Sandra Bland - The Dangers of Normalizing the 'White Narrative'

Everyone’s been bombarded by the case of Sandra Bland.  

With everyone I mean people with any ties to the western (English speaking) world. Which quite interestingly, seems to constitute, ‘everyone’

Just like World War I and World War II, which involved only 32 and 61 of the worlds 196 countries. They are still called ‘World Wars’.

Why? Because the narrator is White, and that is what constitutes the world in their context.

And just like those events have white narrators, so does multicultural America, and multicultural Europe.

I decided to read nothing other than the mainstream headlines and summaries I was seeing on my twitter feed, Facebook homepage and the news sites I had access to. I read only summaries, tributes and shallow news and this was my overall opinion.

This police officer should have known better, but the woman was clearly out of line, rude, offensive and aggressive and he needed to control her. The woman was clearly not killed in jail, she committed suicide because she was mentally unstable and the black community is upset and thinks she was killed because they distrust all police.

Then I read what actually happened. And then after that I watched the video of what happened.

This is a shortened version of the video.

The video is very different from the mainstream version – which always seems to ‘keep under control’ the actions of whites (Dylann Roof) and ‘blow out of proportion’ the actions of non-whites (example above).

When we take the actual rights of Sandra, she has the right to smoke her cigarette, she has the right to not answer polite questions like ‘how is your day’ she has the right to have an attitude – she doesn't have the right to curse, spit or hit an officer and she doesn't have the right to not listen to instructions on being removed from her vehicle.

It is very clear from the original video that Sandra was irritated because 1) she was stopped, and 2) the officer made her wait a long time for her ticket. He was trying to make small talk with her but she had an attitude and instead lit up a cigarette.

When she refused to put the cigarette out he began to abuse his power. He demanded that she leave her car and when she refused (due to thinking he did not have the right to remove her unless she was under arrest) he forced her out of the car shouting ‘I’m gonna light you up!’ while pointing a gun at her (without correcting the misconception she had about it not being his legal right to ask her out of the car)

He twisted her wrist until she was reduced to crying, he banged her head to the ground and had his knee on her back and ignored her crying and screaming about having epilepsy.

Finally when she gave up, his colleagues and him reportedly were happy that ‘all that was on tape’

The level of delusion was incredible for my eyes to witness. He genuinely thought he was in the right here...

It’s very easy to see that if she had been nice to him, this would have been over. He was upset because she had an attitude. An attitude because she didn’t like being stopped and made to wait a long time for a ticket.

An attitude that got to him so much, that he decided she would be punished for it.

What kind of a system employs such emotional officers?  How can a civil servant, a person in a position of authority ever obey the law if they are emotionally insecure? If they are so driven by how citizens respond to them that they will literally use that when deciding the verdict of how they will be punished?

I do not think Sandra was killed by any officer’s hands. She was killed by their actions, collectively. She took her own life because she saw no hope for black people, we will never be treated like people from other races. As a black woman in America, she has witnessed injustice so many times that she lost hope. Saying she killed herself without police involvement is like saying Amanda Todd killed herself and it had nothing to do with the bullies.

The danger’s of portraying black problems from the eyes and mouths of whites who have never even experienced being stopped and searched ‘randomly’, being eyed-up suspiciously or even asked the black community itself trivializes black issues. They say what they ‘expect’ which simply feeds stereotypes and informs nothing. They are also rarely caught out on racial bias reporting because their bosses are almost always white. Whites are good at defending other whites because they understand white problems. They know that Dylann was clearly a racist white supremacist but he will never be called a thug, a terrorist or anything other than a ‘lone wolf’ – a term that frees other whites of the social or moral responsibility of being ‘suspect-able’ or ‘blamed’ because of the actions of those like them in their communities. 

