For many, politics and entertainment are meant to be in distinct categories and politics shouldn’t enter our areas of entertainment. The way that I’m defining politics in this article isn’t as a policy related discussion or by our political party but it includes the political issues of woman rights, social issues, and race.

The biggest examples of people being upset when celebrities talk about political issues have always been when celebrities chose a platform in which millions of U.S. viewers were watching like the Superbowl and the Academy Awards.Speaking about these issues with a large audience allows for people to listen and hear what the discussion is about.

An example of woman’s rights, more specifically, the pay gap between men and women, being discussed by a celebrity on a big platform is Patricia Arquette’s 2015 Oscar Acceptance Speech. The speech started out normal before finishing with the statement that it was time for women to receive equal rights within America. This speech was received in both positive and negative ways.

Positive reactions consisted of people supporting her remarks and continuing the conversation over the pay gap difference as well as Meryl Streep’s and Jennifer Lopez’s reaction at the actual event itself.

Arquette was able to get the discussion about woman’s rights out on a bigger scale than if she had said these statements in an interview. Even if that interview was on a top talk show it wouldn’t have received the same amount of attention that her 2015 Oscar Speech did. Twitter hashtags were made to continue promotion of her comments on social media.

Negative reactions towards her comments were also abounded as many people felt like Arquette shouldn’t have discussed this at the Oscar’s and others felt like her opinion was wrong.

Arquette was thus able to start a debate about women and their rights as human beings. However, when she was asked to expand on her comments, Arquette made it obvious that she was advocating for equal rights and equal pay for white woman and not all women.

When asked to clarify her comments, Arquette stated, “It’s time for women in America and all the men, all the gay men, the people of color, to fight for us now.” While she was promoting woman’s rights, Arquette failed to realize that being a woman, a person of color, and be a part of the LGBTQ community could all be attributes of a single person. Reactions towards her failure to discuss intersectionality were quick.

Even after her comments, many still applauded Arquette because any discussion was good enough. Since Arquette’s Oscar Speech, many have continued the discussion of woman’s rights and equal pay. While Arquette may not have realized that she didn’t include intersectionality in her speech, many others have.

An example of race being discussed in a popular entertainment event includes Beyonce’s 2016 Super Bowl 50 halftime show.
(Watch it here.Skip to 7:04 to view Beyonce’s performance).

Her performance was deemed political from her song choice, outfit choice, and the entire performance as a whole. Her performance was considered by some to be pro-black and anti-police alongside many other things. Reactions varied from those who supported Beyonce’s support of people of color and were thrilled that someone with her stance in our society spoke out. Others were upset at Beyonce’s support for the Black Lives Matter movement and for what they believed to be an “anti-police” performance.

Reactions against Beyonce’s Performance:

Anna Kooiman, at the time, was the host of Fox News’ “Fox & Friends”:

“Beyonce got a police escort there and then gives a salute to the Black Lives Matter movement.”

National Sheriffs’ Association Executive Director Jonathan Thompson:

“Art is one thing, but yelling fire in a crowded theater is an entirely different one.”

“At this point, I think the NFL had a serious error in judgment.”

Rudolph Giuliani, former New York City Mayor.

“I thought it was really outrageous that she used it as a platform to attack police officers who are the people who protect her and protect us.” Also stated that he would have preferred a “decent wholesome entertainment.”

Reactions in Support of Beyonce’s Performance

The article titled “Why the Outrage Over Beyonce’s Super Bowl Performance is Completely Ridiculous.” 

Jessica Williams in response to Rudolph Giuliani saying that the performance wasn’t “wholesome’ enough for middle America.”

“Are you saying you can’t talk about race issues to middle America? What are they, so delicate and unaware and maybe so white that Beyonce is too much for them?”

Damon Young, Editor-in-Chief of www.verysmartbrothas.com

“I think that you’re hard-pressed to find that demonstrative an example of performative blackness on stage, on such a high profile stage”

—

While the reactions to both the examples above are split, with some in support and others against. It’s clear that both of them managed to do one thing.

Keep the discussion alive.

The public attention span is very short. Meaning that when something happens, we talk about it for a few days, weeks, or months and then we move on to the next thing. Injecting politics in entertainment whether that be in award shows or sports shows is a good time to get the voice out even if some people are against this.

