jimuleda's posterous

Whiteness is always looking for sell outs to encourage people of colour to be passive.  Every once in awhile, they choose the wrong person, and it comes back to bite them directly in the ass. The Braves recently hosted a civil rights day in Georgia (I know, ironic considering their name), and they decided to honour Carlos Santana.   It seems that

Here is my third installment in pulling down random books from my shelves and writing about them, under the belief that the internet is better when not all of it comes from the internet.

Eugen Weber is a wonderful, sassy cultural historian. His best-known book is probably Peasants Into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1880-1914.

When I first moved to Philadelphia, one of my favorite things about staying up too late was catching episodes of his documentary series The Western Tradition on PBS at 3 AM. (Now you can stream the whole series free at Learner.org, which I just found out today.)

This is a passage from France Fin de Siecle, a really terrific book about art, culture, and literature in mid-to-late 19th-century France. And I swear to God, I think about this particular section all the time.

If one considers the scarceness of water and of facilities for its evacuation, it is not surprising that washing was rare and bathing rarer. Clean linen long remained an exceptional luxury, even among the middle classes. Better-off buildings enjoyed a single pump or tap in the courtyard. Getting water above the ground floor was rare and costly; in Nevers it became available on upper floors in the 1930s. Those who enjoyed it sooner, as in Paris, fared little better.

Baths especially were reserved for those with enough servants to bring the tub and fill it, then carry away the tub and dirty water. Balzac had referred to the charm of rich young women when they came out of their bath. Manuals of civility suggest that this would take place once a month, and it seems that ladies who actually took the plunge might soak for hours: an 1867 painting by Alfred Stevens shows a plump young blonde in a camisole dreaming in her bathtub, equipped with book, flowers, bracelet, and a jeweled watch in the soap-dish. Symbols of wealth and conspicuous consumption.

In a public lecture course Vacher de Lapouge affirmed that in France most women die without having once taken a bath. The same could be said of men, except for those exposed to military service. No wonder pretty ladies carried posies: everyone smelled and, often, so did they.

Teeth were seldom brushed and often bad. Only a few people in the 1890s used toothpowder, and toothbrushes were rarer than watches. Dentists too were rare: largely an American import, and one of the few such things the French never complained about. Because dentists were few and expensive, one would find lots of caries, with their train of infections and stomach troubles, it is likely that most heroes and heroines of nineteenth-century fiction had bad breath, like their real-life models.

Yep. That's why we call them "the unwashed masses."

It wasn't until the twentieth century that most people took a bath, washed their underwear, flushed a toilet, saw their own reflection in a mirror, or stopped dying at atrocious rates every time they gave birth to a child. How's that mistake looking now, Werner?

In the center of this picture is my Great Grandmother, Adalene. I was quite young when she died, but I do remember her, frail and white-haired, threatening to spank me. I didn’t believe her, and was duly surprised at what came next.

This picture pleases me.  It reminds me that women always had heart and spunk.  That we’re all young once.  That we’re not so “advanced” today; women were always awesome.

This is why the title of Buzzfeed‘s framing of a photographs of women basketball teams from the 1900s is so disappointing:

Liz Babiarz, who sent in the link, asks what’s so funny.  I have to agree.  They aren’t “strangely funny”; they’re awesomely awesome!

Many more at Buzzfeed.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

This is the story of one ratchet bytch here….

A couple who lost custody of their baby daughter to her surrogate mother have been ordered to hand over more than £500 a month maintenance for the child.

Today they spoke of their disgust that they would be forced to pay for someone else to raise the child they will never see.

The father, a leading chef, said the decision by the Child Support Agency ‘added insult to injury’ and that he would appeal against it.

He and his wife, who had suffered six late-stage miscarriages including four sets of twins, used a surrogacy website to find a single mother of two on benefits who was willing to carry the baby they longed for.

They made an informal agreement to pay her £10,000 in expenses.

