M,

Asking Alex, "What is wrong with you?" instead of actually engaging with a rather nuanced post that's trying to unpack the ways that racism and homophobia can get tangled up is just another way to shut down the conversation that we need to be having. Interesting that you only focus on the black teen's response, but have nothing to say about what Alex wrote about Abergel's response.

I think that Abergel should have thought this through and could have written a more nuanced post, exploring her clearly conflicted emotions. Instead, she chose to write this, a simplistic acccusation of a hate crime that seeks to absolve her of any racism while pretending that the ONLY problem here is black homophobia.

Asking someone to be accountable to be for the entire history of their "people" - a history that was audaciously presumed by a white person who could only see the history of slavery embodied in the black teenager - is in fact outright racist.

Abergel had no problem presuming that the teen was a product of slavery and that she should have been aware of Abergel's parents having marched with MLK (or, once informed of said history, perhaps dropped to her knees in gratitude). But she ignored one salient act about her presumably white grandparents being from Africa - that it might say a lot about her family's embededness in the racism that has devastated that continent.

Abergel will, no doubt, continue to respond that her grandparents marched against apartheid and repeat the fact that her parents marched with MLK. To which we might respond: And why is your personal history so important but not that of the young woman? To her, the black teenager has no history, no personal life - she is simply an embodiment of slavery. As if saying "your great-grandparents were probably slaves" implies no racism, no idea that all blacks who cross your path are exactly the same; and as if holding someone to their presumed status as the descendant of slaves is not yet another way of telling them that, yes, they are slaves. In Abergel's mind, the black teen is duty-bound to recognise the great munificence of Abergel's entire history.

I can see why the incident itself - having things thrown and being called some incredibly ugly names - was truly unnerving. But Abergel and others like her need to acknowledge the force of her own liberal racism. And stop acting like she, as a white person who marches with people of "all different colours" is somehow owed a debt of gratitude or acknowledgment by every black person who interacts with her.

Over and over, she raises her personal history, as if that matters more than that of the black teen. She's willing to use a sliver of what she presumes to be the teen's history - that of slavery - which may well be a part of her history. But having Abergel, as a white person, come charging at her to use that history to determine how she should treat the white woman in front of her only shows that Abergel is willing to use history selectively. Can you blame the black teen for her anger? And, as Alex astutely points out, we have some hints that the story is one-sided.

This is obviously a complicated issue, but perhaps not a complicated situation. The least we can do is to be willing to acknowledge that racism does not simply come from pillow-and-sheet-clad members of the KKK. It's the everyday racism of white liberals like Abergel, the sort of racism that emerges with barely a scratch on the surface, that's more telling and revealing. And, frankly, a lot more difficult to dismantle because it hides so well behind the mask of righteous self-indignation and stock phrases like, "My parents marched with MLK/I voted for Obama/ My relatives are African-American" or whatever other justification comes to the mind of white liberal racists.

Martin Luther King's famous quote about "the majority of white Americans are unconscious racists" is all that is needed to explain this incident. Abergel plugged into some vestigial unconscious racism, even though she didn't necessarily want to or mean to.

What MLK did not include in his quote, however, is that black people, too, can have unconscious attitudes about race that can be true or false, functional or dysfunctional.

I will be "racist" enough myself to state that it is extremely difficult for anyone, white or black, to totally suppress racist thinking when the threat of immediate and serious violence is at hand. As the recent encounter in Cambridge involving Henry Louis Gates amply demonstrated, there is also a blurry line between "thinking about race" and "racist thinking" --- indeed, much of the media discussion of that confrontation revolved around the question, Was the white Cambridge policeman being racist against Gates, or was Gates being racist towards the white policeman? It is amazing how many white right-wingers saw it as the latter. (I personally hold that both men could have handled the situation better.)

I also ponder about the line of thinking that goes "You're a member of a group that has been discriminated against, why would you be unthinking enough to pass on the discrimination to me." This too might be a form of racism, or maybe it is just an unwarranted assumption --- but in any event, you are dictating the attitude you think that person ought to adopt based on the race of that person. You are negating the fact that the other person has a brain of their own and can choose the attitude that makes the most sense to them, even if it doesn't make sense to you. As you point out, Alex, if this line of thinking held true, then there would be no racist LGBT people, either.

Excellent article, Alex. Abergel's response to this teenager does sound an awful lot like "get to the back of the bus and be happy with the fact that we white people deigned to free your kind from slavery!" Not to say that the girl who allegedly attacked her was blame-free, but whatever she may have done to Abergel doesn't excuse the incredibly racist way Abergel responded to her.

