Exponent II's Blog, page 251

Newsreel: Baptist women petition for change, feminism at Cannes Film Festival and the Mormon/Boy Scouts break up

[image error]New Children and Youth Development Initiative Coming January 2020

LDS.org
Listen and subscribe for free below:

The Mormon Handshake

I grew up in the church, so was well indoctrinated in Mormon hand-shake culture. I knew that as I entered the chapel, a man—whether I knew him or not—would put his hand out for me to shake. I was supposed to shake it in return, and perhaps even have some brief small talk.  I liked it as a child—I felt “big” by engaging in something that otherwise I had only seen adults do.

 

As I have become older, I have become less and less comfortable with this Mormon handshake culture, so I tried to think of why it doesn’t feel right. I’m not alone in my discomfort. In feminist Mormon facebook groups, handshake discomfort discussions happen on occasion, usually filled with comments reflecting every aspect of hand shaking in modern, international, and church cultures. I am not the only one who finds it uncomfortable, and like me, women describe embracing or dodging the the Sunday-chapel hand initiation using a variety of techniques.

 

I clearly recall the first time I “pushed back” against the handshake. It wasn’t even the handshake itself. The bishopric member of the singles ward I attended at that time had just shaken several female congregant’s hands as we entered into the chapel. He was old enough to be my father, or maybe even older, and he happily greeted us with, “How are you girls today?” Besides the fact that I was new to the ward and knew none of the other females who had just entered, the comment was lobbed at us as a whole.

 

Importantly, we were all at least in our twenties, we were all girls to him. A female business professor of mine used to agitate for college-age women to call ourselves women. She repeated noted that student males spoke of each other as men, but student females often spoke of each other as “girls.” “You are not girls,” she admonished. “Girls are children. You are over the age of 18. You are adult women. Don’t let anyone take that from you.”

 

My response on that Sunday was a reflex, “We’re great. How are you BOYS today?” Immediately,  I felt an adrenaline rush, and I wondered if I should or would regret my words.  My annunciation of “boys” startled him, and he opened his eyes wide. He paused. I was scared. He said, “Great lesson. Lesson learned! Thank you!” He pumped my hand in gratitude, and I felt safe.

 

Phew!

 

And yet….. the Mormon handshake still felt ….Not optional. Okay at best, uncomfortable at worst. But why? I shook hands without hesitation at work and school– what was my issue with church handshake culture?

 

Hand-shaking in Anglo cultures has a long history—most often in years past, it was used to seal a financial or political agreement. There is a historical argument that a woman should never accept a man’s hand when extended to her, lest she be considered “loose.” (I could not find a reference for this, but I have had it referenced often when people discuss discomfort in handshaking at church.) In modern times, we see handshaking as greetings, introductions, and in business mergers. We see it in episodes of American Pickers (a show where the leads travel around the US finding private storage sheds filled with collectibles that they hope to purchase and then re-sell at their antique store), and we experience sometimes as means of securing the purchase of a car.

 

Outside of church, I happily shake hands when meeting people via places of employment for myself and my husband, and even at my children’s school, when I meet with teachers, principals, school board members and parents. There are hundreds of professional blogs dedicated to sharing American business culture handshaking, even those that address the awkwardness of the male- to-female handshake, and the question of the female to female handshake (should we do it? YES!)

 

 

So why am I still uncomfortable with the Mormon handshake? Is it a simple as the fact that Mormon women do not serve as door greeters at church for handshaking? Or it is something else? Even something sinister?

 

As I thought about this, I could not shake the memory of the 2007 PBS Mormons interview of Margaret Toscano where she discussed her excommunication. The men in her high council pronounced her as an apostate. Then, each wanted to shake her hand. It sounded almost laughable to me at the time– as if they were making a used-car sales deal with her. It seemed as if those handshakes were symbolic of a business deal, rather than an excommunication. It was as though the handshake solidified that she agreed with her excommunicated, even though she didn’t.

 

In her words:

 

I afterwards talked about sort of the horror of niceness — that on the one hand they’re cutting me off from eternal salvation and telling me that I’m this apostate, which really is considered very bad in Mormon culture, and then I’m this nice woman that they’re going to shake my hand. There’s something vicious about niceness that struck me in this — that the niceness covered over the violence of what was being done, because, in fact, excommunication is a violent action.

 

In this, the handshake represented power. Perhaps the men had fooled themselves into thinking that they were somehow being polite, or even consoling. But to even presume that they could offer consolation means that they perceived that they had the power to offer sympathy and compassion either as an ecclesiastical leader, or social officer. No matter the reason, it was continued, symbolic recognition of the power that they have over the women they command as unworthy to remain within the structure of the church. It is, and was, about power.

 

Men, as always in the LDS church, have all of the power. Lack of priesthood keys ultimately [image error]means that women are utterly powerless. Thus, in Mormondom, we would be mistaken to presume that the handshake is a greeting.  It is not. It is symbolic of the surrender of autonomy of women to men. Even men who enter and are not in “leadership” position yet secure their place with a handshake. However for men, there is a construct which allows them the opportunity and position of power equals as they are all united in the “marvelous brotherhood of the holy priesthood of God.” This is not the case with women. Women are being hand-shaken into a chapel run by men. Women read, share and discuss lessons approved by men, and we answer to men in our branches, wards and stakes regarding our most private things—of sexual conduct, of sins, of hopes and dreams– all in the name of priesthood power. We don’t have say; we are not in the “marvelous brotherhood.”

