https://www.facebook.com/groups/75509399798/
Showing posts with label anti-oppression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-oppression. Show all posts
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Join us. Lets tell the city- No more tax title auctions in Springfield
https://www.facebook.com/groups/75509399798/
Saturday, April 20, 2013
'No More Hurting People' Vigil- Monday April 22- Noon- Court Square Spfld MA
Please join us at noon on Monday April 22 2013, in downtown Springfield. Court Square, as we honor the victims of violence injured and killed in the Boston Marathon Bombing this past week. We remember the kind words of 8 year old Martin Richard, who died in the blast, 'No More Hurting People'. Come stand with us as we call for an end to violence in Springfield. As we recognize all victims of violence and call for peace in our state and in our country. Guest speakers are welcome. The general public is welcome. Please contact Arise for further information.We will stand with you on Monday, as you stand with us. Together we do make a difference.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Some Men Wear PINK
"Boys don't cross their legs like that." "Cooking is a girls job." "You run like a girl." "Boys don't play with dolls." "You whine like a sissy." " All male hairdressers are queer." "Most waiters are gay." "Flowers are for girls." "You hold your cigarette like a fag." "You walk like a gay dude." "Boys don't cry."
This is what I grew up hearing, these and so many more. I'm sure you could add to the list.. This was the neighborhood code of the day-- everyone in fear of being labeled a "fag."
Where did this shit come from and how does it affect me as a grown man of 54 years? I really haven't asked myself those questions before this year. But being exposed to Arise and Out Now, working on hate and homophobia, being in the presence of a large contingent of LGBTQ folks, holding the banner at the opening ceremonies of Springfield Pride week, applauding and standing in solidarity with my friends as the rainbow flag is raised, marching up State street in Springfield to protest a hateful-homophobic pastor that spreads hate through the community in the name of God. (Yes, Scott Lively) is changing how I think.
I must begin by saying that I have always considered myself a very open person, accepting of most folks and cultures. I thought myself a kid who grew up in the post 60's era of free love, peace and rock n roll (The early 70's). I was open to everything and loved being different. But as I look back, even then I was deeply affected by the code of society that dictated what was masculine and what was feminine. I didn't even realize how rigid I was.
About 7 years ago my youngest daughter called me and said "Dad, I need to come and see you. I have to talk to you about something. " Well, I panicked. A sickness? Some crisis? Maybe she was hurt in some way? I had no idea what was wrong. She came over and told me she was gay. She also said she knew I would be accepting, understanding and not judge her for her sexual preference What she didn't know was that her free-love post 60's, peace, love and rock n roll, father took a deep breath of fear when she disclosed to me. I knew how I was supposed to act, but I couldn't quite get my footing. After all, this is my daughter standing in front of me, telling me she is gay and her whole world is going to change and folks are going to not like her because she is gay, and she will lose jobs and people will discriminate against her, and GOD FORBID if she goes to the southern US, where she will be burned at the stake. I've seen what can happen to someone for just being different, but I kept my best poker face on. She left my house that day feeling that I fully understood and accepted her just as she was. And I do. But I worry. What that day taught me is that I have been tolerant of the gay community all of my life, but until that day, I don't think I fully accepted gay folks. They were different. 'They weren't my daughter!This past week I watched myself have a interesting experience. I LIKE FLOWERS! Does that make me gay? Does it in some way diminish my masculinity? Am I suppose to hide the fact that I love fresh flowers in a vase, in the house with my 7 male housemates? ( A little bio on my housemates) Everyone is 40 years old +, all of us are divorced from women. All of us are single. There are racist comments repeatedly from a few of them. (working on that one). We have a beautiful flower garden that was planted and cultivated by a former housemate, with many varieties of colorful flowers. I do not know the names of most of them.
A few days ago, I was cutting flowers for the vases. Arranging them just so. One of the guys came out and was watching me. I knew he was watching me. I straightened up a little, puffed chest- "What are ya doin?" he said. Almost by some instinctive, deeply ingrained masculine response, defiantly born of fear, I answered in deep manly bass tones, "Flowers are Fucking cool man"
Now my housemate said "What are you doin?" What I heard was a snaky-"Oh, look at that, are you playing with flowers girly-boy?" I immediately assumed a defensive posture. Defending my masculinity against the attack of the House Homosexual Patrol. (Real or Imagined). In my response to him I use the word FUCK several times and then invoked the term "My Ole Lady" Not once, or twice but three times, just to eliminate any lingering notion that I was not being masculine. Manley. Tough. Guy Shit. (disclaimer) BTW. I never use that term "My Ole Lady" I fact, I really detest those words.
