Rosie cruise documentary glosses over race?
CVK
I just read this review in Xtra, Toronto’s gay and lesbian weekly paper, of “All Aboard: Rosie’s Family Cruise,” a documentary about the cruise for queer families that Rosie O’Donnell founded:
The film follows lesbian and gay mothers and fathers and their children as they talk about their experiences, attend seminars on parenting, disembark to homophobic protesters and enjoy the cheesy cruise-ship entertainment. Cruise founder Rosie O’Donnell is part of the onboard entertainment; she also shares her family’s story. Much to the director Shari Cookson’s credit, it’s not all about Rosie. All Aboard is really about providing a safe haven for queers and their families. As one dyke says to her cop girlfriend, “The other day I reached over and kissed you in line and didn’t have to worry about it.”
There is so much love in this film that sometimes you wonder if anyone could really be this happy. But this is a gay cruise, after all. Not to say they don’t talk about being gay parents. They do; the whole film is about it. Yet the doc glosses over implications of having mixed-race families; it’s obvious that most of the adults are white and the children black, Asian or mixed race.
It’s not the first time Mixed Media Watch has noticed race weirdness within the queer community (check out our post about the DYKEdolls, for example). I find it fascinating that even within so-called progressive circles, people are still so unaccustomed to and uncomfortable talking about race.
gatamala wrote:
It’s sad, but not surprising. Many people do expect that b/c white homosexuals have 1 sense of “otherness” they will automatically empathize w/ any other sense of otherness. That’s not the case. If you “take away” homosexuality you still have a white woman. If you think the above is harsh, consider how many of them may (& probably do) live in communities that are in transition (gentrification). Note the contempt displayed toward the locals who have lived there for ages.
Posted 23 May 2006 at 11:02 am ¶
jlnli wrote:
OTOH, isn’t it possible that because of the trouble that some gay/lesbians have with adopting that they end up getting the “less desirable” children (which, unfortunately seem to be more often non-white or older - or both).
Of course that’s no excuse for them not to be talking about the ramifications of the racial aspects of their families!
Posted 23 May 2006 at 11:06 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
Though it’s clearly an issue in larger society, in some circles mixed race families have become fairly normal. In California and the northeast, recent graduates of the higher end universities rarely think anything of it. It may just be that gay couples with kids have become so accustomed the mixed race nature of adoptive families that it never occurs to them to raise the question, even if others would think it’s an obvious think to talk about. Make what you will of that. It may be unfortunate in some ways, but I wonder if there’s at least something good about it. You make it sound as if it’s bad that people aren’t constantly obsessed with racial issues that, I would hope, most of us would like to go away at some point.
Posted 23 May 2006 at 12:27 pm ¶
mtevc wrote:
it’s not about being constantly obsessed with racial issues…it’s about providing the necessary info to your kids as they go out in the world…which isn’t always so color blind…and it’s also about instilling a good sense of self, as well
Posted 23 May 2006 at 1:20 pm ¶
bertie wrote:
I have to second gatamala’s statement. As someone whose spent time around democratic party campaigns on the grassroots level, I’ve heard some of the most obnoxious statements regarding race (including labelling anything associated with black folks as “ghetto”) come from so-called “progressive” folks (this includes gays, lesbians, and limo liberals). Less offensive, but equally maddening was the fact that for some strange reason, whenever I (a black male) was around, these white, middle class, professional, normal politically active gay and lesbian folks would channel their inner “black woman” —or their approximation of what a black woman is like (neck roles, “talk to hands” sassy attitude and all). I could never tell if this was a misguided homage or out right mockery. But I think gatamala was most perceptive by introducing class issues into the mix. You see that tension (gay professional men moving into “transitional” neighborhoods and displacing the poorer, browner old residents) in abundance in DC.
Posted 23 May 2006 at 1:24 pm ¶
HC wrote:
Jeremy Pierce: “You make it sound as if it’s bad that people aren’t constantly obsessed with racial issues…”
Talking about race is being “obsessed” with race? LOL!
It’s preparing children for their future… It’s for our own personal gowth — parents and children.
Posted 23 May 2006 at 3:21 pm ¶
John wrote:
Jeremy P–
“obsessed with racial issues, that, I would hope, most of us would like to go away at some point.”
Ignorance doesn’t just “go away”.
A person can “hope” all he/she wants… It means nothing without action.
