Red Light Politics

Welcome to my short form Tumblr blog. My name is Flavia Tamara Dzodan, I am a business developer, writer, public speaker, ideas instigator, content creator, media facilitator and trend watcher living in Amsterdam.

This Tumblr is about the spaces and intersections between politics, culture, race and gender matters with some humor and pop culture thrown in the mix.

My long reads blog is Red Light Politics.

I also blog at Tiger Beatdown.

If you would like to know more about me, visit this page .

Search

The person behind this blog

I am on Twitter, you can follow me

Find me on...

Noted Elsewhere

More liked posts

Tag Results

16 posts tagged race

searchingforknowledge:

Can people become Dutch through naturalization? 

The short answer is “they can acquire a Dutch passport”. The long-ish answer is “people can acquire Dutch nationality but they will still not be Dutch”. For details of how that is possible, I highly recommend this paper written by Philomena Essed on the subject (link goes to PDF on google docs).

Source redlightpolitics

“Since its inception, many have referenced the term—sometimes without attribution to the black feminist intellectual genealogy from which it emerged—as a form of en vogue progressive parlance. In fact, it seems to be the case that it is often referenced in progressive circles as a counterfeit license (as in, “I understand the ways that race, sexuality, class, and gender coalesce. I get it. I really do.”) to enter resistance work even if the person who declares to have a deep “understanding” of the connectedness of systemic matrices of oppression, themselves, have yet to discern and address their own complicity in the maintenance of the very oppressions they seek to name and demolish. I am certain that I am not the only person who has heard a person use language embedded with race, class, gender, or ability privilege follow-up with a reference to “intersectionality.”

On Location: The “I” in the Intersection | The Feminist Wire

I wanted to quote EVERYTHING in this piece. But I won’t. Instead, I’ll advice you to make this your one “must read” for today. Especially in relation to my disappointment about this (incidentally, the HORRENDOUS and insulting lack of comment moderation is still unaddressed).

Deconstructing Western Privilege: Are Foreigners in Africa Benefiting At the Expense of Natives

Ugandans do not see me as an African-American or a black American. Yes, they recognize the pigmentation of my skin and can clearly see that I am a black woman; however, I am still referred to as mzungu (a Luganda term meaning foreigner or ‘white person’). No matter how “African” my features, Ugandans perceive me as an American – no hyphens needed. Ugandans I meet do not take my complex history as a black woman from America into consideration. To them, I am a Westerner. A native English speaker. I hold the coveted American passport. I was educated at one of the United States’ most prominent private universities. I hail from the land of the free and the home of the brave. This translates to my own version of ‘white privilege’ which I will refer to as ‘Western privilege’ – it just has a better ring to it. While this article comes from my perspective as a Westerner living in Uganda, I am going out on a limb to say that this ‘Western Privilege’ phenomenon is prevalent throughout the African continent.

“

Let’s assume a Turkish child moves to Argentina or Uruguay or Chile (etc.). That child settles down with her family, and because she is young she learns the local language (Spanish) like a native speaker and carries on with her life. She will be coded as White and belong to the dominant culture because she is Caucasian. When she grows up and looks for jobs, she will be treated like a local White woman.

Now, this same Turkish child, moves to The Netherlands instead. She also learns the local language with fluency and speaks it at Native level. However, in The Netherlands, she will be coded by the state as a WoC and her entire experience will be different. Yes, I said that right, there is a state sanctioned classification that labels the same woman as a PoC and there are specific laws that she and her family need to comply with.

Now, this doesn’t mean that South America is this enlightened and magical place where people suffer no discrimination. Oh no. Far from that. It just means that race, color, ethnicity and who gets to be part of the dominant culture are not universally constructed. Certainly skin color plays a role (and that’s why I chose an example of a Caucasian person), but the construction of what it means to be labeled “Person of Color” is not the same in Europe than it is in North America than it is in South America.

”

flavia dzodan. alternately if that turkish child’s family moves to puerto rico (don’t wanna assume i know about the rest of latin america) while the mom is pregnant and then the turkish child grows up as a white person in puerto rico and then moves to the US, that person may or may not be considered white depending on who’s doing the assessment, and will probably have trouble figuring out what bubble to fill out on standardized tests.

i really appreciated this example because it seems to pin down a little better than i ever have why i’m not comfortable identifying as a POC even though i have seen some POC (do not remember where anymore, it has been a while, sorry!) saying something to the effect of not understanding the white-hispanic thing, why a hispanic/latin@ person wouldn’t identify as a POC other than reluctance to be associated with POC/strong desire to be seen as white. and i don’t want to say that never happens or that it’s not more complicated or DEFINITELY i am not saying that my take is “right.” my point of view on this comes from the extremely specific instance of being a white person documentedly of 100% european ancestry several generations back born in puerto rico and moving to the states when i was three, and i wouldn’t ever even say it was “right” for anyone else in my exact situation.

BUT. these categories are constructed, which does NOT mean they’re not real, but it does mean they’re not constructed the same anywhere. and when i am thinking for me what it means to be puerto rican and have puerto rican heritage, the thing it winds up being placed in opposition to is being american. which in itself is confusing and weird for me because i would feel completely silly saying i’m not american. but the aspect of me that is not-american is the aspect of me that is hispanic/latin@, and it feels weird to categorize specifically the not-american aspect of me by a set of rules that applies in the US but not in puerto rico. you know? it’s like, adopting the rules of the colonizers (and i know POC is a POC-created term, so i ALSO feel weird thinking of it in those terms) to identify my link to the colonized - caliban adopting prospero’s tongue, or something. it felt very US-centric (which i remember feeling was ALSO WEIRD because some of the comments that sat weird with me were coming from people i normally considered very international in their perspectives!).

I DON’T KNOW THINKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO ME TO BE PUERTO RICAN, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME EVEN THOUGH I HAVE LIKE ZERO CULTURAL LINKS TO IT IN MY EVERYDAY LIFE, IS REALLY CONFUSING AND COMPLICATED. but i really appreciated flavia’s point that yes! these things can be confusing and complicated.

(via isabelthespy)

oh see, for me this doesnt happen.  the fluidity of race.  i am ‘black’ everywhere i go.  it is probably one of the most constant stable parts of my perceived identity.  it is clear whether i am in egypt, congo, ethiopia, mexico, netherlands, states, etc.  my gender/sexuality/nationality/etc are in flux, change, but my race never does.  dark brown skin, nappy hair, soft nose, full lips — this is why one of the first words i learn in any new language (when i learn it in-country) is the word for black or black girl.  because it is the word that i hear so often. on the streets, in the stores, in taxis, on the subway, wherever i go.  (it is actually quite exhausting at times)

what is seen as oppositional is blackness vs. us american-ness.  like once folks understand/believe i am ‘american’, there is usually a state of confusion as they try to establish that i am *really* african.  (this i find hilarious in egypt.  where i say to arab egyptians, look, im not really african.  but you are from egypt.  and where is egypt, in africa.  so, you are way more african than i am, right?  at which point, and this is even odder, the other person usually apologizes to me for calling me ‘african’ and then explains how they are not really african because they trace their lineage (hundreds of years before) to some non-african place, i swear.  this happens like all the time…)

(via guerillamamamedicine)

Re-blogging for win commentary. Like Mai’a, my brownness is inescapable part of my body and by extension — my perceived personality. I am expected to sound like thousands of stereotypes in one — the lilting ‘Indian’ accent that hangs on consonants etc if they know I’m from India. If they don’t know, most times I’m read as a Muslim — doesn’t help that my name has a Persian root — so people generally ask me if I am from the Middle East (no, this is not a joke) whenever I’m in notIndia. Many of us don’t have the ‘privilege’* to pass as light-skinned — this is where race doesn’t become ‘fluid’ for us.