Politics within our entertainment is a good thing in the sense that it allows for a bigger pool of opinions to be heard. It’s also a way for us to be confronted with the issues that we may not want to discuss. Politics within our popular culture ensures that we are consistently aware of what is happening around us.

What’s your opinion? Do you believe that politics have a place in entertainment or do you feel that politics and entertainment should be kept separately?

Fill out this short survey below and voice your opinion! It’s anonymous!

https://uiowa.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3OEWB9AW4TtvgPj

The post Living in White America: Politics in Popular Culture appeared first on KRUI Radio.

In my very first article of this column, I wrote a story. That story asked you, the reader, to imagine yourself as a child of illegal immigrants who had just gotten deported.

The story wasn’t false.

It has happened to many people over the years and currently, it’s about to get worse. President Donald Trump made it a campaign promise to deport illegal immigrants and many people cheered. They thought it was a good idea and they agreed with his plans for both deportation and the wall.

What these people forget is that the people they are against are human beings, many of whom are trying to escape Mexico. Trump said that Mexico was smart for sending their people to the US. Mexico isn’t sending anyone anywhere directly.

The corrupt government, the drug wars, kidnappings, and a poor community drive people away. My cousin makes about 17 US dollars in one day. I make more than that in two hours.

There isn’t a plan to make the US the next Mexico. Mexicans aren’t here to “take over.” We’re just trying to survive. Yes, there are “bad guys.”

Newsflash: EVERY SINGLE RACE HAS BAD PEOPLE.

It was a white man that charged into a movie theater and a white man that ran into an elementary school and killed innocent adults, teenagers, and children. It was a white man who walked into a church and killed NINE innocent people.

There is no such thing as a perfect race no matter how hard society wants to believe there is.

“Mexicans are bringing drugs…” Okay, but do you know what supply and demand is? Drug cartels bring the drugs because there is a demand for them. And who is a part of the group doing the demanding? White people. So Mexicans could be/are bringing the drugs but white people and others are consuming them.

It’s important to realize that throwing blame at one race doesn’t excuse another. I’m not saying Mexicans are perfect and I’m not saying every single Mexican even wants to come to the U.S.

It’s important to understand that the U.S. is closing its doors to human beings who wish for a better life not only for themselves but for their children. It’s important to remember that not one race is better than the other.

When the Black Lives Matter movement started, All Lives Matter was created in response to that. Most people said that race shouldn’t be a factor. (Yes, it shouldn’t be. But it is.) They also said that every life was important.

So why is it that the people who supported the All Lives Matter movement are, mainly, the ones who are telling Mexicans, Muslims, and Syrian refugees that they don’t matter and that they aren’t welcome?

The answer to the question, “Who Matters?” is simple. Everybody does. Even if certain people don’t believe that to be true.

The post Living in White America: Who Matters? appeared first on KRUI Radio.

There are several dead men named as the “father” of different areas of medicine, but the most shocking is the father of gynecology: Dr. J. Marion Sims. This man was an American slave owner who practiced medicine in the mid-1800s.

Among his many medical experiments and achievements, Sims is widely recognized for his development of gynecological practices that are still in use today. Yes, this man is responsible for an early form of everyone’s favorite, the vaginal spectrum. Useful as it is, I wonder if a better, more comfortable alternative could be found if women had been present in the medical establishment from the beginning.

Dr. Sims misdeeds only begin with the spectrum. He experimented with new surgical solutions to a condition called vesicovaginal fistula, which is a particularly nasty condition that can happen during extended childbirth. He is credited with finding the first surgery that consistently repaired vesicovaginal fistula, something that generations of doctors had tried to solve. However, this important breakthrough in surgery was possible because Dr. Sims experimented on slaves who were subject to his trials without their consent.

Of the fourteen slaves he did experimental gynecological surgery on, he named three of them in his records: Anarcha, Betsy, and Lucy. All three of these women suffered from vesicovaginal fistula. Dr. Sims operated on Anarcha over thirty times. It is important to note that Dr. Sims did not use anesthetics in his experimental surgery, even though they were available at the time.

According to Harriet A. Washington’s book about the history of medical experimentation on black people, Dr. Sims would never have been able to conduct so many experimental surgeries without exploiting slaves, because no white women would have agreed to it. Also, Dr. Sims believed that black women could endure more pain than white women, which is a dangerous and untrue stereotype that still exists today. This is one of the reasons why he never used anesthetics during his experiments.