If you read MMW archives, I “hope” you’ll find that CVK & JC are very good at explaining the differences between COLOR BLIND & COLOR MUTE.
Posted 23 May 2006 at 3:50 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
(Many of) Jeremy Pierce’s comments are a perfect illustration of white priviledge. I once had some idiot tell me that “racism isn’t a problem until people like you make it one.”
Posted 23 May 2006 at 8:11 pm ¶
Brad wrote:
I have to agree with the comments about not talking about racial issues just leads to continued ignorance. It’s like never talking about sex doesn’t mean that people aren’t having it and getting pregnant.
Posted 23 May 2006 at 9:14 pm ¶
Brad wrote:
Not talking about racial issues or concerns just leads to continued ignorance, misunderstandings, and pain. People rely on stereotypes and generalizations too much unless they are confronted with different opinions and facts.
As for the gay community “ignoring” race in adoption, it’s merely a reflection of the problems in the larger community. Gays and lesbians are just as racist as anyone else. My neighbors are a middle-aged gay couple. One of the men jokingly says racist things about black people to me. I’m not sure if he realizes that I’m part black. When I called him on his racism, he shrugged it off and said that was the way he was raised. I was gobsmacked. I asked him how he couldn’t understand the similarity between racism and homophobia. The jerk still didn’t get it.
Ultimately, people, gay or straight, are brainwashed by their parents and the rest of society to believe in certain things: some good and some bad. Transracial adoption can be a good or bad based on how willing the parents are to make adjustments to their lives and willingness to learn about their children’s heritage.
I find gay Republicans to be pretty pathetic on many levels. But it’s kinda hilarious how so many of them are shocked that the GOP has chosen to demonize gays to win votes. However, when the GOP was demonizing people of color via the Southern Strategy they said nothing.
Posted 23 May 2006 at 9:32 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Bertie — you must be talking about Columbia Heights, 14th st & Shaw. DC has a lot going on (as usual). Let me put it this way, “they” want “their” city back. There are so many levels of racism, homophobia, classism that are constantly battling it out. A disproportionate amount of kids in the system and ready for adoption are older black children. I have seen documentaries where they end up in homes headed by a gay couple. I really wonder how these oft-competing -isms affect the black children of these couples.
As for your encounters w/ these liberals….I am so disgusted by how you have been treated as well. I don’t know WHAT to call that behavior. As usual, it’s a mix b/t superficial well-meaning intent (maybe) and the same ol’ racism.
Brad — you are sooo right. I learned that the hard way in college (DAMN was I naive). I was marvelling over this gay racist! I couldn’t get how in one minute he was feeling the hatred yet spew it from his lips the next minute.
Jlnli — I definitely believe the chance of gay couple getting a white infant is 1/.000000001. I agree w/ you there. But, knowing this to be the case (& they should know this), you’d think that they would want to emphasize their ability to be good parents by learning about the issues the kid will have to face in addition to being the child of gay parents.
Posted 24 May 2006 at 1:12 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
“(Many of) Jeremy Pierce’s comments are a perfect illustration of white priviledge.”
Have you seen his site? I don’t know him personally, but I’m sure he won’t listen/understand/respond.
Posted 24 May 2006 at 8:01 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
Ha! Won’t listen/understand/respond? That could only come from someone who knows nothing of my family, hasn’t seen my site, doesn’t know my interests or my academic background (in critical race theory, no less), and has no sense of how I interact with commenters on my blog. People who strongly disagree with me consider me fair and continue to read my blog. My philosophical training is probably strongest in helping me to interact with people I disagree with, to understand positions that I wouldn’t immediately have thought true.
As for substance, I think this discussion has an interesting theme. You can be open to “otherness” in one sense without being open to “otherness” in another. I think that’s obviously true, and I think politicians are particularly good at being racially insensitive while pandering to black voters. This has been more common among Democrats, because Democrats have relied on black voters and are losing them very slowly as black voters are realizing exactly the point that Democratic policies aren’t really framed to help overcome racial problems but are rather put together to appear to be doing something. Of course, that’s how many politicians work. It’s not about any party or about race. But I’m well aware of that problem.