Alex
How dare you call me a racist and put this crap on your site. I plan on calling my attorneys to combat this libel and defamation. You were NOT there and you did NOT see what happened. I have witnesses. And I have truth on my side. And by the way my grandparents are NOT white, they are BLACK. And by the way, as a JEW, I am no stranger to slavery in my historical past. And by your logic of calling me a racist I can call you an ANTI SEMITE. I am the furthest thing from a racist and that little girl was waiting for a fight. She threw urine at the marchers and when I confronted her she started the whole thing. So say what you want but you are a self hating person who should not be spreading lies about people you don't know. And it wasn't the teen who called me a liar it was a friend of hers and she said i started it which I didn't and I have witnesses to attest to that. Get your facts straight. That's what makes blogging different then news, at least they fact check. Get a life and back off and you WILL be hearing from my lawyer.

Cuz, wow, that level of defensive rage certainly paints you as level headed and in the right about this situation. You know, in a "pretty much the total opposite" sort of way at least.
By the way?:
"when I confronted her she started the whole thing."
Notice a certain contradiction here?

Anyway, back to what I was gonna say,

Can I be the guy to chime in and say homophobia and racism are both null in this situation? Both parties failed left and right. Blanket assumptions about how a person can and should act based on their race? Bad move. Harping on about that again and again? Only making it worse. Bringing up slavery? Turn around and walk away, you just put the last nail in the coffin and lost what little chance for respect you probably had. Especially when dealing with a TEENAGER. Not exactly the most enlightened group on the planet regardless of minority status.
Was the young girl in the right on any level? Not a chance. At least not from the story we have but neither is the protester.

In the protester's defense though, I take serious issue with this paragraph:
"When she's telling the teen that she's black (as if she didn't know), it sounds a lot less like she's making an argument about transcending artificial barriers to bring forth a new coalitional politic and a lot more like she's saying, "Don't you know your place?" The slavery comment, which is an assumption about the teen's background, sounds less like "Let's look at your history and see where it looks like my history" and more like "Get back in your place.""
It sounds NOTHING like that. It sounds, and reads, as simple shock at minority on minority hatred. Alex, you point out (repeatedly) that such hate isn't new. That doesn't make it less shocking or confusing. I DO believe that's where Abergel's coming from on that point. Whether or not it's all downhill from there or not is up for debate though. Quite frankly the "My ancestors" "My parents" I...." etc lines sound just a hair too much like "Well I can't be racist cuz I've got black friends" for me to give them any real worth.

Yes, blind rage aided by all caps shouting really does strengthen your case. You're sinking deeper into a quagmire here.

By the way, Rafeket, since we have you here: I popped over to your site and noticed that someone asked you why you don't have any comment that's critical of what you wrote and your response is that everyone has only been supportive.

Actually, no. I posted a version of my first comment on your site quite a few hours ago, sometime this morning, and signed my full name to it. It has yet to appear. So... either, there's a glitch in your comment intake or...

Perhaps my critical comment will mysteriously manifest itself on your blog, now that I've pointed this out. Should it have disappeared, see above for my response.

Dear Rakefet,

I hate having my name misspelled but even I do that sometimes in bad evening light (I've gone by Yasim on occasion). So, I apologise for misspelling your name, my bad.

Calling me a bitch is not going to help your case, and neither are these odd comments. And just so you know, showing up and responding with increasing vitriol to *every* single comment made here is not going to help your case either. You say you're new to this blogging thing, so I'll let you in on a little secret: People are watching. Lots and lots of people. Not all of them actually respond, but they're sentient beings who have minds and opinions of their own and by this point, dear Rakefet, you've given them a lot to work with.

You've clearly decided that you will handle comments like someone wielding a fly swatter, determined to smack down everyone who writes here. Responding in this fashion to every one who dares question you is not going to either silence people, on or offline, or help you score any tactical wins.

And that's the last bit of free advice I'll hand out this evening. You, no doubt, will be up for a while.

I love how comments are getting deleted for allegedly "attacking someone". In that case, this whole BLOG should be deleted because I have never felt more attacked or disgusted in my life.

And with that, you can all go to hell. I'll wave down.

Keep it respectful people, I'm on duty tonight and I've already had to TOS a few comments that were nothing but insults and slurs.

