Posts Tagged ‘racism’

You, Me, and the Portman Effect: Like It Or Not, It’s Bringing Gay Rights

March 26, 2013
A save-the-date card for an event my friend calls her "big ole dyke marriage." "Yay! I declare victory!" she says.

A save-the-date card for an event my friend calls her “big ole dyke marriage.” “Yay! I declare victory!” she says. (Design credit Crystal Davis.)

This week I published an essay about friendship and marriage that included a few examples from my own life. My editor said he loved the insights in the piece, but he warned me to watch out.

Pointing to advice maven Ann Landers’s divorce, he said I should consider the future – I might be writing a personal essay now about my perspectives on a healthy marriage, but who knows? In ten years, I might be in the middle of a divorce, and then, a reader might dig up this article to mock me.

Could I handle that?

I told him that I preferred to live in the present, and if I end up getting divorced, I will deal with it when it happens, instead of letting that unpleasant hypothetical notion hinder what I publish now. I also said that while I strive to write in good taste and not bare anything that’s too personal, I feel that if readers give their attention to my essays, I should be willing to give them my honest self in relatable terms.

My editor listened and nodded and said that was wise. Then he chuckled and shook his head.

“It’d be funny, though, if it happened,” he said of my supposed future divorce.

I share all this with you now because, as the US Supreme Court hears landmark cases this week about marriage equality, I think my gay pals have been resting easy for far too long – it’s high time their unions were as legal as mine, so they can shoulder their share of rude comments like this.

Gay pals have been getting a lot of press recently, as this nugget from the Stephen Colbert show sums up pretty well:

Colbert and NPH

People are calling it the Portman Effect, after Republican Senator Rob Portman announced his support for gay marriage (following a long history of anti-gay legislative votes) because, as it turns out, his son is gay. After years of seeing gays as sub-par, faraway citizens who don’t deserve the right to marry their partners or adopt children, Portman looked at his own child and then wrote “All our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joys and stability of marriage.

Some people lauded Portman for his courageous stance, given the current state of America’s Republican Party, and others scoffed that politicians should support equality because it’s the right thing to do, not because the issue suddenly becomes personal to you.

Many speculate that the Portman Effect will be at work in the Supreme Court chamber itself, because apparently a gay cousin of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts will attend the oral arguments.

In general, I sympathize with those who find the Portman Effect a lousy reason to support equality – one based on personal experience rather than a larger, more rational acceptance on principle. It reminds me of this fabulous article by Anne Theriault, who argues that a common piece of rape-combating rhetoric is “reductive as hell.”

Pundits and politicians often beg would-be harassers or attackers of women to imagine how they’d feel if their own mother, sister or daughter was battered this way.

Theriault lobs back that this “defines women by their relationships to other people, rather than as people themselves. It says that women are only important when they are married to, have given birth to, or have been fathered by other people.”

Rape isn’t wrong because women are wives, sisters and daughters. Women are people and rape is just wrong.

Maybe a man who would refrain from attacking women because he doesn’t like to think of his own family members being attacked is sort of like a politician who doesn’t support equality until he realizes that anti-gay laws affect a member of his own family.

But the plain truth is that humans are primarily emotional creatures. We can call for high-minded, objective, rational ideals, but things must touch us personally before we can process them.

Count me in on the Portman Effect club – I grew up in an insular Christian atmosphere that didn’t exactly heap bile on gays, but did make it clear that theirs was a sad and disordered lifestyle. Gay schoolmates were well and truly closeted and I didn’t know any better than to oppose gay marriage, declaring I had nothing against gays themselves (should I ever meet any), but I didn’t think they had a legal right to marry.

That lasted about as long as it took me to make some friends who were gay, as soon as I hit college and moved outside the sphere of my family’s church.

The personal is the last bastion between acceptance and prejudice. A family member who opposes gay rights once asked me, in a tone that was meant to end the argument, once and for all,

“Well, how would you feel if someone gay was your children’s teacher?”

The answer I think she expected was that of course, in that case, I would be opposed. However, by that time I had already had a gay teacher and turned out just fine. I bet my future kids would, too.

I admit my own investment in equality probably has as much to do with my own personal universe as it does my civic principles. My own marriage would’ve been illegal just a few decades ago – back when people were arguing that Jesus wouldn’t want the races to mix. I imagine what it would feel like if people were protesting my relationship with signs like “God hates interracial couples” and “Marriage = two people of the same race.”

