HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TeeYiYi » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 7,278

Journal Archives

If Rachel Dolezal wants to embrace black culture...

...and borrow from it as a way to define herself, I don't understand what the problem is. People have been "passing" as one race over another for eons.

Consider the 70s "Crying Indian Chief" commercial with the tearful "Native American" guy who turned out to be Italian. He claimed to be of Cherokee-Cree descent and maintained the illusion throughout his adult life.

Carol Channing passed as white so as not to hurt her career as an actress. She finally outed herself when she was 81 by admitting that her father had been half black.

What about Michael Jackson? He tried desperately to convince the world (and himself) that he had white skin. Mariah Carey pushed her multiracial ethnicity early in her carrier. So did Tiger Woods. People appear to fashion identities that make them feel comfortable in their own skin.

Rachel Dolezal has been immersed in black culture for most of her life. She had African American siblings by way of adoption and she was, at one time, married to a black man. She also, apparently, parented at least one of her black siblings for a time.

The "one drop" rule and the fact that we all share a common African ancestry should buttress her right to explore African culture if she so chooses, but I think it goes deeper than that. She has attempted to walk the walk while consistently advocating on behalf of the African American community. Everything that Rachel Dolezal has stood for and worked for in her adult life, has been in the interest of defending and honoring black culture.

Berating someone because of their skin color, in this day and age, seems backward and counterintuitive. People are willing to attack her for attempting to wear a 'black' hairstyle but say nothing when Beyonce wears a straight blonde wig. They both should be able to wear their hair in any style that makes them happy.

As an actual multiracial person, by way of her Czech, Swedish, German and Native American roots, she should be allowed to self-identify in any way she chooses. How she rolls is no threat to anyone else's blackness or whiteness. She genuinely appreciates and loves African American people and black culture. She's worked tirelessly for racial equality, civil rights and an end to racism and police brutality.

The NAACP supports her multiracial identity and so do I.


Topple his statue...

re: "how should the bigger threat have been properly addressed?"


Bernie is in good company...


Must be busy...

...Probably has another wife to murder. Meh... Priorities.

TYY --->> *who loathes celebrities who murder their wives and get away with it.*

She asked...

...that ALL activists (to include gay activists and black activists) add the fight for women's rights to their activism dockets. (You don't have to be gay or black to be involved in the fight for equality and basic human rights.)

If someone hearing Patricia Arquette's comment is already fighting for women's equality then her backstage comment doesn't apply to them. Her request for solidarity only applies to those people who are not already on board with equality for women, and activists with a narrow purview of which causes are important enough to fight for.

Black women are already included in Patricia Arquette's "us" and "we" category of "all women" by virtue of their gender. Unless there are black women who've been actively campaigning against equality for women, the call for solidarity by Patricia Arquette does not apply to them, since they are already "us." "That we've all fought for"… "that we've" includes black feminists. "…to fight for us now"… "us" includes ALL women of every stripe and hue.

Her initial call for equal wages for women, while onstage, sets the parameters for deciphering additional comments on the same topic backstage. If she hadn't already established intent with her first comment, then her backstage comment might be open to interpretation…but she did, and it isn't.

Without the first comment, I can see how the second comment might be misconstrued, but we DO have the first comment which sets the rules by which the second comment is to be judged. Anyone not understanding the thrust of the backstage comment need look no further than the onstage comment to correctly decipher and parse intent.

She didn't demand anything. She merely requested solidarity from those who are already inclined toward activism. She requested support in the fight for women's rights. She didn't qualify that statement by saying "white women's rights," she said, "all women's rights" regardless of straight, gay, black or white. Her fight is for wage equality for ALL women, period.

She's asking that ALL people join in the fight for women's equality. If you're already on board, then her words were not directed at you. But, if you are female, her goal for women's equality is meant to benefit YOU, regardless of color or sexual propensity.

She didn't imply that other oppressed groups have "won their victories." She didn't say "you owe us." That's you projecting.

She's fighting for equality for ALL women, including you, while you're doing nothing but tear her down for her efforts.

You might be the one that needs to take a step back and reevaluate.


Patricia Arquette said "women." She didn't say "white women."

Why is the internet re-framing Patricia Arquette's plea for equality for ALL women by suggesting that she somehow excluded LGBTQ women and women of color?

She didn't do that. She didn't marginalize gay women and women of color to the exclusion of straight white women. She spoke on behalf of ALL women. She asked that other oppressed groups join in the fight for women's equality.

