Translating a racial dialogue into reality...

I have a small anecdote that I would like to share, but, as usual, I’d like to talk about why first.

The theme of race, particularly my own, has dominated this blog. I emphasize it because I feel this level of dialogue is missing from our everyday interactions - I feel this void in communication is what is holding us back

There are too many people who fail to realize that it is not just our similarities, but our differences, that bond us as communities and families and friends. We do not share the same storyline as those we surround ourselves with- and for the most part, we enjoy talking about this. We enjoy talking about the things we share with one another-- "hey, you're from new jersey too? have you ever been to paramus? what a crazy place..."

And we enjoy talking about our differences. "Oh, you're not from North Jersey? Let me tell all about it...." - in these differences we can gain a sense of authority, we can teach someone about ourselves and why we are the way we are. We can show ourselves off with pride.


The one area where that all tends to fall apart is the topic of race, and yes, that is a bad thing.
From the beginning of time, as far back as we can see, stories of racism and discrimination have interwoven themselves into human history.
But, instead of letting these stories progress and the characters resolve the issues, in the way we would write any other story, we freeze the story in time and pretend that it all began and ended long ago.
This is our mistake- because we all have an active role in the evolving story of human relations. There are those who will attempt to erase themselves completely from this story- they believe they have nothing to do with it since this story didn't really begin with them.
And there are those who will place themselves in a piece of the timeline where they never existed, living their own joy and pain vicariously through other peoples histories.

Living in the past will not help us, we have to allow ourselves to progress and to evolve to our surroundings- including the people in it- because this is an element of man kind that we tout so proudly. It is dependent on us to bring this story to its next chapter, and if we can’t properly place ourselves within it we truly are doomed to remain frozen in time. We’ll never get anywhere with such competing mentalities.

It was only a small incident that led me to write this post, but it was enough to spark this type of fear in me.

I was in the middle of my morning commute- I had stepped off the path train into WTC station and was making my way up the escalator. As usual, I walked with my head down and my earphones in – out of touch with everything going on around me. But, even over the sound of the music from my mp3 player, I could hear yelling that was getting louder and louder not too far behind me. I lowered the volume, not wanting to seem too curious by taking the earphones out. I turned my head about the same time as everyone else in the station and saw a black man, probably about 40 yelling quite angrily at a white man, probably about 50.

The white man, when he noticed us all looking, seemed to keep his lips pressed tight as to stop himself from saying anything. He was very aware of us looking. On the other hand, the black man remained very focused on continuing to yell at the white man- getting angrier and angrier, yet repeating a lot of the same points.

He was yelling at the white man that he “singled [him] out” cause he was black, that he wasn’t just some “nigga from the streets”, he yelled about the successes he has actually acquired and that he is tired of "dealing with this shit” from “ignorant [insert various racist terms for white men here]” and the obligatory “you don’t know me” that most people yell out during an argument.

Being that it was new york city, there was a diverse crowd of people around us. We all got caught at a traffic light and stood stationery for a few minutes. As the black man became more heated and the white man became quieter, I chose to pay attention more to the people around me. Most people were whispering to those around them, and those that weren't.. it was pretty easy to read their faces.

Through the chatter and the expressions, I could pick out 4 distinct reactions.

1.White people who were convinced it was the white man's fault because...
actual quote: "why are we white people so disconnected?"
2.White people who were convinced it was the black man's fault because....
actual quote: "just another black guy trying to play the race card. if they want to stop being seen as angry black men, they should stop acting that way"
3. Minorities who were convinced it was the black man's fault because...
actual quote "we've struggled so long to get where we are in this country, what an embarrassment this guy is."
4. Minorities who were convinced it was the white man's fault because...
actual quote "why don't white people get it? they're all racist"


These are just a summation of the comments and looks I observed from the crowd, of course.
But I had a 5th reaction, and unfortunately I think it was a rare, if not unique, one throughout the group. And it was a simple “what the HELL just happened?” From my observation, the most important thing on everyone’s mind was… to whom do we assign the blame? Which racial stereotype can we pin this on?

Obviously something happened to encourage this black man to start talking about race- but why does it have to be that nearly everyone in that crowd assumed that that something was coming from someplace inherent to a specific racial group? Why isn’t the first thought in our minds… what happened? why is this happening? Where are we *right now* in our story? How have we gotten to this exact moment?

But instead we look to what we assume of the past to explain the events of the present.
We should learn from history, but we shouldn't use it as a crutch.

the "likely voter" myth

Before I get to the conventions, there is one other election based thing I would like to rant about.

"Likely Voters" USA Today has raised a lot of eyebrows with their polling of "Likely Voters"

There are several ways to weed out the likely voters from polling numbers.

The first is to ask "how likely are you vote in this election?" and you only take responses from those that say "likely" .

From there, certain pollsters feel the need to further weed out the polling sample. What groups and communities are "likely" to vote over others? That's the next step.

Older voters, white voters, rich voters, male voters, and so on down the line of social hierarchy.

You can't fight numbers, though- even counting in the fact that non-white and youth voters are minority groups. Even counting the fact that the lowest percentage of voters- the infamous 18-24 crowd is off at college, in the military, out of state, etc...

Most people are satisfied enough with that data to say "aha! youngsters and colored people don't care enough to vote- so they shouldn't complain."

Well, I'm going to put it bluntly--- you put a long enough line-up of old white men who don't speak to ANY of the concerns of these groups- who in fact attempt to screw over these future/rising generations and communities... and you're going to lose both the interest and the support of these groups.

As a young, minority female - why should I be forced to vote for a candidate- ANY candidate who wishes to either A. not give a shit about me or B. completely screw me and my interests over? Why should I be forced to pretend to like a candidate who panders an entire election cycle and then continues the status quo come inauguration? Fuck that.

But it is me wasting my vote, right? Silence can be every bit as loud as a scream- but I don't trust many people to see the forest for the trees anymore.

Yes, I will be voting for Obama come November- but I'm not letting my hopes up.
He knows what its like to be a minority male. He knows what its like to come from a broken home. He knows what its like to be in the bowels of an inner city. He's spent time in another country to witness the effects of American policy not just on immigrants, but the rest of world. And I hope he never forgets that. Washington can do a lot to people, but due the complete social ignorance of the typical rich, white male poltician who's never been out of the country, Obama seems the only chance the White House has seen of having someone who truly understands the needs and interests of ALL people. That, YES, it is entirely different to be white than it is to be not white in this country. It's not a crutch, it's a fact. And the world looks a whole lot different at age 22 than 62 and the path we take over these years is dependent on the decisions made TODAY.

So, hey, older voters? Stop fucking us over, thanks. And yes, you have.
Your generation is not going off to war, your generation is not losing jobs, your generation is beginning to receive the benefits of medicare and social security... and your generation is leaving my generation to clean up your mess. So how about we make sure your kids and grandkids don't grow up into an economic shitstorm, yeah?