 

Thus, for women, the Mormon handshake is the symbol of surrender—not a surrender to God, but a surrender of Mormon women to Mormon men. Mormon men who control all we do within the church.

 

I recently read about an Algerian woman who was in the process of becoming a naturalized French citizen. Her husband is French and they live in France, so citizenship for her seems natural. However, in respect of Islamic culture, she refused to shake the hand of the municipal officiator at the citizenship ceremony, because he was male (similar Jewish culture as per the Old Testament). Her citizenship was denied. She filed a lawsuit to challenge this, but again, she was rejected on grounds that she was not welcoming enough of French culture to be granted citizenship, as was symbolized in her refusal to shake the male officiator’s hand.

 

This happened in April 2018. Could something like this happen in Mormondom as well?

 

[image error]Most recently, the new Elder’s Quorum president who was called to replace the previous High Priest and Elders Quorums presidencies, thrust his hand at me, as we threaded in opposite directions between the pews at church. Prior to this, I slid in sacrament meeting behind my husband, usually purposefully carrying so many things that I did not have a hand to spare for the obligatory shake offered by the door crew. Even when the bishop came into Relief Society in order to shake the hand of every women in the room, I had enough time to drop out of sight, or gather handbooks, or help a young mother juggling her children, so I could avoid being forced to share a part of my body with a man I did not want to touch. The bishop still noticed.

 

Yet at that moment, passing between the pews following sacrament meeting, I was in a position of giving up my body via my hand to the new Elder’s Quorum president– a man who I wasn’t even sure knew my name. I hesitated. I could be over in 2 to 3 seconds. Instead, I said, “I don’t like shaking hands,” smiling as kindly as I could. “It’s just not my thing.”

 

“Oh! Okay,” he said, chuckling and smiling back, continuing on his way.

 

Phew! Was it that easy? Did I only have to say that it wasn’t “my thing”?

 

Two weeks after this, I was told in an email from the bishop that there was spiritual hesitation on his part in regard to my attending the temple.  He didn’t say that he was taking the recommend away, but he did say that he didn’t feel good about me holding a calling. I can assure you that I am temple-worthy, and nothing in my behaviour would warrant this censure.

 

Well, nothing but for the fact that I avoid shaking his cold, clammy, empowered hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kintsugi: Focusing on the Cracks

I was surviving fast and testimony meeting ok and then it came… The testimony that went something like this, “I visited another church and didn’t really learn anything new and I’m so glad to be a member of the ONLY true church, because while other churches may have nuggets of truth, OURS has ALL because when the apostasy happened truth shattered and with the restoration we were given a new vase.”

I remember this analogy. I’m pretty sure I used a version of it on my mission. But as one who attends another denomination regularly and doesn’t believe the “only true church” rhetoric, the testimony felt a little smug and left me in a grumpy mood.

BREATHE. I made it through church and joined a couple of friends in the hall who were talking about some of the things that need to change in the church and what they were doing about it. That conversation went something more like, “The church is not perfect and if so, what would be the point for us? We have work to do!” That conversation was balm for my weary soul.

So maybe the church isn’t this perfect vase that was restored in perfect form to Joseph Smith that could be a perfect receptacle for all the wisdom God intends to pour down on humanity. Maybe the church is a broken vase lying in fragments on the ground and there’s still a lot of work to do to piece it into the shape God has in mind.

I love the Japanese art of Kintsugi: repairing broken pottery and highlighting the cracks with gold. Behind this practice is the philosophy that breaks and flaws don’t need to be disguised, but can add value to a piece and witness that the object is worth repairing.

To me the Church feels like a broken vessel on the floor, surrounded by a million hands sorting through the pieces, doing the hard work of setting things right. Some are weary. Some are angry and have left the work. I can only thank them for their efforts, having also tasted sorrow and pain. There are days when policy changes, reports of abuse, or gender issues feel like a hammer coming down to smash the shards that are left into something that feels beyond fixing.

But I do have hope. Like with kintsugi, a broken object can become more beautiful as the flaws are acknowledged and repaired. I believe in a God who can work wonders with any material. Even shards of a vase.

Exponent II Call for Submissions – Fall Issue 2018

[image error]Our planned theme for the Fall issue of Exponent II is Mormon Women and the Creative Process.  

Are you an artist? Are you a writer? Are you a maker of beautiful things? Do you solve problems with elegant designs? Do you appreciate the creative work of others in enhancing your life?

How do you find space and time for your work? What inspires you? What keeps you going when you are not inspired? What does it feel like to experience the finished product – the creative output of yourself and others? How do we celebrate creativity in our community?

What do you think of Mormon art? Have you played a part in the renaissance of Mormon art in recent years? Have your opinions or understanding of “Mormon art” changed? Who are the Mormon artists who inspire you? How could we better incorporate Mormon art and literature into our culture and worship?

What is your creative process and how to you support the creative process of your sisters?

Tell us about it.

Submissions should be between 700 – 2400 words and should be in Word or Google Doc format. The deadline is July 1, 2018. Please send to exponentiieditor@gmail.com.

 

Peace Be With You

“Salute one another with an holy salutation. The churches of Christ salute you.” ~ Romans 16:16, JST

[image error]

I’ve visited a lot of different churches in my time. I did my undergraduate and graduate education at a Catholic university, so I’ve been to mass on several occasions. I was a home health care aide for a woman whose father is a Disciples of Christ pastor, and when I had to occasionally fill in for a Sunday shift, church was on the agenda. I’ve also visited Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopalian services from time to time for various reasons, mostly because I’m a classically trained soprano, and sometimes churches need to borrow an extra musician for a day. One of my favorite parts of services at other churches is the passing of the peace. It varies slightly from church to church, but basically, it’s a portion in the service where people greet those sitting around them. It’s usually somewhat ritualized, in that one person says “Peace be with you.” and the other person responds in a set way. [1] [2] I’ve often wished that we did something like this in LDS services.

One thing that I love about visiting other churches is that it’s totally silent before the service starts. I can sit down in a pew and be quietly alone with my thoughts. Nobody bothers me. Contrast this with attending LDS services, where if I sit down in a pew and try to think, within 30 seconds, someone will come up and interrupt my meditation with some sort of banal conversation. Once that person moves on, I get my thinking back on, and inevitably someone else will come interrupt me. I find it profoundly annoying.

A few weeks ago, I had a realization. This is our passing of the peace. LDS services are unscripted, so it makes sense that our greetings are likewise unscripted. Instead of shaking hands in the middle of the service and reciting prescribed phrases, ward members come up to me beforehand and ask me how my week was. The past few weeks, I’ve tried to see the interruptions for what they are, and it’s helped.

I’ll just have to remember not to give the next person who interrupts my meditation a hearty “And also with you.”

————-

[1] The set way varies. Most Protestants respond with “And also with you.” Catholics used to use that same response but have changed it since I graduated from school. Google seems to slightly disagree between “And with your spirit.” or “And also with your spirit.”
[2] One amusing aside – A few months ago, there was some sort of conversation I was having with friends about Star Wars. Someone addressed me and said “May the Force be with you.” Without thinking, I reflexively replied “And also with you.”

Image: Public Domain

Guest Post: Equal Partners or Preside Over — Pick One

[image error]

“Holding a Lover” by Caitlin Connolly

By Florence

It all started when the visiting General Authority opened up the small group meeting for questions. My heart started beating a little faster and a little harder. I knew I had to ask.

In a gentle, deliberately non-confrontational voice I questioned, “Is the Church’s policy to not ordain women to offices in the Priesthood doctrinal or an administrative choice? And, if not administrative, what is the doctrinal basis?”

How was I to know that two simple and sincere questions would lead me to calling out the Church on their use of the phrase “preside over” in The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

His response to my questions was less than satisfactory. It was doctrine because the scriptures only talk of men serving in leadership positions. When the Lord’s true church was on the earth there is no mention of women serving in leadership positions.

“What about Deborah in the Bible?”

“Well, yeah…but…”

“But?” I queried.

His response was a sermon on the Proclamation. I wasn’t sure of the connection between my question and his response. But that’s okay. I got my answer. It wasn’t doctrinal. And the Church wasn’t ready to admit it.

Then came the surprise invitation. The visiting Elder was concerned he hadn’t answered my questions and he wondered if I would like to meet with him to talk about it further.

The visit lasted more than an hour. He was a patient, kind and empathetic listener. But again, the answers were not terribly satisfying. At the end of the visit he handed me his business card and invited me to contact him if I wanted to talk again.

For the next few days I considered this invitation. I knew there was one more thing to say. But could I really say it? Gathering my courage, I composed the email:

Dear Elder _____,

I liked when you told me (quoting “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”) that husband and wife are equal partners. It is what I believe also. Unfortunately, it is a direct contradiction to the statement that “fathers are to preside over their families” found two sentences earlier within the same document.

As you mentioned, language is a living thing and meanings of words change with time. Perhaps there was a time when “preside over” meant something good, noble and positive. However, in today’s world this phrase has extremely negative connotations. Even the dictionary definition of preside is in direct opposition to idea of equal partnership.

When the word “preside” (which means to exercise control) is placed in front of the word “over” the message in the Proclamation is that husbands and wives are not equal partners at all. The husband is clearly given the role of ruler, with his wife and children being subject to his direction. Even if the man is to preside over in “love and righteousness” the message is that the man is above the others in his family. Clearly, if one person is ‘over’ someone, the other person is ‘under.’

Perhaps a clearer, more accurate description of the role of fathers could be considered, for two people cannot be equal partners if one has the stated purpose of exercising control over the other.

One thought I have is that perhaps what is meant is something more along the lines of “fathers are to give to give structure, stability and counsel” to the family. Or perhaps there’s another way for the intent of this statement to be expressed without placing one parent above or below another.

I realize you did not write the Proclamation, and that you are not in a position to update or edit it. However, you do have the opportunity to work with those who do have this responsibility. And you do have the opportunity to teach, explain and clarify the principles of the gospel to many people. I hope you will take into consideration the unintended message that is being given within the document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and find a way to clarify so that others may more easily feel the love of God within the church’s teachings.