Bigoted assholes are bigoted assholes. And no group, Left, Right, White, Black, Christian, Atheist, Jewish, Muslim is free of them. Not in the USA, not in Australia.

I'm of Dual UK/Australian nationality. So while I have my share of inherited guilt for what has been done by my ancestors, I bear none for slavery in the US, any more than any Black American does for what Berber pirates did in slaving raids on the English south coast in 1550.

Here's a little thought experiment: some teenage thugs wearing "White Pride" and "Gay Pride" T-shirts intermingled throw urine at a Black Pride march. And when someone comes up and says "How can you do that to an oppressed people, you're Gay!" then they get threatened with violence, and asked "DID YOU CALL ME A FAGGOT, NIGGER?" The Mob soon all "knows" that the word "Faggot" was used by the protestor, facts mean nothing to such assholes.

Same story, I just switched the semantic tokens around.

I'm fed up of such people. I'm doubly fed up when they're on "my side". I *do* *not* *care* what colour they may be, or what ancestry, or what religion. They are bigots. They are assholes. And they'll play the "victim card" for all its worth, be they the poor downtrodden Christians oppressed by the Evil Jews, or the poor minority South African Boers being oppressed by the Kaffirs, or even cards which bear some resemblance to reality. It doesn't matter to them whether their oppression is real or not. What matters is that it's a weapon they can use against "the other" that they hate to make themselves feel good.

And it's BS.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

"Judged by...the content of their character."

Characters are the one thing of which we are not in short supply. And at the risk of Alex calling me "wacky" again.

I think that it is amazing that an adult would assume that a 13 year old has any sense of history, let alone their own ethnic history. I would be surprised if they could quote or fully comprehend a statement made by MLK, Jesse Jackson or Andrew Young. They use epithets because they are ignorant and/or lazy.

I believe that acting immaturely toward the immature acts of others is always wrong. A 13 year old does not think as an adult. The more attention given to them the more they will push the envelope and this is what appears to have happened in this unfortunate case.

Much too much has been made of it.

Thirteen year olds can also be exceptionally obnoxious while on the path to becoming an adult. We should never drop to their level in discourse. When I would collar 13 year olds running drugs in my Chicago neighborhood I would leave them with Jesse Jackson's admonishment:

"You may live in the ghetto, but the ghetto does not have to live in you."

In Chicago, those words still have resounding meaning. We were once the most racially segregated city in America.

Hi folks,

Interesting to find this blog post. I was the guy who jumped in an separated the two women. I can't know what anyone was thinking, but I'll share with you what I saw.

I was walking down the street with a few friends after leaving the march. There was a bunch of fellow marches walking down the sidewalk with rainbow flags and signs. Two bottles were thrown from about 30 feet away. One was a 1/2 gallon milk jug and the other was a 20 ounce soda bottle. Both bottles hit the sidewalk where we were walking and the liquid burst out. Both bottles had a yellow liquid that appeared to me to be urine. Both bottles were left there on the ground where they fell and pointed out to the police once they arrived.

After the bottles were thrown my friends and I stopped to see who was attacking us. We saw the group of teenagers with skateboards up on steps near a statue. That is when Rakefet and her wife left the sidewalk and walked to where the teenagers were standing.

I wasn't sure anything was going to happen, but I stood on the sidewalk and watched. I could not hear this part, but it appeared as though Rakefet and her wife were asking the teens why they through the bottles, or telling them that it was not cool, or something of the sort. I was glad because I thought it was right for someone to confront them for throwing what we believed to be urine at us.

It got ugly really quickly. The two women started yelling back and forth. The teenager had her skateboard up. Her body language and yelling made it clear that she wanted to physically fight with Rakefet. This is when I got involved.

I ran up to the group and put myself in between Rakefet and the teenager. The two women did not want to separate. The teenager wanted to fight and Rakefet wanted to yell in her face. I was able to separate the women by physically moving Rakefet away from the other girl. The teenager kept coming back up to Rakefet, who was very upset, crying and yelling. At one point I had to make physical contact with the teenager to keep her away from Rakefet. I was very aware of this because now it meant I was physically touching her, not just blocking her with my body. That is not the position I wanted to be in, legally.

I kept yelling, "enough, enough" as the women were screaming back and forth. After a few minutes we, Rakefet's wife and I, were able to separate the women. We moved Rakefet back close to the sidewalk. Two security guards came up, followed by the police a few minutes later.

I don't know what anyone was thinking during the encounter. I know that two bottles were thrown at us and that the girl called Rakefet a faggot. The girl kept calling Rakefet racist and Rakefet kept screaming that she wasn't racist. It seemed odd to me that the whole "discussion" (ie. yelling match) was about race and not about sexuality, since it started with the teenagers throwing the bottles at us, presumably, because we are gay.

In my opinion, the girl and the others in the group should be punished for throwing bottles of liquid at people because they are gay. That is a hate-crime. I don't care if the teens are black or white, you can't throw things at people because of who they are and get away with it. At the same time, I hope Rakefet gets her temper under control because it does not help our cause to be yelling and screaming. I understand that it was a very emotional event. It sucked. But a rational approach would have been better for us all. Confronting the teenagers was one thing. I can understand that. But after they call you a faggot and step up to fight you, it is time to walk away and call the police.

You can't automatically assume 1) that somebody is white just because they look it (shouldn't queer people understand the concept of 'passing'?) or 2) that somebody is racist just because they utter a word about race. With a name like Rakefet Abergel, this girl is not white - she is Jewish. I completely get where she was coming from, and I guarantee you she wasn't thinking, "Know your place, black girl" - because she probably grew up with the same understanding that I did, which is that hating others for their race is just as wrong as others hating me for mine. Being on the receiving end of anti-Semitism doesn't teach us what it is to be black in America, but it does teach us what it means to be something other than white - what it means to be something OTHER, period. Maybe you don't understand that concept when you live in diverse places like LA or San Francisco, but in more homogenous places, you can be damned sure that a Jew living among white people knows he isn't one of them, and more importantly, *so do they*. It's an odd position to be in, when people of color see us as white, and white people see us as Jew. The fact that some of us can 'pass' in some situations doesn't negate our identity.

That said, many of us do pass, particularly in large, diverse cities. If Rakefet is guilty of anything, it's ignorance for not realizing that she would be *perceived* as a white person trying to claim white privilege in this conflict. That doesn't make her racist - it makes her naive.

That said, I think that it would be helpful to establish a working definition of the words "racism" and "racist." We can't have an honest dialogue about race, racism, and complicity as long as some people still hear "racist" and picture hoods and white robes.

Shira,

I see your point about being an other in a homogenous city. But keep in mind that this blog came out of Indiana - a lot of us here are aware of what it means to not pass in such spaces.

I don't know if you're a friend of Rafeket's (I'd be surprised, since you actually make some rational points, but if you are you'd be doing her a favour for getting her some real help on this whole flaming anger thing) but two points:

a) Alex's post gets at some larger issues about the LGBT community and race, and that's always up for discussion. Always.

b)"Being on the receiving end of anti-Semitism" doesn't automatically mean that you can't be racist. For that matter, let me assure you, being treated in a racist fashion for being oh, perceived as Arab or Indian or Mexican doesn't mean that you, from that point on, will never harbour racist feelings about anyone or that you might automatically forget the cultural conditioning you went through about OTHER others as somehow inferior to you. I think Ivan and Mauve Matthew above have taken on that point with more complexity, so I invite you to read their comments, if you haven't already.

As for whether or not Rafeket's comments are problematically racist or not, well, I think the vitriol she kept hurling and her references to the black teen as "little girl" and her constant emphasis on "black, BLACK, BLACK" say a lot about her attitudes towards race. We could go on about that, but I think there's ample evidence her that her views are problematic, to say the least.

Alex's post is still relevant, and the fact that Rafeket is Jewish or part black doesn't change the analysis. On that note, I don't think anyone here is charging that the racism we see here is the same as that of KKK, but we are pointing to the kind of liberal racism which comes flashing to the surface at the least provocation. And which, I think, is a lot more difficult to engage and dismantle. So, yes, we do need to articulate the differences and there is in fact a more nuanced approach here. At least until Rafeket showed up and started trying to swat us all down.

And let's not pretend that all oppressions have the same history or that they operate on the same vectors or that someone exhorting a black teen to remember that she is the descendant of slaves is not about pinning the teen to her history as a slave and effectively attempting to put her in her place. There's obviously a complicated discussion to be had about how we ought to treat the history of slavery, but I'm speaking about the issue from a quotidian point of view. You don't go about making those comments without implicitly or, actually, explicitly meaning to remind them of their place at the dinner table.

I didn't 100% agree with everything in this post - for example, I didn't feel the need to question whether there really was a threat of violence - but overall I thought this post was thoughtful and well worth reading.

