latin american princesa {LAP}

Oh, oh, oh now Bill Richardson meeting with Chavez is a very very interesting twist. I’m sure Bill will be berated for meeting with the monster, but all I can say is “it’s about time!“. Seriously how does this country expect to resolve any problems if the government refuses to talk to anybody or negotiate with anyone. Sticking your head in the sand just doesn’t work. Procrastinating and ignoring doesn’t make things disappear.

Hmm, how about Bill replacing Condi? Somehow I just couldn’t see him as Prez and apparently many others felt the same way. But Secretary of State. Yeah. Seems like a good fit. He has the diplomatic, international and peace mediation experience.

We all live in this world together. I just don’t see how barreling through it, forcing your own way is the right path to peace and democracy for all.

via rumproast:

It was such a pleasure to watch this priest “bitch-slap” one of Bill O’Reilly’s idiots:

And if you are interested in learning more about MLK the man and his criticisms of this country’s policies (domestic and foreign) check out this podcast from The Brian Lehrer Show interviewing the Michael Eric Dyson, author of a new book April 4 1968.

After reading Ms. Crip Chick’s post on Changemakers as Celebrities I started to wonder:

Are heros like MLK, Justin Dart, Phoolan Devi and Che really responsible for bringing about change or do they bring exposure to change that is already in the works? Do they really transform our world or do we just transform them into the myths of change?

According to Roland Barthes a myth helps to make something “natural” or “normal”. So perhaps that means the MLK-myth helps to “naturalize” the changes of the civil rights movement into our society or culture? To make those changes seem “normal”?

From an interview on Open Source with a friend and contemporary of MLK:

[MLK] had grown up, Haynes remembers, with a “burning awareness that a cancer was eating at America. I think for any black, North or South — realizing there were strictures, there were limitations, that we’re still being kept out and separated — there was something grossly wrong with that separation, and these walls, these barriers needed to be broken down. I think a lot of young leaders, probably including myself, were waiting for God to appoint a Moses. The time was just right, and Martin was that man who was going to lead us to a promised land… It’s tragic when a body has a cancer and doesn’t know it… Dr. King made that diagnosis very clear to America.”

The savior metaphor can be placed socially and culturally into context by the fact that Dr. Haynes, like MLK is a reverend. Both men are spiritual leaders and this is their language. Such imagery is “natural” for him, but throughout the interview he clearly sees MLK as a man.

Dr. Haynes also explains that MLK himself recognized that he was but one actor in the movement and that many other leaders and individuals in the community also played a role. This does not take away from the importance of MLK’s work and sacrifice, but it does de-bunk the myth and exposes the extraordinary man beneath. Martin. Not Dr. King. Not Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Just Martin. A father, a husband, a friend, a leader, a student, a teacher, a preacher. There is no denying though the impact that Martin has had, nor the changes that came about due to his leadership.

Some walls, some barriers were broken down, not all, but some. People have tried to rebuild some. There are even new walls (or fences) under construction. I am not religious in the church sense. What I believe is that the human story is one of flux and change.

In our Western way of thinking, things are static and we try to “finish” a story. But in reality it never really ends. The civil rights struggle didn’t end with MLK. It won’t end with Obama. Life doesn’t end or stand still. We keep writing new stories. When we need a new “ending”, because enough change has occurred or because we happen to notice that change has occurred, we add to or revise the story. I hope we can develop new ways of thinking, new ways of narrating. Something more dynamic. Could this be the “change” that unites all of us who are taken by Obama’s message? He is criticized for being vague. But it is not up to him to define change. It is up to us all. The lack of definition empowers us.

The documentary Zeitgeist challenges the myth of Christianity and the War on Terror. The movie, although a bit too conspiracy theory for my taste, does challenge one to think. Which brings me back to the chicken-or-the-egg conundrum. Which came first? Does it really matter? Or is it the process that really matters? In trying to solve the conundrum, we are forced to confront unanswered questions. It is the discussion or dialogue that really brings about change.

We are on a journey together towards social justice, peace…the promised land. And no I don’t mean some mythical heaven. I mean a real world, full of humans beings who are struggling to learn to live together with their differences. Same Same But Different.

What do you think? Does the mythical changemaker come first or does the momentum for change create a mythical changemaker?

I love a good mystery and humans are truly a mystery. Now that people are starting to realize that Obama actually has a real chance, the hate starts oozing. Despite the Clintons’ racially-charged smear campaign, Obama won South Carolina. Many of us saw their true colors in that offensive. I was already having my doubts about Hillary. She sealed her fate in SC.

