I can’t help but say “I told you so” : Diamond Mines and Appropriated Feminism

Red Technopolitics
May 26, 2008
Diamond Mines and Appropriated Feminism
M Murphy

Here’s a new disturbing twist on reproduction/Production and the entanglements of feminisms in global capital. The International Women’s Health Coalition, the New York based transnational feminist NGO that was so influential in reappropriating international policy language towards feminist projects of “reproductive health and “reproductive rights” have themselves become entangled with diamond mining in South Africa, particularly De Beers Group and Anglo American.

How to make sense of this conjuncture of necropolitical accumulation of diamonds and feminist biopolitics?

Signs of the conjucture start in 2006 when Jennifer Oppenheimer, Chair of the De Beers Fund “the vehicle for the company’s social investment throughout South Africa and particularly in the communities around its operations” and wife of diamond exec Johnathon O. of De Beers became a IWHC board member. By the 2007 fundraising gala, De Beers was announced as IWHC’s major “underwriter,” first in their list of donors. At the gala, two De Beers Spokespersons were given the opportunity to speak, ending on this note:

“As a woman I am very proud that De Beers is supporting IWHC. Almost as proud as I am as an African to be working for De Beers. I am proud because my father said, “I have seen what diamonds can mean for Africa,” and because De Beers as a company believes and practices the principle that Africa needs a hand up, not a hand out. I have seen more than a glimpse of Africa developing to its full potential. I believe that being here, you, the individuals and companies represented in this room, are demonstrating that you are not satisfied with a tiny glimpse. You, like us at De Beers, are finding new ways to grow potential by supporting the health and rights of young girls worldwide….. I hope that our support of IWHC would encourage and inspire other companies to do the same. At De Beers we call this `living up to diamonds.’ “

“Living up to Diamonds” is perhaps a good name for this necro/biopolitical conjuncture of mutual appropriation.
By June 2007, a new chair of the board of directors was announced. Brian Brink, “”As Senior Vice President: Health at Anglo American plc, the largest listed company in South Africa, Brian Brink, MD advises Group companies on the funding and delivery of health care benefits as well as on occupational health and community health issues. Dr. Brink has been with Anglo American for 20 years.”

Brink is yet a further wrinkle in this circuit of appropriation.

De Beers and Anglo American have both set up corporate programs that either test or give drugs to employees with HIV.

From the IWHC side, I would guess that they’ve convinced themselves that they can appropriate the funds of these diamond companies and do good work with it. From their side, the extra million dollars goes a long way. For the Diamond Minds, this is “feminist washing” and ethical capital cheaply bought.

for Human Rights.

The Manifesto Turns 33

On the eve of my 33rd year of life I have nothing profound to say other than I think that this is going to be a good year. Or, to embrace the wisdom of my cousin Sunita, all is good now.

I have come through some sort of trial by fire in the first half of 2008 and I feel as though I have arrived here ready as ever and, after quite a long time, a sense of optimism.

I will go backwards. I am lying on my bed in my new home in Brooklyn. I have bought a piece of land on this earth. It is not simple and the road to here was long. I am thinking a lot these days about privilege and ownership and capitalism and gentrification. When you rent in New York, at least you feel of the masses a bit more. So, it’s complicated. And, when I walk through my front door, I feel home and I haven’t felt that in a long time.

Just last week I was in the other place I call home—wherever it is my parents live. They could be on Mars and if I was with them, I would be home. I fell ill in India and went to my parents house to recuperate and for the first time in ages, I just sat and did very little of nothing. Caught up on Oprah, chilled with Amma and Acha, read, wrote a little, contemplated a lot. It was peaceful because I just submitted to the quiet that comes only from physical exhaustion.

The week before I was grateful to be at Nathalie and Sanjay’s house in Delhi. It was an unexpectedly longer than anticipated stay with my dear friends from Cambodia, but I was diagnosed with shingles at the beginning of my stay and there’s not a whole lot one can do with shingles other than pray for mercy and be grateful for friends and family to help them out. I wish shingles on nobody. I thought having malaria was bad, but my one encounter with shingles makes my two encounters with malaria feel like cake. I am grateful not only for Nathalie and Sanjay’s company but for the wisdom imparted upon me by their two boys, Satya (5) and Kavi (2). They made me smile effortlessly even when I was in pain and I will never ever trade those days with them for anything.

Before the disaster of shingles I visited Chandankiri, a village in rural Jharkand, India. I was there to do a site visit of an organization working on maternal health issues. First, it was so so so hot in Jharkand. 50 degrees Celsius… I took 3 showers a day and it was so hot that my hair dried before I even walked out of the bathroom. We bought an egg in the market and the eggs were so well incubated with the heat that some began to hatch before we even got home. I mean HOT.

I met a fascinating woman, Lindsay Barnes, a Scottish woman who has spent more of her life in rural Jharkand than she has in her native Scotland. She took me to visit one of the rural self help groups that conducted street theater to raise awareness about complications related to delivery. As a means of attracting a crowd, the performers begin by singing songs, and my favorite is the old village classic about a Scottish woman who lives in Chandankiri. Lindsay is, among many things, a dai or a traditional birth attendant. She came to rural Jharkand in the 80s to help organize women in the coal mines and after some time, she was called upon to assist deliveries. You know when you are a foreigner in a village, sometimes if you stick around long enough, folks think you can do a lot of stuff that you really can’t. One evening Lindsay was called upon to assist in a complicated delivery and when she realized that the woman might die, well, let’s just say she found her calling in life. She consulted her trusty book Where There is No Doctor and voila, she became a dai.

I almost didn’t make it to Lindsay. The day before I left for my trip to India, I received an email from my colleague Asha explaining that all the hotels in Bokharo, the nearest town to Lindsay’s organization, were booked because the Prime Minister of India decided to visit Jharkand on the same day that I was going to be there. The nerve of the Prime Minister… Well, Asha said, we secured a place for you in a mud hut with some toilet facilities. I thought Asha was insane. Luckily, after some confusion, I came to find out that it was Lindsay’s mud hut I’d be staying in and planes, trains, automobiles and rickshaws later, I was at her house.

I spent 2 days in Mumbai before making it to Lindsay’s. I attended a strategy session by another organization that was trying to design a campaign to raise awareness about safe abortion in India. It’s complicated but over the past several years, a lot of attention has been placed on banning sex selective abortion in India. Knowledge about India’s ban on technologies to determine the sex of a fetus is high, yet the practice of aborting female fetuses due to a preference for sons still exists. It should be noted that this practice is highest among the relatively well-off in urban areas. So, there’s been a lot of noise around needing to crack down on women seeking sex selective abortions and providers that make them possible. On the flip, knowledge about safe abortion, in general, is low. People think that because sex selective abortion is illegal, abortion in general is illegal, which is not true in India. All this confusion has led to people feeling as though they need to take sides for or against abortion and in this muddled mess, maternal mortality rates due to unsafe abortion continue to mount.

