France 2010, QLB (what the fuck)

For the past few weeks I've been posting on facebook a plethora of articles, mostly in French, about the recent riots in my former home, Grenoble, and especially about the response coming from the esteemed president of the republic, Sarkozy.  I wanted to flesh these posts out here; early on there were few good english language analyses of the events and subsequent political backlash.  More recently, an article was published in the Guardian that puts them in some context (which I will attach at the end).

Basically in mid-July a couple of guys from a rough neighborhood in Grenoble ripped off a casino (instead of a casino ripping off the public, for once).  A high speed chase ensued, with gunfire both on coming from the police and the robbers.  One man was killed, Karim Boudouda, and his neighborhood reacted as neighborhoods do in France when the police kill an inhabitant: it exploded.  For three nights cars were burned and rocks were thrown.  Live amunition was fired at the police, even.  The collective anger about police harassment, high unemployment, lack of educational opportunities, and systemic racism echoed events in 2005 when neighborhoods throughout France rioted for weeks in response to the deaths of two young boys being chased by the police.

The other side threw back rhetoric.  Sarkozy flew to Grenoble, which is a relatively small and terribly provincial town that usually has no national exposure outside of the ski season, and threatened to remove French citizenship from people of 'forgeign origin' who commit certain types of crimes, such as violence against a police officer (ironic since I can imagine nothing more French than a good protest) or female circumcision.  This is the man who lit the match way back in 2005, back when he was minister of the interior, by going showing up in the neighborhood where the boys were killed and calling the rioters "racailles" (what's the best translation here?  scum, I think, is often used, but I think it's more explosive than that.  Maybe not to the level of the N-word, but it certainly is more racially tinged than scum.  Thoughts from the Frenchies out there?).

This is coming from a political party that is currently trying to expel gypsies from its territory.  A party that, a few months ago, had a minister tell a French man of north African descent, "When there's one it's fine, it's when there are too many that we have problems."  And this was a dude who was actually a member of his own party.  This is a party who has a minister (Etrosi) who is now demanding of recent immigrants, "French or thug, you have to decide." 

For a country whose long term immigration policy has centered around erasing race and relying simply on nationality, we're seeing disturbing proof that there are two distinct classes of French citizen: White and Other.

The sad truth is that we understand why this rhetoric is coming out now.  Sarkozy is in trouble.  Recent polls show that if the election were to be held today he would lose to the leading candidate of the socialist party; a majority of French folks would like to see the socialists win the next election (http://www.linfo.re/-France-/Nicolas-Sarkozy-perdant-en-2012-selon-trois-sondages).  Yet this is a country where the overtly racist Front National (a video came out yesterday with its leader talking about the importance of having a country home because he would prefer his children seeing cattle than arabs... yeesh) consistently wins 15-20% of the vote.  Sarkozy is pandering to this far right to try to build a coalition that will ensure his reelection.

Needless to say this type of overt racism is incredibly troubling, but the fact that it is so clearly for political gain only increases the insult. 

And I feel it's necessary to point out that this rhetoric is not coming only from Sarkozy.  The entire UMP (his party) has made a dramatic shift to the right.  Say what you want about Chirac, but his brand of conservatism was largely absent this type of overt racism.  Chirac actually talked about instituting affirmative action (called 'positive discrimination' in French) and brought a number of people of color into his cabinet, including the problematic but always thought provoking Azouz Begag.  Recently, the UMP has become increasingly open about its casual and not so casual racism, including the previously cited quotes from UMP ministers as well as the suggestion that a magazine calling Sarkozy a "thug" for his recent actions be censored.  The move, in many ways, mirrors the Republican push to the right we've seen recently; talk of 'anchor babies' and repealing the 14th amendment isn't really so different, conceptually, from the idea of citizenship contingent on assimilation. 



