Gina Harris's Blog, page 34

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 1994 - 2011

When Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed in 2011, I remember it being a big deal, with people finding it to be a good step forward.

I did not disagree with that, but I had remembered its passage being a step forward also; I don't remember that being mentioned much.

Let me back up. When it actually went into effect I was on my mission, and I don't think I heard anything about it. What I remember was the discussions that were leading up to it. I remember it so clearly because one of the people I knew at college was interviewed on the local news.

Michael and I were not particularly close, but we were friendly. He was interviewed and he wanted to watch the segment, so we went to watch it in Shelly's room -- she had a TV -- and then we talked.

This is assuming I am remembering the details correctly, which all these years later is questionable. I think he was in the Navy, and he left, or at least didn't re-enlist, because he was gay. After being out for a while, he wasn't necessarily interested in going back, but it would have made a difference to him before.

I don't know how the station found him to interview him. I remember very clearly a different person with the same name writing into the student newspaper very irritated because now everyone was thinking he was gay. If you saw the story, they looked nothing alike, but people...

I am pretty sure he was graduated by the time I got back to school (most people I knew were), so I have not seen him since. I still remember that footage of him walking across campus, and being in the dorm room together talking... those images are vivid.

There were gay students at my high school, but I did not know they were. The Oregon Citizens Alliance was actively campaigning against "special" rights for gay people while we were there, and there were plenty of reasons to keep closeted.

College was the first place where I was finding people who were out and proud. Getting to know them was its own education. There wasn't any recruiting. It would feel condescending to say that they were just people, humans... of course they were, but much of what I had seen before had painted them as these horrible perverts.

No. That's not how it worked.

Here's another memory. I got on Facebook in late 2008. Reconnecting with many of the guys from school, they were frequently teasing each other about being gay: lots of Brokeback Mountain jokes. That gradually faded away. I remember mentioning it to one of them when I saw him in person. I think he said something to the effect of having to grow up sometime, except it was not just that. Believe me, he has the potential to still be very immature. However, at one point it became real to him that there are gay people with real feelings, and using their identity for cheap jokes is gross.

It seemed we had successfully moved from a world that would support domestic partnerships if they were not allowed to call it marriage and where you could be a gay soldier as long as you didn't talk about it to a world where gay couples could get married in any state, individuals could serve in the military openly, and straight men could relate to each other in ways other than humorous homophobia.

I wanted to write about this because I think it illustrates how well public opinion and legislation can work together. Before Don't Ask Don't Tell, there were gay rights activists focusing on unfair military dismissals. There were Pride events and demonstrations. There was the AIDS quilt. There was determination against the counter-programming.

I understand why people rail against incrementalism, but it is easier to make continued progress in the right direction than to have to keep fighting the destruction that gets wreaked so quickly and deliberately.

It had looked like we were past all that, but then you get transgender rights being targeted and "Don't say gay" and book banning and even young people who are gay getting mad about leather at Pride and the use of the word "queer".

Dominator culture doesn't let up, and so we can't let up either, regardless of whether or not we are the target. For one thing, they will keep narrowing definitions, because there always need to be more people to oppress.

But, also we should just care about each other. 

In many ways, the children of my generation are better, being supportive and inclusive and a lot of them have great support from their parents. 

It is not an excuse to get lax. Some of the worst people in the world are working very hard. 

What will we do?

Not justice

I did not post last Friday. This was not for a lack of material, but kind of too much material (but also work being busier and the tiredness growing).

So this post may not be a good one, but I want to write about some of the issues with the trials of the killers of Latasha Harlins and Vincent Chin. There were significant differences, and similarities.

In the case of Vincent Chin, there was an increasing sloughing off of responsibility.

The officers who showed up to on the scene did not treat Ronald Ebens like they had just seen him beat someone to death with a baseball bat. They were off-duty, but still, that's a really violent crime and they caught at least the end of it.

That preferential treatment may be why he was treated kind of lightly at the station, where things kept being easier than they should have been.

That is not necessarily why the prosecutors were not in court on the day that Ebens was convicted. That was not even that abnormal, but someone should have objected to the 2nd Degree Murder charge being dropped down to manslaughter. Even if the DA's office would have wanted a plea bargain, in theory they would not want a brutal killing to result in no jail time; only probation and a fine.

There was no plea bargain in the case of Soon Ja Du; the jury found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and then Judge Karlin suspended the prison sentence, again opting for just probation and a fine.