Just a couple weeks before India, I was in Malaysia meeting with regional organizations to discuss a strategy for youth organizing around sexual reproductive health and rights. Some of the thoughts I am marinating on right now… why do sexual rights always come last? In any movement building, we seem to be able to cross collaborate on several issues—for example race and class. But, it feels like women’s rights, sexual rights are often marginalized. Another random thought, the population of young people in Asia is explosive. Are we ready to meet the growing needs of young people on the continent and how do we organize across borders with growing neoliberal policies and globalization? What else, what else… working on a more cohesive analysis of what happened in that meeting.

And, before Malaysia, I was in Nepal attending the Institute for Rights, Activism and Development. I have to hand it to Martin Macewan who blew my mind with dropping a lot of knowledge on the human rights abuses of lower castes in India. There’s a lot of thought I must make to the ways in which caste is ignored, how it stands alone and how it may be the only thing I can remotely compare to race politics in the US. While I was in Nepal we learned about a monumental Supreme Court ruling acknowledging transgendered people. So now there are 3 legally recognized genders in Nepal. And, I met Sunil from Blue Diamond Society in Nepal. Sunil worked closely on the case and in Nepal’s recent elections, Sunil won a seat in the national government, making him the first openly gay man to hold such a political office.

So, right before all of this I closed on my place… here are some photos before moving in.
It was mad.

And, here’s what I love about Brooklyn.

Taking stock before another year begins. Life is good.

The manifesto goes audio

I went to India at the end of April and somewhere between Mumbai and rural Jharkand I fell pretty ill. Luckily, I was in Delhi with my good friends when I figured out what it was that I was sick with. And, lying on their couch, my friend Sanjay says “you’ve been getting lazy with that blog of yours.” Indeed. I have been copying other people’s interesting articles and news instead of producing original content. Well, Sanjay, thank you very much (for many things) but also for reminding me that the point of blogging is to kinda write more often what I have to say.

So here’s something I have to say. I’m still on the couch so it’s a bit much to write anything.  Recently I was interviewed by a public radio affiliate (thank you Dave Lucas) and got the platform one loves to have to denounce the Bush administration…

The Problems with PEPFAR_the manifesto goes audio

So so very very random

It’s almost 1 am and I really should sleep, but I’m so excited to be skeeming off of someone else’s internet connection in my new neighborhood.  His/her username is Messiah.  Ominous enough and I’ll take it, as my mother would say, as a good omen.

There’s so much to report on.  I have not written anything personal in a long time and there are great things to write about.  First, I am a homeowner.  It was like giving birth, but it happened.  In fact, it was longer than the human gestation period, but it happened.  I could post photos but I’m going slow.

I was in Nepal and Malaysia recently.  So much to report and to show there.  Nepal’s Supreme Court made a landmark decision recognizing transgendered people as a third sex.  I was hanging with activists from the region and just felt so inspired, but never wrote anything here.  I keep thinking I’ll do it soon.  Alas, I noticed my other blogging friends are going slow this season.  In Malayasia I had the most amazing conversations about youth organizing and building the reproductive justice movement.  Oh, and there are photos, but I have gotten so lazy.

Today in writing class we were talking about how they actually count dead soldiers in Iraq.  My writing teacher asked if anyone could confirm whether or not it was true that they airlift wounded soldiers out of the country to army hospitals outside the country.  And, for example, if a soldier is airlifted out of Iraq to Germany and s/he dies in Germany, their death is not counted in Iraq.  Someone else speculated that deaths of soldiers  not directly related to warfare in Iraq may not get counted.  All intriguing stories to be confirmed factually.

I have a friend at the moment in the military.  He knows I thought it odd he went.  Odd is an understatement.  Nevertheless, he knows what I mean.  And, now when I hear from him it feels so surreal. We are gonna be in this thing for a long, long while.  Obama/Clinton/McCain whatever… is anyone actually prepared to handle it?

I am off to India on Saturday for 3 weeks.  The thought makes me exhausted because I feel like I just got back.  Such is life at time.  No serious complaints.  Would just love to see more of my house.  We Taureans love to be home bodies!

Vocation of Agony: A Personal Meditation on Dr. King’s Legacy by the good Reverend Sekou

Leisure suit, Sekou, I am honored to know ya!

April 2, 2008 – 4:33pm — Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou

[Ed. Note: The following article will appear in the Spring 2008 issue of Fellowship magazine, and is offered here online in the context of this week's observance of the fortieth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4, 1968. Click here to subscribe to Fellowship.]

Sitting in our favorite coffeehouse, Tyler Jared, my eldest son, and I are having our “man time.” I am sipping a cappuccino and he is drinking some orange concoction. We stare into one another’s eyes, with an occasional “What?” breaking our silence. We are excited to see each other and saddened by the time we have spent apart. I hold a deep sense of calling that has taken me around the world, but away from him and his siblings. He has grown so much. He is now taller than me, his 13-year-old face starting to break out with pimples, voice cracking, but he is still my baby. I hold his hand and run my fingers through his golden locks. It embarrasses him, but he does not stop me, because I am Dad.

He interrupts the silence. “Dad, everyone knows you want to be like Martin Luther King.”

Blushing and flattered, I respond with a flat attempt at humility. “No, no, son, I am just trying to stand in tradition that keeps track of human. . .”

Annoyed, Tyler cuts me off. “No, Dad, everyone knows.” He raises an eyebrow. “You risk arrest,” he states. (He is reminding me of the scolding he gave me for being arrested at the White House, when, to his chagrin, his teenage cohorts saw me being handcuffed on television. I was not practicing what I preached, since I always told him to stay out trouble, and then went and got myself arrested!)

“You organize other preachers. You talk about world peace.” After a pregnant pause, he announces, “But you are not that good at it!” Before I can defend myself – and the entire project of freedom – he notes: “You know that they started another war in Lebanon. Did you know that?”

To my surprise, Tyler had been paying attention to world affairs, including Israel’s bombing in Lebanon in the summer of 2005. He was clear that if I had been “good at it” there would not be yet another war in the Middle East.

With the wisdom of a teenager, Tyler concludes, “Look, you should give speeches about it and write a book about it. But you are not that good at making it happen.” And I am left speechless.

