2015 Reflection

2015 has come and gone more quickly than I'd like to think about. As ready as I am to move on from it, I have to admit, it was a good year.

I'm loving someone way more than I would usually allow myself to.
I developed my voice as a writer.
I had my first spoken word performance.
I went to New York City.
I was in a wedding.
I attended Black Lives Matter protests.
I cut my hair off.
I photographed an art show.
I went to Orange Beach.
I had the perfect, corny Valentine's date to an aquarium.
I saw someone I hadn't seen for five years and explored Chicago with them.
I went to DC.
I saw J. Cole perform live.
I had a surprise party thrown for my birthday.

I edited and published the first print magazine for my school's journalism program.
I met Nikki Giovanni.
I won first place in a poetry contest I forgot I entered.
I saw Basquiat pieces in person.
I saw Kendrick Lamar perform live.
I became a published poet.
I got my dream internship.
I got my dream internship turned into my dream job.
I went to Atlanta for a cancelled Afropunk festival.
I attended an art gallery opening.

I owe so much love, light, and life to 2015. This reflection was important, as it reminded me of blessings and prompted a positive close to the year. I have appreciation for the past and anticipate the future. Life is good.

See ya next year.

Your Respectability Politics Aren't Very Respectable

Re.spect.a.ble 
adjective
     1. regarded by society to be good, proper, or correct
     2. of some merit or importance

Respectable behavior changes each time you ask for its definition. What's respectable to me may be unacceptable to you, and vice versa. It is rare when society as a collective whole agrees on what and who deserves respect--this is true even in terms of leader of the free world,  President Obama. While many believe he deserves the utmost respect, some would spit on him if given the chance.

In short, "respectability" is in the eye of the beholder.

Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that something as wavering and uncertain as a person's respectability may be the reason they were subjected to unfair treatment. This assertion suggests that something as subjective as respectability is solid enough to be the basis upon which we determine value. And this suggestion falls short, as it has proven time and time again to be irrelevant. If it did hold true, Martin Luther King,  Jr., Malcolm X, Clementa Pinckney, etc. would not have been murdered in cold blood. The black professors of Harvard University would not have had their pictures vandalized. Melissa Harris Perry wouldn't have endured the continuous online stream of racist slurs. Being educated, well-dressed, mild-mannered, articulate, church-going, etc. would have saved them. Yet, here they are on this list.

It seems obvious that respectability or the lack thereof does not matter to a bigot, so why does it matter so much to the victim? How do respectability politics still drive many of the narratives in the black community? "Respectability politics or the politics of respectability refers to attempts by marginalized groups to police their own members and show their social values rather than challenging the mainstream for its failure to accept difference." In the social arena of racism, the theory implies that racism will end where pants stop sagging and when we remove the apostrophes from our dialect. It implies that if we trade in our Eazy E for Beethoven and conform to what is "respectable," which tends to mean what is white, we'll be alright. As I've said before, it's a flawed theory. Offering respectability in an exchange for black life is an attempt to reason with the unreasonable. A bigot is a bigot whether you're in Coogi or Calvin Klein. Dressing our sons in suits, forbidding them from using slang, cutting off their afros, and sending them off to school won't protect them. It's their blackness that's hated, and that can't be folded away, tucked in, picked out, or diluted by education. "Respectable" or not, they will still be black.

Elitism within the black community, met with a determination to "uplift the race," ignores this fact though. This philosophy instead macro-manages black behavior in a way that is far more detrimental than helpful. The black community agrees to shaving our dreadlocks with promises of change, just to mourn the unjust deaths of our children. Our self-correction serves us no purpose, as new skin is the only true alteration that would make a difference. The klan killed black men in shirts and ties--stripped them down to their stark, black nakedness. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether those men were articulate when they begged for their lives.

The theory of respectability politics has failed will always fail. It's not trading in our culture and customs, because we're getting no respect in return. It's not sacrificial because there is no benefit. It's not adaptive, because you will never "fit in" where you are simply unwelcome. It's not dignified conformity, but done in vain. And that's not very respectable at all.

Disagree =/= Disrespect

As the world, and America in particular, diversifies by the second, it becomes more and more likely that we will cross paths with people who have opinions, customs, behaviors, and belief systems which we disagree with. With well over 7 billion humans and only one Earth, it's bound to happen. There is a certain beauty to coexisting with people who have conflicting or even contrasting ideals. It shows that humanity has a certain capacity for understanding and tolerance. However, unfortunately, a wave (or perhaps just an unveiling) of bigotry and xenophobia has shown people in the world, and Americans in particular, forgetting the principles of acceptance and tolerance. Instead of appreciating all of the differences that make mankind significant, understanding is abandoned in a pointless but frantic effort to defend and spread one's own ideals. Although this is often beneficial in terms of assimilation or cultural exchange, today more than ever this defense and projection of beliefs is done in way that is disrespectful, or in a manner that makes it apparent that these beliefs were bred in either hate or fear.

It is natural, and admiral even, to want to defend your own ideals. It is naive, and foolish even,  to expect others not to defend their own just as passionately. These conversations are valuable in the way that they allow us to articulate our beliefs and share ideas. Sometimes, we are even able to share our perspective in a way which causes one to change their mind. However, often this does not happen, and at a certain point we must agree to disagree. When this happens we sometimes leave the conversation with discomfort, denial, disbelief, or even disgust.  But what's important is that we never leave them with disrespectful comments or behaviors.

