Bigotry and ethnocentrism at the heart of opposition to Ground Zero mosque

Plans for construction of a mosque at Ground Zero have riled both supporters and protesters. According to the New York Times, politicians and social advocacy groups alike have come out on one side of the issue--New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg defended the project on the grounds of religious freedom, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called the plan "an aggressive act that is offensive."

The mosque in question, if approved by the city Landmarks and Preservation Commission tomorrow, will be built two blocks from Ground Zero. "Park51," as the facility is to be called, is expected to include a prayer space fit for 2,000, a gym, a pool, a theater and a gallery space. Building partner Daisy Khan, who is also married to the cleric leading the effort, said classrooms and lecture halls will provide space for "a robust debate on the critical issues of radicalization, extremism and terrorism." Khan told the Wall Street Journal that the board running the center will include members of other religions "to protect the interests of the center and to ensure the center has the highest standards of transparency."

The more I read about this issue, the more I question opposition to the facility. The argument that angers me most is the "Don't do this to the families of the victims" bent. First off, let's not forget that Muslims also died on Sept. 11. And secondly, what exactly is this mosque doing to the families of victims? Facilitating dialogues between groups? Exposing the city to an oft-feared and more often stereotyped faith, with a rich history and culture? Trying to blast through the "Islam=jihad" stigma that runs through our veins, perhaps most fervently through those who believe "Islam killed my father/mother/brother/sister/wife/husband, etc."? The motives for Park51 seem pure and good, while the motives to oppose the plan seem bigoted and ethnocentric.

As the New York Times reports, the Anti-Defamation League came out against the mosque last Friday, citing opposition by the victims' families as pivotal in the League's decisions. When asked why the victims' families were so crucial to the decision, national director Abraham H. Foxman replied:

"Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational. [The families'] anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted."

Pardon? So do black people get to be bigots in exchange for years of slavery? Do Chinese people get rally against white people in exchange for their exploitation during the Gold Rush and the railroad boom? How about Mexican immigrants who went through hell to come to the U.S. legally? Do they get a blank check to spit on Capitol Hill and rail against the largely white male legislature that makes it increasingly difficult for them to bring their families here legally? What, Mr. Foxman, is the statute of limitations on "survivor bigotry?"

And today, on the eve of the decision to greenlight Park51 or not, Islam shatters another stereotype: That women are oppressed and shuttered by the men who "keep them." Just look at the previously-mentioned Daisy Khan. She, and not her husband and business partner, spoke to the Wall Street Journal about the project. She addressed criticisms and offered solutions to ensure extremism was kept at bay. Described by the Journal as "steadfast," Ms. Khan spoke in macro terms of the "Americanization of a religion" and the importance of facilities like Park51 to ensure the intersection of the Islamic community and the community that surrounds it. Khan is far from the cloistered, meek version of Islamic women so often shown in the media and lodged in our perceptions, proving yet again the utility of places like Park51 in combating said stereotypes.

The opposition may think they are protecting us and safeguarding the memory of those killed in 9/11, but in reality they are only preventing us from learning, understanding and letting go of our fears.

Photo Credit: WyBlog

Chicago columnist forgets the power of racialization

How fitting that a mere three days before I move to Chicago I am reminded of the plethora of blog coverage in my hometown city.

Last week, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Mary Mitchell (at right) wrote a column titled, "Ghetto parenting dooms kids." In this column, she listed the components of said "ghetto parenting," including brawling with your significant other in front of your child, cursing at your child, and putting your child off on family and friends so you can "hang out on the street."

As one might imagine, the column invoked some strong reactions. Lisa Belkin of the New York Times blogged about Mitchell's use of the word "ghetto" as a term for lousy parenting, asking readers to offer their thoughts. Many said Mitchell's writing was downright racist, while others said Mitchell was merely misguided and still another replied (rather rudely I'd say,) "Ghetto is as ghetto does."

Mitchell eventually wrote a follow-up column, "C'mon, you know ghetto when you see it," in which she insisted, "it's not about race or poverty, it's just plain foul behavior." She cited Britney Spears as an example of ghetto parenting and Lindsay Lohan as an example of ghetto behavior. Mitchell asserted that the ghetto is no longer a place where poor black people live, "trapped in a cycle of poverty and despair."