The real issue faced by America and Europe is that they are not giving voices to those from ethnic or religious minority backgrounds. Imagine a court case where the Prosecuting attorney is speaking for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Not only is there no defense attorney present (the defendant has no defense) but the defendant is spoken for by the attorney (the person trying to prove the side of the plaintiff)

We are not spoken for in the mainstream media except by people who do not understand our narrative, and furthermore, make people ‘like us’ explain ourselves. It is ridiculous enough that all Muslims have to ‘explain themselves’ because mainstream media puts them in the same category as extremist anti-western politically charged attackers who happen to be Muslim and use ‘being Muslim’ as a way to get others on board with their ideologies – yet when Dylann Roof kills blacks in the name of white supremacy and maintaining the white population other whites don’t have to explain themselves. 

The importance of allowing people to speak for themselves without having to defend themselves from mainstream ideologies is a fundamental right that doesn't exist in the so called progressive western societies we live in today.

Instead blacks must always defend themselves and Muslims must always explain themselves.

We need more ethnic representation in the media, and we need it now.

It could have been you.

The other day I read something that made me think quite a bit.

‘What if you woke up today with only the things you thanked God for yesterday?’

Initially, I misread the question. I read it as ‘What if you woke up today without the things you thanked God for yesterday?’

And it made me think. How would I feel if I had nothing? If everything I knew was stripped away from me.

My understanding of what it means to have nothing has changed very drastically since coming to Sudan.  What you see is very different from what you hear…

What if I was one of those Syrians? What if I suddenly went from having a home, a loving family and being part of a community to becoming a displaced refugee forced out of my own country with nothing but the clothes on my back with no prospect of ever returning or succeeding… what if I were one of those girls you find outside the mosques whose families are so desperate for them to be taken care of that they allow any man coming to the mosque to marry them.

I remember very specifically before the worst part of this war conducting a meeting with a Syrian businessman where he stated that Sudan was a very ugly plant-less country…  He was of course comparing it to Syria… and just like that, 2.5 years later Syria is nothing like it used to be and 200,000 people fewer…He was very wealthy, influential and powerful … and yet he had absolutely no power to do anything to stop this.

I thought about the crisis in Darfur… the way it all began because of greed that lead to hunger… what if I were one of those women who had the unthinkable done to them. What if I had seen so many monstrosities that I no longer hoped for life, I instead worried about how it would be robbed of me.

It is impossible to answer these questions because they are too deep and profound for someone who has not experienced them. But I know I would want help. I would hope that people would remember me, help me escape, protect me and I them. It wouldn't matter what they believed in, looked like or even were like in the past. In order for me to survive, I will need to become part of a group, as being alone doesn’t get you anywhere in the real world.

The privileged often seek subtle differences in order to segregate people – yet the poor look for just one characteristic to unite.

My entire life I’ve been fed a complete lie about hard work and perseverance. In reality there are people born into this world to suffer, and others to enjoy. Yet those who suffer complain much less and give much more than those who have all the means in the world to enjoy themselves. And what separates the two?

Luck.

There is nothing you can do to prevent forces from growing stronger than you, you cannot prevent the fall of your civilization when it is no longer your turn to be the most civilized, and there is nothing any of us can do or achieve as individuals when the society breaks down. We are taught to work hard and that our paths will be paved – but how can hard work grow you back crops when desertification occurs? How do you create cows when they are all dead? How is it fair for one people to claim land so fertile and expect others to survive on dead and dry land with little resources? Why is it that we divide ourselves so that war is the only option to enjoy resources - why don't we share?

Whether I wake up with only the things or none of the things I thanked God for tomorrow – I hope I remember that at any point, the tables could turn and just as my luck has been sweet, it can also turn sour.

What I find most intriguing however is the ability of those with nothing, to give; and the resistance of those with much to even lend.

Updates and some thoughts about Game of Thrones ...

Hey blogger

I’ve been doing so much lately that I almost forgot about our special ‘Friday’ relationship. Honestly I think I’ve just been overwhelmed with life and sadly, you have often been placed at the bottom of my to-do piles.

Lets see, as a quick recap

I left my old job, and decided to peruse my own online ventures instead which are growing very slowly, but steadily.