I think Judge Kaufman has the most apt quote, regarding Ebens' sentencing:

"These weren't the kind of men you send to jail... You don't make the punishment fit the crime; you make the punishment fit the criminal."

Meaning men who would pick a fight in a strip club, hunt down the person later, and then one would hold the victim while the other beat him in the head with a baseball bat. Because they had jobs (well, the one was laid off, but he used to have a job). 

He never said that it was because they were white, and he was appalled by that insinuation, but what part of their previous lives made murdering okay?

For Judge Karlin, perhaps she was kind of impressive in her understatement:

"Did Mrs. Du react inappropriately? Absolutely. But was that reaction understandable? I think that it was." 

Thanks for acknowledging that shooting a 15 year old in the back of the head is inappropriate.

Karlin later complained about political correctness, so we know where she stands.

(Remember that "political correctness" comes from an effort to use more specific, respectful language where we can understand things better, which might help you understand how you are influenced subconsciously. https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/03/waking.html)

There is some discomfort for me in writing this, because the carceral state does more harm than good. I apparently am not truly a prison abolitionist, though, because we do not have something in place for cases like this. I would absolutely rather prevent the murders than punish the murderers, but we are really not there yet.

(I don't think it is a coincidence that one well-known prison abolitionist has chosen an abuser over his victims.)

 I'm not against the concept of double jeopardy, either, because I totally believe in court abuses, but when a case is so blatantly unjust, where is the remedy?

Well, civil cases. 

As it is, there were two civil cases against Ebens. He lost the first one, and then appealed and won. There were two main factors in the later victory. In the second trial the defense exploited differences in the prosecutor's speech to claim that she was coaching the witnesses. Her attempts to make sure everything was right was able to be turned against her.

Probably more importantly, Ebens did not testify at the second civil trial. In the first one, his testimony consisted of only remembering things that spoke in his favor, but he was not able to remember anything that might have worked against him. The first jury did not find that convincing. He did not have to testify against himself, so in the second trial he did not and came off better.

Mainly, it all makes me think of a different quote:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

This neglects intersectionality -- one of the killers is a brown woman -- but as long as there are people whom it is okay for you to abuse and bully and threaten and kill, then maybe you can put up with those who are allowed to abuse you.

It's not good for anyone, but there are those whom it hurts more. 

That is not exactly what the other aspect is, but it relates, so that will be the other post.

Related:

https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pocharaponneammanee/benjamin-brennan-fraternity-hazing-coma

Concerted effort

For examples of dunking not being helpful, one is playing out in real time with Kentucky governor Andy Beshear. A Democrat, he has tried very hard to do good things but is hamstrung by a obstructive state legislator entrenched in place via gerrymandering. He does frequently refer to prayers, and that is what is being jumped on in tweets in the aftermath of a recent shooting. 

Certainly there are frequent meaningless references to thoughts and prayers, but that is not what is happening here, and that is not something the tweeters care to check. I assume they feel smart and righteous, and also that it will do nothing other than give them that ego boost.

In terms of effecting change, there are a few examples that come to mind, but I want to start with the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

One of the things that made it effective was that there were clear goals. The rules about Black passengers having to ride in the back of the bus did not only mean people standing, even when there were seats available, or when they had been on longer. It also meant that sometimes people would pay their fare, then as they had to walk outside of the bus to the back door, sometime the bus would drive away. The rules gave the drivers an easy and tempting way to abuse power. 

That allowed for an easy goal of ending the busing segregation laws, with the added goal of the hiring of Black drivers. That would not only add some jobs to the community but also increase the odds of finding a friendly and respectful driver. Reasonable goals, but not something that those in power would have an interest in, if for no other reason than that those in power do not like change to the status quo.

How do you resolve that? Economic pressure is a great way to affect those in power. Suddenly excuses about not being able to make changes because it would be bad for business are coming up against significant business losses that are actual, not imagined. 

That pressure needed to be maintained for long enough (a little over a year), and there are people who depended on the bus for transportation. 

Organizing is more than choosing an action and advertising about it; it is making it possible. In this case, that meant organizing carpools. It got taxi drivers driving for bus fare, which is a personal sacrifice. It involved some people walking, perhaps uncomfortable distances. It involved fundraising, like the cooking efforts of Georgia Gilmore.

Those efforts combined people being willing to sacrifice, but also not ignoring the efforts that others had to make. That comes from community and caring. 

Protest efforts may start with anger, but that is a limited fuel.

Stirring up emotional responses matters too. 