The truth is, you're not going to get through to everyone. It's impossible, and that's okay. But no one is any better or worse than you are for having a differing opinion. We must be careful to watch our words and mannerisms in an effort to not condemn or judge anyone for simply thinking differently than we do. What's important is that we do not hold anyone else to our own standards; that we understand that no one is obligated to abide by our own moral code.

And so instead of throwing around insults or labels or slurs or offense when we come across those who live differently than we do, we should begin to embrace differences. There is always something to be learned in these conversations, either about the other side or about ourselves. At the end of the day--or conversation, rather--it is important that we appreciate the social, socioeconomic, religious, political, cultural, etc. variety that composes humanity.

I am definitely guilty of disrespecting people who disagreed with something I was passionate about or believed deeply. It is an automatic, defensive mechanism that I have had to unlearn and constantly keep in check. I still have a lot of work to do, and I encourage all others to work as well. No one is ever obligated to agree, and no one is ever entitled to disrespect.

Webster Racism: How Much Can Definitions Actually Define?

"If I look up “carrot” in the dictionary, most people will acknowledge I do not know all there is to know about carrots and if I truly want to understand carrots, I should probably pick up a horticultural text book. We know that legal and medical terms are going to be, at best, simplistically represented and know we need to find a lawyer or a doctor if we want to know more. Anyone deciding to base their argument on, say, a philosophical concept or term using the dictionary is going to be laughed at at best, or automatically lose whatever argument they’re trying to make at least. Yet the minute we move into a social justice framework, the ultimate authority changes. We don’t need lived experience, we don’t need experts who have examined centuries of social disparities and discrimination, we don’t need societal context. We don’t need sociology or history – no, we have THE DICTIONARY! That ultimate tome of oracular insight, the last word on any debate!"

This excerpt from the social commentary blog, Womanist Musings, has beautifully articulated my frustrations with the dictionary. Too often, usually in discussions with uncomfortable white people, I have had the dictionary pulled out on me and some lofty definition of racism or sexism read to me. These definitions are usually correct, yes. But they offer no context. Racism and sexism and other -isms are reduced down from catastrophic, institutional principles to a general, euphemistic meaning which was intended to be used to simply define a word; not to explain it and not to apply it.  As the Womanist Musings post elaborated, "the dictionary is not an ultimate authority. It’s a brief answer, a vague idea, as concise as it can be to get the idea across."

There are certain things about words, racism in particular, the dictionary just can't tell you. It won't mention slavery, economic apartheid, Jim Crow, the Black Panther Party, colorism, segregation, assassinations, the KKK, lynchings, Adolf Hitler, church bombings, Trayvon Martin, mass incarceration, the Dred Scott case, COINTELPRO, gentrification, white supremacy, etc., etc., etc.

So if you want to talk to me about how racism doesn't exist anymore, or how reverse racism is real, or how racism exists only in the backwoods of Alabama and not in every American institution, please have a statement that does not  depend on the two sentences found beside the word.

Webster racism doesn't even scratch the surface, let alone hold any standing as a valid argument. 

Moodboard (November 2015)

Another month, another moodboard. Crazy to think it's November already. At least now I can wear high-neck tops and drink hot beverages without people questioning my sanity. Happy Novembering.

Art enthusiasts will appreciate this. It may be my first tattoo.

Her skin. Her hair. Her demeanor.

To live by.

Two works of art.

My third favorite set of sisters. After only my sister and me, and Bey and Solange.

Design inspiration.

Black lives matter, in print.

Solange Knowles grieves the nine lives lost at the Charleston AME church shooting.

This man is brilliance unappreciated.

Her skin. Her hair. Her demeanor. Part II.

Cover/editorial art inspiration. Also, makes me want to do some investigative journalism.

Stripes and shadows.

The complexities of black artistry.

"Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps."

Drake on W Magazine's art issue cover.

All images found on Tumblr & Pinterest.

The "Race Card" Rhetoric

Right wing propaganda, if you will. Courtesy of Discussionist.com.

One day I found myself reluctant to call out a racist remark made by an ex-coworker of mine. Me--reluctant. The problem is, the statement wasn't blatantly racist. It was subliminal; underlying; implied. I knew what he meant by it, but I was also the only black person around. As the only one who would have taken offense to his comment, and the only one to have expressed discomfort because of it, I knew that whatever two cents I had to throw in would have been exchanged for the subliminally-racist-white-male go to response: "You're just pulling the race card." (See visual representation above.)

And oh, how I wish it was that easy. I wish there was some card I carried around everywhere like an ID, and I could just pull it out of my pocket whenever something foul was said. "Throw a flag on the play," if you will, and automatic penalties be the consequence of the guilty party's bullshit. But, unfortunately, there is no "race card," literal or metaphorical, that I can pull on white people.

Those who believe in said "race card," are likely to believe in other ridiculous entities as well: Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, reverse racism, or maybe even respectability politics.

These are the people who, instead of acknowledging they've been offensive and working to resolve the issue,  would rather suggest that the disrespect people of color may feel is simply a figment of the imagination. Instead of admitting they're wrong, they'd rather imply that the belittlement people of color feel is rested in some old, pre-Civil War myth. To them, our feelings are fictional, so instead of the issue being actual racism, the problem is this "race card." It's a classic, and perhaps even model, case of victim shaming, where the offended are condemned instead of the offensive.