While Mitchell may not have intended for "ghetto" to link up with race so plainly, she failed to recognize and take into account the tremendous historical racialization of the ghetto. Just because she herself does not think the ghetto refers to Chicago's housing projects does not mean others do not conjure up racialized images when they hear or read about "ghetto parenting." As commenter 12 on Belkin's blog stated:

"Mitchell is overlooking a very important point in this discussion: the word 'ghetto' has a history and a meaning; she may have attempted to coin the phrase 'ghetto parenting' but she didn't coin the word 'ghetto' and it is simply not at her whim to decide what it means."

If Mitchell is correct that the definition of ghetto has expanded to include Spears and Lohan, it certainly hasn't departed from its former designation to poor black families and neighborhoods. Typing "ghetto" into a Google search yields the following Wikipedia explanation:

"Recently the word 'ghetto' has been used in slang as an adjective rather than a noun. It is used to indicate an object's relation to the inner city or black culture, and also more broadly, and somewhat offensively, to denote something that is shabby or of low quality."

(I know, I know, Wikipedia is not the most reliable, but many people get their facts from the site. Furthermore, because Wikipedia is user-generated/edited, the information presented can be said to be a consensus on a given topic.)

A Google image search is even more off-putting, as a majority of the photos feature black men and women.

I believe that Mitchell had good intentions. I don't think she intended to speak in racialized (or worse yet, racist) terms. Mitchell's hope that ghetto does not equal black is well and good, but it is idealistic and untrue: Society has yet to decouple ghetto and black.

And if the issue of "what ghetto means" is beyond the scope of Mitchell's intended argument, perhaps she should not have tried to reinvent poor parenting in such a racialized way.

Photo Credit: Chicago Sun-Times

Russell Simmons sends conflicting messages to poor and minorities

Hip-hop mogul and entrepreneur Russell Simmons took to Capitol Hill last month in an effort to help low-income consumers. Simmons successfully lobbied for changes in the financial services reform bill--changes that would exempt prepaid debit cards like his RushCard from fee regulation by the Federal Reserve.

Sound complicated? It is. Robert Schmidt and Patrick O'Connor over at Bloomberg Businessweek do a nice job of summing up the bill, but the shorthand version is this:

When a consumer pays by debit card, the retailer pays a small "interchange fee" to the consumer's bank. The retailer then shoulders that cost, which retailers estimate to be almost $20 billion annually.

Illinois Senator Richard Durbin has been pushing to reduce these interchange fees for years, and he recently won an amendment to cap the fees and let the Federal Reserve, rather than the debit card companies, set the fee rates. This all boils down to more profit for retailers and less for Simmons' RushCard. (Sold by Cincinnati-based UniRush, this card is just a prepaid Visa.)

Now for Simmons' involvement. The mogul argued, both on Capitol Hill and in a Huffington Post blog, that low-income people rely on prepaid debit cards, as they cannot afford checking accounts and are often denied for credit cards. Allowing the feds to set the fees, Simmons said, would force him to charge higher fees to already-financially vulnerable RushCard holders. Simmons said in his blog he doesn't "give a damn about the profits of big banks" and that he "has no hidden agenda." He just wants to protect the poor.

I wholeheartedly applaud Simmons for using his fame and notoriety to give voice to low-income groups and minorities (who too often fall into the former group). Any time a Bentley-driving celebrity comes out in favor of the little guy, I think we're getting somewhere.

But a deeper dig into this issue reveals Simmons' efforts would be better spent elsewhere. First, as the Washington Post's T.W. Farnam points out, the RushCard is not free. Cardholders pay a $3 activation fee, a $9.95 per month "membership" fee, $2.50 for an ATM withdrawal, $1 per debit card transaction and 50 cents to check their balance at an ATM.