Another generation of Clergy and Laity Concerned
On April 4, 1967, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King issued to America yet another stirring warning, responding to her terrible engagement against the people of Vietnam:

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. … We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

At the Riverside Church in New York City on March 21, 2005 – the same venue where Dr. King had delivered his hallmark “A Time to Break the Silence” speech almost 40 years earlier – I became the founding national coordinator of Clergy and Laity Concerned about Iraq. Representing over 300 faith-based institutions working to end the war in Iraq, CALC-I filled a void of silence by religious leaders that had been evident in the first two years of the war. Less than six months after our founding, CALC-I and our parent organization, United for Peace and Justice, the nation’s largest peace coalition, organized the largest civil disobedience at the White House since the start of the war. Over 370 people were arrested, including 60 clergy. Among the arrestees were Cornel West and distinguished theologian Walter Wink. Yet, we now are entering in the sixth year of the war in Iraq, and due to my poor leadership and to under-funding, CALC-I, like King, is dead. Perhaps Tyler was right.

King’s life
Dr. King proclaimed in one of his final sermons, “Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God.” The goal of his Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) was “to redeem the soul of the nation.” The soul of a nation is its social structures, political discourse, and quality of life – democracy.

In what is considered his most “dangerous” speech – “A Time to Break the Silence” – King employed the tortured phrase “vocation of agony.” King named the challenge of calling upon god in the struggle for social justice. He gave this speech in the midst of death threats, repudiation from SCLC’s board, and merciless attacks in the mainstream and African-American media. A major task of King’s public speech was to rebel against the monopoly on religious discourse shaped by conservative religious individuals and institutions, thereby creating space for the revelation of the prophetic god:

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate for our limited vision, but we must speak..

King carved out a place where the task of religion is to challenge the role of government. His notion of “the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism” highlighted the role of the United States in both the manipulation of foreign governments and its treatment of the poor (at home and abroad) that has led to a crisis in American democracy.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

This speech was not simply about American foreign policy gone awry but about the very nature of religion and democracy. The role of government in the lives of the poor throughout the world was addressed by his courageous oration. It is centered on a belief that religion and democracy are in dialogue with one another. This dialogue has led to the production of the religious precedent for democratic expansion.

With his chariot waiting in the “hither lands,” King, in his last sermon – delivered on April 3, 1968, the night before his assassination, at Mason Temple Church of God in Christ in Memphis, Tennessee – linked religion, democracy, and social protest. After a synoptic survey of human social protest and intellectual ingenuity, thereby situating his public ministry and democracy in an intimate conversation with the plight of the Memphis sanitation workers and their strike, King responded to the injunction placed on their march:

We have an injunction and we’re going into court tomorrow morning to fight this illegal, unconstitutional injunction. All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.” If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren’t going to let any injunction turn us around.

Continuing his theology of democracy and the role of clergy, he posed a rhetorical question, “Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher?” Quoting the prophets of justice, Amos and Isaiah, he acknowledged the presence of clergy from around the country, highlighting the economic boycott work of a young Jesse Jackson. Celebrating “relevant ministry,” he challenged religious leaders to be concerned with this world’s poverty and injustice.

Today, the sermons of presidential candidate Barack Obama’s pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, have placed race and religion at the center of the public debate once again. Rev. Wright’s critique of U.S. foreign policy stands square with King’s prophetic voice. So hot were Wright’s words that the candidate had to distance himself, and so true that he could not disown the prophet.

Honoring King’s legacy
What does it mean to honor the legacy of Dr. King? Maybe, it means moving into projects of Chicago and living with gang members in their tenement slums, as he did in 1966. King lived off $6,000 a year with four children because he believed in serving the poor over personal gain. He took a $1 (one dollar!) annual salary from SCLC. It is often noted that he had three suits the last year of his life and that he washed out his dress shirt in the sink at night to have it clean for his next speaking engagement. King gave every dime he had to the movement, including the $100,000-plus award that accompanied his Nobel Peace Prize. When rebuked by his own board at SCLC, he still spoke out against the Vietnam war, only to be further rebuked by every major national newspaper. When trashed publicly by Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Bull Connor, and southern city fathers, King never lashed out in anger but always responded as a loving statesman. With death threats abounding, the FBI discrediting his work through its COINTELPRO program, and SCLC funding in question, he went to march with sanitation workers in Memphis – broke, black garbagemen.

That last night of his life, he prophesied the future of America:

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

I do not believe that there is a promised land – only exile. With an unrelenting war on the precious people of Iraq in the precocious name of democracy on the one hand, and the unfathomable neglect of the Gulf Coast citizenry on the other, our national spirit seems doomed to continue spiraling toward incomprehensible darkness. The concept of exile is central because I believe that post-Katrina New Orleans, the revival of the noose, the expansion of the prison-industrial complex, right-of-center public discourse, and general hostility toward the poor and the Other in this nation – whose identity is built upon manifest destiny, believing it is a shining city on the hill, a promised land – has shown that America has no “home” for poor black folks. We find ourselves rolling the stone of race and religion up the hill of democracy. It is a Camusian dialectic, perpetually hewing a stone of hope out of a mountain of despair; Martin Luther King Jr.’s theology encountering Sisyphus’ tragedy.

Roberto Unger and Cornel West in The Future of American Progressivism lay before us our task: “It is not enough to rebel against the lack of justice, we must also rebel against the lack of imagination.” We must claim the words that have been so cheapened in the public discourse: democracy, freedom, and evil.

Democracy is the ability of everyday folk to have discussions and make decisions about their life chances in the context of community. Freedom must be defined as the ability of folk to make informed choices and with adequate resources. Evil is the denial of access to the existential and economic, personal and political, spiritual, and societal resources necessary to make those decisions and choices. In order to be grounded with sure political footing, we must stand on a prophetic tradition, employ historical agency, and execute moral imperative.

As we critique political structures and economic apparatus, we must never forget to love. Love is patient, kind, long-suffering, and endures all things. Love means we care for the personal, political, social, economic, and organizational needs of others more than we do our own individual and organizational desires. Love is that force that cuts across human divisions of race, religion, nation, or creed. Again, King teaches us:

When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.” “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.” Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

Love will shed new light on the improvised language and build a new system of ideas and social infrastructure. As we love each other, we will create a loving society preoccupied with peace and justice.

Out of the mouth of another babe
Having heard about the conversation between his elder brother and I, Gabriel Israel DuBois, my second oldest son, was not to be outdone. Known among his family as the “sensitive one,” Gabriel is the spitting image of me when I was seven. Getting eye to eye with me, he declares, “Dad, you know they shot Martin Luther King.”

Bewildered, I can only say, “I know, son, I know.”

