You Thought Things Were Bad? They Can Get Worse

I want you all to think of what you would consider the most outlandish, ridiculous and unexpected form of discrimination that you could ever imagine. You know like a way to discriminate against people that seems so unbelievable, so crazy that nobody could ever think it made sense.

And then I want you to read this article from Racialicious.

Bet you didn't think of that.

I don't blame you. My first reaction when I read that article was to make sure it wasn't from The Onion. You'll have to excuse my shock, while I thought that nothing related to racism could surprise me, clearly I was wrong.

So, basically, people in Italy are even racist when it comes to their food?

It's not like I didn't know Italy had a problem with racism and xenophobia. Anybody whose paid any attention over the years knows that both of these issues are problems throughout Europe, and Italy and Spain have fairly acute problems. Truthfully, if somebody would have asked me beforehand which European country would be most likely to pull an outrageous racial stunt, I would have chosen either Italy or Spain.

But, never in the deepest recesses of my mind would I have thought that racism and discrimination could extend to food. I can understand discrimination in who gets to eat food, after all I am black, but restricting what types of foods can be served in general just seems unthinkable.

Now, I know some of y'all are saying, "But Big Man, isn't this really about who gets to make money, not about what type of food is served?" You know what, y'all are right. That is the root of the problem here. Italians don't want to compete with immigrants for customers, so they've found a slick way to prevent the growth of immigrant businesses, while also pretending to still be a capitalistic and democratic country. I understand that.

Shoot, if you really pay attention to the article, you'll notice that one politican basically admitted that immigrants are willing to work longer hours in the their restaurants so they can charge less money for meals. This means that can undercut traditional businesses when it comes to price, and it makes them more profitable in the long run. So it's obvious that this is really about money.



But, you wouldn't know that if you listened to some of the other arguments being used. These folks are talking about protecting traditional Italian values and a traditional Italian way of life. Some of them are pointing out that this ban affects McDonalds just as much as it affects those pesky Arab restaurants. But, for some reason, I get this sinking feeling that "traditional" is a euphemism for "white."

The funny thing is that none of the famous cuisine in Italy is wholly Italian. As the article points out, many of the most famous ingredients in Italian dishes come from other countries.

What's sad about this whole fiasco is that ultimately there are millions of people in Italy, regular people trying to make a living, who could see their livelihoods negatively impacted because of these new rules. Moreover, there will be millions of other folks who will think that's perfectly ok because those folks who get hurt aren't "real Italians." The situation has a sickening familiarity to it for someone who grew up in the United States and has studied its history.

Ciao.





Share

Hold Up, Are They Serious?

Update. My homie MODI over at Sports On My Mind is one of the most thorough bloggers on the planet when it comes to breaking down bias in sports. Check out his latest take on the Phelps issue here. That dude drops some knowledge, and he also takes the time to give me some credit for a past piece I wrote.)

This is going to be short, but it has to be said.

What the eff is up with the response to Michael Phelps' newly revealed love-affair with a bong?

Yes that is 14-time gold medalist Michael Phelps using a bong. No that is not tobacco. Yes, Michael Phelps is getting a masssive white pass.

Phelps is an elite athlete. He got caught doing illegal drugs, while reportedely engaging in binge drinking. And many mainstream media talking heads, and just plain old fans, are falling all over themselves to make excuses for his actions.

They are lamenting the fact that he may lose all of his endorsement deals(although several companies have already said they are sticking by their party boy). Folks are pointing out that it's only marijuana, that Phelps is still a young man, that he didn't hurt anybody and, the kicker, that he's basically a good kid.

If good is a euphemism for "white and good looking" then I guess they are right.

I follow the sports news, I know how black athletes get handled when they eff up with drugs, or anything. I remember what happened to Joakim Noah and Josh Howard. I haven't forgotten the Lamar Odom and Zack Randolph jokes. Shoot, I even remember how the media treated Allen Iverson's bust for weed. They made it seem like he was a hardcore felon trying kill babies.

The list goes on and on. When black athletes eff up there is no rush to give them the benefit of the doubt. But, let a white athlete screw up and folks try to find any reasons to excuse their behavior. In fact, if a famous black athlete from a single parent household in a decaying urban area who loved to listen to gangsta rap and bang skanky girls got busted with pot, you'd better believe we'd get a rash of articles about black pathology. (By the way, Phelps has all of the characteristics I described in the previous sentence. Don't believe me? Check out his girlfriend below)

She has a tramp stamp. Case closed.

I'm so tired of this double standard. I appreciate the fact that great websites like Sports On My Mind chronicle this type of crap, but it still gets old. Do y'all understand how disheartening it is to see unfair treatment over and over again, and then have folks tell you it's all in your mind? That is what happens when you point out racial biases in the media, particularly in the sports media. Folks put their hand of their ears and scream "La, la, la..."

Are they serious?




Share

Um, I'll Have Two Babies Please...Hold the Daddy.

I'm a little miffed, and I'm not exactly sure why.

Just checked out this article from the New York Times and it just rubbed me the wrong way. The article discusses the lifestyles of college-educated single mothers who elect not to seek out male companionship. These women are heterosexual, but they just don't want men around as they try to raise their children.

