I don’t often turn to Eminem for anti-racist analysis, but I think “The Way I Am” is actually the first source I encountered, and the most popular source for sure, with a critical take on community, national, and international responses to “school shootings” (this of course reflects my own upbringing and embeddedness in white culture, since Eminem is hardly the first artist to draw attention to the discrepancy). The lyrics in question are:
[…] And look where it’s at.
Middle America: now it’s a tragedy.
Now it’s so sad to see an upper class city
Having this happening.
The label “school shooting,” and the response to it, prescribe shock and grief in ways that the labels assigned to the gun-related deaths of children of colour and poor children, which are far more common in the US and the world over, do not. I’m not saying shock and grief are inappropriate responses to the shooting deaths of children (or adults), but the shock prescribed is because *these* children were supposed to be safe, *these* children were never supposed to witness this kind of violence, *these* parents were never supposed to feel that kind of fear. The implication held in the completely different response prescribed for “gang violence,” “perpetrators shot by police,” “high risk lifestyle,” “drug-related death,” etc. is that *those* children and *those* parents were never protected by the same expectation of safety. *Those* ones might even have deserved it.
Why does this matter? And why is the middle of the response to tragedy the appropriate time to bring it up? I’ll suggest three reasons:
1) In addition to gun control, progressive responses to this tragedy have identified accessible mental health care as something that could have prevented it. While anyone with a psychiatrized disability has to overcome almost-insurmountable systemic ableism to access mental health care, on the whole, middle class whites have the *most* access to health care. People of colour and the poor, especially in the US where health care is privatized, bear most of the burden of inaccessible health care systems. If we were to stop considering the violence experienced by children of colour and poor children — not only gun deaths, but the routine and systemic violences of racism and poverty, too — expected and normal, then what might solutions to the crisis of inaccessible health care look like?
2) Speaking of systemic racism and poverty, the premise that middle class white lives are inherently more valuable — that their loss is inherently more shocking, grieving, unexpected and unacceptable — is white supremacy and class war in action. As long as white supremacy and class war remain the dominant ideology of the white middle and upper classes, the associated belief that white middle and upper class boys are entitled to take others’ lives to maintain their status will remain intact. The only negotiation is whose lives: their girlfriends and wives? Their schoolmates? Their mothers? The lives of those employed to make consumer goods for them? The lives of sex workers, domestic workers, employees, Iraqis, Afghans, Haitians, Mexicans? The lives of prisoners?
3) These two positions of privilege, safety from violence and the entitlement to commit violence, are markers of status, wealth and power. The first, safety from violence, is unattainable for many people who don’t already have status, wealth and power. But the products of our culture relentlessly teach us, and especially young men, that being a violent person is a way to *get* status, wealth and power over others. Look at the way “school shooters” dress and behave: these are tropic images of masculinity and power and, while “video games caused it” is far too simplistic, they were not appropriated and acted on by young men in a void. Aggression and violence are imposed on boys and men from day one, and especially on boys and young men who have few or no other claims to economic or social power. If we cannot deconstruct the messages through which we confirm these two privileges as reserved only for a select few, we cannot prevent further violence. Our response to the “shock” of “school shootings,” in contrast with our response to the shootings of children of colour and poor children, is one such message.
Don’t get me wrong: what happened is very sad, I feel for the parents and families, and I can even understand why my friends who are utterly unconnected to the whole situation might have cried or hugged their children on hearing the news. I don’t think critique of the media and popular responses takes away from that. I think it recognizes the scope of the injustice in a way that being manipulated by media to act out particular responses in ways that best draw viewers for their advertisers without challenging the system upon which their advertisers’ profits are founded… well, it just doesn’t.