“You know if you keep doing what you are doing they are going to shoot you, too … but I love you and will protect you…”

Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou is a Freeman Fellow at the Fellowship of Reconciliation and a contributing editor to the Fellowship Magazine. He serves as a Senior Community Minister at the Judson Memorial Church in New York City.

This article is part of the upcoming issue of Fellowship magazine highlighting the fortieth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Click here to subscribe to Fellowship now.

The import of democracy: marginalization and conflict

On Monday I’ll be in Nepal attending the Institute for Rights and Development hosted by CREA. I’m looking forward to this though it will take a lot of traveling to get there. (I leave on Saturday morning to go to Albany to snoop on Spitzer, just kidding. Gotta do a speaking gig come back to the city and head out to Kathmandu via JFK, Dubai and Delhi).

In 2005, I met Sunila Abeysekara in Sri Lanka and she took me under her wing for a couple of days and exposed me to her undeniably rich knowledge, sad stories of conflict and perserverance of the human spirit to fight for justice. In preparation for the IRAD in Nepal, I was sent this article that I found so very, very interesting. Commie indeed.

 

 

Issues of Governance, Democratisation and Human Rights: Reflections on South Asia in 2003[1]

Sunila Abeyesekara

 

The south Asian sub-continent is vast and diverse in terms of its peoples as well as in terms of the structures and institutions of the modern nation states in the region. Nevertheless, centuries of shared history and culture as well as the common impact of the British colonial regime make it possible to consider the region as a whole, especially in attempting to discern primary trends in terms of political, economic and social developments. The political, economic, social and cultural connections between the different nation states of the south Asian region have existed through history, in both the formal and informal arenas. In more recent years, the formation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has led to a number of regional initiatives on trade and travel, as well as on the creation of SAARC Conventions on a number of cross-border issues such as trafficking in persons. However, the weakness of the SAARC formation is clear both in terms of its own inability to proceed with business as usual in the face of political turmoil in one country or the other, as well as in terms of any comparison with ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) which has emerged as a powerful economic and political bloc at the international level. In this context, this note attempts to raise a few general questions within a framework of concerns that have emerged in the region as a whole in relation to issues of governance, processes of democratisation and protection of human rights, while understanding the specificities of each country and society that defy any such attempt at generalization.

The global rhetoric on ‘good governance’ and ‘democracy’ has been disseminated throughout south Asia as in most other parts of the southern hemisphere using a range of governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental agencies at the national, regional and international level. The stated objective of the exercise has been to encourage the creation of systems of government and governance which would ensure a process of sustainable development within a stable political, economic and social environment. This would be achieved through the use of mechanisms such as participatory and consultative processes of decision-making in which issues of equality, dignity and representation would be addressed. It was also expected that corruption and criminality within structures of government would be drastically reduced, if not eliminated, through the process, which placed great emphasis on the twin factors of accountability and transparency in decision-making.

 

Aid-giving governments and donors have put pressure on governments throughout the southern hemisphere to prove their commitment to ‘good governance’ and ‘democracy’ through the implementation of a number of measures in which the conduct of ‘free and fair elections’ has been given primacy, sometimes to the detriment of much-needed focus on the independence of the judiciary and of law enforcement mechanisms, the freedom of expression and association and respect for principles of non-discrimination and human rights. Using trade and aid embargoes and conditionalities as well as applying pressure in many multi-lateral fora such as the UN and the World Trade Organization, aid-giving governments as well as inter-governmental and international agencies and institutions have manipulated all the means at their disposal including forms of subtle and not so subtle coercion to compel southern governments to confront and deal with issues of governance and democratization as framed by those wielding power and control over finances and resources worldwide. In the course of this exercise, unfortunately, the nuances of power politics in the southern countries themselves have been ignored, often resulting in situations of social and political instability, and sometimes even in chaos and anarchy.

 

In the early 1990s, most of the south Asian states supported the position advanced by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, on a specifically ‘Asian’ set of values with regard to human rights in which economic prosperity could be ‘traded off’ against the enjoyment of certain civil and political rights. This formulation responded to the need of states to take action with regard to growing poverty while not losing their own hold on power. Thus, there was an era in which ‘poverty alleviation’ and ‘poverty reduction’ were to be achieved at the cost of increasing authoritarianism and reductions in freedoms such as the freedom of expression and association. The false dichotomy of individual rights (largely contained within the rubric of civil and political rights) and collective rights (such as the right to employment with protection and the right to basic social services) provided the basis for this formulation. However, this division of rights into separate categories was soundly contested by academics and activists throughout the world, for example, at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993.

 

During this period, aid-giving governments, donor agencies and the UN system including the UN Development Programme all shifted from a single focus on economic growth to a focus on multiple issues of human development. The proposition of ‘development with a human face’ expanded to an understanding of the significance of using a rights-based approach to development, of working for the empowerment of marginalized communities and of understanding poverty as a violation of human rights. Some of this rhetoric filtered through to the south Asian states and one finds language regarding human rights and a rights-based approach in many documents and programmes on sustainable development designed and implemented by the state and by non-state agencies.

 

The situation on the ground in most south Asian states, however, reveals a lack of emphasis on a human rights framework by the state and its various agencies in terms of decision-making and implementation of many economic and social rights, and an absence of understanding of the concept of entitlements when it comes to issues of housing, food and access to potable water and sanitation. When confronted with issues such as the justiciability of economic and social rights, or the definition of the minimum core content of the right to housing or food, it seems that both state and non-state agencies are as yet not confident with using a rights-based framework and opening themselves up to a range of claims on the basis of entitlement.

 

There also seems to be some doubt as to whether democratization is an essential pre-requisite for sustainable development, and as to whether allowing people to make choices about their lives is the best way to move forward to ensuring empowerment and development for the society as a whole. Old arguments about needing to provide basic needs to people as a priority, lead on to justification of authoritarianism in the new context. The economic and political imperatives framed by the international financial institutions are also a part of the present debate on democratization and ‘good’; governance. Although terms such as human rights and the feminization of poverty have entered their vocabulary, their primary focus remains on economic growth and political stability at the global level, achieved at whatever cost to the citizens of any one country.

 

Civil society organizations actively working for the promotion and protection of human rights and for social justice in their own communities and nations in south Asia have themselves been active in incorporating some of the conceptual framing of issues of governance and democratization in order to advance their own agendas of popular education and the promotion of people’s participation in decision-making processes. Through their work for peace, social justice and democracy on a wide range of platforms, and across communities and social sectors, many of the new social movements that have emerged in the sub-continent over the past three decades have incorporated human rights concepts and frameworks into their analysis as well as their practice. Using election monitoring as a stepping stone to raise civic awareness among communities of marginalized people, training rural groups to monitor the expenditure of their local government authority and to analyse budgets, supporting legal aid and awareness programmes that help victims of violence and injustice to seek redress through legal means, many social movements and activist groups have raised issues of accountability and transparency at all levels of government and strengthened citizens to ask questions and demand answers from those who wield power and control over authority and resources. The focus on the right to information which has been a critical demand in all the south Asian societies over the past decade bears testimony to this new and heightened sense of the people’s right to know and to question their rulers.