It also put me in mind of Jay Smooth on how to tell people they sound racist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc

There are some important issues here that should be discussed. Unfortunately the discussion which could have been, has been derailed.
I really am interested in the interplay here in racism, homophobia and even sexism. It is too bad that the conversation got caught up in this fury.
I don't know that we can attribute the statement to the young lady about her being black to racism because I do not know Rakefet and I was not present. But I can understand how it could be seen in that way when looked at through some filters and interpreted as such. I can see how the young lady would interpret it in that way. I can see how Alex would be intrigued buy the event and the possible interpretations.
The throwing anything, but especially urine at a person is horrible and in this case I can definitely see it as homophobic. But that is perhaps my filter. I have a history of dealing with gaybashers in the most aggressively physical way myself and that will tend to color my reaction to them.
I can also see where the possible presence of sexism is there in the calling of someone "bitch" and if not internalized sexism at least the interpretation is possible.
Rakefet I would like to ask a question of you but I don't want you to feel attacked so I'm going to wait and not post some of my own observations. But I would like to point out to everyone that Rakefet admits that what she wanted to say and should have said came out as something else. She wanted at least in hindsight to tell the girl that it was "dyke" but she didn't she said something else and that it was clearly taken in a way that she did not intend. I don't see her going in claim to have been happy with the way she handled this point of the situation.
If I have misspelled a name I am sorry but many of these names are not in my spellchecker and my dyslexia is immense.

So shall we find a way to talk about this meeting point of phobias and ..isms?
I am very interested in these things topically and would love a chance to have some discourse about them.

"And for the record, it's comments like yours that make me feel like I must choose between my black and queer identities because clearly, being black casts you as a homophobe (especially in the aftermath of prop 8)."

Why do you have to choose. I do get where you're coming from. There have been times that I want to choose my community of origin and say, "Screw the LGBT community," and then I'm reminded by my straight friends that I shouldn't have to choose. Really? Like any of us can really choose to disown our gayness? Come on!

"Let me state it simply: stick to what you know and stop making assumptions about other people and their cultures. It's about respect, and we shouldn't have to ask for it."

I disagree wholeheartedly here. If we're to stick to what we know and not try to understand, conversate or educate each other then why are we using Rakefet's incident as an opportunity to talk about racism. I know you came out in support of her. Know, that I am now trying to use this incident and the conversations that ensued as an opportunity to have a conversation with, confront and hopefully learn from the black LGBT community, if you'll engage.

"Did you know that for some black people, the problem isn't homophobia but seeing their history and struggles devalued and appropriated?"

I beg to differ there, and you maybe right on some counts but not on all counts. It's a matter of perspective. The African-American civil rights movement modeled after, took inspiration from other struggles, e.g., India's struggle to free itself from Britain's grip, and that's not devaluing or appropriating their struggle. The fact that for some black people to think that is negative thinking, which is an ego-feeding proposition. Again, it's about how you choose to look at a thing and that thing changes. For example, and I understand the differences between the black civil rights movement and the current gay civil rights movement, but I still don't hold that by our aspiring to be like, using Loving v. Virginia, singing "We Shall Overcome," or borrowing any images or caricature from the civil rights movement is somehow belittling that movement. If anything it should be a compliment that the black community's struggle was successful and we're now modeling our movement after that. It would be worth remembering that saying about "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." So, in that light, I don't know how some blacks could move in the other direction and see this flattery as an insult.

Also, how do you explain SOME, not all, but some black women giving me dirty looks on the bus, train or on the streets, you know that kind that tells you they're disgusted with you and they hold that look of contempt in their faces. What is that but blatant homophobia. I've actually had one black lady on the bus move away from me when I sneezed and even after telling her I have allergies and it's not a cold she proceeded to walk back to where I was at, look down at me with contempt and tell me to go get tested. I was dumb founded for a minute about why she was telling me to go get tested but then it occurred to me she was saying I have aids.

Back to using gains that the black community has made as an argument to provide historical context is concerned, I don't see that as being problematic. Again, it's not like the black community won your civil rights on your own. You had to have help and you borrowed from other people's cultures and movement so it's time to do somebody else some favors. Respect is earned I think. Hating on the LGBT community is less than respectful. For the record, I never said anything about being black casting you as a homophobe. It just so happens that statistically, at least in California, 67% of blacks think that being gay is a choice and that it is directly linked to their religious convictions. What's that but homophobia. Why aren't you confronting your communities of origin about that and why are you defending them? Please explain to me so I can understand.