I remember talking to a family friend about some of the demonstrations in the 60s. Younger then, anything that happened before I was born seemed a long time ago, but she remembered seeing those those fire hoses and police dogs in Birmingham, and being shocked.

White people up North and out West had their own prejudices, but there was a viciousness that they saw there that they could not have imagined. 

It was a strategy at the time that demonstrators would be well-dressed and use passive resistance; they knew the power of those images would help them. The influence of public opinion made it easier for politicians to pass bills that protected civil rights.

It was a lot of work. It is not just the marching and the telephone trees and cooking and car pooling, but also putting all of that together and being in for the long haul and working with people who annoy you. That all goes into it.

And as much as you can influence public opinion and get new laws passed and old ones struck down, there is always another force trying to ruin it.

This will be continued.

Dunking

This post is primarily inspired by two recent occurrences, and the delight they caused liberal/progressive/leftist people: Bethany Mandel not being able to define "woke" when asked (despite having written a whole book on it) and John Steward "demolishing" Oklahoma state senator Nathan Dahm over gun control:

https://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-gun-rights-oklahoma-senator-clip/

What I want to stress most is that no one is demolished.

Senator Dahm is doubling down and asking for a rematch on Joe Rogan.

Bethany Mandel says she was humiliated, but her article about that is self-serving, blames an anxiety that her family was going to be criticized, and still never defines "woke" (though she admits it is a reasonable question, which is big of her).

https://www.newsweek.com/define-woke-bethany-mandel-conservative-book-1788538

Conservatives are tweeting their own definitions of the word, which lie and deflect.

In Mandel's defense, answering honestly -- especially to a Black woman -- could have been awkward. If you're going to accept the interview, you should have a strategy for that.

(And this is where it's good that I wrote about "woke" last week, because now I can link to it and move on: https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/03/waking.html) 

My take is that these dunkings do more harm than good.

I understand that sense of glee that we are smarter than them, but you should not need any additional proof. 

Plus, a lot of it is more about calculated evil than a lack of comprehension. It is hard to tell with some, I admit. Some are probably more manipulated than manipulative, but this is still not the way to reach them.

Instead, it reinforces their sense of being besieged by evil liberals, it gives their lies a platform, and breeds a culture where a (false) sense of domination is prioritized over actual good.

(Speaking of giving a platform, I am not including Lesley Stahl and Marjorie Taylor Green in this because it doesn't seem like there was even a dunk.)

This is not about conservatives' hurt feelings; this is about progressives' shriveled hearts.

I know there are a lot of different words that can be used, and I am willing to have that discussion. 

In this case, I lean towards "progressive" because that seems to be be the chosen self-identifier for many of those who focus more on scoring points against their rivals than working toward legislation or grass roots organizing or mutual aid or something that will help somebody.

In fact, that inner need to dominate is the kind of thing that results in some people resorting to guns for a final assertion of their dominance, where they will die but they will take others with them.

This does not accomplish anything good, and there is so much good to be done. We need to be feeding people, registering voters, making health care -- including mental health -- care available. There is so much work to be done.

The dopamine rush from feeling better-informed than someone who could not care less is a hollow substitute.

I know there are some who argue that these victories are important for shifting the conversation, and that will bring change.

I have doubts, but that will go into another post.

I did not like "Inside"

I do not appreciate all of these streaming channels with exclusive content where you need to be subscribed to have access to certain materials. There are a few different ones where I have a list that I will get to eventually, and only temporarily.

There was a Netflix list, but due to an evident promotion of transphobic content, gouging new subscription rules, and some other concerns, I was avoiding it. Then it was the only place to watch A Love Song for Latasha, which I felt I had to see before blogging about the other related content, and here I am again. 

I am going to try and catch up over the next two months, but I really need to watch The People versus Billi Holiday for something else, and that's on Hulu.

In the process of catching up, I finally watched Inside: Bo Burnham, about which I'd heard very good things.

I did not like it. People whom I really like and admire love it. I didn't.

I have to admit he is incredibly talented. Just thinking about the filming conditions and constrictions and what he was able to produce, and the visual quality and the musical quality... yes, I can imagine him doing very well at brand consulting. 

I think a big part of my issue with it was an age difference. It is not just that he was fretting about turning 30 while I am relieved to be past those specific pressures of youth, but also some perspective, perhaps.

He kept striking at his awareness of where he was with his white privilege and his knowledge of structural racism, and being kind of vicious with himself about it. That doesn't actually help anyone. 

