violence

This week President Obama announced that the U.S. military murdered Osama bin Laden. As a response, people flocked to the White House and Ground Zero partying to the news, chanting "USA! USA!" I'm frightened and confused at the celebration of violence as a resolution to conflict, and I'm particularly hurt by a sentiment underlying this response: that South and West Asians are valueless and disposable.

Violence as a resolution of conflict
I realize this celebration is a response to a tremendous amount of pain that has been felt since 9/11. Bin Laden took responsibility for the unbelievable, horrific events on 9/11, and I am not losing sight of the fact that he should be held accountable. But how does a thoughtful, rational society hold someone accountable for large-scale acts of violence?

Bin Laden's actions were a result of hurt and anger from racist and imperialist foreign policies that were (and still are) oppressive to his people. Since then, America and other ally countries have been engaged in a "war on terror" to eliminate people we've oppressed to such an extent that their anger may manifest into violent actions against us. As a thoughtful, rational person, I do not accept that to end threats to our safety, we must eliminate not the conditions that cause such extreme hurt and anger, but the people our systems oppress.

I do not accept "success" in "ending terror" being defined by who lives and who doesn't. I do not accept killing being the resolution of difference. I do not accept that economical colonialism and American globalized oppression is not part of the conversations about 9/11 and Bin Laden's death. Killing Osama bin Laden does not end the oppression that caused his anger. It unfortunately is not even slightly connected. The systems that created his anger are still in place.

Celebration as a response to Bin Laden's murder shows that we'll continue to be distracted from real, meaningful solutions to our world's problems. We'll continue to be confused about what a better world will look like and how to get there.

South and West Asians are valueless and disposable
No one's death should be celebrated. Violence is not an acceptable form of resolution to conflict. I don't care how violent someone has been against us, retaliatory violence is not an acceptable response. America does follow this line of thinking in some spheres of our country's foreign policy, why does it not apply in cases of "terrorist camps" in South and West Asia? Because South and West Asians are viewed as a dime a dozen. As disposable. As if it doesn't matter if we're on this Earth or not.

America’s immediate response to 9/11 was to bomb the heck out of Iraq, letting the world be in "shock and awe" of our great power to mercilessly eliminate a mass of people at the blink of an eye. Mainstream news media here never really gave us a complex understanding of whom it was we were attempting to wipe out. Our government was responding with intense emotions and naming entire countries on an axis of "evil" (which is similar to how Bin Laden viewed America, which we as Americans felt was an unjust generalization). We were operating under the thinking that If you were in one of those countries, no matter who you were, you were of no value, disposable, and it was in our country's best interest if you no longer existed.

We as Americans were disgusted when a video was released of Palestinians celebrating in the streets after 9/11 (a video later to be found as manufactured and fake). But the idea that a people would celebrate such an act of violence was beyond our comprehension. The idea of those celebrations sent us the message that "they" don't really care whom it is they're killing, they just want us blindly eliminated. Our celebration of Bin Laden's death, though not quite the same, signals that we too approve not only of violence as a resolution to conflict, but more so of our little value for the people of South and West Asia. We approve of flying into a country without their government's consent and deploying huge amounts of weaponry (the bomb blasts were felt 4 miles away), because America's sense of safety, however false it may be, is more important than the people of South and West Asian countries.

Personally, I'm disheartened by what's happened outside of the White House and in New York. I cannot accept that violence, as a means of resolving conflict, is an appropriate option. We must eliminate the oppressive conditions that cause so much anger that people are willing to organize huge missions of attack. We must seek to understand the complexities of globalized, imperialistic racism and xenophobia, and the conditions the rest of the world is in as a direct result of our oppression. Only then will we be able to think about alternatives to violence as a response to violence against us.

I've been blessed to collaborate with some amazing artists on a performance work over the past year or so. I've composed sound for the ~30 minute work that will debut at Columbia's Dance Center as part of their Ten Year Celebration on September 25th.

It's been a really great experience collaborating with Ni'Ja and the performers. Creating this work has taken me to places emotionally that I didn't even know existed. It's been hard, scary and really exciting all at the same time. There are moments in the piece of a brutal fierceness of one fighting for their own survival, and moments of tenderness and real vulnerability. See the info on the show below, check out a sampler of the sound I created for the show, and come see the show next Saturday!

I Still Live Here is the premier work of Chicago-based African diasporic performance project, The Artisans of Alchemy (AOA). AOA's founder and director, Ni'Ja Whitson choreographs this eclectic and gripping interdisciplinary performance work, that locates and expresses body memory; a gesture boldly traversing the collection of scars and narratives stored between skin.

