I never thought it would be possible to talk about Governor Sanford and the Iranian protests in the same breath, but here I go. They are both examples of how sexism adversely impacts our lives, not just the lives of women who live in Islamic countries, but women who live in capitalist, democratic societies as well. Excuse me now if this sounds didactic.
Let me start with Iran. I was blown away when I saw many women protesting the elections in chadors! Given the propaganda about the Middle East disseminated by the United States, you would think this was impossible, unthinkable. Indeed, Iranian women were involved, organizing, and at the front lines of this political movement and have not necessarily backed off. Indeed, they've even taken their licks on the front line by the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij! My hats off to these sisters and let's never again that it's the chador that's oppressive. It's the society we all live in (I'm getting back to the U.S. shortly) that's oppressive. No item of clothing can stifle the voice and desires of any woman!
Now let's return to our Atlantic shores. Recall that during the Bush administration, American women were supposed to take a deep breath because we didn't have to wear chadors and were allowed to go to school. How generous! However, how can we ignore the pay differentials between men and women; how can we ignore the fact that women's pay is permanently handicapped if a woman decides to have a child; how can we ignore the fact that many men (not just Sanford and Ensign, or Jon from Jon and Kate + eight) refuse to "man up" to the responsibilities of raising their kids because of their extracurricular activities - yes, raising children is work and they should do some of it. How can we ignore that many women are paying tons of money to implant breasts that look like everyone else's? How can we ignore that women starve themselves to be sexually attractive? How can we ignore that some women will never have access to the educational and living opportunities they deserve because they come from a non-White socioeconomic background. If this doesn't smack of sexism, I don't know what does.
Ultimately, what a particular fight to eliminate sexism is in a society is situational, dependent on time and place. We cannot afford to look abroad and ignore the sexism we experience in our own borders. Yet we should support and cheer on our sisters in countries near and far as they try to alter their lives so that they can have no limits. The struggles go well beyond what we put on our bodies (although these are symbols of what we might be up against - and putting little on our bodies is just as oppressive as covering them up). Let's not forget the lessons of our Iranian sisters!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Sotomayor, Identity Politics, Legal Realism . . .
I am proud of President Obama's naming Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I found myself alternatively laughing and crying while watching him make this historical appointment. I must say that she isn't the first woman of color nominated for the highest court - remember Lani Guinier. Unfortunately, the same tirades made against Guinier are being made against Sotomayor. And it is these tirades that this blog entry seeks to address.
1. Identity Politics - This is one phrase that the radical right has turned into an epithet. I think a little historical consideration is needed to appropriately contextualize what is meant by the term and how it is in use by everyone. My understanding of the origin of this term is through the Combahee River Collective, a group of poor/working class Black women, some of them lesbian, who were involved with political causes around Boston concerning poor Black women in the early and mid 1970s. At the time, many Black women were being murdered and there was no police attention to them because the women were assumed to be prostitutes (OK, much could be said about that, but I'll let it go for now). It was issues such as these that fueled their political activism. They wrote "We believe that the most profound and potentially the most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end someone else's oppression." (Combahee River Collective Statement) First of all, for once, a group of women of color were going to put themselves at the center of political discourse - they were not going to sacrifice themselves at the feet of someone else's issues. This is a radical statement because sexism requires women not to put their struggles as central - indeed, many women see their daily struggles as something that is their fault. Under a sexist framework, working for the "larger good" is what's best for society, but, as the Combahee River Collective suggests, this is not best for us. Secondly, this statement ultimately means that the range of people who make claims on the state expands and the issues of a much wider population must be contended with. Is this such a bad thing? Do White Males not have an identity (I know, academics debate this ad nauseum and I'm not going into this work)? They've been making their claims (clearly not uniformly as there is much diversity in that population) for years. Are we really still arguing about expanding the political pie? What is really meant by the "Democrats are practicing identity politics" with this appointment? What do conservatives mean? Who would they exclude? If no one, why would this be such a big deal?!