As the year 2003 begins, south Asian states face, separately and together, a series of challenges to democratic institutions and to the principles of sustainable democracy in general. On the one hand, in each of the countries except Bhutan and the Maldivian Republic, there are internal and inter-state conflicts. Issues of ethnicity, religion, language and caste all play a pivotal role in defining the nature and form of these conflicts within each of the countries. On the other hand, the conflicts are all also, in one way or the other, manifestations of the failure of democratic institutions to guarantee human rights and freedoms to all communities on the basis of equality. Responses to these conflict situations by south Asian states have also been almost uniform in their anti-democratic approach, creating special laws that undermine already existing human rights standards and norms and creating conditions of impunity that strengthen the hand of law enforcement agencies including the security forces as well as political actors.

 

In India, the victory of the BJP in state elections in Gujarat in the aftermath of barbaric acts of anti-Muslim violence raises a series of questions about whether the conduct of a free and fair election alone is sufficient to guarantee the existence of democratic institutions and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for the entire population. In addition, a series of struggles for autonomy and independence in the north-eastern states of India continue to pose a threat to the power of the central state. Continuing violence in Kashmir keep tensions between the neighbouring nations of India and Pakistan on the boil. Pakistan is caught between the conflict in Kashmir, and the ‘war against terrorism’ being waged in Afghanistan and in parts of Pakistan. In Nepal, political tensions and violence in the face of the so-called ‘Maoist’ insurgency has confronted the government, state institutions and Nepali society as a whole with an unprecedented crisis. In Bangladesh, political tensions between mainstream political parties as well as interventions by extremist religious groups are destablising democratic practice and institutions. In Sri Lanka, tentative attempts to bring about a negotiated solution to the ethnic conflict that has destroyed the island for over twenty years is challenging the nature of the post-colonial Sri Lankan state and the structure of its democratic institutions in a manner that calls into questions many of the principles enshrined in its Constitution and legal systems. It is only in the Maldivian Republic and in the kingdom of Bhutan that some degree of normalcy seems to prevail. Yet, even in those two countries, there are serious issues of representation, participation in decision-making and respect for human rights that deserve attention.

 

The barbaric nature of the conflicts that have riven the sub-continent is evident in any examination of the modern history of south Asia, even if one merely looks at the history of the post-1947 period, at the Partition of India and Pakistan, the war of Liberation of Bangladesh, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, the struggles of the peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh and of the Nagas in the north-east of India. The context of the conflicts enable, and ‘normalize’, the gross abuse of human rights and inhumane brutality on all sides of the conflict. The erosion of democratic structures and institutions is an inevitable consequence of such a situation. Examining the situation as it exists, one sees clearly how many elements of violence, brutality and authoritarianism have become inevitably a part of ‘normal’ life in south Asia. Even as we try to move away from conflicts and seek lasting and sustainable responses to the root causes of the conflicts, the anti-democratic nature of the conflict plays a critical role in shaping the nature of what is to follow in terms of the structures and institutions that are created in the aftermath of the conflict. Thus, reworking the contours of the ‘resolution’ so that processes of participation as well as of reconciliation and healing become embedded in the new structures and institutions remains a critical challenge in the region.

 

In the south Asian region, we have in the past years observed a number of attempts to resolve conflicts through processes of negotiation. A variety of forms of power-sharing have evolved as a result, as have commitments to pluralism and consideration of issues of diversity within a framework of non-discrimination. In the Chittagong Hill Tracts, for example, the conflict was formally resolved through a series of negotiations that gave some power to the tribal communities; however, the implementation of the terms of the resolution in a manner that guarantees the equal rights of the tribal communities of the CHT area as full citizens of Bangladesh remains an issue. In Sri Lanka, the process of negotiating a settlement to the ethnic conflict is under way at the moment. Both the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are considering new forms of the nation-state, including a federal system of government and a high degree of autonomy to the regions. In Nagaland, some leaders of the autonomy movement are about to enter into discussions with the government of India. Once again, the degree of autonomy to be granted to the Naga people will be the main item on the agenda of discussions. The contiguity of the northern states with Burma and Bangladesh also lead to a series of regional issues.

 

In addition to the increase in social instability and violence and economic devastation that has been wrought by the continuing conflicts in the south Asian region, we can also observe the impact of the undermining of democratic principles such as the freedom of expression and dissent and democratic institutions such as the free press and the independent judiciary. Censorship and a wide range of restrictions on publishing and broadcasting, a high level of tolerance regarding violence against media personnel including murder and a general surveillance of citizens have all been a part of the package of confronting dissent as designed and implemented by state authorities. Threats and intimidation of judges and lawyers as well as authoritarian and centralized procedures for appointments to the judiciary have laid bare the myth of an independent judiciary in many situations. Politicisation of the security forces and the law enforcement agencies including the police, and the creation of special units within the security forces – such as Special Task Forces – that have the authority to operate outside of existing frameworks of control and discipline have eroded confidence in the safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and extrajudicial killings. In this context, public confidence in the human rights guarantees set out in the Constitution and in law has been severely undermined. While the establishment of special agencies such as national Human Rights Commission, Ombudspersons, Committees on Women, on Indigenous Communities, on Minorities has created a certain space within which the injustice suffered by civilians and citizens could be addressed, issues of autonomy and independence of such institutions continue to emerge in this connection.

 

However, the issue that has emerged as being at the root of conflict in south Asia and that poses the most salient threat to ‘democracy’ in the south Asian sub-continent is the very nature of the democratic system that was inherited from the British colonial regime. Inherent in the Westminister model of Parliamentary democracy was the principle of majoritarianism: the power of numbers. Being more in number became in itself a virtue in this system, and issues of non-discrimination and equal representation of minorities were disregarded in spite of rhetorical commitments to pluralism and multiculturalism. Constitutional guarantees of equality were supplemented by various systems of affirmative action such as the imposition of quotas for women, backward caste groups and tribal communities in public service and in public office. However, the writing in of these categories of disadvantaged persons into the legal structures and institutions in itself constituted a basis for further enhancing their marginalization from mainstream public and social life. While some level of ‘token’ representation and participation was visible, and reflected in the data, in fact the social and political marginalization of these groups has not been deeply affected by these state actions and interventions. Addressing issues of discrimination and equal treatment, equal access and equal opportunities for all peoples living within each of the south Asian nation states remains, therefore, an area in which much remains to be done in the sub-continent.