Black people, and other groups of suffering citizens, are not telling you of their struggles as some weak defense, or excuse. If we share these experiences with you, we are doing so in hopes that you will join with us in the fight against injustice in America. We are not asking for your pity, we are asking for your help. We are asking that you, the privileged, use your position to help rid institutions and systems of oppression.

Rambling About Originality

They say no idea is original. All thoughts stem from other thoughts; all movements from other movements. They say that everything is only borrowed. All that was destined to be revolutionary has dawned, and is now only to be accepted. All that was destined to be discovered has been stumbled upon, and is now only to be understood. Trends are recycled and repeated. What is “in” now was “in” before and will be “in” again.

They tend to insult those willing morph what has been set in stone. They shower them with labels like “fraud,” and “copycat,” and “wannabe.” And if what they say is true--if our new ideas only imitate old ideas--then how does the human race move forward? Do we ever invent, or only improve upon? Do we think too highly of ourselves as creators; as artists? Are we not only thieves of artistry; of prior genius; of old news?

Is our improvement, enhancement, and innovation enough to pride ourselves on?

Short answer: Yes.

Innovation is what elevates us. Innovation is what keeps us moving, changing, growing, thinking--what makes us brilliant. Our genius lies in our ability to look at what exists and improve upon it, so that it better reflects the times and represents humanity in its modern state. Our changes, major or minute, are essential if we are to improve the quality of life. Our changes, major or minute, are what defines what it means to be alive and thinking in the 21st century.

It is not the duty of the artist to produce what is new and shiny, but to make useful, beautiful and seemingly new what has been in front of us the whole time. Value the remix, the edit, the afterthought, and the by-product. Originality, or creativity, is not the ability to see something that’s never been seen. It is rather the ability to see it differently.

An Extensive List of Pros and Cons to Being "That Writer Girl"

I have been frequently--way more often than I'm comfortable with--referred to as "that writer girl" by my peers.

"Aren't you that writer girl?"
"And then that writer girl said..."
"Ask that writer girl."

And considering the fact that I spend an overwhelming, and considerably unhealthy, time writing, this tag makes sense. A lot of people I'm around may not know me personally, but may know that I edit the school paper or ramble on this blog. I'm always talking about writing and writers. My hands are always stained black from ink. My passion is clear. So I'm not at all upset about the name, I actually think it's super cute when people refer to me as that, and my friends have a good time making fun of it. It's the connotations, implications, and tones associated with the name that's interesting to me. Sometimes they're positive, and sometimes they're negative. But they're always interesting. Needless to say, there are some pros and cons to living my daily life as "that writer girl."

PRO: People value your opinion.
CON: People value your opinion.

PRO: People consider you to be knowledgeable, unmistakably.
CON: People consider you to be knowledgeable, mistakenly.

PRO: People read your blog when you're talking about something important.
CON: People read your blog when you're just whining about Statistics.

PRO: People ask you questions which spark intellectual debate.
CON: People ask you questions which piss you off.

PRO: People think you're smarter than you are.
CON: People think you're dumber than you are.

PRO: Teachers expect you to do well on papers and essays.
CON: Teachers expect you to do well on papers and essays.

PRO: People think you're "insightful."
CON: People think you're "pretentious."

PRO: People want to hear what you have to say.
CON: People wish you'd just shut up.

PRO: People want your creative input or editorial hand.
CON: People ask you to edit they're college essay. (Error intended.)

PRO: People want to collaborate.
CON: People say they want to collaborate, but really just want you to do the work.

PRO: You meet new people on a regular basis.
CON: Some of those people you wish you hadn't met.

And so on, and so on. So yes, being "that writer girl" is both good and bad. But I can't say I don't love it.

Read "Overlooked" by Jaylin Paschal on ACEANI MICHELLE

I've written a fashion article. You read that correctly.

For a feature on the Aceani Michelle style blog and in the new fashion magazine, (DE-FI)ance, I was asked to explore the societal impact of style and fashion.

As I was feeling, honestly, a bit under qualified to write such an article, and was wandering beyond my comfort zone, the aspect of society I chose to write about was actually the aspect least like society: countercultures.

In this article I touch on how sub and countercultures have used style to send important messages in relation to the group's intentions, attitudes, and movements. I examine groups like the swinger's of the 1920's, the Black Panther Party, hippies, and the KKK in an attempt to demonstrate just how influential "a look" is on our social behaviors, lifestyle choices, and political ideals.

Check it out HERE on Aceani's blog. Be sure to read her posts, draw inspiration from her style, and be envious of the models lucky enough to wear her original designs.

Do Not Confuse the Discrimination of One Group for the "Freedom" of Another

If your religion, or any belief of yours, keeps you from doing your job, then you probably need a new job. There's a reason you won't find any Amish pilots. There's a reason vegans don't work as butchers. You won't find any nuns with part-time jobs at the gentlemen's club.

Certain values do not align with certain job descriptions, and so the two never meet.

But the thing is, job descriptions are subject to change as laws do; as times do. Specifically, jobs that work with one of the most relevant and dynamic aspects of American life: marriage.