What I find deeply ironic is that every comment about me in this thread demonstrates exactly the same general phenomenon. Being sensitive to certain issues within race regarding “otherness” doesn’t make one sensitive to all issues even about race regarding “otherness”. I think many people here simply assume that I have no sensitivity to race issues simply becase I happen to disagree with the majority evaluation of it in this thread.
For the record, I happen to agree with Gatamala’s first comment in this thread fully, except for the insinuation that being a white woman equates to being a racist. I don’t endorse anti-white racism any more than I do anti-black racism. I didn’t have anything to say against the reality of racism among gays because I’m well aware of the potential for someone lower on the social ladder to find someone yet lower in some sense to think of as being worse. That doesn’t mean all white lesbians are racists, but it does allow for the possibility that many and even most white lesbians are very much a part of the structures in society that perpetuate harm along racial lines (which doesn’t amount to being a racist, though I have no doubt that white lesbians can be outright racists as well).
Furthermore, I think colorblind-talk is a way of avoiding dealing with real racial issues. Those who assume I thought otherwise simply demonstrate more about yourself than about me. You don’t need to tell me of this distinction. It’s something I regularly insist on against those who would deny the reality of race. It would take a mere browsing of some of my posts on race to see this, which shows that the anonymous commenter who referred to my blog hasn’t really looked very hard at my blog.
Now as to comments by mtevc and hc, I’m not sure how that’s relevant. I see no evidence that these families aren’t talking about race, just that the documentary’s producers didn’t think to focus on it. I was hypothesizing that it could just as easily be because the interracial element seemed so normal to the families as it could be from some underlying racism at work in the gay community.
I’m not taking the idiotic position that we shouldn’t talk about race. I’m simply recognizing that the producers of a documentary about gay families who happen to have lots of mixed race and black children are not necessarily demonstrating racial insensitivity by not spending much time talking about the racial elements of those families. It may just be that these filmmakers are so used to it that they don’t think as much of it as the ordinary viewer would. In a way, then, they’re ahead of the majority of the population. Isn’t there at least something good about such progress?
To respond that it ignores the real evil that continues just misses the point. It doesn’t ignore the evil. It allows for some progress and allows for something besides racism to explain something involving race. That doesn’t mean racism is gone or that we should never talk about it, just that in this case it might not be the explanation. It doesn’t mean we should never raise the issue of racism on the part of gay people, just that it might not be the primary explanation in this case. It surely doesn’t mean that these parents shouldn’t be talking about race with their children. It doesn’t even mean that the producers of the documentary were ok in not talking about it. They may have missed an important educational opportunity. But that doesn’t mean that the explanation for why they didn’t talk about it was racism. It may have been a moving away from racism. It’s a very small point, and it amazes me that so many people would read it as something completely beyond what I actually said.
Merq, I can’t fathom how you could possibly move from (1) acknowledging that many people have come a long way with respect to racism and have come to recognize mixed race families as normal to (2) pretending that no one would ever be a racist if people of color didn’t talk about racism. That’s just a non sequitur. It’s important to make careful moral distinctions in any moral issue, particularly one as wide-ranging as race. (1) and (2) are not even close. I did (1). Pretending I did (2) is pretty low. In the future, here’s a hint. When you badly misrepresent someone you’re trying to communicate with, it doesn’t help foster discussion. I happen to be used to it from the intensity of debate in a Ph.D. program in philosophy, but most people who might happen to disagree with you would just write you off as someone held by a racial narrative that doesn’t match up with reality. They thus would never hear what you might have to offer that might allow them to make real progress. So please try to represent other people’s views in a fair way, for the sake of progress even if you don’t care about the person themselves.
Posted 24 May 2006 at 8:56 pm ¶
HC wrote:
Philosophical training. And you couldn’t understand the image of the lone Asian in the Burger King commercial (May 5th post)?
Posted 24 May 2006 at 10:45 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
Understand it? I criticized the formulation of it that was being defended here. That doesn’t mean I didn’t understand it. I made it more precise by seeing it as primarily restricted to older Asian men, and everyone acted as if I was denying that anyone could ever think that martial arts would be the primary way any Asian might display masculinity. I never said anything of the sort, and that’s just another instance of what I’m talking about here.
Saying that a racial narrative is operative with respect to older Asian men who wear business suits but not as much with younger kids does not amount to saying that the narrative doesn’t operate at all. Anyone who can’t see that must be blinded themselves by an ideology that forces them to read (1) any criticism of how someone might describe a racial narratives as (2) an all-out denial of any racial narrative.
