings largely kept hidden. There would be no mass-based internment, but a broad swath of interrogations and prosecutions aimed at those deemed disloyal. And the politics of fear and patriotic loyalty would keep journalists and many civil-rights organizations silent.
Fahad's due-process rights fell victim to the 1980 Classified Information Procedures Act, which allows evidence to be kept classified. Its use has drastically expanded post-9/11. As a citizen in federal court, Fahad faced evidence he was not allowed to review. Fahad's lawyers went through intensive security clearances to view it—but were not allowed to discuss it with him.
Under material-support bans, all sorts of constitutionally protected activities can be classified as suspect, if not criminal. Material-support charges require no criminal act nor direct contact with terrorists, just the knowing "support" of a foreign terrorist organization. They often focus on small acts and religious and political associations, which take on sinister meaning as ostensible manifestations of forthcoming terrorism.
So-called "jihadist" ideas and membership in radical Islamic political groups thus become indications of "support," rather than constitutionally protected speech and association." [my emphasis]
It's a propaganda crusade that attempts to keep the limping monster of failed wars and US economic and naked force imperialism abroad justified enough domestically; an increasingly untenable position. The hate campaign of 'homeland security,' 'Patriot Act', ect. fueled by fear and actual US domestic terrorism perpetrated by 'our' government which is the denial of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The article cites numerous public figures and legal professionals complicit with torture and the already extensively corrupt incarceration system within the United States. 'Dissent is illegal' is the message for the current 'anti-American' 'enemy,' the Muslim. Like McCarthyism in the US during the 1950s, Mau Mau 'trials' in late colonial Kenya controlled by Britain, and doubtless many other examples, hearsay becomes basis for conviction in these political show-trials, though in their current manifestation, we don't even get to see the trial, just the already undermined reporting of it: 'The federal government would sponsor bold public indictments but avoid public show trials—the evidence and proceedings largely kept hidden. '. It becomes clear as you read this that the real 'enemy' is informed public discussion of evidence in alleged 'crimes' in a climate of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, can I add Libya now? that could possibly lead to public action against the crimes perpetrated by these trial lawyers and judges in homeland security's pocket.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Why you should give a fuck and read C.L. R. James
A few months ago, I had been brushing up on French grammar to pass the time with what would otherwise feel like a wasted investment, when I started reading Mark Steel's Vive La Revolution! on impulse, seeing it in Barnes & Noble and trying to give some context to the language I was working on. This led to thinking about the Haitian Revolution again, and finally splurging the $4 on Amazon to get a pristine used copy of C.L.R. James' The Black Jacobins. As an intellectual wanna-be, whose only access to a circle of people who read beyond comic books (not to diss comic books, like anything, there's some good stuff out there) is directly from college, I've been facing the realization that I lack knowledge of any histories whatsoever (including those of the United States), aside from what I have gleaned sideways from reading a lot of literature and a few literary theory/analytical works. Despite my experience of every lit. professor I had trumpeting the worth of reading the literary works we discussed in their historical contexts (new historicism, I think it's called), almost none of the, I dunno, at least 12 relevant course syllabi assigned had any actual 'history' texts in a full, comprehensive book format. I mean, I understand, expecting a 'comprehensive' book on anything is asking a lot, but even if I define a history as the bare minimum of recounting wars, popular political events, movements, clashes, revolutions, demonstrations, strikes and riots that shape societies, and putting dates next to these and framing it in a larger (worldwide and time) context, I can't say I've been asked to read anything that fits this criteria. Thank you professors. Thank you public and private education.
