No More Michael Jackson on the Decks

Recently, in a disk jockey (DJ) collective group chat, it was announced that Michael Jackson (figure 1 [pictured here], Nicolaus 2019) will no longer be included in our DJ sets unless clients specifically request for the artist. Another musician excluded from DJ playlists is Robert Kelly, commonly known as R. Kelly (figure 2 [below], NBCNews.com 2019). The boycott of these two singers is a radical and seemingly progressive change in the entertainment business. The renewed attention from the public has come in response to two documentaries released this year where survivors of sexual abuse done by Jackson (Reed 2019) and Kelly (Brandin 2019) testify against them. Additionally, the #MeToo movement ‘has been an opportunity to talk about serious and relevant issues like consent and sexual harassment’ (as cited in Blair 2018), which has allowed survivors to disclose their abuse safely.

I use the words “seemingly progressive” to describe the exclusion of Jackson and Kelly from the entertainment music industry because these two artists share something in common; they are both Black. As a woman of color, I could not stop myself from bringing race into the DJ conversation. Moreover, as a student of sociology, I have come to the awareness of systemic racism. The intricacy of race has come to me through texts like those written by civil rights advocate, Michelle Alexander (2012). The author states that we are currently living what the theme of her book best describes as The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Hence my message to my DJ friends in which I called to action that sanctions should be stigmatized equally between Black and White celebrities. Likewise, we should add a list of White musicians to be excluded who have done equal or worse damage to children and other individuals. In like manner, let us be progressive and united against abuse equally and use diverse media models for crime steering away from the focus of only criminalizing the Black community. “Let’s not make this about race,” responded a senior member of the group, who is White. Perhaps I should not have been surprised by this reaction. I also received a private text from a co-worker, who is Black, telling me that he knew what I was trying to say and he appreciated my courage. However, he added, I should think of the audience I was talking to. In other words, he told me I needed to be sensitive to White sensitivity and stayed quiet because it was in my best interest. I then saw what Alexander meant about living in an age of colorblindness and how ingrained this is in our society.

My question then is, how is this sabotage not about color when the perpetrators of sex crimes are predominantly White, but it is the population of color who endure the bulk of the consequences or social punishing responses? In a 2013 special report for the U.S. Department of Justice, Michael Planty et al. reports 57% of sexual abuse perpetrators are White and 29% are Black. After searching thoroughly, I have to say, there is no proof that White musicians have had allegations against them besides Ryan Adams, who does not fit into the genres that DJs play. The criminality people of color, particularly Black, experience is what Alexander terms as “racial stigma…[which is] produced by defining negatively what it means to be Black” (197). Racial stigma puts an individual in an easily achieved sub-status obtained for the mere fact of being dark skinned, which is a primary factor in crime suspicion, sentencing, and reporting publicity (199). To speak of someone is a White criminal is laughable and nonsensical because these two words do not carry nearly the social meaning we have for the term Black criminal; the former two words mean the same in society (198). Alexander goes on to say that “to be a white criminal is not easy, by any means, but as a white criminal you are not a racial outcast, though you may face many forms of social and economic exclusion. White-ness mitigates crime, whereas blackness defines the criminal” (199). A firm quote that helps me explain my hesitation to blindly accept the blocking of Michael Jackson and R. Kelly from my music selection.

In our chat conversation of current movements like #MeToo affecting our DJ line of business, I felt the need to denormalize the topic even if I ran the risk of “becoming” a supporter of people charged with statutory rape, which I confidently say I am not. Sexual abuse is too close to my personal life as for me to consider it a fleeting thought. In my advocacy in racial issues, I was hoping to bring awareness about colorblindness in all aspects of social matters. Nowadays, one is not allowed to hate Black people, but one is allowed to hate criminals. Nowadays, calling someone the “N” word is highly sanctioned, but calling someone a criminal is commonly accepted and supported. We hate Jackson and Kelly for their crimes, but I wish we could also despise other well known White artists to the same degree and have the same enthusiasm to boycott them from entertainment. I need a list of them, and I cannot find it.