This is a reproduction of a post from December 14th 2012 on my blog at https://landing.athabascau.ca/profile/sarahma108
When war is instigated, it’s safe to assume an awful lot of people are about to get fucked. We all know, of course, that VD was an issue for men and women “overseas” at war throughout the 20th century (and still is now). A few of other things we know, of course, are that some men have sex with other men, sex is not always consensual, and rape (especially rape of racialized women) is a widely used and effective weapon in wars. These are important things to keep in mind as some of the realities that fall outside the limits of dominant discourse, so we can see more clearly the work done by discourse.
I have limited information about the posters below. They were all posted as a part of the “100 Years of Sex” campaign by The San Francisco City Clinic, but without information about when they were made, where, how widely they were distributed. And that’s why I say ‘dialogue,’ because I am reading them as evidence of an ongoing covnersation, not a chronologically developing statement. (There’s 100 posters there, one from each year the clinic has been open — totally worth checking out.)
As far as information about how to not get syphilis goes, this is pretty useless. Chances are, all of those men do not have syphilis (probably not the ones who are smiling, anyway — festering genital sore = frowny face), and even if they did, no one is going to catch it by dancing with them.
But that doesn’t mean dancing’s not dangerous business. This commentary, from the extreme end of the religious right, neatly captures the “trouble” with dancing:
Even back in the 1940s, my mother and her friends—no doubt like millions of mothers all across the United States—had pushed me and dozens of my classmates to attend “dancing school”—where we were taught to dance face to face and chest to chest with young girls barely entering their puberty. We were just little children who wanted to play baseball and “kick the can.” God does not forbid dancing, of course, but He does command us to “flee sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Why did our mothers push us into the kind of semi-romantic, semi-sexual behavior involved in that kind of dancing when we were only twelve years old?
The commentary is about violence against women and its causes (and it’s about as useful as the poster is for preventing syphilis). First syphilis, now violence: dancehalls can’t catch a break in this post. Dancing is sexy, so I’ll give them that much, but the poster has more to say. Amy Leigh writes:
[…] as the United States struggled with the ethical and racial issues surrounding jazz music in the early twentieth century, legal boundaries, doctrine, and personal rights evolved to accommodate and embrace changing prevailing views. This co-existing development appears especially in the use of ordinances, zoning laws, and restrictive covenants as weapons to insulate middle- and upper-class white communities from the “evils” thought to exist in black communities, red-light districts, and dance halls. Prevailing community ideals held that the goals of maintaining a white, middle-class homogeneity and a proper moral environment suited for childrearing justified all efforts to segregate blacks in American cities.
Public health discourse, like zoning law, is a way that governments can attempt to regulate people’s movements. After all, the poster doesn’t say “women: don’t fuck,” it says to stay not only out of, but entirely away from dancehalls. The men in the poster may all be white (and that helps to target an audience of white women), but the syphilis-infected men dancing with white women in the cultural imagination probably were not.
That the men are evidently returning ‘home’ from ‘away’ — we see them exiting a train — makes this a story of men’s movement as well, referencing the sexual threat of conquest and pillage (the mission just completed, where we must assume the men picked up the VD) and, because it is a racialized message in the US, the lingering exoticized foreignness of racialized masculinity. (I need to know a word for “un-citizenship,” btw. What do I mean by un-citizenship? Consider the zillion of so citizens who can’t vote because of their “criminal” records. There’s citizenship on paper, and then there’s citizenship in practice)
Sexual threat brings us pretty neatly to the next image, a picture of Donald Duck, who would be having a super-good day if only he had a condom. Also, he would be raping someone, but ‘the West’ has always had, and still has, a pretty fucked up discourse around sexual assault and sexual consent. That doesn’t make it ok, just unsurprising. (Just because it really can’t go without saying, having sex with someone who is asleep is rape, regardless of where she’s sleeping, how she came to pass out, and what she’s wearing at the time. Not being on guard against rapists 24/7 is not an invitation for sex.)