A few hours later I received his response.

Your comments underscore for me the urgency not only to clarify the meaning of the Proclamation on the Family but to clarify for all the church, old and young, male and female, what it means to preside in the gospel sense.

And then he proceeded to explain, very clearly, what it means to preside in the Lord’s way. Three paragraphs. Still less than satisfying. It was infuriating actually.

Calming myself down, I opted to reply. Even if he didn’t get it, I needed to say it.

Thanks for your response. However, I feel that my point was not really understood.

I understand the Church’s interpretation of the word “preside.” I have studied the doctrine. I have no question about how the leaders of the Church would like to see this concept implemented in real life.

My point is, just as you mentioned on Saturday, that word meanings can change and evolve. And the words “preside over” no longer mean what you and I believe the Lord intended. In our society the meaning has evolved to imply something totally different than what the Church is trying to teach. And by continuing to use this language in modern documents many people (both men and women) become confused, hurt and angry.

You have indicated that you feel a need to clarify this teaching. I believe a very simple way to clarify is to choose a word or phrase that accurately conveys the intended meaning.

It reminds me of the Primary song “When Grandpa Comes.” In early versions of the Primary music books the opening line stated “It’s always fun when Grandpa comes, when Grandpa comes we’re gay.” Later (in about the 1980’s?) the line was changed to “It’s always fun when Grandpa comes, when Grandpa comes, Hooray!”

The Church Music Committee obviously understood the meaning of “gay” in the 1980’s and knew it no longer carried the author’s original intent. They could have left the lyrics as they were and instructed all the English speaking music directors to teach the children very clearly that “gay” in this situation did not mean “gay” as the world used the term. Instead they opted to accept that the meaning of the word had changed and it was time to choose different words in order to convey the original intent of the song.

I think that you and other leaders of the Church can teach and clarify the meaning of “preside over” all you want, but the phrase still has a negative connotation to most women and will remain license to abuse for some men. So again, I suggest that you and your colleagues take into consideration the unintended message that continuing the use of these words carry.

And his response?

 

Your comments are true and powerful.  They leave me wondering what it would take to change the very frequent use of the word “preside” in our literature, but at least as it applies to families.  Maybe if we at least change it in the Family Proclamation that would be a start.  I like your ‘fathers are to give structure, stability, and counsel to their families.’

I believe your point is important enough that I am going to see if I can get it heard a bit more broadly.

Now that was satisfying.

Florence has lived long enough to be called old and is inquisitive enough to feel young.

Guest Post: #MormonMeToo Maybe

[image error]

“Girl Unraveling” by Caitlin Connolly

by Anonymous

My heart goes out to all those who have shared, or have reason to share but have chosen not to yet, their #MeToo stories. Because of a strict (aka emotionally abusive) Mormon upbringing I have particularly tender feelings for the #MormonMeToo victims. Though my history clearly puts me in the ranks of #MeToo, I had never considered myself a part of the Mormon version. Not until today anyway.

For 35+ years I have seen the sexual abuse that I suffered at the hands of a brother, a sister, a piano teacher and a college classmate as being separate and distinct from my religion. After reading a mountain of #MormonMeToo stories something clicked inside of me and I got it. I finally saw how the religious system that was integral to my childhood set me up for carrying the pain of sexual abuse for way too long.

I don’t know exactly when I figured out the unspoken rules of my family of origin, but I know that by the time I was ten there was no mistaking the obvious patriarchy that served as a guide for our family interactions.

Rule one: Men ruled. Period. They had some sort of god-given authority(?) or something that made them more important, I supposed. I didn’t understand it, but I saw it in my home. I saw it reinforced in the Church. Fathers preside. Priesthood leaders are inspired. Obey your leaders. Follow the Prophet.

Rule two: Family was more important than the individual. The older the family member was, the more important they were. This idea was also supported by the Church. Honor your parents. Respect your elders. Families Are Forever. Has given me an earthly home with parents kind and dear.

These two rules shaped the way I responded to the traumatic events of my life. With these in place, and as the youngest female child in a family of eight, I felt like I didn’t stand a chance of ever being listened to. But occasionally I would try. Like the day I came home from school to find my brother and his friend were engaged in playing a game of fetch with his friend’s dog. Sounds like a harmless activity, I suppose. But let me fill in the details.

My brother and his friend were in their early 20’s and had embraced the hippie culture in full force. Their long scraggly hair, hollow eyes and tattered clothes were scary to to me. They slept in a VW bus that was parked in front of our upper-middle-class suburban home. They shared the vehicle with a large, black dog with big sharp teeth. I don’t know the breed of dog, but they had name him Genghis. And appropriately so. For in my ten-year-old mind, this dog, along with his master and my brother, appeared to be the epitome of savagery and barbarism. So I came home from school and there they were, throwing my kickball collection across the lawn one ball at a time, commanding Genghis to fetch. Which he did. Energetically he grasped each ball thrown with his big, scary, sharp teeth.