If you are a Christian clerk, who is so against the gay marriage ruling that you are unable to do your job, you probably need a new job. The dynamics of your current position have changed, and it's time to move on to something more compatible with your lifestyle. This is in no way oppressing you, this is challenging you to serve the world in a way with which you are comfortable. You're no longer comfortable here. You're no longer willing, and therefore no longer capable, to perform the tasks for which you were hired.

Expecting people to do their job is not infringing upon religious freedom--mainly because it has nothing to do with it. The idea of being unable to serve someone because their own personal beliefs don't align with yours is not only totally idiotic, but also discriminatory. And, you know, therefore, illegal. And you cannot work for the public, yet disregard public policy that you don't like. You are disregarding our Supreme Court. You are breaking the law, and there are consequences.

So please, for the love of God (pun intended), stop making county clerk Kim Davis out to be a hero. Please understand that Jim Crow was once a hero too, for standing up for what he believed in. Please stop making this about anything but bigotry.

To call this a fight for religious freedom is to quite literally mock the First and Fourteenth amendments. Davis is not for religious freedom. She's for forcing people to live according to her own agenda. She's for spreading her own beliefs and disregarding everyone else's. She's only about your freedom to exercise religion, as long as it's hers too. It's beyond hypocritical--it's laughable. And by labeling her hateful fight as one for religious freedom, we're doing nothing but validating her nonsense.

How about Davis stops picking and choosing which aspects of her religious principles she'd like to follow and advocate for, and simply does the job she was paid to do?

What would have happened if Davis had married a gay couple? Would she then be gay, herself? Would she then be held accountable by God for the "disagreeable" actions of others? How would it have affected her in anyway but a paycheck? Imagine if vegetarian waiters refused to serve customers steak. Imagine if they somehow felt like they're right to not eat meat was infringed upon by someone else's right to enjoy it. Would we do anything but laugh at them?

And to those who believe the gay couples should have just traveled elsewhere to get married: you're missing the point. They should not have to. County clerks are elected in to serve the public. They did not choose her because they wanted her to lead them down the straight and narrow road to righteousness. That's not her job. Her job is to serve them.

Imagine all the groups who could potentially be oppressed if we allowed conservative Christians to discriminate like this: gay people, single mothers, the recently divorced, eaters of shellfish, anyone who practice any other religion, etc.

And lastly, please stop using your "religious beliefs" to justify bigotry. Beliefs can be homophobic. That's the nature of opinions. So yes, you're religious. But you're not in any way, shape, or form honoring God denying others their basic human rights.

Conservative President = Conservative SCOTUS = Dear God, No

17 unruly GOP candidates is scary for reasons I don't think warrant explanation.
But even scarier than the overwhelming amount of stupidity and arrogance in this race, is the party's front runner--who is, honestly, and I'm being unapologetically biased, as stupid and arrogant as it gets--Donald Trump.

It's not only terrifying to think that the reality of our current political system is being molded by Trump, but it's frightening to know that, for whatever reason, his support seems to grow stronger regardless of his blatantly racist and sexist remarks. It makes you think that, perhaps, the world is ending. Maybe humanity is dwindling into irrelevancy. Maybe we will all destroy each other, by popular sovereignty, nonetheless. And maybe, we are descending into an electorate less like people and more like swine, evident by our prudent, piggish potential president.

I'm being dramatic. Trump won't win. He can't. But Trump politics are undoubtedly seeping into the rhetoric of the other GOP candidates as they try to gain relevancy. That's what's really scary. The idea that the nonsense and impracticality of Donald Trump may actually find it's way into the political agenda and public policy.

And even though that may seem like the worse thing that could possibly happen to our already ill and aging Uncle Sam, it's not. A Republican president would not only dramatically progress our good ol' uncle's disease--it would be as if no past procedures were ever even performed. As if we had never detected the tumor, let alone undergone treatment. And this aggressive disease will attack white blood cells via the U.S. Supreme Court.

The truth is, our justices are old. Old. Four of our nine justices are over 77 years old. Meaning that there will most likely, within the next five years, be a few vacancies in the court, due to resignation and, well, death.

If there is a Republican in office to fill these vacancies, I'm almost certain every justice they appoint will be conservative. (None of the current GOP candidates seem to have the moral compass which would enable them to try to balance the court.) This means that there will be an overwhelming conservative majority in the Supreme Court, in one of the most liberal and progressive times in American history. And for me, and for a lot of us, this means we will live under policy reviewed by a conservative regime for the rest of our lives. The rest of our lives. 

That should scare you, regardless of where your political allegiances lie. Political party affiliation aside, we should all agree that a liberal pull in the Supreme Court is always best. This is because conservatives are, well, conservative. They're hesitant to change; to adapt; to evolve. They tend to interpret the Constitution--an increasingly irrelevant and ill-fitting document--literally, instead of looking at modern day issues and social opinions, and allowing the Constitution to better serve today's people. It's not that liberals cannot stand firm within their beliefs, as many conservatives claim, but it's that liberals can understand that current politics operate outside of their own personal opinions and agendas. It's about progression, fairness, and ultimately, making sure the Constitution is used to push all Americans forward, instead of being used to hold them back.

This summer, we were all so proud of our court. We legalized gay marriage, we strengthened fair housing laws, protected universal healthcare. It wasn't only a day to remember, but a time to be alive. We witnessed history, and saw the nation transform into one that can now be home to more than a few of our fellow citizens who've all this time felt like they'd been squatting on Unc's property.

