Think about it

Ampersand is always a thoughtful pleasure to read.

In a completely unrelated rant, I just watched an episode of My So-Called Life. It was a pretty interesting episode; all the plotlines - even the English class reading The Metamorphosis - converged on being about girl's and women's insecurities about their appearances.

My favorite part was a scene in history class, which had no dialog aside from a video of a Malcolm X speech, which the class was watching. As the camera panned across the room (which seemed to have more black students than other classes in this episode) and settled on the main character, obsessing over a zit on her chin, Malcolm X's speech said:

Who taught you, please, who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin, to such extent that you bleach, to get like the white man? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose, and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself, from the top of your head, to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate, the race that you belong to? So much so, that you don't want to be around each other. Oh no, before you come asking Mr. Mohammed, does he teach hate, you should ask yourself who taught you to hate being what God made you.
It was a very effective moment; what had been presented pretty much as personal hang-ups among the girls suddenly became politicized. Who taught these girls to hate the shape of their noses, the shape of their lips?

But then I got to thinking: Why is it that we can't seem to get away from viewing the black civil rights struggle as the Platonic civil rights struggle, the struggle that all other struggles must resemble or else be illegitimate?

Think of the debate, in recent months, over if same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. It's almost always presented in the same way: as a question of if the gay rights movement is similar to or different from the black civil rights movement (those who are pro-SSM say "similar," those who aren't say "different"). It's rarely presented as a question of if justice and equality are being denied to same-sex couples, taken on their own terms.

It's like a perverse variation of the "model minority myth," which is so often used to attack blacks (e.g., "if Jews and Asians made it despite discrimination, why can't blacks?"). This time, it's the "model civil rights movement" myth. We need to get over it.

Posted by Prometheus 6 on May 9, 2004 - 12:33am :: Race and Identity
 
Prometheus 6's blog | latest article | previous | next
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nice post, Earl. You point to a different aspect of the situation that everyone should be looking at instead of the superficial crap they tend to focus on.

As a side note: I got here because of Joe's post over at OSP. He can't seriously be using this as an example of your 'self-professed black partisan' attitude, can he? Besides the fact that he loads the question when he frames it that way, it isn't true. I don't think your partisanship (if you want to use a loaded expression like that for your point of view) is anything like the vituperative dren coming out of any of the media whores / BFEE / corponationals.

Anyhow - thanks for putting these words together for me. You have pointed out some of the problems I have seen in the denunciarions of the SBGL rights movement of late. I agree with you that we really need to work on the 'bucket of crabs' mentality that the wrongwing attack machine is festering in liberal ranks these days.

Posted by  (: Tom :) (not verified) on May 9, 2004 - 12:05pm.

Well, first of all, credit for the viewpoint goes to Ampersand at Alas, A Blog. Mad respect I got for his coverage of women, gay and transgendered folk's rights and issues. To be honest, my particular partisanship (a word I chose intentionally, btw, as a non-retreating counter to other loaded terms) would never have made me consider that aspect. Gotta respect it when it comes up, though.

Anyway, I think this lauding of Malcolm X—something I've done publicly, both about Malcolm X and El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz before it because popular—was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Joe means no collective harm, so I'm going light on him. I am annoyed, though, at his public accusation being made without the links necessary for context. That's what legitimate pundit-type blogging is about, right? But of course, everyone would react as you have and that simply wouldn't make the point.

Maybe I should have posted this stuff at OSP. I still have access.But fact is I get almost as much exposure here as a would there, and I've provided the links in my responses so anyone who'd like to discuss it with me can do so.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on May 9, 2004 - 12:20pm.