Re: RAT cop outs and other out things

[jonoh1@juno.com]

Rebecca,
Great post.   I'm currently enrolled in a how-to-make-a-short-film-on-35
cents workshop @ The Village - Gay and Lesbian Resource Center place like
thing. It's kinda fun. I'm one of three guys there (out of about 20). One
other white dude. And a latin man. All the rest are women in all shapes
and sizes and, I assume, various beliefs. We had a guest director come in
last week and talk about her short film. She was describing the
cinematographer. "And she's a queer woman of color. Which is good." She
went on to speak of the composer. "She's also a queer woman of
color...which is even better." The woman speaking was about 22, possibly
asian/latin mix, a queer woman (womyn, womin, wommon) and, it seemed, a
very new if capable director/writer. Judging by her film. It was the
"Which is good" quote that sent up a flare to me. It wasn't (or, at
least, didn't seem to be) connected to the film's concept in any specific
way. IE: The film is specifically about queer women of color dealing with
queer women of color issues so it was good that the cinematographer was a
queer woman of color. (Which would be debateable anyway) Or that the
music needed to be done by same because the issues addressed in the film
were queerwomenofcolorcentric. It was the automatic assumption that as
they were queer women of color they bettered the project by their
involvement. As opposed to them being capable and/or brilliant or
something. 
  Bugged me.
  Jonathan

But now I <really> want to do a show called "Four White Chicks Will Kill
A Black One." 




On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:38:46 -0800 "Kensington Smith" <smith@avn.com>
writes:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Donna Sherritt <ohbelladonna@hotmail.com>
>To: <rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com>
>Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 4:17 PM
>Subject: RAT cop outs and other out things
>
>
>> Over the weekend, I responded to Jonathan's comments in a private 
>e-mail
>out
>
>queer-identified bi gnostic mysticist. teetotaler. in spirit. ha ha.
>vegan. no, ovo-vegetarian.
>s/m-id'd pro-porn feminist. spiritualist pagan. Hmmmm.
>Hummmman.
>
>I've got a lot of labels at my disposal, you see. I've acquired these 
>and
>more, I've applied and discarded identitystratifiers, I've railed 
>against
>them, I've fallen back on them, I've tried them on for size, I've 
>outgrown
>them. I've changed my mind I've changed my mind I've changed my mind 
>I've
>changed my mind (Lori Carson). I try to explain myself to myself and 
>to the
>world, I've tried to codify and sort out and explain the world to 
>myself.
>we most of us seem compelled to do this. I don't really know why it's 
>not
>enough to just be.
>
>because of 1. My Labels and 2. This Urge to Label and 3. Fear of 
>Conflict
>and 4. The Involvement of People Who I Like and Respect in an Argument 
>and
>after a lot of time and careful consideration I'm going to respond to 
>this
>thread, this way (even tho I'm sure everyone else is done with it/it 
>was all
>a big misunderstanding/it was just a joke. sorry. no sense of humor.)
>this is from www.salon.com, their lead today: "I started speaking out
>against the casual, mindless anti-white racism I had always ignored. 
>We're
>not talking Klan violence here. The vast majority of the people I 
>worked
>with weren't racist. But there was a fairly common, reflexive use of 
>white
>as an epithet -- white politician, white funder, white teacher -- 
>without
>modifier or qualifier. White had become shorthand for 'arrogant, 
>ignorant,
>out of touch.'"
>
>Replace "white" with "christian." Or, you know, mexican or 
>transgendered or
>epileptic. This is not right. That's all. It's so convoluted and 
>turned back
>on itself, the "marginalized" reflecting the exact genus of hate they 
>have
>been subjected to, mirroring vindictive against another group
>("christians"), kicking the dog, as it were. We all deserve to be
>individuals first. These identifiers we choose and apply to inform 
>others in
>a general way about who we are would, in the best of all possibles, 
>be
>regarded as secondary; and how responsible we make individuals for 
>crowd
>mentality must be tempered with an understanding of uniqueness and 
>human
>frailty. This, of course, is almost impossible, being that we are 
>bears of
>very little brain and we've all pretty much agreed to make this 
>society
>thing, this civilization thing, work, even if our consent is only 
>inferred
>by virtue of us continuing to kick about the planet, alive. It's hard 
>work
>to allow every person a clean slate, when they come to you queer, when 
>they
>come to you black, when they come to you christian and it's so much 
>easier
>to assign them to a group, to your previous experience of the thing 
>they
>purport to be, and be done with it. This is sociopsychology and it's 
>normal.
>And it's often lazy and hateful, no matter who's dishing it out, 
>ofcolor,
>het, President, prole.
>
>Then there's all the stuff about The Other ("four white chicks'll kill 
>a
>black one,"-Samuel Clemens), but I think the above's quite enough. 
>Thanks
>for a thought-provoking exchange, goddamnit.
>
>sign me read the expiration date before you buy the milk
>or something
>xox rebecca gray in l.a.
>p.s. please see the similarly disturbing article at www.salon.com
>

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.