So youth voters, minority voters, poor voters... this is the first, and at our failures could possibly be the last, time to elect a candidate who knows what its like to have been in your shoes- that is using his resources to connect to you..... I suggest you don't let the myth of the "likely voter" become a reality this time around. I'm trusting you all.

and BY THE WAY? how is a "random" sample of 3,000+/- people an accurate judgement of voting day? especially when these random samples take place in just a few states? If we didn't have the electoral college, perhaps this would paint a better picture... but we do, so... it doesn't.



and, yes, I am fired up, thank you very much.

first reactions...

I was impressed with the decision made earlier to grant- or give back, should i say- the right of habeas corpus to guantanamo detainees. It only passed 5-4, but the 4 dissenters were of no surprise to me.

I am then upset, worried and angered for the following reasons:

• They should have never been taken away in the first place. It doesn't matter if these detainees are considered prisoners of war or not, what matters is that these prisoners are held on U.S. soil by the U.S. government under U.S. law (military commissions act) - there are those who forget that the Supreme Court exists to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution is in tact not as an extension of laws from the executive/legislative branch, but a means of protection from these 2 branches of government to those who they choose to govern- citizen or not.
• Of the 5 people who voted in favor, 3 are nearly certain to step down within the next presidential term. The next president will determine the ultimate sway of the court- and the difference between most liberal justices and conservative justices that I have noticed lies in the misconception above. There are many who fear 'activist' judges- but they forget that deconstructing the Constitution is just as much 'activism' as upholding certain restrictions and rights to preserve it.
  I would rather a justice who acts on the premise of preserving basic rights of the people as opposed to justices who feel they can take a step over to the legislative side of government and determine what a woman can do with her body and whether or not said action is a crime or how a country can treat untried, unconvicted, prisoners of the international community.
  Once again, the liberal and conservative dichotomy shows that one side believes "we may not agree with you, but you are free to do as you please" and the other believes "we feel that this is wrong, and you are thereby offending us, and the public, but continuing to act in these ways, so will deny you this freedom" ... the liberal argument is for a level playing field and equal freedoms whereas it seems the conservative argument is "I am entitled to all the freedom I want- but that other person should have as many restrictions as possible so as not to intrude on my own freedom"

And, most importantly, despite even President Bush saying that while he does agree with the decision, he will adhere to it, there are still Republicans within this government - particularly in the Senate, part of our dear legislative branch- that are fighting to make an amendment to override this decision.

So there it is... a brief moment of impression with the government, instantly foiled.

And those are my own first impressions- perhaps I'll do something more in-depth about my feelings on Guantanamo later, but this'll do for now.

nothing's changed

So it has been about a month or two or three- maybe a year- since I've last posted, and sadly there's not much to update on.

Instead of leaving comments, I'm still receiving off-the-wall e-mails from anonymous readers...
I did, in fact, graduate... but still haven't been able to use my degree in a productive manner (except for right here!)...
And, the American news media continues to baffle me in its sad attempts at distributing legitimate news.

I'm an aspiring journalist, but for the time being I am still just a spectator of this media circus. What do I see? I see journalists that are granted the freedoms of press, speech and government independence blow all these freedoms away on silly, non-issue, sensational stories.

It's on political coverage that most journalists waste away these freedoms. The power to criticize, analyze and maintain a public forum on all political issues? How many journalists in this world have access to that? And how can we seriously waste that away?

If I were to pay attention to only some of the most repeated news stories over the past few days, here's what I would have learned:

1. Obama, in celebration of his nomination, fist-pounded (or "terrorist fist jabbed") his wife.... because he's black or Muslim or something...
2. McCain is old.
3. McCain wants a gas tax holiday... everyone else except for Hillary Clinton thinks this is a bad idea. This seems to make the headlines at least once a week...
4. Obama doesn't know who he wants to be his VP yet... even though most don't announce this information until the convention. But we need to know now... so there's something to actually report on.... besides the important stuff.
5. Obama wins nomination, Hillary concedes- which necessitated a week long build up despite the fact it was mathematically inevitable since March.
6. The economy is bad. It's Iraq's fault, actually it's the oil companies' faults, no actually it's the fault of overtaxing... actually, it's global warming's fault. (um.. what?)
7. Obama is out of touch with white people, poor people, hispanic people, female people, jewish people.... all people?
8. There may or may not be a tape of Michelle Obama saying whitey, but on this tape, which may or may not exist.. she may or may not be saying something else like "why'd he" not "whitey"... but we do not have any evidence to prove the existence (or non existence) of this tape.
9. Clinton and Obama have secret meeting to discuss topics without the pressure of media or advisors..... but 24 hour news networks will solve that problem by putting the exterior of the house on complete surveillance.... without actually having anything to report.
10. It's hot. Global warming?
and...
11. More about Obama and the fact that he's not exactly white. I've already discussed this at length.

So these were the issues that were most reported on, most watched, most e-mailed- most of which are non-issues or issues that are so buried in blame and needless 'facts' that the entire point of the story is lost.

It's not that relevant, important and pressing issues are not discussed within mainstream media- it's that in order to find them, you need to dig through pages/minutes/paragraphs of meaningless garbage to get there.

As an example, let's talk about what inspired me to write this post. Monday night, former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles providing grounds for the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney- Kucinich's second attempt at Cheney, actually. Some will say it's needless, some will say it's attention whoring, some will say it's divisive... the point is, an elected member of Congress is calling for the impeachment of the nation's top officials. Front page news? I'd say so. Apparently no one else would..

I watched it on C-SPAN Monday night, formed my own conclusions and decided to look at some 'professional' political commentary. I checked the major news sources (AP, Reuters, CBS, ABC, Fox, the Times, the Post... hell, even the Daily Show) and the only national source/non-blog to take this story was USA Today Tuesday morning. Then there was this teeny, tiny little mention in an article on CNN.com late this afternoon. I kept checking, wondering where the hell was the commentary or even a mention of this bold move... I checked again before writing this post, and finally, in the wee hours of the morning- nearly 36 hours after Kucinich took the floor, major news sources such as the Washington Post and the New York Times began to publish this story. (I'm willing to be proven wrong, by the way)

It has always been a stance of mine that good journalism shouldn't be rushed to publication just to win the race to the media finish line. Credible journalism should never be sacrificed for deadlines, I feel. But if these newspapers/news shows/web sites can present repeated articles on why racists don't like Obama or why silly Hillary just won't quit, there's no excuse to be ignoring a story of this magnitude.

So, if I had my own national political medium... what stories would I want you to see?

