Image Source: Wiki - Dogs Playing Poker

In case you missed it; the first story is about Mary Bale or “Evil Cat Woman” as she is known all over the Internet. She gained this name due to CCTV footage that records her placing a cat in a wheelie bin. It is an act of senseless cruelty that deserves condemnation. Mary Bale received more than condemnation and ended up being placed in protective custody.

The second story involves musician Morrissey, who in response to China’s mistreatment of animals stated,

Absolutely horrific. You can’t help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies (source: The Guardian)

There is some furore in the papers regarding this racist statement but Morrissey is not in protective custody.

The message that seems to be coming out of these stories is that any violent, malicious, or offensive action is justified if the intended victim has violated the rights of an animal.

This really does not sit well with me but I think at the root of all of this is the fact that we live in a society that seems comfortable with the idea of assigning personhood to animals even it results in our dehumanisation; and I witnessed this first hand last weekend.

Background

It is no secret that I am not a fan of dogs. I don’t hate dogs. I do however have a healthy fear of dogs, especially big dogs. I am not scared of all dogs; in fact once I spend time in the company of a particular dog I find that I can get on quite well with that dog. This makes sense to me because all animals are different; some are friendly, some are not. I have had a hard time explaining this distinction to certain dog lovers and dog owners who seem aghast that I will not join them in their public display of affection for a dog whose owner’s name they do not know.

“Oh but he looks so cute”; they say, as they proceed to ruffle the fur of this stranger’ pet. This is often followed by many questions about why I do not like dogs. I must have had some traumatic experience to explain my irrational fear of an animal that has the capability to maul a person to death.

Disclosure:
Yes as a young child in Kenya, while walking home from school, I was chased by a pack of dogs and the owner stood there and watched. But…even before the dogs chased me, I remember seeing them, feeling very scared and then running for my life. So it wasn’t the dog chasing incident that made me scared of dogs, all it did was prove me right that some dogs are vicious and it is far easier to avoid them all then to risk life or limb trying to work out which ones are not.

Last Weekend
I was at a pub that is a favourite for dog owners and I endured my regular grilling on why I am not a dog lover. I then asked a few questions of my own such as why would anyone take a dog to a bar? The discussion went on for a while until we reached the point that I always dread. The part where someone will argue that owning a dog is no different to being a parent and that children and pets are not only the same thing but interchangeable.

A parent is NOT the same as a pet owner.
I cannot understand how anyone can argue that dog and baby equals the same thing. In my mind babies and by extension human beings are not the same as animals and I often use a simple test.

If I had one plate of food before me and I had a hungry dog and a hungry child I would feed the child. If I had to save a drowning man or a drowning dog, I would save the drowning man.

Why? Because human beings are not comparable to animals.

I am not condoning the abuse of animals. I am also not arguing that every person who cares for an animal will take to attacking the likes of Mary Bale. What I do recognise however is a connection between how easy it is for Morrissey to dehumanise an entire nation and how easy it is for an individual to dehumanise a baby all in the name of animal personhood.

reconnect people’s everyday lives with politics through collecting and sharing stories of when people first became aware of the bigger world around them.

I grew up in a very political household so trying to identify my first memory is complicated. When I look back to my “politically formative years”, which I place somewhere between the ages of 4 and 7 all I see is a kaleidoscope of memories.

Is my first political memory to be found in the pages of my book collection that included titles such as “Nelson Mandela for Kids”, “Harriet Tubman for Kids”?

Or did it start with the curtain call that preceeded my role in the Wazelendo Players’ production of Ngugi Wa Thiongo’s The Trial of Dedan Kimathi?

Perhaps it is in the tune of Bandiera Rossa; a song I learned to sing without so much as knowing what language it was in!

Maybe it lies within the pixels that made up the was the framed poster of Malcolm X in our living room?.

Botha's 1984 visit to UK protested

I was about six years old at the time and I was used to going on both leisure and protest walks with my parents, which often ended with me eating an Orange ice lolly (if the weather was nice) or a pack of Opal Fruits and/or Jaffa Cakes. For the most part there was nothing special about this particular walk until we got to Number 10. The crowed stopped and in unison began a call and response chant that went like this:

Caller: Maggie, Maggie, Maggie!!
Crowd: Out, out, out!
Caller: Botha, Botha, Botha!!
Crowd: Out, out, out!!