But halfway through the pregnancy she decided she wanted to keep the baby and a judge ordered that the woman, who was also the biological mother, could keep the child despite her earlier promise.

The couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs W to protect the child’s identity, later relinquished their contact rights because they said it would be too difficult emotionally and that it was unfair for the baby to be split between two homes.

They allowed the surrogate, known as Miss N, to keep the £4,500 they had already given to her.

But now Mr W must also pay £568 in child support every month as the biological father of the eight-month-old girl.

‘She cannot say, “I am keeping your child and now you must pay for it”,’ he said. ( kind of how the whole child-support ish works here in the states.  but that is another story)

‘She has taken away our baby and now she is taking our money. To me, that is completely wrong. The CSA has made the decision as if we were a couple who had broken up, but our situation is unique.

‘We were not having a baby together, we had agreed for her to carry a child for myself and my wife.

‘I have written to Downing Street and my MP to call for a change in the law.’

Mr W said he now suspected it may have been Miss N’s plan all along to have a child with a wealthy man from whom she could claim child support over the next 18 years.

‘We should have seen the signs when she started asking for more than we had agreed. I don’t think this was ever about her suddenly wanting to keep the baby, I think this was about getting an income.’ ( kind of like a chick who purposely gets knocked up by a pro-athelete…but that’s another story for another day-slaus)

The chef said he would feel more comfortable paying for vouchers which could be redeemed on food and clothing than money which would not necessarily go towards the child. (…kiiind of like how men keep tryint to petition the courts for here in the states but. thaaaaaat’s another story for another day -slaus)

‘If I need to pay £500 a month because otherwise the child will be living in poverty then that is another reason why the baby should be with us. We would have given her all the things she needed.’

Mrs W, who is in her late 30s, had cancer of the womb in her 20s and complications from surgery meant it was difficult for her to carry a baby to full term.

After she and her husband contacted her via a website, Miss N agreed to be inseminated with Mr W’s sperm, meaning they were both the baby’s biological parents.

But the relationship between the two parties turned sour after Miss N apparently began asking for more money.

Three months before the baby was due, she sent a text message to the couple to say she was keeping the child.

In July last year she gave birth to baby T and a bitter six-month custody battle ensued.

Miss N accused Mr W of being violent towards his wife, which the couple denied. They accused Miss N of neglecting her sons and of living in a filthy home.

In January, in a rare case, Miss N was awarded custody after a judge deemed it was in the child’s best interests because there was a ‘clear attachment’ between the mother and daughter.

At the time, Mr Justice Baker warned that the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement were ‘very considerable’.

Surrogacy agreements are not legally binding in court, even with a formal written contract.

It is illegal to profit from  surrogacy but ‘reasonable expenses’ are permitted. [source]

My heart trulllly goes out to these people. They have tried over and over to simply start a family only to then be taken advantage of and then raped over the rails for the next 18 years.

Truly sad that anyone would wrench at the soul of another human being like this. Terrible.

Thanks to Wildwhuck for the sending this in..and just shyttin on a nice day.

In this hilarious two minute video, twin toddlers practice having a conversation. They don’t really know words, but they know HOW to do it. They’ve figured out how to sound sure of themselves, how to sound inquisitive, how to gesticulate, how to aim their efforts at a second person, and how to take turns. They’ve learned, in other words, the rules of talking to another person, even before they’ve learned how to talk. A fun example of socialization.

For more really great examples of children learning to act like grown ups, see our posts on the baby worshipper, the baby preacher, and the baby Beyonce.

Via Blame it on the Voices.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

[Cross-posted at Prison Culture]

Recently an article by Rachel Pfeffer titled “In Post-Racial America, Prisons Feast on Black Girls” has been making the rounds on social media. I am glad to see the attention that it has garnered. I hope that this attention translates to action. The article opens with these words:

African American girls and young women have become the fastest growing population of incarcerated young people in the country. Efforts to stop mass incarceration focused on black girls are almost nonexistant in government policy, the media, foundations and academia.

