Whiteness

Until a couple of years ago, I had been under the impression that the vast majority of white Canadians were against fascism. It appears that I was wrong.

When I think about it, the manner in which fascism and Nazism more specifically were discussed when I was growing up was very much about absolving regular people of responsibility. When questions arose as to how the people could have allowed the rise of Hitler, we were told that charismatic people can easily persuade an anxious public, or how the Holocaust could have been carried out, we were reassured that fear kept people silent. We needed to believe in the innocence of the common person just as some of us need this now when we frame discussions of racism in individual terms: “Here is proof that individual x is racist, but here is also proof that individual y is not, so you can’t say that there is a racism problem.” The same can be said for when our leaders frame the discussion in terms of choosing love over hate or “calling out” individual racist incidents while keeping the racist power structure intact. Culturally, we think in individualistic terms, and yet we accuse those who want to challenge the status quo as being divisive and creating disunity, as if there were some pre-existing unity to disrupt.

For years now, with the rise of far-right governments throughout the world, ongoing antisemitism and Islamophobia, continued anti-Black violence on the part of police, increased anti-Asian bigotry and violence, and reactions to the current protests in the United States that seem more concerned about respectability and capital than people being killed and maimed by police, it has seemed like “Never Again” is just a slogan. And it isn’t due to fear of fascists that we largely remain silent and continue on this path. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be enough fear of fascism. Rather, it is indifference that is enabling the rise of the far right.

Something that no one talked about either in school or at home when I was growing up was whiteness. There is a good reason for that: the education system and my home were both presided over by white people. And white people do not tend to see ourselves as “white” so much as “people.” Thus, the term “racialized people” is used expressly to highlight that others are racialized in relation to whiteness. But white people are finding it increasingly difficult to distance themselves from conversations about race, and thank goodness for that. Nonetheless, when the topic of racism is raised in Canada, someone will jump at the opportunity to shout out ignorant “All lives matter” types of platitudes, which do nothing but derail the conversation to keep white people comfortable.

If you grew up in a white liberal household like I did, you were probably taught that colour blindness was the right approach to looking at the world. As well-meaning as that sentiment is, as a friend of mine once said, “I don’t see colour” translates to “I don’t see racism.” If you falsely believe that everyone is on an equal footing, then anything negative that happens to someone must be of their own doing, and anything positive must be the result of their merit. To put it another way, colour blindness is a way of saying “I don’t see whiteness and the problems it causes.” The fact that white people simply take themselves as default human beings shows an unwillingness to recognize that other people might have different experiences, again reinforcing the idea that whatever happens is your fault. More than that, it shows a lack of interest in engaging with people who are different and building real communities and societies where people really are just people.

Whiteness is also seeing evidence on a daily basis that we live in a white supremacist society—where upper-middle-class white voices dominate the media; where our predominantly white politicians talk about “illegal immigration”; where opinionators on social media plant false ideas that Canada treats asylum seekers better than Canadian citizens; and where Indigenous, Black, and other racialized people are discriminated against and in some cases criminalized—and feeling indifferent about it. If you are indifferent to the experiences of others, then you cannot claim to see/treat everyone equally.

In Canada, we tend to think of colonialism as something that happened in the past rather than an ongoing project. What’s more, since it enabled our ancestors to settle here, for our own comfort we side-step the horrors of this fictitious place called “Canada” and focus instead on things that make us feel good, like multiculturalism. And as people who inhabit particular borders tend to do, we raise our flag—that ostensibly non-threatening maple leaf—and claim it as a symbol of our unity or our “nation.”

We do not live in a nation. We never did. Our state was created by enacting violence against nations and giving those who survived the option of assimilating or being forever enemies of the state. The word “nation” is often used interchangeably with “country.” They are not the same thing. A quick search will show you that. But our lexicon is full of words that have deliberately been misused. Take “anarchy” as another example. This word is being thrown around quite a lot right now in response to the protests in the United States. Culturally, we have long been comfortable with the popular definition that includes lawlessness, violence, and chaos. Again, a quick search will show you that anarchy actually means the absence of a state. In effect, it is a utopian ideal where people create communities for which they are responsible as opposed to the state model we live in. But it serves politicians and capitalists well to fear monger about anarchy because the world that anarchists envision has no place for those people and the violence for which they are responsible.

And that leads me to this: whiteness is violence. It wasn’t long ago that wealthy white people, like Brett Wilson (you might know him from CBC’s Dragon’s Den), were calling for pipeline protesters representing and standing in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en Nation to be killed by the state. The RCMP were quite clear that their job was to protect the oil companies and their shareholders, not the people of this country. And this has always been so. Canadian history is not something you will learn in school; you need to do your own reading to understand what has happened and continues to happen here. The current calls to defund the police scare a lot of white people because we’ve been conditioned from childhood to believe that the police are the good guys, who catch the bad guys and keep us safe. Much like our warm, fuzzy folk tales about enslaved people escaping to freedom in Canada, these are carefully crafted stories that do not come close to providing the whole picture. We cannot continue to sit comfortably with such narratives and pat ourselves on the back for being an inclusive country even as the ever-growing list of names, like Regis Korchinski-Paquet, D’Andre Campbell, Andrew Loku, Sammy Yatim, Abdirahman Abdi, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, continue to tell us otherwise.

