Not the kind of race I mean

I was recently having a conversation with a number of artistic peers, discussing the impact of our personal and community histories on our art and artistic process. I don’t remember who the question was raised by, but the group consisted of a mix of racial/ethnic/gender/sexual identities, making for good conversation.

In general we all agreed that our various personal and community histories – of religion, race, ethnicity, language, geography, class, sexuality, gender, and so on and on and on and on – played a factor in how we approached creating art. While it was a great conversation, and fodder for more discussion, I’m less interested in that than in something which happened after.

During the conversation, I said, “It’s been interesting going from presenting as part of a strong, privileged group – white, heterosexual, male – to an oppressed group: queer, trans, female.  I try to both be conscious of and artistically honor that oppression while being aware of the privilege I still do posses.”

Then, while giving someone a ride home – who identifies as black, female, lesbian – she turned to me and said, “Your comment really surprised me, since I don’t think of you as white.”

What?

She continued saying that my olive complexion doesn’t meet her idea of ‘white’ness. And it’s true. At various points, I’ve been thought to be Hispanic, American Indian, India-subcontinent-Indian, Pacific Islander, Italian, Arab, and – most humorously – ‘ethnic looking.’ (I shit you not. By a photographer wanting diversity in a high school photo shoot. She didn’t intend for me to hear.) My mom jokes that, when she came back from summer vacation when I was young and we spent every day at the beach, the (very dark-skinned) custodian at her school would come up to her and say “You could be my daughter!” I’m not too pasty even in the dead of winter.

But not white?

The friend who said all this felt that, in some ways, the more old-school way of looking at race was more accurate. Race, she said, is more of a subdivision of culture and geography than a huge lumping together of sort-of-similar skin tones. So, she concluded, Jewish people weren’t white.

There is certainly historical precedence for her opinion: “among those not considered white at some points in American history have been: the Irish, Germans, Jews, Italians, Spaniards, white Hispanics, Slavs, and Greeks.” But she didn’t mean that I wasn’t white in  racist way, as a justification for discrimination, just in an observational way.

It reminded me of a story I heard at a storytelling conference. A black woman was talking about her experience as a voter’s rights activist in Chicago in the 1960s. She apparently pissed off the the wrong people in the Chicago machine and  so her dad said she had to leave Chicago for a little while: white people were out to get her. He was going to send her to Israel to stay with some friends, because “Jews aint white.”

I’ve been thinking a lot about all this for the past week, particularly as I just finished the excellent book Constantine’s Sword, which covers the 2,000 year relationship between Judaism and the Catholic Church. Hopefully that’ll be the subject of another post one of these days.

But back to race. Googling “are jews white” doesn’t offer much help. An interesting take on genetic information. An essay from Majority Rights, a site which “discusses various issues related to the preservation of Western culture and the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) of people of European ancestry.” I do, however, like “Jews and the Problem of Whiteness,” which discusses community relations between Jewish and Black populations through the lens of race. From that essay:

As Lerner points out, Jewish whiteness “is the privilege to renounce one’s Judaism. By and large the way to get into this system is to take off your kippah, cut off your beard, hide your fringes; in other words, to reject your entire cultural and religious humanity.” I seek to empathize, here, as my previous discussion of the sociological passing of blacks should indicate. Nonetheless, the Jewish option to be white, however difficult, has been exercised widely.

That’s a good summary of why the idea of my not being white kind of surprised me. The history of Jewish oppression is absolutely a history of racism, of othering, of bigotry. It shares lots with the racism which impacts people of color. But I have at least somewhat adequate passing privilege (how I hate that term!) as white. Part of that, admittedly, has to do with geography: how I’m perceived as white versus Jewish would probably be different in different parts of the country, and of the world. My mom and my brother have both talked about living in smaller communities where their Judaism was strange or exotic. My dad has told me about going to civil rights marches in Chicago’s northern suburbs, where families had signs on the lawn reading “No dogs, blacks, or Jews.”