2. Judicial Activism - Here is another epithet hurled around by the right for anyone who finds constitutional justification for civil rights (of anyone, women, gays, people of color) or abortion. However, my question is whether "judicial activism" is really the sole province of the left. Jeffrey Toobin just wrote a piece in the New Yorker about Justice Roberts and his version of judicial activism. There was a column in the Washington Post today about judicial activism and the right. I don't think, in this day and age, we can afford to give the right wing a pass on textualists and originalists not being judicial activists. They have specific policy objectives that they can further through examining the text of the constitution narrowly or claiming that wasn't the original intent of the founders. Do you not think that Roberts' unwillingness to give deference to Congress about the Voting Rights Act is not a piece of judicial activism? It is thought that a decision to be made soon will gut the Act. Do we really think that attempts to dismantle Roe v. Wade would not be judicial activism? We, as lawyers, are taught to respect precedent and that there should be a damned good reason to overturn it. The same thing applies to legislation. We need real intellectual honesty when we evaluate this term and make the right account for what they mean by this. Is judicial activism by those who agree with them the only necessary activism? What does this mean for everyone else who does not narrowly fall into their interests?
3. Identity and the court - Justice Sotomayor stated that she thought as a Latina she could make wiser decisions than White men. I know that there is more to this statement than this, but let's take a deep breath. I think she's right and here's why. As all people who fall outside of the dominant group, she has to be fluent with how they operate in society (let's say the White men in the GOP), and with the people she grew up with and endured daily struggle. She's has a wider viewpoint than many of those on the right to be sure - she understands what it means to be a single mother (yep, it's not as simple as promoting marriage), she knows what it means to be divorced. She knows how people struggle in many ways because of what they look like/sound like, not because of who they are (the heart of the battle of anti-discrimination work). Let's not back away from this. The Supreme Court needs to be able to flexibly handle, within the bounds of the law, the claims of all Americans, not a select few.
4. The GOP Problem - It's on this note I'll end this blog entry. I think, as a fighting strategy, they should go ahead and critique legal realism, critical legal theory, etc. However, in doing so, they should really seek to define terms, explain what is meant, etc., not hurl terms as insults (i.e. socialist, radical, etc.). I think it's time to have a rich discussion about judicial philosophy and legal philosophy. However, to critique Sotomayor's credentials/qualifications/temperment is a personal attack of the Lee Atwater days of the GOP. It is personal attacks that leave the GOP vulnerable to critiques of being racist or sexist, or, both. Stop the name calling, stick to issues, and the GOP may not alienate the young, queer, people of color, and women . . . boy, can that tent get any smaller?
1. Identity Politics - This is one phrase that the radical right has turned into an epithet. I think a little historical consideration is needed to appropriately contextualize what is meant by the term and how it is in use by everyone. My understanding of the origin of this term is through the Combahee River Collective, a group of poor/working class Black women, some of them lesbian, who were involved with political causes around Boston concerning poor Black women in the early and mid 1970s. At the time, many Black women were being murdered and there was no police attention to them because the women were assumed to be prostitutes (OK, much could be said about that, but I'll let it go for now). It was issues such as these that fueled their political activism. They wrote "We believe that the most profound and potentially the most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end someone else's oppression." (Combahee River Collective Statement) First of all, for once, a group of women of color were going to put themselves at the center of political discourse - they were not going to sacrifice themselves at the feet of someone else's issues. This is a radical statement because sexism requires women not to put their struggles as central - indeed, many women see their daily struggles as something that is their fault. Under a sexist framework, working for the "larger good" is what's best for society, but, as the Combahee River Collective suggests, this is not best for us. Secondly, this statement ultimately means that the range of people who make claims on the state expands and the issues of a much wider population must be contended with. Is this such a bad thing? Do White Males not have an identity (I know, academics debate this ad nauseum and I'm not going into this work)? They've been making their claims (clearly not uniformly as there is much diversity in that population) for years. Are we really still arguing about expanding the political pie? What is really meant by the "Democrats are practicing identity politics" with this appointment? What do conservatives mean? Who would they exclude? If no one, why would this be such a big deal?!