Imagine how stupid you are going to look

I think the Portman affect applies to racial attitudes as well. I remember sitting around a holiday table with someone who referred to African-American people collectively as “the blacks.”

But in subsequent years, my African husband joined the table, and I was interested to note this dinner guest change her tune ever so slightly the next time she shared an anecdote about an African-American person.

“He was a black…person,” the speaker faltered, eyes dodging ever so slightly – or did I imagine it? – at my husband.

In an ideal world, we’d all sit up and cast out our prejudices on principle, before they looked us in the eye and made us sweat.

Until then, we legally married heterosexual people are just going to have to bear the brunt of other people’s odd comments about our marriages – but I sure hope gay people can get their share soon.

White Pundits, Black History: oh, the pain of my privilege.

February 27, 2013
From "Borderless News and Views," where Monica A. Gamble asks, "how do we cement the idea that Black history is American history?"

From “Borderless News and Views,” where Monica A. Gamble asks, “how do we cement the idea that Black history is American history?”

Chris Menning wants to blow your mind. All you have to do is tune into his site, Modernprimate.com, and watch his talking-head video “examining the concepts of equality, privilege, and economic class in terms that even the most ignorant should be able to understand.”

“You’re welcome, fellow white people,” he declares before he’s even made any of his points.

Menning is annoyed because, just like they do every February, there are white people complaining that Black History Month is a needless, biased institution. Menning explains why we do not, in fact, need to institute White History Month: the pervasive white privilege that is often invisible to those who benefit most from it.

He makes several good points, including scrapping the concept of “reverse racism” (i.e., blacks’ racism against whites). That’s not reverse racism: “It’s just racism.” Plus, Menning demonstrates the true and troubling racial disparities in America’s poverty rates, and the originally intended meaning of “all men are created equal”: that was actually “white men of English descent who owned a certain amount of property.”

He also directs us to Peggy McIntosh’s thought-provoking “White Privilege Checklist” and Debra Leigh’s worthwhile “28 Common Racist Behaviors.”

But Menning’s own story, and, apparently, his qualification to expound on the topic of racial injustice, begins when he went shopping, somehow set off a shoplifting alarm, and was allowed to walk out of the store without the clerk so much as checking his bags because (as Menning surmises in the video) he is white.

“Being a white guy has its perks,” he says, waving a half-eaten chocolate bar.

Menning points out that he’s made an awesome video.

“Now what I’m about to say is going to be a no-brainer for a lot of you, and it will mind-blowing for some others,” he says.

(Is there a third option? Like, irked by his slightly narcissistic expressions and non-diversifying insights?)

I guess you could boil my beef down to the fact that in the guise of addressing racial inequality, a white man is talking expressly to white people about white people’s internal troubles.

Yes, it is important to shine a light on white privilege. But too often, the obsession with examining our privilege becomes a way of turning the spotlight back on ourselves and shifting the conversation away from the voices of people of color, as if combating your own “privilege” is a drama on par with the struggle of those who suffer under racism.

Menning has lots more to say about what he’s learned from his own privileges:

“I’ve never been turned down for a job that I’ve interviewed for.  Every single time that I’m called in for an interview, do you know what happens? When I walk in there, I meet a white guy, much like myself…I answer some questions about why I want to work there, and I almost always walk out of there with a job.”

A 100% job-nabbing rate in this shitty economy is quite a feat – though Menning does admit that maybe it’s not all due to his skin tone: “The fact that I’m six feet tall helps, or the bass-y undertones in my voice,” he adds.

Or maybe the subtext of this career revelation is that, as a person, Menning is just as mind-blowing as his videos.  (“You’re welcome.”)

But let’s get off the ad hominem wagon.

Bear with me while I set my own quick scene.

This week, I was heading towards a city transit entrance when I noticed a middle-aged man loitering by the doors. He was hollering at a pair of young women half a block away, about how they were so pretty they had to stay and talk to him. They linked arms as they hurried away. I saw the taut, rueful expression on their faces and I swerved towards another entrance, walking an extra two blocks in the freezing weather because I wasn’t in the mood to be bothered, as long experience has taught me I probably would’ve been.

Now imagine that a silent male bystander witnessed this scene and then went home to expound online, pointing out to his intended audience of fellow men how well he recognizes his male privilege – blowing his viewers’ minds on the problem of sexism with his profound experience of…using whatever door he wants without fearing harassment.

