Critique as Resistance

A CRT Critique of Our World

[xicanaresistente]

Dismantling Controlling Images - What the Media will NOT Highlight about Baltimore:

The media is continuing to perpetuate this image of the Crips and the Bloods coming together to “kill cops” since they called a truce.  Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts was instrumental in spreading this rumor in one of his initial press conferences after the riots began.  Because Batts' narrative reinforces the controlling images that our society has of black male youth, until the release of the video below, no one bothered to question the truth of the statement.  In speaking about the purpose of controlling images, sociologist Patricia Hill Collins highlights that they “are designed to make racism, sexism, poverty, and other forms of social injustice appear to be natural, normal, and inevitable parts of everyday life.  Even when the initial conditions that foster controlling images disappear (as they have in this particular moment), such images prove remarkably tenacious because they not only subjugate U.S. Black women (and men) but are key in maintaining intersecting oppressions”  (Collins, 2009).

However, no one has stopped to talk to these men to find out what the goals are that they are trying to accomplish, and what it is that they are doing in their communities in light of everything happening. It’s really easy to demonize a black man in this country just because he’s a black man, and it’s even more easy to remove ANY humanity from him because he’s sporting colors. However, this ignorant criminalization does not address the underlying reasons that men of color join gangs and doesn’t even ALLOW for the ability to consider that these men are tied to these communities through family, history, and that they too have a desire to do what they can for their communities.

This video is powerful, and one that should be shared in any discussions of Baltimore, but since it doesn’t fit the narrative of black men as dangerous animals that the media LOVES to perpetuate, I’m sure it will be one that will continue to get very little attention.  One of the most powerful statements made by the interviewees is his refusal to allow the media to continue to perpetuate the controlling images of black men as gang members.  As he declares, “We’re not about to allow you to paint this picture of us” he also asserts the ways in which they are working in the community, a community of which they have been a part their whole life.  

When the media is both a product and a mechanism of structural white supremacy, if you only watch the mainstream media coverage of Baltimore, they may have you believing there is no humanity, no community, and no common ground to be found. And that belief is what leads to further marginalization and dehumanization.

http://mic.com/articles/116702/10-images-of-the-baltimore-riots-you-won-t-be-seeing-on-tv

Source: Patricia Hill Collins, 2009 “Black Feminist Thought”

[xicanaresistente]

Why Intersectionality is Necessary in Black & Brown Lives Matter Movement

On August 2014, the murder of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen who was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri seemed to spark a fuse in communities of color.  Although the murder of people of color by police officers has been happening for decades, it has largely been a tragedy that has gone ignored by the media and white society.  The murder of Michael Brown however, soon changed that.  Since the events of August 9th, widescale national and international organization against police brutality has led to #blacklivesmatter and #brownlivesmatter movement.  Seizing upon the newfound interest of the media on this particular issue that is all too commonplace in our communities, activists have managed to keep this issue in the spotlight, and unfortunately, continues to add the names of black men to the list of victims to police brutality.

However, the media, the images, and the rhetoric of these movements would lead one to believe that death by police shooting is a fate that only befalls men of color.  The reality however, is that women of color, especially those that identify as LGBTQ are disproportionately victims of police violence.  And because the mainstream rhetoric focuses on the bodies of black straight men as the main site of state violence, the murders of people of color that fall outside of the straight male paradigm are ignored and made invisible. 

In order to ensure that justice is carried out for ALL, and that we are fundamentally addressing the issues that affect ALL members of our communities of color, we must take an intersectional approach within these movements.  Critical race scholar Kimberle Crenshaw points out that the failure to embrace an intersectional framework in these movements has less to do with the “political agendas of separate race- and gender-sensitive groups, and more around the social and cultural devaluation of women of color” (Crenshaw, 1993). In other words, while movement leaders and activists may argue that the political importance of their movement requires a laser-like focus on one marginalized group, the reality is that women of color lay “at the bottom of the well” (Bell, 1992).