1. Kucinich and the impeachment articles.
2. The U.S. Senate report on falsified, misrepresnted and exaggerated intelligence presented by the Bush Administration to the public as a grounds for invading Iraq.
3. International reception of President Bush falling, but there is a worldwide welcome to the possibility of President Obama (international opinion, at this point in our timeline, is most definitely important- although I don't feel this video is entirely supportive of this point, but take a look anyway)
4. Several billions of dollars are unaccounted for in Iraq
5. And so as not to improperly frame our economic status--- a clear, rational and intelligent commentary on the U.S. economic situation
6. Scott McClellan's upcoming Congressional testimony on the claims made in his book concerning the misdeeds of the Bush Administration (while this story has been covered significantly, it has been more of an attack on McClellan's character than the material inside the book itself...)
7. Issues to pay attention to for the 2008 campaign, besides flag pins, churches, age and race. As a note, on the night of the infamous fist-pound by the Obamas, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain all delivered speeches laying the groundwork for their main talking points for their presidential campaigns. While the cable news networks did broadcast all 3 speeches, the reality is that no one watches.... and in the end these speeches are reduced to 10 second clips or a couple of sentences-- or a fist-pound.
8. I'm tired and out of ideas, but to sum up what I would have continued to write: in-depth, comprehensive reports on political issues that aren't campaign obsessed, as well. Foreign affairs, economy, what the hell Congress is up to, etc...

But, that's just me... a recent journalism graduate ready to take on the world and give a new face to mainstream media. I realize that, in frustration, most of my resumes were sent out into other fields... politics, linguistics and the like, but even if I don't go into journalism directly, perhaps I can inspire the rest of the herd to do something productive with their entry into the 'real world'.

A little bit of self doubt goes a long way...

I'm nearing the official end of my college career.
Honestly, I never thought it would come- and perhaps I'm speaking too soon, because it still hasn't.
I've been living minute to minute over the past few weeks, sacrificing basic needs like food and sleep to accomplish the wide range of tasks I've burdened myself with throughout the day. It's tiring and it's hell... and as I give up and go to bed/go to class everyday, I'm left with the question...

What is this all for? For what am I breaking myself down everyday? Where will all this hard work bring me?

I'll get a degree (maybe) and then I can apply for jobs?

I'll be honest in saying that I am prone to having existential break downs. Every time I stop and begin to question my self worth, my work ethic, my purpose, my abilities, my future or all of the above... I question myself into a worthless, unreliable, cranky mess.

So what am I doing with my life? And what fulfillment will it actually bring? Success isn't necessarily a fulfillment. Not to me, anyway.

Maybe this post was more approprite for the other blog, the 'personal' one... but this is an honest question I have about the state of human nature.

The competitive nature that pushes us to work hard, sacrifice, cheat and destroy... all for a dollar and some shiny new toys. Or for the label: the best.

Two more weeks left to go, and I think I've officially self-imploded.

speechless

In another "why the hell is nobody talking about this?" moment, I have reached a point of political outrage.

ABC news uncovered their several year long investigation to the Bush Administration and torture techniques used since 9/11 - for the first time in the mainstream media there was empirical evidence and public admission of the President's and Dick Cheney's approval of torture as an interrogation technique. Not to mention intricately detailed torture "routines" and authorization of torture on specifically named prisoners.

Granted, most of the American public knew this for years but now those vehemently in denial and those apathetic because there was no real evidence have a statement made loud and clear.

The administration has officially admitted to using torture, unacceptable by both our law, as well as the UN human rights laws... and now what? We shrug our shoulders and do nothing because their on their way out? Dismiss impeachment because it's far too late in the game?

And I couldn't even find an article about it in the New York Times as of Saturday night- not to mention that the Washington Post article leads with Cheney being at fault.

There is an admission of guilt on the table- this administration threw it out there after bullshitting our country for 5 years now... this isn't just any old schmuck, it's our PRESIDENT.

Now what, people? Now what?

everbody hates the media

Let us talk about journalism again.
As usual, flipping through the AP stylebook has irritated me to the point where I just totally needed to blog about it.

Except, I was low on time. Then, I had some free time and instead, shared it with the one and only Sara Howard - and if I was a little less crazy, we would be 100% on the same wavelength, I feel- and lost the will to blog about it. But, now I'm ready.

I've already expressed my views on AP style and won't repeat myself, so it's time to talk about the overall application of AP style. And, as a side note, typically when I talk about AP style, I also mean to incorporate the basic journalistic standards and styles that we apply to our writing.

I've been thinking about my years as a journalism student and the classes I've had to take.

There are the theory courses (ethics, issues, mass media) and the application courses (j research, reporting, editing) that are required of us- and you would figure that the application courses would be applying our knowledge from the theory courses, but not so much.

There is a lot of criticism of the media and most of it is deserved. We use these criticisms in our theory classes to talk about the problems in journalism and how we can step in and turn the media around in a better direction.

But when we get to our application courses- it seems like most people are willing to continue with the same old, same old.

Whenever someone poses a new theory or takes a different direction, the criticism I usually hear is "But that's not how it's usually done" - "That's not really that common" - "That's just how it is".

I don't think I need to spell out why that upsets me.
And our answer to objectivity can't always be "well, everyone has a bias so it's impossible to be entirely objective" -- it just doesn't cut it anymore.

Journalism shouldn't come easy.
It shouldn't be uniform.
And it most definitely shouldn't be a product.

That's all I have to say about that for now...

so, there's this thing called the internet...

ever heard of it?

I grew up with this internet, my college years have depended heavily on it, and the only time in my life that I was without it was a time when I'm pretty sure that my mom would tell me that I was too young to use it.

And this is the difference between myself and the more mature populations. I never had to be "introduced" to the internet- I grew into it. Technology is something that me and my peers can handle pretty well. I can't say the same for people 20- even 10 - years older than me.

I briefly brought up my frustration with the current generational gap in the "why I'd vote for Obama" post, and I want to pick up where I left off.

One can often hear this generation being referred to as the "youtube" or "myspace" or "internet" generation. One can often hear our generation not being "active enough" -- that we spend too much time expressing our concerns over the internet instead of actually being active with them.

Older generations will see clips of the "don't taze me, bro" guy and scoff at our ability to speak out.

This is understandable, as we are following a generation that saw the civil rights movement, that saw hundreds of thousands of people descend on D.C to protest the war. Sit-ins, protests, rallies, walk outs-- these are the acts that we are following.

As we are a generation that grew up relying on the internet to do nearly everything and anything for us, and we grew up relying on this technology to reach out to others both across town and across the world... why are we all so surprised that the internet is what we would turn to first?

And I don't think we should ever, ever underestimate the power of the internet. Take one second to just think of everything, and everyone, that is available to us through this medium.

Because when we think about the limitations of the current mainstream media, we can understand how much effort it takes to make a widespread impact. The current model of news media allows stories to be pushed in, out, and forgotten about-- or beaten to death in such a fashion that the original purpose/impact is lost (this election, for example?).