France remains a deeply segregated country.  Since the post WW2 period when immigrants were shipped in to France to work in factories but housed in slums outside of the major cities, people of color have largely remained on the exterior, literally.  In Grenoble, like in Paris, the scenic center of the city is full of white people; the communities of color, largely French citizens from former colonies (another story) in north and west Africa, remain in the suburbs, in sprawling public housing projects.  Unemployment in these communities can reach as high as 40% in young men.  This story has little changed in a generation.

Sarkozy may be right about one thing: France's integration policies for the past 50 years have been an abject failure.  But, unlike Sarkozy, I am more likely to blame governments and police forces that routinely targeted minority groups, have a history of doing so (have we forgotten what it meant to be of north African descent in France during the Algerian war?!?!?), and continue to cart off peaceful protesters with violence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/02/france-racial-intolerance-sarkozy). 

In light of such historic, pervasive and systemic violence against people of color in France, how can it be shocking that communities of color would want to throw rocks at the cops?  Perhaps it is even justified. 


LINKS:

Guardian article with the video of the protesters being removed by the cops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/02/france-racial-intolerance-sarkozy

Newsweek analysis of the important of the French far-right:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/17/nicolas-sarkozy-is-courting-right-wing-extremists.html

Terrible NYtimes article about Grenoble:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/world/europe/09grenoble.html?scp=1&sq=grenoble&st=cse

Right wing reaction to a leftist news outlet calling Sarkozy a thug:
http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/0101651505-tir-groupe-a-droite-contre-la-une-de-marianne

A couple of early articles about the violence and the political reaction:
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101649756-sarkozy-veut-evaluer-les-droits-et-prestations-des-sans-papiers

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101648580-violences-a-grenoble-un-jeune-homme-condamne-deux-enquetes-ouvertes

Video of Le Pen joking about Arabs and cattle:
http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/08/25/pas-drole-le-pen-prefere-montrer-a-ses-enfants-des-vaches-que-des-arabes/

The recent poll numbers on Sarkozy:
http://www.linfo.re/-France-/Nicolas-Sarkozy-perdant-en-2012-selon-trois-sondages

Success v Greatness (thank you brother West)

Today's post has been inspired both by a video posted to a friend's facebook page (see, old folks, facebook DOES provoke meaningful discussion from time to time, and therefore has at least some limited value) and by the subsequent discussion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAfxFEGF-wY

I have long argued that we, as a society or at least as progressive voices within a society, should argue for a complete redefinition of the word success.  The argument invariably begins with Oprah as a person and an institution and why I find her so problematic.  For me, Oprah is the modern day definition of success, of making it.  She has gone from the rough south side of Chicago to one of the most powerful people in our country, and one of the most influential.  But importantly, Oprah has amassed a huge amount of capital: she has money money money, she has many houses (7? 8? do we even know), including and entire floor of what used to be the Sears tower, we're talking private planes and personal assistants.  She is, by our cultural definition, successful.

And yes, I invariably have to admit that Oprah gives away a lot of money and does, by many standards, a fair amount of good in the world.  But this model of success that she so personifies, where one makes it by making it OUT of the community from which they came and amassing huge fortunes, this to me is terribly problematic.

I've always argued that success should be about community building and change.  Some one is successful in my eyes if they live and love honestly and build relationships within their community.  If they give their life to service, in some way, and understand that the fighting for those in need not through philanthropy but through day to day struggle is truly the way forward. 

I appreciate brother West's video because he clarifies something that I have always failed to make plain.  He offers not only another definition of success (which he calls poisonous, with special reference to the vanilla suburbs) but another word entirely.  He uses "greatness", which I find particularly useful.  It reminds us that rejecting the normative definition of success does not mean that we are content to live mediocre lives in squalor, simply that we are defining our goals differently.  As I said on the faceplace, it means we are rejecting the notion that the happiest amongst us are those who have amassed the most capital. 

And greatness means that those of us who reject the normative version of success have something important to strive for.  We do not reject goals, we do not reject achievement, we do not reject challenges and hard work, we are not White pothead liberals who sit on the couches in our parent's basements and complain but do nothing.  We too strive forward.  We want to change the world, not the number of digits in our bank accounts.  We thirst for greatness, the power to transform not only ourselves but our communities. 

Believing in success implies that one is buying into a system that has been and will forever be built on inequities.  Believing in greatness is trusting our individual and collective power to change that system. 

*Special thanks to Mike Mosley and Daryl Hannah for fleshing out this line of reasoning.  Love you boys.

Marry Me?

I write tonight about a mixed blessing. Those of you in the know out there probably already know that prop 8, the controversial California referendum that banned gay marriage, was thrown out on appeal. This is, by and large, good news. Us homos, well we deserve equal rights. And as long as people can get married relegating our relationships to 'separate but equal' domestic partnerships, or not recognizing us at all, well that's plain fucked up. Support marriage rights for all, and such.

However, I'd like to talk about the mixed part of this blessing. Marriage is an inherently conservative institution that is designed, by and large, to further conservative aspects of our society. Marriage promotes traditional family structures and child rearing. Marriage has consistently placed women in the subservient roles of cook, maid, and baby maker. Marriage continues to be defined by tax cuts and insurance rights as much as it does by healthy and functional relationships and families (see this article from the nytimes this weekend: www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/fashion/01Undivorced.html).

So why should we queers be fighting to be included in such a problematic institution? Should we spend our time and energies fighting against the very notion of marriage itself, fighting the requirement of a government contract to love?

I would like, as a counter point, to discuss a news piece that surfaced recently. This is the story of a man who murdered the young child of his girlfriend because he was acting too feminine (http://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/04/video-new-york-police-say-man-killed-baby-boy-acting-feminine).

This tragic story is but a dramatic extension of the way gender roles play out in our society on the day to day. It is fact that those of us who do not fit into traditional gender identities are not only at risk of not marrying, but we are in real and physical danger every day. It's the case here on the street in New York City and I can guarantee that it is the case in my home town in the rural Northwest. I wonder if by focusing on marriage we have allowed our movement to focus on what is but a small aspect of the struggle ahead. We can't worry about marriage until we sort out how to be safe.

I find that the conversations that are nucleated by talk of anti-gay violence have a great potential to challenge deeply rooted societal norms that are oppressive not only to queer people but also to women, and also, believe it or not, to straight men. The type of deep seated hatred of queer folks is rooted in society's traditional definition of masculinity and femininity. The definition of masculinity (the man is a provider, he doesn't show weakness, he is honorable, he is the authority figure) has been the basis for generations of oppression. Men who fall outside this norm (men that are feminine, men that aren't strong, men who fuck men, or even worse, men who get fucked by men) challenge the very center of this system. And, I would argue strongly, while straight men do gain privilege from their identity, they are also placed in a vulnerable position. A man who loses his job and ability to provide for his family has lost not only his material possessions but also a central aspect of his identity. A straight man who choses not to overly sexualize women, or choses to be sexually selective has his masculinity questioned. This is an unsafe space for queers (who fall outside of the prescribed norm), women (who have been the economic and social victim of this definition of masculinity) and even men (who can fail, no matter how hard they try, to ever ensure their absolute masculinity).

So I would like to ask why we are NOT having this conversation on CNN and MSNBC and even occasionally FOXnews. A couple of the quotes from the nytimes article tonight offer a bit on an insight (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html?hp):

“This decision says that we are Americans, too. We too should be treated equally,” said Kristin M. Perry, one of the plaintiffs.

Why, I would like to ask, is it important that we are Americans? Should not all humans be treated equally, regardless of nationality? Or is it that we are overtly trying to buy into a problematic system (ie all Americans should be treated equally; therefore if we can define Americans narrowly enough we can continue to discriminate based upon, for example, race and class).

Another quote: “Being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with a person of the same sex,” said Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles.