Looking at the costs of the prepaid card, one begins to wonder if this card is really the best option for non-checking/credit account holders. And the resounding answer in my mind is "no." Prepaid cards, like payday loans, can be helpful at times, but as a lifestyle they delay the inevitable. Simmons' efforts, it seems, would be better spent helping low-income consumers get to a place where they could afford a checking account and could avoid monthly membership fees. Surely he has some real estate he's not using. I say sell the yacht and start a financial literacy program.

I also can't ignore the contrast between what Simmons says he stands for and what he does. I know, I know, a business has to make money, but are $62 Phat Farm jeans and $40 T-shirts really helping the little guy? Simmons participates in the "marketing of hip-hop"--buy this to attain this hip-hop star lifestyle filled with gorgeous women, money and cars (for further proof, watch Simmons and his ex-wife Kimora in the reality show, Kimora: Life in the Fab Lane)--which can only land the poor in deeper debt and further from financial stability.

I believe that Simmons has good intentions. I don't think his trip to Capitol Hill was a publicity stunt in the slightest. However, the hip-hop mogul would do well to look to the root of the problem his RushCard claims to address: A consumer culture based on the attainment of a star-studded lifestyle much like his own and a lack of financial skills to boot. Prepaid debit, fees or no fees, is merely a BandAid.

Photo Credit: NewsOne

Interracial marriage hits an all-time high

A new report from the Pew Research Center shows a record 14.6% of new marriages in 2008 were interracial, or about one in seven marriages. According to the Center, this is more than double the interracial marriage rate in 1980.

The Pew analysis attributes the increase to the flow of recent immigration and the weakening of the taboo surrounding interracial marriage.

CNN.com took an interesting approach to this news, asking readers what they think about interracial marriage. Overall, the website said, readers support interracial relationships, and many are proud to be part or product of an interracial/interethnic union.

There were of course others who said they date exclusively within their race, but most said they recognize people as people and not as colors.

What do we make of all this? Well, for one thing: Awesome. We've made real progress in terms of who we allow ourselves to date, love and marry. And as CNN points out, an earlier Pew study showed Millenials--adults 18-29 years old--are less likely to even look at race as a factor in their relationships. Presumably, this lack of race-based pairing will trickle down to subsequent generations, and race will become increasingly unimportant in love.

But even if the sheer numbers are increasing, that doesn't mean it's easy to be a black man dating a white woman, or an Asian man dating a Hispanic woman. Within your relationship you may have cultural, political, religious and social differences, while outside your relationship you must manage the stares and questions and perhaps someday the dreaded, "Aww, your son is adorable! What country did you adopt him from?"

Even in Madison, a progressive Midwestern city, I've felt the icy looks of others as I walked down University Avenue with a black man. We weren't dating at the time, and we weren't holding hands as we walked, but still, people got weird. My college roommate also dated a black man freshman year, and the jokes throughout the dorm abounded. Race, it seems, is less and less a factor in who we choose, but it remains a focal point among those outside the pair.

I would never say we can or should ignore race altogether. But I do hope some day studies like this one from Pew don't need to be conducted. I hope we don't need to prove interracial marriage is increasingly OK among daters. I hope we just accept that love is love and marriage is marriage.

In sum, Pew's study shows that there may be more fish in the proverbial relationship sea, but that doesn't mean they're not still swimming upstream.

Photo Credit: Afiive.com

Venus Williams taps into fears of black female sexuality

Venus Williams' lacy outfit at the French Open last week has ignited a firestorm of media coverage. Many of the responses to Williams' black lace outfit (see image) have been negative, or at least hardly favorable: The New York Daily News criticized the athlete's "flagrant disregard for traditional tennis attire," which the paper said, "harked back to a 19th century chorus line," while the Boston Herald referred to the outfit as "hooker couture."

Others recognized Williams' skill as a tennis player, her win over Swiss opponent Patty Schnyder and yes, her rock-solid physique. ESPN.com's Jemele Hill argues in an editorial that it is America's obsession with the body--and athletes' bodies in particular--that has fueled this controversy. Hill goes on to say that when we see images like those of Williams on the court, we cannot help but wonder how we measure up. And, as media comparisons go, we don't come out on top. Williams' outfit, says Hill, taps into our sense of inadequacy, which then breeds curiosity and resentment.