At the age of six, to be part of the 15,000 people who chanted in unison was an amazing experience. At the time I must admit that I thought we were calling for them to open the door and step outside. It was only as I grew older, as I started to learn more about Apartheid and Thatcherism, that I was able to connect the dots. It was this demonstration that helped me understand that Apartheid as an ideology and as a regime did not exist in isolation. In 2010, as the Conservative Party rolls out its “I’ve never voted Tory before” campaign, I can respond and say,

I’ve never voted Tory because they supported Apartheid

What is your first political memory? Get sharing!
—
With thanks Mark Pack for his LDV post – ‘cos that’s how I learned about this!

The North West win has not come as a surprise. In the run up to the election nearly every other party tried to convince the electorate that a vote for them would count as an anti-BNP vote. The threat of a BNP win was real. What is unreal is this seeming unwillingness to accept that there are racist people in the UK (at least 132,094 live in the North West) and that on June 4th these racist people exercised their democratic right and duly sent not one but two -Nazis to represent the rest of us in Brussels.

Apparently all this is the fault of the mainstream political parties. It was they who alienated and excluded “regular voters” from the political and democratic process. That the BNP win is a direct result of the frustration that “regular voters” feel and have felt for a long time – they have expressed this frustration by way of a protest vote.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

Firstly, if Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are deemed mainstream political parties, the remaining eight options on the North West ballot paper should have provided sufficient choice for those seeking an alternative view. Failing that, the right to invalidate one’s ballot paper is the ultimate protest vote but it comes as no surprise that BNP voters did not take this course of action. Those who voted in favour of Griffin’s party were not protesting; they were endorsing a hate group that has unfortunately been allowed to masquerade as a political party.

Secondly, to assume that a sense of disillusionment and disenfranchisement is reason enough for a “regular voter” to lend his or her support to a hate group is a leap in a logic that I am unwilling to take. Unless of course regular voters” is code name for “racist, homophobic and xenophobic white voters.”

If the BNP’s relative success in the European Parliamentary Election shall be discussed along the lines of finding fault and apportioning blame then I have no problem in placing all the blame on the BNP voters around the UK but in particular those in the North West and York and Humber region.

Whatever forms the discussion will take; there is no room for those who argue that the BNP supporters are unaware of the party’s racist, homophobic and xenophobic beliefs, or that BNP voter is well meaning but ill educated person who has been duped. If condemnation for the BNP party is (almost) universal then the same should be true of its supporters.

We certainly should not attempt to portray them as victims; they seem to be doing a good job of it themselves. Listening to Nick Griffin citing the Race Relations Act as the basis of potential law suits against employers who sack BNP supporters is reason enough for us to raise the level of the debate surrounding the BNP and its existence as a political party.

One reason why I detest the BNP so much is because I, like so many others, can see through the name change that transformed the National Front into its present form. Comparisons have been made between the BNP and the Ku Klux Klan and I could not agree more with these comparisons. Yet unlike the KKK, the BNP has been granted political party status, which has resulted in what Mshairi describes as a schizophrenic relationship between the rest of the nation and the party and its supporters.

That is why on the one hand the BNP can appear on a ballot paper yet its members are denied the right to openly associate with their party of choice. It is the same flawed logic that saw the other North West MEPs refuse to share a stage with Nick Griffin as he gave his victory speech despite the fact that they will be sharing a forum in Brussels.

I think our leaders and law makers need to decide where they stand on the issue of the BNP and should that day ever come, I hope they are bold enough to place BNP in the same category as all other hate groups and revoke their political party status. Until that time our discussion of the BNP and its increasing support be limited by this rather bizarre cycle of misplaced blame and unwarranted empathy.

Jay is Games Casual Gameplay
Often refered to as JIG Casual Gameplay this is “simply the best selection of (mostly) free casual games you will find on the Web today.” In the year or so that I have been reading JIG I have watched it grow from a one person blog to a group project that has recently completed and announced the winners of the first ever JIG game design competition. There is a real sense of community over at JIG, with reader’s submitting games for review, guest blogging spots and a comment section that provides help for those of us who get stuck on the simplest of games.