It is important to mention that I do not argue for the hate of a race in favor of another one, but I advocate for "equal opportunity" of social stigmatization as well as "equal opportunity" for punishment. The thing is, we do not want to make this about race, but in a highly racialized society such as ours, we must.

Works Cited

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press, 2012.

Blair, Elizabeth. After One Year Of Headlines, #MeToo Is Everywhere. NPR, NPR, 6 Oct. 2018, www.npr.org/2018/10/06/654993350/after-one-year-of-headlines-metoo-is-everywhere.

Leaving Neverland. Directed by Dan Reed. HBO, Channel 4, 2019. HBO, www.hbo.com/documentaries/leaving-neverland.

Legal Scholar: Jim Crow Still Exists In America. NPR, NPR, 16 Jan. 2012, www.npr.org/2012/01/16/145175694/legal-scholar-jim-crow-still-exists-in-america.

Li, Nicolaus. Sundance to Show Michael Jackson Sexual Abuse Documentary. HYPEBEAST, HYPEBEAST, 11 Jan. 2019, hypebeast.com/2019/1/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-sexual-abuse-documentary-sundance.

Planty, Michael, et al. Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010: (528212013-001). American Psychological Association, 2013. Crossref, doi:10.1037/e528212013-001.

R. Kelly Could Be Left with Nothing after Making Millions. NBCNews.com, 2019. NBCUniversal News Group, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-making-millions-r-kelly-could-be-left-nothing-n980816.

Surviving R. Kelly. Produced by Allison Brandin. Bunim-Murray Productions & Kreativ, 2019. Lifetime, https://www.mylifetime.com/shows/surviving-r-kelly.

Thoughts, Prayers, and A Dirty Secret

Columbine.  Virginia Tech.  Sandy Hook.  Pulse Night Club.  Parkland.
Aurora, Santa Fe, San Bernardino, Pittsburgh.
And countless others that we have not even heard of and which the news has not bothered to report, as these are now commonplace.  The above names and places are mass shootings that have happened in the last 50 years in the United States.  To date, there have been just short of 2,000 mass shootings in the US (Resto-Montero, 2019).  A mass shooting occurs in the United States every 64 days, as compared to the 200 day interval that we witnessed from 1980-2011 (Cohen, 2017).  Shootings today are considered by many to be nothing new.  Since the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting of February 2018, not much mobilization has been done to change gun laws or the attitudes of many American gun owners.
_______



https://www.vox.com/world/2019/3/16/18268491/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-gun-control-response

March 15, 2019.   Christchurch, New Zealand.  A FaceBook livestream goes up on air, depicting a man rampaging mosques with semiautomatic weapons.
49 shot dead, dozens injured.  Hours later, there is a nationwide call for legislation which leads to the consideration of banning semiautomatic weapons entirely in New Zealand.

So why did the government of New Zealand work immediately to change their laws after only one mass shooting this decade? And why is it that the United States sees a mass shooting every 60 days, and yet not much has changed? Why have mass shootings increased by a factor of 3 in the United States in the last 8 years?

In attempting to answer these questions, I will first examine what many consider to be an integral American value - the right to bear arms, which we get from the second amendment of the United States constitution.  Many Americans believe this to mean that it ensures that they can own their own firearms and use them when necessary, and many American gun laws enable them to do so.  Florida's "Stand Your Ground" and Colorado's "Make My Day" state that there is no duty to retreat in a case of self defense and essentially allows for conceal and carry weapons to be commonplace.  People believe that these laws are necessary and that they provide a sense of security, both in public and in private.  As of 2017, there were a total of 17,251,354 active conceal and carry permits in the United States.

With so many people that carry guns, it's no wonder that the immediate claim made following a deadly mass shooting is that the gunman was mentally ill, tortured at home, or even that video games are to blame.  This conclusion is easy for lawmakers and gun owners to make because of the stigmatization of people who are mentally ill.  Popular claims are that mentally ill people are more likely to be dangerous or violent and that they are easily persuaded by popular media.  For example, following the deadly Columbine High School shooting, many speculated that the two young men were mentally ill and that part of this mental distress was from the violent video games and media that they were exposed to as teenagers.  The same cries about mental illness were used after the Aurora movie theater shooting as well as following the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

Stigmas against mental illnesses combined with the American obsession over gun rights is the perfect storm to avoid gun reform and to blame instead people who struggle with mental illnesses.  Conservatives often advocate for counseling services and therapy opportunities only after these mass shootings as a scapegoat for what is really going on.  Existing ideas about mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are misconstrued and used to blame the national crisis of gun violence, when the root of the problem is the guns themselves, and further than that, the ties that the government has to the NRA, or the National Rifle Association.  According to expert Sam Musa, NRA members use connections to affect national gun policies: "The NRA’s members are engaged in the political arena and feel passionate about their gun rights. The NRA has also a strong access to policy makers; they have hired former legislators and government officials, since they can use their friendships and personal connections to gain access to policy makers."  Rather than address the degrees of corruption between legislators and the NRA, people are much quicker to blame the mentally ill members of society for gun violence.

The facts are that the best indicator of gun violence is access to firearms.  University of Texas Medical Branch researchers found this in a recent study of nearly 700 Texan young adults, and observed that rather than previous violent tendencies, those who had ready access to firearms were more likely to threaten others with a gun.  

"Counter to public beliefs, the majority of mental health symptoms examined were not related to gun violence," said Dr. Yu Lu, a postdoctoral research fellow at UTMB and the lead author of the study.

This means that it is imperative to shift public opinions and show policy makers and legislators alike that people who are mentally ill are not to blame for violence.  The easy access to guns, lack of background checks, and lax enforcements of laws is the true enemy here, which is a hard pill to swallow for many government officials who deeply benefit from the NRA's benefits and donations.  Instead, they place the blame on an already marginalized group of people and continue to turn a blind eye to the real problem, or the Dirty Little Secret, of the National Rifle Association.

cites used: 
Resto-Montero, G. (2019, March 16). New Zealand shows willingness to curb guns after one, not 1,981 mass shootings. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/world/2019/3/16/18268491/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-gun-control-response

 Cohen, A. P., Azrael, D., Miller, M., Follman, M., Follman, M., Vongkiatkajorn, K., . . . Schatz, B. (2017, June 28). Rate of mass shootings has tripled since 2011, new research from Harvard shows. Retrieved from https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research/#

Cave, D. (2019, March 17). New Zealand Attack: Quick Action, Near Miss and Courage in Christchurch. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/world/asia/new-zealand-shootings-police-response.html

Concealed Carry Statistics: Quick Facts by State (2017). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/

Answers, A. &. (2019, January 11). What role might video game addiction have played in the Columbine shootings? Retrieved from https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/role-video-game-addiction-played-columbine-shootings-article-1.361104

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-impact-of-nra-on-the-american-policy-2332-0761-1000222.php?aid=83220&view=mobile

Mental illness not to blame for gun violence, study finds. (2019, February 07). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190207102607.htm

Challenging the Stigmas Born from Colonialism

Lagos, Nigeria. Image Credit: Wikipedia

When asked to think about the African continent, most modern Americans will picture a desolate, war-torn wasteland with people in tribes, living in huts, devoid of any technology. This view is not only drastically problematic, but unfairly portrays a large group of modern Africans. So why do we hold these views? Africa has the fastest rate of urbanization of and continent on the planet, with multiple megacities. By 2030, it is estimated that Africa’s thirteen largest cities will have a trade spending power over $2.5 trillion[1]. Why is this idea perpetuated in the media, when we see images of starving African children, or tribalistic people with little clothes, living as hunter/gatherers in huts?

 

This view has been maintained as yet another form of oppression and control. This stems back to colonialism. For much of the 20^th century, the colonial powers used this image of a ‘backwards’ or underdeveloped African continent to maintain their control[2]. They told their citizens of how they were helping the colonies through economic development. In truth, this mostly involved exploiting the continent for its natural resources and taking them without thought for the native people. These western countries and their businesses racked up enormous profits through a combination of forced labor, unfair trade with natives, and human rights abuses. The image of these war-torn, “primitive” people allowed westerners to justify their domination, as simply a necessary practice to bring them up to modernity.