Supported by original compositions from sound artist nikhil trivedi, site specific performance for video composed by Whitson, and presented through expressive and dynamically moving bodes, the multimedia landscape of I Still Live Here questions our complicity and personal relationship to violence, connects the horrific reality of “corrective rapes” occurring in staggering numbers in South Africa, to shared histories of, struggles to overcome, and experiences within, collective trauma.

I Still Live Here
September 25, 2010
12:30 pm
1306: Ten Years Later - Dance Center of Columbia College
1306 S Michigan Avenue
FREE

Anida Yoeu Ali's "The 1700% Project" is a fierce, passionate response against violence directed at Muslim communities since 9/11. Using text found in hate crimes that were filed, she writes of acts of violence against the Muslim community, and folks *mistaken* for being Muslim, and uses her writing as a launch-point for a multi-disciplinary work. This retelling of real reports is as compelling as it is horrifying. She uses quotes taken directly from the mouths of perpetrators in her text: "terrorist," "kill all arabs", "go back to your own country", "you Islamic mosquitoes should be killed", "America is only for white people." It's hard for me to even feel comfortable restating those words, all shockingly similar to things I've personally heard in my life and stories that were shared in my community of things that have happened to people I love. I feel re-stimulated by her work, I feel hurt and saddened all over again. But I also feel challenged by Ali, to speak up louder than I have, to stand strongly in solidarity with other oppressed people, and to turn my anger into action, because as she puts it, "we refuse to end in violence."

Unfortunately, last week the installation of her work was defaced. Some of the responses to the news spreading of what happened have been really disheartening. People have been placing the blame on Ali for being "too political," accusing her of defacing her own work just for attention, and questioning whether the act of defacement is a hate crime at all. These questions and accusation are problematic on a number of levels.

First, let's try to frame what the circumstances around the defacement were. When one walks through a gallery space, it's not typical to touch the art or to physically interact with it unless there's something in the space specifying (a sign, security guard) what is allowed by the artist. We can have lots of discussion about artist and audience here, but generally, it's the artist who is given control of a space, and gets to decide what their intention is with their work, and what is safe and appropriate for the audience to do in their space. As a rule of thumb, this usually translates to "don't touch the artwork!" These norms should have been followed with Ali's installation, as there was no such invitation for the audience to interact with her piece.

With no such invitation, one or more people visiting the gallery, viewing her work, used the materials in the space (ink, rags, stick) to paint cartoonish figures on her work. The incident most likely occurred during gallery hours, as that is when most people would have had access to her work. Her work is displayed in a very large gallery with minimal traffic when there is not a special event happening. The perpetrators had a lot of time to act, as the defacement was detailed and deliberate. Her piece is in a space with dozens of (if not close to a hundred) other artists' work. No other work was vandalized besides Ali's, a piece that was made very clear was about hate crimes (through the title card on the wall, takeaway literature on a shelf, and of course the text on the wall). Whether the intent was malicious, ignorant, or intended to be somehow funny, this is just plain disrespectful.

But it's much more complicated than that. Whether it was their intention or not, defacing her installation actively took away her control over the direction of her work. Someone decided that what they had to say was more important than what Ali has to say. Someone decided that Ali's perspective is of lesser value than theirs, and acted to silence her. Because no other work was vandalized, it's clear Ali was targeted specifically--probably for who she is and what her work says. Whether it was their intention to or not, this was an aggressive, racist act of violence. This defacement was a hate crime, against Ali, everything her work is saying, and anyone who comes from a people that have endured similar oppression and violence that her work speaks of.

This is not okay. We cannot let our silence on the matter send the message that what happened is okay. We cannot allow this to be talked about only in terms of vandalism, we must insist we talk about this as an act of violence--and we must refuse to let this end in violence. This is about art, but it is also about much more. This is about oppression and racism. This is about the silencing of communities of color. This is about how we choose to respond as witnesses of violence.

I tripped over this utility that shows you what your web pages look like to someone whose colorblind. This site didn’t look all too different, but since the maahaul is all mostly green, it looked waaay different. Crazy. I don’t think it looked entirely bad, but very different colors than what it’s intended scheme is.