The idea that black people can endure more pain than other groups comes from the history of undervaluing black people in America. Slave owners perpetrated the idea that black people could work harder and for longer because they are biologically different from white people, who could not withstand the same work.

Like many other manifestations of racism, this concept that black people are somehow unable to feel pain persists. Many white medical doctors believe that black people are biologically different from white people and allow this belief to inform their medical practice. The result of this, among other things, is that black people are substantially less likely to receive pain relief medication than white people.

The story of Dr. Sims and how he was named the “father of gynecology” is one of anti-blackness. It is important to know these stories that create the foundation for medicine, politics, and other areas of our lives. Without an uncensored understanding of how the modern systems of oppression were formed, it is unlikely that we can move forward and create real change.

Genuine Justice is a column about reproductive justice focusing on current events, historical perspectives and systematic racism in women’s healthcare.

The post Genuine Justice: The Father of Gynecology???? appeared first on KRUI Radio.

The leader of the workshop, Tabitha Wiggins played Chance the Rapper and danced around the stage with a contagious smile, inviting attendees to join her up there. She looked at some of the workshop participants and asked “you don’t wanna dance?” as “No Problem” played in the background.

Although the workshop had an intense name, she seemed so carefree and happy. Maybe this surprised me because I felt nervous; I’ve had tons of negative experiences at workshops and settings like these where white liberals hijack the conversation for self-congratulatory purposes. She seemed like she was pretty confident, though. #goals.

She began the workshop by asking us to call her “Tab” since her mother calls her Tabitha when she’s in trouble. She clarified her pronouns and explained her position at the University of Iowa. At this school, she serves as the assistant director of equity and inclusion, and the project director of Being Black at Iowa.

Tab introduced the content of the workshop by explaining the importance of working together to dismantle oppressive institutions and narratives because “I can’t be free until you are free. Our liberation is interconnected.” Then she explained the main subject we’d discuss today: the ally-industrial complex.

After she discussed the commodification of social justice movements, Tab explained the important difference between an ally and an accomplice. An ally has become someone who only superficially oppose certain issues of injustice, and seek to become the heroes of the oppressed.

For allies, struggle becomes a commodity on which they can profit somehow where “allyship is a currency.” Tab brilliantly articulated, “an ally is disembodied from any real mutual understanding of support.” However, an accomplice works together with people at their sides without seeking additional “cookies.” Accomplices become complicit in the struggle without dehumanizing the people who suffer.

Before she proceeded, Tab explained that she found most of the content and framing for her workshop based on an article by an indigenous woman who did not disclose her name.

The rest of the workshop reminded me of a really substantive, illuminating and radical Buzzfeed article (which is arguably the opposite of everything Buzzfeed). Tab began to categorize the kinds of allies.

Salvation/Missionary Ally

This kind of ally has romanticized notions of oppression, and treats oppressed people like victims and tokens instead of humans. They engage in things like exoticization, whitesplaining/mansplaining/etc., and other microaggressive (sometimes macroaggressive) commentary.

Exploitive/Co-opting Ally

These kinds of people seek to impose their own agenda through acts of condescension. They attend rallies and attempt to change the focus from the group’s work to their own personal projects and their own sadness about systemic racism or something. This ally truly engages in another form of liberalism.

Self-proclaiming/Confessional Ally

This ally is mostly concerned about getting “ally points” or as Tab calls them, cookies. They have no intention of actually abolishing entitlement. Tab says that “anti-oppression values are like drapes in their home.”

Parachuter Ally

These people/organizations rush to the front lines of sexy movements to stay trendy and relevant. They essentially serve as missionaries with more funding, and often overlap with the savior ally. They engage in structural patronization.

Academic and Intellectual Ally

These kinds of people remind me a lot of myself a while ago (and sometimes still today). These allies use a lot of academic jargon and big words to talk about issues. They use knowledge and skills to patronize people who may not use complex language to talk about oppression. Academics are “fixated on unlearning oppression” instead of dismantling it. An academic ACCOMPLICE would use their resources and betray the institutions they previously belonged to.

Gatekeeper Ally

Gatekeepers seek to have power over others instead of with other people. They want powerful positions within organizations and make the work about their own resume-building and ego. They are known for withholding information and they have a tendency to create a dependency on themselves, such that a movement or organization lives and dies with them.