At one point I thought about giving up because people were not responding the way I thought they would, but then by chance while I was sieving through some research to find out more about inspiring youth from impoverished backgrounds, I came across a talk by Elizabeth Gilbert. She is the author of the book ‘Eat, Pray, Love’

Her talk was definitely a life changer for me. She talked about the importance of doing what you love, because you love it. “Find what you love, and build your home on top of it.” She explained the fear of failing to outdo yourself and why this should not be the driving force in you. I will embed the talk into this post as I think many others can benefit from it.

I also decided to catch up with Game of Thrones (after my news feed was literally mourning the death of a fictional character I knew nothing about) for days on end… I won’t say his/her name just in case anyone still hasn't watched it.

I can safely say, I get ‘the hype’. I think it's the realities portrayed in the series that I like, there is good and evil in all people and it highlights that the way we act is more situational than anything else.  Human hierarchies are depicted within races in terms of class – which subject people of the same race and gender to torment by others who are like them in all ways except in birth rank, highlighting that superiority is a complex fed by invented beliefs that feed on the pseudo-existent ideologies of separatism – which essentially crave power.  In order for you to be great, someone has to be beneath you.

The program is famous for its nudity, I heard more about its nudity than any other aspect of it before I began to watch the series – but unlike other programs where nudity serves simply as a means to give the viewer a fly on the wall view of the sexual relations of others – Game of Thrones uses nudity in a much more explicit way which gives it the illusion of reality – scenes where rape is shown, where prostitutes are taught the art of faking pleasure – almost like a window into the behind the scenes of life. One of the characters who was controlled and given away by her brother in his quest for power to be raped within a marriage goes on to become a queen, with morals and standards – she is not broken by the rape and although she controversially falls in love with her rapist, she is depicted as a woman of strength – not the vulnerable withdrawn girl who can no longer live and is always looking over her shoulder we think of when we hear about rape victims. Another character who is a prostitute is also depicted as a woman of pride when she falls in love – she becomes loyal, a word hardly ever attributed to women who peruse such careers.

There is also the idea of god, the gods and the one true god whom everyone seems to think they have found. Anyway this is turning into an analysis more than an update but it’s an interesting program that is causing a major sweep in pop culture – I would recommend it.

So… What else?

Well right now I’m waiting for my video to upload onto my YouTube channel and due to the internet connection it first said it would take 9 hours (this is a 6 min clip) and then it crashed… so I have restarted the upload… it should probably take less now that we are in the hours of the AM.

The video discusses racism and sexism in technology - as in, by cameras and computer software, can technology be racist?

I have quite a lot to talk about this week, so I will be posting tomorrow too.

Apologies, again, for the inconsistency – and thank you for reading.

Evil is the absence of good... Really?

A source in 1528 stated - 'For the one rotton apple lytell and lytell putrifieth an wholeheap'

Sometime in the 1940's this phrase became 'One rotten apple can spoil the barrel'.

It's an interesting phrase with depth never quite understood by logic - rationally speaking the majority of anything always takes the lead. If nine people voted yes at an ellection and one voted no, the candidate with the majority vote would win, and it would be a landslide victory with a 90% majority.

However if nine apples are in good condition, and one is spoiled... the spoiled one will slowly rot the others.

A reasonable question is why don't the good apples influence the bad one? There are nine of them and there is only one of it...

Well, the rotton apple has something the good ones do not - it used to be good. You see, apples don't grow rotton - they are good until something happens to them - whether that is an environmental factor, an insect or human it needn't matter, the point is, something caused them to change from being 'good' to 'rotten' apples.

So is it possible that the same theory applies to good and evil? St Augustine famously quotes 'For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?' but is it the absence of good that causes evil or is good a stage that leads to evil?

Assuming evil occurs when good becomes influenced by fear - a perfectly good person can become evil due to envy, jealousy competition etc (fear of replacement)... this is natural, and it complies with laws of individualistic survival - becoming evil and scheming can and has in many cases been an excellent way to get rid of a potential threat. But is being good (when evil is, theoretically speaking a stronger instinct) a natural act?

