On top of this, Glassman stated of Floyd's death, "We're not mourning for George Floyd, I don't think me or any of my staff are...Can you tell me why I should mourn for him? Other than it's the white thing to do."
Sunday, June 14, 2020
CrossFit: An Exercise in Everyday Racism and White Fragility
On top of this, Glassman stated of Floyd's death, "We're not mourning for George Floyd, I don't think me or any of my staff are...Can you tell me why I should mourn for him? Other than it's the white thing to do."
Saturday, May 30, 2020
From Rodney King to George Floyd: Racism Still Trumps Panoptic Proof
- The deceased victims are African Americans, mostly, though not always male;
- the law enforcement officers (or figures*) are not African American and typically white;
- the African American victim is inaccurately stigmatized in advance as disproportionately dangerous, perceived as large, armed, aggressive, criminogenic;
- the officers (or figures) use excessive force;
- the tragedy is often video recorded, either by bystanders, or in a few cases through technologies connected to the police (e.g., body cameras);
- the officers (or figures) normally do not face legal repercussions, even with video evidence, or legal repercussions are extremely delayed and only enforced because video evidence goes public.
Over-criminalization of African American males is nothing new in American history. Following the abolition of slavery, the American south saw the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. Absent the institution of slavery, legal mechanisms that could oppress African Americans were less ubiquitous and less formal. Thus, the Klan implemented their own form of terrorism, relying on a strategically constructed image of black men as sexual predators. As Hodes (1993) writes, "In the minds of Klansmen and their sympathizers, the rape of white women was the logical extreme to which black men would go without the institution of slavery to restrain them" (p. 409); in short, without slavery, white racists needed to fabricate dangerous images of black men in order to justify their continued violent oppression. Unsurprisingly, it was after slavery's abolition that lynchings festered in the south under that region's enforcers.
But that was roughly one and a half centuries ago. Since then society has advanced tremendously, specifically with respect to our justice systems and technologies. Today, we have established law enforcement, court and corrections systems that are not supposed to demonstrate biases. And more germane to this piece, we have technologies that can capture interactions between police and alleged criminals that were non-existent even in the 1980s.
Michel Foucault's notion of pantopticism suggests that in the modern era, technologies control workers, as managers are able to maintain a constant watch over employees. Management may not actually be watching, but workers wonder if they are, and they can't watch management. Thus workers are incessantly anxious and in turn obedient. Given the level of technology in modern society, shouldn't police be anxious enough not to abuse their authority?
If we go back to March 1991, Los Angeles resident George Holliday used his VCR to film four white LAPD officers - Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Laurence Powell and Timothy Wind as they beat Rodney King, striking King with metal batons at least 56 times, resulting in 11 skull fractures. Indeed, King was committing crimes (driving under the influence, evading arrest), but the level of punishment was disproportionate, to say the least.
For African Americans in Los Angeles (and beyond) King's violent victimization wasn't an isolated incident. Rather, it represented the first time a pattern was proven through visceral video imagery to the international public, catalyzing a rage also reflected during the Watts uprising of 1965, but which at that time lacked the panoptic power of citizen journalism.
Moving forward to the 2010's, citizens across the world were armed with quickly accessible smart phones, there to film and live stream potential cases of police brutality, including those gone lethal. With patterned examples of deathly excessive force inflicted upon African American victims proven through video and disseminated to the world, society would expect to see a change judicial outcomes. Of course instead, justice has been denied, as communicated through this post spreading across social media, also speaking to white privilege:
I can relax in the comfort of my own home (#BothemSean, #AtatianaJefferson, #BreonnaTaylor).
I can ask for help after being in a car crash (#JonathanFerrell and #RenishaMcBride).
I can have a cellphone (#StephonClark).
I can leave a party to get to safety (#JordanEdwards).
I can play loud music (#JordanDavis).
I can sell CD's (#AltonSterling).
I can sleep (#AiyanaJones)
I can walk from the corner store (#MikeBrown).
I can play cops and robbers (#TamirRice).
I can go to church (Charleston9).
I can walk home with Skittles (#TrayvonMartin).
I can hold a hair brush while leaving my own bachelor party (#SeanBell).
I can party on New Years (#OscarGrant).
I can get a traffic ticket (#SandraBland).
I can lawfully carry a weapon (#PhilandoCastile).
I can break down on a public road with car problems (#CoreyJones).
I can shop at Walmart (#JohnCrawford) .
I can have a disabled vehicle (#TerrenceCrutcher).
I can read a book in my own car (#KeithScott).
I can be a 10yr old walking with our grandfather (#CliffordGlover).
I can decorate for a party (#ClaudeReese).
I can ask a cop a question (#RandyEvans).
I can cash a check in peace (#YvonneSmallwood).
I can take out my wallet (#AmadouDiallo).
I can run (#WalterScott).
I can breathe ( #EricGarner).
I can live (#FreddieGray).
I can ask someone to put a leash on their dog when it is required in the public park we are in (#christiancooper).