Resources for Further Reflection

Interview with Sandy Hudson: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1745746499555/

List compiled by Desmond Cole: https://www.pyriscence.ca/home/2020/5/29/cdnpolice

Ronald Gamblin’s explanation of Land Back: http://4rsyouth.ca/land-back-what-do-we-mean/

Some thoughts on the cast of Love Is Blind

Love Is Blind cast members ranked according to the drama they delivered

***Spoilers ahead***

Jessica – Clearly, this woman wanted to be on a TV show and nothing more. She owned her role as villain right up to the end. ‘Messica’ indeed. Moving on…

Kelly – The surprise villain! Something was obviously off. At one point, when she talked about having had issues with sex in the past, I felt for her. Then the truth started to come out that actually, she wasn’t physically attracted to her fiancé… because he wasn’t a brunette. And this was after several declarations about how attractive she found him. Umm… okay. In the end, she made it seem like she left him at the altar for superficial reasons, and she trotted off with a smile. Cold.

Damian – Am I the only person who got creepy vibes from this guy? He looked angry for much of the time, even when he wasn’t in a fight. Close to the wedding, he said he was going to exert more control, and he seemed resentful of Giannina. This is not a stable person. He was drawn to Giannina’s intensity and yet he threw it in her face at every turn and blamed her for all of their issues. Nope. Not okay.

Mark – This guy seemed like a genuinely nice person, but I have a hard time believing that he tolerated Jessica only because he was too nice and in love to see her for what she was. There has to be more to the story. Maybe he, too, just wanted to be on a TV show. Here is the thing about all reality shows: the people who get screen time are always conventionally attractive and often have acting/modelling aspirations or experience.

Diamond – I was on her side a little bit initially. I didn’t think it was a good idea for Carlton to propose to her while he was agonizing about keeping his sexuality a secret from her. Then, when they arrived in Mexico, Carlton was acting like a completely different person. I kind of felt bad that she was going to have to bear what seemed like his deep issues with himself and be confused. But then during that fight that ended their relationship, the biphobia/homophobia jumped out. And no, he should not have called her a bitch, but no one that I have seen post online has mentioned her comment about him getting another dick when she stormed off. That was toxic and only proved him right in his insecurities. A lot of discussion has ensued online about whether refusing to date bi/pan people is just a “preference.” It’s perfectly fine to say, “I’m straight and I’m looking for a partner who is also straight,” but when you do mental gymnastics to try to come up with a justification for disregarding people of fluid sexuality, that is another story. It’s as if cisgender heterosexual men don’t cheat all the time! But this is why queer people should ideally not seek acceptance from straight people and should, instead, seek love and companionship from fellow queer people.

Carlton – As a queer person, I saw Carlton in his first scene. I knew he was one of my people and I knew this was going to create drama. And Love Is Blind was just that predictable, so I wasn’t wrong. My first red flag with him was when he said that he wanted a wife because women provide a “nurturing love” that he just couldn’t get from a man. Let me clarify that there is no one way to be bisexual/queer/what have you. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, it is not being equally attracted to multiple genders. It is fine for a man to be more sexually attracted to men and more romantically attracted to women, but when you phrase it as though women are some inherently more “marriage-material” beings who are going to take care of you emotionally, so you choose to give up men, that is weird. In addition, his constant references to “the past” kind of echoed that idea that he was going to give up men and commit to a wife. That doesn’t sound like someone who is truly comfortable with his sexuality. Then after seeing him happy and feeling loved, the audience got to watch his unravelling, and as a queer person, this made me uncomfortable. I felt empathy for him. It is hard enough to navigate relationships, but when you throw in insecurity about whether the other person can accept you for you (and it didn’t always seem like even Carlton accepted Carlton), it can be a recipe for toxicity. And that is exactly what we watched unfold. As I said above, Carlton suddenly seemed like a different person outside of the pods. He was clearly struggling internally and projecting hubris. Then he got really torn up and told the truth and immediately showed signs of poor coping skills (throwing his hat and shouting when nothing negative had happened yet). Then after crying that he hoped they could talk it out, he was immediately defensive and changed his tune from “people always reject me because of this” to “you’re the only one who’s ever had a problem.” I just hope that Carlton meets a kind, loving, emotionally stable, queer person. He shouldn’t be asking for “acceptance” from straight women anymore.

Giannina – Yes, she was intense. I think the audience has largely misread her. She was transparent about her issue of pushing people away, and that was what she was doing. It isn’t as if she didn’t have reasons to feel insecure. Besides the fact that she was supposed to marry this person she didn’t really know yet, Damian’s family chose not to meet her before the wedding. Damian told her that his mom had said not to marry “some whore from a reality TV show.” How would you feel? And as I said, Damian was creepy! The man was initially quite emotionless and for the duration of the show, he was hard to read. Even during the wedding, that crying looked like it had an underpinning of anger, and he continued to try to control the situation after dumping her by following her and telling the camera people that he didn’t think their relationship was over—after ditching her at the altar. Red flags! Her mother was right: she should have been the one to say “I don’t.”

Amber – She was open and honest with her fiancé about her financial situation and he was ready to go ahead and marry her. So, I don’t see a problem. And that was really the closest thing to drama with her. I don’t see the big drama others are seeing.