It seems like the ‘whiteness’ of Jews depends on perspective. That makes me remember a page from my high school year book. The editors had surveyed students from different Chicago-area high schools and asked them what they thought of Evanston, a very diverse community, and its high school, which has a huge range of student academic achievement. Everyone north of Evanston (generally more wealthy suburbs) saw Evanston as “ghetto” and dangerous. Everyone south (generally less wealthy, in Chicago proper) saw Evanston as rich, white, privileged.

The idea of racial identity changing with geography is fascinating to me. That, growing up in Chicago, I’m white. Growing up in Generic Small Town, I might not have been perceived as white. Or identified my own race as something other than white. And how much identity depends on other people, as a reference for ones self.

I’ll leave you with this chart:

– First, simply put, what advice do you have for students interested in writing about sex or social issues that fall within the sex, sexual health or gender realms?

– What are the keys to uncovering or brainstorming related story ideas??

– Something a student asked me the other day that I wanted to get your take on… Are there any sexual clichés, topic areas or tired story narratives that you look out for and immediately kill or attempt to spin fresh?

– What has been a particularly memorable moment for you as a journalist– during your student or professional days?  A few lessons learned? 

He’s also dropping me from 6mg/day to 4 of estradiol. His thought is that my estrogen (~4,500, literally an order of magnitude higher than it should be) coupled with my testosterone (a reasonably low 12) means that A) I can afford to drop estrogen more without impacting my testosterone levels, body hair, mood, etc, and B) dropping estrogen might actually help with my anxiety and depression.

This isn’t new info, but he also gave me a temporary perscrption of klonopin, a much stronger anti-anxiety medication. The idea is that I’ll use that to keep me sane for the next week or two, until the reduced estradiol and increased lexapro kicked in.

Fingers crossed, cuz what I’m experiencing right now fucking sucks.

In fact, I’d say part of what has been so stressful and unpleasant about the last week has been being so aware of being so ‘off.’ My brain isn’t working as quickly as it should be, I’m not as able to think straight as I normally am, I’m overall feeling fuzzy and it takes a large amount of effort to really bring my consciousness to focus on a task. Since all of those are important things to me, their (temporary) loss is getting to me, above and beyond the actual symptoms, into a really awful feedback loop: stress -> realization of stress -> more stress, and so on.

(For the record, I do think this discussion and disagreement is newsworthy, I just think it’s really poor reporting to reprint a biased self-written press release supporting a specific position. So I’m not opposed to the Sacramento Bee reporting something,  just on how they chose to report.)

Lets define apartheid first. According to the International Criminal Court (according to Wikipedia…)  apartheid is defined as a crime against humanity:

committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

Admittedly, lots of countries haven’t signed on to the document with this definition, because they aren’t members of the International Criminal Court: the US, Canada, and most of Western Europe. Likewise, a definition created in the 1970s was not signed onto by the US and others. The US Ambassador  at the time said, “[W]e cannot…accept that apartheid can in this manner be made a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are so grave in nature that they must be meticulously elaborated and strictly construed under existing international law…”

But whether or not there’s an agreed upon legal definition, I think that definition – of systematic oppression by one racial group, over another, with the purpose of maintaining the former’s regime – seems generally agreed upon. (Though feel free to disagree in the comments.) But is Israel committing acts of apartheid against the Palestinians?

From Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA, and obviously a biased source, but I need to start somewhere):

Israel is a country founded on the idea of different rights for different people, based on race. The first difference is that Jews, wherever they live, have the right to “return” to Israel, but the Palestinians who were expelled from their homes in 1948 do not have this right; in fact, they are explicitly denied Israeli citizenship, and denied the right to return to their homes. This is racist.