*I say ‘privilege’ in quotes based on my experience with light-skinned POC who generally don’t like being ‘read as white’.

(via jaded16india)

That very, very strange feeling when you stumble upon something you wrote some place else and notice so much amazing commentary.

(via oncejadedtwicesnarked-deactivat)

Source isabelthespy

About Racial markers

In my last post I mentioned the hegemonic North American discourse in terms of Social Justice and how we use words and frame discussions. After I wrote that post, I thought of another instance where the discussions of race and what constitutes Whiteness are constructed.

Let’s assume a Turkish child moves to Argentina or Uruguay or Chile (etc.). That child settles down with her family, and because she is young she learns the local language (Spanish) like a native speaker and carries on with her life. She will be coded as White and belong to the dominant culture because she is Caucasian. When she grows up and looks for jobs, she will be treated like a local White woman.

Now, this same Turkish child, moves to The Netherlands instead. She also learns the local language with fluency and speaks it at Native level. However, in The Netherlands, she will be coded by the state as a WoC and her entire experience will be different. Yes, I said that right, there is a state sanctioned classification that labels the same woman as a PoC and there are specific laws that she and her family need to comply with.

Now, this doesn’t mean that South America is this enlightened and magical place where people suffer no discrimination. Oh no. Far from that. It just means that race, color, ethnicity and who gets to be part of the dominant culture are not universally constructed. Certainly skin color plays a role (and that’s why I chose an example of a Caucasian person), but the construction of what it means to be labeled “Person of Color” is not the same in Europe than it is in North America than it is in South America.

My worst race related recurring microagression though

Inevitably goes like this: upon seeing my (distinctively Slavic) surname, people ask where I am from. I explain I was born in Argentina. That never satisfies the micro-agressor so he/she wants to know MORE! How come I have *that* surname but I am South American?! So, I patiently (although at this point knowing what’s coming) explain I am Hispanic on my mother’s side and Serbian from my father’s side.

And then this is what happens if I am in the company of my partner. Without fault. The micro-agressor looks at him and nonchalantly, usually laughing, asks “And you still married her?! I hope you don’t keep any weapons or sharp objects around the house! HAR HAR HAR”.

Yes, let’s have a laugh because never in the history of ever have I heard that racist joke before.

“You know how how Latinos are… they aren’t as motivated.”

Said to me, a white Latino, in New York when I was 30 years old. (via microaggressions)

The amount of times I heard jokes about this. Or if I tell someone I’ll have something ready tomorrow they give me the *wink*wink* mañana, like your people always say? Har Har!

I sincerely don’t know what’s worse: the assumption that I might be a fiery sex bomb with a temper to behold or that I am a lazy ass incapable of delivering any deadline.

Source microaggressions

My feelings: why they matter above yours

Everyone is pointing at the late abortion article on Jezebel today (more specifically, the comments in said article), but I cannot really look at that. It is just too upsetting for me because sadly, I know how such people think and the kind of ideas they wish to impose on everyone. However, I HAD to check the clusterfuck under the title “In defense of the White Man” because really, this is the racial/ social justice equivalent of Edward Pasteck’s “Consent is an artificial construct we need to re-evaluate in my terms” nonsense.

First, “White Man” (the label he claims for himself throughout the article, lest anyone accuses me of “racial bias”) makes a snide remark about the “butch lesbian” (why the need to point that out? To single her out as “the other”? to police her appearance? to prove how gender normative he is?) and then, oh yes, and then:

  • Mind your Tone! I would be willing to listen if you were just nice to me (“The aforementioned statement about white men undercuts the very point it is trying to make: In any community people should be proud of who they are”).
  • Educate Me! (“But trans people are just that - people. It makes me uncomfortable to research them as I would a term paper or the purchase of a new oven when there are actual individuals, friends, that I can glean this knowledge from personally”)
  • Accept me as an ally! (“I want to ask how I can help and how I can change without having to atone for crimes I did not commit. I might never be considered an ally again after writing this article”)
  • White men have feelings too! (“Do I fight back, respond with bile that white men have feelings too and that we don’t like being denigrated in public?”)
  • Can’t you see my level of oppression is exactly the same as yours because my pop culture icons are different from what I’ve been told is stereotypically gay? (“I realized pretty early on that I would probably never fit into the mainstream gay community for the mere fact that I prefer, say, Kate Bush over Madonna, David Byrne over Elton John”).

This is published by one of the most read websites for women in the entire internet. Uncritically. And I already know Jessica Coen’s bullshit excuses whenever she gives a space to this kind of reactionary ideology (Remember the Pasteck non apology?). Because if you are fighting for any issue of social justice and you are a minority that has been historically subjugated, the most important thing to do is to reassure white, cisgender guys like this author that they are welcome into your spaces. Oh, and please, if you are not going to be nice, at least have the decency to look in ways he approves of.

Ten Things That Feminism Could Do Better

newwavefeminism:

I actually enjoyed reading this list. It’s good to see ways in which we need to build the movement up, and the topics that we need to refocus on. Keep in mind, while reading, that this is from the perspective of a feminist from the UK - but I actually think that provides more insight than it takes away.

From the article:

I should start by saying that this list should in no way be seen as an attack on anyone actively involved in feminist politics, or on the history of the women’s liberation movement. The fruits of feminism reflect the most successful and long-term social revolution that human history has ever seen — this should never be forgotten. The list is simply a set of personal reflections on some current dimensions of the struggle, and could equally well be applied to women in general, as opposed to just those who identify themselves as feminists.

So please read! If anyone has any questions or concerns about the list, drop it in the ask box. I think this can lead to an interesting discussion.

Eh. I found myself nodding in agreement at this list until I got to point 10: Feminists of different ages, with or without children, gay or straight, should be wary of seeing too many differences between generations of women. I beg to differ with this point. As a woman who comes from what is usually referred to as the Global South or the Third World, it is patently clear to me that the most mainstream feminism from around the mid ‘60’s to the mid ’80s (what is commonly known as the Second Wave) has been an utter failure to both women of color and transwomen. If we are going to advance, in an inclusive manner, such progress will only be achieved by setting clear boundaries and highlighting the difference between present day (contemporary) feminism and the kind of Second Wave politics that alienated entire groups of women who also happened to be amongst the most disenfranchised.

Want a quick example out of the top of my head of the kind of alienating feminism I am talking about? How about Susan Brownmiller’s foundational “Against our Will” which is still taught today, in some gender studies courses in spite of the fact that Brownmiller came close to blaming Emmett Till for his own lynching, attributing to him a desire to prove his manhood by gaining access to white women. The fact that, to this day, this book is acclaimed, almost uncritically as an exponent of rape culture, disappoints me because it exposes the failures of its time regarding race and intersectionality, but also the denial of very specific problems amongst people of color in general and women of color in particular. The book contained moments such as (emphasis mine):

Rarely has one single case exposed so clearly as Till’s the underlying group-male antagonisms over access to women, for what began in Bryant’s store should not be misconstrued as an innocent flirtation. Till’s action was more than a kid’s brash prank  and his murder was more than a husband’s revenge. The scene that was acted out in Money, Mississippi, had all the elements of a classical Greek drama. Emmett Till was going to show his black buddies that he, and inference, they, could get a white woman and Carolyn Bryant was the nearest convenient object. In concrete terms, the accessibility of all white women was on review.[…]