2. Judicial Activism - Here is another epithet hurled around by the right for anyone who finds constitutional justification for civil rights (of anyone, women, gays, people of color) or abortion. However, my question is whether "judicial activism" is really the sole province of the left. Jeffrey Toobin just wrote a piece in the New Yorker about Justice Roberts and his version of judicial activism. There was a column in the Washington Post today about judicial activism and the right. I don't think, in this day and age, we can afford to give the right wing a pass on textualists and originalists not being judicial activists. They have specific policy objectives that they can further through examining the text of the constitution narrowly or claiming that wasn't the original intent of the founders. Do you not think that Roberts' unwillingness to give deference to Congress about the Voting Rights Act is not a piece of judicial activism? It is thought that a decision to be made soon will gut the Act. Do we really think that attempts to dismantle Roe v. Wade would not be judicial activism? We, as lawyers, are taught to respect precedent and that there should be a damned good reason to overturn it. The same thing applies to legislation. We need real intellectual honesty when we evaluate this term and make the right account for what they mean by this. Is judicial activism by those who agree with them the only necessary activism? What does this mean for everyone else who does not narrowly fall into their interests?
3. Identity and the court - Justice Sotomayor stated that she thought as a Latina she could make wiser decisions than White men. I know that there is more to this statement than this, but let's take a deep breath. I think she's right and here's why. As all people who fall outside of the dominant group, she has to be fluent with how they operate in society (let's say the White men in the GOP), and with the people she grew up with and endured daily struggle. She's has a wider viewpoint than many of those on the right to be sure - she understands what it means to be a single mother (yep, it's not as simple as promoting marriage), she knows what it means to be divorced. She knows how people struggle in many ways because of what they look like/sound like, not because of who they are (the heart of the battle of anti-discrimination work). Let's not back away from this. The Supreme Court needs to be able to flexibly handle, within the bounds of the law, the claims of all Americans, not a select few.
4. The GOP Problem - It's on this note I'll end this blog entry. I think, as a fighting strategy, they should go ahead and critique legal realism, critical legal theory, etc. However, in doing so, they should really seek to define terms, explain what is meant, etc., not hurl terms as insults (i.e. socialist, radical, etc.). I think it's time to have a rich discussion about judicial philosophy and legal philosophy. However, to critique Sotomayor's credentials/qualifications/temperment is a personal attack of the Lee Atwater days of the GOP. It is personal attacks that leave the GOP vulnerable to critiques of being racist or sexist, or, both. Stop the name calling, stick to issues, and the GOP may not alienate the young, queer, people of color, and women . . . boy, can that tent get any smaller?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Health Care Reform
Check out this article first: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22155.html
Alright . . . I find Republicans to be completely baffling, but here we go again. I have three simple things to say to/about Luntz's strategy:
1. There, for many Americans, is no doctor/patient relationship to interfere with. No insurance, no doctor. His political approach does not discuss this simple reality. We're talking about a health care crisis in large part because so many people are uninsured. They make too much money for Medicare and too little to afford their own individual/family plans. How would this fix that problem?!
2. The government rations health care in some societies. The MARKET rations health care here. This is why so many people are uninsured. You can't afford it, you don't get it, and so millions of Americans have no health insurance. This also means that so many Americans don't have a doctor/patient relationship to have the government interfere with. Catch my drift - see point 1.
3. The GOP is trying to look new. But they have the same old ridiculous positions that are not in anyway connected with the reality of peoples' lives. Same dog food, different day. They have more than a branding problem. Their anti-intellectual bias means they're devoid of ideas.
'Nuff said!
Alright . . . I find Republicans to be completely baffling, but here we go again. I have three simple things to say to/about Luntz's strategy:
1. There, for many Americans, is no doctor/patient relationship to interfere with. No insurance, no doctor. His political approach does not discuss this simple reality. We're talking about a health care crisis in large part because so many people are uninsured. They make too much money for Medicare and too little to afford their own individual/family plans. How would this fix that problem?!
2. The government rations health care in some societies. The MARKET rations health care here. This is why so many people are uninsured. You can't afford it, you don't get it, and so millions of Americans have no health insurance. This also means that so many Americans don't have a doctor/patient relationship to have the government interfere with. Catch my drift - see point 1.