Black Gay Blogger
On January 25 2005, after deciding that New Year’s resolutions are “tres gauche,” Karsh (author of bgb.com) came up with a list of 101 things to do before 25th September 2007 i.e. 1001 days after the list was completed. This list covers e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. Karsh really wants to do it all and judging by the number of items he has crossed off he might just get to achieve 101 in 1001. Oh and I can’t mention this blog without mentioning the design – it is beautiful!

tiffany b brown
Tiffany b Brown is the eponymous blogger behind this fantastic web design blog. She describes it as her “personal playground [a] place where [she] experiment[s] with web markup and programming languages….” To me it is a very useful learning tool for all things Internet/Blog/Site design related. (her other blog Black Feminism is equally fantastic)

Lynne D Johnson’s Diary
I don’t consider it an overstatement to refer to Lynne D Johnson as the best Hip Hop blogger in the blogosphere. Prior to listening to the SXSW Blogging While Black Revisted session (of which both Lynne and Tiffany were panelists) and hearing Lynne speak of the abuse she has been subjected to because she was a female Hip-Hop blogger I had no idea how prevalent sexism was within the Hip-Hop blogosphere. Her account of how she handled this abuse was truly inspirational especially after going through her archives later on and actually reading the extent of the attack.

Avalon Star
Possibly the best blog design I have ever seen. It is almost hard to believe that this blog is based on K2. Everything about this site is amazing, even the categories, which according to Bryan Veloso (the man behind the blog) “aren’t like your mother’s category archives!” he does not tell a lie, each category is like a whole new blog. Though it was the site design that won me over, I also enjoy reading this blog because Bryan has a very friendly, conversational style. I particularly liked this post which touches on an issue that am sure affects many bloggers: how to explain to non-blogger friends what we bloggers do.

And that concludes my Blog Day 2006, so till next year – Happy Blog Day.

In many instances, national treasures are better off outside their countries of origin – better cared for, receiving more attention, and more accessible.

Hensher does note that;

• These items are in fact stolen treasures; and
• Sudan is a war torn country.

Unfortunately, Hensher’s acknowledgment of these two facts make it even more difficult for me to accept his argument.

Having never witnessed a war first hand I may be wrong (but I doubt it) in my assumption that most Africans, when faced with death, would opt to save lives at the expense of a monument. Certainly as an African woman, who values human life above all else, I would make sure that my family members, neighbours and friends were safe before I searched for any heirlooms.

I think it insulting to label us incapable of looking after our own treasures on the grounds that in times of crisis we seek to save our people first. What seems to escape Hensher is that during and after times of war when we fail to label the items in our museum it is not because we do not value them as individual items but because we value our entire history. This history includes the lifeless heirlooms and the people who contributed towards their creation and those who maintain their existence. Irrespective of how valuable these items are; they are worthless without a people, alive, fit and well who can narrate the histories that these artifacts represent.

As for attempting to justify why the West should keep these pilfered goods; what can one say? It is this same warped logic that the colonialists used when they first arrived in Africa. While preaching to us that all are equal in the eyes of the Lord, they forced us to accept that we were inferior to them. Hensher, on the one hand kindly acknowledges that the West has no claim to any of these items but at the same time is forcing me to accept that because he has decided that we are incapable of looking after what is ours, it is in everybody’s interest if they do so on our behalf. We didn’t believe it then and I am certainly not convinced now.

What I would really like to know is where does one draw the line? At present this argument is limited to those items that can be moved but what about those treasures that can not moved? What happens when some Western country decides that we can not care for Mount Kirinyaga and decides to send over some of their people to ensure its maintenance and upkeep? What if they decide that we have incorrectly labeled the mountain and it should in fact be called Mount Kenya?

“For me, I thought it was going to be fair and square and even…I thought I did have a chance to win [Celebrity Big Brother UK]. But according to Faria [Alam] and Dennis [Rodman], because I’m female and I’m American and my skin is brown, I don’t stand a chance.”

[via Digital Spy]

Those were the words as spoken by Traci Bingham earlier today. They were directed at her fellow Celebrity Big Brother housemates, all white and British (excluding Alam and Rodman, who were not present at the time).