Being aware of your own shortcomings is a great reason to highlight other voices with more experience and knowledge. Granted, that doesn't necessarily make for good comedy, but I am not sure that his approach did either.

I assume that for the people who responded strongly to it, they had felt some of the same pressures of isolation and the personal shortcomings; seeing someone be that open about their weaknesses was powerful. 

I believe my issue with it was the self-absorption, which he seemed to loathe without overcoming.

This reminded me of one of the parts of literature that has annoyed me most, from Joseph Heller's Catch-22.

“The night was filled with horror, and he thought he knew how Christ must have felt as he walked through the world, like a psychiatrist through a ward full of nuts, like a victim through a prison full of thieves.  What a welcome sight a leper must have been!”

Seeing horrible things and feeling really bad while you keep on walking is nothing like Christ; he stopped and helped. You would not have his abilities, but who knows where life might lead once you get over yourself?

Watching the special, I was most impressed with the opening number, started having some concerns early -- especially during "Face Time With My Mom (Tonight)" -- and then he really lost me on "White Woman's Instagram".

There is a casual contempt for people (probably just coincidentally women (though it might not hurt to do a misogyny check) in the song itself. Where he completely lost me was the middle of the song when it carries that contempt to the grief of someone who lost her mother, and probably lost her relatively young, based on the things that happened over the ten years. 

That is a real pain. Maybe it's not everyone's cup of tea to post on Instagram about it. Maybe the way some people post feels kind of staged; lots of people present their best selves on social media, though they do that in other social contexts as well. It's not like no one criticizes the people who display all of their messiness. Nonetheless, grief is a real thing, it hits on anniversaries, and if something is on your mind it's pretty normal to post about it.

So do you hate that these women have an outlet? Do you hate that the outlet is shallow? Are you assuming that the person's Instagram tells you a lot about that person?

I know shallow and superficial people exist, and some people try and be deep and are actually kind of silly... they are still people. They still have feelings. They still have value.

Do you think skewering your mother and women who like pumpkin spice lattes is going to overcome white supremacy?

Or does it just make your own self-loathing feel a little more manageable? At least I recognize my privilege!

One more thought: one of the other people who loved the special and thought it was great tweeted that Burnham was like Douglas Adams. That was more about his storytelling, but that reminded me of how much I expected to like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and how much I did not. I didn't like it because I sensed a contempt for people in it.

Maybe we deserve it sometimes, but it doesn't help anyone. 

On a personal level, I hate that. It makes it impossible for me to enjoy the content, regardless of other considerations of quality.

Bo Burnham is young and talented and I believe he means well; he will probably get better.

(There might be something to dwelling on if there are some common denominators between these authors and creators that have issues with self-absorption and contempt of others.)

Either way, before I let Netflix go again, I should re-watch Nanette and Douglas, which I adored the last time around. 

Of course, Hannah Gadsby is closer to my age., but that might be just a coincidence.

Waking

Exciting sneak preview for next week: I am going to reference Bethany Mandel not being able to define "woke". 

It's not even a major point, but what I realized is that if I did that today, I would be tempted to go on a tangent, especially because I have had some thoughts on the use of the word. 

I believe the point I want to make next week will go better if I get this out of the way. That is called knowing myself, including knowing my tendency to take a roundabout path to a conclusion, believing that it can clarify the logic.

Let me start with "political correctness".

What I most associate with this specific term is displeasure when people started objecting to the R-word. Yes, I remember people complaining about other racist and sexist jokes not being received as funny as political correctness, but mostly I remember it with ableism. 

It may stick with me because I remember that the mocking associated with that word seemed to mimic cerebral palsy, but the word itself when used properly was referring to delayed cognitive ability. If you were a terrible person, not having one catch-all word that you could use to insult and marginalize a large and diverse group of people might be inconvenient, but it's not the sort of complaint that I sympathize with.

"Politically correct" was the key insult for a long time, the justification being that it stifles free discussion, and we all know how important freedom of speech is. I agree, but if you can't communicate effectively without showing respect to other groups -- especially when that relates specifically to marginalized groups where there might be a history of oppression that needs to be dealt with openly -- that is a "you" problem.

Shortly after getting on Twitter, I became aware of a new insult: "social justice warrior".

I personally would not have found that to be an insult, but something aspirational. However, that's how it was being used, with the idea being that any sentiments in favor of social justice were insincere desires for prestige and acceptance.