Barnett – His indecisiveness was the most real of anyone on that show. But I think he knew ultimately that he wanted to be with Amber. He wasn’t that interesting, to be honest. They tried to make him interesting by having three women vying for him.

Cameron – It took me a while to warm up to him. He just didn’t give off much of anything. Anyway, when he was out in the world with Lauren, he seemed really sweet and committed, and he won me over.

Kenny – He seems like a decent person. But he wasn’t very interesting, so I don’t think Netflix gave him much attention except to remind us that he was the only one* who wasn’t getting laid. (* That was the message, but I sincerely wonder whether Jessica and Mark ever actually had sex either. Jessica was so fake in general and her description of their sex life seemed equally fake.)

Lauren – My favourite on this show! She is gorgeous and funny and just seems genuine. I was rooting for her from the first episode!

Disappearing Goa

(Photo mine)

Goa is home to many people, but what continues to strike me is the tendency of discussions about Goa to focus on what Goa is to tourists. There are countless articles (which I don’t care to link, and contribute any further clicks, to) written by disgruntled tourists, who have tired of the place they previously happily consumed, or their Goan supporters. Recently, a New York Times article has been making the rounds on social media that laments the loss of the hippies at the expense of Indian tourists. The article is almost exclusively focused on tourists and barely mentions that Goa actually has inhabitants. When it does acknowledge that Goans exist, it paints them as snobs who feel superior to the contemporary visitors to their land.

I have heard many people in Goa lament this same shift in the tourism market over the years: “We miss the good ol’ days when the hippies from Europe would come here. They never interfered with the locals.” What I find noteworthy is the latter part about interference. I have shared my observations before about what appears to me to be a lack of interest in interacting with the Goans in Goa. As I have stated, Goa is so hospitable a place that the Goans will even let you pretend that they are not there. I think this erasure of locals is true of the tourism industry in general, but given the apparent longing for some bygone era, I would prefer to focus on the hippie–local relationship.

An issue that several Goan scholars have raised is how Goa is used as a mere setting for others’ pleasure. This is not something that started after Indians began coming to Goa in droves. I would argue that the hippies did not “interfere” with the locals because they were least interested in whatever was happening beyond their own usage of the place. Perhaps they made friendships with locals, but what drew them was the fact that no one was “interfering” with them. They could get high and swim naked without worrying about the police or nosy neighbours stopping them from having the experience of their choice. What, then, has Goa lost? People—including a new generation of hippies—continue to visit and move to Goa to chill out and have a good time doing whatever they please because they feel entitled to do so.

Why does the focus always seem to be on the perspectives of everyone but the actual stakeholders in Goa? I have been coming to Goa since 2001 and have never had difficulty surrounding myself with Goans. Despite the changing demographics of the state, you really do have to make a concerted effort to avoid Goans in Goa. I have reached a point where I no longer want to read articles on Goa because, either overtly or tacitly, most of them frame Goa as nothing more than a commodity. Even the discourse on social media, contributed by Goans in Goa and the Goan diaspora, tends to lean heavily towards the perspective of the tourist. I want to hear about how coal is making people sick in Vasco, not about how coal is bad for tourism; about how the garbage problems in the state harm those who inhabit the state, not how garbage impacts tourists; about how generations of Goans have had to emigrate due to lack of employment opportunities, not about how Goans have abandoned their homes because … just because?

Yes, like many coastal places, Goa is synonymous with tourism, but there is something peculiar about how Goa has been marketed as a tourist destination. Once the selling of second homes went full throttle, the character of some villages began to change. Buildings and gated communities were being erected because of this demand for investment properties, and the owners of those properties, whether they ever set foot in those buildings or not, were considered residents. This on-paper increase in the population was grounds for further development including new designations of villages and towns as towns and cities, respectively. The rate at which Goa is being paved over currently, with flyovers and underpasses connecting villages with NH-17 and village roads being widened from house to house on either side, it seems to me that all this talk about how to make the tourism industry appeal more to families and the rich is a waste of energy. The tourism industry seems to have been a means to attract neo-Goans and urbanize this small state to reshape it into one or several large cities. Goa’s ongoing problems regarding electricity and water scarcity and lack of employment raise questions about the feasibility of such plans, but that is another issue to discuss. In any case, maybe this agenda appeals to Goans; if urbanization is what they want, then who am I to criticize? But if the locals want to retain what is left of the Goa they have always known, then the battle is for that, not for branding Goa in innovative ways to entice more posh consumers to eat away at it.

So, instead of lamenting the loss of the hippie-tourists, perhaps we should be lamenting the loss of Goa to corporate interests.

Being My Own Muse

Warning: This post discusses suicidal ideation and suicide.

Writing has been incredibly difficult for me this year. I’m lucky if I can make sense of the thoughts in my head, let alone put them down in a way that someone else will understand. I bemoaned that my muse was either taking a leave of absence or had died. Months have gone by, and there is no muse. So, I’m going to be my own muse.

                             

2017 was an especially difficult year for me, and between then and now, I have become increasingly isolated. There are times when this feels completely natural and others when I struggle with it. I’m pretty good company for myself, after all, but sometimes you need contact with others.