Such an ideology is every bit as false as the racial narratives themselves, even if it’s not as immediately harmful. It’s false because people can get a narrative wrong. They can misdescribe something that is going on. When someone comes along and tries to be more precise (even if that person is wrong in the more precise formulation), it’s ridiculous to accuse the person of denying that there’s any racial narrative at work, because the person has already admitted that there’s one by trying to make it more precise. This kind of behavior is harmful because it fosters a spirit of resistance any attempt at being more accurate in describing what’s really going on. It also seems to me to lead to a desire not to recognize when progress is really taking place, because any attempts to observe ways that some people have made some progress (without claiming that racism is gone) are written off as impossible.
Posted 25 May 2006 at 7:41 am ¶
HC wrote:
Hmmm. This was on the Burger King post:
John– “the only Asian male representation– karate chop… Is it really that difficult to comprehend?”
That was easy.
Posted 25 May 2006 at 2:33 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
Jeremy Pierce,
I’m just gonna be honest with you. While I appreciate you taking the time to write that long graf to clarify whatever point you were trying to make, I must admit that I had no interest in reading it, and no real interest in interacting with you. You strike me as disturingly similar to Unlisted in your faux-liberal “I know black people”ism.
So I’ll tell you what I told him. It’s not my job to teach you, so fuck it. But for future reference, a Ph.D. does not an expert make. Great to hear you’re an educated individual. Bully for you. But I don’t see how that makes you any more knowledgeable on this subject.
Posted 25 May 2006 at 3:58 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
Merq: I never said I knew more than any particular person on any subject here. All I said is that I understand the distinctions people are trying to baby me with here. That doesn’t mean I think I know them better, just that I know them. The contrast is between someone who doesn’t know all that much about racial narratives (me as a teenager, say) and someone who has read a fair amount of critical race theory (me now). I don’t know how you could think there’s nothing of value to learn in critical race theory, but that’s what your claim amounts to.
If people refuse to read and think carefully and then pretend I said something I didn’t say, I will respond. I will take the length of time it takes to make the proper distinctions and clarifications. It’s pretty lame to throw accusations around without being willing to devote attention to engaging in the careful thought that’s required to evaluate those careless words. But I’ll repeat my main point anyway for those who can’t bother to read the more careful argument: Clarifying and specifying a racial narrative doesn’t amount to denying it. Pretending I did the latter when I did the former is simply immoral. That’s what I contend has been done here, and further discussion is just confirming that you want to keep doing that rather than acknowledge that you misunderstood me.
HC, that’s not a very convincing argument. For one thing, as someone pointed out in that comment thread, there at least two appearances of Asian men in the commercial, and only one did the karate chop. More importantly, this argument can be easily made for obviously false conclusions. The only bald white dude pulling a huge load. Does that evidence a stereotype of bald white men as beasts of burden? There was indeed a stereotype involved with that guy, but it wasn’t as general as “bald man”. It was a whole look about him. I think the same is true of the older, dignifiedly-dressed Asian man. My suggestion (which I wasn’t even endorsing with surety) was that it might be a more specific stereotype than the one you were giving.
But what’s important to me now isn’t that you think the more general stereotype is at work, and I think a more specific one is at work. What’s important to me now is that you insanely resist seeing that that’s all we’re disagreeing about.
Posted 25 May 2006 at 11:49 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
This Pierce guy is a joke. I clicked on the link to watch the Asian man (one) Double Whopper commercial and can’t believe he’s for real.
Ph.D. or not, the proof is in “Jeremy Pierce’s” rambling paragraphs. This isn’t even highschool level writing or thinking.
I think this is also for reader’s comments, not a blog section.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 6:05 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
There’s a difference between an argument that takes several steps to present carefully and rambling paragraphs that say nothing.
I thought this site was going to be a good resource about mixed race, something I care very deeply about that doesn’t get much thoughtful analysis in mainstream media. It turned out that most people here aren’t really interested in careful discussion but would rather just insult anyone who does want a serious discussion. I can’t understand that mindset, but it’s pretty juvenile.
Posted 26 May 2006 at 9:08 am ¶
John wrote:
jeremy,
all i can say, is try learning from your past comments & think about why you’re pissing people off.
Posted 08 Jun 2006 at 11:29 am ¶