Why The Black Jacobins is valuable
The book's merit stands on it's own and doesn't need my input, but here it is.... James, as a writer is unique in that his paragraphs are broken up into concise, logical sections that build up the reader's understanding of the global actions leading up to Haitian independence in 1804. Not only is the writing tight, but it is also passionate and compelling, which motivates you to read further. He is morally uncompromising when dealing with slave-traders and the bourgeois classes that benefited from it, which seems a rare trait in a lot of writers, but for all the wrong reasons. He juxtaposes the struggle of newborn Republican France against Monarchy with the slaves of Saint Domingue struggle for liberty, who were inspired by the French masses' assertion of their own rights, and analyzes the global forces at work, most notably those of France, Britain, Spain and the United States, and how they all share in their practice of imperialism, capitalism and hypocrisy. While there have been accusations that James wrote a hagiography of Toussaint L'Ouverture, chronicling his life as if he were a 'holy person,' even if it was true, it makes moral sense given the vast amount of silenced black heroes and the cult of black inferiority that underwrites most literature and scholarship of the period and now. The same could be said of popular revolutionary figures in general. In fact, one of the pleasures of reading James is how he connects the events of revolutionary Haiti with the struggles for African independence, and how on point he is indeed, seeing that The Black Jacobins was published in 1938 and the second edition, which James only lightly revised, was put out in 1963, in the midst of the dawn of African independence movements. James even participated in these movements, serving as an editor and in other capacities publishing political material. In this book, James refuses to fall into racial romanticism and presents a more complex view of the intrigue, rivalries, betrayals, confusion, deception and dissembling that dotted the struggle of the mulattoes and blacks in Saint Domingue in navigating the many tensions (status, class, racial) between the French aristocratic bureaucrats and the colonists who each sought to divide and conquer, making any alliance that was convenient to the moment as long as it eventually meant the return of slavery and more profit for themselves. James shows how the institution of slavery was maintained by systematized force and barbarity, and especially fear and terrorism. He deserves props for making explicit the necessary international connections that shaped Haiti's history and analyzing them in the context of the late 18th century. His extensive use of documents directly taken from the players in the revolution makes the machinations of the colonial machine and the resistance carry the weight of immediacy. It's a great book for how it manages to take the story of the most profitable colony in the world at the time and show how slaves actualized their own liberty and also for it's implications and lessons for the future struggles of the labouring poor.
Why The Black Jacobins is valuable
The book's merit stands on it's own and doesn't need my input, but here it is.... James, as a writer is unique in that his paragraphs are broken up into concise, logical sections that build up the reader's understanding of the global actions leading up to Haitian independence in 1804. Not only is the writing tight, but it is also passionate and compelling, which motivates you to read further. He is morally uncompromising when dealing with slave-traders and the bourgeois classes that benefited from it, which seems a rare trait in a lot of writers, but for all the wrong reasons. He juxtaposes the struggle of newborn Republican France against Monarchy with the slaves of Saint Domingue struggle for liberty, who were inspired by the French masses' assertion of their own rights, and analyzes the global forces at work, most notably those of France, Britain, Spain and the United States, and how they all share in their practice of imperialism, capitalism and hypocrisy. While there have been accusations that James wrote a hagiography of Toussaint L'Ouverture, chronicling his life as if he were a 'holy person,' even if it was true, it makes moral sense given the vast amount of silenced black heroes and the cult of black inferiority that underwrites most literature and scholarship of the period and now. The same could be said of popular revolutionary figures in general. In fact, one of the pleasures of reading James is how he connects the events of revolutionary Haiti with the struggles for African independence, and how on point he is indeed, seeing that The Black Jacobins was published in 1938 and the second edition, which James only lightly revised, was put out in 1963, in the midst of the dawn of African independence movements. James even participated in these movements, serving as an editor and in other capacities publishing political material. In this book, James refuses to fall into racial romanticism and presents a more complex view of the intrigue, rivalries, betrayals, confusion, deception and dissembling that dotted the struggle of the mulattoes and blacks in Saint Domingue in navigating the many tensions (status, class, racial) between the French aristocratic bureaucrats and the colonists who each sought to divide and conquer, making any alliance that was convenient to the moment as long as it eventually meant the return of slavery and more profit for themselves. James shows how the institution of slavery was maintained by systematized force and barbarity, and especially fear and terrorism. He deserves props for making explicit the necessary international connections that shaped Haiti's history and analyzing them in the context of the late 18th century. His extensive use of documents directly taken from the players in the revolution makes the machinations of the colonial machine and the resistance carry the weight of immediacy. It's a great book for how it manages to take the story of the most profitable colony in the world at the time and show how slaves actualized their own liberty and also for it's implications and lessons for the future struggles of the labouring poor.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Challenging the gender binary
Hey people,
I found this posted on a friend's facebook page and thought it was a helpful articulation of one person's (Mx Justin Vivian Bond) identity.
