Rolling 2014 Thread on Race

imo it's a shocking term that confronts the read with the idea that they, or society writ large, don't see a group as having human agency

honestly, I could see the term "white bodies" and it makes no sense to me, but so much writing about black people does concentrate on physicality and objectifies without necessarily meaning to that putting it out there, if lazy writing or misappropriation of theory, seems like a reasonable tactic

龜 otm

Black bodies is the exact language of "strange fruit"

it emphasizes labor physicality ownership literally slavery because the rhetoric of equality elides all of that pesky history and there is a need to not whitewash

Also in the case of Michael Brown it is especially appropriate (without implying that its use elsewhere is less than appropriate). Racial profiling by police and police brutality against black people starts and ends with the appearance of the victims. Michael Brown's body was left in the street for four hours and directly recalls the practice of leaving lynched bodies - again, strange how this term keeps on popping up - to hang in the days of Jim Crow as a warning to other black people. It is also no mistake that one of the talking points embraced by conservative media focused on Michael Brown's height and weight, as if that should have any relevance at all in a case where an unarmed 17 year old was shot and killed by a police officer.

Do you have similar issues with talk of women's bodies in reproductive justice?

― 龜, Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:32 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No, but it's usually used differently -- "Don't tell women what to do with their bodies" "Don't try to control women's bodies" etc. There's still a "women" in the sentence. It's not "Black people's bodies." Anyway, above arguments seem reasonable enough.

https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site%3Asalon.com%20%22female%20bodies%22#q=site:salon.com+%22female+bodies%22

I've been following this thread, but hadn't clicked on the links. I was siding with Hurting because I assumed someone was writing about dead black people.

I can kinda go along with the phrase now, when color is relevant and in a Don Delillo sort of context.

I don't actually know the context, but without context I kind of don't like the term

what a series of words this is

yeah that came out really garbled, what I meant was that I don't know the ORIGINAL context (i.e. how exactly it was used by foucault et al), but it rubs me slightly the wrong way in the typical salon article context.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/01/justice/michael-dunn-loud-music-verdict/index.html

This is a good outcome but what the hell is this:

Killing Davis was lawful, Healey told the jury, if Dunn acted in the heat of passion or if he unintentionally caused Davis' death. The jury could also find Dunn not guilty if he was in danger, acted in self-defense and exacted a justifiable use of force, the judge instructed.

So basically, if I fly off the handle and kill someone, I can argue that the killing was lawful because I was acting in the heat of passion???????????

That...can't be right

The classic example for that is the person who comes home to find their partner in bed with another person and kills in the heat of passion

It's a defense, and if the jury accepts it the murder gets downgraded to a manslaughter conviction

Jurors began deliberating on the new charges just before 10 a.m. ET on Wednesday, after Judge Russell Healey dismissed two of the three alternates and provided instructions for the charges jurors were to consider.

The first charge to consider, Healey said, was first-degree murder, which would require that Dunn premeditated killing Davis.

If the jury didn't feel the state proved first-degree murder, it was instructed to move on to second-degree, which would mean Dunn killed Davis via a criminal or depraved act.

The third charge was manslaughter, which would require a finding that Dunn unlawfully caused Davis' death.

Killing Davis was lawful, Healey told the jury, if Dunn acted in the heat of passion or if he unintentionally caused Davis' death. The jury could also find Dunn not guilty if he was in danger, acted in self-defense and exacted a justifiable use of force, the judge instructed.

That doesn't seem right, I can see them downgrading the murder charge, but letting him off the hook completely for an "act of passion" sounds off

Here's a slightly more reasonable sounding summary:

http://www.news4jax.com/news/michael-dunn-jury-instructions/28356706

I think what's missing from the CNN quote is that it would have had to occur "by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation." So it's not like walk in on your cheating spouse and shoot heat of passion.

But in any case he got first-degree murder, so good work, jury

Pretty sure there is no state that completely lets you off the hook for heat of passion alone.

That's an exception big enough to swallow the rule imo xp

maybe I'm just being dense/sensitive but I can't think of any reasonable scenario describable by "When killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation" that wouldn't qualify as manslaughter, particularly when said incident involves firing a gun at someone

TBH I'm not exactly clear on what it means to accidentally kill someone in the heat of passion upon provocation.

like maybe, you're leaving a room and someone grabs your arm and you jerk violently away, unbalancing the person who grabs you and they fall awkwardly into a wall, breaking their neck?

Maybe it would be like the intruder scenario -- you're cleaning your gun, you hear glass break, you turn and see the silouhette of a figure with what looks like a knife, you shoot in a startled moment, turns out it was your drunk roommate who forgot his key and he was going to slice himself some salami??? I don't fucking know.