The recent news of the suicides of two high profile people—Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain—affected me. This isn’t because I was a big fan of their work, although I was rather fond of Bourdain, so much as the fact that it reminds me of how many suicides we don’t hear about, because the countless other people who’ve taken their lives weren’t famous figures. But I’m also sensitive to this issue because I’ve struggled with suicidal ideation myself since childhood.

We look at these successful people, we hear about the love they share with their family and friends, and we wonder what could have pushed them to suicide. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but as someone who does have a lot of love in her life and who has her physical health, a fairly steady income and the necessities of life (as well as some luxuries) that come with that, I can tell you that that void is always there. External factors can never compensate for what is happening within.

I do my best. I have a rather healthy lifestyle, I practise gratitude, I engage in ongoing learning, I show compassion and try to be as empathic as possible to others, and I love. In fact, I think I love more than I receive love, which I used to believe was a weakness. But very recently, I was reminded that this is a lesson in the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. So, I revisited that text, and it reconfirmed for me that this capacity is a strength. When people hurt us or when we feel alone, it can be easy to forget this. This is something that I want to underline. I think that possibly the more we try to help others, the more it can help us get through life.

This week, I have seen a lot of messages urging people to check in on their friends and relatives. Yes, we must all be there for each other in whatever way we can. But some people will not or cannot open up about their issues, even if they want to. And it does a great disservice to the person in distress if we centre ourselves and demand that they let us help them, rather than asking them what they need. Late last year, I hit especially hard times emotionally and could no longer cope. I sought professional help. I was very fortunate that I could do that, as psychological services are not accessible to everyone. There were some very lovely friends who checked in on me and some not so lovely people who suggested that I was just being dramatic. One even accused me of faking depression for attention seemingly because I didn’t kill myself (she had centred herself in my narrative and had become enraged when I refused to allow her to make my mental health about her). She and I no longer have contact.

It can be difficult to trust people and open up to them; some of us have abandonment issues that already make it hard to trust, and not everyone is genuine when they encourage you to lean on them, which can reinforce the idea that we shouldn’t let anyone in. I no longer see a therapist, and I no longer discuss my mental health with friends. I’ve learned that I’m on my own, no matter how many people I have in my life, so talking no longer helps me. However, talking definitely helps others, and I would encourage those individuals to find safe people to whom they can talk.

Thanks to the help that I received, I trust myself more now. I don’t think I’ll ever kill myself. But the truth is that many people do. We can talk all day about ways that the system lets people down and what means of support we should offer, but there is no fix that will work for everyone. What I can say is that instead of judging those who do end their lives, it would serve them and us to try to show compassion. I saw something yesterday that gave me hope. Someone had posted on social media about how any religious person should know that Anthony Bourdain is in hell because of the decision he took. Numerous Catholics in particular replied that their religion teaches them compassion and forgiveness, not condemnation. People who attempt or succeed in ending their lives, people who self-medicate and become addicted to substances, are not weak or selfish; they are in pain. There is a lot of suffering in the world. We can choose to ignore it, but that is our coping mechanism or indifference, not someone else’s weakness.

I believe that many things in this world need to change. But I think it is unlikely that humans will pursue any drastic changes. I’m not especially moved by the articles that have been coming out this week about treating depression and the like. Many of them centre the state, not the people who need help. Believe me, I wish there was some magical solution to help people fear death more than they fear life. What I can tell you is that sharing numbers for hotlines is usually not helpful—not when you’re speaking to an adult who has been dealing with issues for years and who is well aware that such resources exist. Telling them how much it would hurt you if they were to end their life is not helpful either. Guilt may prevent some people from taking that step, but it won’t alleviate their pain. And invalidating their feelings and dismissing their struggle is a really bad approach. If you don’t want to hear about someone’s issues, that’s fine; don’t make pretences, because you will cause hurt.

Just hope for the best for each other, I guess. Respect everyone’s humanity and right to live with dignity. Allow people to speak for themselves. And listen with the purpose of understanding, not to dispense advice. But if someone asks for advice, feel free to give it. That is the best I can come up with. The truth is that some people won’t make it. No matter how wonderful a friend, partner, sibling, parent, etc. you are, no one is a saviour.

We all hear words of encouragement at some point in life that it’ll get better. This is a lovely thought, and maybe for some people it does. But everyone’s experience is different. For me, things have not gotten better. As I said, I’ve been dealing with feelings of hopelessness and despair for as long as I can remember. I would pray to die in my sleep before going to bed at the age of six or seven. What has gotten better is my ability to understand myself and where I fit in to the world, which helps me manage when things get rough. And I think that’s really as good as it can get. I actually wish someone had told me frankly when I was younger that life is really hard and it may always be hard, and you can’t expect others to love you or care for your well-being.

Happiness is no longer something I view as a destination but as something that comes in particular moments in life that I cherish. I also pray sometimes, and while I pray that I will fear death more than life, I mostly pray for the well-being of others. Caring for people and animals and wishing the best for them is one way that I enable myself to feel a sense of calm. None of this fills the void, but it does help me stay out of it for stretches of time.

Writing this has also given me a sense of peace for now. If you have read it, thank you, and I hope my words have offered something of value.

Kevin Spacey's Repugnant "Apology" for Alleged Child Abuse

Let me begin by stating that I believe Anthony Rapp and applaud him for his courage. It is never easy to process or speak about sexual assault, and especially not when the accused is someone who wields power in your personal or professional domain.