Here is another potential "you" problem: if you don't care about justice or fairness and are too cynical and self-absorbed to even begin to feel such things. You can insult people that way, but that says more about you.

Which brings us to "woke".

It is not something I have ever called myself, largely because it seemed easy to rate yourself too highly. Sure, I know stuff... and then discover more things that you did not know.

What I do remember from that time period was finding things that once known, could not be unknown. Those common expressions have a racist background. These practices are inherently unfair; while these other practices would not be inherently unfair except for the structure they are interacting with.

It can be an uncomfortable process. One day you have a basic idea that racism is bad but there are a lot of things that don't seem to be racism, and then you realize they are. It's not just neighborhoods and inherited wealth and policing trends; those are all important, but they are obviously important. You know that and are frustrated, but it seems like all you can control is your vote.

But let's say in your circle of acquaintance you have people who changed the name of "Hillsboro" to "Hillsburrito" (because so many Mexicans live there) or Canada's Vancouver to "Hongcouver", with a bit of a fake Chinese accent (because so many people from East Asia buy property there)... that's just being cute, right? 

You go from being shocked at how many expressions that are "cute" or "funny" have racist roots, and then it stops being shocking because you see how it was practically inevitable. 

You used to not notice, then it makes you cringe, and then you need to say something.

Maybe they will be embarrassed or irritated, or maybe they will cast you as an enemy of freedom of speech.

If we are being intellectually honest, it should not be such a hard concept for anyone to understand. Plato was working toward a different point, but I think we can find a clear correlation to the concept described in the allegory of the cave. There may be another, stronger correlation...

“To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time. ”  -- James Baldwin

You can work up a fair amount of rage without being Black. 

I don't say that to center myself, but to acknowledge that there is a price to be paid for becoming aware. You get angry. There is no ignorant bliss, but ideally you work toward making things better. You have more empathy, and more of an eye for injustice. Maybe you see a police interaction and you start recording.

And you correct people on their racist language.

Because we should know. We should know how we got here. We should know how it affects people. We should let go of those illusions.

If what you want is the right to keep on being ignorant and oppressive without having to think about it, that's a you problem, making it a very legitimate question whether struggles to define the word are actually about trying to not sound horrible.

I have no obligation to support someone's ego in ignorance. Wanting that could be something worthy of mocking, but the mocking doesn't really help. 

That's what I was going to write about today, but next week should work better, now that I have rambled enough about "woke".

Motown and Stax Records: Daily Songs

I had probably started thinking about focusing on Motown for the daily songs before I went to the Oregon Historical Society; that started after reading Rhythm Ride: A Road Trip Through the Motown Sound by Andrea Davis Pinkney.

It was at the exhibit that I started thinking about including Stax Records.

https://sporktogo.blogspot.com/2023/01/pdx-motown-sound-of-young-america-at.html

As I started looking at their respective hits, it seemed like it would be possible to go year by year with a hit from each, at least through the 60s. Stax went bankrupt in 1974. Obviously Motown lasted longer.

Looking at their hits, there are some very iconic, important songs in music history coming from both companies. 

Reading a little bit more about the production of "Green Onions", there was some reference to that being more of a "Stax" sound. It might be fair to say that Stax was a bit funkier. Maybe Motown was more focused on gaining the crossover audience. (Is that why Petey Greene hated Berry Gordy so much?)

I still can't deny the positive impact. 

After a few years you start seeing hits that could have easily been produced by Motown coming from Atlantic and other labels; would they have signed those artists without the success of Motown and Stax?

It is fairly well known that MTV was not playing Black artists until they wanted Michael Jackson, and CBS made that access contingent upon giving access to other artists. Would CBS have been in that position without Motown?

If Motown stayed strong longer than Stax, you see a real slowing down in the 80s, with a bit of a resurgence in the 90s that owes a lot to Michael Bivins.

If Motown had given us nothing but Stevie Wonder, and Stax had given us nothing by "Green Onions", I would still call it good artistically. (Realistically, financially that would probably not have been enough.)

As it is, they gave us much more. A sampling of songs to back that up follows.

First, on a personal note, this was also an important list for me as I realized I had no way to post the daily songs while I was on vacation. I didn't want to give up any songs, and I couldn't let it go into February because I had big February plans.

So, there is a big gap, then the list resumed in March. I decided to add more songs, bringing the total to 40. Changes in the original sequence are noted, as are the year of the hit and the label.