When I took one of the now punctured kickballs to my mom I had tears in my eyes. I was not a child prone to drama. Yet I was truly upset by the destruction of one of my favorite playthings. I explained with a tear-stained face how it happened. My mother just looked at me and gently said, “He’s your brother.” She then turned away and continued with her tasks, effectively ending the conversation and leaving me to conclude that “Families are Forever” felt more like a threat than a promise. It also left me with a clear understanding, three years later, that speaking up about my brother’s sexual adventure at my expense or my sister’s attempts to fondle my breasts would not be met with any degree of empathy or desire to protect me. So I kept quiet.

And when, at age 15, my mother explained to me that the “crazy lady” of the stake had accused our stake president of making unwanted advances and that he was just telling her “I love you” in a brotherly way and that she just really was making a big deal out of nothing because everyone knew that the stake president was a wonderful man, I knew I could not tell anyone that just weeks before, my piano teacher had hugged me and told me he loved me and that I had felt extremely uncomfortable about the whole thing. I didn’t want to be like the “crazy lady.” So I kept quiet. And I quit taking piano lessons. And no one understood why a girl who was so musical and seemed to loved it so much would just up and quit.

And then in college, on a study abroad experience, when a male classmate came to my room and, uninvited, started rubbing my legs and I asked him to stop, I told myself it had happened because I was wearing short-shorts and I shouldn’t have done that. I was such a temptation to him. And he wasn’t LDS so I needed to be nice to him. You know, be a good missionary. And I was. For a little while. And then he tried to force me to do things I didn’t want to do. This time I fought him and received a major head wound when I finally pushed him hard enough to free myself from his grasp and fall against the radiator that was behind me. But I was wearing pants and a non-revealing t-shirt that time. “Was it still my fault?” I wondered.

So while I did not experience a clearly obvious #MormonMeToo moment, after reading others’ experiences, I do believe that the trauma I experienced was made more painful because of harmful beliefs perpetuated within the Mormon culture. And each #MormonMeToo story that I read helps me to identify harmful beliefs that were once invisible to me. Helps me reach out. Helps me heal.

For those who have shared, I thank you. For those who want to share, I encourage you. For those cannot share yet, I support you. Even in your silence I believe you. I was silent too.

Feminist Mormon Housewives with Sara K.S. Hanks and Nancy Ross

In this episode of the Religious Feminism interview series, Sara Katherine Staheli Hanks and Nancy Ross discuss how the blog Feminist Mormon Housewives revitalized the Mormon feminist movement in the early 2000s; the impact of blogging on church members; and their new book, Where We Must Stand: Ten Years of Feminist Mormon Housewives. You can find episode notes for the Religious Feminism Podcast here at the Exponent website: http://www.the-exponent.com/tag/religious-feminism-podcast/

Links to Connect and Learn More:

Where We Must Stand: Ten Years of Feminist Mormon Housewives, edited by Sara K.S. Hanks and Nancy Ross

Feminist Mormon Housewives

Feminist Mormon Housewives on Facebook

 

[image error]

Sara K.S. Hanks

[image error]

Nancy Ross

Sara Katherine Staheli Hanks’s Feminist Mormon Housewives blog posts

Sara on Facebook

Sara on Instagram

 

Nancy Ross’s Exponent blog posts

Nancy on Facebook

Nancy on Twitter

Additional Resources Discussed in the Podcast:

Year of Polygamy Podcast

The Exponent

Zelophehad’s Daughters

Hunger by Roxane Gay

 

Listen and subscribe for free below:

Who Gets to be White? A Semi-Brief History of Whiteness in the USA

Did you know that, less than 100 years ago, the US Supreme Court issued multiple rulings on whether or not a person was white enough to be a US citizen? Yeah, that happened.

Let’s talk about what “being white” meant throughout US history.  I recently took a class about institutionalized racism in the United States.  I was hoping to gain a broader understanding of racism and how it infects and affects our institutions and interactions in the US.  One thing I didn’t understand was the history of Whiteness, and what it means to be White, in both the cultural and legal sense of that word.  Part of my class was researching and uncovering the different definitions of Whiteness throughout American history, and how Whiteness was purposefully enshrined in laws, policies, and practices throughout American history.  While this is in no way a comprehensive history, here are some brief excerpts from American history that can highlight the complicated nature of Whiteness and can illuminate how white supremacy has been systemically embedded in our nation for the purpose of oppressing non-white peoples since the very beginning.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first statute in the newly-formed United States of America to codify naturalization law.  It specified who could become a citizen in the country: “free white persons of good character.”  This meant that Native American people, enslaved people, and free black people were excluded from federal citizenship, and was the foundation of establishing Whiteness as a defining characteristic of an American person.  In order to be considered “white” at this point in history, you had to be of European ancestry with light skin.

Citizenship was (and is) a critical marker for power.  It entitled a man (because women were not yet considered “people”) to the right to vote, to serve on juries, to serve as an elected official, and to own land.  Citizens had access to resources and opportunities.  Non-citizens were established as a second-tier of personhood.