Something about that is bothering me.

The more cynical of you readers would probably say "Well, you're bothered because you see the future of families and you're not included." Or, some of you might wonder if I'm bothered because these women are asserting their independence from the societal norms that men have established. Finally, some of y'all might just think I'm a busybody, looking for something to get bent out of shape about.

Those are all interesting theories, but I don't know if they are correct.

A friend of mine once said that whenever he hears about single women adopting children he wonders when men became an optional accessory in child rearing. I'm not talking about all the women with children who want a man and who want to raise their families in a two parent household. I'm talking about the lovely ladies who figure that a man only adds stress and difficulty to a situation they are managing just fine.

Yeah, those ladies.

It's a touchy subject. Who am I to tell a woman she doesn't have the right to adopt a baby because she isn't attached to someone with a penis? (I'm focusing on women because few single men adopt children. In fact, I doubt that most agencies would allow a single man to adopt a child.) Do I honestly believe that it's impossible for a woman to raise a child, male or female, without a man there eating Cheetos and drinking beer?

I used those over-the-top stereotypes because it seems like that's what most women think men add to a relationship. While women, particularly black women, have complained for years about men abdicating their responsibilities in families, sometimes I get the feeling that a large subset of women figure men aren't really good for much more than a paycheck and occasional romp in the sack. In fact, I sometimes wonder if women think that men bring anything to the table when it comes to raising children, particularly if those children happen to be female.

As a man, particularly as a man with offspring, I find this saddening and, honestly, a little insulting. I think there is something about my role role as a parent that cannot be duplicated by a woman, no matter how hard she works. In my heart of hearts, I feel like I'm special and my children need that special something that only I, as a man, can provide. Besides, if men started claiming that women weren't really necessary to raise children, how long do you think that dog would hunt?

I guess, I am being overly sensitive. It's not like these women prevented me from marrying a wonderful woman and procreating. Hell, it's obvious that these women are only a small minority in the world considering all the thirsty females I've seen practically begging a man to live with them and raise babies. And, since it's not economically feasible for most single women to easily raise multiple children, it's unlikely that this trend will spread very far.

But, I still can't shake the feeling that something is wrong about this whole set-up. For some reason, I still feel diminished as a man by some of the things these single women have said about the role of men in families. I guess it's my own issue.

I just don't like being optional.

Share

Interesting, But Misleading

I just found out that Charles Darwin may have hoped to end slavery with his theory on the evolution of man.

Check out this article for a larger discussion of these facts.

For some reason, I found this extremely interesting. Black people have regularly been called monkeys and apes as a way to demean them. Yet, the person who first tried to connect all humans to primates believed establishing that link would help black people get out of bondage. It's a weird footnote in history.

What I found more interesting, was a comment about this article that I found on Racialicious. Here's the comment:

A big theory of mine is that the whole “intelligent design”/natural selection debate is deeply rooted in the struggle between those who would seek to extend the white Christian hegemony and those who would seek to dismantle it through science. Unfortunately, the media always portrays it as some dense philosophical debate, without any implications for social power structures.

Hmmm, where to begin?

I'll admit that I'm no expert on intelligent design, but my basic understanding is that it's based on the idea that the world was created by an omnipotent being. Since most of y'all know I'm a Christian, with traditional Christian beliefs, y'all can probably guess that I don't have a problem with this concept. In fact, I think it's silly that so many people have decided that if you believe in evolution you can't believe in creationism or natural selection, since from what I understand about Darwin, he actually never tried to go to deep into the origins of life.

What got me, was the idea that belief in God and creationism was part of some sort of vast plot to maintain, white, Christian power.

I'm not naive. I understand how religion has been used to oppress people over the course of time. I know it's considered an opiate for the masses by many people. I get that.

What I also understand is that for most regular folks their belief in God, no matter what form it takes, is a deeply personal thing that provides some sort of succor to their lives. From what I've seen, an intense connection to God does not lead to a desire to subjugate folks. In fact, it's typically the exact opposite.

It's also somewhat insulting to be told that there is no deep philosophical meaning behind my belief in God and my belief that he created the world. It's demeaning to be told that I'm just a lemming who has been co-opted by the dominant structure. I think it's dangerous to make those kind of blanket assumptions about people.

The fact that many racists have used the Bible as a tool for control does not make the Bible inherently evil. In fact, what it does confirm is that humans have the ability to corrupt and misuse just about anything, a central tenet of the Bible.

There is no doubt that Christianity has been paired with a "white power" and "male power" ethos over the years, and its followers have often wreaked havoc on the lives of people of color, gays and women. Yet, I don't feel that's the fault of religion, but more the fault of people in power trying to exert control over the less powerful. Most people need a justification to commit wrong deeds, and if you search and twist the Bible you can find justification for almost anything.

Anyway, I thought the new information about Darwin was interesting, but I could not agree with the other point the connection between creationism and white Christian hegemony. I think the two things are connected by chance, not because of some deep flaw in the Biblical explanation of the word's origins.

It's an interesting theory, but I ain't buying it.





Share