Considering the size of this country, the number of news media, the availability that people have to access these other media (print, broadcast), the fight for media attention that most stories have to compete with, the general sense of censorship within mainstream media due to ad pressure, corporate ownership, and certain political affiliations... it would take a movement of rather large proportions to capture national, international- even regional attention.

Even as a journalist- especially as a journalist, I have to point out the much deserved criticism of mainstream media bias (If you're going to tell me "everyone has a bias", I don't even want to hear it). This is where the internet, with its incredible amount of information, allows us to fact check, cross check, double check any information we consider disputable. In fact, nothing is really indisputable on the internet. Some are just too lazy to do so, I know.

But, the internet is a valuable resource, and we'd be fools not to use it. In a matter of seconds, one can be connected to their neighbor, a friend across the country, a strange across the world, and even a couple of politicians sitting pretty in D.C.

Internet activism is not merely a consequence of a 'lazy generation'- although I must admit, some of it does come from that- but it's the product of a generation that knows how to connect with the rest of the world.

It doesn't take millions of people rallying in front of Capitol Hill, it can be entirely composed of one kid, a webcam and a youtube account. We might scoff at him, laugh a little, but someone important is watching that youtube video, almost guaranteed. Who knows what could happen?

Governments and ruling bodies all over the world, including those in charge of the US, have been doing all they can within their given rights to control and regulate the power and influence of the world wide web. It's a tool of the people- keep pushing those boundaries.

The internet doesn't happen to be the end-all, be-all of grass roots activism, though.
Creating a "wear green in honor of sustainability" facebook group or posting a myspace bulletin to not buy gas for a day? Those won't get you too far, unfortunately.

My stance on solving critical issues has been, and always will be, using every resource available- with multiple fronts, a variety of methods, and reaching out to as many people as you can.

It's something I've put in practice since I was old enough to even care.

From joining PAX and several death penalty abolitionist groups to becoming an active Amnesty International member (locally, nationally, and internationally).

For the past 2 years, I've attended a rally outside the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia to protest the teachings of the WHINSEC- the numbers that have attended since the first one in the early 90's has increased exponentially each year and the institution has definitely responded. But that's one day a year, and there's 364 other days to use.

I distribute letters one day a week to help out political prisoners throughout the world as well as call attention to human rights abuses, and these letters have definitely made an impact- but that's one, small area in Upstate New York I'm reaching out to, and there are a lot more people out there than here.

I frequently contact my local congressmen (both in Ithaca and NJ) to express my concerns and I've gotten responses, but there's hundreds of others in the political arena that need to be reached.

It's not that these actions have no value... but there always needs to be something more.

Because the traditional methods have not disappeared. Thousands protested the Iraq war in D.C, the Republican National Convention in NYC, and for the Jena Six in Louisiana - and given the limited attention span of the media- and, consequently, its audiences, I'm sure most of you have forgotten/never heard about at least 2 of those. That's not condescending, if you were wondering- just a sad fact.

And if you don't believe me about the power of the internet on politics- just look at our current election

John McCain, being of the elder generation, used a myspace campaign to amp up youth support during his primary run, giving light to his issues to an audience that had probably already forgotten about him from 2000.

Barack Obama and Ron Paul have managed to rack up unprecedented amounts of campaign funds from small donors- most donating around $100 - $200.

And, Hillary Clinton? Forgive my moment of bias, but the woman is a great story teller... and we were able to find out that that's all she is, all through the power of the internet.

So... how funny is it, that the candidates that utilized the internet the most... are the campaigns that have overall been more successful? It's not a coincidence.

The net generation is speaking up, let your voice be heard.

just some words

I'm sorry that this has become election-centered, but for the first time in my lifetime, I was honestly impressed with a speech-- not just the idea behind the speech, but the actual speech-- delivered by a politician.

It's not just because I recently decided to support him, because if you've been talking to me about this past election, you'll know I've been dragging my heels to officially choose a candidate.

For the first time, instead of simply delivering a message of hope, or delivering a layout of what hope should look like... a candidate truly focused on the reality of our country.

He was able to address the wrong without pointing any fingers and he was able to address the hope for a better future without pretending that he, and he alone, could do it in 4 years.

I just fear that this in-your-face, honest, intimate dialog on racism will only hurt his campaign to become president of a country that has run and hid from it for so many years now... we've been living in a naive post-racial political bliss over the past year... and now it's time to get over that.

Unfortunately, I just don't think people can.

I'm not saying I've been wooed by every syllable of this speech, but it's the most honesty and the most passion I've seen from any politician in my short lifetime... and that's enough for me.

if you haven't watched Barack Obama's speech yet, I strongly encourage it.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Why I would vote for Barack Obama

I have spent most of this primary season trying to maintain a sense of indecision and objectivity.


Somewhere along the line, I finally made the ultimate decision to support Barack Obama should he make it out of the primaries, and before I get to why, I think I'll preface it with why I never thought I would:

Firstly, the most superficial reason,

• I never thought I would agree with the rest of my age demographic. Sorry. I don't know any real reason, but typically if I do hold some of the same interests with people my age, I'm usually taking a different path in terms of what I do with that interest.
  
  But, here's my general annoyance with the response to this election, and I finally have faith in my age group that this is not the truth.
  
  Time and time again we hear how apathetic this generation is, how the youth don't get involved with the issues and they don't make the effort to vote. Well, now we are voting, we are becoming involved, we're interested in the issues and we've picked someone that we support.
  
  In response, there doesn't seem to be the elation that I expected. Instead, the response is that the youth vote has latched onto Barack Obama's campaign out of ignorance, that we're rallying for issues that we know nothing about. Barack Obama has gained youth supporters because he's charmed us and that we don't really understand what's going on.
  
  Well, unfortunately, for the older generations, most of these issues matter to us more. This is our generation going off to war for Iraq. It is our generation that will suffer from poor health care and social security decisions. It is our generation, our work force, that will take the hit from an economic downfall.
  
  We've been criticized since before we were even eligible to vote about not voting, and now we're in it. They can't get rid of us because we're not throwing behind the candidate they wanted.
  
  Also? I'd like to mention that, with the exception of the disaster that was the 2000 election, absentee ballots have been pretty much unaccounted for. Consider that most of the 18-24 year olds are off at college, in the military, abroad- so either their vote are in those uncounted ballots, or they are not casted because they're not in their registered state-- or country.
  
  So, I ask, what the hell is it going to take for politicians to take the 18-24 demographic seriously?
  
  Moving on...
  