Two things were clear from Bingham’s statement. Firstly she wanted a British contestant to clarify the information given to her by her other non-British housemates. Secondly someone had failed to brief Traci on the British attitude to discussions on race.

Unlike the American’s, we in the UK find it difficult to discuss race without turning the discussion into a “you are racist� vs. “you are playing the race card� debate. I know this is a generalisation and I would normally apologise for it however the reaction of the British housemates (as well views expressed by members of a Big Brother forum and first hand experience) suggest to me that it is a valid generalisation.

The saddest part for me about this particular discussion was that the person who was instrumental in polarising the views of the house was none other than MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, George Galloway.

Galloway launched a full scale attack on Bingham. He accused her of calling the British public bigoted and racist. Bingham’s attempts to clarify her stance were met with even harsher attacks from the rest of the housemates who were present at the time. Most were now claiming that Bingham had accused the housemates of using race as a deciding factor when nominating. Within minutes of Bingham’s remark there were numerous shouts of “I’m not racist�, “how dare you call me racist� and so on.

Galloway who was by now in his element paced around the room and, to my horror, stated that Big Brother had been won many times by non-whites or “minorities of one kind or another.�

I am not sure how many Big Brother shows Galloway has watched but I am 100% certain that a black person has never won Big Brother. This may not be conclusive proof that a black person may never win Big Brother but if one was to use previous shows as a guide, then it is clear why Bingham had cause for concern.

Aside from Galloway’s attempt to rewrite Big Brother history his lumping together of minority people was incredibly dismissive. I rarely accept this sort of attitude from your average person on the street but Galloway is a member of Parliament. His party is called the Respect Party His constituency is 40% non-white. Surely he of all people should be aware of how offensive it is to be referred to as some minority or other. We are not all the same and though we may all suffer discrimination we do not suffer discrimination in the same way.

I was shocked at how incapable Galloway was at grasping what Bingham was saying and also at how he failed to engage in a reasonable discussion. Bingham did not accuse anyone in the house of being racist, nor did she imply that the British public were racist. Her comment was no more controversial than a comment on women’s chances in the labour market. People make these comments everyday yet it doesn’t result in the same “how dare you call employers sexist� rhetoric. One would expect that a Member of Parliament would have the necessary skills required to understand and respond to such comments without the need to resort to name-calling and grandstanding.

As an avid watcher of Reality TV, I have watched time and time again as a black contestant has lost out to a white contestant of equal talent/likeability. In fact when one examines the trends of recent Reality TV only one show can lay claim to having a black winner; The Apprentice (UK) . The Apprentice was also the only show that did not rely upon a public vote to decide its figures.

I have my views as to why black contestants do not do as well as white people, but that is a subject for another blog post. I rarely get a chance to discuss race and Reality TV with other people. It is an area that I feel needs to be explored especially since Reality TV has become a huge part of modern life. This is one reason why I was thrilled when Bingham brought up the issue. I hoped that in a house that includes amongst its residents a “leading member of the left wing opposition� (as Galloway describes himself) Bingham’s question would generate an orderly and informative debate. Instead it disintegrated into what is now being referred to as a Race Row and the only thing I have been able to learn is that the “R� word is not to be mentioned in any context. It makes people uncomfortable.

What makes me even sadder is that despite the fact that Bingham raised a valid point she ended up apologising to the house, as did Faria (and I think Dennis too) for causing the other housemates and the British public offence.

I am not sure if a black person will ever win Big Brother UK. Right now I have a bigger question on my mind; is it possible for a white MP who is incapable of engaging in a discussion of race to represent a constituency whose members are predominantly non-white?

—————-
I watched the above incident on E4′s live feed earlier today. It should hopefully be shown on terrestial tv on Channel 4 at 9pm on Wednesday 18th January. Undoubtedly it will be edited, as the whole debacle went on for about two hours. It will be interesting to see how it is edited

In the same week that the people of Liberia (and African’s everywhere) celebrate the country’s (and the continent’s) first woman president, Rwanda leads the world in women’s political representation. According to a Hansard Society report, (Women at the Top 2005: Changing Numbers, Changing Politics?) 48.8% of all politicians in Rwanda are women. Mozambique’s figure of 34.8% places them third.

Closer to home, not only does the United Kingdom have to contend falling out of the top 50 (19.8% places them at 51) but they also have to deal with the realisation that they have been out ranked by Iraq (31.5%) and Tunisa.