Maybe being day is about that to you, Ms. Pizer. But I know some people for whom being gay is about poppers and slings. And others for whom being gay is about self expression and not about making a family at all. And what is being trans about? What is being bi about? Is being straight about making a family? Because I know quite a few straight people who have absolutely no interest in marriage or family. These definitions only continue to exclude people who do not fit into some new, narrowly defined "gay-but-not-too-gay" norm.

Ironically, the judge in his ruling made a more provocative statement than any of the activists on hand. He said, "Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender."

Wow. Finally some one who talks about gender norms. And actively calls them (or some of them at least) antiquated and discredited.

Here we have a judge (a gay republican appointee apparently) looking at the facts of a case making a more progressive stand than any of the lawyers or activists on hand.

So I would like to end with a few questions for the movement:

Is it more effective to gain acceptance and change society gradually through the normalization of non-normative peoples and behaviors? Or is it better to use our minority status to question and problematize the norms in society that create our oppression? Is it better to gain acceptance to the club, or is it better to question the importance of the club in the first place? Can we get married and still have the credibility necessary to challenge the role of marriage in society? Can we finally win the right to marry and still realize the importance of talking about the violence that is still propagated day in and day out against queer people? Is the gay rights movement irrevocably divided between those fighting for what is the essentially upper middle class right of marriage and those who remain, on a day to day level, afraid to lose their job, their property, or their very life because of whom they love.


PS: Before you blast me for my choice of image, know that it was carefully selected. I think this perfectly exemplifies the way in which the movement has chosen to drape itself, literally, in the American flag. LOOK, they say, WE'RE AMERICANS TOO! We are refusing to take a step back and examine why it is so important to seem to damn American. What, over the course of history has this flag represented? And isn't using the ultra-American gay tactic only going to serve to exclude those of us gays who don't feel particularly American at all? Who don't want a traditional family? Who don't want a relationship with a fem and a masc (man or woman)?

Hooters or hookers?

TODAY: A guest blog entry by the one and only, the incomparable Daryl Hannah (no, not the quite actress).

Yesterday I experienced one of the rarities of being a New Yorker—the opportunity to sit back and mindless watch TV. Or so I thought.

As I flipped through the many channels to which I now have access—thanks to my pop-culture-junky roomie—I settled on a new CBS show, at least to my knowledge, entitled “Undercover Boss.” The premise of the show? Simply put: disguise a senior-level executive as an entry level employee. Trade in their C-suite and private jets for a Budget Hotel room and $5.50 an hour. All-in-all—give them a dose of reality.

Yesterday’s victim: Hooters CEO Colby Brooks.

In full disclosure, I am anti-Hooters for the obvious reasons, but as the Cup of Joe would say: “It’s important to expose ourselves to perspectives with which we disagree, if nothing else but to understand why,” so I forced myself to watch the episode.

And so the story went.

The show opened with Brooks recounting the history of the company to his all white and mostly male board. The tale goes as you probably can already imagine: In 1983, a group of men, in Clearwater FL, decided they “needed a place to go and drink” and, therefore, opened a bar. A few years into the operation Brooks’ father bought the bar’s franchising rights and took it international. Colby inherited the business after his father died and today is a divorced father of three (two of which are girls) and describes his “good life” as being constantly surrounded by “beautiful women”.

As the show progresses, one immediately uncovers that Brooks is a stranger to labor. Despite his efforts to prove he is “one of the people” he is slow on the cleaning assembly line, causing piles of dirty dishes to stack up and a cutlery shortage for customers. He complains about the smell of the trash, while his Latino “helpers” simply do their work silently and with immaculate precision. Both of these force the manager to cut Brooks early. (For those who’ve never worked in a restaurant. Brooks was asked to leave before his shift was over and, therefore, not paid for the remaining hours he was to work.)