She's not a racist. She isn't a homophobe. She didn't say "white women only" when referring to wage disparity between men and women.

I am sincerely at a loss as to why Patricia Arquette's words have been twisted and skewed into a huge morass of cognitive dissonance and challenged perception.


Here's my revolutionary costume for today...

The best kind of clothes for a protest pose
Is this ensemble of pantyhose
Pulled over the shorts, worn under the skirt
That doubles as a cape.

To reveal you in capri pants
You fashion out of ski pants,
In a jersey knit designed to fit
The contour of your shape.
Then cinch it with a cord from the drape.

Da da da da dum...

You fight City Hall with a Persian shawl
That used to hang on the bedroom wall,
Pinned under the chin, adorned with a pin,
And pulled into a twist.

The best kind of shoes to express bold views
Are strapless mules in assertive hues
Like fuchsia or peach, except on the beach,
In which case you wear flats...

Da da da da dum...


Amnesty International: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson

On the Streets of America: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson

Report - October 24, 2014

"Every day that Michael Brown doesn't receive justice, we are reminded that it's open season on black lives in Ferguson. How are we supposed to live everyday knowing that and not go crazy?" - Anonymous protester


This briefing document outlines some of the human rights concerns witnessed by Amnesty International and a series of recommendations that need to be implemented with regards to the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers and the policing of protests.


Irrespective of whether there was some sort of physical confrontation between Michael Brown and the police officer, Michael Brown was unarmed and thus unlikely to have presented a serious threat to the life of the police officer. As such, this calls into question whether the use of lethal force was justified, and the circumstances of the killing must be urgently clarified.

Also troubling is Missouri's broad statute on the use of deadly force. Amnesty International is very concerned that the statute may be unconstitutional and is clearly out of line with international standards on the intentional use of lethal force as it goes well beyond the doctrine that lethal force only be used to protect life.

Racial discrimination and excessive use of police force nationwide
The shooting of Michael Brown highlighted on a national level the persistent and widespread pattern of racially discriminatory treatment by law enforcement officers across the United States, including unjustified stops and searches, ill treatment and excessive, and sometimes lethal, use of force.

Much much more: http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/on-the-streets-of-america-human-rights-abuses-in-ferguson?page=show

Please take the time to go to the link. This report is extensive and well worth the read.

It includes separate, well thought out and individualized recommendations to the Department of Justice, United States Congress, Ferguson Police Department, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Governor of Missouri, the Department of Justice and the United States Congress...


So, in the final analysis, Michael Brown was murdered for jaywalking...

Where's the toxicology report on Darren Wilson? Like everything else surrounding this case, initial reports have been withheld while the corrupt Missouri 'justice system' takes 2+ months to craft a narrative.

The family had their own autopsy of Michael Brown's body performed which disputes the original "official" autopsy report.

As described by multiple witnesses to the murder, the independent autopsy suggests that Michael Brown died as a result of the "kill shot" to the top of his head after he was already on the ground.

What We Learned from an Independent Autopsy of Michael Brown
By Taylor Wofford
Filed: 8/18/14 at 1:27 PM  | Updated: 8/18/14 at 1:29 PM

An independent, preliminary autopsy performed on the body of Michael Brown shows that the 18-year-old was shot “at least six times,” according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, formerly the chief medical examiner for the City of New York, one of two experts who performed the autopsy.


Dr. Baden and Prof. Parcells said the two shots to the head were probably the last two shots fired. All of the shots, with the exception of the one to the top of the head, were survivable, Dr. Baden said. An attorney for Brown’s family described the shot to the top of the head as “the kill-shot.”

The autopsy did not reveal signs of a struggle, Dr. Baden said, which casts doubt on an earlier statement by police that a struggle between Brown and Wilson precipitated Brown’s shooting. Police have said Brown forced his way inside Wilson’s cruiser, where Wilson shot at Brown for the first time.

Dr. Baden said he found no gunpowder residue on Brown’s skin, which could mean that the muzzle of Wilson’s gun was “at least one or two feet away” from Brown when he was shot. However, Dr. Baden was adamant that he would need to examine Brown’s clothing for gunpowder residue to make a conclusive finding.

Brown’s clothing was not available for Dr. Baden and Prof. Parcells to examine, Baden said, though it was almost certainly examined during Brown’s first autopsy performed by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner. If no gunpowder residue was found on Brown’s clothing during the first autopsy, it will likely throw the Ferguson PD’s timeline of events into question.



Kick for Ferguson October solidarity...

...and the DU weekend crowd.

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »