Thursday, September 18, 2014

"Interracial Relationships" Are SADD 3.0

Sex is the principle around which the whole structure of [White Supremacy] . . . is organized." Gunnar Myrdal
Oklahoma Police Officer, Suspected Racist and Suspected Rapist Daniel Holtzclaw has been arrested and charged with raping and/or molesting at least eight black females. Just like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Jr.'s killers, Whites invested in Holtzclaw; an alleged White sexual predator raked in approximately $10,000 in roughly three days. His bond was subsequently lowered and he's been released to house arrest. Thus far, Daniele Watts has received more attention and harsher treatment. And it's undisputed that she's raped no one.

These incidents reflect White values. These concurrent events offer additional evidence of the global empire of White Supremacy, White Terrorism. Sexual exploitation of non-white people is a persistent, undeniable and essential component of White amusement and domination. The predatory White psyche is on display when powerful Whites celebrate Halle Berry for Monster's Ball and Kerry Washington for Scandal and Django Unchained - costarring Daniel Watts. Pulp Fiction - another Quentin Tarantino tour de force - has enjoyed two decades of global White reverence and adulation; an Academy Award nominated landmark featuring Ving Rhames (black male) being anally raped by a White male enforcement official. 

Again, we pause for Abner Louima and those whom deny Tarantino and his work are an accurate illustration of White Pathology.

One would hope that these contemporary incidents along with historical and scholarly analysis such as Reneathia Tate, Trojan Horse Publications, Danielle McGuire, Dr. Mwalimu Baruti and others would allow non-whites to easily grasp the logic of why no non-white person should engage in sexual  intercourse (or sexual play) with any White person. One would be mistaken.

Ms. Jaya Sundaresh (non-white female) visited The C.O.W.S. in August of 2014. We discussed her report on Michael Brown, Jr., antiblackness amongst non-black, non-white people, and the 8th area of people activity (SEX). Ms. Sundaresh admitted to having been in a sexual relationship with a White man for a number of years; she conceded that this likely influences her thinking on this matter. We continued our dialog after the conclusion of the broadcast. These are her thoughts:

Hi Gus, apologies for the long wait on this email. I've been very busy helping my grandparents move into their new place here in Bangalore, and I've also been thinking about how best to respond to you, how best to tackle this conversation. 
Frankly, I'm baffled at your claim that all interracial relationships are inherently exploitative. People from different layers in the kyriarchy enter into consensual, healthy relationships all the time. It's called heterosexuality. Men and women, who occupy very different positions in society, have been pairing off since time immemorial. I'd argue that the vast majority of these relationships have been coercive, and were established to extract labor and sexual labor from women, but it would be foolish to deny that there do exist at least some healthy, non-coercive heterosexual relationships. Same thing with interracial relationships. I'm sure that most of them are exploitative. My learning curve about my own relationship history was very steep, and now I pretty much exclusively date other men of color, and preferably South Asian men -- but to insist that interracial relationships are ALWAYS coercive is taking it a step too far.  
Women, in particular, have always had to wrestle with partners who wield more institutional power than they do. We have always had to deal with exploitation, and we have always found ways to make it work.
In conclusion, political lesbianism is not the answer to the problem of heterosexuality, and the problems inherent in interracial relationships won't be solved by avoiding them altogether.
Secondly, and more importantly, I'm a little stunned that you, as a man, would presume to tell other women of color who they can and cannot enter into relationships with. Because there's a context here, a history that can't be ignored. Men of color have been telling women of color what to do with their bodies for a very long time, now. Women have been turned into the symbols of anticolonial, antiracist, nationalist movements since they began. Men have consistently viewed women as repositories into which culture must be stored -- and have seen women as objects to be kept safe from exploitation, for the good of the nation. Women have been asked to wear the veil, to retreat into the shadows, to remain in their place, their sphere, to refrain from taking leadership positions -- all in the name of the struggle. Every time a woman chooses something for herself, it must be judged worthy by the ideological leaders of the struggle -- who generally happen to be men.  
Men of color have been telling women of color for a very long time who they're allowed to have sex with, and who they're not. I think anyone who asks women to circumscribe their actions for the sake of a greater goal, such as keeping culture alive, needs to stop and seriously reconsider whether they are denying women their autonomy.
I also just want to say -- it's insulting to presume to tell people of color that they are being exploited because they are in an interracial relationship, if they aren't. That disrespects the struggle of people who have actually been abused. People sometimes don't know when they're being exploited -- that's true. Many victims of abuse go through periods of denial and rationalization. But telling every Olivia Pope or Mindy Kaling that they are being exploited because they sometimes date white men is like telling every straight woman that they're being exploited because they sometimes date men. It just doesn't work. It goes too far.  
I hope this email makes my position clearer, and feel free to share my words with whoever you like. I look forward to hearing your response. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

At least she didn't call you a racist? Also, I don't recall you "telling" her who she can and cannot date, just that you offered you analysis of what it means in a system of white supremacy for non-white people to be sleeping with white people. That is, unless in private conversations (off-air) you mentioned something like this to her.

I had an eerily similar interaction with a non-white, non-black female (Chinese) a few years ago, when I was becoming less confuse and more aware about white supremacy, after telling her that I do not think I could continue being "friends" with her because she was involved in a sexual "relationship" with a white male. Mind you, I knew this female only cursorily, for she was the only non-white female in a creative writing program I'd attended years before, and she was a good poet and so I'd reached out to her to form an alliance of some kind. She was also writing, in some fashion, about being Chinese and racism. Our conversations lulled over the years, but as I was gaining a better understanding of racism, I reached out to her and it was then I discovered she was sleeping with a white male, and was also being victimized by the university where she was going (and where I'd attended) because she was Chinese.

Essentially, I told her I couldn't be beneficial to her as a friend because I'd be bent on trying to convince her to break up with him and that, I thought, might cause conflict between us, which was incorrect. So, I stepped away from the burgeoning friendship (or whatever) and told her if she ever needed any help in her battles, to call on me.

This is an excerpt of the email response she sent me: "I don't find it coincidental that it's my choice of who and how to love that, above anything else, becomes a deal-breaker in a question of whether you should or should not get to know me. The rhetoric of how women--and, god knows, Asian[/american] women, in my specific experience--should/should not share their bodies is systemic, too. I mention this not because I think you don't already know it, but for the sake of full disclosure. I grew up in a body extremely policed. This is by no means the first time I've been told that my being with a type of person of whom a man disapproved makes me "simply too hard to look at", though I sympathize with your reason for saying this more than I did with my father's. I have a guarded wariness of why this issue, above any of the other ways that I/others implicitly participate in systemic racism, is presented as the one crucial issue in which there is a right/wrong choice for me to make as determined by another person's evaluation."

Sound familiar?