Is it as natural to become good after being evil as it is to become evil after having been good?

Fear

Despite your admirable efforts 2015, I am determined to get a long with you.

I can’t believe its April already, seriously – How?

My wireless internet has been down for the past couple of weeks so amidst researching the history of Sudan on my phone (very tedious) I somehow ended up taking the ‘Richard Step’ personality test to find out what my strengths and weaknesses are.

Honestly, I have no idea how I ended up taking a personality test – I mean of all the things I could have stumbled across. Anyway, this test was actually quite useful but it reminded me of something incredible that happened a couple of days ago.

A very close friend of mine whatsapped me (yes, that is a new term) a link to watch a program on YouTube. The program (usually hilarious) is hosted by a cocktail of women from different backgrounds – but they all share a quality, they are all Americans of an ethnic minority.  

During this particular clip the ladies were asked what their biggest fear in life was/is and as usual they took it in turns to express their fears. One of the hosts however expressed a fear so deep that it managed to make me rethink some of my ideas.

This particular host is married but decided along with her husband that she would never have children. Their decision, often disputed on the show (due to the husband having a change of heart) is something she refers to as her right to be selfish ‘I am a selfish person and I enjoy travelling and being care free’.

During this episode, the host – Jeannie, expressed her fear of one day not being able to provide for her family… The root of her fear was once seeing her father scramble through their trash for food late at night when he thought his wife and children were sleeping.

‘He never ate with us, he always said he wasn’t hungry and had a heavy lunch’ – she stumbled while speaking. Her father cared for them so much, that he would work on an empty stomach and then spend his money on his children and wife before himself.  

The effect that this had on Jeannie was positive to some extent, she became an excessive hard worker and was determined in her life to never let her parents work again… But it also had a negative effect, one that I would never have guessed until her co-host asked her about it.

The trauma that came with finding out that her father was in actual fact suffering for her wellbeing made Jeannie so afraid of one day becoming like that, and she confessed that that is in fact the real reason behind her choice not to have children.

To say I experienced one of Oprah’s ‘Aha’ moments is probably an understatement – and it made me think. On the surface she blames being ‘selfish’ as being the reason for her not wanting to have children, but in reality it is the contrary. She fears so much that she won’t be able to take good care of her children, and equates this with them suffering in life, and due to this irrational fear, she has decided it is better to just not have any children.

But does she realize that this isn’t the same as being selfish?... and is her thought process conscious or subconscious?

I doubt Jeannie is lying when she says ‘I’m selfish’ she probably genuinely believes that she is selfish because to her, the work that needs to be put into having children (which she irrationally overestimates) is not worth having children for – It’s too much effort. 

The childhood trauma caused her to overestimate the responsibility and work that needs to go into having children and therefore she decided (based on this irrational analysis) that she would prevent herself from one of life’s most significant steps – Parenthood.

Which made me think, what are my biggest fears? Do I have 'fears' that are stopping aspects of my life which I would otherwise be enjoying? 

Developing a deep rooted fear during childhood is dangerous because you never rationalize it, at that age you simply don't have the mechanism to, and also, you probably would be too ashamed or embarrassed to talk to anyone about it because you somehow always blame yourself which allows it to grow with you and become buried deeper and deeper within you...

Thinking about your fears can reveal a lot about a person... But the question is, how do we access them? 

Social Media doesn't make us 'Anti-social'

The other day I was sitting at a hospital waiting room when I realized that I'd forgotten my phone.

It was time to face reality...

I could not pretend to be busy today.

I had to find something to look at without looking awkward...

I tried the ceiling, floors, the doors any lifeless object I could see but I found that looking at it for longer than a couple of minutes was extremely difficult - and people passing by those objects thought I was staring at them which made them look at me which then resulted in me looking back at them and confirming that I was in fact staring at them. (Even though I totally wasn't)

The problem with looking at someone is that it immediately makes one of you suspicious. You get the 'Why are you looking at me' stare-back (you are suspicious) or the 'Oh my god am I doing something wrong' stare back (they feel suspected)

I decided to do the only thing possible for me to avoid looking at anyone or anything - I got up, bought some coffee and drank and looked at my cup.