"Fortunately, since that day in Cafe Flore a younger generation of trans people have come along to articulate what I’ve been experiencing. When I was young I was fascinated by the stories I read of people like Christine Jorgenson and Dr. Rene Richards -people who had had “sex-change” operations in order to become members of the opposite gender than the one they were assigned at birth. I was deeply fascinated by them and hoped their stories would unlock the mystery which I felt was locked deep inside myself . Ultimately their stories provided no satisfactory answers. For me there is no opposite sex. For me there is only identity and desire."
(Read the full post, Mx Justin Vivian Bond: A User's Guide, here.)
A little commentary... As an aforementioned white boy from a conservative (read: no tolerance for variance from heteronormative whatever) suburb, I, like many people I imagine, took gender binaries from my environment (because it was convenient enough for me to do so, and because I wasn't aware, in any clear way, of variance from the binary) as a 'natural' 'given' and though I always had impulses and moments where things didn't seem to fit, an impulse to be more affectionate or wanting to express myself in words in a way that seemed 'unfit' to my 'male' 'gender,' tastes (hey, just realized that 'taste' sounds like the same thing as 'desire') that were codified by commercial media and people around me as belonging to 'the other' gender- and though I stayed aware of these differences, these moments never led to an active revision of how I interacted with people in the world. Especially in terms of how I addressed them.
That being said, it is easy to see how power codifies the expression of sexuality (or any identity, for that matter). Just going back to an historical example of at least three centuries ago, droit de seigneur , which prescribes the right of a (male) feudal lord to rape the (female) virgins who inhabit his property, it's easy to see how socially prescribed customs have the potential to violate people's sexuality, and how identity is often prescribed from the top down in terms of power (usually defined by economic and material force). It's also worth noting any naming has the potential to be a violent act. 'Epistemic violence' and 'interpolation' and other words I learned in college...
That said, coming up in a neighborhood where 'faggot,' 'nigger,' 'spic,' 'chink,' 'cunt,' 'dyke,' and 'queer' were tossed around freely and pejoratively by everyone in my small social circle, (myself included, gasp!) owing, I guess, to that strange mixture of privilege, provincialism and anonymity in a 2-square mile almost segregated suburb- my entrance for the first time into LGBT and queer discourse at Bard was littered with 'oh, fuck's and just ignorant shit. I don't think I had real problems with people outside the heteronormative whatever, but I was aware socially that being labeled as outside of it would socially isolate me further within my hometown set of people, and I had early on recognized the power of these words, the cultural force they had in terms of evoking a guaranteed defensive reaction, within the language-bubble of my hometown. To self-psycho-analyze (I'll try to keep it brief), these hurtful expressions were products of my environment which I had little incentive to resist and little power to do so.