The reasons for this, as Crenshaw points out has to do with the power relationship that exists between males and females and especially between straight males and LGBTQ people of color.  Crenshaw rightfully highlights that:

 “racism as experienced by peope of color who are of a particular gender - male - tends to determine the parameters of antiracist strategies, just as sexism as experienced by women who are of a particular race - white - tends to ground the women’s movement… Because women of color experience racism in ways not always the same as those experienced by men of color and sexism in ways not always parallel to experiences of white women, antiracism and feminism are limited, even on their own terms” (Crenshaw, 1993).

Following the murders of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, Kimberle Crenshaw released a report that highlights the ways in which girls of color experience disproportionate violence and punishment from K-12 that carries on through the rest of their lives:   http://thefeministwire.com/2015/02/black-girls-matter-an-interview-with-kimberle-crenshaw-and-luke-harris/

 When women are experiencing this violence since childhood, why are we NOT talking about it?  Why are our communities NOT outraged about the countless deaths of cis, trans and gay women of color in our communities?  WHOSE LIVES MATTER THEN?  The Huffington Post featured the profiles of 15 of the most publicized murders of women of color by police officers.  For every sister listed here, how many have been forgotten?  In reading the brief bios on each of the women, it becomes clear that race and gender are not the only intersecting marginalizations.  All the women listed experienced some combination of impoverishment and mental illness.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/black-womens-lives-matter-police-shootings_n_6644276.html

Both of the women listed here were murdered by police after experiencing episodes of mental health issues.

Shereese Francis:

Tanisha Anderson:

And the same way in which the murders of straight women of color are ignored, the deaths of LGBTQ people of color hardly ever receive the same type of mobilization and attention that Freddie Gray and Eric Garner have received.  When recent studies have shown that 70% percent of anti-LGBTQ murder victims are people of color, where is the outrage from the LGBTQ community?  Where is the outrage from communities of color?  

While I am not saying that the work being done by #blacklivesmatter and #brownlivesmatter organizers is not of paramount importance, it is CRUCIAL that we begin to include our cis and transgender women of color and our LGBTQ brothers and sisters in this movement.  We cannot feel outrage for some and ignore the violence that is committed against others.  

http://www.colorlines.com/articles/70-percent-anti-lgbt-murder-victims-are-people-color

Jessica Hernandez (17 year lesbian student killed by Denver PD in Feb 2015)

Malissa Williams (30 male-presenting woman killed by Cleveland PD in 2012. She received at least 24 of the 137 shots fired at her and Timothy Russell, the driver of the vehicle engaged in a high speed chase with police.)  

Sources:

Derrick Bell, 1992 “Faces at the Bottom of the Well”

Kimberle Crenshaw, 1993  “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color” 

[xicanaresistente]

Ben Affleck: Historical Revisionist with NO ties to Slavery

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sony-hack/ben-affleck-asked-pbs-not-reveal-slave-owning-ancestor-leak-n344301

As part of the “Finding Your Roots” series, Ben Affleck agreed to let Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. and his team of researchers investigate his ancestry.  In the past, a large percentage of the white celebrities that Skip Gates has featured on this show (and those that have appeared on a similar show on TLC called “Who Do You Think You Are?”) have had to confront the uncomfortable reality that they descend from American slaveowners.  While this has caused some awkward moments on the show, and has led to mental anguish, I think that in terms of confronting the ways in which we are still contemporarily linked to history, it’s important that these dialogues occur.  

What I find amazing about this show and shows like this is that it’s almost always expected that the black celebrities and guests that are featured on this show will discover their lineages within the institution of slavery.  In fact, in those instances when a black celebrity is found to have a powerful ancestor or is found to be descended from African Americans that were not enslaved, it seems to come as a shock to everyone involved.  The problem with this reaction to both white and black participants’ links to the institution is that it reinforces the unspoken idea that slavery was and continues to be a “black issue”.  While it’s commonly accepted and expected that black people are descended from enslaved people, it always seems to come as a shock or as a surprise when whites are found to be descended from slave OWNERS.  So what?  Who owned slaves, who held the power to perpetuate this institution, who economically benefited from slavery if all white people seem to live with this idea that they were not complicit in maintaining and profiting from the institution? 