However, as time went on, public support for colonialism diminished. Following the end of WWII, most of the colonies were dissolved, and from them countries were established. Once the colonizers were gone, it seemed the new African countries would finally be able to make profits on their resources and keep them for themselves. Instead, the exploitations continued, simply changing forms to adapt with the times. Economic growth came to a halt due to a variety of influences, such as foreign political intervention out of fears of communist takeover. The countries invested in production, but the annual GDP on the continent began declining after this. “By the end of the 1980’s, many African countries had a lower GDP per capita than at independence”[3].

Because of the economic instability, some Africa nations were forced to continue their one-sided trade, often with their former colonizers due to lack of other options. The sudden release from the grasp of colonizers left the young governments to try to navigate the international trade market. When they ultimately failed, European nations came back offering to continue trade, essentially creating a monopoly. Now the former colonizers could continue their exploitative behavior without fear from concerned western outcry.

The idea of and African “primitiveness” allowed the colonizers to enact their rule and maintain public support through the idea that they were helping. This mindset continued past decolonization and is still around today. Even though most of us are not aware that these preconceptions maintain their negative connotations, we still help to perpetuate these ideas. We can look back and condemn the practices of western governments, and still be blind to how we continue to engage in these negative stigmas.

By engaging in these practices, we continue to hold the continent back. Take Somaliland for example, the semi-autonomous region of Somalia, formerly the British colony, British Somaliland. In 2017, they had their third peaceful transfer of power. The Somaliland election cited democratic rules and was supported by the European Union and the United Kingdom. This heavily contrasts the state of the rest of Somalia, who held their own elections earlier this year. These elections were not successful, held back by unrest within the citizens. Somalia is currently torn apart, and the unstable government is not in a position to offer much in the way of change[4]. How could this region be so different from the rest of the country? Are they seeking independence from Somalia, seeing as they seem to be much more successful in their governmental well-being?

Somaliland formally declared independence from Somalia in 1991, following civil war after the fall of dictator Siad Barre’s regime. It hosts its own elections, supports its own army, has its own flag, and even uses an independent currency. Yet it cannot gain foreign recognition from anywhere. I was surprised to discover this was not due to diplomatic relations, but instead a “strategic decision to hinder other [territories] from declaring independence, due to fears of a domino effect in the region”[5]. Even with our progressive views, striving for African autonomy in the international market, we still remain unchanged in this regard. In the past, foreign nations refused to recognize the independence due to not wanting others to follow. This philosophy was used as a form of control, in order to keep other potential independent regions from causing more structural change in the region. This ideology does not think about the well-being of any of these regions and their people, simply, it attempts to keep the African countries ‘in line’ to be able to continue their relations with the powerful nations, whether economic or for other reasons.

Even after colonialism ended in the 1990’s, the influence and sense of ‘responsibility’ still remains within the western world. We do not recognize how these viewpoints have been influenced from the previous colonial institutions. Out continued outlooks portrayed through each other and the media leave a damaging effect on the African continent, as well as the rest of the developing world. It is difficult to think about our perceptions, but we must commit to challenging these preconceived ideas in order to help end the lasting effects of colonialism.

---

[1] Signé, Landry. Africa’s Consumer Market Potential: Trends, Drivers, Opportunities, and Strategies. Washington DC: Brookings, 2018. Accessed March 16, 2019. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Africas-consumer-market-potential.pdf

[2] Frederick Cooper. Africa Since 1940: The Past of the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 67.

[3] Thandika Mkandawire and Charles Soludo, Our Continent, Our Future: African Perspectives on Structural Adjustment (Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press, 1999), 6.

[4] “Somaliland: Still Seeking Recognition After 25 Years of Independence,” Unrepresented Nations & Peoples Organization, last modified August 23, 2016, http://unpo.org/article/19401.

[5] Ibid.