Compelling stuff.

Menning says a lot of white people don’t recognize their own privilege simply because they’ve never been in a position to really observe and think about it.

“Every now and then when I stop to look around, I realize that I’m not constantly surrounded by other white men,” Menning says.

Fascinating – when did you first notice this phenomenon?

When this video popped up in my Facebook feed via Upworthy, billed as “The Definitive Response to Jerks Asking, “But What About White History Month?”, it was hard to put my finger on what bothered me about it. Shouldn’t we just applaud anyone who disdains racism and candidly discusses white privilege?

Part of the problem is that despite his apparent goal of a nuanced, modern discussion, Menning holds up an easy stereotype of prejudice. In his video, he’s the lanky, lucid New York hipster versus the bellowing, finger-jabbing, middle-aged Rush Limbaugh type.

I wish racist attitudes were really that easy to indicate and externalize.

Listening to Menning, I hear that a world dominated by one race is a pretty poisonous proposition – at the same time that he perpetuates an image of an all-white professional and social world.

“He probably sees me as someone he’d like to hang out with in some capacity,” Menning says of all those white male interviewers.

Yes, statistics tell us that you won’t find non-white, non-male managers in every building. But given my experience as journalist, in which I’ve interviewed many non-white (and female) executives, directors and researchers in fields from medicine to filmmaking, I’m surprised that Menning’s work experience has been so racially limited – especially since we’re both in major mid-Atlantic cities.

Menning recognizes his shortcomings. “My attitudes toward other people are largely affected by how much interaction I’ve had with them,” he says. “I can see my own ignorance. It’s not actually that hard.”

The trouble is, I don’t think you should rest on your laurels (or pontificate) for simply realizing that your attitude towards people of other races is affected by how little time you spend with them, patting yourself on the back for admitting what you don’t know and easily landing all those plum jobs in the meantime.

I know times are tough. But, “fellow white people,” you don’t have to work in a place where you sense that accolades come easily because of your white skin.

When a colleague’s boss once advised me to remove my married name, “Mabaso,” from my resume because hiring managers would assume I was black and throw my application in the trash, my first response was why would I want to work for someone who would trash a person’s resume just because of his or her race?

To borrow Menning’s phrase, “It’s not that hard” to get out of your own head and live an inclusive life in the 21st century.

I choose diversity in my professional life by writing for publications which hire and feature all voices – not just white male ones – where I can pitch stories that feature these voices.

And if you really haven’t got friends or family members of a different race (the 2010 US Census found that 10 percent of hetero married couples – a stat that grew 28% in the last decade – are interracial or interethnic, and 18 percent of non-married hetero partners and 21 percent of gay unmarried partners are interracial/interethnic) I honestly wonder what century you’re in.

My sister-in-law and I. The world has gone global. Get over it.

My sister-in-law and I. The world has gone global. Get over it.

Of course the world needs more racial harmony.  But it’s not the anomaly that Menning implies it is. And recognizing your privilege, or simply noticing, as Menning puts it, that “there are people of every race, gender and class all around me,” should not be a goal in itself. It should be the first step in the active work of not just noticing others, but understanding them.

Does that mean Menning’s points about white privilege aren’t worthwhile, that he isn’t a cool smart guy, or that I’m always aware of my own white privilege?

No.

He comes from his own perspective.  This is my take. No-one can make a comprehensive or “definitive” survey of racial problems in one web post – especially if he or she is white.

“So white people, this Black History Month, instead of wondering why black people get their own history month, let’s just take a little time to reflect on how good it is to be white,” Menning finishes, while text flashes on the bottom of the screen: “Clarification: How good we have it. NOT how good we are.”

Or, instead of generating another white-initiated, white-centered discussion about thoughts and attitudes instead of action (“Black History Month for White People”), ignore the dolts who whine about Black History Month, be they Limbaugh or the hot girl down the hall, and just appreciate some black history, preferably more than one month out of the year.

What do you think?

Fox News on Gabby Douglas: If Only Americans Were More Like the Chinese

August 8, 2012

On coming to the US for the first time over a decade ago, my husband quickly noticed something about Americans.

Our flag is everywhere. 

Not only does it hang at many offices and businesses – many homes have their own small flagpole on the porch. Decor and clothing emblazoned with the stars and stripes are a common sight year-round.