The report which examines the presence and role of women in political life today is published on Thursday.

[Via The Guardian]

I see in Science the first black person that makes me want to join the BNP!..tomorrow!

The above was said Derek Laud, one of the four black contestants in the Big Brother house. It was in relation to his frustration at Science’s behaviour and personality. According to Derek, Science is immature, ghastly, has peasant ways and is a nightmare.

The BNP, or as it is known in full, the British National Party, is an extreme right-wing political party. As stated in Wikipedia,

The modern BNP was founded in 1982 by John Tyndall, a former chairman of the National Front and a public follower of Nazi ideals.

They support the deportation of all illegal immigrants. They also advocate for the introduction of a system of voluntary, financially-aided repatriation for existing, legally-settled immigrants. Along with this they would like to see a reduction in unemployment benefits and disability benefits. The UK tabloid newspaper, The Sun referred to them as a Bunch of Nasty People. I never agree with the Sun, even on this occasion, because to me, calling them nasty is understating how wrong and evil and the BNP actually are.

When we first moved to the UK our family had our fair share of one-to-one encounters with the National Front and I may only have been about fours year old but there are some things you never ever forget. I don’t care about their name change or leadership changes, the National Front were evil and the BNP are no different.

That is why I find it hard to understand why anyone, especially a black British person, a son of an immigrant would make such a bizarre statement.

Derek Laud is a member of the Conservative party but even his party have gone to great lengths to openly differentiate themselves from the BNP. Anyone in the UK with some common sense knows that openly supporting the BNP in any way whatsoever is not the done thing.

Having watched a lot of Big Brother I get the impression that Derek likes to say/do things for the shock-value. This is no different to any other Big Brother contestant. Everyone in that house wants the camera to focus on them. Sadly Derek’s remark is not comparable to the exposing of breasts/causing conflict and similar attention seeking activities that Big Brother contestants are known for.

After watching Big Brother I decided to visit a Big Brother related forum to see if any one else had picked up on this statement and what their view was. I could not believe that quite a number of people thought that Derek’s comment was his attempt at (a) irony (b) a joke.

That whole “it was a joke� thing doesn’t do it for me. The comment is at best, in bad taste and anything that falls into the bad taste category, for me, ceases to be a joke.

The thing that annoys me the most about Derek’s comment is that by stating that Science’s actions are enough for him to want to join the BNP he is firstly inferring that Science’s behaviour is a by product of his race (that is so Roberto) and secondly that on this ground alone, Science deserves to be subjected to racial ridicule/hatred In some far fetched way I can see why some may consider it ironic for a black person to be so repulsed by another black person to the extent that he/she wants to flee his race. However, this is not what Derek said. Derek said he wants to join a group that amongst other things incites racial hatred; that is taking it to a whole new level.

It is this sort of statement that many hate groups use to justify their own actions. Hate groups can turn around and say things such as “You see, even their own people agree that we need to remove them�. That for me is possibly one of the main reasons why I found Derek’s comment to be irresponsible (at best) and pure evil (at worst).

I have never been one to lump the burden of an entire race on the shoulders of one person however I think that we as individuals do have a certain amount of responsibility towards the rest of humanity. A black person ‘joking’ about wanting to join the BNP is not just a wrong against the black community in the UK, it is a wrong against all those who the BNP seek to expel, crush and punish. That includes all immigrants, everyone who is disabled, unemployed and even all those who speak out against the BNP.

Two things came to mind when I heard Derek speak last night. One was the Malcolm X’s House Negro/Field Negro analogy. To be honest, Derek as House Negro first came to mind when I read about a comment he had made pre-Big Brother. As the first black Master of Foxhounds for the New Forest Hunt he was challenged by an anti-fox hunting protester. The protester said to him that 100 yeas ago the ancestors of the other huntsman would have been hunting him, and Laud (according to Aldershot MP Gerald Howarth) responded by saying,

“100 years ago my ancestors would have been eating you.”

The second thing that came to mind is a quote that is often used by Xquizzyt1 “This is Why We Can’t Rise as a People�.

Indeed!