Before I analyze Kevin Spacey’s statement in response to the allegation that he sexually assaulted Anthony Rapp in 1986, I want to make something clear: Pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The gender of the child a pedophile preys on is irrelevant. The ongoing conflation of criminals who molest boys with gayness is a serious problem, and Spacey has participated in perpetuating this damaging myth.

Rapp was 14 years old; Spacey was 26 years old. Since one party was not an adult, this was not a case of a man “making sexual advances,” as this situation is being characterized in the media. Fourteen-year-olds are not fair game for adults to hit on, and touching a minor is a serious crime.

Kevin Spacey’s response was a carefully crafted statement allowing him to avoid accountability and redirect the conversation. In so doing, he does not simply come out as gay but manages to throw the LGBTQIA+ community under the bus. I will explain how he does this later.

First, let us look at Spacey’s response to a Buzzfeed article accusing him of assaulting then 14-year-old Rapp:

Immediately, Spacey distances himself from his accuser, saying he has respect for him as an actor. Neither does he admit to having ever met Rapp in person nor does he indicate any respect for him as a person—just as an actor. So, he dehumanizes his accuser. He goes on to state that he was “beyond horrified” to hear Rapp’s account of what happened, as if it was a story about someone else. This is when he expressly begins to absolve himself from blame by highlighting that it was a long time ago and he has no recollection of it. This sets the stage for what is to be a disingenuous apology.

The actual apology part of this statement begins in a detached manner: “if I did behave then as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology.” This is worded deliberately to highlight the passage of time since the incident is alleged to have taken place and to cast doubt on Rapp’s story without actually contradicting him. Then comes the direct evasion of responsibility, where Spacey states that if this happened, it would have been “deeply inappropriate drunken behavior.” The paragraph ends with Spacey once again highlighting that this happened a long time ago and refusing to shoulder the responsibility for causing the feelings to which he refers: “I am sorry for the feelings he described having carried with him all these years.”

The manner in which Spacey simultaneously confronts the allegation and avoids blame is disturbing, as is his cold, calculated tone. Undoubtedly, a skilled psychologist would have something to say about this.

First, I want to highlight this usage of time to absolve predators of guilt. Abusers and their apologists often use this tactic to discredit survivors: “This happened years ago; why are you bringing it up now?” It is as if time erases criminality. Further, because the memory is not always reliable, underscoring the passage of time can cast doubt on the survivor’s ability to recall events clearly. This tactic is especially harmful when the victim of the alleged crime is/was a minor. In a situation such as this, where the power imbalance is massive, questioning the credibility of the accuser reinforces their lack of agency and shields the accused from the allegation of the serious crime of child abuse. Essentially, this tactic is used to gaslight the accuser. Gaslighting is a form of abuse itself.

Second, Spacey’s decision to blame alcohol use to absolve himself merits discussion. It is always fascinating to me when people invoke substance use to rationalize wrongdoing, since alcohol is known to lower inhibitions. Therefore, when someone tries to blame drunkenness for their inappropriate behaviour, they are actually admitting that they have a certain predilection in the first place. This is interesting because Spacey never denies preying on 14-year-old Anthony Rapp. Instead, he blames the alcohol. But alcohol does not magically transform a person into a child molester. What Spacey does here is negate the considerable age difference between himself and Rapp, which is where he begins to drag the LGBTQIA+ community down with him by conflating pedophilia and homosexuality.

Now I come to the second paragraph, where Kevin Spacey doubles down on this conflation of pedophilia and homosexuality and decides to throw other queer people under the bus instead of addressing his alleged criminality. The first sentence is dismissive and carries on this conflation. Addressing child molestation should never be a means to segue into a discussion about same-sex attraction. These two things are not related. For instance, many try to blame homosexuality for the crimes of abusive priests when, in fact, it is not the vow of celibacy that causes child abuse but the nature of the job, which grants authority and allows access to children, which would appeal to pedophiles. The gender of the children is not the point; the crime of child abuse is the point. What Spacey does here is play into the damaging stereotype of the repressed gay man who acts out by molesting children.

Next, Spacey references stories that have circulated about him. Whether he is referring to stories about relationships with men or crimes committed against minors is anybody’s guess; in any case, he has already conflated the two issues.

Then he brings up the fact that he has had relationships with both women and men. I was perplexed as to why he felt the need to mention this. What follows this adds to the harm he has chosen to do to the queer community in this statement. After alluding to bisexuality, he erases it and says that he “now choose[s] to live as a gay man.” The idea that one can choose to be gay continues to be used to demonize homosexuals and brand queer people as deviants. The decision to bring up a history of dating women and men in this context is also problematic because it invalidates non-binary sexuality. Bisexual erasure is common and poses an ongoing problem for those who exist anywhere between the two ends of the sexuality spectrum. That Kevin Spacey would both echo the arguments used by queer-antagonistic bigots and feed into the stigma attached to bi+ identities is alarming. It is as if he wants to throw as many people under the bus as possible.

The last sentence once again plays on the aforementioned stereotypes by suggesting that Spacey’s attraction to men would account for him preying on a teenage boy. This cannot be said enough: Gayness cannot be used to rationalize pedophilia. Yet it is as if Spacey is doing just that to address Rapp’s allegation.