But another smear campaign is underway. I was stunned a couple of weeks ago when a Jewish friend of mine told me that her father told her Obama was secretly a muslim. “Huh???!!!!” I had not heard anything to that effect. Not that I think being Muslim is a bad thing, but the whole secrecy thing seemed dubious to me. Then I found an article in the NY Times about a spam email spreading the “Obama is a muslim” rumor. But the email has been confirmed as fake and 9 Jewish leaders condemned the hateful rumors being spread about Obama.

My friend forwarded the info on to her dad, but he remains unconvinced and referred to “being at war with the Nation of Islam”. I was perplexed again. I thought Israel or the War on Terror was the issue. Where did the Nation of Islam come into play? Well after a little digging I found the answer: Jeremiah Wright. Apparently Obama’s pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is too close to Farrakhan for the comfort some. I can certainly understand her father’s concern. I however am satisfied with Obama’s statement condemning anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic statements made by Farrakhan.

In a world full of hate and prejudice how many degrees of separation can we maintain between ourselves and preachers of hate? According to the wikipedia on Wright, critics claim his preaching of Black liberation theology is racist, but

Wright has rejected this notion by saying that “The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history.”

And the Trinity Church website also claims:

African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

Having never heard him preach, I cannot pass judgment, but as a woman and a social scientist I certainly stand behind the argument: be a subject, not an object. The biggest obstacle to ending discrimination and racism is the tendency of human beings to reduce groups to a limited identity: just black, just Jewish, just Latino, just American. This reductionism, dehumanizes the Other, reduces us to objects. It keeps us from seeing the total picture, the complex subjects that each and every one of us is. It is not something that is limited to whites either. All groups have prejudices and stereotype others. I know Latinos, Jews and Muslims who are racist against Blacks also. And yes, Blacks can be racist too. Farrakhan being a prime example. At the top of the power ladder in this neck of the woods, however, is the Euro/American white, many who claim to be “enlightened” and have been trying to “enlighten” the rest of the world (usually by force) since the merchant/trade race began in Europe.

This weekend I read an article about Vick’s dogs. The latest black man we all love to hate is serving 23 months. I almost threw up reading about the dogs. My husband said he deserves more jail time. I had to wonder. How much jail time did Europeans and Americans get for the same (or worse) treatment of Africans? How much time will Bush or his cronies serve for Iraq and Guantanamo? I’m with Obama. Dialogue! We need real, open and honest dialogue.

The Guardian published a passage from a Wright sermon:

“The good news that’s coming is for all people! Not white people - all people. Not black people - all people. Not rich people - all people. Not poor people - all people. I know you’ll hate this … not straight people - all people! Not gay people - all people. Not American people - all people … Jesus came for Iraqis and Afghanis. Jesus was sent for Iranians and Ukranians. All people! Jesus is God’s gift to the brothers in jail and the sisters in jeopardy. The Lord left his royal courts on high to come for all those that you love, yes, but he also came for those folk you can’t stand.”

All people. Hmmm…where is the racism? I see some honesty. Perhaps the people mentioned don’t all like or accept one another, but he recognizes that they all have rights. Ok well the right to Jesus’s love. Maybe not my first choice in rights, but for a pastor that is important.

People need educate themselves a little better, before passing judgment on things they do not understand. We must understand the social and cultural context of things. Even in “liberal, left” Europe people are questioning Obama now as a reverse racist. Well seems that they are liberal and left as long as their own superior position is not threatened. For instance, in The Netherlands affirmative action is demonized in the public sphere and there is loud demand for immigrants to adopt all Dutch norms and values. No thanks, my parents taught me my norms and values, and I like them just fine. A comment on a Dutch blog refers to Obama as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Oh god forbid we might upset the status quo in which Western Europe/America does not control the world.

Seems to me that it is a particular liberal left that claims to care about “us minorities” who are the “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. I can respect conservatives on the right who are at least being honest about their views, even if their views make me nervous. It is the insidious racism that’s so hard to fight.

Black churches are not like white churches. Black pride is not equivalent to white hate. Perhaps whites who are quick to jump on the reverse racism bandwagon now are just projecting their own behavior on others?

If Eurocentric history won’t be re-written to include the rest of us, why can’t we write our own? Just look at the ‘war’ Latinos had to fight to be recognized in the PBS documentary on WWII.

Obama is different. His campaign is different. If the biggest problem people can find with him is that he knows someone who knows someone that is questionable in his beliefs, then guess what? He’s just like all the rest of us. We all know someone, who knows someone that has views we don’t agree with. Obama is hard to define and perhaps that is also what makes the most conservative from all walks of life so nervous. It also makes it easier to come up with vague reasons to smear him.