This is not something that every country does.

But we’ve been slacking of late, according to US conservative media giant Fox News.

Under the screen banner of “New Concerns About American Patriotism at Olympics“, Fox News commentators Alisyn Camerota and David Webb congratulate history-making gymnast Gabby Douglas (cherubic nemesis of stone-faced Russian silver and bronze winners) while questioning her devotion to her home country.

“Gabby had that great moment, everyone was so excited,” Camerota says of Gabby’s win in the women’s all-around gymnastics final, “and she’s in hot pink.”

Photo from UsMagazine.com.

What should Gabby have been wearing? Three colors. I’ll let you guess which ones.

“We’re not as vociferous as we once were about shouting ‘USA’ and draping ourselves in the flag,” Camerota mourns. Why couldn’t Gabby have shown her love of America by performing in a star-spangled suit?

The two commentators tut sorrowfully over Gabby’s lack of nationalistic pride.

“What we’re seeing is this kind of soft anti-American feeling that Americans can’t show our exceptionalism,” Webb says.

Camerota wonders if Americans have become wary of appearing too vain in the eyes of the world.

She wonders if Americans like Gabby are saying, “we know we’re great, but let’s be great quietly.” If so, shame on them.

Camerota and Webb applaud the Chinese gymnasts for wearing red – how patriotic of them. If only the American Olympians could have followed that example.

“I never won any athletic trophies,” Camerota chuckles in the segment. But she and Gabby do have something in common. While Camerota laments Americans’ modern failure to “drape themselves in the flag”, it’s clear that she doesn’t see wearing red, white and blue as a primary responsibility of conservative news anchors – Camerota wears a pink dress in the segment.

I wrote a story recently about a Philadelphia youth soccer team that traveled to Sweden for an international tournament including 70 countries. When they arrived, the US boys got special recognition not because they wrapped themselves in the flag and set about declaring their nationalist pride in America as the best country in the world,  but because of all the teams in the tournament, the US team was the most diverse. It included not only players whose families were from North and South America, but Europe and Africa as well.

When it comes to the Olympics, let’s harp less on the fact that not every athlete turns herself into a US flag burrito, and perhaps celebrate the fact that few other nations bring a team so full of athletes of every color.

Speaking of all our lovely colors, Camerota is white and Webb is black. But there’s still something a bit fishy about how they criticize Gabby for wearing pink.

Not only is Camerota herself in pink. As Bleacherreport.com points out, 2008 US gymnastics gold medalist Nastia Liukin won in pink as well.

Any whaddaya know, here’s the gold-medal-winning Rebecca Soni, Captain of the 2012 US Women’s Olympic Swim Team:

Image from OpenWaterSwimming.com

Did those Fox pundits give a peep about Liukin or Soni? No.

I wonder why?

Rock on, Gabby!

For more on my feelings about American exceptionalism, check out my poem, “The United States’ Ultimate Crushing Doom, Upon Us in the Year 2011“.

 

Philadelphia’s Vigil for Trayvon Martin

March 27, 2012

A mother and daughter at the Philadelphia vigil for Trayvon Martin on March 26th.

Last week my husband texted me from his jobsite.  He said America was a country he didn’t want to live in. He was listening to coverage of the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Florida, and I couldn’t blame him. All I could do was point out that America shouldn’t be judged on the killing alone – he should also consider the widespread outrage and realize that a majority of American citizens will stand up for what’s right.

For international readers who aren’t plugged into the American media cycle, here, briefly, is the situation.

One month ago a self-professed neighborhood watch volunteer named George Zimmerman spotted a black teenage boy walking in a Sanford, Florida neighborhood. Zimmerman, who is apparently half-white, half-Hispanic, called 911 from his car to report a suspicious person, declaring that the boy, who was walking down the street with his hooded sweatshirt up against the rain, was “up to no good”. As the 911 dispatcher urged Zimmerman not to approach the boy, he got out of his car and, in a chilling prelude to a fatal attack, began to following the teen, muttering, “they always get away.”

The details of the ensuing encounter vary according to the source. The indisputable facts are that Zimmerman, who was armed with a gun and has a history of assault, shot and killed the teenager, whose name was Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, who apparently confronted Martin, claimed that Martin began beating him and that he was acting in self-defense. Martin, 17, was on his way to a family member’s house and was holding nothing but an iced tea and a package of candy.