The second form of apartheid is the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which denies Palestinians living on those territories full political rights, even while Israelis living there have full political rights in Israel. (The political rights of citizens of the Palestinian Authority, like the rights of apartheid South Africa’s bantustans, are empty and of no effect.) The apartheid wall, which cuts Palestinian communities off from each other and creates tiny Palestinian enclaves; the hundreds of checkpoints Palestinians have to cross to travel their own land; and the different access to highways, water, and land accorded to Jews and non-Jews are all forms of apartheid. Gaza is an open-air prison whose inhabitants live in constant misery because of the illegal Israeli siege.

The third form of apartheid is in the different treatment of Palestinians inside Israel proper. While Jews hold Jewish nationality, so-called “Israeli Arabs” have a separate category of citizenship – Israeli citizenship. Palestinian communities in Israel proper are consistently underserviced by government in relation to the rest of population, and because most Palestinians refuse to serve in the occupation army, they are denied many educational and employment opportunities. (Emphasis added)

My limited understanding of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is that all three claims are true. That said, it’s really hard to go from action to intent; that is, I agree with QuAIA’s analysis of Israel’s actions, but I’m hesitant to go the step further and say those actions are specifically carried out with the intent of subjugating Palestinians, something which seems to be necessary to move from “acting like an asshole” to “imposing an apartheid regime.”

For those who are interested, Wikipedia has a fascinating list of folks who support calling Israel’s actions apartheid (including the UN, Jimmy Carter, and others) as well as arguments criticizing the analogy.

What really pisses me off, though, is how Michael Lucas and others equate “criticism of Israel” with “antisemitism,” something that causes me no end of frustration. Being critical of Israel – even saying straight out “Israel is stupid and should be dissolved, because religious states are inherently problematic” – is not antisemitism! Antisemitism is specifically anti-Judaism, and Judaism and the State of Israel should not be viewed as equivalent.

So there.

The QuAIA FAQ also has a really interesting answer to “Do you support Israel’s right to exist?”

It’s hard to answer this question without making clear what exactly it means. For example, when apartheid ended in South Africa, did South Africa cease to exist? Or did only apartheid South Africa cease to exist? Did apartheid South Africa have a right to exist? Does Canada have the right to exist? Do states, in general, have the right to exist? Or is this a right that only people and peoples have?

It is a strange and specious wording, superficially plausible, that originates with and is used by defenders of apartheid Israel to frame the debate in a tendentious way. The phrasing does not come from any left-wing group that criticizes Israel on the basis of human rights, justice, and equality. The question is, does Israel recognize the Palestinians’ right to exist as a people? The answer reflected in Israel’s every deed on the ground seems to be NO.

We support any solution in which all citizens — Jewish, Arab, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise — have full legal and political equality in a secular democracy, and in which Palestinians have the right to return to their homes. We do not support any state in which different people have different rights based on their race or religion. That is why we are called “Queers against Israeli Apartheid”. (Bold added, italics from the original)

I love this answer, and it’s honestly never one that occurred to me before: States shouldn’t have rights, people should. (QuAIA also talks about whether or not being anti-Israel is antisemitic. Check out their thoughts on that, too.)

In the end, I’m hesitant to say “Yes, Israel is engaging in apartheid.” I’d want more evidence of ideological racism (like what existed in South Africa). From what I can see right now, Israel is absolutely engaging in really apartheid-like actions, but – giving them the benefit of the doubt – those actions may be performed under honest (if misguided) beliefs of security and safety.

At the same time, the way this discussion has been taking place makes me even more skeptical of Israel’s claim of a moral high ground.

And I was pretty skeptical already.

Picking on Israel went really well for the aggressors...

Following my last post, I’ve been trying to do some research to figure out why Obama’s urging to use the 1967 Israel borders as a starting point was a bad thing, and why it pissed off Israel (and a bunch of other folks). Here’s what I’ve been able to figure out.