Even reading Mx Justin Vivian Bond's article today, the flare-ups occur. I read ' I was asked to speak on a panel at Columbia University entitled “Denaturalizing Gender and Sex”.' or ' Many years ago while I was sitting at Cafe Flore in San Francisco, one of my favorite places on earth.' (my emphasis) and think-San Fran, a city, a particularly bougie city, wealth, privilege (whether or not that's true), and my class jealousy bubbles within me. It voices itself in the fascist part of my brain, saying something to the childish effect of 'you can only express yourself this way because you're privileged enough to! So unh!' But the cool thing about distinguishing the personal from the political is I can recognize my reactionary fascism and label it as bullshit, while still having those stupid feelings as a person that isn't above experiencing class jealousy, who comforts himself by yelling 'privilege' as an excuse for my own lack of courage, etc. and conflating my anger at being from a nowhere suburb with hating someone who feels the same way I do, because they say it, and live somewhere I'd rather live. Admittedly, the boundary between personal and the political can be blurry and a tightrope at times if it exists at all. But each feeds and balances the other. The central thing is, I know it is wrong to deny people self-representation, especially in this way, doing so doesn't resonate with my ideal or practical politics and these reactionary attitudes are just me reacting to environmental shit I wasn't able to control as a kid, and hating myself, inappropriately, for it. Not the kinda thing to base decisions and actions on.
One interaction I had in college was with another friend who identified as a trans woman, male-to-female, who was pissed that (oh shit, what pronoun to use) her insurance company would not pay for a desired medical intervention. What followed was an indictment of the American healthcare system, which, as a not extremely rich guy, was already easy for me to get behind. I remember she had cited the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as problematic, which, among other things, apparently defined homosexuality as a 'mental disorder.' This was mid-way through college for me, and I had already read early African American slave narratives and had just finished reading Frantz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks, which deals with race, gender and sexuality-though certainly not in a favorable way to homosexuals. Fanon tries to deny their existence and the argument has been made that 'homophobia in the black community' (my emphasis) is a result of fear of further marginalization. In other words, 'you're already fucked because you are black, don't make it worse by being a fag.' This argument fails to recognize the lack of non-white people of differing sexual values' ability to be 'heard' in commercial culture. (Think of all the conciliatory bougie white male homosexuals portrayed on TV) The generalization of all black people as homophobic seeks to demonize black people wholesale, when the argument that multiple black communities everywhere are all homophobic is simply not the case, even across the US. I was familiar with these sorts of debates, so I was beginning to be in a position to be able to think about the, oft-repeated in liberal arts institutions, 'race, class, gender (and sexuality)' and express myself with a little background in how ideas about gender and sexuality had been constructed and re-shaped as well as how identities had been asserted politically in the past.
On the subject of the v's article, the 'Key Terms' probably would have solved a lot of headaches and misunderstandings and corrected some ignorance throughout college. As a person trained (poorly) as an analytic essay writer I also enjoyed v's deconstruction of the transexual woman's argument of 'the fence' meaning the binary, that validates her own choice, while denying v's; I also enjoyed it cuz it respects v's own self-representation, which is key to respecting anyone (though, of course, self-representation can also be self-mis-representation, it's a good place to start.)
"By saying I would have to come down “off the fence” she was saying that sooner or later I would have to make a choice and conform my identity to embrace the gender binary and validate her choice to climb over the fence to the “other side”. Personally, for me, I have never believed there was another side for me to cross over to. Sometimes I wish I did. If I felt there was a clearly defined place for me to go, where I would be welcomed and at peace, I would surely have gone there many years ago. At times I’ve almost been able to convince myself there was, but for me to claim to be “a woman” would feel just as false as the charade I’ve been asked to play for so much of my life of being “a man”. Having said that, I will affirm that I do believe there is another side for others; for transexual men and women who fully embrace and are comfortable subscribing to the gender binary -to a polarized notion of gender. But please don’t assume that aspiring to pass is “realness”, because as far as I can see “realness” too is a construct built on shifting sand. If you insist on serving “realness” don’t be surprised if it is declared to hard too swallow and sent back to the kitchen. This applies to “real men”, “real women” and all of their enablers. I’m not interested in the expression of “realness”. I would like to be afforded the luxury of being free to be as honest as possible and to have my truth be respected."
