Latoya Peterson and the founder of Racialicious Carmen Van Kerkchove have changed the blog’s commenting policy. One reader Dana, she was banned because she posted a comment the moderators did not agree with. I believe Dana has a right to express herself and her views about the Tiger Woods sex scandal. Even though, Dana did not use scatological language in her post she was banned. Dana basically argued her opinion and Peterson banned her. Is Racialicious a blog that wants to deal with the issue of race seriously or not? Or is Racialicious a blog that only wants readers to post comments about race that the moderators agree with?
Here is Dana’s comment:
Self-identification for mixed race African Americans is an absolute fantasy.
If Barack Obama had pronounced that he identifies as a white man, would he have been able to run for president? Would anyone have taken him seriously?
I am sorry, but people who are mixed with black genes (dominant black genes) do not have this luxury and it’s ridiculous to even entertain the thought.
I am offended by Tiger Woods and mixed race people like him ( who do not identify as black and proud to be black) is that they act as though my black skin is something that is less than desirable. It’s not about denying the otherness of their racial identity, it’s about looking at your black (or brown or high yellow) skin and rejecting it.
I look at people like Tiger Woods (and Henry Louis Gates Jr. whose series African American Lives made me physically ill after more than an hour of him preening over the white ancestors) and I see self-hating blacks. We, as a people, have a long way to go and loving ourselves is the first step.
It’s a shame that Tiger Woods and his ilk remain in denial. I do feel sorry for Tiger, he has got to be reeling from the treatment he’s been receiving in the media and all I have to say about it is that he’s finally being forced to confront the fact that he is and will always be perceived as a black man. He has certainly not been on the receiving end of the protection that is afforded to whites when one of their own is attacked.
I can understand both sides of the argument about Dana’s incendiary comment. It is obvious that Latoya and Carmen feel that Dana is denying mixed race people the right to self identify. However, I think it is ludicrous for Latoya and Carmen to ignore the fact there is some veracity to Dana’s statement. Dana argument is although mixed race people view themselves one way society may see them differently. I don’t understand how this statement is racist? In fact, Dana’s statement does make sense. Now could Dana have been a little bit less direct? Maybe, Dana’s blunt viewpoint upset Latoya and Carmen.
However, I resent the fact the editors at Racialicious act as though they are arbiters around race. Everyone has racial biases and prejudices. I know I’m not supposed to say this because I should be politically correct right? Since Carmen Van Kerkchove owns the blog Racialicious she has her own racial prejudices she views mixed race people as superior to people of other races. Carmen isn’t black, she is part Asian and white but she also has racial prejudices. Since Carmen owns the blog she probably instructed Latoya to ban Dana.
I think Dana has a strong argument, society will view a mixed race person with black heritage as black regardless of how they view themselves. Barack Obama would never be taken seriously in America if he denied his black heritage. Dana’s argument is Woods has a lot of self hated against his black roots and she is correct. I think only mixed race people that can “pass” as white can be viewed as “white”. Adam Clayton Powell was an extremely light skinned black man yet he campaigned for black rights. The white race in America created the “one drop rule” not black people. Tiger Woods does look foolish since he is denying his black heritage. Tiger Woods has made racist anti black comments to Esquire & GQ Magazine about black men.
Peterson and Van Kerkchove may disagree with Dana’s opinion but I believe the censorship at Racialicious is racism. Peterson and Van Kerkchove attempt to present the image that they are open-minded about race issues and this is false. The focus on Racialicious is a binary system, a divide between people of colour and white folks. However, the Tiger Woods sex scandal presents another important issue the racial divide between people of colour. On Racialicious this blog does not discuss the racial hierarchies between people of colour that often.
I also want to point out, I think Racialicious is misandrist and heterosexist. I notice on Racialicious most of the writers are female and heterosexual. Now of course, since the editors of Racialicious are female they are entitled for the blog to have a female point of view. However, the women of colour feminists on Racialicious rally against misogyny yet don’t challenge misandry enough. So sexual discrimination against women is wrong but sexism against men is palatable?
Also, where is the sexual diversity? There are a paucity of male writers of colour at Racialicious but no surprise these men are also heterosexual. Racialicious claims to be a blog that challenges homophobia, sexism, and racism that exists in a heterosexist paradigm. However, Dumi Lewis, a black heterosexual man, wrote a piece about the LGBT community. However, Lewis piece was clearly from an outsider’s perspective. Since Lewis is a straight black man he is not a member of the LGBT community. Lewis knows nothing about the black LGBT community.