3. The GOP is trying to look new. But they have the same old ridiculous positions that are not in anyway connected with the reality of peoples' lives. Same dog food, different day. They have more than a branding problem. Their anti-intellectual bias means they're devoid of ideas.
'Nuff said!
The Bowling Ball
I just wanted to write a few reflections on my yoga practice. I have practiced Ashtanga yoga since 1993 with varying levels of daily commitment. Ashtanga is a very challenging, vigorous type of yoga with a pre-set sequence of positions that one can do either in a class or on your own. It's also characterized by following the eight niyamas (if I have that correct), including doctrines such as satya (truth) and non-violence (don't ask me the sanskrit word for that). Admittedly, I don't do it so much for the spiritual practice, but for the ability to reduce stress, exercise regularly, and as a means of making sure I sleep through the night.
Many of the people who practice at my studio are nothing short of pretzels and are quite strong. Many of them are also SMALL. I, on the other hand, am one of the largest women who is nowhere near as flexible and probably stronger because I have more body to move around! However, I take to heart the notion of being where you're at and ashtanga is one of the largest challenges I take on in my life - really. That, childrearing, and the damned dissertation (that I should be writing now, but you'll get this for now).
So, there are days where it feels really fluid, fantastic, I feel open, strong, and flexible and my mind is even with it. I focus in each asana (pose) and I'm sure the glory of God shines on me, etc. (I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic here . . . really). Other days, like recently, the mat looks like an enemy, my body resembles a bowling ball . . . heavy and tightly wound, and I'm lucky if I can finish sun salutations. So the question is why do this at all - well savasana of course (corpse pose where you lie on your mat for a long time, I like to do that for 30 minutes at the end of the practice). OK. Savasana is only part of the picture.
I realize that life works this way. Sometimes things flow and you're with it and it feels good and you're powerful and you wonder how it could every be anything different. And then there are those days where bed looks like a better option because you couldn't possibly do better. In my case, I, like so many others, have a 4 year old to drag me out of bed, so I can't engage that option, but then I fantasize about doing it! As a result, I have to take on everything in little bites daily. This is the discipline of yoga. It's not the pose, it's making sure I breath the entire time I do it. The practice gets done one breath at a time, no faster. The dissertation gets written one letter, one word, one sentence, one paragraph, one page at a time, and no faster. I just have to do it every day. It's the tortoise that wins, not the hare.
I've said nothing deep. I know that. It's just a reminder - because I'm having a day where I'd rather be in bed.
Many of the people who practice at my studio are nothing short of pretzels and are quite strong. Many of them are also SMALL. I, on the other hand, am one of the largest women who is nowhere near as flexible and probably stronger because I have more body to move around! However, I take to heart the notion of being where you're at and ashtanga is one of the largest challenges I take on in my life - really. That, childrearing, and the damned dissertation (that I should be writing now, but you'll get this for now).
So, there are days where it feels really fluid, fantastic, I feel open, strong, and flexible and my mind is even with it. I focus in each asana (pose) and I'm sure the glory of God shines on me, etc. (I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic here . . . really). Other days, like recently, the mat looks like an enemy, my body resembles a bowling ball . . . heavy and tightly wound, and I'm lucky if I can finish sun salutations. So the question is why do this at all - well savasana of course (corpse pose where you lie on your mat for a long time, I like to do that for 30 minutes at the end of the practice). OK. Savasana is only part of the picture.
I realize that life works this way. Sometimes things flow and you're with it and it feels good and you're powerful and you wonder how it could every be anything different. And then there are those days where bed looks like a better option because you couldn't possibly do better. In my case, I, like so many others, have a 4 year old to drag me out of bed, so I can't engage that option, but then I fantasize about doing it! As a result, I have to take on everything in little bites daily. This is the discipline of yoga. It's not the pose, it's making sure I breath the entire time I do it. The practice gets done one breath at a time, no faster. The dissertation gets written one letter, one word, one sentence, one paragraph, one page at a time, and no faster. I just have to do it every day. It's the tortoise that wins, not the hare.
I've said nothing deep. I know that. It's just a reminder - because I'm having a day where I'd rather be in bed.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen Spector and it's time to step up
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!
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!
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)