Kevin Spacey’s entire statement is a deflection. He first deflects from the accusation of sexual assault against a minor by hiding behind alcohol consumption and then further deflects using homosexuality. This statement is a clever manipulation. The text evinces an awareness that the media would be distracted if Spacey threw them the bone they have long waited for: confirming that he is gay. It is offensive to survivors of child abuse including Anthony Rapp, to survivors of other forms of sexual assault, and to the LGBTQIA+ community, but to queer men in particular, who continue to battle stereotypes that pathologize them and associate them with sexual predation and criminality.

Eminem's Performative Politics

I have some thoughts on Eminem. Truthfully, I’ve long had thoughts on Eminem. This guy has a long history of antagonism towards women and queer people. For this reason, I will always view him with a critical eye. In my opinion, he is also a mediocre rapper. He doesn’t hold a candle to the artist who propped him up in the first place: Dr. Dre.

Eminem owes a great debt to his predecessors in hip-hop—Black people. And his fans—most of whom seem to be white as well—do too. He has an international following as well that one could probably discuss in the context of antiblackness, but that is a larger task I am not taking on right now. For years, I’ve found Eminem’s voice conspicuously absent in the Black Lives Matter movement. I’ve heard he does philanthropic work for his hometown of Detroit and that’s great. But I expect people who’ve become rich and famous owing to the gifts they’ve been bestowed by Black people to engage in anti-racism work.

This anti-Trump rant was not anti-racist. It was strictly anti-Trump. To me, it was as disappointing as every other liberal take on the current president. Time and time again, the most privileged of critics in the United States express disgust and embarrassment over Donald Trump. They seem to believe that things would be better if only he wasn’t the president. Yes, he is embarrassing and worthy of disgust, but more alarmingly, he is the result of a culture that values celebrity, money, whiteness, violence, narcissism, rigid definitions of masculinity and femininity, cis male dominance, and American exceptionalism. The toxic systems that put this character in the White House are what has to change, but instead of standing with activists fighting to change those systems and safeguard their rights and lives and those of their fellow citizens, people like Eminem are choosing simply to distance themselves from this monster—this quintessentially American monster.

He acknowledged that some of his fans probably voted for Trump. I’m sure they did. Hyper-masculinity, misogyny, and LGBTQ-antagonism are things Eminem and Trump have in common that appeal mostly to certain cis males. As he did with Trump, he disavowed those fans. Okay… I guess that’s impressive to some people who covet wealth and think Eminem did a brave thing by potentially kissing off some income. To me, it doesn’t say anything.

The whole thing felt very performative to me. Eminem did not film a video for “The Storm” and launch it online to tell his white supremacist fans to f—— off; he went to the BET Hip-Hop Awards to tell a predominantly Black audience that he wasn’t okay with Trump and his Trump-supporting fans.  

Let’s look closer at the lyrics, shall we.

Got a plan and now I gotta hatch it
Like a damn Apache with a tomahawk
Imma walk inside a mosque on Ramadan

His so-called plan evokes war and uses terms taken from Indigenous people and appropriated for this violent, imperialist American lexicon. And he claims he’s going to enter a mosque during the holiest time in the Muslim calendar just to piss Trump off. As we know, Trump has been hostile to Muslims. So, Eminem is using Muslims here, rather than showing that he cares about what happens to them under this president.

And say a prayer that every time Melania talks
She gets a mou— Ahh, Imma stop

What does Melania have to do with this? I don’t know exactly what “mou—” was supposed to mean, but it wasn’t flattering, obviously.

And here’s some liberal nonsense:

But we better give Obama props
‘Cause what we got in office now’s a kamikaze
That’ll probably cause a nuclear holocaust

Lots of people miss Obama, especially those who aren’t aware of, or are indifferent about, the number of countries he signed off on bombing during his eight years in office. American imperialism is always preferred with a smile. And the possibility of Trump launching a nuclear war is indeed something that should have people terrified out of their wits. But when Americans talk about it, I never hear empathy for the Koreans who are going to meet the same fate the Japanese did when the United States caused the first and only other nuclear holocaust.

Trump, when it comes to giving a s—, you’re stingy as I am
Except when it comes to having the balls to go against me, you hide ’em
‘Cause you don’t got the f—ing nuts, like an empty asylum

And here we have Eminem making it about himself and being all Eminem-like, up in his macho nonsense.

Racism’s the only thing he’s fantastic for
‘Cause that’s how he gets his f—ing rocks off and he’s orange
Yeah, sick tan

As I said, racism is just one of the things Trump is about. The rest is likely lost on Eminem because he is a product of the same culture and he too is a white, heterosexual, macho, cisgender man. And the last part is the same unproductive mockery of Trump that we hear from liberals on a daily basis. *Yawn* Your mockery changes nothing.

The next lines are really a rehash of the election, Trump’s hypocrisy since then, and everything that has been in the news lately about the NFL and Trump’s negligence regarding Puerto Rico. To his retelling of the news, he adds more acknowledgment of racism:

From his endorsement of Bannon
Support for the Klansmen
Tiki torches in hand for the soldier that’s black
And comes home from Iraq
And is still told to go back to Africa
Fork and a dagger in this racist 94-year-old grandpa
Who keeps ignoring our past historical, deplorable factors
Now if you’re a black athlete, you’re a spoiled little brat for
Tryna use your platform or your stature
To try to give those a voice who don’t have one
He says, ‘You’re spittin’ in the face of vets who fought for us, you bastards!’
Unless you’re a POW who’s tortured and battered
‘Cause to him you’re zeros
‘Cause he don’t like his war heroes captured
That’s not disrespecting the military
F— that! This is for Colin, ball up a fist!

And it really is nothing more profound than acknowledgment. There is no call for anything to change in this either. Even his nod to Colin Kaepernick doesn’t include any specific mention of what his protest was about. He alludes to it, but this protest is about more than just giving a voice to marginalized people; it is about the people who continue to be murdered by the state.

And the next line is more of Eminem’s patriarchal rubbish:

And keep that s— balled like Donald the bitch!

Emasculating Trump—and using a term associated with women to do it—isn’t very productive. It’s just the same old toxic crap that leads to violence against cis women, trans and non-binary people, queer cis men, and all other men who don’t conform to some prescribed form of masculinity.

Finally, let’s look at the last few lines:

And any fan of mine who’s a supporter of his
I’m drawing in the sand a line: you’re either for or against
And if you can’t decide who you like more and you’re split
On who you should stand beside, I’ll do it for you with this:
F— you!
The rest of America, stand up
We love our military, and we love our country
But we f—ing hate Trump

As I said already, he used this occasion to tell his Trump-supporting fans that he doesn’t want them. Did you know that Eminem is the top-selling hip-hop artist of all time? He can probably afford to lose some fans. But the last two lines really say it all for me. I repeat, this isn’t anti anything but anti-Trump. Eminem loves the imperialist U.S. military and the same white supremacist nation-state that he would like us to believe he was just critiquing. And he ends by confirming that this is indeed nothing more than an expression of dislike for Trump, the individual.

Hating Trump is not good enough. This was the height of performative politics. And I think it’s relevant that Eminem has an album coming out next month. Given all the accolades for this performance, I think Trump will be good for Eminem’s record sales.

My Support for Jagmeet Singh and My Understanding of Love and Courage

(Photo: Mark Blinch, Reuters)

Confession: I have never been especially excited about provincial politics. I pay enough attention to know whom I want—and don’t want—to vote for, but that is usually it. A few years ago, there was some buzz about this NDP MPP from Bramalea–Gore–Malton. More so than his politics, most of the talk was about his well-tailored suits and colourful turbans. My engagement with Jagmeet Singh’s politics happened at a time when I was quite disillusioned with politics in general. I’d grown up in a liberal-leaning household and had even been a card-carrying Liberal for a while. My gradual realization that I was not, in fact, a liberal, began in 2014, during the party’s leadership race. To my dismay, Justin Trudeau swept it without much of a platform. Nevertheless, I subsequently participated in the process of electing the federal candidate for my local riding. When the victor was the only candidate without a platform, and the only candidate who seemed inaccessible and beholden to wealthy supporters, it became clear to me that these were not my people.

The Liberals won a majority government in 2015, when awareness was being raised in the media and among the public in the GTHA about the ongoing unconstitutional practice of carding. At a time when our leaders should have been on the side of those targeted disproportionately by police, Justin Trudeau was busy propping up former Toronto police chief-turned MP Bill Blair. Most politicians at the various levels of government were mum. But NDP MPP Jagmeet Singh was not. I saw the following from Queen’s Park and thought, “Someone with some power in this place gets it!”

In Jagmeet, I saw hope for the first time in the possibility of change in Canada. I thought, “If this guy were to become Prime Minister one day, we might actually start to dismantle the white supremacist system that controls everything here.” I followed him on Twitter and Facebook to get a better sense of his policy positions. He was talking about social justice in a meaningful, passionate way—something I wasn’t getting from any other politician. The promises of “Real Change” that the Trudeau Liberals had been making seemed like mere spectacle as they carried on the legacy of their Conservative predecessors.

There was talk in Ontario that provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath wouldn’t run again and that as Deputy Leader, Jagmeet would probably be next in line to lead the NDP in Ontario. But as it became increasingly clear that Horwath would continue in her role, I began to consider that maybe Jagmeet was ready to lead the federal NDP. Accordingly, I began stating on social media that he should replace Thomas Mulcair. Rumours began swirling early this year that he was going to attempt to do just that. So, I declared that if this were to come to fruition, despite my cynicism about politics, I would join the NDP and vote for him.

So, here we are.

All political candidates should be scrutinized and questioned on their positions, even when we like them. However, Jagmeet Singh has faced a different kind of criticism from his fellow candidates in this leadership race. He has been called everything from style-over-substance, to inexperienced, to (neo)liberal, to conservative! But his supporters, who have kept up with his policy statements and attended his JagMeet & Greets, have seen someone who believes in equity, respect, listening to and learning from each other and, of course, facing challenges with love and courage. In the first NDP leadership candidates’ debate in which he participated, he was considerably talked over. It was clear that Jagmeet was not an aggressive person. Indeed, I think anyone who has met him would agree that he exudes humility and sensitivity. In this race, he has struck me as someone who is careful about what he says and values consulting with those who are more knowledgeable on a subject before he puts forward a proposal.

(Photo mine, taken July 17, 2017)

In the current state of affairs in North America, where white supremacy is not challenged in mainstream media, we need a leader like Jagmeet Singh. This is not merely because he is a racialized Canadian—after all, this is not unique in the Canadian government—but because he has given hope to many Canadians who have felt invisibilized by the powers that be. He has shown a commitment to amplifying marginalized voices and fighting systemic racism, which is something that few politicians will even mention, let alone strive to achieve.

I am a new member of the NDP. I am by no means an expert on the party, but it has always seemed to me to be dominated ideologically by white men. However, one cannot honestly use any adjective associated with the left end of the political spectrum to describe oneself if one is not committed to the liberation of all oppressed peoples, and this liberation cannot be separated from a commitment to dismantling white supremacy. Sadly, no matter how nice and ‘progressive’ Canadian politicians are, few of them have convinced me that they are prepared to do this. It stood out to me that in the leadership debate on July 11, Jagmeet Singh and Niki Ashton were the only candidates to mention systemic racism in Canada and its violent, colonial history. Another issue that should be important to the left is that of transgender rights. In addition to the violence and murder of transgender women in particular, the Canadian populace shows significant hostility towards transgender and nonbinary people that a simple ‘X’ gender option on a government document is not going to solve (Please read Jules’ blog). Furthermore, the current government has been criticized for its failures both in upholding its promises for an improved nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples and in advancing the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. And, of course, there are still those defending and practising carding (or ‘street checks’ as they are often called), despite evidence that this harassment does not produce great benefits for solving crime.

While I remain cynical about politics, as I think all power structures are ultimately oppressive, an NDP under Jagmeet Singh might be our last hope of trying to effect change from within the system. His message of love and courage is one that received some laughter when he entered the leadership race. But love and courage is not a cheesy slogan Jagmeet borrowed from a greeting card or a new age self-help book. The scoffs and eyebrow raises in response to it speak volumes about how we (mis)understand ‘love’.

The concept of love is one about which I have been thinking for quite some time. So, again, I suppose Jagmeet Singh has taken centre stage in my thoughts at the right time in my life. But I will not try to speak for Jagmeet; rather, I want to discuss what ‘love and courage’ means to me.

We often think of romantic love or familial bonds when we hear the word ‘love’. Thus, it may seem out of place to talk of love in politics. Nevertheless, it does come up. The words often repeated from Jack Layton’s final letter, released upon his death in 2011 are as follows:

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

Jagmeet’s positive message resonates with this.

As part of our understanding of love, we tend to rely on a love–hate binary. But the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference. You either love me or you don’t care about me. Not loving me does not mean hating me. This false love–hate binary allows racism to thrive, because without expressions of hatred, a lot of people who don’t experience racism themselves don’t see it operating. This creates apathy. This apathy is how some are able to believe that the ideological positions of Black Lives Matter or Antifa are as unappealing as those of the anti-Black and fascist/Nazi forces they are battling. Furthermore, indifference is what the public generally gets from politicians, who seem to use us to get elected so they can start their real jobs of working for corporations. Love, therefore, is a promise not to be apathetic. Jagmeet has made such a promise to Canadians, to listen to them and advocate for them.

This leads me back to the question of love and hate. If not love, then perhaps the opposite of hate is acceptance or tolerance. So, if hatred is not the antithesis of love, can we effectively fight hate with love? This question is relevant in light of Jagmeet’s response when his JagMeet & Greet in Brampton was disrupted. When Jennifer Bush invaded Jagmeet’s personal space and shouted her anti-Islam rant in his face, he had little choice but to handle the situation the way he did. On the one hand, of course remaining calm and talking over someone until they get tired and leave is a positive way to handle such a situation. On the other hand, the onus is always on racialized people to be polite in the face of racism—to turn the other cheek. The global standing ovation in response to how he handled the situation was frustrating for me because I am tired of witnessing this double standard that exists for white people and everyone else. We are currently living in a time when people are advocating that we refrain from punching Nazis, as if their beliefs are no more than a difference of opinion.

The notion of showing love to bigots is one that I have difficulty grasping. Among white people, there seems to be plenty of love for bigots already and not nearly enough for those whom the bigots wish to eradicate. Just look at the nonsensical ‘Hug a Nazi’ arguments making their way into our North American media and contrast that with the indifference shown to Black Canadians murdered by police or Indigenous women and girls murdered by… we still don’t know who. It seems more reasonable to me to battle indifference with love among those who are sympathetic, and hatred with intolerance to the ideas of bigots.

As for courage, Jagmeet is certainly not lacking in this department. What we know of his personal history speaks to this. He often speaks about growing up looking different and his experiences of being carded by police. In addition, he faces significant backlash not only from the most obvious white supremacist and anti-religion camps but from those here and abroad who oppose his social justice work. The character he has shown in standing up to those who have more power than he does is another reason why Jagmeet won me over several years ago.

Now more than ever, we need a full appreciation of what love and courage are to face the threats of climate change, the exploitation of the global capitalist system, systemic inequality, and bigotry. I believe Jagmeet Singh can steer Canada in the right direction, and that is why I voted for him for NDP leader.