I also dig v's justification for the prefix Mx, and the categorization of the gender: 'trans.' By the same token, I'm not sure if I have beef with these kinda statements: 'For some time I’ve been familiar with the words zee, hir, or they as gender-neutral terms but I’ve never really liked them.' and 'So what I’ve come up with is “v”. Since my name is Justin Vivian Bond and since Vivian begins with a V and visually a V is two even sides which meet in the middle I would like v to be my pronoun.' and 'My new name is Mx Justin Vivian Bond because it embraces my trans identity, it reflects and inspires my inner imaginings and -most importantly- because I like it. ' (my emphasis) My 'beef' here is petty. At least v acknowledges 'being free to be as honest as possible' and to have v's 'truth respected' is a 'luxury.' I'm just looking for a solution that's more general and doesn't apply to the individual, which misses the point of the whole argument for self-representation.
...all this being said, you should just read the article.
I found this posted on a friend's facebook page and thought it was a helpful articulation of one person's (Mx Justin Vivian Bond) identity.
"Fortunately, since that day in Cafe Flore a younger generation of trans people have come along to articulate what I’ve been experiencing. When I was young I was fascinated by the stories I read of people like Christine Jorgenson and Dr. Rene Richards -people who had had “sex-change” operations in order to become members of the opposite gender than the one they were assigned at birth. I was deeply fascinated by them and hoped their stories would unlock the mystery which I felt was locked deep inside myself . Ultimately their stories provided no satisfactory answers. For me there is no opposite sex. For me there is only identity and desire."
(Read the full post, Mx Justin Vivian Bond: A User's Guide, here.)
A little commentary... As an aforementioned white boy from a conservative (read: no tolerance for variance from heteronormative whatever) suburb, I, like many people I imagine, took gender binaries from my environment (because it was convenient enough for me to do so, and because I wasn't aware, in any clear way, of variance from the binary) as a 'natural' 'given' and though I always had impulses and moments where things didn't seem to fit, an impulse to be more affectionate or wanting to express myself in words in a way that seemed 'unfit' to my 'male' 'gender,' tastes (hey, just realized that 'taste' sounds like the same thing as 'desire') that were codified by commercial media and people around me as belonging to 'the other' gender- and though I stayed aware of these differences, these moments never led to an active revision of how I interacted with people in the world. Especially in terms of how I addressed them.
That being said, it is easy to see how power codifies the expression of sexuality (or any identity, for that matter). Just going back to an historical example of at least three centuries ago, droit de seigneur , which prescribes the right of a (male) feudal lord to rape the (female) virgins who inhabit his property, it's easy to see how socially prescribed customs have the potential to violate people's sexuality, and how identity is often prescribed from the top down in terms of power (usually defined by economic and material force). It's also worth noting any naming has the potential to be a violent act. 'Epistemic violence' and 'interpolation' and other words I learned in college...
That said, coming up in a neighborhood where 'faggot,' 'nigger,' 'spic,' 'chink,' 'cunt,' 'dyke,' and 'queer' were tossed around freely and pejoratively by everyone in my small social circle, (myself included, gasp!) owing, I guess, to that strange mixture of privilege, provincialism and anonymity in a 2-square mile almost segregated suburb- my entrance for the first time into LGBT and queer discourse at Bard was littered with 'oh, fuck's and just ignorant shit. I don't think I had real problems with people outside the heteronormative whatever, but I was aware socially that being labeled as outside of it would socially isolate me further within my hometown set of people, and I had early on recognized the power of these words, the cultural force they had in terms of evoking a guaranteed defensive reaction, within the language-bubble of my hometown. To self-psycho-analyze (I'll try to keep it brief), these hurtful expressions were products of my environment which I had little incentive to resist and little power to do so.