  
• I've never been supportive of 2-party politics, because it contradicts the very idea of democracy. It leads to a large divide within the government and within the people. It's a game of tug-of-war. An old politics professor of mine taught that 2-party democracies get things done faster than say, a parliament or multi-party democracy... but does efficiency really matter when the final product is half-assed? Or when candidates can either polarize themselves or throw themselves in the center, and disregard what their party actually wants because they are seemingly the only options? Ralph Nader refers to this as being forced to choose "the best of the worst", and it's something I will never waste my vote on.
  


• I never thought I would be able to support a politician who does not acknowledge multi-party representation during the election period. Democrats and Republicans are not the only presidential hopefuls, and while their chances of becoming president are much greater than Independents, Libertarians or Greens, it's just in poor taste not to acknowledge their campaigns. These parties are not "stealing" votes, they're only doing what is within their democratic rights... to stand for issues and make sure the American people have the option to make their voices heard on these issues.
  


• I never thought that I would support a candidate other than Ralph Nader
  And that's the honest truth. The corporate structure of D.C has always bothered me, and like I said, I do not support this 2-party system. His views on war, torture, economy, environment... pretty much 98% of his stances I can support without regret. I supported him in 2000, I voted for him in 2004, but I can't continue down Nader's path for 2008. The man is old, and sadly, I don't know why, but I feel that matters. I also believe he has gone certifiably crazy. That definitely matters. There's one greater issue at risk concerning his rapport with the rest of Washington, and I'll get into that in a minute. I support Nader making a Congressional run, but not a presidential one.
  

But, I'm not complacent about Barack Obama. So, let's discuss some of the reasons why I would vote for him.

And, I have my grievances and understandings with Barack's stance on the issues, but I should make it clear right now: This isn't about why I want him to win, it's why we need him to win.

Hillary Clinton and Ralph Nader, not so much John McCain, they are both very aggressive candidates. They know what they want and they have an idea of how to get it, but that's not what makes a good president. That's not what makes a leader. Congressmen, yes; president, no. Hillary and Ralph, there is no doubt that their time in the White House would be spent pissing off a lot of people. Their campaigns have clearly stated that they want to distance themselves from the mistakes and the ideals of the opponents. It's good campaigning, yes, but it's terrible presidential policy.
What I've noticed about Barack during his speeches is that he is never afraid to say "we" and he is never afraid to talk about the necessity of a bipartisan effort. The distrust and the dishonesty between this government and the people can be traced back to the amount of polarization in 2-party politics. In that, I believe Barack has the best chance of reuniting our country- and we need that.

Take a look at the primaries and caucuses, if you will. The states that Barack has turned have been important swing states and decidedly red states-- by large percentages. Hillary's wins, while they are considered the "big" states in terms of delegates, they have been marginal wins in states that are decidedly blue or decidedly red.

Hillary and the Republican Party have been coming down on Barack for his lack of political experience. Two things.

1. Considering what political experience has brought our country to at this point, I'm not really seeing this as a bad thing. The truth is that many Americans are tired of the scandals, the corruption, the dirty campaigning, and half-assed promises. It's status quo, it's the game as usual... but it's looking more and more like Americans don't want the usual anymore.

2. More so than usual, I've been delving into the realm of foreign policy and international relations- yes, because of the independent study. I immediately turned to the writings and publications of a foreign policy expert that I highly respect, despite our differences on several issues and political affiliations, and if you read my last post (or have discussed any form of foreign policy with me), you know that's Fareed Zakaria. Back in December, he published The Power of Personality for his Newsweek column. I think it articulates what I've been feeling since the beginning of the primary season, so I'll let his words do the talking:

I never thought I'd be in this position. There's a debate taking place about what matters most when making judgments about foreign policy - experience and expertise on the one hand, or personal identity on the other. And I find myself coming down on the side of identity...

I've spent my life acquiring formal expertise on foreign policy. I've got fancy degrees, have run research projects, taught in colleges and graduate schools, edited a foreign-affairs journal, advised politicians and businessmen, written columns and cover stories, and traveled hundreds of thousands of miles all over the world. I've never thought of my identity as any kind of qualification. I've never written an article that contains the phrase "As an Indian-American ..." or "As a person of color ..."

But when I think about what is truly distinctive about the way I look at the world, about the advantage that I may have over others in understanding foreign affairs, it is that I know what it means not to be an American. I know intimately the attraction, the repulsion, the hopes, the disappointments that the other 95 percent of humanity feels when thinking about this country. I know it because for a good part of my life, I wasn't an American....

When I hear confident claims about liberty and democracy in the Third World, I always think about rural India, where I spent a great deal of time when I was young... When I read commentators fulminating about women wearing the burqa - which I don't much like either - I think about one of my aunts, who has always worn one, and of the many complex reasons she keeps it on, none of which involves approval of misogyny or support for suicide bombers. When I talk to people in a foreign country, no matter how strange, they are always, at some level, familiar to me.

As we've all heard again and again, it's the quintessential election in our personal history of racial and gender oppression that either a black man or a woman will become the presidential nominee. Either way, critics of the United States' domestic human rights record will finally be comforted by the fact that dominance of the White Man on America's politics has begun to dwindle.

In a global context, though, Hillary's win won't mean much. Even countries like the Philippines or Pakistan whose women's rights records are not squeaky clean (even in a culturally relevant context) have had female leadership.

But, Barack Obama? For the United States to put an ethnic minority in the position of national leadership- in leadership of the so-called "free world" - that will speak volumes. From powerful Western nations to Third World countries, ethnic minorities are always silenced and often cut off from politics. Their voices are barely heard beyond their own communities. As "world leaders" , this has the opportunity to build cultural bridges that we have not yet been able to even imagine.

This is the opportunity to chip away at the imperialistic, xenophobic mindset that our opponents have donned to us (and we sadly, much of the time, live up to).

The other 95%, as Zakaria calls it, needs to see this opportunity available to them.

Which leads to me to my last point:
Barack is often criticized for his willingness to meet with some of the most powerful and influential dictators around the world, and to offer them a seat at a multilateral discussion.

This. seems. absurd. With a growing amount of Anti-American sentiment, we cannot afford to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

North Korea, Iran, Cuba, these all seem to be countries with oppressive governments- and that's the point. These are populations that have spent their entire lives being cut off from the rest of the world- seen as almost like a form of global cancer just because of the authorities in charge. Without an ongoing dialog between us, he rest of this world, and these nations, the misunderstandings, the hate, and the ignorance all are given greater means to prosper.

The further we separate ourselves from nations that we hold tumultuous relationships with, the harder it's going to get. The more isolated we become. The worse off our country becomes, because without the rest of the world propping us up and without the global community to help participate in our own affairs, we're nothing.