The only thing that stops me is the fact that I have great difficulty in using my non-anonymous blog to effectively bitch/ridicule/put down those I interact with. This is why I am so grateful to Endemol, the creators of Big Brother UK for providing me with real people. Granted the contestants are not people that I interact with but the very nature of the show means that the contestants are chosen because they represent aspects of society. The things they say or do (especially when not aware of the cameras) are things that real people say or do.

Which leads me on to last week’s Big Brother’s stupid statement, which came from the former teacher and 1996 winner of Most Handsome Man in Italy, Roberto. Roberto began a lengthy monologue on black people’s physiological superiority as reason why they excel in sports. At one point, Science, a black contestant joined the conversation briefly but soon left after Roberto began explaining how Science’s nostrils were perfect for absorbing oxygen while taking part in sports!! Science gave Roberto one look and walked away in silence

For a split second I was mad at Science for not ‘fighting for the cause’ and speaking his mind. Then I thought back to the many times when I had been in similar situations. More than once I have been in the company of at least one white person who has turned to me and commented on how better equipped we are at all things physicals, that we are just natural at boxing, running, jumping. Often it is said in a light hearted manner, in the middle of a light hearted social event. In wanting to keep the atmosphere I have found myself looking away and changing topics. I do this not because I lack the words to speak my mind but because such comments are rooted in racist mythology that has been recited too many times. These myths have become so engrained especially in white western minds that it is now considered fact. Many of those who hold these ideas to be true do not even know the origin of these myths and any attempt to set them straight is usually met with accusations of playing the race card.

Of course I could on so many occasions have easily responded by pointing out that no athlete gets by on physical ability alone. To imply that we as black people rely solely on our genetic make up to see us to the finish line undermines the great deal of mental and psychological preparation that our successful athletes have to endure. I know though, that there is no way I could say all this and let it end there.

If I had it my way I would start by pointing out that the slave masters used the very same “black’s are physiologically superiorâ€? argument as they lined up our ancestors along with the mules and oxen for sale into a life of manual labour in the fields. Then again I know that this response shall be met with, “why can’t you guys just move on from that whole slavery thing, I am not responsible for what my ancestors did“.

In an attempt to draw on more recent experiences I would then try and remind them of the many times that they have told me that my brothers were ‘hung like a horse’ and my sisters were ‘buck wild in bed’. Letting them see that it is this focus on our physiology that has allowed our sexuality to be constructed as animalistic and dangerous. Undoubtedly there shall be more than one white man who will declare that he would love to have women taking about the huge size of his penis. Possibly even one ‘sexually liberated’ white woman who shall ask “…and what is so wrong with being called wild in bed?”

Moving away from sex I would highlight the many times that young black students have been pushed away from academics by tutors and career advisors. These same students are encouraged to devote their time to sports, since after all; they shall find it much easier than algebra. Ha! I know that the one person, usually the one with three Oxbridge degrees shall ‘jokingly’ comment that s/he “would love that bling lifestyle that those NBA players live” The word ‘bling’ clearly used to show me that they are down with my lingo.

Getting more pissed off I would have to mention that it is this same crap about our bodies that has led to the production of the Masai Barefoot Technology (sic) shoes. Because, apparently the Maasai physiology is so superior that they never develop back aches and that this trait can be transformed and packaged into an (anti) shoe. This argument shall of course be silenced by happy customers screaming at me “but the shoes work, my back doesn’t hurt anymore!”

As a last resort I would be forced to point out that maybe they should spend time reading Frantz Fanon or even Ian F Haney Lopez who put it so well when he said,

There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non- Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to non-Whites. [Full text here]

Though I can easily predict that at least one person will accuse me of being elitist because I have chosen to rely on texts that the ‘common man’ does not read and then a few others will tell me that I don’t need to take everything so seriously. Someone will ask, “why does everything have to be about racism?� Someone else, usually the person who made the comment in first place will probably say “Chill out, this is a party and now it’s your turn to by the drinks�

That is why, when Science walked away from Roberto, without uttering a word, I did not get mad. I realised the look he gave Roberto, his silence and most importantly his decision to leave the conversation spoke volumes. He his actions captured everything goes through my head when I am faced statements like the one made by Roberto:

Just because you choose to exercise your right to spout bullshit do not expect me to jump in and attempt to wade through it.