prejudice/discrimination

Ben O. sent us these three images. This image (found here) is of a sticker on the window of a car (presumably a Mustang?) that says “Built with tools, not chopsticks.” The car is, ironically, parked in front of a sushi bar (see the reflection in the window).

These next two images (found here and here) illustrate how this particular public library requires an ID to look at both Jet and Essence (magazines aimed at Black Americans), but not other magazines.  Presumably, someone thinks that magazines consumed by Black Americans are more likely to be stolen than other magazines.  Ben asks:

Is this racism? Is this censorship? What do you think about it?

Thanks Ben!

NOTE: In the comments, several readers questions whether the last image is an example of everyday racism. Yes, magazines are sometimes kept at the circulation desk because they are perceived to be at high risk of being defaced or stolen, but they’re also sometimes kept behind the desk if they’re highly popular, to prevent patrons from monopolozing them for very long periods of time. By forcing patrons to check them out rather than have them freely available on the shelves, patrons can keep them for only a cetain length of time, guaranteeing that other patrons who might wish to read them also have an opportunity. So it’s possible that Jet and Essence are kept behind the counter because they are very popular titles and the library is trying to be sure as many patrons as possible get access to them. So this image might be better used to talk about the difficulties that can arise interpreting situations where race appears that it might be playing a part, but it isn’t clear whether it is or in what way.

During World War I and World War II, being German-American in the U.S. became less-than-agreeable.  At that time, due to interpersonal and institutionalized discrimination, many German-Americans actively tried to assimilate into a still-very British America by downplaying their ethnic characteristics.  This cartoon, published in 1921, illustrates how German-Americans attempted to do this and how well-aware the larger society was of their efforts:

(I have long since lost the source on this, but if someone sends one in, I will gladly link to it.)

Z. (of It’s the Thought that Counts) sent in this image (found at Andrew Sullivan’s blog on The Atlantic magazine’s website):

According to Sullivan, the text says, “You won’t be able to stop them (i.e. guys), but you can protect yourself. He who created you knows what’s best for you!”

Neither Z. nor I have been able to track down the origin of this image, which is supposedly a pro-hijab PSA, beyond what Sullivan provides as a source–I can’t find any evidence online of any first-hand accounts of people seeing it displayed anywhere or of what groups might be displaying it (the online references I’ve found make vague statements about it being from Egypt). I was really hesitant to post it, but it is available on the website of a major U.S. magazine, and I’m hoping maybe some of our readers might have information about the image–who put it out, if it’s actually on display anywhere, etc. If it is a real pro-hijab PSA (or even just a proposed one), it’s a great example of the way women are often portrayed as having responsibility for controlling and preventing men’s sexual advances, since men are believed to be incapable of controlling their own sexual desires. Whoever made it clearly uses that discourse about men, women, and sexual attraction; the question is, who created it?

While I was doing some online searching for it, I came upon the site Protect Hijab, a site dedicated to “the protection of every Muslim woman’s right to wear the Hijab in accordance with her beliefs and for the protection of every woman’s right to dress as modestly and as comfortably as she pleases.” Among other things, the site provides links to news stories about laws regarding hijab, including the interesting situations that come up when, say, the city of Antwerp (in Belgium) outlaws employees from wearing hijab (or any other symbol of religious or political affiliation) but then allows them to wear bandannas.

Then I came upon this video, which has the description, “A PSA Parody/Satire intended to protest the use of the veil by women. Ban the veil and ban the berqa. A Hijab is okay, however. Free Arab and Muslim women from male religious oppression.”

I’m always interested in things like this video because there is a tendency for groups with no connection to Islam to protest the hijab as a symbol of women’s oppression. This often occurs while the voices of Muslim women who argue that they don’t find the practice of hijab to be oppressive OR they have many other issues that are higher priorities are ignored or silenced. The statement “Ban the veil and ban the berqa. A Hijab is okay, however” also brings up some of the interesting aspects of attitudes toward hijab–who gets to decide what is oppressive? Why would, say, a veil be immediately and always oppressive but hijab (however the author was defining hijab) is “okay”?

Finally, I ran across this video, called “Top 10 Funniest Things a Muslim Woman Hears,” which presents 10 questions Muslim women often get about hijab/veils/scarves/etc.:

I like some aspects of this video–I’ve had Muslim students tell me they are asked these types of questions, some of which are clearly due to simply curiosity and lack of knowledge and others of which are rude. On the other hand, just like the previous video, this video is also constructing the practice of hijab, and the women who wear it, in a particular way–as something “obligatory” for Muslim women once they hit puberty. Clearly not all Muslims agree with this interpretation.

These could be really useful for a discussion of attitudes (both pro and con) toward the practice of hijab and the way it (or the version different groups portray of it) has become a symbol of Muslim (often defined as the equivalent of Arab) women’s oppression to some and of religious freedom and devout Muslim faith to others.