Trayvon Martin

Police took Martin’s body to the morgue and failed to identify him or notify his parents for several days. They tested Martin’s body for drugs and alcohol and found none. Zimmerman, however, was not tested. Neither has he been arrested, due to a law active in about half of US states that says citizens have no obligation to retreat if they are threatened in public, but have the right to use deadly force in self-defense.

Outrage over the case has exploded across the US. We’re arguing about the continued prevalence of racial profiling and racism in America, the obvious dangers of the “stand your ground” laws, and the proper role of citizens’ neighborhood watch groups. We’re in fits over the National Rifle Association’s powerfully evident lobbying for the “stand your ground” laws, which, in essence, make it much easier for civilians to pull guns on each other with impunity.

Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera instigated yet another layer of public fury by saying that Martin wouldn’t have been shot if he hadn’t been wearing the wrong outfit: the “hoodie killed Trayvon Martin as surely as George Zimmerman did,” Rivera wrote. Rivera claims that anyone seeing a black or brown person in a hood would automatically cross the street, because everyone knows people of color who wear hoods are “ghetto” or at least “low-brow wise-ass”. Despite the fact that it was raining when Zimmerman pursued Martin, Rivera called Martin’s outfit “a sign that says ‘shoot me’.” To Rivera, if America’s brown parents could just stop their kids from wearing hoods, regardless of the weather, these shootings wouldn’t happen.

I had an undiagnosed panic disorder when I was a child and teenager, and I remember the feeling I got when the anxiety overwhelmed me: I saw myself falling down, down, down into the deepest pit, desperately grasping at ledges that crumbled under my fingers. Knowing that the Sanford police have failed to charge Zimmerman with a crime reawakens that feeling in me, though now it’s on behalf of my family.

Racial profiling is definitely at work in the US, as my husband can attest. I can’t describe the depth of my frightened, impotent dismay at my black husband’s many run-ins with the police over the years. He’s been pulled over and forced to sit at the curb by cops who gave no reason for stopping him. As he shoveled my grandparents’ driveway one winter, a policeman stopped to question him. One day, waiting in his car for the start of his workday as a contractor in a client’s home, a neighbor called the police. He was questioned and had to have his boss vouch for his presence in the neighborhood. Another time, as he walked to work in the neighborhood of his alma mater, where he’d lived for four years, police stopped him to ask where he was during a recent car theft by an unknown black suspect. Thank goodness my husband needed a shave at the time: the policeman admitted that the suspect had been described as clean-shaven, so ultimately my husband wasn’t taken into the station.

But I don’t want a shave to be only thing standing between my husband and an arrest for a crime he didn’t commit.

The Travyon Martin shooting has sparked an outpouring from black parents in the American media: they describe the Black Male Code, handed to their boys when they become teenagers. The Code emphasizes the likelihood that their sons will be stopped by police no matter what, and urges a much-heightened standard of interaction to ensure that the black men come out of these inevitable encounters safely. As a wife to man who’s never broken the law and charms every senior citizen he meets, and yet is stopped by police on a regular basis, I wonder to myself what kind of fear I’ll feel for my future children. Worrying that someone else’s prejudice – especially racial profiling by police – will endanger my family feels like a real-life version of that bottomless pit.

That’s part of why I decided to attend a vigil in Philadelphia on Monday night for Trayvon Martin. I don’t think I have anything new to add to this discussion about the importance of acknowledging the hold racism still has in our society, but I came away from the vigil feeling as if I have a duty to talk about the situation in a public way, share what happened at the vigil, and urge others to think about it.

Vigil attendees signed large posters of Trayvon Martin's face, as a gesture of support for his family.

Hundreds of people of all races gathered in the famous Love Park, just northwest of Philadelphia’s City Hall. Unfortunately, the sound system didn’t work. But the crowd closest to the podium overcame the difficulty by repeating the speeches in unison, phrase by phrase, so that everyone could hear what was said.

We heard from activists, pastors and mothers. One speaker contrasted the Trayvon Martin case with that of professional football player Michael Vick, who was jailed for animal cruelty. As long as Martin’s killer remains free, the speaker said, it’s as if a young black man is worth less than a pit bull.