 

At the same time, due to the numbers of persons who are rendered homeless because of conflicts and development-related displacement, as well as fairly easy cross-border migration and trafficking processes, fairly large numbers of south Asians presently live in each others’ countries. Sri Lankan Tamils living as refugees in southern India and Bhutanese living as refugees in Nepal are among the few groups formally recognized and therefore protected by international law and cared for under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Most migrants within south Asia are without such protection or legal rights. Negotiations between the south Asian states regarding ways and means of guaranteeing the rights of one’s own citizens living in neighbouring countries while also pledging those same guarantees to non-citizens living in one’s own country are critical to long-term democratization in the region.

 

The deep-rooted structures of hierarchy and subordination that are supported by religion, custom, tradition and culture in the south Asian region will sadly continue to pose a major obstacle to modernity and to all attempts to move into a more egalitarian and just social order. Caste, which ordains one’s position in the social hierarchy according to your birth, remains the most unacceptable and reprehensible forms of social stratification in the world and is still very prevalent in most parts of south Asia, in some to a greater degree than in others.

 

The inter-sectionality of discrimination and exploitation based on caste, tribal or ethnic origin, religion, language and class has evolved in a very specific manner in the south Asian region, buttressed by traditions and customs that call for the acceptance of these forms of discrimination and oppression as being pre-ordained, unchangeable and intrinsic to one’s way of life. Many people living in south Asia accept these structures of subordination and hierarchy, and flinch at the thought of opposing them and eliminating them. The fact that these pre-modern social formations have coalesced well with the modern structures of majoritarian democracy give them more power and sustainability in contemporary south Asia. Those who do demand their equal place in society are punished most brutally; stripping and parading of women, killing and burning alive, hounding out of villages are all a part of the extreme forms of violence and punishment meted out to those who transgress the boundaries of social stratification and hierarchy.

 

New areas of identity-based demands for representation and participation continue to emerge within the region. Single women, female heads of household, indigenous people, people living with HIV and AIDS, commercial sex workers, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons all come forward to claim their own place within the political and social arena, challenging social mores and norms and moving the debates on human rights and non-discrimination forward.

The historical tolerance of the use of violence and coercion as a means of keeping people within the boundaries ascribed to them by virtue of their birth and pre-ordained social status in turn leads to a high level of tolerance of human rights abuse and violations of the most fundamental of rights and freedoms in the modern world. One’s ability to challenge these vestiges of pre-modern social formations thus becomes a significant factor in whether or not democratic human rights praxis in terms of equality, representation and people’s participation in decision-making is going to be a reality in the south Asia of the 21^st century.

 

---

[1] Based on a discussion paper prepared for a South Asia Civil Society Consultation organized by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Katmandu, January, 2003

 

Thank you for dinner, Mr. Terry

Reclaiming True Grits

by Bryant Terry

Feb. 29, 2008–Mention “soul food” and you will hear scores of health and medical professionals claim that it is the downfall of the health and well-being of African Americans. It is true that African Americans have some of the highest rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and some cancers of any group in this country. But frankly, I’m getting sick of soul food being held partially responsible for this. The majority of people imagine the traditional soul food diet as unsophisticated and unhealthy fare comprised of high-calorie, low-nutrient dishes replete with, salt, sugar, and bad fats. Rather than vilifying traditional soul food, let’s focus on the real culprit, what I like to call instant soul food.

In reality, soul food is good for you. In order to understand why, you have to understand grits. As seen with instant grits, mass production and distribution has diminished the product’s superb quality and has obscured the distinctive characteristics that make down-home hominy so darn desirable in the first place. The taste of instant grits boxed up in a factory can never compare to the complex nutty flavor of grits stone-ground in a Mississippi mill. So it’s understandable that those who have only had that watered-down stuff (read: many of my friends in the Northeast) scoff at the mention of grits.

Similar to instant grits, instant soul food is a dishonest representation of African American cuisine. And to be clear, when I refer to instant soul food, I’m not just describing the processing, packaging, and mass marketing of African American cuisine in the late 1980s. I’m also alluding to the oversimplified version of the cuisine that was constructed in the popular imagination in the late 1960s.

The term “soul food” first emerged during the black liberation movement as African Americans named and reclaimed their diverse traditional foods. Clearly, the term was meant to celebrate and distinguish African American cooking from general Southern cooking, and not ghettoize it. But in the late 1960s, soul food was “discovered” by the popular media and constructed as the newest exotic cuisine for white consumers to devour. Rather than portray the complexity of this cuisine and its changes throughout the late 19^th and 20^th century, many writers played up its more exotic aspects (e.g., animal entrails) and simply framed the cuisine as a remnant of poverty-driven antebellum survival food.

To paraphrase food historian Jessica B. Harris, “soul food” was simply what Southern black folks ate for dinner.

Sadly, over the past four decades most of us have forgotten that what many African Americans in the South ate for dinner just two generations ago was diverse, creative, and comprised of a lot of fresh, local, and homegrown nutrient-dense food.

Most self-proclaimed soul food restaurants, a considerable amount of soul food cookbooks, and the canned and frozen soul food industry reinforce this banal portrayal of African American cuisine. Moreover, film and television routinely bombards viewers with crass images of African American eating habits and culinary practices that further distort and demonize soul food.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for fried chicken, mac-and-cheese, collards greens, and peach cobbler being reinterpreted. But romanticizing comfort foods that should be eaten occasionally, and presenting these foods as standard fare not only rewrites history, but it also normalizes unhealthy eating habits for African Americans who are unaware of their historical cuisine.

When I think about the soul food that my grandparents and their parents ate, I do have some fond memories of deep-fried meats, overcooked leafy greens, and sugary desserts occasionally making a cameo on our menu. But, I also recall lightly sautéed okra, corn, and tomatoes recently harvested from their “natural” backyard garden in South Memphis. Divine recollections abound of butchered-that-morning herb-roasted chicken from Paw-Paw’s coop; “grit cakes” fashioned from breakfast leftovers and then grilled alongside pulled pork; Ma’Dear’s chutney made from peaches that came from Miss Cole’s mini-orchard next door; and fresh watermelon purchased from a flatbed truck on the side of the road and served with salt sprinkled on each slice.