It could also be useful for a general discussion of whose voices are powerful in cultural conflicts. Who is speaking out against the presumed oppression of “Arab and Muslim women”? What is their interest in the issue–that is, is there a genuine concern about sexism and gender inequality, or is the issue of hijab a convenient avenue to express anti-Islamic sentiments? Which Arab/Muslim women are they claiming to speak for? Similarly, who is behind the pro-hijab activism? Are the voices of actual Muslim women represented? Do they play a role in the content of the message? To what degree do they represent the voices of (some groups of) Muslim women expressing their personal preferences and interests and to what degree is it an effort to pressure women to adopt hijab? Again, which Muslim women are they speaking for/to?

For other posts about hijab and other issues concerning Muslim women’s clothing, see here, here, here, here, and here. Also see these images of advice on modest clothing at Brigham Young University for a comparison.

Thanks, Z.!

I am writing a lecture about the social construction of race/ethnicity and wanted to show some pictures of people who are grouped into a single racial category in the U.S. but, in fact, show enormous variety in their skin tone, facial features, etc., so I quickly googled the phrase “African American skin tone.” And I found this flyer for a party at a club where light-skinned women would get in free ( found here):

My reactions, in order: “What the f**k???” “This is clearly made up.” [After finding this AP story about it]: “Son of a bitch! It’s real!” Due to the outcry, the event was canceled and the event planner expressed sorrow and dismay that he would have offended anyone. Because who could have guessed this would be problematic?

This image should be perfect for illustrating a number of topics, such as the way hierarchies often emerge within racial groups based on skin tone, facial features, etc., so that racial discrimination does not just occur between different groups, or the way that light skin is still prized in our society, even in racial/ethnic minority populations. You could also focus on the gender angle and compare it to photos of African American women who are often “whitened” or required to have light skin tone in order to be models, actresses, etc. (for example, see this post), or the whole issue of why clubs allow women, but not men, in for free.

I’m going to pair this image with Margaret Hunter’s article “Light, Bright, and Almost White: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Light Skin” (from Skin/Deep: How Race and Complexion Matter in the ‘Color-Blind’ Era, 2004).

I found this collection of vintage ads at the Mail online:

When I was copying the website link, I noticed that this story was in the “Femail” section. There’s the homepage, of course, and then there’s “News,” “Sport,” “TV&Showbiz,” “Health,” “Science&Tech,” etc. etc., and then there’s “Femail,” the section targeted at women. It seems to be mostly fashion with some mother-daughter stories of various types. I wish sometime I’d see a magazine (or magazine section) aimed at women that didn’t see “women’s issues” and science/technology/news/sport/etc. as completely different topics.

I did like this story about elephants doing math, though.

Ben O. forwarded this ad for Fairy Soap (found here). It plays into the idea that African Americans are dirty and either lazy or stupid (since they don’t bother to wash their children), but that enlightened, kindly, clean whites can help them. It would make a good accompaniment to the chapter “Soft-Soaping Empire: Commodity Racism and Imperial Advertising” in Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest, by Anne McClintock.

UPDATE: In a comment, Brendon proposed a reading I didn’t think of:

The second ad is troubling, but my interpretation of it wasn’t that the ad was implying that African Americans are dirty – it’s implying that the young white girl believes the black girl is covered in dirt, which is the only reason why the black girl doesn’t have the white skin she does. It’s about the ‘folly’ of youth – this girl isn’t versed in the discourse of racial difference yet!

Of course, Eric points out that the “cutesy” element is undermined by the fact that the ad was made by adults who, unless we’re both totally wrong, didn’t hold such an “innocent” view of the differences between African Americans and Whites.

Also, as a commenter pointed out, given changes in hairstyles and dress for children over time, it may be those are boys, not girls.

NEW (July ’10)! Monica Y. sent along another example, this one an ad for Vinolia Soap:

In his book Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism (2005; New York: Touchstone), James Loewen discusses cities that had a “no Blacks after dark” policy. They were called “sundown towns” because African Americans were actively informed that they should be out of town by sundown; if not, they were subject to arrest or violence. Of course, the purpose of these regulations was to keep Blacks from settling permanently in these towns. If they couldn’t be in town limits after dark, they clearly couldn’t live there. Here is an example of a sundown town: this ad encouraging people to move to Siloam Springs, Arkansas, says, over in the lower right corner, “No Malaria, No Mosquitoes, No Negroes.”

Found here.

NOTE: As Mr. Loewen pointed out in a comment, I had originally said he discussed “cities in the South,” as though that was all his book concentrated on. That was poor wording on my part, as I had been reading the sections of the book that covered some areas in the South I was specifically interested in (particularly Oklahoma). I did not mean to imply that sundown towns existed only in the South or that Mr. Loewen only discusses the South.

NEW!

All found at PostSecret.