The lines are blurred and the spinners are pouncing, but revolution is brewing…brewing…brewing…a whisper in the wind, the flutter of a butterfly’s wings.

For all those who will be voting on Tuesday, February 5th, in Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska and Oklahoma please take a few moments to read this warning written by Racialicious’s Carmen Kerchove:

WARD CONNERLY FOOLS YOU INTO DISMANTLING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AGAIN

Information and knowledge are critical to our freedom and are the real power behind our vote. Don’t let the elite and greedy hijack that power from us. They’ve been eating away at our civil liberties, we can’t let them take away our opportunities also.

What irritates me most about the media coverage of the race for the democratic nomination is the constant harping about gender and the less harped on question of race. Why do people think that it is strange that Obama got a higher percentage of female votes than Hillary in Iowa? Why don’t they question how many men voted for any male candidate? Do they think women are so stupid that they would vote for Hillary just because she is a woman? Shouldn’t female voters, like male voters, choose the candidate they feel best represents their interests?

The gender question seems to be getting more of this kind of bogus coverage than the race issue. We could blame it on the media and our patriarchal society. We could say that for a white male dominated patriarchal America, a man, no matter what color, is still better than a woman. But I won’t say that. That is an easy cop out. No, I think the media is reflecting a major difference in the campaigns of the two front-runners. She plays the gender card. He does not play the race card. She is running as a woman, to be the first female president. He is not running as a black man, to be the first black president. Early on this resulted in accusations of “not being black enough” which Obama cleverly quieted. I feel for Hillary. She’s smart and strong and could be a good leader, but it’s true she is part of the status quo. She hasn’t realized that she is more than just a woman. Or at least her campaign is not really showing that.

We can’t pretend that race and gender are not factors. Many people are surprised at the amount of white support for Obama. Certainly good questions related to race and gender will reveal interesting new dynamics. The problem is that Hillary and her campaign are making gender more of a focal point than Obama is with race.

When Obama speaks one hears a black man (with my eyes closed I almost hear MLK). But he is many things. He is multiracial, he is well-educated, he is a husband, he is a father, he is a citizen, he has lived abroad…. But most of all he is my hero for not allowing one aspect of his identity to define who he is. Stereotypes reduce us to one small, and often negative, aspect of our identity, stripping us of the rest of our selves. That’s why stereotypes can be so damaging to self-esteem. SO WHY DO IT TO OURSELVES? Why limit ourselves to only one aspect of who we are?

The progressive liberal in me may love Gravel’s frankness and audacity, but Obama could be what America needs to help us recognize and fully include multiple facets of our identities: black, white, immigrant, hopeful, energetic, ambitious, and complex. Obama as president would embody that new America so many of us are obviously yearning for: color full not color-blind. This would certainly play a role in both foreign and domestic issues, breaking with the colonialist, imperialist mentality inherited from European ancestors. Sarkozy is shaking up the French political establishment. Chavez, Lula and Morales represent dramatic changes in Latin America (how good the changes are remains to be seen). Sadly Bhutto’s assassination destroys a bit of democratic hope for that region.

Could we be on the brink of a new era in which the Euro-American arrogant superiority complex is slowly replaced by dynamic, new ways of thinking?

I hope so. But I don’t quite see the light at the end of the tunnel just yet.

Here’s a clip from Mike Gravel’s myspace:

And he’s lying then. And he’s lying now. Because he went in there for oil. He wasn’t going to sell democracy. That only came about after they couldn’t find the weapons of mass destruction. You can tell his lips are moving…the president’s lying!!

Ok so I’m a sucker for an underdog. But gosh darn it he’s speaking the truth!!!!! Oh right the truth is an underdog.

Alright so my friend Dynia in Cali isn’t happy if she’s not the center of attention (she’s soooo jealous of my princesa status ). So she’s gone and started her own personal Ron Paul campaign (maybe Mexicans shouldn’t be able to vote! )

Check her out:

This means war…stay tuned for my Gravel comeback.

What’s that I hear? Is it real? A politician speaking the truth? Rubbish you say? Well pigs have flown and hell froze over cause Gravel has spoken (or not spoken, if you’ve seen the rock video):

Mike Gravel ‘08

When I was 14 I fell in love with Midnight Oil. Punk and politics, a combination I can’t resist. Like me beloved Beasties this band used their success to fuel their activism and let their activism fuel their music. Peter Garrett, former lead singer, has gone into politics.

From NPR:

Garrett is the environment, heritage and arts minister in Australia’s new government.

Good-bye John Howard. Who’s beds are burning now?

I just can’t wait to say “Good-bye GW and good riddance.”