These beliefs and the continued disassociation from the historical connections to slavery goes hand in hand with viewing racism as a set of individual prejudices.  Until educated otherwise, white people have no qualms about stating “well MY family never owned slaves,” and this denial is just one more articulation of the common utterance “well I am not racist because XYZ”.  Both Peggy McIntosh and Beverly Daniel Tatum would argue that these are examples of the white denial that accompanies the guilt felt by white people as they become conscious of the systems that continue to grant them white privilege while simultaneously continuing to oppress people of color.  

My friend Lemont and I were discussing the way that Skip Gates handled the situation, which he did by stating that the slave-owning ancestor was cut from the show because Ben Affleck’s family history was so rich there were much more compelling storylines.  Lemont brought up what I think is a key way in which Affleck’s family history could have instead been used to show the way that people can actively resist their pasts and take a stance in dismantling the systems of which their ancestors were a part: “As it turns out the story would have been even better if Affleck had shown how his ancestor owned slaves, then moving to his mother marching with MLK…” Both Affleck’s mom and grandfather were known for their pursuit of social and racial justice.  His mother was one of the many politically active white students that participated in Freedom Summer in 1964 in Mississippi, a campaign to register black voters and participate in various key actions in the Civil Rights Movements.  Because of the incredible danger that both black and white students faced during Freedom Summer, I think that including his historical ties to slavery would have only highlighted how her actions and her commitment to social justice were powerful acts of resistance.  Even though her participation was resistance on an individual level, her solidarity with black folks in the struggle for equality and an end to Jim Crow could have been used as an incredibly powerful learning moment in how a white family can move from one extreme of being actively involved in the institution of slavery to how they can effectively become a white ally (as Tatum tries to teach students) to challenge and resist the institutions that continue to perpetuate white privilege and racial inequality.

Unfortunately for us all, Ben Affleck chose not only to ignore the power in the juxtaposition of these two stories as a teachable moment, but chose to take the role that white people that continue to see racism and slavery as taboo topics tend to take:  feeling guilt, trying to disassociate, and ultimately revising history to hide his family’s complicitness in our country’s racial institutions.  

And he can continue to feel good about himself and assuage his white man’s guilt by running his foundation “Eastern Congo Initiative” which allows him to take the comfortable role of white savior without ever having to consciously think about the ways that his organization is also a product of his colonial mindset of the civilized white man coming in to “save” the black savage.  Further, by promoting “economic development” as the way to save black people in the Congo, Affleck can stay true to capitalism’s claims that neoliberalism will save us all. 

[xicanaresistente]

Adam Sandler’s Latest Movie: Degradation and Dehumanization of Native American Women & Elders

On April 22, close to a dozen Native American actors walked off the set of a new Adam Sandler Western parody called the “Ridiculous Six” citing a script that grossly misrepresented Native peoples while insulting women and elders through the racist and misogynistic jokes throughout the script.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/04/23/native-actors-walk-set-adam-sandler-movie-after-insults-women-elders-160110

While producers of the movie tried to defend the parody as being a satire akin to Mel Brooks’ 1974 classic “Blazing Saddles,” the released portions of the script show that rather than being satirical, the movie engaged in tasteless, dehumanizing jokes at the expense of Native Americans for a few cheap laughs.  Blazing Saddles on the other hand challenges topics such as racism, slavery, discrimination, and genocide through a thoughtful lens of humor that leaves the viewer aware of the continued legacy of injustice that these issues and institutions have left in our country.  