I know I have already quoted Zakaria, and devoted an entire post to the man, but I need to make mention of him one more time. In the wake of September 11th, he published a piece in Newsweek, The Politics of Rage: Why do they hate us? . It's a piece that I think everyone should read, analyze, and take into account when considering foreign relations- it applies beyond Islam and Terrorism, but this is the current example at hand and it's a great example to conclude this post:

To the question "Why do the terrorists hate us?" Americans could be pardoned for answering, "Why should we care?" The immediate reaction to the murder of 5,000 innocents is anger, not analysis. Yet anger will not be enough to get us through what is sure to be a long struggle. For that we will need answers. The ones we have heard so far have been comforting but familiar. We stand for freedom and they hate it. We are rich and they envy us. We are strong and they resent this. All of which is true. But there are billions of poor and weak and oppressed people around the world. They don't turn planes into bombs. They don't blow themselves up to kill thousands of civilians. If envy were the cause of terrorism, Beverly Hills, Fifth Avenue and Mayfair would have become morgues long ago...

If the West can help Islam enter modernity in dignity and peace, it will have done more than achieved security. It will have changed the world.

It can only get harder from here if we don't open ourselves up to the rest of the world... and the rest of the world needs Barack Obama to do that in a way that McCain or Hillary or even Ralph Nader won't be able to do.

As idealistic as it sounds, I think simply the idea of Barack Obama becoming the next American president, is enough to change the world.

Your thoughts?

Fareed Zakaria

I'm going to leave you with some more articles, but the catch is that they're all from Fareed Zakaria. Deal with it.

If you don't know it by now, this man is kind of a hero/inspiration.

Seymour Hersh is still my inspiration for becoming a journalist... but if it wasn't for the work of certain journalists like Zakaria, I would have never stayed in this awful business.

I think my fascination with this man is that, on most counts, he's pretty conservative. As much as I try to hide it, I can't help being labeled pretty liberal. Extremely liberal, I guess.

I feel like this is why I never claimed a side, though, because despite his categorization... I feel like he is one of the few people who truly get it. And I can't help but appreciate that.

Seymour Hersh has had the amazing ability to uncover some truly shocking stories and create an overall difference through the power of journalism.... but Zakaria understands the why, the how, and he even understands the who. That's why I respect him. Once the story is out there, that's the most important second step to take.

I recently made the attempt to score an interview with the man to help me with my independent study. It was a long shot, I know.
I got a 'no', but the story isn't as simple as that, and if you'd like to know more, I'll tell you.

I'm limited on blogging time as of right now (mainly due to this independent study, but I secretly love all this work... I wish I had more time to devote to it) so I will just leave you some articles of his that I think are a good read:

The Politics of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us?
To dismiss the terrorists as insane is to delude ourselves. Bin Laden and his fellow fanatics are products of failed societies that breed their anger. America needs a plan that will not only defeat terror but reform the Arab world

The End of the End of History
The great political fights were over. Or so we thought. Suddenly, government matters again.

Elections Are Not Democracy
The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq, and is simply trying to gain stability and legitimacy

The Power of Personality
When I talk to people in a foreign country, no matter how strange, they are always familiar to me.

**I'll be referencing this one in an up-and-coming post.

Enjoy these, or just go here: http://fareedzakaria.com/articles/archive.html

something new

The work has been piling up, sicknesses have come and gone... and what I feared when I started this blog is starting to happen... that I eventually stop posting.

I try to put as much effort as I can into each post, so it takes maybe 3 or 4 sessions to actually complete the post and publish it. I have about 3 posts in the works right now that I hope to finish sometime soon.

I don't want to leave this blog dry though. Sooo... here's something I'm going to do for the time being. I'm just going to leave you with a couple of articles that I find interesting, whether I agree them or not, that I may or may not comment on later, but at least you'll be learning something new everyday!

While you anxiously await the next post, check out these articles:

Moisés Naím, "Hungry For America"

Abstract: The world wants America back. For the next several years, world politics will be reshaped by a strong yearning for American leadership. This trend will be as unexpected as it is inevitable: unexpected given the powerful anti-American sentiments sweeping the world, and inevitable given the vacuums that only the US can fill and that others will increasingly demand that it fills. This renewed international appetite for US leadership will not merely result from the election of a new president in 2008, though having a new occupant in the White House will certainly help. Not that anti-Americanism will suddenly disappear; it never will. Nor will America's enemies go away. But strong anti-American currents will increasingly coexist with equally strong international demands for the US to play a larger role in world affairs. The demand abroad for change in the way America behaves is obvious. The US is once again ready to supply the leadership.

Graham E. Fuller, "A World Without Islam"

Imagine, if you will, a world without Islam -- admittedly an almost inconceivable state of affairs given its charged centrality in people's daily news headlines. Islam seems to lie behind a broad range of international disorders: suicide attacks, car bombings, military occupations, resistance struggles, riots, fatwas, jihads, guerrilla warfare, threatening videos, and September 11 itself. From the earliest days of a broader Middle East, Islam has seemingly shaped the cultural norms and even political preferences of its followers. Without Islam, the face of the region still remains complex and conflicted. A world without Islam would still see most of the enduring bloody rivalries whose wars and tribulations dominate the geopolitical landscape. If it were not religion, all of these groups would have found some other banner under which to express nationalism and a quest for independence.

Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush, AP

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

ok, that's what I have for now. enjoy the reading.

a response to a response

I spent a lot of time writing about multiracialism over the past few posts- it's a topic I'm heavily invested in, obviously. I was discussing it with a friend who brings up a very good point.

Their response was in regards to the fact that Barack even considers himself black because, as quoted in TIME magazine:

"If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," he told Charlie Rose,
"they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed race guy.'"

That's a valid point, but it's missing the heart of what I'm trying to say. This is probably my fault for a number of reasons: firstly, because I used examples like Barack Obama and Becca and never related it to my own, personal struggle; that might help to understand what's going on inside my head right now. Secondly, I never took the time to explain it- I don't know how I didn't in 3 posts, but I'll take the time to explain my exact point of view in a 4th post.

So, you'll notice that when I talk about multiracial issues, I talk about it as an identity. Your identity is about who you are and how you define yourself.

As a society, one of the problems that we have is we leave those definitions up to other people. Race, in particular, has become nothing but an external identifying factor.

I just went to the ECAASU conference at Cornell (the East Coast Asian American Student Union) and there was a workshop I attended that focused on the idea of identity. We were given two forms to fill out, one asked about social identities (race, gender, sexuality, etc) and the other was about personal identity (talents, majors, favorite color, etc). The facilitators asked a good question: why, if we have a choice over the items in our personal identity, do we immediately identify with the social elements. Some of us discussed how it's easier that way because even though they're part of who we are, society pretty much gives us this identity... and we accept that.

I know the idea of empowerment seems idealistic and outdated, but I think it's the first step to reconnecting ourselves as a society as opposed to fragmenting each other into different social groups.