In 1967, Israel was attacked (again…) by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in the Six Day War, so called because that’s how long it took for Israel to kick everyone else’s ass and over double its territory. That’s right: Israel was invaded and ended up with more land than it started with. Specifically, Israel ended up with the Sinai Peninsula (since returned to Egypt), the Gaza Strip (which Israel has already pretty much withdrawn from), the West Bank (which Israel has also basically said they’re wiling to part with, even though Jewish settlers keep making new settlements), East Jerusalem (which Israel is most emphatically not willing to part with and no one seriously expects them to), and the Golan Heights (which is, as far as I can tell, the biggest point of contention concerning the 1967 borders). For more info, check out Wikipedia’s page on Israeli-occupied territory.

But even the use of the word “borders” is making some people upset. Someone on Twitter sent me this link, which talks about how the map to the right describes armistice lines following the 1967 Six Day War, not mutually agreed upon borders of a cohesive, internationally recognized and legit state. And, apparently, the pre-1967 borders/lines/whatever were really just the result of the cessation of hostilities in 1948, when soldiers (mostly) stopped shooting at each other for the next two decades. (Noticing a pattern here?)

As far as I can find, the outrage over Obama’s comments, from right wing US politicians as well as Israel, is pretty much manufactured. This has been the US’s official position for the last 20+ years, and shouldn’t have surprised anyone. But is it a good position? That, not surprisingly, is much more difficult to determine.

From what I can tell, a big part of the problem is that Obama didn’t really push for a tit-for-tat exchange. That is, he suggested Israel give up the land it acquired in 1967, without pushing for the Palestinians to give up the right of return. Basically, Palestinians want the ability for those who were either forced from their land or fled during conflicts to be able to come back and/or receive financial reparations. Some additionally want for descendants of said refugees to have the same rights. In total, that’d make for between one and four million Palestinians (very vague estimates) who could claim the right of return. Lots of folks are saying “Fine, Israel needs to give up some significant chunks of territory, but not without the Palestinians renouncing the right of return. Obama didn’t call for the Palestinians to do so, and thus screwed the pooch.”

I’m extraordinarily conflicted on the legitimacy of the Right of Return. On the one hand, if the Palestinians were driven out by Israel, that’s pretty bogus. On the other hand, Israel has (reasonably) said “Hey, we didn’t drive them out, our neighbors started attacking us! If the Palestinians fled in 1948, or 1967, or 1972, the blame can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Arab nations who militarily invaded us.”

At the same time, the borders themselves (or armistice lines, chalk hopscotch courts, or whatever) or seem to be a sticking point, since Israel claimed in the late 1960s that

“We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz. We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history.”- Abba Eban, Israeli Statesman, in Der Spiegel, November 5, 1969 (Emphasis added)

Right, but you weren’t defeated. And then you weren’t defeated again in the 1970s Yom Kippur War. While talking about the memory of Auschwitz made sense in the 60s, I honestly thing that discussion (which people still bring up today) sounds much weaker 50 years later.

Meanwhile, the Israel has almost withdrawn from the Golan Heights in the past, until a disagreement over ~100 meters (really about whether Syria would get access to the freshwater Sea of Galilee) caused things to break down.

Oh, and lots of well-thought-of Israelis support the 1967 borders! So there isn’t some 100% universal agreement, even in Israel.

At the end of the day, it does seem like Obama committed a faux pas by calling for Israel to make concessions without saying the Palestinians would have to do the same. That said, Israel could have responded by saying “We’ll talk 1967 borders when Palestine talks about giving up the Right of Return.”

Instead, everyone jumped on Obama for being unreasonable, instead of acknowledging that, yes Virginia, Israel will need to make some concessions if it actually wants to move forward on a peace deal.

It was awesome.

About eight miles of walking, running, jogging, and HIDING!

The premise is that you – as a ‘runner’ – are trying to get from the starting point to the end point, stopping at checkpoints along the way to get a piece of paper stamped to prove you’ve been there. As a runner, you have a blue ribbon on your arm. Chasers, wearing red ribbons, are scattered throughout the playing area, and if you’re caught by a chaser you have to give them your blue ribbon (as a trophy of sorts) and put on a red ribbon. Then you become a chaser, too.

