Dark & Lovely

I was just reading this article: Dark Girls Documentary Exposes Self-Hatred in Black Community, and had to write.

The article was shared in a professional group for African-Americans in the HR field, and another reader wondered whether the thinking described might have any impact on hiring decisions. This was my response.

I would suspect that it [the thinking mentioned in the article] does factor in to hiring decisions but the real problem is not that others have issues with us, but rather that we continue to have issues with ourselves. That is the greater problem. Discrimination will likely continue to exist for some time to come, but what does that really matter when we are doing all the hard work (and it is hard work) of inflicting psychic wounds on ourselves and each other?

I've heard all manner of comment about my skin. As you can see from the photo, it ain't exactly light, but in the inimitable words of India.Arie, "I am not my hair, I am not this skin". In Trinidad, I might hear that I'm nice looking for a darkie, because to some I suppose 'dark' and 'lovely' are mutually exclusive terms. I didn't learn it that way. I've heard that I could use 'a little milk in my coffee' (a West Indian expression akin to talking about 'having a little lightness') for some time now. My response? "I take my coffee black" and a smile.

The only defense against attempts to inflict these kinds of wounds is education. I am not ashamed or afraid to stand in the world as I am because I'm pretty sure I bring something to the table that no one else can. I bring me. This is what we must teach our children and in many cases, it is what we must teach ourselves.

As the article notes, non-Black folk tan, some to the point of orangeness and rubbery skin (a whole other story entirely!) while we bemoan our drops of brown. Isn't there enough on the planet to worry about without adding this tripe?

India.Arie sings 'I am not my hair'

Why Cain isn't able

A little over a decade ago, I visited London. During that visit, my girlfriend and I went to visit the Greenwich Meridian. While there, we were walking on a narrow path side by side. An older woman was coming towards us. Without so much as an exchanged glance, G and I separated both of us stepping off the path, so that the woman could have the path. We took the grass. She, instead of saying "Thank you" or even smiling her thanks, clutched her handbag thinking perhaps, that we intended to snatch it from her. Our instinctual deference to an older woman was mistaken for theft prep.

A few weeks later, at the end of our visit to a famous museum in Paris, we went to the restrooms before heading home. There, an older woman prevented her granddaughter from using the restroom after me. Though I'd like to think this was my imagination, I'm pretty sure it wasn't. You see, the child saw me step out and she briskly stepped forward. You know how those ladies rooms lines can be! Gran, in her infinite wisdom, grabbed hold of the little girl and allowed someone else to use the facilities I had just vacated. Perhaps Gran assumed that I had sat upon the seat and might have left various germs behind? Gran would have been wrong. Note to Nana: I never sit in public restrooms if there are no seat covers, so the stall I vacate is quite safe from my germs I can assure you.

I tell these two stories as my preamble to saying this: when Herman Cain said during the Republican debate on Monday 13 June 2011, that he would be reluctant to hire a Muslim without first challenging/testing his 'loyalty' to the constitution, my stomach turned and I immediately had a flashback of my trip to London and Paris. I thought, "Wow! Did he really just say that? I mean, seriously?" In 1999, my response was, "Did she really just do that? I mean, seriously?"

For me, my response to Cain boils down to this: as a man of color Herman Cain should know better than to lump all Muslims together. Hasn't he experienced enough of that 'lumping' crap in his own lifetime? If he hasn't I'd like to know where and when he grew up because I certainly have, and I'm pretty sure my world is more integrated than his was at the beginning of his life.

Rather than judge a Muslim contender for a role in his administration on his/her merits, Cain throws out this asinine and repugnant suggestion that because an individual prays in a certain way, he/she is immediately suspect? Listening, I thought I heard echoes of any number of stereotypes about people of color; homosexuals; Japanese-Americans during WWII; Hispanics; women! Well before the end of the debate, any positive thoughts I had had about Herman Cain had been consigned to the trash heap.

Surely, a candidate for President, one who wishes to be taken seriously in that role - either candidate or President - can do better than this? At some point during the course of the evening I had to say to myself, "You know Herman, it really no longer matters what else you say, cuz Mr. Cain, you ain't able. You may be willing, but you ain't able." Sorry.

 

Reality check

So I've been thinking about something I heard recently. In a very brief interview with Christiane Amanpour, Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota governor) suggested that changes to Social Security were necessary, but that obviously they couldn't be enacted in such a way as to affect those already collecting checks or on the verge of doing so. I have to admit, that was the first piece of real sense I'd heard ANYONE speak on the matter.

About a week later, I read an article AARP Bulletin written by the CEO. In it, he talked about the success of grass roots activity in getting Congress to 'back off' on some of its "plans to make draconian changes to Medicare". "The fight would continue", he said, as Congress "continues to debate whether or not to make harmful cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." sigh.

I wondered, how is it that we contend that the deficit is our primary concern but at the same time, we insist that we only want budgetary cuts to affect programs that don't directly affect us. How have people become so comfortable holding these views (which are so clearly at odds) in their heads at the same time? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels the cognitive dissonance here so I have to ask, "How does that work?"

When a household income decreases, everything feels the effects, not just the things we're not so passionate about. One job? Well the cable gets cut or reduced; perhaps you'll have to sell one car; you eat out much less and maybe someone will have to stop going to swim or dance lessons. That's just the way it works. Lifestyles change. They have to. So too should it be for nations. Government income is down drastically, government expenditure will have to be pruned back commensurately and yet, there's all this weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of cuts to some programs. If you think about it, every program is sacrosanct to some population. But if you insist that only those that are not sacred and inviolable should be cut then really, there's no point to talking about the deficit is there? Clearly, we're stuck with it. In my view, either we go with the status quo or everything's open to discussion. Either we all share the pain or we all do nothing. Be assured though that whatever choice is made, there will be consequences.

I just wish someone would explain to me how the thinking works. This, "Cut yes, but just don't cut mine" principle doesn't really seem to be working. But what do I know? I just live here. Worse comes to worst, I could always return to my island paradise where there is a hammock waiting.