I have a serious problem with straight black people commenting on black LGBT issues when the voices of black LBGT people are displaced. At Racialicious, the heterosexist and racist message is presented that BLACK = HETEROSEXUAL and HOMOSEXUAL=WHITE. Black LGBT people we have it hard in a society that is anti black and anti gay. Black gays and lesbians we are racial and sexual minorities in a racist, capitalist, heterosexist, society.
Anyway, I will return my focus to the Tiger Woods controversy. According to the editor LaToya Peterson, she says that some mixed race readers feel “threatened” by some people’s comments about Tiger Woods. However, on a blog that deals with racial issues, Racialicious should be prepared for controversy.
Are Carmen Van Kerkchove and LaToya Peterson saying the views of mixed race people are more important than black, Asian, Native American, or the white readers points of view?
Peterson and Van Kerkchove are illustrating they are “racists” since they are biased towards mixed race people over other races.
The controversy is about the Tiger Woods sex scandal and some readers blasted the deputy editor Thea Lim for a piece she wrote recently. I agree with some of the comments from the readers on Racialicious that Thea Lim’s first article about Tiger Woods was full of inaccuracies. The consensus was that in America, Tiger Woods is viewed as a black man not as a mixed race man. How is this racist when this is a fact? The readers at Racialicious were not denying Woods Asian heritage they were commenting on the white supremacy. Everyone knows Tiger Woods is part Asian, the fact remains his Asian roots was not the focus of the racist media.
Everyone knows Tiger Woods is part Asian he can call himself whatever he wants but in the United States he is interpreted as a black man. W.E.B. Du Bois wrote about “double consciousness” in his groundbreaking book “The Souls of Black Folk.”
Du Bois said that black people are aware of how white people view us. Du Bois also said that some blacks internalize racism and this destroys our self-esteem. Obviously, Tiger Woods did not get the memo that in America no matter how hard he tries he will never be white.
One of the reasons Woods married his blonde, European, wife, is he believed since he is rich he can have access to white privilege. However, the sex scandal has proven that despite Woods self-hatred of his African-American roots, he will never be seen as white in America.
Now where does Woods Asian heritage fit into the sex scandal controversy? Asian men are not viewed as a threat to white society as African-American men. The reason the white media are not focusing on Woods Asian heritage is because Asian male sexuality does not conjure up the racist stereotypes of being a sexual predator.
My viewpoint is, in America, the white press don’t care that Woods is part Asian.Woods also appears more black than Asian that’s my opinion. Woods has extremely dark skin, broad nose, big lips, kinky curly hair, all African-American features.
However, in America there is a racial hierarchy and Asians are not viewed as a threat to white society as African-Americans. The reason the white press were outraged at Woods wasn’t just because he cheated on his white wife it was because he has a predilection for white women.
In the mainstream white media, Woods is constructed as a black male sexual predator that has an insatiable appetite for white women. The Tiger Woods sex scandal is about the fact Woods cheated on his blonde wife with white women. Would the press care if Woods had affairs with black or Asian women? I seriously doubt this would be considered news. Would the press care if Woods wife was African-American or Asian American and he cheated on her? Of course not! The reason the press are focusing on Tiger Woods is because he cheated on his white, blonde, Swedish, waif, wife. Tiger Woods white wife is constructed into the image of true white womanhood she is the chaste, white woman.
According to Thea Lim, she believes that viewing Woods as just black erases his Asian heritage. Thea Lim does not discuss in detail Woods hatred for his African American roots. Lim did not discuss the “one drop rule” in her rebuttal essay nor did she talk about the fact in America Woods also exploited his blackness for financial gain.
Let’s be honest, does anyone honestly believe Nike marketed Woods as a mixed race man? My perspective is, Tiger is marketed as an African-American man who broke the barrier and is dominating golf, which is still a white upper class sport. Woods made $1 billion dollars off the fact he was an anomaly, a black man succeeding in a white sport.
However, the readers pointed out to Thea Lim they are cognizant that Woods is mixed race. Meanwhile, Thea Lim wrote a rebuttal today that does address some of the concerns of the folks at Racialicious. Meanwhile, now reader Dana she was banned. My viewpoint is , banning someone just because the individual has a divergent point of view is dangerous because this relates to fear. My perspective is, on a blog people are going to criticize a writer. My view is, if a writer cannot handle criticism this person is not a writer. A writer writes and understands he or she will encounter criticism. Also, wouldn’t life be boring if we always agree all the time?