Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil
LOOK!
Crazy-gorgeous love-warrior Inga Muscio has a new book . . . Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil: My Life and Times in a Racist, Imperialistic Society is OUT NOW!
Excerpt:
Why does it just so happen that almost every U.S. street, building, and landmark that isn't named after Rosa Parks, Pocahantas, Cesar Chavez, or Martin Luther King, Jr., is named after a white person?
Is it some kind of bizarre coincidence that superficially portrayed, good and noble white people are almost exclusively the gods and heroes of U.S. history?
What kind of culture names its federal police headquarters after a virulently racist, homophobic, closeted cross-dresser, who was responsible for the deaths and/or ruined lives of thousands of men and women who dared to dream of a better world?
Why's it considered perfectly natural for elite white alpha-dog-eat-dog concepts such as "survival of the fittest" and Manifest Destiny to so seamlessly serve as the basis for--and justification of--our economic, spiritual, political, and emotional lives?
Without a connection to history, folks tend not to address any of these highly interesting queries, and there's plenty more where they came from, believe you me.
Dig deep into any moment of history, and I can guarantee your sense of truth, justice, humanity, and the "American" way will be confounded, if not irreparably sundered.
We remain ambivalently apathetic towards situations that presently lash us into poverty, racial and sexual violence, unemployment, lack of health care and education, corporate sprawl in our communities, a voluminous commercial industrial prison complex, legalized lynching, bigotry, baseless jingoism, Guantanamo torture camps, as well as needless wars and over 250 military occupations brought on by the whims and lusts of the Lucky Sperm Club.
Crazy-gorgeous love-warrior Inga Muscio has a new book . . . Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil: My Life and Times in a Racist, Imperialistic Society is OUT NOW!
Excerpt:
Why does it just so happen that almost every U.S. street, building, and landmark that isn't named after Rosa Parks, Pocahantas, Cesar Chavez, or Martin Luther King, Jr., is named after a white person?
Is it some kind of bizarre coincidence that superficially portrayed, good and noble white people are almost exclusively the gods and heroes of U.S. history?
What kind of culture names its federal police headquarters after a virulently racist, homophobic, closeted cross-dresser, who was responsible for the deaths and/or ruined lives of thousands of men and women who dared to dream of a better world?
Why's it considered perfectly natural for elite white alpha-dog-eat-dog concepts such as "survival of the fittest" and Manifest Destiny to so seamlessly serve as the basis for--and justification of--our economic, spiritual, political, and emotional lives?
Without a connection to history, folks tend not to address any of these highly interesting queries, and there's plenty more where they came from, believe you me.
Dig deep into any moment of history, and I can guarantee your sense of truth, justice, humanity, and the "American" way will be confounded, if not irreparably sundered.
We remain ambivalently apathetic towards situations that presently lash us into poverty, racial and sexual violence, unemployment, lack of health care and education, corporate sprawl in our communities, a voluminous commercial industrial prison complex, legalized lynching, bigotry, baseless jingoism, Guantanamo torture camps, as well as needless wars and over 250 military occupations brought on by the whims and lusts of the Lucky Sperm Club.
posted by Contact... at 7:00 PM
5 Comments:
i finally made time to sit down and read this latest masterpiece. after completing a women's studies degree and never ever engaging or investing in the hypocritical, theoretical rhetoric of the program, i feel like i finally got the education i have been seeking. i'm sure the author of this book will take a lot of heat for speaking the truth...all revolutionaries do. but this book gave me the language i needed to make sense of the world i live in. as a white woman in the u.s. it was hard to hold myself accountable and examine the institutionalized oppressions i unconsciously engage with on a daily basis. this amazing book is going to threaten a lot of people, regardless of race, gender, or political identity. thanks for taking care of my christmas list this year. inga, you rock.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Congratulations, flash!!
Because you loved the book, you have inadvertently become a member of the "Lucky Word Club", those selected bloggers who are NOT CENSORED pursuant to the "whims and lusts" of the site moderator.
I didn't read the whole book, but the exerpt above certainly got me thinking. Too much, apparently.
It's so great that progressive, open minded people are able to deal with views different from their own.
Yay freedom of thought!!
To the moderator: I was just kidding yesterday about the whole oppressive regime needing a PR person, but it looks like I called it correctly. How can you invite people to express themselves, then blatantly ignore the actual content of their comments because you don't agree, and proceed to pull their posts when they call you on it? All rather expediously, too.
I was accused of "shitting on" the original post, when in reality all I did was point out a few glaring inconsistencies, some fabulously lousy reasoning and overtly offensive statements--namely calling Hoover a homophobe, juxtaposed against a mocking of his "closeted cross dressing", and the use of the term "blue eyed devil", which I find to be a racist term, like other terms used to disparage people because of their complexion.
And the list goes on, but if I go through it again the thought police will be after me.
Protective of our paradigms, are we???
whoa, how did i get in the middle of this? if anything was removed from the blog, it was probably because comments about a book should only be left by people who have actually read the whole book. excerpts can be easily taken out of context...i've done it many times. but emily, it's great that this little excerpt inspired you to "think."
in my (queer dyke) perspective, however, the fact that hoover was closeted is one of the reasons why he could be considered a homophobe, not to mention the fact that he targeted homos just as visciously as he targeted everyone else who wasn't in line with white imperialism.
also, and this is just my opinion, but i think it's kinda where inga is coming from in her book, it wouldn't really hurt white folks none to personally identify with how damaging racist terms are.
i don't really see how the term "blue-eyed devil" can be racist since the white dominance in this country still retain institutional power. racism = power. but i will end my comments here since i haven't read your other post.
but you should really check out the book because it sounds like inga and you actually agree on a lot of points. the difference is she evidently spent almost six years writing a book about it and it sounds like you have spent a couple minutes tearing her shit up on ariel gore's blog.
thanx for reading,
flash gordon
I read the excerpt, and it gave me plenty to speak of. If I read the whole book, I'd have more than would fill a blog spot.