The 1830 Indian Removal Act forcibly relocated Native Americans from East of the Mississippi River to Oklahoma.  This act deprived Native people of their ancestral lands, which were subsequently distributed to white settlers.  Claiming “divine providence,” as well as the Native people’s refusal to assimilate into “white” culture by learning English, converting to Christianity, and adopt European economic practices, the US government coerced Native tribes to sign treaties that forcibly displaced their people.  Those who did not agree to the terms of the treaties were removed by (sometimes lethal) force.

[image error]

Dred Scott

Dred Scott v. Sandford was a US Supreme Court case decided in 1856.  Dred Scott was an enslaved black man who had been relocated to free states, and argued that his residence in free states entitled him to emancipation from slavery.  The all-white Supreme Court denied his petition, stating that he was “of Negro descent,” and as such, “they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to the citizens of the United States.”

The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed enslaved black people, and the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 formally ended slavery in the US. Critics of the thirteenth amendment voiced concerns that the abolition of slavery would lead to citizenship rights for Black men, and they were right – the Fourteenth Amendment passed in 1868 as one of the banner achievements of Reconstruction, which guaranteed citizenship rights to any person born in the United States.  However, because Native Americans were considered to have “allegiances to foreign powers” (their tribes), they were not considered to be born in the United States and did not quality for citizenship.  The Naturalization Act of 1870 extended naturalized citizenship to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”  At this point, only “white” people (light-skinned, European ancestry) and black/”Negro” people (dark-skinned, African ancestry) are able to become US citizens.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 banned all immigration from China for ten years, and permanently excluded Chinese nationals from obtaining US citizenship until it was revoked in December 1943.  Chinese immigrants had arrived in the Western US as laborers to build the railroad and respond to the Gold Rush, but increasing Chinese presence was perceived as a threat to white colonial identity.  Additionally, alien land laws were passed throughout the US from the mid-1880’s through the mid-1920’s, which prohibited non-citizens from owning property (the constitutionality of these laws was upheld by various Supreme Court decisions, including Yamashita v. Hinkle in 1922).  This coincided with the beginnings of the “Yellow Peril,” in which massive campaigns were undertook to spread fear about the threat of “yellow” Asian people to “white” people in the US.  White people were worried about low-wage workers stealing their jobs and refusing to assimilate by learning English (sounds familiar, eh?), and that the dilution of the white super-majority would threaten White/European power structures within the US.

John Elk was born a member of the Winnebago tribe in present-day Nebraska, and wanted to become a naturalized US citizen.  Because of the clause about “allegiances to foreign powers” in earlier immigration law, John  renounced his allegiance to the Winnebago tribe, lived among white people, and attempted to register to vote in 1880.  He was denied by the registrar because he was not considered a US citizen.  Elk appealed his decision to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in 1884 (Elk v. Wilkins) that despite being US-born and renouncing his tribal allegiances, Elk was not entitled to US citizenship because he was not white (or black).  This decision effectively disenfranchised Native American people for the next 40 years, when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed that guaranteed citizenship rights to Native American people.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a US Supreme Court case decided in 1896, which enshrined the “separate but equal” doctrine in public facilities, and was the legal backbone for most Jim Crow era laws.  Plessy was a mixed-race man who bought a ticket for a white-only railway car, and because Plessy presented as white (being of 7/8 European descent and 1/8 African descent), he was allowed to purchase the ticket but was arrested on the car.  Plessy sued, arguing that separate rail cars violated his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The all-white court denied him, stating that as long as spaces are of “equal” quality, the government can mandate racial separation.  This ruling effectively legalized racial apartheid in the United States, as well as overruled almost all of the legislative victories attained during Reconstruction.  While spaces were supposed to be “equal” in terms of quality and opportunity, all-white power structures didn’t invest funding or other resources into non-white spaces, which led to the under-funding (and sometimes closing) of black schools, libraries, and other public spaces.

[image error]

Anita Hemmings

It is in this racial environment that Anita Hemmings applied to Vassar in 1893.  Anita passed as “white,” and attended the all-white university until she graduated in 1897.  A few weeks before she graduated, her roommate voiced suspicions about her racial background to her father, who hired a private investigator.  The investigator discovered that Anita’s parents were both of mixed-race, and told the media.  It turned into a massive scandal.  Anita later married a man who was also of mixed-race, and they raised their children as whites in New York City, where they enjoyed the class & educational benefits afforded to them as whites.  This is one illustration of how massively problematic the “race” question is – so much of it is a subjection cultural perception of how a person performs whiteness.  How light is their skin?  How do they speak?  How do they carry themselves?  Whiteness has never been just about ancestry or melanin (although melanin and ancestry are both critical pieces of Whiteness), but about cultural and performative scripts.

Ethno-nationalism heated up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  The Nationalization Act of 1906 was passed, which established uniform naturalization laws across the country and prescribed several cultural requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen, including learning English.  Race was not explicitly mentioned in the legislation, but became an actively litigated part of the act through the following decades (more about that later).  Another requirement for a US citizen?  He had to affirm that “he is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy.”  The LDS church passed its second manifesto mandating the end of polygamy just one year before the passage of this act.

