I'm thrilled about Spector joining the Democratic party. It does not mean that everything can get done, but now who has to worry about reconciliation to get some major health care reform?!
But there's one wrinkle. We have to seat Al Franken. WE HAVE TO SEAT AL FRANKEN!! The Republicans will appeal this to the Supreme Court and back to prevent us from reaching 60. I think we need a grass roots movement - the people of Minnesota need to tell the Republican party that they want their representative seated with no more delays, starting now!
I hope we can have some party discipline so we can continue to get this country back on the right track. I'm thrilled. 'Nuff said!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Gay Marriage
I have to admit, I'm more ambivalent about this issue than I want to be, and not for the reasons one would think. I'm not convinced that GLBTQ folk are the potential cause of the downfall of Western civilization, etc. That seems hysterical. Lately, I've been reading a book by Amy Dru Stanley, From Bondage to Contract, about the institution of marriage in the late 19th century. It was the 19th century that brought us contracts as we know it - indeed it was the contract that distinguished slavery and freedom. The 19th century brought abolition as well.
However, the situation for women was more complicated. As Black women were freed from slavery, they were told by elites that one thing that would make their lives different (Black men too, but with different implications) was the right to marriage - they could keep home, work in the fields (we need that labor) and allow their persons to be subsumed into their husbands, the doctrine of coverture. That means that your husband would control your money, your time, and your ability to contract. This left many women asking what was the difference between slavery and marriage? Of course, White women entered marriage with the same rules and this institution was critiqued by the first-wave feminist movement.
Today, thank God, we don't have to deal with coverture, etc., but that does not eliminate the possibility of sexism in the institution of marriage. Indeed, women often are employed for pay outside of the home (at rates lower than their male counterparts for the same job) and unpaid for work inside of the home (housekeeping, childcare, cook (for those who have time to cook anymore), and I'll just say, etc.). Indeed, the pressures put on wives these days are tremendous. Lose 5 pounds (you must look good for your husband), do these fantastic sex moves to keep him interested, he still doesn't do anymore of the housekeeping or childcare, and everyone tends to treat the work that women do outside of the home as supplemental still - except for now when most of the layoffs are happening in fields that have been predominantly male.
Which raises the following question for me. As GLBTQ people secure the right to marry, will this pose a radical challenge to marriage? What do I mean? The roles that two people take in a marriage really are based on sexist norms that have existed well before the 19th century. As a community, daily lives would have to be opened up, thought about, and examined to evaluate the extent to which this radical change came about in GLBTQ marriages; making the private, public, the personal, political. Why would this happen? To answer the following questions - Will the community use this as an opportunity to redistribute the work in homes? Will it use this as an opportunity to ensure that all people are fairly paid (the wage differentials become more appalling when complicated by race - yep, if you're not White, you're earning less and if you are a woman of color, even less)? Will it take the opportunity to ensure that there is universal healthcare and childcare for young children so that all of our families can thrive?
This could really be the radical move that seriously restructures society as we know it for everyone. This could be an opportunity for the GLBTQ community to really tackle the intersection of oppressions and take a strong stand against sexism and racism. Ultimately, I think this is really what the far right fears, not what GLBTQ people are doing in bed. However, if the community is pushing marriage as we know it, I'm not interested. Sexism is painful enough as it is. I'm not interested in having more people reinforce it.
However, the situation for women was more complicated. As Black women were freed from slavery, they were told by elites that one thing that would make their lives different (Black men too, but with different implications) was the right to marriage - they could keep home, work in the fields (we need that labor) and allow their persons to be subsumed into their husbands, the doctrine of coverture. That means that your husband would control your money, your time, and your ability to contract. This left many women asking what was the difference between slavery and marriage? Of course, White women entered marriage with the same rules and this institution was critiqued by the first-wave feminist movement.
Today, thank God, we don't have to deal with coverture, etc., but that does not eliminate the possibility of sexism in the institution of marriage. Indeed, women often are employed for pay outside of the home (at rates lower than their male counterparts for the same job) and unpaid for work inside of the home (housekeeping, childcare, cook (for those who have time to cook anymore), and I'll just say, etc.). Indeed, the pressures put on wives these days are tremendous. Lose 5 pounds (you must look good for your husband), do these fantastic sex moves to keep him interested, he still doesn't do anymore of the housekeeping or childcare, and everyone tends to treat the work that women do outside of the home as supplemental still - except for now when most of the layoffs are happening in fields that have been predominantly male.
Which raises the following question for me. As GLBTQ people secure the right to marry, will this pose a radical challenge to marriage? What do I mean? The roles that two people take in a marriage really are based on sexist norms that have existed well before the 19th century. As a community, daily lives would have to be opened up, thought about, and examined to evaluate the extent to which this radical change came about in GLBTQ marriages; making the private, public, the personal, political. Why would this happen? To answer the following questions - Will the community use this as an opportunity to redistribute the work in homes? Will it use this as an opportunity to ensure that all people are fairly paid (the wage differentials become more appalling when complicated by race - yep, if you're not White, you're earning less and if you are a woman of color, even less)? Will it take the opportunity to ensure that there is universal healthcare and childcare for young children so that all of our families can thrive?
This could really be the radical move that seriously restructures society as we know it for everyone. This could be an opportunity for the GLBTQ community to really tackle the intersection of oppressions and take a strong stand against sexism and racism. Ultimately, I think this is really what the far right fears, not what GLBTQ people are doing in bed. However, if the community is pushing marriage as we know it, I'm not interested. Sexism is painful enough as it is. I'm not interested in having more people reinforce it.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Archaeology Conference
Last week I was honored to deliver a paper on the Accompong Maroons and the use of site in history at an archaeology conference. I do want to make a few comments about the conference. First, I have to say that I did not think that working on Maroons would be controversial. Participants asked me questions that were not related to what I spoke on, but included topics such as what do the Accompong think about the Trelawney Maroons and how to they account for their failure to back the Trelawney Maroons during the Second Maroon Wars. Generally, antipathy about the Maroons centers on their squelching of the Morant Bay Rebellion. This is certainly a different line of critique and it makes me wonder what else will happen if I publish my dissertation.
The other set of comments concerned an audience member's thoughts on Jamaica's National Heroes. She was a White Jamaican and argued that she could not figure out the criteria for vetting the country's national heroes. The heroes are Grandy Nanny of the Maroons, Samuel Sharpe who led the Christmas Rebellion in 1832, Paul Bogle who led the Morant Bay Rebellion, Marcus Garvey ('nuff said), Norman Manley, and perhaps Bob Marley. She was concerned that the heroes selected were violent and that school children could not state why they were heroes. Besides, she quipped, none of them are women.
I think there is one issue that needs to be addressed, that heroes are often unseen and unsung. So, what's interesting about the Morant Bay Rebellion, for example, is that women were very prominent in planning and executing it, but we don't know their names and their roles. They are hard to make heroes under those circumstances. Paul Bogle gets much of the credit, but he has many heroes amongst him. However, ain't Grandy Nanny a woman? She was the amazing military leader of the Maroons who won their freedom from slavery in 1738 and 1739. This might not have been doable without her!
Also, I would like to speak to the issue of violence associated with these heroes. Each one of them took violent action in the face of oppression none of us can imagine in this day or age. They resisted enslavement, they resisted their lack of input and political and economic participation in the period immediately following slavery, they started a new nation. We must contextualize the violence, not denounce it out of hand. Slavery was a violent institution which begot violence. The period in post-emancipation Jamaica also enjoyed its share of violence which also begot violence in response. To denounce the national heroes for violence does not make sense in this context.
But I am not a White Jamaican. However, she lives in a society amongst Black Jamaicans that are beneficiaries from the fights taken on by Nanny, Bogle, Sharpe, etc.
The other set of comments concerned an audience member's thoughts on Jamaica's National Heroes. She was a White Jamaican and argued that she could not figure out the criteria for vetting the country's national heroes. The heroes are Grandy Nanny of the Maroons, Samuel Sharpe who led the Christmas Rebellion in 1832, Paul Bogle who led the Morant Bay Rebellion, Marcus Garvey ('nuff said), Norman Manley, and perhaps Bob Marley. She was concerned that the heroes selected were violent and that school children could not state why they were heroes. Besides, she quipped, none of them are women.
I think there is one issue that needs to be addressed, that heroes are often unseen and unsung. So, what's interesting about the Morant Bay Rebellion, for example, is that women were very prominent in planning and executing it, but we don't know their names and their roles. They are hard to make heroes under those circumstances. Paul Bogle gets much of the credit, but he has many heroes amongst him. However, ain't Grandy Nanny a woman? She was the amazing military leader of the Maroons who won their freedom from slavery in 1738 and 1739. This might not have been doable without her!
Also, I would like to speak to the issue of violence associated with these heroes. Each one of them took violent action in the face of oppression none of us can imagine in this day or age. They resisted enslavement, they resisted their lack of input and political and economic participation in the period immediately following slavery, they started a new nation. We must contextualize the violence, not denounce it out of hand. Slavery was a violent institution which begot violence. The period in post-emancipation Jamaica also enjoyed its share of violence which also begot violence in response. To denounce the national heroes for violence does not make sense in this context.
But I am not a White Jamaican. However, she lives in a society amongst Black Jamaicans that are beneficiaries from the fights taken on by Nanny, Bogle, Sharpe, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