Daily Songs

1/1 “Please Mr. Postman” by the Marvelettes (1961 Motown)
1/2“Last Night” by The Mar-Keys (1961 Stax)
1/3 “Do You Love Me” by The Contours (1962 Motown)
1/4 “Green Onions” by Booker T. & the M.G.'s (1962 Stax)
1/5 “Heat Wave” by Martha and the Vandellas (1963 Motown)
1/6 “Walking the Dog” by Rufus Thomas (1963 Stax)
1/7 “My Guy” by Mary Wells (1964 Motown)
1/8 “I've Got No Time To Lose” by Carla Thomas (1964 Stax)
1/9 “I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch)” by Four Tops (1965 Motown)
1/10 “In the Midnight Hour” by Wilson Pickett (1965 Stax)
1/11 “You Can't Hurry Love” by the Supremes (1966 Motown)
1/12 “Hold On! I'm Comin'” by Sam & Dave (1966 Stax)
1/13 “Knock On Wood” by Eddie Floyd (1966 Stax)
1/14 “I Was Made To Love Her” by Stevie Wonder (1967 Motown)
1/15 “Born Under A Bad Sign” by Albert King (1967 Stax)
1/16 “I Heard It Through The Grapevine” by Marvin Gaye (1968 Motown)
1/17 “(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay” by Otis Redding (1968 Stax)
1/18 “What a Man” by Linda Lyndell (1968 Stax)
1/19 “Private Number” by Judy Clay and William Bell (1968 Stax)
1/20 “I Can't Get Next To You” by The Temptations (1969 Motown)
~ vacation ~
1/28 “The Sweeter He Is” by The Soul Children (1969 Stax)
1/29 “War” by Edwin Starr (1970 Motown)
1/30 “I Just Want to Celebrate” by Rare Earth (1971 Motown)
1/31 “Mr. Big Stuff” by Jean Knight (1971 Stax)
~ February, Black History Month ~
3/6 “Theme from Shaft” by Isaac Hayes (1971 Stax)
3/7 “Papa Was a Rollin' Stone” by The Temptations (1972 Motown)
3/8 “I'll Take You There” by the Staple Singers (1972 Stax)
3/9 “Touch Me in the Morning” by Diana Ross (1973 Motown)
3/10 “Help Yourself” by The Undisputed Truth (1974 Motown)
3/11 “Old Fashioned Love” by The Commodores (1975 Motown)
3/12 “Don't Leave Me This Way” by Thelma Houston (1976 Motown)
~ added ~
3/13 “Down To Love Town” by The Originals (1977 Motown)
3/14 “It's My Turn” by Diana Ross (1980 Motown)
3/15 “Let It Whip” by Dazz Band (1982 Motown)
3/16 “You Are” by Lionel Richie (1983 Motown)
3/17 “Go Home” by Stevie Wonder (1985 Motown)
3/18 “Rub You the Right Way” by Johnny Gill (1990 Motown)
3/19 “Motownphilly” by Boyz II Men (1991 Motown)
3/20 “Iesha” by Another Bad Creation (1991 Motown)
3/21 “Back At One” by Brian McKnight (1999 Motown)

Two stories

I may have told one of these stories before, but I know I haven't told the other one.

Here is the good story. A few years ago I was talking to a woman whose daughter had gone through a period of being shut out by her friends in high school. It came up when I was working on the Long Reading list. We were talking about books and what I had been reading recently; she was very interested because it sounded familiar.

One thing I will always remember is that by then the friends were all reconciled, but you could tell the mother was not quite thrilled with that or trusting of them. I have seen this with other mothers, and it makes a lot of sense. You can hope everyone grows into a kinder adult, but we know that is not guaranteed.

The other thing I remember is being very impressed with how the adults handled it. The mother found out her teen was being bulled by former friends and spoke to the school. I don't remember if it was the principal or guidance counselor, but they asked the daughter what she wanted. She wanted to change her lunch period, because that is where the bullying was happening. She needed some space, and they gave it to her.

It sounds so simple and logical, but this is where we fail a lot. 

Maybe we are afraid they will ask for something we can't give. They might, but then we could always offer a counterproposal. If we want to help someone, at least hearing what they think they need seems like a good start.

Unless we don't want to help too much.

I worry that sometimes we don't. Maybe it feels like the appropriate thing to let those who can wield physical or social power use it and abuse it, because that's the way it's always been.

The most common response to bullying is to tell the bullied person to ignore it and they will get tired of it. That is a lie. We all know it's a lie.

Here is the bad story.