Whiteness, once again, is a funny thing in conversations about disease and sexual threat. Donald Duck is a soldier in this image, stationed somewhere where tropical plants grow. I don’t know if ducks can be ‘white,’ but I’ve never seen Donald Duck pictured as other than white. The woman napping under the plants is pictured as an alluring and vulnerable white woman. Despite the fact that Donald Duck is considering raping the woman, it’s her body, not his, that’s cast as a sexual threat: she might have VD. Given our cultural myths about rape, we might even assume she’s promiscuous — she is, after all, ‘asking for it’ — so then, according to many of the posters on the site, she definitely has VD.
But the reality this poster is interacting with is one where soldiers stationed in the global South have sex with (and rape) women who are not white. And if the poster had shown a racialized woman napping under a bush, with Donald Duck poised to rape her, if only he could do so without risk to himself, well, that story would resonate almost perfectly with the history of American imperialism. It’s not quite a “don’t rape” message, but it’s definitely a warning, casting racialized women’s bodies as simultaneously absent and threatening: to the integrity of male American soldiers and, in the dialogue between the poster and the reality it speaks to, to white women’s privileged desirability.
The ‘exotic’ plants place this threat ‘far away,’ but of course, as American soliders impregnate racialized women in far away places, we have every reason to fear migration.
Speaking of fear, Hitler is very scary. So is that other guy, who might be Hirohito, but, as it now occurs to me, I really don’t know anything about the Japanese leadership during World War 2 (or at any other point in history, for that matter), so it could be some other commander-type whose face was familiar to Americans. I wonder why Japanese leaders never became iconic in the same way as Hitler did, but I suppose that’s best left unanswered, as it’s quite off-topic.
We can repeat the dialogue above about sexual threat and threatening sexualities, taking note in this case the construction of women’s bodies specifically as weapons in war, instrumental to the political (and musical?) designs of these caricatures of fascism. This instrumentality contradicts the real use of women’s bodies in war, as people who can be raped to establish dominance over an ‘enemy’ population. (Have I mentioned rape enough in this post? That’s because war is super rapey. Hey, Canada’s at war in Afghanistan right now. And we’ve been occupying Haiti for, like, ever. We should probably be talking regularly about how frequently women involved in war in any way, as soldiers or as civilians, are sexually assaulted.)
Anyway. The next two posters mark a shift in the conversation we’ve been following.
This looks like an aircraft carrier, and the higher production value and inclusion of technology in the image suggest a later date than the others, but who knows? (Does someone know? I think it would be fascinating to be able to arrange this dialogue chronologically without my half-baked guesswork.)
This is my favourite (in the sense of “I’m excited to deconstruct this,” not “this is a good STI-prevention tool”) of the posters I pulled from the site because the movement of sexual threat from sexualized remediated bodies to sexualized space and place is so apparent. The weather vane indicates that “whereever you go” is a movement from North and West to South and East, identifying the trajectories of invasion and occupation in American imperialism, even as its consistency with the viewer’s gaze helps to normalize them. The sexualized threat isn’t women’s bodies, but the places themselves, characterizing the global ‘East’ and ‘South’ as always and already infected: a discourse reflective of American views on ‘foreign’ (and the exceptional ‘homegrown,’ always said with surprise as if to entrench its natural foreignness) terrorism, fascism, primitivism and communism, but also one that negates the infectious nature of Western military and economic movement around the world. (Think of american army bases and McDonalds restaurants popping up like clusters of herpes blisters, while violence and hunger cause suffering in those same places. Capitalism is the ultimate opportunistic infection.)
So, last but not least, we come to the point of the VD dialogue. What, if sexuality and bodies aren’t necessarily connected in discourse, are we protecting? And in the weird imperial dialogue of VD, the ‘citizen’ finally makes an appearance among all the infected un-citizens. He’s an interesting character: white and male, of course, and he’s a child, necessarily subjected to the rule of a higher authority. The citizen, in whose name we engage this weird discourse of sexual morality, sexual conquest and sexual threat, is a promise (or a dream) as much as a person; something we can work toward, but never embody.
This is a reproduction of a post from April 29th 2011 on my blog at https://landing.athabascau.ca/profile/sarahma108