But that would actually more easily fall under other exceptions so nm

yeah that's scenario #1 IMO

You decide to go outside and drive away rather than risk being in the same room as your cheating spouse, but you run over someone as you speed away

Was provoked into pulling gun and my finger twitched, was provoked and shot big window behind the dude who provoked me and flying glass cut an artery -- that kinda thing, I think.

but you were speeding; I don't know if that falls under the manslaughter definition or not

You were provoked into speeding, you would argue.

I can only imagine the mental/linguistic gymnastics that prosecutors in Florida need to perform in order to circumvent the insanity of stand-your-ground.

Or it happens while under the speed limit (i.e. it's dark and you hit someone at 20 mph, and that person happens to be an elderly person with an unreliable pacemaker) idk

I can only imagine the mental/linguistic gymnastics that prosecutors in Florida need to perform in order to circumvent the insanity of stand-your-ground.

"There's no national attention and I shot a black person."
"ACQUITTAL"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/millennials_racism_and_mtv_poll_young_people_are_confused_about_bias_prejudice.html

Last point dead-on:

Which gets to the irony of this survey: A generation that hates racism but chooses colorblindness is a generation that, through its neglect, comes to perpetuate it.

I had this kind of epiphany reading some facebook comments about the recent Jacobin article about gentrification that liberal individualist ideology kind of hampers people from seeing structural problems, because they can't see past their own noses and "choices." I think this carries over into race -- racism has been made into a personal choice issue. "I'm not racist because I choose not to do/say racist things." "It sucks that that guy got shot but I don't think the guy who shot him was being racist, he was just afraid."

afraid and racist

Re: the "black bodies" argument, if the choices are "that sounds racist and dehumanizing" or "Well, if you've read Foucoult you'll grok my steez," is just a bad decision to go with the latter in a general interest publication...

Or possibly the phrase is a rhetorical device intended to emphasize the racist, dehumanizing situation and not a phrase you're supposed to feel comfortable with

racism actually is a personal choice issue in the sense that we have to make an active choice to circumvent the structural-racist status quo, which takes more effort and commitment than just saying "i'm not racist". in order to not be racist, we have to fight racism by doing things. it means putting yourself in new situations where you might feel vulnerable or possibly look foolish, but that should be how we learn and live, no?

I think that's right, but I guess what I'm saying is that if structural racism is embedded enough then racism is almost the default position, whereas the liberal individualist tends to think that as long as he isn't actively doing "racist" things (saying the "n-word", expressing negative generalizations about black people, assaulting black people because they walk through his neighborhood, etc.) he is not racist and can go about his business, meanwhile ignoring ways in which racism might be embedded into institutions and structures in ways that have racist effects far beyond what any individual says or does. I don't think many people who post in this thread fall into that category fwiw. I guess I'm partly talking about emphasis, and a focus on "are my hands clean or dirty" rather than on how racism operates.

"are my hands clean or dirty" or is there just mud everyfuckingwhere?

I think that's right, but I guess what I'm saying is that if structural racism is embedded enough then racism is almost the default position,

Aka white supremacy

Well yes but not the hood-swearing, stormfront reading kind is my point

Or possibly the phrase is a rhetorical device intended to emphasize the racist, dehumanizing situation and not a phrase you're supposed to feel comfortable with

― 💪😈⚠️ (DJP), Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:33 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, by black writers, sure!

I still think it would be a little #problematic in the hands of other ppl tho

it means putting yourself in new situations where you might feel vulnerable or possibly look foolish, but that should be how we learn and live, no?

and i mean also being mindful of how lucky it is to be able to do this with minor risk compared to victims of racism, respecting the stakes of others who have a lot more on the line. i'm thinking of volunteering for a latino community organization just to learn something and hopefully be useful setting up chairs for potlocks or w/e. trying to get on the right wavelength for it. i'm bad at people and shy.

Well yes but not the hood-swearing, stormfront reading kind is my point

everyone else's point is that this image is not what "white supremacy" means in 2014

Well yes but not the hood-swearing, stormfront reading kind is my point

Yeah - I mean when any modern writer is talking about 'white supremacy' it's not about the klan, it's about a preference for whiteness that permeates society at every level

But the repurposing of the phrase 'white supremacy' was not by any means accidental

Xp Dan as I said I think most ilxors agree about this. My realization was just that a lot of people think in a narrow individualist way that prevents them from seeing these structures.

This is a couple years old (came out during the whole KONY thing) but I think relates to what is being discussed in more concrete ways: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/

like, thinking about the ramifications of what exactly it means beyond abstractions abt systemic vs personal

k someone from my would be progressive church posted this shit from george takei's FB and i just want to make sure im not dreaming that this is not slam dunk transphobic/islamophobic/anti-black racist trifecta

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/429256_363067520389374_284782731_n.jpg?oh=38903f9ddff74c245795240b952abde0&oe=54CB29BE&__gda__=1420787628_6a01a53ab475b5fadc3b8227f4f13f33

also wimmin, who be shoppin