Knowing who you are, and presenting yourself as an individual, not as a color or a gender or a religion, or any other factor, is a first step towards social cohesion. And take note that I say it's only a first step, it obviously won't cure racism and other forms of discrimination. I can make it clear to my friends and acquaintances back home that I don't want to be labeled the "ethnic" girl or "ambiguous" girl, but will that stop a potential employer on judging me by the color of my skin or by the fact that I'm a female when I walk through the door of an interview? Will it help me to get strangers to stop asking if I speak english anytime I look confused? Will it help Obama catch a cab?

No, no, and no. But, I think we have all eventually come to realize that there is no single, simple solution to every problem. Solutions take time and they take the effort of many in a variety of ways. This is one that I'm offering: know who you are and own it.

Maybe you knew this about me, and maybe you didn't, but I'm just beginning to overcome my own struggles with racial identity.

I held it off for a long time. I held it off during elementary school when people would ask if I was adopted because I didn't look like the family that I lived with. I held it off during middle school when people first started becoming curious about race. I became aware of who I was in high school, and aware that others were aware too, and I still held it off.

I went from the suburbs where I was quickly championed as "ethnic girl" to Jersey City where I literally became an alien. I didn't conform to their perceptions of what a white girl from the suburbs was supposed to be... but I also wasn't one of them.

To be honest, I always felt less comfortable in the suburbs, where my home had been for most of my life. In the suburbs, people notice when you're not "one of them", but there's this odd feeling of hesitant acceptance.

In places like Jersey City, it's a more obvious process, but in the suburbs... it starts with the questions like "oh, what are you?" "oh, that's an interesting last name... where is it from?" "do you speak any other languages?". Probing questions that make me feel more like an object under a microscope than a real live human being trying to have a normal conversation.

If the topic comes up, I enjoy talking about it, but I'm not exaggerating when I say I've had complete strangers just ask me about it out of nowhere. And it makes me uncomfortable.

But, in the end, I never had to claim a racial identity, and that was a strange way of finding comfort in the situation. Let's be honest about the suburbs, no one is particularly comfortable talking about race--- white people. Generalization: most white people, who are surrounded by other white people most of the time, don't usually like to talk about race. It's uncomfortable, yeah?

This is simply stemming from my experience surrounded by suburbs and going to school with a significant amount of kids from the suburbs. You could claim this is a parallel to racism, and while I'm not proud of making generalizations, this is going to bring up the debate of nature versus nurture that I don't feel like getting into.


It is in this experience that the few white people who do talk about race around me, usually talk about it as a punchline for a joke. Or they are asking questions about my race. There have sadly been few exceptions (in my experience). It's an interesting topic with so many paths to explore, I wish there could always be an open dialogue.


So I guess that's why it was such a shock when I came to college that so many people were so willing to participate in an open dialogue about race-- and then I realized I wasn't hanging out with a lot of white kids.

Another blatant generalization, but oh well: When you are not white, race usually winds up becoming a huge part of who you are and the experiences you've had. Because you are always reminded of what it means to be not white.

And then I realized I would never be white. As much as my mother told me that I was, as much as I told myself I belonged in the suburbs, and that I fit into the suburban landscape- I realized I was in a situation just like Obama. No stranger, in the millisecond they use to judge me, is going to think "Oh there's a girl who is part-white from the suburbs."

As I started to hear a lot more people talk about their experiences, it started to make me think about my own. The questioning, the confusion, the probing... everything that came along with being multiracial. Including the effects that it had on my family and friends, and maybe they'd like to deny that there is one... but I see otherwise in some of their reactions.

I realized though, that one of the problems I was having with my friends and family concerning racial identity is that I never asserted one. I could not place myself into any of the neatly categorized boxes for racial identity that society has handed to me, and I left my identity open for society to decide.

It's not like others wouldn't judge me anyway, not like they would understand my multiracial identity without me having to explain it to them anyway.

But now, when I am discriminated against, when I am judged, I have an identity to fall back on. I know who I am. It makes it that much harder for someone to make me crack.

Because that's where I was headed. It's not that I didn't know that I was a multiracial girl, but I never really took the time to think about how that fact became a part of who I was.

So when people said I look like something else, or I act like a certain race, or I have "qualities" of a certain ethnicity, I let those perceptions make up my identity more than who I actually was. I became a question. And being a question can wear you down easily. Your identity is the first and last thing you have a hold onto in this life, and if you are unaware of what makes up that identity... what do you really have to keep you anchored?

This is why I stress the importance of being able to assert and claim a racial identity?
If you're black, be black, embrace it... but embrace it for the reasons you want. Be black how you identify it, not how society does for you.

I put a certain emphasis on white people within this blog, and that's because I've noticed a lot of white people running away from the idea of identifying as white. "it's boring" "it's nothing" "it has a negative identity to it". I want to change that. There is no reason that white people cannot be participants of a racial dialogue. In fact, I think it's necessary that this race- that ALL races- be a part of it. But, in order for that to happen successfully, most white people must come to understand what it means to be white. To identify as white.

And, obviously, the group I'm reaching out to the most is the multiracial group. It's a group that's growing quickly and group that is being dragged along through its development without any roots. I've noticed a lot of confusion and distress within this group because there's no real definition for it. Everytime one of us have to fill out an application , we're forced to compromise part of our identity-- or surrender our racial identity altogether by checking "none" or "other".

Maybe Obama identifies as black, maybe he has never connected to his white identity... as long as he owns that identity and doesn't let society shape it for him. You can't defeat racism by internalizing it. If Obama self-identifies as a black man and not societally identifies that way- then he has made that first step.

But maybe, for some multiracials, maybe for the Colombian-Jewish-Chinese-French-Malaysian-Native Americans, the Filipino-Irish-Colombian-French-Dutch-Vietnamese-Ecuadorian-Spanish-Chileans, or half black/half white individuals... it's just not that easy. Which box to choose?

Fuck boxes. Maybe, I will choose the Pacific Islander/Asian box on the application form... but I will carry out the rest of my day as a multiracial individual. When people ask "what" I am, that's what I will tell them. When some asshole at Newark Airport makes some racist comment based on his personal assumption that I'm an Arab girl, I will tell him that he's ignorant and THEN will assert my identity (and I did). At worst, the man remains an ignorant asshole, but at the very least I haven't let his ignorance chip away at my individuality and sense of self-identity.

Because that's all I have, and if I can't take ignorance away from society, I'm not going to allow society to take away identity from me.

why the hell has nobody been talking about this?

AT&T and Verizon are granted immunity for illegal wiretaps

but don't worry... we will be talking about this.

I've actually selected this as a research topic for the next few weeks, so there will be plenty to write about sooner or later.

But just ask yourselves one question, what are you willing to let others get away with in the name of "counter terrorism"? What are you willing to let others take away from you?

What are you willing to be bought and sold from you, without your agreement?

In a recent discussion, I found myself having to think about the ideas of coercion and consent and the relationship between the two ideas.