There are African Americans like the late chef and cookbook author Edna Lewis; food historian Jessica B. Harris; and the chef-owner of Farmer Brown Restaurant in San Francisco, Jay Foster, who acknowledge a more complex culinary heritage and understand the African American legacy of being “green.” It’s time, however, that we all reclaim real Soul Food by learning from elders; rediscovering heirloom varietals; planting home and community gardens; shopping at the farmer’s market; eating what’s in season; pickling, canning, and preserving for leaner months; getting back into the kitchen and cooking; and sharing meals with family and friends. While these actions may not solve all the health issues in our communities they will get the ball rolling.

Obviously, there are complex social, economic, demographic, and environmental factors that explain why diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure are so rife within African American communities. Yes, we can experience real change consisting of personal, family, community, and structural shifts by making our voices heard and pressuring our elected officials to create national, state, and local policies that ensure that all Americans have access to healthy affordable food. The task won’t be easy, but employing the same grit that carried our ancestors through the worst of times can pull us through anything.

Memphis native Bryant Terry is an eco chef, author and food justice activist based in Oakland, Calif. His second book will be published by Da Capo/Perseus in 2009. The following are two of Terry’s recipes for Pan-Fried Grit Cakes and Citrus Collards. Enjoy!

Pan-Fried Grit Cakes with Caramelized Spring Onions, Garlic, and Thyme

Yield: Serves 4–6

Soundtrack: Green Onions by Booker T. & the MG’s

Mark my word, after making and eating this dish while listening to Green Onions, they both will be on heavy rotation for a few months, if not longer. I enjoy these tasty cakes as a savory dinner side or as a light meal with a green salad. You can omit the spring onions, cayenne, garlic, and thyme and eat these with pure maple syrup as a breakfast treat.

For a lower fat version, they can be baked on a lightly greased baking sheet at 325ºF until crisp, about 15 minutes each side. They can also be lightly brushed with olive oil and grilled for 10 minutes on each side.

Extra-virgin olive oil

1 large bunch of spring onions, trimmed and sliced thinly

1/8 teaspoon cayenne pepper

3 garlic cloves, minced

2 cups whole milk

1 cup water

1 cup stone-ground corn grits

Coarse sea salt

1/2 teaspoon fresh thyme

· In a medium sauté pan combine 1/2 tablespoon of the olive oil, the spring onions, and the cayenne pepper. Warm the heat to medium-low and sauté gently until well caramelized, 10-15 minutes. Add the garlic and sauté until golden, 2-3 minutes. Remove from heat and set aside.

· In a medium saucepan combine the milk with the water, cover, and bring to a boil, about 3 minutes. Uncover and whisk the grits into the liquid until no lumps remain.

· Reduce the heat to low and simmer for 15 minutes, stirring ever 2-3 minutes with a wooden spoon to prevent the grits from sticking to the bottom of the pan.

· Add the spring onion-olive oil mixture, 1/2 teaspoon salt, and thyme and stir well. Cook for an additional 5 minutes, stirring from time to time.

· Pour the grits into a 2-quart rectangular baking dish or a comparable mold and spread them out with a rubber spatula (the grits should be about 1/2-inch thick). Refrigerate and allow it to rest until firm, about 3 hours or overnight.

· Preheat the oven to 250°F.

· Slice the grits into 2-inch by 2-inch squares.

· Line a couple of large plates with paper towels. In a wide heavy skillet over medium-high heat warm 1 tablespoon of olive oil. When the oil is hot, panfry the cakes for 2 to 3 minutes per side, until they are golden brown and crispy on the outside (do this in several batches to avoid overcrowding the pan). Transfer the cooked cakes from the skillet to the plates to drain, and then hold them in the oven until all the cakes are cooked.

· Serve immediately.

Citrus Collards with Raisins

Yield: 4 servings

Soundtrack: “Preaching Blues” by Corey Harris from Fish Ain’t Bitin’

Though I love savory collard greens, I created this sweet, modern variation to be paired with savory entrées.

2 large bunches collard greens, stems removed, rolled into a tight cylinder,

sliced crosswise, rinsed, and drained

Coarse sea salt

1/3 cup fresh orange juice

1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil

2 garlic cloves, minced

2/3 cup raisins

· In a large pot over high heat, bring 3 quarts of water to a boil and add 1 tablespoon salt. Add the collards and cook, uncovered, for 8 to 10 minutes, until softened.

· Prepare a large bowl of ice water to cool the collards.

· Remove the collards from the heat, drain, and plunge them into the bowl of cold water to stop cooking and set the color of the greens. Drain.

· In a medium sauté pan over medium heat, warm the oil. Add the garlic and sauté for 1 minute. Add the collards, raisins and a 1/2 teaspoon salt. Sauté for 3 minutes, stirring frequently.

· Add orange juice and cook for an additional 15 seconds. Do not overcook (collards should be bright green). Season with additional salt to taste if needed and serve immediately.

Freestyle Soccer and Basketball: WATCH THIS!

Ok, this is insane. If you remotely love soccer, you have to watch this. These kids from Mexico combine copoeira, freestyle running and soccer all in one and it looks beautiful. *thanks gillian and jody!

I actually found this video after listening to an episode of This American Life which chronicled the story of how Luis TRICKZ da Silva made it from his part-time gig at Foot Locker in suburban New Jersey into this Nike commercial. Now, put aside that this kid is helping some conglomerate sell sneakers, and just watch how he move!

Why you and why Obama?

This morning I get on the subway and run into my colleague. We happen to meet on the same car of the subway every so often as we both calculate which door of which car will get us closer to the turnstile to minimize the delay in getting to our J-O-B before 10am, when it is still acceptable to be late. We often talk about music, as she and I vibe on some of the freakishly same cheesy stuff from the 80s but for some reason, maybe it’s Gooliani finally dropping out (in an act of poetic justice, if nothing more) or Edwards conceding, we turn to politics.

She wants to play DJ at our next staff party, she says. And I say, oh, when is that?

Super Tuesday.

Now at this point, I look her in the eye and said, you know I’m supporting Obama along with a lot of the other younger staff and staff of color, right? She looks at me quizzically.

The President of my organization went to school with Hilary and under Bill’s administration she served on an official government delegation for UN meetings. She has a vested interest in Clinton’s campaign, as do many older white feminists. Many people look at my organization and assume we’re not only supportive of Clinton, but we’re gonna campaign for her.

My colleague looks vaguely shocked.”I find that interesting that you’re for Obama. Why?” I chuckle and think, well if you haven’t figured it out by now, I am no Obama missionary. And, in a sort of authentic concilliatory note I say to her, well, if Clinton wins, I will support her. Oh really, she smirks, if Obama wins, I’m going to McCain’s camp. And therein lies one of the many fundamental differences between us.