I think that the outcry and attention to Williams' outfit was not a product of our fascination with athletes nor our own bodily insecurities. Instead, her choice of dress ignited white fears of black female sexuality. Black women have been stereotyped throughout history as hypersexual and without control of their sexual urges (black men have also suffered this stereotype). Black lace, fire-engine red piping and shorts that match Williams' skin tone remind us of lingerie, which then brings us to sex. And for a black woman to display such sexually connotative clothing on national television only "proves" that black women cannot stifle their overflowing desire.

Why do I think this? Look at white female athletes in other sports. Do gymnasts, many of whom are white, get flak for their high-cut leotards? Do figure skaters get called out for their flesh-toned undergarments that are oh-so visible on those triple axels? While these wardrobes go unnoticed, Williams gets skewered for her choice. I smell a rat.

I am glad she wore the lace. I'm glad she wore it twice. Williams is the epitome of a strong woman: physically powerful and business savvy. (If you think she didn't know what she was doing when she donned that outfit, think again). When the media daily decry the poverty and devastation among single black women, why would they then turn around and scorn a successful black woman? Fear. Downright fear.

We may be in awe of athletes and we may compare their glutes to ours, but the attack on Williams proves that our ideas about sex and race, rather than the color of her shorts, must be more closely scrutinized.


Photo Credit: StarPulse.com

Senate hopeful slams civil rights

Dr. Rand Paul is Kentucky's GOP nominee for Senate. Dr. Rand Paul is named after Ayn Rand. And Dr. Rand Paul is in a PR pickle.

In an interview with Robert Siegel on NPR's All Things Considered last Wednesday, Dr. Paul was asked whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far.

Paul answered: "What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism."

Upon the show host's urging, Paul then went on to say that he is in favor of ending institutional racism, but that "a lot of things could be handled locally."

What does that mean exactly? Leave it to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to ask just that, and then some:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...

Maddow:...How about desegregating lunch counters?

Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow:Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.

WOMP. Busted. And so began the dig out. After today's appearance on Good Morning America, the Washington Post reports that a Paul campaign spokesman said the GOP nom will do "no more national interviews on the topic." Paul also backed out of this Sunday's scheduled appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, becoming only the third guest to do so in the program's history.

(Have we learned nothing from Tiger Woods, Dr. Paul? You clam up. We talk more.)

Now let's get to the meat of what Paul was saying. A Libertarian through and through, Paul advocates for limited government infringement in public life. Fine. But limited government infringement on discrimination, to the point of allowing private businesses to say, "No, young black man. You cannot work/eat/exist here"?

Liberty for who, Dr. Paul?

Watch the complete Maddow skewering of Rand Paul: (And let me just say, minute 14 on? DING! Maddow for the kill!)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Photo Credit: Wall Street Journal

'Fair and Balanced' goes south of the border

Fox News is branching out to the Latino media market. The Huffington Post reports the news channel will launch FoxNewsLatino this fall. According to the Fox News network, the website will "feature the latest breaking news, politics, economic and lifestyle stories that impact the Latino community." HuffPost reports the site will feature both English and Spanish-language videos, along with reports from Latin American countries.

While Fox News Senior Vice president for News-Editorial Michael Clemente said the network will not launch a companion Latino TV network, he stressed that the expansion is an "unprecedented opportunity" to broaden Fox News' reach and impact to a new audience.

I have to wonder just how smart a business decision this really is. From Arizona's new immigration law to a recent report showing a majority of Americans believe Latinos face the most discrimination, Latinos seem to take a lot of heat these days. How can the "Fair and Balanced" news network attract this new market when Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly wholeheartedly defends the Arizona law on his nightly O'Reilly Factor, or when pro-Arizona Sarah "Go Rogue" Palin is given her own show on the network?

Funny, also, that Obama was criticized recently by conservatives for reaching out to blacks, women, Hispanics and young people, and yet here Fox News takes a similar path. Hypocrisy much?

Something tells me FoxNewsLatino.com won't prove the unprecedented opportunity Clemente expects.

Photo Credit: FoxNews.com