Navigator/Floater Ally

These allies familiarize themselves with the jargon and language surrounding anti-oppression, but have no meaningful dialogue about lived experiences and people who suffer from these systems. Other peoples’ oppression becomes their own personal projects. They fail to take responsibility for their own actions and are quick to be authoritarian figures about other peoples’ privilege. They dismiss confrontation and fail to see flaws in their own work.

After explaining a type of ally, Tab gave the participants some time to speak to their neighbors about experiences with these kinds of people and ways to intervene. She took a few minutes to ask people to share with the large group. The format of the workshop allowed the audience time to think for themselves and also connect with people around them.

Out of about 30 participants, only about a third were non-white passing people of color. I always feel a little disappointed when I find myself surrounded by mostly white people in a setting like that, but I have to remind myself of two things: I live in Iowa City, and white people will probably benefit from work like that.

Tab ended the workshop with ways to become an anti-colonial accomplice, but also reminded us that “no matter how free you are, we occupy indigenous land and we are still colonizers.”

Finally, Tab asked us to repeat after her as she chanted the famous Assata Shakur quote:

For more information on the ally-industrial complex, read the article from which Tab found her inspiration.

The post Witching Hour: You Ain’t Gettin’ No Cookies for Doing What Is Racially Just @ The Englert 11/5/16 appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Jason Sole came to Iowa City on Friday to present From Prison to PhD: A Journey of Pain, Promise, and Protest. He started his presentation asking for energy and an emotional connection from the audience, asking people “to follow what I am saying with your hearts, not just your minds.”

As Jason explained how his turbulent childhood in Chicago lead to gang membership, drug dealing, and three prison sentences, he reminded listeners that “not everyone is lucky enough to get to share their story, most people don’t make it out.” This, he explained, is because when children grow up in violent or otherwise stressful communities they are not in an emotional state that allows them to succeed.

One key reason that Jason points to to further explain why children in violent communities become vulnerable to gang membership is fatherlessness. The experience of growing up without a father creates a sense of isolation and emotional tension that are too much to bear for many children, especially when combined with early exposure to violence, drug trade, and systematic poverty.

After Jason served a long prison sentence he felt that he needed a drastic change to prevent himself from getting caught up in the everything he was doing that got him into prison. He said that “out of desperation I went to college.” After excelling in his undergraduate studies, he perused graduate and postgraduate education in criminal justice studies.

Now, Jason is a professor at Hamline University in Minnesota teaching criminal justice studies. He conducts research and has recently written a book. However, Jason is deeply involved with his local community and stressed the importance of not just being an academic. Jason is the president of the Minneapolis NAACP and is on the front lines of many Black Lives Matter events.

For the second half of his presentation, Jason explained the history of the Black Lives Matter movement and reflected on questions like “what does it mean to be black at this point in history?” He also included a lot of information about the Civil Rights Movement in the mid 20th century, and drew helpful comparisons between what was happening then and what is happening now

.

Throughout, he explained how white culture criminalizes black people and their responses to institutionalized racism. Indeed, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested many times and painted as a criminal by media and government officials. Explaining the connection between the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Lives Matter movement is crucial because now people are quick to tell black people protesting injustice that they should be more like MLK, when in actuality white people didn’t like MLK back then either.

After he was done presenting, already 15 minutes over time, he promised to take every audience question and gave extended, profound answers. It was clear how passionate he is about making sure people truly understand what he is saying. Overall, this was an amazing event.

If you’re interested in learning more about modern incarceration tactics, check out 13th on Netflix — Ava DuVernay‘s brilliant documentary about the history of prisons and the modern implications of Reagan-era bullshit.

The post Witching Hour: Jason Sole @ ICPL 11/4/2016 appeared first on KRUI Radio.

The 1960s are often referenced as a time of liberation in American culture. Free love, drug use, and social movements including women’s liberation and civil rights for Black Americans dominate popular discussion of the 60s. However, during this time of widening freedom for many social groups, Native American women were facing renewed discrimination and violence by the U.S. government.

According to a 2005 study published in Wicazo Sa Review, “from the early to mid-1960s up to 1976, between 3,4002 and 70,0003 Native women—out of only 100,000 to 150,000 women of childbearing age— were coercively, forcibly, or unwittingly sterilized permanently by tubal ligation or hysterectomy.”

Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, a doctor of Choctaw and Cherokee heritage, was the first to notice the pattern of forced sterilizations done by the Indian Health Services (IHS) system. In November of 1972, a 26 year old patient asked Dr. Pinkerton-Uri for a “womb transplant” because an IHS doctor had performed a hysterectomy on her when he diagnosed her with alcoholism. After seeing two other patients who were forced to undergo sterilization by the IHS, Dr. Pinkerton-Uri started to investigate.

One tactic that the IHS routinely utilized was to sterilize women without their consent during other, unrelated surgical procedures. For example, performing a routine appendectomy and then also doing a tubal ligation without consent. According to the American Indian Quarterly in 2000, at least 25% of Native women between the ages of 15 through 45 were coercively sterilized during the 1970s. This is an overwhelming portion of the population.

The Guttmacher Institute finds that today, 25.9% of women have undergone some type of sterilization surgery as their chosen method of contraception. For the rate of Native women who were forced to have a sterilization to be the same rate as the amount of women who haven chosen to have the procedure done demonstrates how far this systematic sterilization campaign went.

It is important to analyze this injustice in the broader context of the relationship between Native people and the United States government. Since the first  Europeans came to the Americas, they have sought to manipulate and eventually exterminate Natives. This happened in many regions of the Americas — indigenous people in what is now Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Central and South American countries were all targeted and brutalized by European settlers. In this way, the violence of forced sterilization is nothing new and in fact only continues the history of genocide of Native people by the U.S. government; according to international law, targeting racial groups and trying to prevent them from giving birth is an act of genocide.

This has had a grave impact on Native communities. Dr. Pinkerton-Uri found that the IHS “singled out full-blooded Indian women for sterilization procedures.”, and had a larger initiative to reduce the birthrate of Native American tribes. From the 1970s to the 1980s, the birthrate among all Native tribes dropped drastically.

The impact of forced sterilization on individuals and communities cannot be overstated. It is one of the most violent ways that the state can destroy a person’s bodily autonomy. Because of the severity of this issue, I will be writing in later columns about other groups that have been targeted by the U.S. government, including Black and Latina women.

Genuine Justice is a column about reproductive justice focusing on current events, historical perspectives and systematic racism in women’s healthcare. 

The post Genuine Justice: Sterilization Abuse of Native American Women appeared first on KRUI Radio.

For this month’s article, I thought I’d include an email I recently sent to a professor in regards to her problematic class culture. This is an example of a message I wish I had the energy to send to each person who has fucked with me: professors, students, community members and all.

Here’s the email in quotes, and added GIFs for your viewing pleasure.

“Dear Professor XXXXX

As you know, I dropped your class. I think it’s important you know the reasons why I left the class, because these experiences fall into a similar pattern of instances I’ve experienced in the English department, and the university as a whole (not to mention my daily life).

Your last email to me posed a question: “How can we make discussions more engaging?”

Although I am not in your class anymore, the reasons why I dropped answer this question. I don’t think it’s necessarily my responsibility to figure out ways to make class more engaging as a student, and moreover as a student of color at a predominantly white institution, but here are some suggestions nonetheless.

1) Take the time to learn the correct pronunciations of your students’ names

You asked me at least three times within the first two weeks of class how to pronounce my name my name, and each time I told you how, and you proceeded to pronounce my name in a completely different Americanized way.

The unmistakable difference between the pronunciations confused me. I didn’t understand how you seemingly did not notice the difference, even though I frequently said “that’s not what I said,” after you incorrectly said my name. I never introduced myself to you as “tan-vee” and didn’t understand why you couldn’t hear a difference in the way I said my name and you said my name.

Perhaps I would have felt more engaged in discussion if you had given me a base level of respect by saying my name correctly, or at least asking me to repeat my name so you could learn to say it properly.

2) Acknowledge difference

When I included in my discussion post that I felt tired of unrecognizable bible references, and you began class the next day with a passive aggressive “look it up,” I interpreted that response as a signal that you think my unfamiliarity with the bible is a coincidence, like not knowing French, or not knowing ballet: as if my brownness has nothing to do with my frustration and unfamiliarity with a Judeo-Christian dominated canon that your class perpetuated.

Telling a nonwhite non-Christian student to just “look up” bible references completely ignores that obviously this country prioritizes narratives by and about Judeo-Christian followers in such a diverse place.

Also, calling your class “American Literature” and only including 2 authors of color is a serious misrepresentation of America, and the art its citizens create. Multiple times, you communicated the difficulty of travel arrangements, and while I understand that, the reality is that we ended up with a syllabus dominated by the same kinds of people and that values stories written and focused on white Americans.

