Reappropriate: The Podcast – Ep. 4 | #Ferguson

Episode 4 of Reappropriate: The Podcast is now live! In this episode, I invite guest Snoopy Jenkins (@SnoopyJenkins) to parse some of the issues surrounding unarmed teenager Mike Brown’s shooting death by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, the myth of Black criminality, the First Amendment issues associated with excessive police militancy, and questions regarding the project of solidarity.

You can view and listen to the podcast using the Youtube video above, stream or download just the audio version using the mp3 player at the bottom of the post, or subscribe to the podcast through the iTunes store.

At one point in the podcast, Ike (@RebelWerewolf) invites us to read an article about police violence against Black women; that article is here.

Next episode: Please join me next Wednesday, August 27th, 7pm EST for a conversation on What is AAPI feminism? For that podcast, I invite on fellow AAPI feminist blogger Juliet Shen of Fascinasians. Please submit your questions and comments now regarding AAPI feminism by tweeting to @Reappropriate, and check out this link to RSVP for information on how to livestream the podcast while it is recording!

Audio only version of Episode 4:

Did you like this post? Please support Reappropriate on Patreon!
  • Shawn

    Jenn,

    I consider your logic and views identical to this woman who Sean Hannity is interviewing.

    Check it out to see how your stance crumbles:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/sean-hannity-ferguson-patricia-bynes_n_5697405.html

  • Wow, that was an egregious unprofessional display by Sean Hannity. Between the obvious audio delay and the fact that Hannity didn’t let her complete a single sentence, this reflects far more on Hannity’s lack of journalistic ethics than anything the committee woman has to say. She couldn’t get a string of four words in edgewise.

    And no, my stance does not crumble. It wasn’t even represented in the video you cited.

    By the way, Shawn, you should know that your repeated linking of links here with little to no discussion on the actual content of the posts is crossing the line into link spamming. If you do not want to engage with your own perspectives and opinions, and advance your own reasoned — not ad hominem — arguments, you will be considered in violation of the comment policy of this site and banned.

  • Shawn
  • Rebelwerewolf
  • Rebelwerewolf

    Yeah, I know I just posted a comment with only links right below a comment saying not to post only links. My bad. 🙁

    I just don’t have anything to add because I’m not a Black woman, and all I can do is take what other people have to say about their life experiences at face value.

  • @RWW, I think the first of the two Root articles is where James is coming from, and to be fair to the second article, his argument is not mutually exclusive. The author of the second article suggests presumptions of criminality affect Black women in a manner that may be underreported, but even she notes that it likely does not affect in the exact same way. In the same way that masculinity vs. femininity stereotypes affect AAPI men and women differently resulting in nuanced social interactions that change depending on one’s perceived gender, I do agree with James that it be important that if we have arrived at the penumbra of intersectional identity politics, that we allow the intersection of race with masculinity drive the conversation, rather than to erase the intersection.

    If we advocate in favour of the distinctions and nuances of intersectional politics when it comes to race and feminism, than the opposite must also be true. I see no positive outcome by attempting to appropriate the specifics of Black male presumptions of violent criminality that starkly drive high rates of violence and death at the hands of police — as well as the mass incarceration state — by bringing in how this stereotype also nuances the identity of Black women. Intersectional politics is about underscoring how intersections of identities produce distinct narratives; we need to be able to apply that across the board when appropriate. In this case, I agree with James that the intersection of Blackness and conventional masculinity deserves specific conversation, that is undercut by the erasure that necessarily comes hand-in-hand when we assert that Black women are similarly under this gun. They are under a different gun, and I do not mean to belittle it, but in this case there is a highly relevant conversation about Black masculinity that we should be having.

  • Junweiwei

    Your political narrative is problematic, if you define political adversary in terms of racial identity groups white, Asian, Hispanics and Blacks. Only slave descendants like Black American have a strong racial identity – white identity is a derivative of black racial identity. Whiteness as an umbrella identity is not possible, if blacks does not exists. Whiteness is a co-option strategy to build a electorial majority with the inclusion of non-anglo, non-protestant European immigrants.

    “Whites” are actually divided in many different fractions and if you are in the minority, you should learn to distinguish the fractions and work out temporary alliances with white sub-groups against another white sub-group.

    Anti-black violence is a very welcome opportunity to fight back the idea of postracial society which the Obama coalitions help to establish with the election of a half-black man as president. Institutional racism is very real. No doubt about it.

    For us it make sense to reinforce the idea of institutional racism with providing support for blacks victims with a wide toolbox from legal actions with free lawyer services, participation at demonstrations and publicity in all of API medias.

    But we need a narrative frame to make sense of our engagement against anti-black violence.

    In the longterm API political interest are very much dependent on building up trustworthy alliances with border minorities like Mexican Americans who can grow very fast with undocumented immigrations and suffer police violence also. So we have to link state violence with immigration themes against sweatshop workers, farm workers, kitchen workers…The border minorities are the only relevant group for shifting electorial power between the GOP and the Democratic Party.

    So we have to examine how the state influence the supply of criminality with the War On Drugs, money supply and education policy.

    The militarization of the police is not actually implemented because of blacks, but the state used the War On Terrorism and the border protection against undocumented immigration to legitimize the budgets for surveillance technology and paramilitary police forces. The whistleblower Edward Snowden reveil the engagement of the state in producing suspicions against the own citizens.

    Paramilitary police forces are trained for engagement in urban areas. They are useful against terrorists, undocumented immigrants and white protesters also.

    I do not think that whites are consciously militarize the police to oppress black men, because a small demilitarized police is actually sufficient to control inner minorities like Blacks. Instead police officers are recruited from white milieus who are actually already affected by anti-black racism.

    For API’s the questions is how the Mexican-Americans want to react and build a division of labour model to engage together against police violence and talk about how we should relate to anti-black state violence.

    Feasible coalitions needs bringing the right groups together who can provide mobilization mass, publicity and funding. That needs starting with a proper analysis of power and interests first.

    It is necessary to have demands to bring a coalition together. Politics is nothing without demands.