Unfortunately, if a Republican is in office and is able to appoint conservative justices, I'm afraid we won't have days like these for a long, long time.

Black History: Backflashes and Foreshadowing

Brave New Worlds collide and shatter
into colors and sounds unseen, unheard of.
Catastrophic histories cascade in crescendo
to tell a story that both begins and ends in heartbreak.

Exposition occurs sometime before whiplashes on our backs
turned to bullet holes in our backs,
but after chains around our wrists
turned to cuffs around our wrists.

The plot thickens in some small town,
minority-riddled,
where a line has been drawn in blood
beneath a cloud of gunpowder,
which seems to linger unwillingly in the humid southern air.

Separated, brown mothers--who promised
themselves they'd never be here--
and their children--who promised
themselves their mothers would never be here--
respond to tragedy in the only way anger manifests,
and officers begin to laden themselves in riot gear.

Somewhere,
between their meet and their disperse,
Molotov-cocktails and teargas canisters
confuse age of perceptions of Black and White
with the nuances of the Human Condition.

Suddenly,
it's not a small town,
minority-riddled.
It's more than that.

And suddenly,
you resent small towns,
minority-riddled,
for making you step outside of yourself,
and forcing you to dodge mirrors.
Avoiding the questions you know must be waiting there for you.


Jaylin Paschal

#BlackWomenMatter: On Sandra Bland, Angry Black Women, and Dignity

by Jaylin Paschal
As we all know, black women are not able to express normal, human emotions or opinions without harsh backlash. Although black women are constantly provoked, attacked, and taken advantage of-probably more than any other group of people-they are also constantly silenced and shrugged off. And although we, black women, are consistently lusted over, and our features and characteristics are consistently mimicked as "high fashion," we find ourselves repeatedly being told that we are undesirable and unworthy of attention, affection, or love. Black women are expected to be silent in all situations, even those that are offensive and even those that have been escalated by the other party. Our emotions, opinions, and asserts are almost always viewed as aggressive-regardless of whether or not they were formed in our own defense. And when we, black women, refuse to respond to this abuse with the proper hanging of the head and "yes, sir" or "yes, ma'am," we are deemed as attitudinal, bitter, and angry. No one takes the time to look at why we are upset, or to examine the conditions and cultures with which we are frustrated. They just lock their doors, and shake their heads at our "aggressiveness" while watching us out their windows. There is no attempt to understand our frustration, and there is no "freedom of speech" defense working towards our benefit as we try to advocate for ourselves. Black women are denied the empathy and understanding that so many others are granted, and take for granted. Our responses are not recognized as normal human reactions, because that would require the acknowledgement of our humanity. Instead we are pigeon-holed as the "wild" and "ghetto" beings who can be found stomping around mad at the world. The world that continuously belittles and rejects us.

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten "omg your attitude," or, more often "you're so angry lol" from (white) coworkers because I was not allowing management or customers take advantage of me. Whereas other (white) employees were called "strong" or "smart" for literally regurgitating what I had just said. As professor Marc Lamont Hill explained during a CNN interview, black women are often called out for having an attitude problem when, in fact, they just have a bit of dignity. And while that dignity is praised and revered when demonstrated by others, it is frowned upon and attributed to bitterness when exuded by us.

And there is no more perfect example of this than the tragedy involving Sandra Bland and a police officer that has gained nationwide attention.

Bland, who was apparently being followed by the officer, switched lanes after he pulled an erratic U-turn and began to accelerate behind her, in order to allow him to pass. (Because who wants a crazy cop trailing them, right?) Bland was then pulled over for failure to signal that lane change. (For failure to signal a lane change. How many of us would be stopped if that was regularly enforced?)

The encounter escalated quickly, although Bland did absolutely nothing illegal during the interaction. It almost seems as if the officer was picking on her, when asking her if something was wrong or if she-predictable-had an attitude. She responded honestly, explaining that she was irritated (as we all are when pulled over) but also explaining that she knew the officer had to do his job and give her the ticket. Being irritated with police officers and expressing that irritation is not illegal, as Hill also pointed out in his CNN appearance: "Cops act as if you're not completely kowtowing and being differential towards them, then somehow you're violating a law. [...] We have the right to be irritated." And we also have the right to express that irritation honestly. Honesty is not illegal. It's actually one of those traits associated with dignity.

Many will argue that Bland was then uncooperative because she did not put out her cigarette when she was asked to. As black women we are, again, expected to respond to everything in "yes, sir's," so Sandra's refusal was insulting to the officer. But, that's not illegal. In fact, there is no Texas law against smoking a cigarette in your car, therefore the officer had no right to ask her to put it out in the first place. Bland stated that she didn't have to, and she was absolutely right. Asking her to get out of her car for refusal to put out her cigarette was improper, and yet another example of the officer's misconduct. Knowing your rights and reminding others of them isn't illegal. It's an example of having some governance over yourself. It's an example of dignity.

Others argue with the "combative" monologue, mentioning Bland's refusal to talk to the cop. She told him that she wasn't going to speak to him unless it was to identify herself. Which is also correct under the law. Bland was not at all being combative. She was, in fact, 100% correct and totally cooperative. She was simply cooperating in a lawful manner that involved refusing to talk to a man who obviously had little to no respect for her. Which was, again, an example of dignity.