The event covered all of the north-east side of Chicago, and Annie came up with a map of our route. We went at least eight miles total, and you weren’t allowed to use cars, taxis, or bikes. You could use public transit, but ran the risk of chasers catching you; being on transit was safe (as were train stations) but waiting for the bus was a risky proposition.

We made it to three of the six check-point, and were caught between #3 and #4, right around where the map says “N Broadway.” (For those of you familiar with Chicago, we were caught right outside the Dominicks on Broadway just south of Granville.)

After being caught, we wandered around trying to catch more folks. Annie and Eric (the guy who caught Annie and who we teamed up with as chasers) each caught a few people but I, alas, did not.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the exhaustion and pain on Sunday and Monday, it was totally worth it. TONS of fun, and highly recommended to similarly ridiculous folks.

From Lifehacker, some office yoga:

From Life on Michigan Avenue, 29 Ways to Stay Creative. I’m a fan of “Carry a notebook everywhere,” “Don’t give up,” and “Allow yourself to make mistakes.”

And another Lifehacker link, Top Ten Ways to Get Your Creative Juices Flowing. I need to do so much more of number four…

Haymarket Memorial Statue rededication

Today is May Day, celebrated just about everywhere but the United States as International Workers Day. The reason it’s today is 100% American, and 100% Chicago: the Haymarket marches in Chicago on May 1, 1886 drew somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 people and as workers around the country pushed for union rights, 8-hour work days, and other pro-labor positions. In the US, however, May Day is (and has historically been) associated with communism and socialism, meaning many Americans don’t know this important part of our history.

It feels particularly relevant to me, because my grandparents on my father’s side were active members of the Communist Party. Indeed, my grandfather was underground and on the run from the FBI during the 1950s. From his obituary in 1991:

In his 1985 autobiography, `Where the Action Is: Memoirs of a U.S. Communist,` Jack Kling recalled the optimism he felt in the early 1930s, when he was 20 years old and this nation was suffering through the Depression.

He wrote: `As an ardent and enthusiastic Young Communist League organizer, seeing the country in such upheaval, I was confident I would see communism replacing capitalism shortly, surely in not more than ten years at most!`

He then conceded: `While my timetable has been decimated, my belief in socialism has not.`

Today was also the rededication of the Haymarket memorial statue at Waldheim Cemetery, west of Chicago, where my grandparents are buried. I attended the rededication with my dad and his sister, my aunt. (More info on the statue can be found here.)

Not a flag you see every day...

I wasn’t totally sure what to expect. I’ve always had a somewhat idealized view of the labor movement, in large part because of my grandparents’ involvement. At the same time, the stories my dad has told me have given me a clearer picture of how single-minded the Party was, to the detriment of anyone who either wasn’t 100% on board or (in the case of my dad’s family) family members who were left behind. Likewise, in this world of labor laws, minimum wages, unions, and so forth, ‘The Labor Movement’ strikes me as a somewhat archaic entity. Until, that is, places like Wisconsin and Indiana prove exactly why a strong labor movement is so important.

The folks there were a wide mix: tons of union members and their supporters, but also a healthy sprinkling of anarchists, communists, immigrants rights activists, and folks my grandparents’ age who had been part of ‘the movement’ since the 30s and 40s. It was kind of awesome seeing so many folks (probably between 700 and 1,000) turn out to support labor unions and worker rights. It was also cool (if long and occasionally boring) hearing speakers ranging from longtime activists to union officials to youth rights activists, to the Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice. Lots of nifty people!