Speakers emphasized the importance of voting and political action, and urged residents angry over this Florida shooting to remember that Philadelphia has had over eighty murders so far this year, and many local mothers have never had justice for their children’s deaths. If we’re outraged over Martin’s case, we should face the problems right in our own backyard. Pennsylvania has its own version of the “stand your ground” law, and if citizens are unhappy about it, legislators need to hear from us.

Many people in the crowd had brought their children, and many waved packs of Skittles, the candy Martin was holding when Zimmerman decided to pursue him. It was a chilly, windy March night, and at the exhortation of several speakers, the crowd “hoodied up” in solidarity, pulling their hoods on in response to the idea that Martin’s killing was justified because he was wearing “suspicious” clothing. There were implications that if anyone wants to talk about the dangers of wearing hoods, we should discuss the Ku Klux Klan.

“No justice, no peace!” the crowd chanted.

Speakers urged the crowd not to let their feelings fade tomorrow, but to keep the desire for a just society strong, participate in our political system and join community efforts to combat racism, violence, and dangerously lax gun laws.

I hope this blog post will be one tiny piece of an America that my husband can be glad to live in. Thanks for reading.

The Sunday Poll: “Not in my church!”; or, Is Racism Here To Stay?

December 5, 2011

My husband and I will not be visiting the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church.

We don’t take kindly to your singing together around here.

That was the message a couple in Kentucky got when they performed a song together at the woman’s home church. It should’ve just been a nice little interlude for the congregation, but Melvin Thompson, the long-time pastor of the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, afterward made a point of telling the couple they wouldn’t be welcome back.

The problem was that Stella Harville is white, and her fiance, Ticha Chikuni, a Zimbabwe native, is black.

In August, Thompson informed the Harville family that Stella and her partner would not be allowed to sing in church again. He stepped down as pastor shortly after that, but wouldn’t let the issue go, because while the new pastor decided that Harville and Chikuni could sing in church if they wanted to, Thompson got busy introducing a proposal to officially discourage interracial marriage among church members.

A Kentucky.com article quotes from the recommendation: “parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services” or other church functions (though they could come to funerals). This ”is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve.”

Some unity.

It was decided that this policy should go to a vote before the congregation. Six people voted against it. Nine people voted for it. The rest didn’t want to reveal their opinion.

“It sure ain’t Christian. It ain’t nothing but the old devil working,” Harville’s father is quoted as saying.

Indeed.

“Why are you laughing?” my husband asked mildly when I told him about this joyous little nugget earlier this week. I said I had to laugh, because otherwise I’d get really pissed off that things like this still happen.

I try to tell myself that if we just stay out of the Kentucky neighborhood, we’ll be fine. Things are different in Philadelphia.

Yes, there are members of the older generation and what I’ve always thought of as “ignorance racism.” My 88-year-old grandmother isn’t going to stop asking me whether I mind that my friends in South Africa are black.

But I got stopped cold early this year, when I was on the job-hunt networking circuit and lunched with an esteemed colleague who had resume advice.  We discussed ways to present my skill set and professional arenas I could adapt myself to. We were almost done lunch, but I could see that there was something else she wanted to say. She had gotten a piece of advice for me from someone else, and was afraid of offending me, but she also wanted to be honest, even though she didn’t necessarily agree with the tip.

She had circulated my resume to a department head in her organization, a prominent local non-profit. He had said that I should change the “Mabaso” on my resume to some other name,  because hiring managers would assume I was black, and therefore toss my resume in the trash.

I gaped like a fish for a second or two. Then I managed to say that if a company would really throw a person’s resume out because of their race, I wouldn’t want to work there anyway.

America has come a long way when it comes to race relations. Hasn’t it? I guess the question I would put to you, dear readers, is whether or not you think we’re slowly moving toward a racism-free world, or if the above examples of prejudice are proof that a society without racism is impossible. Will there always be some dark corner where Melvin Thompsons sow their mean and pointless division?

Notice there is no answer option for those who think interracial marriage bans are a good idea. If you were looking for this option, you are welcomed to my blog just as warmly as Mr. Thompson welcomed Ticha Chikuni to church.

P.S. I want to put in an apology to regular readers, because I know I’ve been slacking the last few weeks on the Sunday Poll. My beloved great-aunt is not long for this world, and I’m one of her caretakers. After many hours of hospice care on the weekends, I’ve been going to bed instead of blogging. I’ll try to get back on track. 

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 776 other followers