When asked to get out of her car, she asked repeatedly why she was being arrested. To which the cop responded "for resisting arrest." That makes no sense. You have to have a reason to be arrested to then resist arrest. What he meant by "resisting arrest" was "daring to be dignified in the presence of a white man with a badge."

Bland should have never been arrested in the first place, and yet she has died in a jail cell. Not because she didn't signal a lane change in a moment of probable confusion and anxiety. Not because she was "resisting arrest," when the original reason for arrest was nonexistent. But ultimately because she displayed humanity in an unapologetic and dignified manner. She admitted to irritation, exercised her rights, and behaved as any of us would have. Apparently a black woman isn't allowed to do that, and if she does, whatever happens to her is her own fault.

Or at least that's ex-policeman Harry Houck's perspective, as he claimed on CNN that Sandra Bland is dead "because she was arrogant." However, if that was the case, the cop would have been dead as soon as he shouted "I will light you up" at Bland when she refused to comply to an unlawful request.

Sandra Bland is not dead because she was arrogant or because she taunted the cop with the classic "angry black woman" rhetoric. Mainly because she was not an angry black woman. She was a black woman, who was angry. And rightfully so. And understandably so; humanly so. The interaction was a raw, uncut example of our own humanity and behaviors and emotion. She was dignified, and she did what I would do. And probably, what you would do. And, more importantly, she did so legally. The truth of the matter is, as Senior Editor of The New Republic Jamil Smith tweeted, "Sandra Bland did nothing unlawful in that video. Attitude and disgust with her own mistreatment was treated like a criminal offense." And the "attitudes" of black women are often criminalized, as we are denied these very human responses. As we are denied humanity. As we are denied dignity.


#SandraBland #SayHerName


First published on web.insightmag.org

The #BlackLlivesMatter Movement: Why There is an Emphasis on Black Lives

by Jaylin Paschal

When the #BlackLivesMatter movement came about, many, mostly non-black, especially white, people misinterpreted the message and took offense. I don't know if the entitlement is the problem, or the ignorance, or just the desire to be included. But I am going to try to explain the movement in this post.

That being said, I realize that anyone who would be offended by the statement "black lives matter" in the first place, as if it is untrue, is probably extremely closed minded anyways. I am, more than likely, talking to a brick wall. The truth about brick walls are that they will never change, or be moved, until you take a sledgehammer to them. All I can do is take a sledgehammer to the mentality that allows you to argue with me when I claim that my life, the lives of my family and friends, and the lives of black beings all over the world matter.

I originally titled this article "#BlackLivesMatter vs. #AllLivesMatter" but that's not exactly the point of this. That title was far too combative, and this article is not about conflict as the "versus" would have implied. This is not argumentative. This is explanatory.

We say "black lives matter" and there is always someone who cringes and asks, "don't you mean, all lives matter?" And frankly put, no. That's not what we meant. That is what we know to be true, and what we believe in our hearts, but that's not what we meant. In fact, we shout "black lives matter" because we are so compelled to believe that all lives matter. 

And if we believe that all lives matter, but see that black lives are being treated as disposable and insignificant, how could we not shout "black lives matter"? How could we not focus on the group that is suffering the most from everything the movement against systematic oppression is fighting-institutionalized racism, police brutality, mass incarceration, economic apartheid, racial profiling, etc.?

Yes, all lives matter, but no, all lives do not suffer from the evils listed previously which we ultimately seek to rid the nation of.

And I'm sure this is the part when white people will send me the picture below like, "Actually, even more white people suffer."

If you're one of those white people, you are a part of the problem. Understand that there are millions more white people than people of any other race in this country. Which means that when you consider the rate of killings by percentages, as you always should, you will see that although the black population (12.6%) is significantly smaller than the white population (63.7%), black people are killed by police almost 3 times more frequently. More than 5 times smaller, killed 3 times more frequently. Don't send me this picture. Delete this picture, and then curse the media for using numbers to misrepresent an issue and "discredit what has happened to black people".

We say "black lives matter" because you can kill a black teenage boy with Skittles and tea for "looking suspicious" and not be penalized. We say "black lives matter" because a black man can be killed for touching a gun being sold in a Wal-Mart. We say "black lives matter" because a black 12-year-old playing in a park can be shot dead within two seconds of cops' arrival. We say "black lives matter" because the justice system acts as if they do not. There is a pattern of injustice towards African Americans. A pattern that can be ignored,  but not denied.

The truth is, if any of the previously mentioned victims had been white, they would either not have been killed in the first place, or their murderers would be behind bars. That is the difference. White lives are valuable, therefore killing innocent white people is unjust. You get in trouble for hurting or harassing white people. The same cannot be said for people of color. We know white lives matter, and the justice system knows that, too.

This is not to say that white lives, or all lives, do not suffer.  We all suffer. But from what? If the evil is systematic, then you should be on board with the "Black Lives Matter" movement, as we tackle systematic demons. But if not, understand that there is a difference between being offended and being oppressed. Not all struggles are struggles of oppression. And if your struggle is not oppressive--restrictive, but not oppressive--rejoice in that fact. Be glad that there is no need to rally for your life. (I will never understand why some white people seem to want so badly to included in oppression or struggles for freedom.)