I could almost hear "Flowers are for Girls" and "You whine like a sissy". I had an automatic fear driven response. Fear, learned long ago, deep lifelong lessons that go back generations. After I gathered the flowers and put them in the vase, I went to my room. I realize how pathetic I acted. I was somewhat sickened and ashamed. In getting some insight to where this shit comes from, I am now charged with understanding how it affects me and those around me. I do not believe this makes me dis-ingenious, on the contrary. I am more sensitive. Who fucking cares that I like flowers? And why does it affect me? I also like the color PINK. ALLOT! Can you see it? I come home in a pink shirt with a pink gym bag and begin to pick flowers for the boys. OMG! (Thanks for that Idea Holly)
But you see, that's what I want to do. All that. Without the fear. Without the judgement. Really! Ideally, I would come home in a nice pink shirt, because I like pink. And then pick a fabulous bouquet of fresh flowers and meticulously place them around the house. And not be looked at differently.And just as important, not feel as though I should be concerned with doing a "Feminine" task, as society and my roommates would view such an action.
There are a lot of issues going on here. Honestly, more than I really understand. Lots of questions.
How do I learn to overcome the lessons Ive unconsciously learned throughout my life? What is a helpful answer to those who would ridicule in such a manner? (Roommates, social situations, family, friends) Should I respond to comments with subtle sarcasm to engage the nefarious? Perhaps moral and ethical pleadings? Should I ignore being called a "Fag?" Do I take it as a challenge? Should I give them a testosterone-turbo slap? My earliest lessons tell me "Them There's Fightin Words" and "You Gonna Let em call you that?"
Well friends, for now I'm going to skip the pink leotard's and continue to pick those flowers for my housemates and me to enjoy. After all, Autumn is setting in, and the flowers are almost gone.
Til Next Year!
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The real reason we became white
Thanks to Mass Slavery Apology in Greenfield for their incredible anti-racism work. Here's a recent essay by George Esworthy.
In the mid-1600s, plantation owners in colonial Virginia looked through their lace curtained windows and saw a disturbing sight. What they saw was their workers in their fields. Those workers included European indentured servants and African indentured servants, as well as African slaves. *
The workers all lived in the same quarters, ate the same food and socialized together, essentially sharing the same abominable conditions. What troubled the planters was not the idea of race mixing (indeed, the concept of “race” had not yet been invented), but the fear that African and European workers would unite to rise up and slaughter their masters. The plantation owners were desperate to do something to protect themselves from this threat.
The British were not savvy imperialists for nothing. They had perfected the skill, first in Ireland and later throughout the Empire, of pitting one group against another through favorable treatment of selected populations. My own Lowland Scot ancestors accepted an offer of free land in Ireland. The British made this offer not to save us from frequent raids by Highlanders, but to establish a Protestant class, loyal to the crown, that would control the indigenous, largely landless, Irish crofters. It was the tried and true practice of divide and conquer. At the behest of the plantation owners, Virginia’s colonial legislature passed laws that required planters to award fifty acres of land to European indentured servants (but not those of African descent) who had completed their servitude. In the Colonies at that time the ownership of land was the ultimate form of status. In addition, landless white Europeans were eventually allowed to testify in courts, further enhancing their status. The importance of these early laws cannot be understated as precedents for how our nation eventually evolved. These were the first laws that based human rights on skin color.
The genius of this became evident over time. The paltry benefits afforded poor whites were clearly less important to them than their status as “white” people. Poor whites were hired to form slave patrols in order to cement the notion that they had more in common with the wealthy white elite than they did with black slaves. The overriding irony of this system was that slavery tended to diminish the wages and opportunities for poor whites. Poor whites and black slaves had significantly more in common with each other than either did with the white elite. Despite this, the importance of “whiteness” had become so powerful by the time of the Civil War that millions of poor whites fought and died to preserve a system that exploited them nearly as much as it did blacks.
We whites in the 21st century can no longer expect fifty acres of land, but what we can expect (statistically at least) is that we will have, as compared to the descendents of slaves, more of society’s benefits. We can expect to live longer, healthier, safer lives. We can expect to earn more money and to have accumulated more wealth. We can expect better education and more lucrative jobs. We can expect to be much less likely to be incarcerated or harassed by the police. For all these apparent benefits for being white we are, by and large, intensely supportive of the status quo and the corporate capitalist system that provides these benefits. Our loyalty and participation in this system provide us what we in shorthand call white privilege. These privileges have become so commonplace and ordinary that they have become largely invisible to us and at some deep level we have the sense that they are deserved. We are, in short, the loyal constituency of a wealthy elite.
This insidious and brilliant system functions today as well as it did in 1670. The divide that exists between blacks and whites still prevents us from working together for our common economic and social interests. The knee jerk tendency to blame blacks for the economic problems experienced by whites is still a vibrant tool of political manipulation. It is currently being used to scapegoat Latino immigrants, with claims that they threaten the wages and standard of living of (white) American workers. Even if our borders were slammed shut right now, capital and jobs would continue to flow abroad, to the continuing detriment of all American workers – black, white and brown.