Many weeks ago, Gloria Steinem wrote the following op-ed for the New York Times. Before reading on, however, know this:

I wish we could simply break it down as I’m choosing between the binary of a black man and a white woman. Or a black person and a white person. Or a man and a woman. I wish, but it’s not the case. I have issues with Clinton that extend beyond this dichotomy and I’m a feminist. Let’s face it, if Clarence Thomas were running, he wouldn’t remotely get my vote. If Indira Gandhi came back to life, she would never get my vote either. Not even if she won the democratic primary…

Steinem says: “What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.” Talk to radical young feminists, white and of color, and ask them who they’d vote for. Don’t discredit them if they’re not going for Hilary. Our world view, our historical analyses are just as valid in leading some of us to say we support Obama. (I have to say how I love that she’s appropriated the caste system to sexuality… my colleagues in India would have a hay day with that).

And the assumptions about Obama’s (supposedly hyper) masculinity appealing to white men makes me a bit nauseous. That’s a bit of a low blow. Historically the hypermasculinized black male representation has threatend white men.

Fundamentally, Gloria sees Hilary Clinton’s track record far different from me. I’m not about to put my hat in for a woman who has proven to be anti-immigrant, who sounds so very Republican when she supported this war, who, frankly, I’m not convinced will be able to hit the ground running on day 1. And, yes, Obama’s record is short and he’s not perfect, but what he stands for is far more affirming to me than Clinton. I have friends ALLIES that are among Obama’s advisors. No candidate before Obama would turn to people like them to advise them on jack. It’s who he holds close that I trust.

I also know this: folks I’d never envision toting any candidates sticker or button are rocking something that says OBAMA. And as my friend said the other night, proudly displaying his Obama button, If Obama doesn’t get it, I’m gonna quit my hustle and go out and get mine! It’s the last straw, folks. Get on the bus.

By the way, where did she get the name Achola Obama from?

Women Are Never Front-Runners

function getSharePasskey() { return ‘ex=1357534800&en=9f6d8783ff1b15c9&ei=5124′;} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent(‘http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html’); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Women Are Never Front-Runners’); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.’); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent(‘United States Politics and Government,Women,Presidential Election of 2008′); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent(‘opinion’); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Op-Ed Contributor’); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(”); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘By GLORIA STEINEM’); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent(‘January 8, 2008′); }

By
GLORIA STEINEM

Published: January 8, 2008

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

 

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.

Correction: January 9, 2008

An Op-Ed article yesterday about
Hillary Rodham Clinton misstated Senator
Edward M. Kennedy’s position on the presidential race. He has not endorsed Mrs. Clinton or any candidate.

Pick from this list of resolutions for 2008

New Year’s Day wasn’t the most fantastic for my spirit, but I reclaimed it yesterday and today and I will again tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow. My friend sent me these resolutions (that he received from someone else). Some of them are ringing loud in my head. It’s always interesting to see which ones do because that tends to be the work I need to be doing right now in my life. Thank you, Brother Gabe.

1. Resolve to stay brutally optimistic. See the opportunity in every difficulty and anticipate the most favorable outcome out of every situation. Whatever you look for, that’s what you’ll find. We can get better or we can get bitter; it all depends on the lessons we draw from each experience. Optimism is like electricity — very little happens without it. Know this truth: you have all the resources you’ll ever need to handle all the challenges you’ll ever have. In true emergencies the true you will emerge.

2. Resolve to identify the most powerful benefit you offer to the people around you and then deliver it. “The purpose of life,” said George Bernard Shaw, “is a life of purpose.” What’s yours? Where are you investing your personal energy: self-preservation or adding value to others? Here’s the well-being paradox: If you’re only concerned about yourself, you cannot take care of yourself. Only by helping others, can you succeed.

3. Resolve to pump-up your personal vitality. In the game of life, it’s not about who’s right, it’s about who’s left. Over 60 percent of us are more than 36 years old. The real currency of the new century is not cash. It’s vitality. It’s the ability to keep going every day of every week of every month of the year with vigor and verve. All you are to the people around you is a source of energy, and you cannot give what you don’t have. Ninety percent of all adults do no physical exercise at all. More than half of us are overweight. A third of us still smoke. So, this year, resolve to enhance your physical, emotional and mental vitality. Take just a small step. First you’ll amaze yourself, and then you’ll amaze everybody else.

4. Resolve to be habitually generous. Success is not something you pursue. It’s something you attract by what you become. The more you give of yourself, the more favors you attract from others. People have a deep-rooted drive to give back. So resolve to search for ways to contribute to others. Here’s an interesting aphorism: Live life above the line. If the line represents others’ expectations of you, consistently surpass those expectations. You’ll develop what author Ken Blanchard calls “raving fans,” people who become walking billboards for you.

5. Resolve to go on a mental diet. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can scar you for life. It is humans, not elephants, who never forget. So resolve to use the language of conciliation, not the language of confrontation. Avoid the temptation to vent your negativity on others. Instead, use words that express your joie de vivre and connection with others.

6. Resolve to be a global citizen, fully open to the cultures and influences of others. There is a direct correlation between personal well-being and openness to other peoples’ ideas and cultures. If someone has a different point of view, they’re probably right as well. There are no absolutes anymore, so welcome different opinions. Become a one-person champion of plurality. Not only will you make lots of new friends, but you’ll also gather multiple reference points to help you resolve personal challenges.

7. Resolve to take control of your destiny. Don’t be so busy trying to make a living that you forget to make a life. Decide who you want to be and what you want to achieve and then stride boldly toward your vision. The most precious human commodity today is confidence.

8. Resolve to increase your human connectedness. The person with the best connections wins. The wider your network, the more opportunities you generate. It’s all about trust. And it’s all about profile — your presence in the minds of the people who matter. So invest at least 10 percent of your time broadening your sphere of influence. Connect other people to the opportunities within your network: cross-pollinate their potential. When you are with others, make every encounter a pleasurable one. When you listen, truly listen. And burn your fear of rejection.

9. Resolve to increase your creativity by letting go of the familiar. Nothing is as far away as yesterday. Try to see the world through fresh eyes every day. As Salman Rushdie writes, every year is the Stone Age to the year that follows it. Listen to your intuition and follow your instincts, they’ll tell you what to do before your head has had a chance to figure it out. You are a Picasso or Einstein at something. Discover what it is and then develop it to the maximum.

10. Resolve to be you because others are already taken. You and I are at our best when we’re being authentic. We’re at our best when we’re being positively spontaneous, because that’s when all our energy is being invested in the task at hand or with the person in front of us. In a hyper-competitive world, we cannot afford to second-guess ourselves.

Success in the new century is all about speed. So act now, because if not now, when?

–

“Never make small plans”

And, always, always dream big.