And then it hit me, if I had my phone, what would I be doing?

Probably one of these:

Instagram - looking at photos that mean something to people (90% of which depict their lives)
Facebook - looking at photos that mean something to people I knew (90% of which depict their lives)
Google+ - Reading stranger's ideas and making conversations
Twitter - Absorbing news/opinions of complete strangers
LinkedIn - Looking for creative talents who are where I want to be in life and reading about them

So I'm perfectly happy to look at strangers and their work, opinions even photos online... But when it's in real life, somehow it's strange and weird? The truth is many of us are like this.

But why is this? The other day a friend of mine introduced me to a friend of his. You see, this friend of his knew exactly who I was, I had received a notification from Linkedin that she had viewed my profile (therefore saw a photo of me and knows what I do) - the friend who introduced us had also previously told me that she had commented on my appearance once because I resembled a friend that she used to have.

Yet, during our 'formal introduction' she acted so surprised - as if she had never before set eyes on me. She smiled and greeted me warmly and although she knew exactly who I was before; it wasn't until this meeting that now there has become a social obligation for us to greet each other the next time we met.

That is the key difference between social media socializing and real life socializing.

In social media, if you both see each other, there are many factors that make you unlikely to greet each other - such as one of you might look up the other at 10am and the other starts looking at 6pm - or on a different day, or never.

Which means that neither of you is sure that the other is aware of you. Whereas in real life, you know if someone saw you and smiled or not.

There are many times when a group of people would be sitting together and suddenly they all fall silent and turn to their phones - I think this is because social media allows us to select exactly who we would like to socialize with at any given point. We are no longer obliged to talk to the person who is there - we can choose from a much wider spectrum of people, even those who are in different countries.

I would say that social media simply doesn't make us anti-social, it makes us selectively social which by all means reduces our social etiquette, not our social skills.

Hospital Visits and 'Lom' Culture

When I was younger I used to really love being sick.

It was the best thing that could possibly happen because it meant no school, no homework, never being punished for doing anything wrong and also - everyone had to be nice to me, especially my siblings.

My mother used to glare at anyone who came near me or did something that may potentially stress me out or upset me (even if it was my sister asking for her hairbrush back which I had taken without asking) To my mother, this simply was not the time for that and my sister was being selfish.

(Score!)

Also, my father would shower me with sweets and anything I asked for...

It's no wonder being sick as a child was always perceived by us as 'something really good' I remember actively staying next to my brother for a couple of days to catch his chest infection so that I too could enjoy the royal treatment. I even asked him to cough in my face a couple of times!

But the more I grow the more serious sickness becomes. As children any serious sickness in the family was probably concealed by my parents so that  we wouldn't be affected by it. But now, sickness visits friends, family and very close loved ones and to say it shakes your core is an understatement.

The other day I was in a hospital visiting someone - in Sudan it is a social obligation to visit someone if they are sick, when they get better, if they got married, have a son/daughter who got married, had a baby (the list is endless) and not doing so can result in the ending of friendships or even worse, family divisions due to a concept known as 'Lom' which translates to 'To Blame'.

Incorporating a visiting system within the culture although thoughtful and sweet (when done out of intention and not obligation) is extremely exhausting for the recovering patient who sees (and must greet) almost 100 people in the space of 3 hours. The patient needs to rest, however some visitors have driven for as long as four hours just to see the patient, and therefore it is considered ill mannered not to greet them.

If the visitor does not visit, they are perceived negatively by the society, and if the patient gets too many visitors it can be a threat to their recovery as it drastically reduces their sleep time.

So technically it's a lose-lose situation!

Is it possible for a middle ground to be met here? Will highlighting that neither side is happy cause a social revolution?

I think it's worth a try...