Way back in my early days of Twitter use, in addition to following a lot of musicians I liked, I also followed their family members and girlfriends. A lot of other fans followed them too, and it kind of seemed rude not to.

With one of my favorite bands, I actually interacted with two of the girlfriends a bit. 

One of my good qualities is a good memory, and thoughtfulness. If I see that you are interested in a certain topic or learn your favorite animal or something like that, I will let you know about pertinent things: I think you would like this book or this tour or this recipe. Stuff like that. Nothing big.

One day, one of the girlfriends sent me a private message thanking me for how sweet I had always been. I was so touched.

I didn't know it was goodbye.

Not all of the fans were nice. That was something I did kind of know, but it wasn't something I generally saw a lot, or even thought to check.

She deleted her profile, and eventually he did too. 

Going off of Twitter isn't exactly a tragedy, but why should you be harassed off of it because of whom you date? It's not like that leaves an opening that any of the bullies are going to get to fill.

Except that there are people who like it.

Internet trolls get increased self-esteem from their trolling. I would say that's a personality flaw, and that there are lots of ways to feel good about yourself that are better for you and everyone else, but there are those who would disagree.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/09/new-research-shows-trolls-dont-just-enjoy-hurting-others-they-also-feel-good-about-themselves/

(That is not a particularly new article, but it came up again recently, I believe due to discussion on Twitter moderation changes.)

A big limitation on how much good we can do may be a lack of interest.

There is reasonable disagreement on whether the best thing to do with trolls is block or mute or report or ignore or engage. 

If they are being a troll and loving it, there is probably not much you can do to improve them, but I do remember long ago someone that was trolling, along with others, and reaching out. While that was initially not appreciated, a point was made that I believe helped.

Perhaps there are times when it can feel good to be a jerk, or at least okay, but we aren't irredeemable yet. Certainly, it makes sense to think about what we do and what we enjoy and what the consequences might be for ourselves and others.

I will get back to that.

 

Related posts (two posts about that last incident, if you want it):

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2013/04/harassing-your-idols.html

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2013/04/teachable-moments.html

Black History Month: Latasha Harlins

One thought that really bugged me as I was researching songs for Black History Month was that Kanye West has always been a narcissist.

The thought came because as I was looking up songs about Emmett Till 

I ended up using "Bakai" by John Coltrane. There were at least two other options, one that I felt missed the point, and one by an artist I can hardly stand (guess away). One search results that was not up for consideration was "Through the Wire" by West. After an accident -- that was bad -- he makes a reference to how his girl would feel with him looking like Till. (He also brings up Biggie Smalls in this song.)

It was just remarkably shallow and self-absorbed, and not even the worst time he made the comparison, but I saw it as being a pattern of West only ever really being about West.

I was struck by the contrast between him and Tupac Shakur and how deeply Shakur was affected by the death of Latasha Harlins.

I was a freshman in college at the time of her death, and I do not remember hearing anything about it in Eugene. We heard about the riots of course, but that seemed to be solely related to all four officers being acquitted in the Rodney King beating.

Her name started coming up as a footnote as I started reading more, and I wanted to learn more.

My main source of information was The Contested Murder of Latasha Harlins: Justice, Gender, and the Origins of the L.A. Riots by Brenda E. Stevenson.

That books spends time on Latasha herself, her killer, Soon Ja Du, and the judge who sentenced Du to ten years but then suspended the sentence, Joyce Karlin. 

It also gives more background; from the book another case that contributed to the outrage was an animal cruelty case where there was a harsh sentence, seemingly illustrating that dogs were valued more than Black children.

The book was good, but I wanted more, so I have also viewed two short films:

The Dope Years: The Story of Latasha Harlins (2019), directed by Allison Waite

A Love Song for Latasha (2019), directed by Sophia Nahli Allison

I also read Troublemaker by John Cho, with the riots seen through the eyes of a Korean-American teenager.

And I listened to nine songs that at least referenced her, but seven of them were by Tupac.

(See "In music" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Latasha_Harlins)

There's really a whole journey in there. I ended up using "Keep Ya Head Up", but a case could have been made for "Thugz Mansion", where he seems to have made some peace with something that had deeply hurt him.

Now, there is a lot I could say about justice, but I think to do that best I will need to bring in a second (and earlier) contested murder. I do want to say something about grief, and I suppose about trauma.