The Ridiculous Six, which is said to be a parody of The Magnificent Seven, uses “Indian Names” for women that are offensive and crude such as the two mentioned in the script below.  In other scenes, Native Americans are depicted in the tired stereotype of the alcoholic savage and one woman urinates on the ground while smoking a peace pipe, a symbol with great religious and spiritual sacredness in many indigenous ceremonies.  

In a Hollywood climate in which Native Americans are still marginalized and only offered stereotypical Indian roles, which leaves very few acting opportunities for Native American actors and creates a lot of competition, the very act of standing in solidarity and walking off the set could have economic and professional repercussions for the actors.  Brian Brayboy, professor of Indigenous  Education and Justice would argue that the solidarity shown by the Native Americans that chose to walk off set is an articulation of some of the central tenets of Tribal Critical Race Theory.  The actors that walked away possessed a deep understanding of cultural knowledge” which Brayboy defines as “an understanding of what it means to be a member of a particular tribal nation; this includes particular traditions, issues, and ways of being and knowing that make an individual a member of a community” (Brayboy, 2006). Brayboy argues that this cultural knowledge leads to power through “survivance” - a combination of survival and resistance.  

This solidarity and act of resistance against the dehumanization of Native Americans has been met with support and has sparked campaigns to get Netflix to drop their support for this project.  This in part comes from the release of the video below, which highlights the continued patronizing and imperialistic manner in which white people “handle” Native Americans.  The crew tries to emphasize that Adam Sandler’s character is someone that “loves you guys,” which brings to mind the arguments of “we are trying to honor you” that are so often used for the justification of the highly problematic and racist use of Native Americans as mascots of sports teams.

Ultimately, the video shows how any talk of addressing the concerns of the actors is dependent on interest convergence as Castagno and Lee point out in their analysis of “dialogue” around the use of Native mascots in school sports.  In the end, since there was no interest convergence and the actor’s protests were instead costing money as they halted production, the producer tells the actors that if they are so sensitive about it, they could just leave.  This callous lack of interest in the very real concerns of Native Americans means that it is up to us as consumers and as allies to stand in solidarity with these actors in order to ensure that this act of resistance is one that ultimately leads to change in Hollywood’s practices. 

Sources:

Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, 2006 “Toward a Tribal Critical Race Theory in Education”

Angelina E Castagno and Stacey J. Lee, 2007 “Native Mascots and Ethnic Fraud in Higher Education: Using Tribal Critical Race Theory and the Interest Convergence Principle as an Analytic Tool”

[xicanaresistente]

Patricia Arquette & Madonna: Reaffirming that #Solidarityisforwhitewomen

Patricia Arquette’s Oscar acceptance speech for her role in Boyhood started positive enough.  Arquette chose to do with her platform what very few celebrities ever do - she championed a social justice issue that she felt strongly about.  However, while her plea to end gender wage inequality had good intentions, she chose to expand upon her political position backstage in what some are calling a “bad choice of words”.  However, this bad choice of words highlight what many women of color have known for decades: when white women talk about women’s rights, they are talking about WHITE women’s rights:

While making her speech, Arquette declared that  “it’s time for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”  

There are a couple of things that are very problematic with this “bad choice of words”:

1) It suggests that there are no women among gay people or people of color, or that the issues that affect women that fall into these categories only pertain to their identification with these two groups rather than in an intersectional way.

2) Injustices that affect gay people or people of color are a thing of the past because white women helped you overcome them 

3) Women (or specifically white women) are the one group that is still oppressed and marginalized

While Patricia Arquette later apologized for her fumble (see following article) it was not before going to twitter and using that default argument that white people like to use when they get defensive after being called on their racism or complicity in continued marginalizations: 

http://www.thewrap.com/patricia-arquette-on-oscar-speech-fumble-i-would-have-chosen-my-words-a-little-more-carefully/

So okay, maybe Arquette’s issue was a bad choice of words - but ultimately, I think it still speaks to Peggy McIntosh’s articulations of white privilege - white privilege means never having to think about race and intersectionality, even when you’re giving your well-meaning Oscar speeches.