And what of the wolf whistle, Till’s “gesture of adolescent bravado”? We are rightly aghast that a whistle could be cause for murder but we must also accept that Emmett Till and J. W. Millam shared something in common. They both understood that the whistle was no small tweet of hubba-hubba or melodious approval for a well-turned ankle. Given the deteriorated situation — she with a pistol in her hand, he scampering back to safety with his buddies — it was a deliberate insult just short of physical assault, a last reminder to Carolyn Bryant that this black boy, Till, had in mind to possess her.[…]

Wasn’t a whistle or a murmured “May I fuck you?” an innocent compliment? And did not white women in particular have to bear the white man’s burden of making amends for Southern racism? It took fifteen years for me to resolve these questions in my own mind, and to understand the insult implicit in Emmett Till’s whistle, the depersonalized challenge of “I can have you” with or without the racial aspect. Today a sexual remark on the street causes within me a fleeting but murderous rage.

This is a sad reminder of what mainstream Second Wave feminism looked like. I have spent years stressing the many differences in which my feminism (however it is called, if it even has a name) is very different from this kind of racially charged analysis.

(via closetospring)

Source newwavefeminism

Is there a word

to define a feeling that is a mixture of rage, sadness and race related outrage? Because if there isn’t, we should invent one.

(Observation triggered by this comment on LB, on a post about a Latina woman who wishes to date within her race. “If this was Mark Zuckerberg talking about Asian girls …just imagine”. YES, I JUST IMAGINED AND IT IS NOT THE SAME; NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE SAME; NOT EVEN CLOSELY THE SAME. I should know better than to read comments on subjects that hit too close to home).

What color are the Golden Globes?

Living in Europe and due to the time difference, I didn’t watch the show last night (had I done it, I would probably be going to bed about now, around 10AM my time). But I did follow the commentary and pop culture tidbits in different blogs and Tumblrs.

Last night I mentioned how I was peeved over the use of nude to describe beige dresses and how this terminology perpetuates the notion of Caucasian skin being the default skin color (the only tone described as nude by commenters and fashion bloggers). To this, I will also add another one I kept encountering, the word “neutral” to describe also different tones of beige, especially when worn by white actresses. If a beige (also sometimes described as nude) dress is neutral, then what would a dark brown or black dress be? Would it be negatively or positively charged?

Yeah, someone might argue that I am nitpicking and analyzing words to a stretch, but I also believe that much of the jargon used in the fashion world also perpetuates ideas of race-normativity, especially portraying white skinned people as the default. The words used to achieve this matter, especially if we use them uncritically.

“Another unspoken benefit of white privilege is the ability to win without even having to fight.”

view from the crossroads of life & death: The Truth About Black On White Crime

Source raval911.blogspot.com

Liberty and Freedom: Racism, feminism and banning the veil

The vote in the French lower house to ban the wearing of the face veil in public is a dangerous development in the intensification of Islamophobia in Europe (Racism veiled as liberation, 15 July). That it has been proclaimed as a victory for women’s rights makes it all the more appalling. Racism is being legitimised by giving it a feminist spin. Banning the veil, or any other sort of Islamic dress, has nothing to do with liberating women. Liberation, if it is to mean anything, is about self-determination. This must include choice about how to live and dress. It is a myth that women only wear the veil because men force them to. Many women wear the veil in defiance of their parents. Why? Because they see it as a statement of pride in their religious identity and a refusal to be cowed by state-endorsed demonisation of Islam.

If there are women forced to wear the veil by a male family member, how will the state forcing them not to wear it help? Such enforcement can never be progressive. The result will be that, far from being liberated, such women may become completely excluded from public life. It has become mainstream common sense to denounce Islam as somehow uniquely backward and oppressive. For those of us who genuinely believe in challenging oppression and fighting for women’s liberation, we see it for what is, racism. Across Europe the only beneficiaries of such laws will be the far right.