You continually used the phrase “left out” to describe my feelings about Christianity references and the content of my post, which trivializes and minimalizes the systemic erasure of stories by and about people of color and non-Christian folks. I didn’t just feel “left out.” I felt alienated by your syllabus and by your comments. I felt the toll of the institutional racism in your class.

3) Stop silencing race critical commentary

I sent you a discussion post that centered on race representation (or lack thereof) and you asked me why I didn’t discuss something I “really want to examine,” and something that would enable a “shrewd” essay in the future. You implied that I am not passionate about the topics I discussed and that questioning a class syllabus’s whiteness is not worth probing.

Your tone in the email indicated to me that you didn’t value the content of my post, you don’t seem to value critiques of your syllabus choices based on race. This clear devaluing of this topic did not motivate me to participate in class; after all, you pretty much indicated that what I wanted to discuss was a waste of everyone’s time.

4) Don’t tokenize your students: in this case, your students of color.

During a discussion about the second book when you defended your syllabus choices and explained the difficulty of travel arrangements, you articulated a situation in which you communicated with a black writer, but she wasn’t able to find a ride from the airport. You called me out and said, “Tanvi!” once again, mispronouncing my name, “I should have volunteered you to pick up [black writer’s name] at the airport!”

I don’t know if this was a defensive comment on your part, or you simply didn’t understand what you were saying, but this was hurtful. This instance represents one of the clearest instances of targeted racism I’ve ever experienced in a classroom. It is inappropriate to single out one of your only students of color who has raised questions about your syllabus and volunteer her for a task for which she’s not responsible.

I’m not sure how else to explain the extremely problematic nature of this instance. You may have been trying to “include” me in a class discussion, but I interpreted and experienced you tokenizing me for my brownness and my radical perspective.

I could not bear thinking about spending another day in that class. You humiliated me in front of my peers. Your comments contributed to the trauma of racism that I experience every day. While you seemed unaware, the emotional toll what you said in class overwhelmed me and forced me to leave class in order to recuperate, and eventually, leave your class permanently.

I’m sharing this with you so that you understand the problem that plagues the department, the school, and this whole country. This class is NOT the first class in which I’ve somehow felt tokenized and erased at the same time, not even the only one this semester.

While I don’t want to speak for others, I can say that instances like these affect students and their ability to excel, or even feel motivated in their academic environments. I’m tired of paying thousands of dollars every year to feel victimized and alienated in classrooms.”

The idea of “decolonizing our minds” is included in the writings of the author, feminist and social activist bell hooks. She encourages us to critically examine every thought and action, free ourselves from the coercive ideologies, and overcome the impacts of structural oppression. This column will analyze spaces and times where and when we can pause and make strides in this arduous process, and also highlight figures who are helping us to decolonize ourselves.

The post Decolonize Your Mind: Exhibit “Screw You” appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Racism is one of those topics that people want to slide under a rug and not talk about, withstanding workplace bias challenges. Usually, it’s white people. In general, white people aren’t aware of their own privilege simply because they don’t need to be. White people don’t have to face the racial discrimination that people of color have to deal with, and even those who are aware of their privilege don’t ‘help’ out people of color.

Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum writes in her article titled, “Defining Racism: ‘Can We Talk,'” that there are three forms of racism: active-racism, anti-racism, and passive-racism. She writes:

“I sometimes visualize the ongoing cycle of racism as a moving walkway at the airport. Active racist behavior is the equivalent to walking fast on the conveyor belt. The person engaged in active racist behavior has identified with the ideology of White supremacy and is moving with it. Passive racist behavior is equivalent to standing still on the walkway. No overt effort is being made, but the conveyor belt moves the bystanders along to the same destination of as those who are actively walking. Some of the bystanders may feel the motion of the conveyor belt, see the active racists ahead of them, and choose to turn around, unwilling to go to the same destination as the White supremacists. But unless they are walking actively in the opposite direction at a speed faster than the conveyor belt — unless they are actively anti-racist — they will find themselves carried along with the others.”

Active racism is behavior that would be deemed racist such as violence and overt discrimination. It’s typically fairly easy to see when someone exhibits racial behavior. These are the people who go out of their way to be racist.

Anti-racism is the exact opposite. These are the people who go out of their way to make a difference. To be different. They are the ones who are AWARE of their privilege and who do whatever they can to dismantle systematic racism. The reason these people are praised for supporting the ideas and general lives of people of color is that they are working AGAINST the system. They are going against social norms and everything that they have grown up listening to.