Because we just couldn’t get enough of white feminist bullshit, just a couple of week’s after this incident, Madonna declares that women are still the most oppressed minority group:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/madonna-says-that-women-have-it-harder-than-black-people-and-gay-community-as-theyre-still-trading-on-their-ass-10101292.html

In this article, Madonna boldly declares that “Gay rights are way more advanced than women’s rights. People are a lot more open-minded to the gay community than they are to women, period. It’s moved along for the gay community, for the African-American community, but women are still just trading on their ass. To me, the last great frontier is women.“

In one of the following posts I mention the alarming statistics for violence against LGBTQ people of color as well as the long history of police shootings of black and brown people in this country.  Even Patricia Arquette quotes in her “apology article” that Latinas and African American women make far less than white women do in terms of the wage gap.  So tell me again Madge how the last great frontier is women?  

Although, I guess the real issue is expecting any critical thought to come from someone who in her early years appropriated the gay, black drag culture in New York. Madonna shot to fame with her video Vogue, which was a full appropriation of the the practice of voguing, an artform that became popular in New York City’s ball culture. Highlighted in the documentary “Paris is Burning” (which is not without its problems since it was done by a straight, middle class, white woman with very little insight into the culture beforehand), ball culture was a space in which drag queens of color would come together and “compete” in shows.  Many of these drag queens were homeless or severely impoverished, and used these spaces as a communal space to temporarily escape their lived realities.  Voguing was an artform of contest and competition not unlike the B-boy battles that were becoming popular among youth of color in the same time frame.  When Madonna used it in her videos, she not only appropriated the style of dance, but never gave credit to the drag queens that created it.  

While I’d like to be able to say that her days of appropriation are behind her, a product of her uninformed youth, the above picture is her in 2014, when as an almost 60 year old, wealthy white woman, she decided that a gold grill was the next fashion trend she would appropriate without taking on any of the negative stereotypes and baggage that accompanies this look when sported by people of color. 

Sources:

Peggy McIntosh, 1998 “White Privilege, Color & Crime: A Personal Account”

[xicanaresistente]

The Kylie Challenge and Viola Davis

The Kylie Challenge: it’s the next big internet challenge that has got millenials across the country riled up and ready to accept.  The premise? You get a shot class or empty bottle and suck all of the air to create a vacuum that will pull on your lips as you struggle to get them out of the vessel.  The results that most teens are expecting is to have a magical lip transformation like Kylie Jenner’s below:

The reality?  Teens are going to the hospital in droves to get treated for burns, disfigurement and other unforeseen complications (such as the pressure created by the vacuum shattering glass bottles that are attached to one’s face). 

http://wdtn.com/2015/04/21/kylie-jenner-challenge-leaving-teens-with-disfigured-bruised-lips/

While my first reaction is to laugh at the participants for their continued stupidity, when you look at this challenge closer, it is anything but a laughing matter.  First of all, the overwhelming majority of the participant are white kids.  And the effect that they are seeking?  Full, plump lips - yes that same feature that people of color are continuously denigrated for having.  Yes, those same lips that are a defining feature in the practice of blackface, a practice amongst white performers of painting their faces black and drawing on large, exaggerated red lips - a practice that has continued to be part of the dehumanization of African Americans in our country.  Those same lips that were part of the hypersexualization of black women and the devaluation of black womanhood - the devaluation of black womanhood that bell hooks points out as “central to the maintenance of white supremacist patriarchy” (hooks, 1995).

This devaluation of black womanhood and of black feminine features is still central in our contemporary conversations of beauty and particularly of the type of blackness that is acceptable in white society.  In a piece published shortly after the premiere of Shonda Rhimes’ new hit series “How to Get Away with Murder” which stars Viola Davis, white journalist Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times wrote: “Ignoring the narrow beauty standards some African-American women are held to, Ms. Rhimes chose a performer who is older, darker-skinned, and less classically beautiful than Ms. (Kerri) Washington, or for that matter, Halle Berry”. 