So junior high school kids are starting to learn how to use Flash now. Which is sweet. When I was in Junior High, in our "advanced computer classes" we were using some fancy super-Powerpoint thing, and I was trying to make a Double Dragon-style video game using it. Needless to say, that project never got off the ground... But it's cool to see junior high school kids getting access to technology they could do some pretty cool things with. Check out this site for Fulton Science Academy students and the Flash projects they've created. What’s disturbing are the themes that pop up consistently in their projects: shit blowing up and violence. I checked out the animations made by the kid who got the most stars on the page. In the most recent three that he made, check here, here, and here, the world blows up at the end of each animation... Huuuuuuuuhh... Here’s one where two guys go out to get guns, then hop into a flying semi. Here’s a game where you get to do a drive by shooting. Hhhuuuuuuhh... Here’s one of a dude getting his head blown off. here’s another one by the same kid who blew up the world, where someone talking on a cell phone gets tied up to some apparatus, and you have to push a lever to blow up his/her head. You get my point, lots and lots of violence. It should be no surprise, considering the world kids are exposed to these days by the media. But damn, those are some happy, light-hearted takes on some messed up things. Here’s what an FTC study had to say about the issue back in '99:

Movies. Of the 44 movies rated R for violence the Commission selected for its study, the Commission found that 35, or 80 percent, were targeted to children under 17. Marketing plans for 28 of those 44, or 64 percent, contained express statements that the film’s target audience included children under 17. For example, one plan for a violent R-rated film stated, “Our goal was to find the elusive teen target audience and make sure everyone between the ages of 12-18 was exposed to the film.” Though the marketing plans for the remaining seven R-rated films did not expressly identify an under-17 target audience, they led the Commission to conclude that children under 17 were targeted nonetheless. That is, the plans were either extremely similar to the plans of the films that did identify an under-17 target audience, or they detailed actions synonymous with targeting that age group, such as promoting the film in high schools or in publications with majority under-17 audiences.

Music. Of the 55 music recordings with explicit content labels the Commission selected for its study, marketing plans for 15, or 27 percent, expressly identified teenagers as part of their target audience. One such plan, for instance, stated that its “Target audience” was “Alternative/urban, rock, pop, hardcore – 12-34.” The marketing documents for the remaining 40 explicit-content labeled recordings examined did not expressly state the age of the target audience, but they detailed the same methods of marketing as the plans that specifically identified teens as part of their target audience, including placing advertising in media that would reach a majority or substantial percentage of children under 17.

Games. Of the 118 electronic games with a Mature rating for violence the Commission selected for its study, 83, or 70 percent, targeted children under 17. The marketing plans for 60 of these, or 51 percent, expressly included children under 17 in their target audience. For example, one plan for a game rated Mature for its violent content described its “target audience” as “Males 12-17 – Primary Males 18-34 – Secondary.” Another plan referred to the target market as “Males 17-34 due to M rating (the true target is males 12-34).” Documents for the remaining 23 games showed plans to advertise in magazines or on television shows with a majority or substantial under-17 audience. Most of the plans that targeted an under-17 audience set age 12 as the younger end of the spectrum, but a few plans for violent Mature-rated games targeted children as young as six.

And here are a few more articles about youth and violence in media and in video games.

I went to a lunchtime discussion on the Duke Lacross rape case. I knew the situation was messed up, but damn. If you don’t know what happened, read the blog entry I just linked to, or do a Google search. There’s enough information out there, y’all don’t need to hear me recapping the whole event...

Some of the things that were said at the discussion that stuck out for me was how strikingly similar many African-American women are to Asian-American women in how victims of abuse deal with their victimization. commented on how among black women, there’s a strong sense of strength, in the idea of the strong black woman. The pressure women feel to uphold that image of strength often keeps them silent about their abuse. Moreover, if the perpetrator is a black man, the fact that the system women would use to seek justice is synonymous with warehousing people of color often keeps them silent about abuse as well. In the Asian-American community, the whole ‘model minority’ myth, the pervasive need to present an image of the ‘perfectly flawless nuclear family’, and the pressure to succeed as immigrants often keep Asian-American women silent about their abuse as well.

Lacewell also felt strongly that there were many systematic forces of oppression at work that created this situation--a group of affluent white athletes gang-raping a not-so-affluent black woman raises many questions about white privilege, class elitism, and male dominance. But she argued that this situation was solely a gender issue. The fact that these were athletes that committed these acts. She argued that the epitome of the social construct of masculinity exists in athletes--regardless of ones race. That this was solely an act of men exerting their power and ‘ownership’ over a woman’s body. Although she makes a strong argument, I can’t forget the racial and class dynamics between the Lacross team and the woman, and because of that, I have a hard time letting go of the other systems of oppression that were at work between the team and the woman. Granted, the fact that they were athletes probably made them feel much stronger in their positions as ‘men,’ but how can you deny that their affluent background and the fact that they were white and she was black made them feel stronger in their position of dominance? I feel like there’s no way to separate gender-based oppression from racism and classism. In any situation, whether ones being oppressed or is oppressing, all these of these systems are at work is some way or another.