A recent study by Moore and Padavic points to how black girls are discriminated against in the juvenile justice system:

“As expected, compared to White girls, Black girls received more severe dispositions even after taking into account the seriousness of the offense, prior records, and age. This finding provides evidence of Black-White racial bias in the juvenile justice system. Hispanic girls, in contrast, were not disadvantaged vis-a-vis White girls.”

The authors acknowledge that their finding that Hispanic girls do not receive harsher punishment than their white peers is surprising in light of previous research that has pointed to Hispanic girls’ disadvantage (Miller, 1994). Other studies have found that 7 out of 10 cases involving White girls are dismissed, compared with only 3 of every 10 cases involving Black girls (Girls Incorporated, 2007, p.3).

Suffice it to say, Moore and Padavic’s research does confirm what we already knew anecdotally: black girls are discriminated against in the juvenile justice system. African American girls bear the brunt of multiple systems of oppression – racism, sexism, and poverty — and among girls, are at greatest risk of entering the juvenile justice system, as well as being treated more harshly once in the system.

I have worked with black girls for over 20 years now. I worked in grassroots organizations dedicated to addressing their needs, I have been on the board of several nonprofits that have focused on girls’ issues, and I have been an adult ally for over 8 years to a youth-led organization of mostly black girls here in Chicago.

A few years ago, I developed and ran a workshop for young black girls using Lil’ Kim as a window for opening up discussion about their own identities and inner lives. I ran this program for several weeks with my friend Francesca. It held some promise and I hope to return to it in the near future. This time, I want to include more discussion about the criminalization of black girls in the workshop. I also want to make the literacy improvement aspect of the workshop more explicit. In other words, a large part of the new workshop will be devoted to us reading together.

Sociologist (actually social psychologist) Charles Cooley invented the concept of the “looking glass self” and that idea is what animates my interest in Lil’ Kim. Cooley emphasized that other people represent the mirror or looking glass through which we perceive ourselves. This idea has significant implications for young Black women who seem to be particularly despised within the culture. In fact, I once read an interview conducted of R & B singer Jill Scott where she spoke about the general disregard with which Black women are treated in American society. She is quoted in Essence Magazine (August 2004) as saying: “Black women. We are so out of style…the problem is, it doesn’t seem like anybody’s loving sisters anymore. What happened?.”

A 2004 study by MEE productions found that:

“Black females are dissed by almost everyone. Young African American females hold little status within their communities, reflected in the name-calling and devaluing of young girls. Not only do males not trust females, but overwhelmingly, girls reported that they do not even trust each other.”

The sense that nobody loves Black women and young black ones in particular is pervasive. It is not surprising then to find that black girls who are considered disposable by everyone find themselves increasingly criminalized in the culture.

Tomorrow, I will post some reflections from the Lil’ Kim Workshop that Francesca and I facilitated in 2007. As I refine that workshop and hopefully run it again this Fall, I hope to continue to blog about it here. I welcome any ideas that readers want to share for the workshop curriculum.

Note: Here is a more involved definition of the Looking Glass Self concept that I referenced above:

Looking Glass Self- the process of developing a self-image on the basis of the messages we get from others, as we understand them. There are three components to the looking glass self: 1.We imagine how we appear to others; 2. We imagine what their judgment of that appearance must be; 3. We develop some self-feeling, such as pride or mortification, as a result of our imagining others’ judgment.

Matthew Pillischer has just completed a new documentary about race and criminal justice in that is worth checking out. Here’s a trailer for the film (6:58):

The film includes an interview with Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, which we’ve written about here before. While most third year law students are busy studying for the bar exam, Matthew Pillischer found time to produce and direct a documentary film about this important social justice issue. I don’t know how he did that, but I’m glad he did as his film promises to bring this important issue to a much wider audience.