Even reading Mx Justin Vivian Bond's article today, the flare-ups occur. I read ' I was asked to speak on a panel at Columbia University entitled “Denaturalizing Gender and Sex”.' or ' Many years ago while I was sitting at Cafe Flore in San Francisco, one of my favorite places on earth.' (my emphasis) and think-San Fran, a city, a particularly bougie city, wealth, privilege (whether or not that's true), and my class jealousy bubbles within me. It voices itself in the fascist part of my brain, saying something to the childish effect of 'you can only express yourself this way because you're privileged enough to! So unh!' But the cool thing about distinguishing the personal from the political is I can recognize my reactionary fascism and label it as bullshit, while still having those stupid feelings as a person that isn't above experiencing class jealousy, who comforts himself by yelling 'privilege' as an excuse for my own lack of courage, etc. and conflating my anger at being from a nowhere suburb with hating someone who feels the same way I do, because they say it, and live somewhere I'd rather live. Admittedly, the boundary between personal and the political can be blurry and a tightrope at times if it exists at all. But each feeds and balances the other. The central thing is, I know it is wrong to deny people self-representation, especially in this way, doing so doesn't resonate with my ideal or practical politics and these reactionary attitudes are just me reacting to environmental shit I wasn't able to control as a kid, and hating myself, inappropriately, for it. Not the kinda thing to base decisions and actions on.
One interaction I had in college was with another friend who identified as a trans woman, male-to-female, who was pissed that (oh shit, what pronoun to use) her insurance company would not pay for a desired medical intervention. What followed was an indictment of the American healthcare system, which, as a not extremely rich guy, was already easy for me to get behind. I remember she had cited the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as problematic, which, among other things, apparently defined homosexuality as a 'mental disorder.' This was mid-way through college for me, and I had already read early African American slave narratives and had just finished reading Frantz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks, which deals with race, gender and sexuality-though certainly not in a favorable way to homosexuals. Fanon tries to deny their existence and the argument has been made that 'homophobia in the black community' (my emphasis) is a result of fear of further marginalization. In other words, 'you're already fucked because you are black, don't make it worse by being a fag.' This argument fails to recognize the lack of non-white people of differing sexual values' ability to be 'heard' in commercial culture. (Think of all the conciliatory bougie white male homosexuals portrayed on TV) The generalization of all black people as homophobic seeks to demonize black people wholesale, when the argument that multiple black communities everywhere are all homophobic is simply not the case, even across the US. I was familiar with these sorts of debates, so I was beginning to be in a position to be able to think about the, oft-repeated in liberal arts institutions, 'race, class, gender (and sexuality)' and express myself with a little background in how ideas about gender and sexuality had been constructed and re-shaped as well as how identities had been asserted politically in the past.
On the subject of the v's article, the 'Key Terms' probably would have solved a lot of headaches and misunderstandings and corrected some ignorance throughout college. As a person trained (poorly) as an analytic essay writer I also enjoyed v's deconstruction of the transexual woman's argument of 'the fence' meaning the binary, that validates her own choice, while denying v's; I also enjoyed it cuz it respects v's own self-representation, which is key to respecting anyone (though, of course, self-representation can also be self-mis-representation, it's a good place to start.)
"By saying I would have to come down “off the fence” she was saying that sooner or later I would have to make a choice and conform my identity to embrace the gender binary and validate her choice to climb over the fence to the “other side”. Personally, for me, I have never believed there was another side for me to cross over to. Sometimes I wish I did. If I felt there was a clearly defined place for me to go, where I would be welcomed and at peace, I would surely have gone there many years ago. At times I’ve almost been able to convince myself there was, but for me to claim to be “a woman” would feel just as false as the charade I’ve been asked to play for so much of my life of being “a man”. Having said that, I will affirm that I do believe there is another side for others; for transexual men and women who fully embrace and are comfortable subscribing to the gender binary -to a polarized notion of gender. But please don’t assume that aspiring to pass is “realness”, because as far as I can see “realness” too is a construct built on shifting sand. If you insist on serving “realness” don’t be surprised if it is declared to hard too swallow and sent back to the kitchen. This applies to “real men”, “real women” and all of their enablers. I’m not interested in the expression of “realness”. I would like to be afforded the luxury of being free to be as honest as possible and to have my truth be respected."