On day two, Brooks was sent out to promote the restaurant with two Hooters women. Brooks remained “place-less”—both as a man and as someone who’s physical presence leaves much to be desired—while immediately the two women turn on their “Hooters charm” bouncing up and down and twirling their hair as they had been trained. Brooks’ time is further made awkward as he encountered both women and men who condemned his establishment as “sexist” and “degrading to women”—much to his own surprise (seeing this gave me the strength to finish watching the show).

Needless to say, the rest of Brooks’ experience is riddled with bouts of sexism including watching one of his store managers force “his” Hooter-girls eat a plate of beans without their hands, so they could go home early. (Btw: Larry, the manager, was only forced to apologize for his mistreatment. He, on his own volition, left the company to pursue “personal interests.” )
Watching this episode reinforced a number of modern-day truths about male privilege. For starters, Brooks—as a man; as a white man--never acknowledges the problematic nature of his business—the exploitation and degradation of women. Why? Because he doesn’t have to. To him, Hooters is risqué only in the sense that the title alludes to a woman’s breasts--not that he forces his employees to actually expose them. To him, his use of women as economic means—not people—for his own capital gain is perfectly justifiable. In this sense, Brooks, like countless men in America, is able to turn a blind eye to the social ramifications of his actions and guise them as merely “providing an entertaining experience.” Society does not force him to take that statement further to answer: But at what cost?

Brooks is also never forced to confront his “contribution” to society, the message: “Dear women, you don’t have to be smart…just beautiful.”

But let’s be fair. Brooks does call the franchise owner of the bean-eating manager (Larry) to demand he “talk to” Larry. But even when Brooks confronts Larry, after revealing his identity, and continues to receive push back, he doesn’t fire Larry. He merely scolds him more and demands that he apologize to his staff.

And let’s also not forget the Hooter girl-turned-Hooter manager, whom Brooks compliments for her efficiency and compassion as a manager. He acknowledged her ability to multi-task and problem solve. But did he give her a promotion? No. Did he invite her to a seat at the board room table for her ingenuity and know-how? No. Instead, he offered her a vacation--a temporary leave from the daily gruel of her life.

Now, I would be remised if I didn’t address the truth that these women did choose to work at Hooters and knowingly accepted the uniforms and the chauvinistic environment. While this is true, one must get to the root of that question and explore why these types of institutions exist. And more importantly, why are they so popular—a billion dollar industry operating in 28 countries? Come on!

Watching this show did, however, help me realize one thing positive and that is: FUCK HOOTERS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua-OqYZC1DA&feature=player_embedded

I'm sure that by now most of you have probably seen this video that has been circulating on the internets [sic]. A recent refresh shows that it has been viewed 2,881,624 times on youtube. A lot of my friends on various social networking sites (no, for once not a4a) have posted it with funny little comments.

People are eating this up.

I want to be the first to say that I don't find this shit funny. Like not at all.

The clip opens with two (white) reporters talking about a break-in. Apparently a woman woke up to find an intruder in her bed. She, naturally, started screaming and fought off her would-be attacker until a family member could come and help her chase this man away.

Comic gold right?

The laughs start piling up when the reporters interview the family members of the victim. The star here is the brother of the woman, the man who actually chased the attacker out of the room. He's in a black wife-beater and his hair is up in a red bandana. He, immediately, goes in on the rapist, stating "You are really dumb, you're so dumb, for real". The video ends with a direct threat to the rapist.

The language and demeanor of the victim and her family are, let us just be real, hood. It's particularly jarring in contrast to the suited and booted anchor man and reporter. Their anger is justified and apparent.

It just boils down to this: rape really isn't that funny. Neither is laughing at poor people. And what's really not funny is laughing at people for being 'hood' (read: poor) when they are propelled into the news for being the potential victim of such a violent crime. The man in the video, the subject of all this ridicule, is simply trying to protect his family the best way he knows how. He actually chased a would-be rapist out of a bedroom. This man should be lauded, not laughed at. But because he is black and poor and lives in the projects and is communicating the way he was socialized to communicate, here we have nearly 3 million unique views and hundreds of comments laughing away what little agency this family had left.