Female Sexual Pleasure

Female sexual pleasure. Those three words hold so much meaning and so many different perspectives in our society. Although female sexual pleasure is becoming less of a more, it still has a negative stigma that can lead to negative sanctions, such as shame, for young women. Peggy Orenstein, a three time New York Times best selling author of novels on female sexuality, presented a Ted Talk titled “What Young Women Believe About Their Own Sexual Pleasure” in which she talks about her experience interviewing young women (ages 15 to 20) about their sexual encounters and how they submit to the social norms of their identified gender. Orenstein discovered that, while young women feel entitled to engage in sexual acts, they don’t necessarily feel entitled to enjoy it. She spoke of one woman she interviewed who defined herself as a strong woman, because she grew up among other strong women who inspired her. When asked about her sexual identity, however, the woman began to speak about the docile nature of the socially propelled ‘sexual woman.’ Orenstein also mentions that the women didn’t feel as though she had the right to communicate her wants and needs with her sexual partners. After Orenstein questioned the two contradictions regarding her personal identities, the woman admitted that she hadn’t been taught that a woman's personal identity could correlate with her sexual one. Orenstein also touched on other ways women feel as though they need to fit the socially acceptable schema for female sexualiy such as shaving their genitals, which 75% of female college students participate in, and many go to such lengths to alter their genitalia such as labiaplasty. Female genitalia have become more about how it looks to someone else rather than how it feels to the owner of the genitals. The final topic that Orenstein talks about is how women define sexual satisfaction. On average, the women who she interviewed who experienced heterosexual intimate encounters defined their sexual satisfaction by the orgasm of their partner. Orenstein also had women explain their definitions of bad sex. Words like pain, depression, degradation, and humiliation were often present in those definitions. This gives insight as to the potential low standards that women have for good sex. If sex isn’t painful or humiliating, then should it be considered good? I believe that these problems regarding female sexual pleasure can be challenged through process of changing societal norms. Many of these problems revolve around women's lack of sexual identity and discovery due to the sanctions that result in deviance from ‘normal’ sexual behavior. Rather than finding out the ways that an individual woman enjoys sex, it is common to find women basing their sexual experiences on social standards. Just as young people go through a period of self discovery and of creating an identity, I believe that the same exploration is needed for women's sexuality. A way that this can be achieved is through the practice of masterbation.

A second Ted Talk by Keeley Olivia titled “Masterbation is the New Meditation,” supports this claim. Olivia led a year long experiment in which she masterbated five times a week, for an hour each time. This experiment made her face the stigma and shame that is placed onto women who masterbate and are sexual purely for pleasure. Olivia says that in most sex stores, people are often required to be 18 , or even 21 years old to enter. This leaves the inner parts of a younger woman’s vagina ( g-spot and cervix) incapable of self-discovery. The only way to reach those parts would be for a young woman to have a sexual partner who could penetrate them for her. This omits the ability for women to discover their own sexual pleasure and to create their own sexual identity. By denying young women the right to discover this aspect of their own sexual pleasure, women are also denied the right to feel belonging within their own bodies. Experiencing orgasms can allow women to realize that their vaginas are not disgusting, smelly, ugly, or shameful. They are a part of their identity and should not bring them shame or self-criticism. Olivia also shared a photo of two statues that she believed portrayed this point. The male statue was completely nude while the female statue covered her shameful lower genitalia with a cloth, leaving her “desirable” breasts in plain view. Olivia saw this statue as a metaphor for the ways women are told to cover their shamed and unwanted sexuality.

Rather than being taught to cover up and hide the individual sexual identity that women hold, embracing the diversity and uniqueness of female sexual pleasure can lead to immense self-love and understanding as well as equality within sexual experiences.

Olivia, Keeley, director. Masturbation Is the New Meditation . YouTube, YouTube, 28 Nov. 2018, 

          www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUOzUTXFlQA.

Orenstein , Peggy, director. What Young Women Believe About Their Own Sexual Pleasure . YouTube,

          YouTube, 5 Apr. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWA2uL8zXPI.