I CAN BE ARRESTED WITHOUT THE FEAR OF BEING MURDERED. (#GeorgeFloyd)
African American communities and their allies realize nearly 30 years after the uprisings in Los Angeles, even with the advent of digital proof, we still fail to see justice. To this end, "It's worse today than it was back then."
References:
Hodes, M. (1993). The sexualization of reconstruction politics: white women and black men in the South after the Civil War. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 3(3), 402-417.
Loyd, J. M. (2012). The fire next time: Rodney King, Trayvon Martin and law-and-order urbanism. City, 16(4), 431-438.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Survivor's Sickening Sexism
The concerns revolve around contestant, Dan, who's alleged of sexually harassing a number of female contestants. Without getting into all the details, a visibly upset Kellee asserts, "He literally has done this (touched inappropriately) to five different women in this game. This sucks." The production team responds, informing her they can intervene if she wishes (see below, right):
From there, the following messages are shown to the audience, confirming that concerns of sexual harassment are real, as producers state they have met with all contestants and individually with Dan, who was formally warned. Bottom line, the allegations and feelings expressed by female contestants were not considered fabricated.
But then the game play begins. This isn't a blog about who tricked/out played who. This is about manipulating discrimination. In the end after Kellee is ousted from the tribe, Janet finds out she was played by Elizabeth who told her that she felt uncomfortable about Dan's touching. But really, Elizabeth was working along side Dan, and the pitch to Janet about sexual harassment was just game play.
Elizabeth outright admits this, but the primary thing Dan, Missy or anyone else involved really cares about is if their alliance is stable. To be clear, sexual harassment is a form of gender-based discrimination. That's indisputable. Therefore, Elizabeth (and potentially others) consciously used a form of discrimination as game play.
Would it be permissible for a white player to go up to an African American player and say, "Hey, 'player X over there used the n-word'", as a means to advance their game? I don't think so. Why then is it acceptable for people in this season of Survivor to consciously manipulate sexual harassment as part of their strategy?
Then Tribal Council happens again in the episode. The contestants are discussing the issue as the now exiled Kellee must watch in silence. And how problematic is that - the rules of Survivor prohibit a victim from speaking about her victimization while everyone else talks about it right in front of her. Jamal extremely eloquently lays it down, explaining why men should acknowledge their privilege and not question when women and girls express feeling uncomfortable when males touch them inappropriately and/or are sexually assaulted. Listen, it's less than 90 seconds, or read below.
"...I think this issue is a lot bigger than the game of Survivor...from my positionality with my gender, far be it from me to speak for women, what I can do as a man, I can give a little bit of advice as to how hear these stories, when we're talking about harassment, when we're talking about discomfort, when we're talking about male entitlement. It behooves us all as men to take a step back and look at our own behavior, and imagine that you had no idea that what you were doing was inappropriate, that was making someone uncomfortable, and you believe women if they choose to bring that up because it's difficult enough to do that in and of itself. We have a responsibility to hear women, listen to women and believe women when they're ready to tell their stories."
And ultimately what happens after Jamal says this? He's voted off. No, not because he said what he said. The problem is he was kicked off in spite of what he said. Ultimately, the players cared about advancing in the game more than they cared about someone who had the courage to say all the right things regarding this particular form of discrimination, including that sexual harassment is bigger than the game of Survivor.
Unfortunately, no, not in this world. A game for $1,000,000 and all kinds of status ended up being bigger than the manipulation of sexual harassment. Not for Janet - she put aside her game play to try and oust someone who she was told was harassing women. Not for Jamal - he expressed what society needs so desperately to understand. But for the players who colluded to kick Jamal out, his and Janet's efforts to stand up to sexual harassment were superseded by our society's pathetic desire for money and fame, and that's just sad. Unfortunately that's what Survivor is - yeah, a microcosm for society at large, whose values are disgustingly twisted.
And what about Survivor's production team? Are they going to let this go? Apparently it's now acceptable for players to use discrimination as a form of game play. Will they bring this up at the season finale, and do so appropriately? Or will they simply convey, "Sexual harassment is bad and won't be tolerated." Cause fact is, on this episode sexual harassment wasn't just tolerated, it was outright allowed as strategic trickery (Elizabeth admitted it on camera), and the institution sat idly by when that happened.
Discrimination can never be game play, period, because if it is, it communicates that discrimination can be used as "game play" in other social institutions (e.g., work places, schools, sports teams). Why can't the Survivor production team get that? Apologies from the contestants are something, but the institution should have intervened appropriately and immediately.
Further reading: Survivor's "#MeToo moment" protected the game instead of the players
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Trends in Contemporary Social Movement Leaders
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Contemporary Slavery in Thailand
Part 1 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Developing and Preying on Vulnerability". It explains the socio-political backdrop to worker exploitation and full-fledged slavery in Thailand. The two groups that face the greatest levels of exploitation are Burmese migrants and rural hill tribe Thai, both of whom lack critical citizenship rights, thereby increasing their vulnerability.
Part 2 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: How's that Shrimp You're Eating?". This post examines the shrimping industry in Thailand - one that doesn't receive much media attention, but is extremely large, and rests upon massive labour exploits.