The thought then came to my head... fear has led us to believe- has coerced us to believing that there are some areas where consent doesn't exist. Where we're told and we do and there is never a second thought.

Now I reflect on that thought and wonder what the idea of freedom really means. Who were we kidding when we decided to claim the title "the land of the free"? We knew it would never be that way. It never has been.

So what freedoms are we willing to give up in order to function as a society?

I'm not sure where I'm headed with this, but I'll come to it. Think about it in the mean time.

a conclusion without any conclusions

Just because you ask a lot of questions, doesn't mean you get any answers.

In the past 2 blogs, I've been asking why we call Barack Obama black and why we can't embrace his multiracial identity.

Throughout my research, and in my own experiences, I've come across several arguments against 'multiracial' as a unique identity.
1. it challenges the belief that race should be eliminated as an identifying factor
2. it takes away from established minority groups
3. it's too specific, too accommodating
4. who is multiracial? where do we draw the line?

I want to walk through these arguments and answer a few questions from the previous post. Hopefully you'll come away with new perceptions of multiracial identity.

Argument One: Multiracial identity challenges the belief that race should be eliminated as an identifying factor.

We live in a time and a society where we have convinced ourselves that we are 'colorblind'. I never really thought much about this term until the Whiteness class I took last semester.

It's a bullshit term. The point of eliminating racism and racial stereotypes is not to ignore the differences in cultures and appearances, but to embrace these differences without fear or judgment.
As I originally pointed out, we do care about race, we care about it more than we're willing to admit to ourselves. If you don't believe me, let me know and I'll walk you through some experiments to prove you wrong.
And don't think you get a free pass just because you're not white.
Racial categorizations still exist. People, within America, at least, identify with their race more often than not- even if its the white kids from the suburbs that I always hear saying that they have "no race".

So the point of claiming a multiracial identity for myself and others of mixed races is not to emphasize racial categorization but to find a place within these categories without feeling so alienated.
When people look at me, I can sense they're placing me into one of two categories: suburban or ethnic. Suburban is defined as someone who could pass for white, but probably isn't. Suburbans can 'act' white and usually have many white friends. Ethnic is someone who could pass for anything. These aren't really stable enough categorizations for one to cling to, especially since it all depends on who is looking at you and what they see.

The reality of social situations is that people of similar backgrounds often find comfort in each other. This is typically referred to as the "lunch table dilemma" for multiracial kids. Consider your high school and college experiences, groups were often formed of similar racial and ethnic backgrounds. It just happens.

So where does the multiracial kid place him or herself in these type of racial breakdowns? Are they too black? Are they not white enough? Are they too ambiguous?
I've detached myself from relating to any of the races that make me up and I've come to realize how much people identify with their race. As I hang out with other white kids, asian kids, hispanic kids... there's that one piece of connection that I am missing with them.

This was a long winded answer, but in conclusion: the belief that race is being eliminated as an identifying factor is just plain bs.

Argument Two: Multiracial identity takes away from established minority groups

That's kind of a poor way to phrase the argument, but I couldn't find the right words to piece it together. There's a few different elements to this argument that I hope I can clarify by the time I'm done with my response.

When Barack Obama first announced his presidential campaign, many were in awe at the potential of a black president. Earlier in his campaign, many tried to clarify the fact that he was biracial, not black. In response, there was outrage that the media was trying to take away from his blackness- that essentially, because Barack was a high political figure now, they wanted him to be more white than black.

When I try and steer people away from labeling me as "ethnic" or "suburban" I usually get somewhat of a similar response. People ask me if I'm trying to be special when I say that I'm more than just white. Or they ask if I'm trying to "whiten myself up" to help myself succeed in society.

No one is trying to do anything in asserting a multiracial identity. It's just the truth. I'm not white, I'm not asian, and I'm not hispanic. I'm none of these, but I'm all of them.

The 2000 census was the first time on a standard application form that individuals were allowed to check more than one box in the race category. Originally, they were considering adding a 'multiracial' category, but the feedback was entirely negative. Many groups such as the NAACP opposed this categorization because they felt it would decrease the amount of Americans identifying themselves as black or hispanic or etc. I'm not saying that that's a good or bad thing, but that was the argument.

The race question was inititally added so that crimes based on racial discrimination would be easier to track- it was decided that adding multiracial would complicate these matters.

On a personal, legal, and societal sense... declaring this identity seems to cause many problems. So what do we do?

It's hard to find an initial category for these individuals and it's hard to create a category for these individuals.

Oh, and as a side note, I just want to clarify that even though I am affirming that yes, in fact, there are certain identity issues within multiracial individuals, please don't take away the belief from this writing that we barely know how to dress ourselves in the morning because we're so confused as to we are. It's not like that. It's prevalent, but not controlling.

There are just so many questions to ask in terms of the who, where, what why, and how of multiracial identity. So many questions, that many people don't even know how to define it.. which I guess leads to the last two arguments:

Argument Three and Four: Multiracial identity is too specific, too accommodating and who do we even define as multiracial? Where do we draw the line?

I think these two arguments are best combined together. I came across these two arguments and variations of them throughout my research for my paper last semester. There were actually books written on the topic.. "Challenging Multiracial Identity", for example.

One of the authors I was reading stated that should we accommodate multiracial individuals, we will start becoming too specific in our racial categorizations that any form of identity in general will render useless.

Bullshit.

This was specifically in reference to colleges creating multiracial clubs (much like an Asian Culture Club or an African Latino Society). The author seemed convinced that should we allow this multiracial club, soon we'd be hosting groups for people specifically of, let's say, Irish-Russian-Egyptian-Colombian descent.

Bullshit, again. I'm going to be honest that I don't even have a counter argument for this. In my mind it seems ridiculous, but if you can back this one up in a more convincing way.. please, I invite you to share your argument.

I've seen variations of this argument though that say it's kind of a slippery slope. Who belongs to the category of "multiracial"? How many generations can one go back in order to claim a multiracial identity? Say if someone's parents are black and they discover a white great great grandparent, are they multiracial? If we did that, we'd all be multiracial, of course. Racial categorizations would get out of control.

That's the argument. I think, based on a lot of the ways I've seen people identify with their race, I don't see many people following this path.

I believe that I mentioned in the first post that I've discovered that many of the same people who argue that multiracial identity is either too specific, or that it takes away from someone's asianness, or blackness, or whiteness.... will also argue that the one drop rule is out dated and racist.

So if the one drop rule is void within our society, what is the real argument against a multiracial identity? Why is this something we have been so opposed to? Even if the majority are not outright speaking against it, there's still a lack of effort to acknowledge its existence- despite the exponentially growing numbers of interracial marriages.

What is your solution to the problem of multiracial identity?
Based on what you know about me, how do you suggest I identify?

I don't have the answers, maybe you do...