I think I'm qualified to comment on just what's in the excerpt, if that's all I say I'm doing, which it is.
Inga spent six years writing the book. Good for her. Based on the excerpt, in my opinion, she could have used a few more rounds with a good editor.
You know, flash, Inga is not talking about anything here that requires a lot of study to comment on. We are all experts on American society--we are it. It doesn't take immeasurable genius to comment on these matters.
Part of what is wrong with academia is that it thinks it is so damn special when it really isn't. Commenting on basic societal realities is within the realm of knowledge that any thoughtful adult possesses. Inga is not any different. Yes, it took her six years to sift through her ideas and put them out in a book--that doesn't mean that my (or anyone's) comments/thoughts on these matters are crafted any less carefully. My ideas on the subject are much more than six years in the making. I didn't just start formulating my thoughts after I read Inga's.
So spare me the whole "she took the time to write the book, so her ideas must be the right ones." Isn't that just a patriarchal response to a healthy dissidence?
Just so you understand why I think I'm qualified to comment on the same topics Inga does, I studied precisely these types of societal problems (race relations, gender relations, questions of class, education, socialization, social psychology, the role of criminal justice, etc.) for 4 1/2 years in college, then for 3 years in professional school, and now for 5 years in my professional career.
I think I know what I'm talking about too, flash.
The fact that Hoover was closeted appears to me to be very much a product of his time and place in society. It seems perfectly understandable, unfortunate but understandable, to me, so for Inga to seize on that as a point of criticism seems so far out of whack with her self-professed ideals as to be comical. Stop trying to justify what was an obvious, critical misstep in her trying to express herself.
As far as the whole "blue eyed devil" terminology goes, I have to continue to disagree with all of you who think it is okay for a racially charged, disparaging term to be used, as long as it is used against white people.
Below is the definition of the term, "racism" :
ra·cism [ ráy sìzzəm ]
noun
1. animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races
2. belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior
As you can see, racism has to do with prejudice against other races, period. A member of any race can harbor racist beliefs about any other race. Relative positions of societal power are implicated by this idea, but they by no means drive it.
It is a bunch of bullshit to say that only white people can be racist because it is white people who have institutional power. Um, flash, please don't tell me you buy this crap?? White people, collectively, don't have institutional power. Talk to the legions of poor whites anywhere and then tell me that they have any more institutional power than poor blacks, poor asians, poor hispanics, etc.
It's about money, not skin color.
We live in a society defined by class. The institutional power in this country really belongs to the wealthy elite.
The rich white men getting cozy at Bohemian Grove would view the concerns of a poor white family the same way as they would view the concerns of a poor Laotian family. (Which is to say, as not very important.) Cuts to public funding in education, mental health, access to medical care, public transportation, etc.--all affect poor people as a class, not any one racial group.
The rich folks in power understand that it is money, not race, that matters. Why is it so hard for everyone else to figure it out?
The idea of racial division only serves to keep people polarized along wholly imaginary lines. I mean, come on! The idea of "race" isn't even supported in the biological sciences. It's such artifice it's almost insulting that people like Inga continue to buy into it completely.
As far as being totally fucked by the current capitalist world order, EVERYONE--that is ALL RACES of people--who don't have any serious capital($$$$)share the same disadvantaged position. Until we all realize it, we are going to continue to bog ourselves down in the whole racial divide.
We need to get past that way of thinking.
I don't think Inga is helping.
But, like you said, Inga and I probably do agree on a lot of core ideas. I mean, I think we're both pissed off at the same state of affairs. I just think that her perspective is damaging, just like the inequalities she rails against. I think she is bogged down in her own dogma, not unlike the conservative right. It's a common peril for idealogical thinkers.
Inga, in the excerpt, talks about "jingoism," which is a type of extreme patriotism characterized by hostility toward other countries.
I think her excerpt is a good example of a variation of "jingoism." It's like social commentary from the extreme left that can only thrive on its hostility toward the right. How is Inga really being any different from those she is opposed to?
I envision a paradigm shift, a change in the collective thinking, that veers directly to left without having to rail against the right.
I believe that truly intelligent, creative thinkers can bring the vast majority of the mainstream together with the intrinsic value of our own thoughts and ideas. We don't need to rip on the right, we only need to get our own shit together.
The truth of what's going on in the world system is fairly clear to me, it's just amplifying that message and helping people to recognize their own power to change.
All it would take is for everyone to agree that the idea of race is not founded in any scientific knowledge, but that it historically is a ploy, a socially created construct, that has been employed by the wealthy elite throughout history, and over different societies, to control the masses. (And it hasn't been just white vs. everyone else. Look into what the Chinese had to say about the Mongols. Check up on African tribes selling each other's enemies into slavery.)
We just need to agree, as a collective, that we're not going to buy into it anymore.
Inga's really not on the same page as me. She wants to stew in this crap instead of letting it go. I firmly believe that is a mistake and that it is a core weakness in her arguments.
It is the reason why most people aren't going to listen to her.
You can say that I crapped all over a book I didn't read, but at least I took the time to think about the excerpt and figure out what I thought it lacked. That is a sign of respect, no? I'm just trying to find a better way to address the problems we, as humans, collectively face. I think it's going to take a lot more critical thinking and maturity than this excerpt appears to contain.
Thank you, flash, for reading the book, for posting your comments, etc. That is what democratic discourse is supposed to be about. The left really needs to stop being so insecure.
The left really does have the answers, but in my opinion, they do a shitty job of convincing anyone else. That's where I'm trying to make some progress. Time will tell.
Post a Comment
<< Home