Part 3 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Connections to Thailand's War on Drugs". This post ties Thailand's harsh war against methamphetamines that began in 2003, describing how such punitive and violent measures carried out by the state exacerbated social inequality and was particularly harmful to those groups in Thailand that were already most vulnerable to being exploited.
Part 4 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Thailand's Matrix of Domination". In this final post, I discuss how hill tribe Thai males are driven into commercial sexual exploitation, operating in an extreme limited opportunity structure.
Click on any of the links above to read the stories; in each one there are additional links, videos, and pictures accompanying the content.
academics blogs
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Let's Hold Obama To It
@ 11:00:
"We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America open to the dreams of an immigrant's daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag..."
@ 19:05:
"America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunities and new security for the middle class. I believe we can keep the promise of our founding, the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight. You can make it here in America if you're willing to try."
Well, in reality, I disagree because discrimination and inequality still exists. Too many Americans won't keep that promise because America is still ensconced with significant bigotry and ignorance that won't let so many minorities succeed no matter how hard they work. However, the ideal is nice to express, and let's face it, you would never hear such a message from Romney or really any other prominent Republican candidate that speaks appreciably to that level of diversity.
So, now, it's time to hold President Obama to being the progressive president he claimed to be four years ago. There's no campaigning to worry about four years from now. Get it done!
Monday, November 5, 2012
Voting for Romney is Voting for Patriarchy
Romney's support of Mourdock is a classic example of patriarchy, where the institutions of government and religion combine to constrain women’s choices. The connection to government is obvious (these are politicians talking here), but also note Mourdock’s quote, which pays homage to “God.” Hence, it is simultaneously government and religion that are used in tandem as institutions of social control, which would render most women criminal if they were to choose abortion under a Romney presidency. As stated on Romney’s official website, “[Romney] believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade” (and notably limits “defining marriage as between one man and one woman”).
Romney, in fact, supports banning abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the woman’s life. He’s running ads that tout these exceptions as evidence of his moderation, but what kind of moderate wants to criminalize 93 percent of all abortions? Among those who would not be lucky enough to qualify for Romney’s exceptions are women carrying fetusus with fatal conditions, the mentally ill and pregnant women at risk for any injury short of death. In reality, Romney would criminalize most abortions for rape and incest victims, too, since most rapes and incest are not reported…
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Obama, Romney, the 2012 Presidential Election and Diversity
Such trends noted above by Lawrence Wilkerson help to explain that which has been made clear by the Washington Post -- the upcoming presidential election looks to be one very much divided along racial lines. As noted in the article, comparing trends from 2008, "Romney appears to have made no inroads in chipping away at Obama's support among Hispanics and African Americans" and further, that "Fully 91 percent of Romney’s support comes from white voters." Oddly enough, the Romney preference among white voters is tied heavily to perceptions that Romney would do more to help the American economy:
There is no way to tell from these findings what role, if any, racial prejudice may play on either side of the racial gap. But the data suggest that concern about the economy is amplifying the division, as Obama’s decline in support among white voters appears to be closely linked to views of his handling of the economy. And yet minorities have suffered severe unemployment and housing foreclosures in the current economy as well.
Romney's economic policies, however, are most clearly illustrated in action. Production for Romney paraphernalia is not happening in the United States. Rather, it is happening abroad. How exactly does that promote American jobs and the broader economy? It doesn't. See picture, below:
And if considering global perceptions, the BBC polled a sample of 21,797 people from 21 countries to get a gauge on the world's preference between Obama and Romney. Only Pakistan showed a preference for Romney, and a narrow one at that. Those polled from every other country expressed a strong preference for Obama, exhibiting the more positive global reputation Obama has achieved over the past four years. See the graphic, below:
We don't live in isolation, and the United States is not an ethnically homogeneous country. Romney is NOT the answer.
academics blogs
Saturday, September 22, 2012
The Sociology of MMA: MMA Compared to Pro Wrestling and Other Sports
Personally, I believe the meso reasons to be more valid. A desire towards some form of hegemonic masculine status in my experience appears to drive more men into practicing MMA, as hobbyists, semi-pro's, and full on professionals. I wonder if Logan's interviews actually revealed that a large number of MMA practitioners followed WWF back in the 1980s. I am sure some did, perhaps even a substantial proportion (I know I did). But my guess is a large number didn't as well, and even despise the comparison.
Also, there's quite a few mentions of MMA being compared to a "fight to the death" kind of thing, or at least using that kind of sensationalized language. That's just not necessary. The sport's been around long enough that any critique can and should be more objective. It's not 2 guys trying to kill each other in practice/competition, though the mainstream MMA media may present it that way to sell tickets.
And finally, the close noting that MMA is an escalation of violence from WWF/WWE is a bit premature. Are there really more injuries or deaths from sanctioned MMA than pro wrestling? More steroid use? Are the social messages expressed in MMA (harmful as they often are) more harmful than those expressed in professional wrestling? I'd like to see some empirical evidence to prove MMA is more dangerous than pro wrestling and the most dangerous sport out there before such things are stated.
academics blogs






