That is why we say "black lives" instead of "all lives." Not to be exclusive, but to send attention directly to the issue the movement is focused on. "All lives matter is true as an AXIOM, but not as a social and political MOVEMENT. In the political and social landscape, black lives need #BlackLivesMatter as a MOVEMENT to save us. People aren't seeing the difference between a belief/axiom and a movement." (Alex Montgomery, @sohamist)



Furthermore, if you truly believe that all lives matter, you would not be offended by an emphasis on black lives. Just as you would not be offended by the statement "gay lives matter." In fact, you'd probably grab a rainbow flag and shout it with them. You would not pollute a protest with your own agenda and phrase, just as you would not scream "ALL DISEASES MATTER" at a cancer fundraiser. In fact, you'd probably donate to the cause, because it is a necessary battle.
If you are, somehow, offended, you are the problem. You are the brick wall.

Note that there is no reason to be offended, as nowhere in the statement "black lives matter" do we suggest other lives don't, or that black lives matter more. Changing "black" to "all" is just spitting on all of the black lives lost to unjust murders and turning your back on a movement rooted in positivity.

But again, I am more than likely talking to a brick wall. And when it comes to brick wall mentalities, their only hope is destruction. When the old, oppressive bricks are finally rubble, they can be cleared away and there will space to rebuild.


First published on web.insightmag.org

Freedoms, Flags, Fires: Wright State University Students Protest Injustice

by Jaylin Paschal

College students have a reputation. Wild. Careless. Lazy.

What people tend to overlook is the passion young people have. The hunger for knowledge. The fearlessness. The willingness to start a fire. 

All it takes is one spark to set a campus ablaze.

For Wright State University, that spark turned to flame on April 24.

I sat with students and concerned citizens Tommy DiMassimo, Will Kellum, and Jordan Ross, to discuss the issues and mainly, to listen.

When these students and others decided to exercise their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, they set out with a very clear goal: stand in solidarity with Eric Sheppard (if you don't know, read up) and ultimately contribute to the dismantling of white supremacy.

The students went to the campus's center with a desire to begin an important and necessary dialogue. They displayed their ideas on a sign which read,
"I STAND... 

• with Eric Sheppard and the preservation of First Amendment Rights.
• for all men and women in service to their country.
• for the accountability of the media and other social institutions.
• justice, equality, tolerance, and diversity.
• upon the belief that higher learning should provoke students to question social norms, mainstream values, and power structures.
• [upon the belief that] the "American" spirit is a revolutionary spirit.
• on the American flag because there's no thing MORE American than that."

The protest began with students only holding the sign. When they recognized the lack of interest from their peers, they decided to actually stand on an American flag, as Eric Sheppard, Valdosta State University, did and is now being persecuted for--a statement that definitely brought attention to the stance.

Unfortunately, the attention was not geared toward the unjust oppression of Freedom of Speech, the "rampancy of racism," or the frequent loss of black lives, but to the flag. Not the human beings, the stars and stripes. This was not only a disappointment to the protesters but a shameful display of insensitivity and lack of humanity.

"This is not the tragedy. They'll make more flags. It's not that easy to make more black people," DiMassimo expressed.

Once students noticed the protesters standing on the flag, many were angered. "Nigger" was spat out, a protester was threatened to be lynched, and another was told he would be "put in a coffin with a flag draped over it." These threats were dished out both in person and online. Other messages included "if you don't like America, go back to where you came from" and "get out of my college, better yet, my fucking country."

Some called the protesters "terrorists," to which Kellum responded, "we are terrorists to the white privilege system".

Of course, the local news covered the protest. And our media outlets never fail to let us down. Instead of defending the Constitutional rights to speech and protest, bringing the issue of racism and white supremacy to light, or even condemning threats and promises of physical violence, they painted the protesters as the problem. The "angry" protesters "disrespected" and "threw down" the flag. The story became about the (white, as they only interviewed white students) bystanders' discomfort, instead of the dead, or soon to be dead, (black) men the protesters were fighting for.

The problem is, you can yell "black lives matter" and no one will even look your way. But if you whisper it while upon a flag, they'll pay attention. Not to the issue that matters to you, but to the piece of cloth beneath your feet. Flags matter to people. Black lives don't. The responses and threats the protesters received prove that to be true.

Imagine a nation in which citizens cared about black people as much as they cared about the flag.

"Replace 'black man' with 'flag'. Next time a black person gets shot, we need to say 'cop shoots American flag'," said DiMassimo.

Although it is understood that the flag is often a symbol for freedom (for white people), it must also be understood that the same flag is, ironically, a symbol for oppression. A powerful and deadly force exists in this nation "under God" that is too often ignored. The systematic oppression in America is what allows institutionalized racism, police brutality, economic apartheid, racial profiling, etc. to plague the lives of citizens of color every day. Standing on the flag is not standing on your idea of freedom, it is simply asking: "Freedom for who? Liberty and justice for all?" It is challenging the notion that a black Valdosta student can be hunted for expressing his basic, inalienable rights.

To those who disagree with this act and means of speaking out against injustice, ask yourself, would you be paying attention now if they hadn't stepped on that flag?

To those who believe there is a "better way" to get the point across, like singing Kumbaya and participating in group hugs, wake up. Love is necessary but action is what's effective. As DiMassimo said, "there's no thinking and loving your way out of racism."