Not only does Stanley reinforce that “narrow beauty standard that African American women are held to”, but her comments make it clear that Davis’ black skin and non-European features make her indeed “less classically beautiful”.  Stanley’s racist comments merely emphasize bell hooks’ point that “light skin and long straight hair continue to be traits that define a female as beautiful and desirable in the racist white imagination and in the colonized black mindset” (hooks, 1995). 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/arts/television/viola-davis-plays-shonda-rhimess-latest-tough-heroine.html?_r=0

And what about the fact that these “less classically beautiful” traits are traits that Kylie Jenner has copied off of a black woman - becoming an almost identical white version of black entrepreneur Heather Sanders.  Again, it’s not on Heather Sanders where these features are appreciated, exemplified, and glorified, but rather through the white-washed lens from which Kylie interprets and sells (hair extensions) features of blackness. http://www.buzzfeed.com/elliewoodward/is-kylie-jenner-modelling-her-entire-look-on-this-woman#.uh4Ag7qA4 Source:  bell hooks, 1995 “Killing Rage: Ending Racism”

[xicanaresistente]

Zendaya & the Politics of Respectability

(While the politics of respectability usually “refers to attempts by marginalized groups to police their own members and show their social values as being continuous and compatible with mainstream values rather than challenging the mainstream for its failure to accept difference” (wikipedia), I use the term here because Zendaya’s actions as well as her responses are a direct challenge to those politics.)

At the 2015 Oscars, Zendaya Coleman of Disney Channel fame did not shy away from keeping her dreadlocks for the awards ceremony.  Her decision to do so was met with disparaging comments on E!s “Fashion  Police”.  

Self-proclaimed fashion police Giuliana Rancic began her statement by stating how she liked Zendaya when she has short hair (read: hair that is not a normal style for Black women but that mimics a white standard of beauty).  

She then goes on to state that she “feels that it smells like patchouli oil and weed,” which conjures up some of the controlling images that are built up around the use of dreadlocks. White America quickly associates dreadlocks with being unwashed (a reason why hippies sporting the look would use patchouli oil) and the use of weed (which is most likely in reference to famous figures like Bob Marley and other black Rastafaris who have worn dreadlocks for religious and spiritual reasons).  However, rather than acknowledging the spiritual reasons for this hairstyle, the use of dreadlocks became synonymous in white culture with Rastafaris’ use of weed (another misconception as not all Rastafaris smoke weed). 

While there is nothing within Zendaya’s character that would ever lead anyone to believe that she was a habitual weed smoker, Rancic chose to apply this controlling image of black dreadlocks to Zendaya as a mechanism to shame her into complying with the politics of respectability.  After all, any self-respecting, wholesome girl would want to look the part, and as Rancic so clearly points out, dreadlocks are neither respectable or wholesome. 

Zendaya however responded brilliantly to Giuliana’s comments in a way that not only put her on blast for her ignorant remarks, but that showed a great deal of understanding of the structural ways in which the politics of respectability are kept in place and that served as her own resistance to these expectations of Black women.  Not only does she refuse to allow Rancic to shame her into submission, but she resists the politics of respectability and uses dissent as resistance.  Below is her response to Rancic’s initial comments:

[xicanaresistente]

White Appropriation and Commodification of Chicana Chola Culture

http://www.vogue.com/12323524/givenchy-fall-2015-beauty-facial-jewelry/

The theme of this year’s Givenchy fashion show was “Victorian Chola Girl Gang,” a theme which sought to cleverly combine exaggerated aspects of the chola aesthetic with a more sophisticated Victorian look (a mashup that implies of course that there is nothing sophisticated or fashion forward about Chola aesthetics on their own). 