This white privilege that we protect with such ferocity is based on an illusion created by the wealthy to protect their status. The illusion is that whites are more deserving than people of color. And the purpose of this illusion is precisely the same as it was in 1670 – to sow divisions between groups who might threaten the wealth of those in power.
* At that time, chattel slavery, the ownership of a person and all of that person’s offspring for life, had not yet become a norm in the Americas. Some plantation owners who used European indentured servants for cheap labor also made indentured servants of the Africans they purchased. Indentured servants were required to provide their masters with a certain number of years of labor, and then were freed. By about 1700 it became a law that Africans and their descendents could not be indentured servants. Those who were then indentured servants entered chattel slavery, becoming slaves for life. Like all free blacks, former indentured servants were always at risk of being captured and sold into chattel slavery.
In the mid-1600s, plantation owners in colonial Virginia looked through their lace curtained windows and saw a disturbing sight. What they saw was their workers in their fields. Those workers included European indentured servants and African indentured servants, as well as African slaves. *
The workers all lived in the same quarters, ate the same food and socialized together, essentially sharing the same abominable conditions. What troubled the planters was not the idea of race mixing (indeed, the concept of “race” had not yet been invented), but the fear that African and European workers would unite to rise up and slaughter their masters. The plantation owners were desperate to do something to protect themselves from this threat.
The British were not savvy imperialists for nothing. They had perfected the skill, first in Ireland and later throughout the Empire, of pitting one group against another through favorable treatment of selected populations. My own Lowland Scot ancestors accepted an offer of free land in Ireland. The British made this offer not to save us from frequent raids by Highlanders, but to establish a Protestant class, loyal to the crown, that would control the indigenous, largely landless, Irish crofters. It was the tried and true practice of divide and conquer. At the behest of the plantation owners, Virginia’s colonial legislature passed laws that required planters to award fifty acres of land to European indentured servants (but not those of African descent) who had completed their servitude. In the Colonies at that time the ownership of land was the ultimate form of status. In addition, landless white Europeans were eventually allowed to testify in courts, further enhancing their status. The importance of these early laws cannot be understated as precedents for how our nation eventually evolved. These were the first laws that based human rights on skin color.
The genius of this became evident over time. The paltry benefits afforded poor whites were clearly less important to them than their status as “white” people. Poor whites were hired to form slave patrols in order to cement the notion that they had more in common with the wealthy white elite than they did with black slaves. The overriding irony of this system was that slavery tended to diminish the wages and opportunities for poor whites. Poor whites and black slaves had significantly more in common with each other than either did with the white elite. Despite this, the importance of “whiteness” had become so powerful by the time of the Civil War that millions of poor whites fought and died to preserve a system that exploited them nearly as much as it did blacks.
We whites in the 21st century can no longer expect fifty acres of land, but what we can expect (statistically at least) is that we will have, as compared to the descendents of slaves, more of society’s benefits. We can expect to live longer, healthier, safer lives. We can expect to earn more money and to have accumulated more wealth. We can expect better education and more lucrative jobs. We can expect to be much less likely to be incarcerated or harassed by the police. For all these apparent benefits for being white we are, by and large, intensely supportive of the status quo and the corporate capitalist system that provides these benefits. Our loyalty and participation in this system provide us what we in shorthand call white privilege. These privileges have become so commonplace and ordinary that they have become largely invisible to us and at some deep level we have the sense that they are deserved. We are, in short, the loyal constituency of a wealthy elite.
This insidious and brilliant system functions today as well as it did in 1670. The divide that exists between blacks and whites still prevents us from working together for our common economic and social interests. The knee jerk tendency to blame blacks for the economic problems experienced by whites is still a vibrant tool of political manipulation. It is currently being used to scapegoat Latino immigrants, with claims that they threaten the wages and standard of living of (white) American workers. Even if our borders were slammed shut right now, capital and jobs would continue to flow abroad, to the continuing detriment of all American workers – black, white and brown.
This white privilege that we protect with such ferocity is based on an illusion created by the wealthy to protect their status. The illusion is that whites are more deserving than people of color. And the purpose of this illusion is precisely the same as it was in 1670 – to sow divisions between groups who might threaten the wealth of those in power.
* At that time, chattel slavery, the ownership of a person and all of that person’s offspring for life, had not yet become a norm in the Americas. Some plantation owners who used European indentured servants for cheap labor also made indentured servants of the Africans they purchased. Indentured servants were required to provide their masters with a certain number of years of labor, and then were freed. By about 1700 it became a law that Africans and their descendents could not be indentured servants. Those who were then indentured servants entered chattel slavery, becoming slaves for life. Like all free blacks, former indentured servants were always at risk of being captured and sold into chattel slavery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