And finally, to White America, still in denial of privilege, insistent on supremacy and blind to the bloodshed of fellow citizens-fellow human beings-, your burning will provide light and heat for the rest of us.

If I am to be completely honest, I must express that there is both fear and excitement in me as the flames continue to spread, not only through Fairborn, Ohio, but through the nation. People think of the word "fire" and fear the possible destruction. What they fail to realize is that fires often clear out the debris, allowing a healthier world to grow in its place. Fires will mean out with the old systems, old ideals, old institutions, and old power structures. In with the new.

First published on web.insightmag.org

The Same Damn Heart - Poetry

A special thanks to my lovely and brilliant friend, Frida, for the title.

The Same Damn Heart
I am used to old, beer guzzling men
with gunmetal hair beneath veteran caps,
with leather jackets and leathery skin,
with scars and wrinkles somehow defiant.
Openly private, and more likely to share social security numbers than war stories.
These old men, intoxicated and intolerable,
have tattooed their regrets onto their sleeves
and wear their piercings to remind themselves
that no matter how much space they take up,
things can still go through them.
Unapologetic and amused by life,
they shout-
"If I knew then what I know now,
I'd do the same damn thing,
because even after all these years
the sweet is just as potent as the bitter."
Slow and steady is the beat of the old man heart,
but if you look closely, you can still see
the youthful soul pressing behind their eyes.

I am used to old, beer guzzling men
sweaty, and tired but not finished
and not afraid.

Jaylin Paschal

Other favorites from title suggestions were "Bitter(sweet)" and "Gunmetal".

Happy Birthday, Trayvon

Trayvon Martin would have been 20 years old today. 

Rest easy.

PSA!!!! "Ghetto" is Not an Adjective

Public Service Announcement: "GHETTO" IS NOT AN ADJECTIVE!

ghet•to     /'gedō/     noun

a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups

Correct use:

The Jewish man shared his experiences in the Warsaw ghetto.

Incorrect use:

Her weave is so ghetto!

How We Should Remember MLK

In my elementary school days, one day a year, usually in February, during a pathetic lets-get-this-over-with version of a Black History Month observation, I sat through videos and discussions about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I learned about how peaceful and tolerant he was. I learned that he "had a dream," and tried to accomplish that dream by passive-aggressively ignoring the violence and sheer ignorance of the day. Essentially, I was taught that he patiently waited for the white man to come to his senses. In high school the lesson, if it's even taught, has remained the same. But it's not entirely true.

There was nothing even remotely passive aggressive about Dr. King or his methods. He was assertive and to the point. He set goals and often went to drastic measures to meet those goals. Dr. King's nonviolence policy should not be confused as him looking the other way when white people were brutal. His policy was simply his refusal to fight fire with fire, in an attempt to put out the flames in their entirety. "By any means necessary" wasn't his thing, but he also didn't just pray and sit quietly while simply hoping better times would come.

If he saw something he didn't like, he did something about it. He spoke up. He sometimes broke the law with the logic that "one has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

His true existence would be better described as radical but nonviolent, as he said himself that he did not believe in peace where there is injustice, stating: "If peace means keeping my mouth shut in the midst of injustice and evil, I don't want it." He also stated in his famous Letter From Birmingham Jail, "I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate [...] who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice." As ironic as it sounds, true peace had to be fought for.

Never let people respond to your cries against police brutality, unjust murders of black men, women, and children, racial profiling, or systematic racism with some misquoted or out-of-context quote from Dr. King claiming that "MLK wouldn't agree with this anger/idea/uproar/protest." Because he did feel what we are feeling.

On police brutality: "We can never be satisfied as long as the negro is the victim of the unspeakable horror of police brutality."

On unjust murders and a racist system/society: "We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers."

On racial profiling/ black self-love: "Look in your dictionary and see synonyms for the word 'black'. It's always degrading, low, and sinister. Look at the word 'white'. It's always pure, high, clean."

You never hear quotes like these from Dr. King. I feel like that's because people and the education system will always neglect the more assertive teachings and beliefs of Dr. King. They'll always promote passive aggressiveness and pacifism because they can manage that; because it keeps a conversation from starting and allows a "negative peace which is the absence of tension" to more easily exist. That's why you  hardly ever learn about Malcolm X in schools. People don't want you to latch on to his "radical" ideas -- which they had no control over; which provided no wiggle room-- , and so they shove the not-so-radical ideas of MLK down your throat. "Remember, MLK wouldn't have lost his patience with Darren Wilson or the justice system." Yes. he definitely would have lost his patience. Maybe not his temper; definitely would not have abandoned his nonviolence policy or morals; but patience would have been wearing thin -- that's for sure.

Yes, Dr. King was peaceful and nonviolent. Yes, that is important. Extremely important. I cannot stress its importance. But I wish he was remembered for the more controversial, revolutionary ideas as well, because those ideas are what really pushed this nation towards a tolerant society, free of prejudice and racism.

I love that we as a nation honor and remember Dr. King. I love that, and I appreciate it. I think it's a beautiful thing. I look up to Dr. King in so many ways and everyone should join together to remember a great life lived by a true lover of peace. We should remember Dr. King by honoring his "true legacy of radical resistance against the status quo."