Yesterday was International Women’s Day. check out this project in India where a group of people are organizing to speak out against many forms of sexual harassment on the streets. When I was in India two years ago, I was there with a group of 12 other black and white women, and every fort and monument we went to, it seemed our group was the main attraction... At one point, in front of the Red Fort in Old Delhi while we were waiting for our advisers to get admission tickets for us, a crowd of people gathered making a circle around our group, just staring. Definitely made people in our group super uncomfortable. It's good to see people empowering themselves, and making it an issue people take about. Because things like that are definitely symptoms of much bigger problems regarding views of sexuality, and gender rights in India.

In other news, there’s a bill in congress prosing to cut military spending by $60 billion and put it towards public education and healthcare. That would be pretty SWEET, considering where we currently spend our money, but we’ll see if it gets passed...

I’m going to NYC this weekend. Look out.

I heard a somewhat disturbing report on sex workers in Cambodia last night on NPR. My partner said she heard similar stories before, but you never really understand the depth of a problem til it's layed out for you. Me anyway...

I saw Dil Chahta Hai over the weekend. Now I know what all the hype was about. It was a good movie! It wasn’t over dramatic for no reason, the characters experienced shit that made sense, and you could empathize with. “Whoa, you mean the storyline was believable?” Don’t get me wrong, at certain points of the movie, you knew EXACTLY what was going to happen, cause it IS still a Bollywood movie. But for the most part, it was pretty darn good. I put some guitar chords to some of the songs, too, so that was fun. “Jaane kyon?”

”How can words and symbolic actions cause pain? Pain is an active response to its causes, not simply a passive effect. The meanings of words and deeds always include the feelings produced when one makes sense of a situation. The tasteless sexual or racial joke is no joke to a woman who has been raped, a man who was a victim of a hate crime, or to any person who feels less safe from pain than someone who can afford to make these kinds of jokes. We defend our freedom of speech and action, but we cannot exercise these freedoms responsibly, or judge whether others do so, if we cannot feel what hurts whom and how much.”

from 21stC: The World of Research at Columbia

I’m doing a 5k run Saturday morning to help raise money for Apna Ghar, a shelter for domestic and sexual violence victims that serves primarily Asian women and children. I’ve been getting so frustrated whenever I think about what would drive someone to commit an act of sexual violence. Cause the issue hits so close to home, and it's amazing how victims of sexual violence, especially when committed against them as a CHILD, effects them their ENTIRE LIVES. And it just angers me to think that someone committing such a self-absorbed act against a child either has NO CLUE how their one action will impact someone for DECADES ahead of their lives, or is so self-indulgent that they don’t care in that moment. Part of my purpose of the run, personally, is to just let off some of that steam that’s built up just thinking about the whole issue, and thinking about people close to me that have been battling with that issues for their ENTIRE mature lives. But moreover, if I can help raise some awareness among our community, and not accept the notion that this type of stuff should be brushed under a rug and not addressed, and through my actions, encourage people to realize that this shit does happen, all the better. And if I can raise money for an organization helping victims of sexual violence, all the better. Here are some books on the topic, if y’all are interested in learning more:

Speaking the Unspeakable: Marital Violence Among South Asian Immigrants in the United States -- "Domestic violence in immigrant communities has received little attention until now. Speaking the Unspeakable is the first account of South Asian women’s experience with domestic violence (defined as physical, sexual, verbal, mental, or economic control perpetrated on a woman by her spouse or extended kin). Abraham explains how immigration status, cultural assumptions, and unfamiliarity with American social, legal, economic, and other institutions-coupled with stereotyping from mainstream society-make these women especially vulnerable to abuse.

Speaking the Unspeakable gives voice to abused South Asian women. Their stories reveal their weaknesses and strengths as they confront domestic violence. By placing these stories within the larger cultural, social, and political context, the author shows the individual strategies of resistance to abusers as well as the pivotal role South Asian organizations play in helping these women escape abusive relationships."

Breaking the Silence: Domestic Violence in the South Asian-American Community -- "Breaking the Silence: Domestic Violence in the South Asian-American Community is an anthology that brings together the voices of community activists, scholars, artists, and survivors to discuss the realities and effects of domestic violence on America’s South Asian community. Through a multi-faceted lens of academia, activism, and art, Breaking the Silence unites the voices of individuals and domestic violence interest groups engaged in consciousness-raising and service-provision activities within the South Asian-American community.

It is a resource both for South Asians as well as for mainstream service-providers who are increasingly being called upon to serve the growing South Asian populations around the United States. Contributors to the volume include Ananya Chatterjea, Shamita Das Dasgupta, Prema Vora, and Sujata Warrier."

To Have & To Hit: Cultural Perspectives on Wife Beating