Safe Spaces and Diverse Faces!

Ok I see that this blog has yet to garnish some popularity. In an effort to make a place for communal expression, I am going to express myself on a few things.

Primarily, I have been reading a lot about Black Muslims in America as I am in a class this semester called "Islam in the African-American Experience." In this reading, I have come across the term "double minority." I am certainly not a stranger to this term but I can say that I have never thought critically about. I have always taken it as a way to talk about people who fill more than one "minority" category, i.e. people of mixed heritage, queer people of color, etc. Whether it is because I am supposed to formally think critically about black people in this class or because of my (personally confusing) connection to Islam, I was unsettled this time. Why can't someone just be a minority? Can we have triple and quadruple minorities? Would a black/native american, gay, transexual, woman come close to the ultimate personification of United States oppression? I personally think that a positive answer to any of these questions is offensive. It is offensive because it is disturbing. It is disturbing because the real nature of the term "minority" is revealed, or perhaps twisted. Being a minority is about power. The term seems to designate a lack power or more numerous ways in which power can be exercised over an individual. Everyone inhabits more than one identity category and more likely than not, one of those categories fits a minority status. Whether its a racial, religious, economic, or sexual identity minority, everyone is subject to some form of oppressive power. I am not trying to wash all forms of discrimination together. I am simply trying to expose the ridiculous nature of the term "double minority." Let us stop miring ourselves in terminology that euphemizes or ignores real issues. One day we will all be recognized as multiple minorities and the few who believe that they can designate themselves as a majority population will be pushed off a cliff.

Secondly, I went to the first day of the conference that Severin (I guess it was Severin) posted below, the Arendt conference. I hear Gayatri Spivak speak. She was insightful as I am sure she always is. She was basically saying that Arendt's work "On Violence" which apparently speaks largely to the 1968 riots on Columbia's Campus (albeit in a highly racist way) cannot be taken seriously without an account of gender. For that matter, no account of violence can be taken seriously without this vital aspect. She coined an account of gender as constitutive of the "text of life" that must enrich Arendt's text. I thought of Michael Williams one day saying that he likes majoring in Women and Gender studies because for him it is like studying life. So good job Mike, you are just as insightful as Spivak! I thought it was an interesting point. The other thing she mentioned was Arendt's status as an "honorary male" in academia. Becoming "honorary" was the only way to gain respect in her field. This stuck with me because I realized how often I do that with my professors today. The insightful women AND men become "honorary males" or academics to be taken seriously. The rest I think are emasculated or remain feminine and thus lack respect. This is certainly the record playing in the back of my mind. And it is wrong! No one should be subject to this kind of genderizing.

One last thing, I vote that Severin relinquishes his editorial capabilities and/or takes all this shit off of the blog!

Goodnight and Goodluck

FT