The unveiling itself was, not surprisingly, a little anticlimactic, and I didn’t get a chance to get up close to the statue itself. (It was getting cold by the time the ceremony was over, but I do want to go back when the weather is nicer and take a closer look.) That said, I did get to see my grandparents’ grave (gravestone, anyway – my grandmother’s ashes were spread elsewhere), and was shocked to see their grave so close to a familiar historical figure:

Emma Goldman was a political activist, an anarchist, pro-gay rights, pro-women’s rights, and on and on. Basically, an overpoweringly bad-ass chick. I had no idea my grandparents were mere feet from her grave, and couldn’t have been more pleased at the discovery. I also got a huge kick out of the scrawled writing on the side of her marker:

The top writing says “We love you Emma. Thank you.” The bottom says, next to the anarchy symbol, “Original BADASS ANARCHAFeminist Whore Slut!”

I think I need a print of this on my wall.

Going to the statue rededication did, on the one hand, disappoint me. Everywhere else in the world, May Day is remembered for what it is: A day that workers demanded their due. In the US, on the other hand, it’s barely remembered at all. At the same time, it was awesome seeing some people who are keeping the memory alive, and workers who are continuing to fight for their (and our!) rights today. I also felt that much more connected to a family history of activism – mine with the LGBT community, my dad’s for racial rights in the 1960s, and my grandparents’ for workers’ rights in the 30s and 40s – even if I didn’t always know the history stretched back so far. Proof that individuals can make a difference, that what I’m doing can make a difference.

And knowing my grandparents are within spitting distance of Emma Goldman? That’s just icing on the cake.

Good news first: No HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis. Huzzah! (Again, I had no reason to suspect I was carrying any of those, but it’s nice to be told “You’re not sick.”)

I also feel pretty good about my cholesterol. Historically, my overall levels have been fine, but my HDL (‘good’ cholesterol) has been low and my LDL (‘bad’ cholesterol) has been high. Like, way high. It’s supposed to be under 100 units per whatever (I have no idea, honestly), and mine has historically been near 200. And my HDL has usually been in the 20s, when it’s supposed to be above 40. But today, my LDL was 101 and HDL was 41! Not amazing, sure, but it’s awesome that my relatively moderate dietary changes, coupling with exercising more, have paid off.

Much more interesting, however, were my hormone levels.

‘Proper’ hormone levels for trans folks is apparently a pretty open debate. Different doctors shoot for different levels, and there’s no set-in-stone policy. It’s also difficult because women’s hormone levels shift throughout menstrual cycles, so there isn’t even a definitive ‘normal’ for cis women’s levels. But doctors generally shoot for levels similar to the luteal phase (that is, not-currently-menstruating) for cis women.

I can’t find my hormone numbers from my most recent doctor’s visit, in late 2010, but here’s info from late 2009, about 18 months on hormones (parentheses are for reference ranges for cis women, as provided on the patient report my doctor gave me)

• Progesterone: 5.4 (generally between 4 and 20 for cis women)
• Testosterone: 24 (between 20 and 76)
• Estradiol: 254 (between 247-280)

So everything seems pretty normal. However, on my most recent doctor’s visit, to this new doctor, he A) checked for slightly different things and B) used a service with slightly different reference ranges:

• Progesterone: 1.5 (0.15-28)
• Testosterone: 12 (8-48)
• Estrogen: 4237(!!!) (200-460)

Progesterone and testosterone are, he said, nothing to worry about. And from what I can find online, ‘estrogen’ and ‘estradiol’ tests mean the same thing. But that estrogen level is HUGE! Ten time the desired range! I have no idea how or why that happened, nor did he. However, he suggested I go down from 10mg daily of estradiol to 8mg. And I admit: Lots of trans folks I’ve spoken with have expressed surprise at my taking 10mg daily, saying that was lots higher than their dosages.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that going down will actually have a bonus effect of getting some of my anxiety and depression under control. My doctor said it’s definitely not a given that such a thing will happen, but hormonal imbalances sure as hell don’t help with emotional issues. So I’ll keep my fingers crossed, and report any changes.