[image error]Once this act was passed, there were several legal tests against it to determine who was allow to become a citizen, and thus enjoy the benefits of voting, land-ownership, and legitimacy that citizenship afforded.  The Immigration Act of 1917 limited immigration and citizenship even further, requiring literacy tests of immigrants and barring immigration completely from the “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which included the Arabian peninsula, Indonesia, India, and much of China/Mongolia.  It also barred people considered “mentally defective” and with a wide host of cultural characteristics or behaviors, which effectively banned poor people, anybody politically active, sick people, and LGBTQ+ people.

Takao Ozawa challenged the host of immigration acts in his petition for naturalized citizenship.  A Japanese immigrant of twenty years, he didn’t explicitly argue against the racial restrictions of immigration law, but instead argued that Japanese people should be considered “free white persons,” and thus eligible to be naturalized.  His case was denied, and appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1922 (Ozawa v. United States) that Japanese people were not eligible for citizenship because they are “Mongoloid” and not white, and that citizenship is only available to “those popularly known as the Caucasian race.”

This case was quickly followed by another case that challenged the definition of Whiteness by the law.  Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as a “high caste aryan, of full Indian blood” argued that he should be considered white enough to become a naturalized citizen.  His petition was initially granted, but appealed by government workers who were upset by his political affiliations with an Indian independence movement, and so they argued that he wasn’t white enough for citizenship.  Thind argued that, according to the race science of the time, northern Indians and most Europeans are all of Aryan/Caucasian origin, and should be eligible.  However, in the 1923 Supreme Court Ruling (US v. Bhagat Singh Thind), the court ruled that while Hindi-speaking high-caste people were similar to whites (essentially ‘white-adjacent’), Hindis had intermarried too much with people native to the Indian subcontinent, and as such, do not count as white for the purposes of citizenship.  Because this ruling effectively denounced the idea that Caucasian was the same as White in US legal terms, the legal basis for whiteness essentially became “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”  This goes to prove that, again, Whiteness is not based in science or ethnicity, but instead upon a social construction of what it means to be White, and that social construction has evolved and changed over time with the goal of empowering certain people and marginalizing others.

Take, for example, the case of John Svan, a Finnish-American who lived in Minnesota and applied for naturalized citizenship.  The prosecutor initially rejected his application in 1908, arguing that Finnish immigrants were “mongols” and “yellow” and as such, did not quality for naturalization.  However, a state supreme court judge ruled that while Finns may have been “mongols” at the beginning, they had lived in a cold/Northern climate for an extended period of time, and as such, became some of “the whitest people in Europe.”  During this trial, the Finnish communities in Minnesota and Michigan undertook large-scale campaigns to prove their whiteness in hopes of gaining legitimacy and power in American society.  Part of that was renouncing socialism, which was seen as a non-white political view.  Part of it was learning English, engaging in capitalistic business practices, and assimilating religiously into their communities.  Thus we can see that Finns still had to work to earn their whiteness through the same methods that were demanded of the Native Americans in early American history before they were forcibly removed from their lands, despite having very light skin.  When they were deemed to be a good cultural fit, and light-skinned enough, they were afforded the protective benefits and legitimacy of being considered white in the form of US citizenship.

[image error]That said, even having the rights of citizenship do not always exempt you from racial discrimination at the highest levels of government.  During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which designated certain areas as “military areas” and authorized the removal of all people in those zones of Japanese ancestry to internment camps, regardless of citizenship status.  (How did President Roosevelt know which areas to declare?  He used census data from 1940 to see which areas were predominantly Japanese. This is one of many reasons why questions of citizenship and race on the census are incredibly problematic.)  Kiyoshi Hirayabashi refused to relocate to the camp, and was charged and convicted of violating the relocation order. He appealed his ruling to the Supreme Court, which ruled against him  in 1943 (Hirayabashi v. US) , arguing that racial discrimination is justified since “in time of war, residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of danger than those of a different ancestry.”  This was further upheld in Korematsu v. US in 1944, which again sided with the government’s right to imprison its own citizens based on ethnicity.

So, who gets to be white?  A jury was actually asked the question of whether a certain person could have been believed as being white in New York in the 1920’s.  Alice Jones was a biracial woman with a “white” mother and a mixed-race father.  She was working as a domestic when she met and fell in love with Kip Rhinelander, a member of the prestigious Rhinelander family in New York, and they had a three-year romance that culminated in their marriage in October 1924.  Despite the Rhinelander’s family attempt to keep the relationship secret, details of their marriage were published in the New York papers, causing a massive scandal and pressure mounted for Kip to annul the marriage.  When Kip’s family threatened to disinherit him two weeks after the marriage for marrying a Black woman, Kip filed for an annulment, claiming that Alice had deceived him into thinking she was white.  Alice refused the annulment, stating that she admitted to being colored and that Kip knew it, too.  The trial devolved into sordid details about Alice’s “dusky breasts and legs,” which were presented as evidence that Kip must have known about her race before he married her.  In fact, Alice’s lawyer presented Alice’s exposed body to the jury in the judge’s quarters, allowing them to examine her naked arms, legs, and breasts as evidence of her blackness.  Alice was so humiliated by the forced exhibition of her body that she was reported to have burst into tears after the jury’s examination.  The jury ended up ruling that Alice could not be white, based on the jury’s examination of her body, and ruled that Kip could not annul the marriage, to his family’s abject shame.  Alice later filed for divorce and obtain alimony payments in exchange for never using the Rhinelander name again.