Yes! Also: European countries are denying non whites an identity. The general sentiment is that these people are not French (or Dutch or Spanish or whatever other nationality) in spite of being born and raised in their respective countries of residence. The Dutch even have this little insidious word to define them: allochtoonen. This word has been misappropriated from biology and it is used to define anything that is not native to a given ecosystem. The Latin root for the word is “other” (as in a way to define that which does not belong). The state has determined that children of immigrants, in spite of having been born here, are “others” (allochtoon) to the Dutch social ecosystem. So, in spite of carrying a Dutch passport and birth certificate, having only attended Dutch schools and having lived all their lives in this country (and nowhere else), they will carry an otherization label their whole life. As a result of this, many second and third generation immigrants turn to their Muslim identity in an effort to have an identity at all, one that has not been imposed on them through alienation. The end result is that many women choose the veil as a visible statement of belonging somewhere and exercising this autonomy. Since the system has made it clear that they are not wanted, that they do not belong and that they are forever going to be defined as “foreign”, then at least they will wear a label with which they can signal that they do belong somewhere.

Source socialisimo

New York Times: “Race” Means “Class”

At the Daily Kos:

Proving once again that no power on earth can force the “newspaper of record” to recognize what it is determined to ignore, the New York Times tonight released the results of a major survey of the teabagger movement. The paper’s considered judgement:

Their fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

The original headline on the web version of the story:

Poll Finds Tea Party Anger Rooted in Issues of Class

But, that particular piece of misinformation has since been flushed down the memory hole, to be replaced by the more anodyne (though still dubious) heading:

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

Which, if true, would be a terrible indictment of our national diploma mills and matchbook cover mechanical academies, but more likely is another example of the now-familiar tendency of teabaggers to claim things (diplomas, in this case) that are not, in the strict technical sense of the word, true — in this or any other universe.

What’s particularly comic (sinful would be the better word, if American corporate journalism still had a soul with which to sin) is that the truth (and the lead) is right there in, well, Times Roman. It’s just buried in the seventh paragraph:

More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent, compared with 11 percent of the general public, think that the administration favors blacks over whites. (emphasis added)

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

Considering the administration spent the better part of its first year in power shoveling money into the Aid for Dependent Wall Street Banks program it inherited from the Bush Administration, or rebuilding public infrastructure that primarily benefits suburban commuters and long-distance truckers, or promoting middle-class tax cuts, or pushing Congress to enact an elaborate and very generous system of subsidies for working-class and middle-class people who can’t afford (or like to pretend they can’t afford) health insurance, you’d think Obama would get a small break here. God only knows what the teabaggers would be saying about him if he really did try to do something big and expensive specifically to help those people.

Whatever it is, I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that it would include some fairly generous helpings of the “N” word.

What we have here, in other words, is the bedrock, indestructible, and apparently timeless conviction of white conservatives that the federal income tax is a device for stealing their hard-earned (or not) dollars and giving them to crack whores and their pimps (or ACORN, or all three) so that they can go out and buy shiny new Cadillacs and Kentucky fried chicken. Nothing — and certainly nothing factual, like the actual allocation of tax revenues by the federal government (that “insurance company with an army,” as Krugman calls it) — is going to disabuse them of this belief.
———————————————————————————————-

Here is the thing: EVERYTHING in this article is applicable to The Netherlands. In the US, they call themselves Tea Party. Over here, they vote for Geert Wilders, but the rhetoric and the sentiments? Identical. We always talk about globalization in terms of its effects on commerce and corporate related practices, but there also seems to be an undercurrent of political globalization going on. A uniformed stance mostly on matters of race (and the class related baggage they carry) that is permeating almost all of the so called Western world. The burqa ban in France is a direct example of this, the chance that Wilders will hold a prominent role in our next government is part of the same puzzle (and not exactly a small piece). Immigrants (almost always brown people) are being killed in the south of Italy in race related struggles. I could go on with more examples but these are definitely not isolated phenomenons to be analyzed as localized incidents. The constructions, denominations and connotations of race might be local but the associated reactions have too many common denominators to dismiss as domestic.

Loading posts...