The stylists for Givenchy chose to focus on the slicked down baby hairs that cholas wear framing their face, large exaggerated hoop earrings, and what appear to be stylized takes on the teardrop tattoos through the use of semi-precious stones throughout the face.  While appropriation in and of itself is problematic, this particular runway show chose to over-exaggerate the features in a manner that would be interpreted as shocking or avant garde.  The problem with that is that for Chicanas that are actually part of the Chola culture, these features of their aesthetic displays are seen as trashy, low class, or “ghetto”.  No chola ever hears, “you know, your look would be perfect for fashion week in Paris”.  

This display on the international fashion runways brought to mind another instance of the commodification of chola culture by white society that had bothered me years ago.  Gwen Stefani’s video for Luxurious, released in 2004, was just one more culture in a series of cultures that Stefani would appropriate to create new fashion “trends” or to act as backdrops in her music video. 

In an interview with MTV News, Stefani explained that she was “inspired” by a high school classmate named Mercedes who would wear heavy white powder, black eyeliner as lipliner and would sit in class constantly applying makeup while using a safety pin to separate her lashes, which Stefani says she probably hadn’t washed off the mascara in months.  

http://www.mtv.com/news/1512621/for-gwen-stefani-egyptian-cotton-is-something-like-love/

Stefani’s comments show that she had a very limited understanding of Mercedes as a person and even in the course of sharing a class with her, was struck more by her visual embodiment and her Chicana aesthetics than as a complex individual.  Stefani’s lack of understanding of chola culture is even more evident in the video as she’s “freshening up” the three dots in a triangle at the corner of her eye.  This symbol, whose meaning varies from “Mi Vida Loca,” to acceptance of gang membership and gang culture, is one that does not come without consequences for the Chicanas and Chicanos who choose to sport it.  A Chicano with this symbol on their face is usually targeted by police, specifically the gang unit, and would be criminalized in many cases just for having the tattoo.  Stefani’s use of this symbol does not come with those consequences, and as a white middle/upper class woman, would most likely never be subjected to the kind of profiling, harrassment, and discrimination that a Chican@ chol@ would receive with the same symbol.

Stefani also uses the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe in this video in a very provocative and disrespectful way.  The Virgin of Guadalupe, or the patron of the Mexican people, is a religious symbol revered in Catholicism and placed on the same heirarchical level as Jesus Christ himself.  Even for those of us Catholics that are just “culturally” Catholic rather than religious, the way in which the image of the Virgin Mary is split open and used as a revealing tank top is insulting and shows a severe lack of cultural understanding and respect. 

[xicanaresistente]

The video above is a powerful video re-enactment of the events leading up to the murder of Alex Nieto by police officers responding to a white woman's fear in San Francisco. One thing that clearly stands out to me is the colonial nature of gentrification, and the idea that the invisible "others" that gentrifiers displace through this process are not allowed to share these spaces, spaces that have rightfully belonged to them and their communities for decades.  For me, this video is important because it is a counter narrative to the official story of the events that led to the murder of Alex Nieto, a man that was simply enjoying lunch before going to work - an act that he had done so many times. 

In contrast to the first video that shows what the last dark moments of Alex Nieto’s life must have been like, the second video is a celebration of his life through the lens of home videos taken in the different community activities in which Alex took part.  Alex was a spoken word artist, believed in uplifting his community, and is seen participating in a Lowrider parade in 2013 shouting out to the crowd “Si Se Puede” while teaching a child to embrace his culture while playfully teaching him to “drive”.  

This video is particularly hard for me to watch because Alex is so many men I know, so many friends and homeboys that I grew up with.  Even while maintaining a strong joy for life, men in our community live with the underlying understanding of how to interact with white people, how to not be a threat to white women, and how to interact with police officers.  Alex Nieto’s brutal death illustrates that even when we are fully “trained” to interact with police, even when we fit into the molds created for us through the politics of respectability, police officers do not see the humanity in people of color.  

They see a threat that must be neutralized, something less human and more savage animal, and bodies that do not belong in white spaces - even if these white spaces are our former homes that have been taken over and colonized by the new form of economic colonization - gentrification.