[image error]What do people have to prove in order to be considered “white” or “non-white” in today’s America?  What does Whiteness mean today?  Is it just US citizens with light skin?  What about Jewish people?  Are Italians white?  What about Turks?  What about mixed-race people?   How does one obtain the legal, cultural, and economic benefits of Whiteness?  Why does society offer legal, cultural, and economic benefits to people who present as White?  Just because Whiteness is a social construction and creation of our own design doesn’t mean it’s something we don’t have to grapple with and acknowledge as a powerful force for oppression and disenfranchisement in today’s society.

Just as it has been throughout its history, Whiteness is synonymous with power and privilege in today’s America.  When a person has less melanin in their skin, there are presumptions made about their status, how much of a threat they’re perceived to be, their innocence or guilt, their trustworthiness, and their fit into American society.  In addition to the eye-test of how light a person’s skin is, certain behaviors and values are inherent in a person’s whiteness: religion, language, and politics all play a role.  Whiteness is seen as desirable, as normal, and as good.  Conversely, the less a person conforms to the ideal of Whiteness, the less desirable, normal, and good they’re perceived to be.

Until we grapple with Whiteness, and understand that the definition of Whiteness moves and changes so that White Supremacy can be preserved at the expense of non-white people, we won’t be able to dismantle systemic racism in America.  Whiteness is why a white woman with an AR-15 slung over her shoulder gets media interviews and marriage proposals but a black man with a cell phone in his hand gets killed by the police.  It’s why African Americans are 6.4 times more likely to be incarcerated as compared to white people.  It’s why Native American people have lower life expectancies and greater barriers to healthcare access as  compared to white Americans.  It’s also why, despite Brown v. Board of Education mandating the desegregation of schools in 1954, schools today are nearly as segregated as they were when that ruling came down, and predominantly-minority schools have less funding than predominantly-white schools.

Until we decouple Whiteness and goodness, we will have a racially segregated country in the US.  Part of that is understanding how Whiteness works, how it’s changed and evolved, and how racism isn’t just individual acts or microaggressions between two people, but have been institutionalized in policies and practices since the inception of America.  There are plenty of examples of laws, policies, and practices that are *still* upholding racism; perhaps that’s something I will try to tackle in another post.  My hope is that, by examining Whiteness as it played out throughout American history, we will begin to understand that Whiteness, and qualifying as White, has been the key to accessing power, resources, and opportunity in America, and it continues to be that way today.  When people demand that immigrants “assimilate,” they are asking them to adopt as much Whiteness as their melanin will allow.  The same goes for when people ask ethnic minorities to name their kids “normal” names, or “speak intelligently” or without an accent.  These are all examples of how we presume Whiteness to be the desirable norm, and how American society upholds White Supremacy as the governing norms in our culture, policies, and practices.  If we want to dismantle White Supremacy, part of that is recognizing how Whiteness operates, and then making a conscious effort toward creating a racially pluralistic society that values and accepts racial, ethnic, cultural, and behavior diversity, rather than upholding Whiteness as goodness.  We need to embrace narratives outside the norm of Whiteness, and we need to champion the narratives, experiences, leadership, and power of non-white people.  Part of this means casting aside our own Whiteness, which can feel like losing one’s own power and legitimacy, but in reality makes room for the power and legitimacy of so many different people and absolutely strengthens us as a nation.

Who gets to be white, and what does it mean for you if you do?  What does it mean for you if you don’t?

A Midlife Anointing

Sister, hearing the call from God to minister to you by virtue of love, faith, sacrifice, and covenant,  I place my hands upon you to anoint you in your pain.

I bless your head that you hair will not fall out from sorrow

I bless your mind, that it will function properly and not betray you

I bless your eyes that they will see true and clearly the light and darkness before them

I bless your ears that they may hear the music of your soul 

I bless your bones that they will hold up your body and feel its rhythms

I bless your feet that they will take you through all the paths that you must walk 

I bless your heart that it will beat 

I bless your face that light will shine from your countenance, and that you will know what it is to be beautiful

I bless your teeth that they will be strong against the grinding

I bless your mouth that it will be a good servant to you

I bless your hands, that they will be productive and quick, that you may work hard and fast without tiring 

I bless your soul with a will to live

I bless your ears that they will hear wisdom

I bless your blood, that it will course properly through your veins and fill you with life

I bless you with hunger for knowledge

I bless you with bravery, and courage in the face of all you learn 

I bless you with faith and trust, and also vigilance and guile

I bless you with the wisdom of women, that you may navigate danger and Patriarchy

I bless you with friends, who will carry their burdens beside you, and love you when you are weak

I bless you with the gift of homemaking, that you may always have a place to go

I bless you with sunshine and rain, with valleys and peaks 

I bless you with curiosity, that you may find joy and interest upon your journey

I bless your life with children, that you may rejoice 

I bless you with sleep, that you may rest from each day

I bless you also with sleepless nights, that you may know solitude

I bless you with delight, with fragrant moments, with summer nights

I bless you, I bless you, I bless you.

In your pain, in your joy, I bless you. 

You are blessed.

 

 

 

(Photo Credit: “.blessed” by tazen, license here)