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.