Finally, if you aren’t a racist who is happy for the oppression of minorities but you also aren’t doing anything to support them in escaping their oppression then you exhibit passive racism. Think back to the conveyor belt example. Just because you are facing in the opposite direction, you are still going in the same direction. You are still going the same direction as those who exhibit active-racism. Being aware of the system in which you benefit from and doing nothing about it doesn’t mean you are helping in any way. You are simply content with continuing to benefit from the oppression of others.

Choose which form of racism you want to exhibit. Putting the topic of racism underneath a rug is something we can’t do anymore. Something we should never have done. Racism is alive and that doesn’t change even though there are people who don’t believe that it still exists.

It’s obvious to see. We see it when a black football player exhibits his first amendment right and gets told to shut up and to be grateful for the fact the he was raised by white parents, we see it when unarmed black men are shot, and we see it EVERYWHERE. Racism exists wherever we look. From the people who insult and attack those of other races to the people who protest social inequality, and to the people who sit down and do nothing.

Who are you? A racist, a supporter of social equality, or someone who does nothing?

This is the tenth article of the column titled “Living in White America.” Every month there will be a new article discussing how minorities live in America. This column will have articles dealing with anything and everything that concerns the under-represented groups of White America. This could include political and social talks. Some articles may discuss cultures of different groups and interviews with a variety of people including those of the racial majority. Discrimination against everybody but the racial majority has gone on long enough and now it’s time people get a look into the worlds of those they dislike so much. 

The post Living in White America: Three Forms of Racism appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Here’s the thing. Up until a month before I started college, I had no idea that there was a Hispanic Heritage Month. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not a clue. I found out because somebody, who is white, brought it up. The conversation that happened is the one below: (WP stands for White Person).

WP: What is it that you do during Hispanic Heritage Month?

Me: What?

WP: You know, how do you celebrate it?

Me: What?

After this interaction in which a white person told me there was a thing called Hispanic Heritage Month I googled it and a whole bunch of info popped up like the stuff I mentioned above. I was surprised that Hispanics got a whole month “dedicated” to them. However, then I realized that nobody really talked about it, which was upsetting. Here I was, trying to figure out who I was and yet nobody really talked about what it was like to be Hispanic in American society. (Or maybe they did and I just didn’t have the resources.)

So, what is my whole point?

Some minorities, to use the politically correct term, are given a time frame throughout the calendar year that is “dedicated” to them. Nothing really gets accomplished though. They don’t really do anything for our groups (the ones we have been placed in due to the color of our skin and our heritage).

I googled other heritage months and these are the ones I found:

Black History Month: February (Oh, shocker. They get the shortest month.)

Irish American Heritage Month: March

Asian Pacific American Heritage Month: May

Hispanic Heritage Month: September 15-October 15

Native American Heritage Month: November

Now, some people would say, “We already give you a month! You want more?”

Why yes. Yes, we do. Aside from the fact that a single month is not enough time to celebrate an entire cultures history and traditions, let’s also think about the fact that someone who doesn’t have white skin is immediately thought to be less than (not by all, but by enough).

I want to be able to walk down the street on Mexico’s Independence Day with my Mexico soccer team jersey and not have a white male come up to me and yell, “MURICA” in my face. Like, great buddy, good for you. Fun Fact: I AM AN AMERICAN.

Why was this white man screaming the mispronounced name of my home country in my face?

Oh, right. My Mexican jersey and my brown skin color. My skin color doesn’t scream white American citizen and since I decided to join in the celebration of my parents’ home country it garnered a reaction. The reaction of a white male yelling in my face. You could argue that if I hadn’t had the jersey then he wouldn’t have yelled in my face. Maybe. But that’s the point. Am I, a citizen of the United States, not allowed to show appreciation, nay, pride for the place that my parents were born and the culture that I have grown up with? Am I supposed to disallow the culture that is responsible for the person I am simply because it makes others uncomfortable?

I shouldn’t have to hide my Mexican culture to please anybody. I don’t think a month is enough for cultures to truly celebrate the history and traditions that they have but I do think the months are good for one thing: reminding us that we shouldn’t be ashamed of who we are. At least, that’s what Hispanic Heritage Month does for me.