I don't know if there was initially some connection between the two short films, but what I can say is that Love Song seems to focus more on family, and Dope Years on friends, especially one who met Latasha when Latasha probably saved her life. (Some boys were pushing her under in the pool, and Latasha pulled her out. I don't think they were trying to kill her, but things can go wrong really fast, which may be harder to forget when reading about Latasha's death.)

Latasha and her friend were planning on being lawyers, but also opening up businesses so that there were things to do and places to go. She believes those dreams would have come true for sure if Latasha was still alive.

You don't know; kids will go through many stages of what to be when they grow up, and that is still true in early teens. However, the other thing that stays with me is that they mention Du had drawn a gun on someone before. Latasha was warned about it, but she brushed it off. She said that the storekeeper was always like that, so you just need to go in and get out fast. That is probably why she had the money in her hand when she approached the register.

So, part of that idea of owning businesses was to create places where you didn't need to rush and be accused and have that danger, and part of living with that danger is a lack of other options.

It literally never occurred to me, in all of my growing up and adult years, that someone working at a store might shoot me. That is one aspect of my privilege.

But also, I can't help but think about what it is like when you have to live with that danger and contempt, Then, despite all the precautions, Latasha died anyway. The one who looked out for you and for her young siblings and the one who had the big dream and made you believe in them died anyway.

Maybe that kills the dreams more effectively than anything else.

Related links:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/kanye-west-lil-wayne-emmett-till-lyrics.html/ 

https://andscape.com/features/tupac-shakur-latasha-harlins-songs/ 

Tolerance

One important reason to care about allegations of abuse is that not only are they usually true, but they are usually repeated.

This may be most obvious in the cases of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, but it is not limited to them.

I found this article interesting:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/10/everyone-who-has-publicly-accused-bill-murray-of-misconduct

In the past, I remember that sometimes when people were tweeting about Bill Murray -- generally praise for how funny he was or some of the cool things he did -- I would see a lone voice here and there mentioning that he abused his wife.

It was such an aberration I assumed it was from long ago, perhaps in the '80s or '90s; it was only in reading this article that I saw the date 2009.

However, at some point it seemed to gain traction, and that's when I heard about Lucy Liu and Seth Green. Then you find out about Geena Davis, and it's like, "What an ass!" It feels like a new revelation, but it goes back years.

If I do a keyword search I can find posts from two days ago mad that Al Franken had to resign for one "prank". In fact, there were nine accusers, and they can't all be written off as "pranks".

I want to point out three factors that play a role, and I am going to use Franken to illustrate.

1. Legacy

We have a long history of allowing all kinds of abuse along a hierarchy that we haven't really stopped doing it yet, even if you can get more people to admit that it's not good. Habit is strong and it will not be overcome without conscious effort.

In 2019, Franken said "Two years ago, I would have sworn that I’d never done anything to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but it's clear that I must have been doing something. As I've said before, I feel terrible that anyone came away from an interaction with me feeling bad."

https://web.archive.org/web/20190930220642/https://www.thecut.com/2019/09/another-woman-says-al-franken-groped-her.html

I suspect that has more to do with a historical acceptance of treating women as less.

2. Lack of confidence

In that hierarchy there is a built in deference to power (which will come up a lot), and one of the ways it manifests is this fear of losing a "genius"; that if we stopped supporting them we would lose wonderful music or movies or political genius. It is important to know that is a crock. In fact, there are talented, capable people all over, and with more nurturing we could have even more.

The people who are mad about Franken's resignation -- which was a choice he made to avoid dealing with the ethics committee (with pressure from Chuck Schumer to avoid censure) -- are mad because we couldn't afford to lose his leadership. They still think that even though Franken's successor Tina Smith is generally acknowledged as having performed well. They can't point to anything that was lost by losing him, but they are sure that it was bad.

Given that, it is not surprising at all that there is more blame for Kristen Gillibrand than for Schumer.

3. Love

We may also feel affection for a predator. Other people could produce the art we respond to, but they are the ones who have already done so. Perhaps we feel compassion. Certainly there are people who have faced their own hurt and may turn that others (though you cannot always assume that).

Franken himself has referred to regrets and depression, and I am sure that is sincere, while still noting that his regrets are about the effect on him, only paying the merest lip service to actually having been harmful to anyone. 

But I won't knock compassion, and I don't have to. Just as the answer to lies is truth, the solution to harm is healing. We can want that for the perpetrators of the harm, we just need to prioritize the healing of those harmed.

The answer to all of that is going to be compassion, but it has to be informed compassion that disperses rather than consolidating power.

Yes, there will be more.