I also dig v's justification for the prefix Mx, and the categorization of the gender: 'trans.' By the same token, I'm not sure if I have beef with these kinda statements: 'For some time I’ve been familiar with the words zee, hir, or they as gender-neutral terms but I’ve never really liked them.' and 'So what I’ve come up with is “v”. Since my name is Justin Vivian Bond and since Vivian begins with a V and visually a V is two even sides which meet in the middle I would like v to be my pronoun.' and 'My new name is Mx Justin Vivian Bond because it embraces my trans identity, it reflects and inspires my inner imaginings and -most importantly- because I like it. ' (my emphasis) My 'beef' here is petty. At least v acknowledges 'being free to be as honest as possible' and to have v's 'truth respected' is a 'luxury.' I'm just looking for a solution that's more general and doesn't apply to the individual, which misses the point of the whole argument for self-representation.
...all this being said, you should just read the article.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Classics
I'm gonna do y'all a favor. Play these fo' yo' woman. She'll appreciate, and who knows...
It strikes me that there's so much soul music and we're not constantly listenin' to it. (it's all on youtube)
Bill Withers-Ain't no sunshine, Use me, Lean on me
Sam Cooke-Touch the hem of his garment, Lovable, (I love you) For sentimental reasons, Win your love for me, Jesus gave me water, A Change is gonna come, You send me, Bring it on home to me, Wonderful world, Chain gang, Only Sixteen, Sad mood,
George Benson-Turn your love around, This masquerade,
Ray Charles-Greenbacks, I got a woman, The sun's gonna shine again, Roll with my baby, It should have been me, Losing hand, Mess Around, Feelin' Sad, Ray's blues, Rockhouse (1&2), I believe to my soul,
Al Green-Let's stay together, Love and happiness,
p.s.-damn, this reminds me, listen to jazz: Charles Mingus, John Coltrane, Bill Evans, Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday,
blues: B. B. King, Albert King, Elmore James, Muddy Waters, J. B. Hutto, Bessie Smith, Blind Willie Johnson, Joe Carter (Treat me the way you do), Black Ace, John Lee Hooker, Earl Hooker, Canned Heat, Jimmy Reed, Lightnin' Hopkins, Son House, Mississippi John Hurt, Mississippi Fred McDowell,
Junior Wells, Otis Spann (Blues never die), John Mayall, Sonny Boy Williamson, Slim Harpo, Robert Johnson, Robert Cray,
It strikes me that there's so much soul music and we're not constantly listenin' to it. (it's all on youtube)
Bill Withers-Ain't no sunshine, Use me, Lean on me
Sam Cooke-Touch the hem of his garment, Lovable, (I love you) For sentimental reasons, Win your love for me, Jesus gave me water, A Change is gonna come, You send me, Bring it on home to me, Wonderful world, Chain gang, Only Sixteen, Sad mood,
George Benson-Turn your love around, This masquerade,
Ray Charles-Greenbacks, I got a woman, The sun's gonna shine again, Roll with my baby, It should have been me, Losing hand, Mess Around, Feelin' Sad, Ray's blues, Rockhouse (1&2), I believe to my soul,
Al Green-Let's stay together, Love and happiness,
p.s.-damn, this reminds me, listen to jazz: Charles Mingus, John Coltrane, Bill Evans, Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday,
blues: B. B. King, Albert King, Elmore James, Muddy Waters, J. B. Hutto, Bessie Smith, Blind Willie Johnson, Joe Carter (Treat me the way you do), Black Ace, John Lee Hooker, Earl Hooker, Canned Heat, Jimmy Reed, Lightnin' Hopkins, Son House, Mississippi John Hurt, Mississippi Fred McDowell,
Junior Wells, Otis Spann (Blues never die), John Mayall, Sonny Boy Williamson, Slim Harpo, Robert Johnson, Robert Cray,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)