These months do one thing that is a positive. They get people talking; about race, about inclusion, about equality. And in this time and age, that is a stepping stone in the right direction. These months do something else and that’s getting people to ask about White History Month.

Like, why isn’t there a month for white people? Um. Maybe it’s because, and I’m just guessing here, every month is White History Month. We go to school and learn about dead old white men and how great they were. (Which in reality, a lot of them were actually really terrible.) Even in college, I have to hear about how white people are so great and we could learn from the past white leaders. Like yes, I as a colored woman totally relate to the rich white man. I mean, we’re twins.

Having heritage months for racial minorities doesn’t mean that the contributions of the white men aren’t talked about. We just need some time to remind people that you don’t have to be white to be a contributing member of the United States.

So for the dates of September 15 to October 15 and beyond, get the conversation going. Learn about cultures other than your own. Learn about the contributions of those who share a different skin color than you. Get to know someone from a different racial group. Let yourself be open to new possibilities, new friends, and new cultures.

This is the ninth article of the column titled “Living in White America.” Every month there will be a new article discussing how minorities live in America. This column will have articles dealing with anything and everything that concerns the under-represented groups of White America. This could include political and social talks. Some articles may discuss cultures of different groups and interviews with a variety of people including those of the racial majority. Discrimination against everybody but the racial majority has gone on long enough and now it’s time people get a look into the worlds of those they dislike so much. 

The post Living in White America: Hispanic Heritage Month appeared first on KRUI Radio.

This month’s featured artist wrote my favorite poetry book “salt.” and describes the piece as a “journey through warmth and sharpness.” The book discusses a wide array of issues ranging from the diaspora to colonialism to misogyny, which conveys the fierce interconnectedness of identities. Painful and poignant, raging and gentle, Nayyirah Waheed encourages self-examination, gives readers reason to be critical, and leaves them with hopeful words that keep us pondering the complexity and depth of her writing.

The US-based artist began writing at age 11. As a self-identified “quiet poet,” the internet offers little information on her background and childhood, which conveys something about Waheed’s personality. In one poem, she writes “listen to my poems./but/do not look for me./look for you.” In another, she positions herself “a bridge” between “what you may feel but cannot say.” She doesn’t seem to seek fame or attention; Waheed simply shares.

Endlessly.

Since she has shared little information about herself, and I’m not even sure what she looks like, I’d like to share how her words help my decolonization.

The poem on above forced me to consider the psychic and physical violence that I have inflicted on my body since childhood. From internalized eurocentric beauty standards to self-harm, I constantly brutalize myself and the image of myself. Mentally and physically we damage ourselves in order to conform to an idea of physical beauty imposed upon us through brainwashing and colonization. Waheed softly but powerfully suggests a starting point to be gentler towards ourselves: an apology.

Her emphasis on self-compassion and love, while seemingly simple, revolutionizes the way many societies in our world dictate the way we treat ourselves. In the poem on the right, Waheed writes of the potential of self-love, and the weight of its absence on her mental health.

At some point, I just began copying down parts from the book in my own diary to consult on bad days.

Aside from self-love, I appreciate her theme of strength, especially woman-strength in her poetry. She often writes about the resilience built through her experiences as an immigrant in the USA, as a woman embedded in capitalist patriarchy, as a black woman in institutions of systematic racism. Waheed writes about the energy necessary to bloom in a toxic environment, and appreciates her own power.

These themes represent only a few of the many issues Waheed writes about in “salt.” Although the poems are mostly short and the book has fewer than 200 pages, I took my time in reading each page to absorb every deliberate word; I still haven’t fully processed each poem. I will continue decolonizing as I re-read her book and recite her gentle words to myself each day.

“salt.” is available for purchase on Amazon, but thankfully, many of her readers have photographed pages of her book or posted quotes on the Internet. Googling her name yields many search results which display her poetry, if you’re interested in reading more.

Nayyirah Waheed has active profiles on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, and her own website. She shares pieces of her work and showcases other artists who decolonize our minds.

The idea of “decolonizing our minds” is discussed in the writings of the author, feminist and social activist bell hooks. She encourages us to critically examine every thought and action, free ourselves from the coercive ideologies, and overcome the impacts of structural oppression. This bimonthly column will analyze spaces and times where and when we can pause and make strides in this arduous process, and also highlight figures who are helping us to decolonize ourselves. 

The post Decolonize Your Mind: Read Nayyirah Waheed appeared first on KRUI Radio.