What's Love Got To Do With It? - Part 2

Yesterday, I wrote about why I don't advise Black people not to get romantically involved with White people (aside from the fact that, of course, that it's none of my business what somebody else does with their heart...or their genitals). Today, I want to write about some of the reasons I think Black and White people DO get romantically involved. And it's complicated stuff. So I'm not suggesting that this post is going to constitute the last word on the subject. I just want to present a couple of the ideas I've been mulling over for the past few months, since I got personally involved with a Black man. Again.

Before I get started, however, I want to give you a bit of back story. I went on a date with a Black man the first time as a young adult. He was a medical student and it was a blind date. He later admitted to me that the only reason he went out with (and bedded) me was that I was White. An interesting experience, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Since that time, I have dated or had "romantic" relationships with a number of men of color: Asian, Latino, and Black (African, Caribbean, and African-American). I have also been "involved" with White men, including the father of my now deceased son.

I never chose a date or a mate on the basis of his skin tone, his age, or his accent; whether or not he had good looks, a college degree, a job or even a car; the size of his bank account or his penis. That's just me. I sincerely believe that most of us -- however much we talk smack about "love" -- choose our mates rather particularistically, however, tending to opt for "our own kind" (those from a similar background, similar intelligence level, similar socio-economic status, and so forth). I, on the other hand, tended to go with the moment. And I think there's probably a bit of a wink in that sentence, if you're paying attention.

In any case, I have opted to pick and choose at will. Which has opened a lot of doors for me (and others like me). Keep in mind that I spent the past ten years of my life alone. I don't mean living alone. I mean alone alone. In a single bed. No dating. No relationships. And only a couple of forays into the embarrassing territory of one night stands. So it isn't that I must "have" someone to "feel like" someone. In fact, until recently, it was more like I never really wanted to be romantically involved at all (can we say "is-sues"?).

My point is that I, of all people, am proof positive that we can live happily and well by ourselves, if we're of a mind to. And a romantic relationship in and of itself ensures absolutely nothing in the way of contentment or satisfaction or well-being, other than the possibility of having access to two paychecks to address shared bills. I mean, color me jaded if you want to, but I'm talking about what I see all around me, as well as what I've experienced, not to mention all the research I've read since I started teaching courses in gender.

Additionally (and I mentioned this point yesterday, but I think it's crucial), Black people romantically involved with other Black people, White people romantically involved with other White people, and so on, appear in public and private every day everywhere in the world in relationships that scream "neurosis" on a range of levels, and nobody ever seems to have a problem with this (even when innocent children are being routinely put through a wringer in the process). Nobody says, "Gosh, maybe people should just avoid relationships entirely unless both parties are totally healthy individuals to start with," though this idea makes all kinds of logical sense.

But when a "Black" person (and remember, we're talking about skin tone here) gets with a "White" person (or at least one who passes for White, because how the hell do most of us really know?), we become convinced that the relationship HAS to be neurotic and has NO hope of being healthy in ANY way REGARDLESS of endless indications otherwise. And that's just dopey. As well as unfortunate. Since life is hard enough without trying to tell people they must love and/or have sex with only the person YOU would pick for them.

Nevertheless (as I pointed out already a few paragraphs ago), the vast majority of human beings choose our mates particularistically. We don't necessarily walk around with a checklist on a clipboard, checking off the characteristics a prospective "candidate" for a relationship might or not have, so we can make a decision. But we just go with the path of least resistance. We only allow into our "prospective mate pool" those who meet the gender, race, religion, educational level, socio-economic potential level, and attractiveness quotient we would find acceptable. This is why we don't see more "blending" than we do. Oh, it's there all right. Lots of it. More all the time. But not all that much, when push comes to shove. Because most of us just don't cross the line.

We have help to stay in our places, too. Others (in our group or a different one) do what social science researchers call "border patrol." In other words, they look at a Black woman with a White man on her arm and ask pointedly, "This is your boyfriend?" with just the hint of a pause before the telltale word. And by the hundredth or thousandth time this -- or a similar -- question is asked or statement is made, the "border" becomes as littered with painful debris as the Rio Grande. And the romance can become not worth it.

So why does anyone "cross the [fill in the blank] line?"

"You can't help who you love," we haste to chatter.

But I've already raised the idea that most of us choose pretty carefully and have plenty of help to make sure we do that.

So, why is anyone willing to take on the whole society's wrath and ridicule when there are literally millions of options that won't call down the Dogs of Hell? I think it's personal and political. And I think the personal IS political.

I'm sure there are at least a gazillion reasons a person might decide to be what sociologists call "deviant" (which only means, after all, different from the norm, different from the usual way things are done in that society). And some of them are unquestionably (or at least) neurotic, ill-advised, stupid, hilarious, weird, sad, outrageous and/or predictable. But I would argue that the same thing could be said of a relationship between two people who are NOT being recognizably deviant in their choice. So what's the point of singling out, in particular, Black people and White people "in love with" each other?

I already wrote herein that I wouldn't feel comfortable telling a woman she "shouldn't" be in a relationship with a man, or a gay or lesbian person "shouldn't" love someone with the same genitals, or a Muslim "shouldn't" marry a Jew. But neither could I begin to have a clue for absolutely certain about all the reasons that might be involved in their decision-making. That's why I use the term "complicated." There could be more than one. There could even be many. There is more to mating than "lying back and thinking of England" (what they used to tell women to do who were faced with the ignominious duty of submitting to their husbands' advances). There is more to mating than "chemistry" or arranging a marriage or making babies to carry on the family name(s).

Some of us choose -- bold-facedly and with no apology whatsoever -- the harder road. We choose, knowing the cost, to breech the social compunctions, to commit to a different, better world of possibility, to allow our lives and our bodies to become the battlefield on which the rest of the human race claims the right to fight some of its ugliest wars. We mate as a political act. An act of rebellion. Against any system, any ideology, any historical tradition, any individual that purports to have the final say in our only, most private existence.

And if that makes some people who choose to stay inside their prescribed borders uncomfortable in one way or another, then it is what it is.

What''s Love Got To Do With It? - Part 1

On May 1st, I appeared as a guest on The Context of White Supremacy (C.O.W.S.) radio show. I signaled you that it was going to happen and I was quite excited because I thought we were going to explore the reality of how the socially-constructed political notice of "race" has been used in this country (and around the world) to oppress people of color. And we did. But instead of an open forum on ideas, it rapidly turned into a "let's-put-the-Changeseeker-on-a-spit-and-watch-her-psychological-skin-bubble" exhibition.

Now, I knew this in advance. I mean, I've been around for a few twenty-four hours and I know how to do my homework. So in preparing for the show, I listened to some archived broadcasts and read some of their statements and learned that the panel of questioners (who are quite specifically focused in their beliefs) are an intelligent and angry group of Black folks. And if you've read much of my blog, you know that I don't disagree with the reasonable nature of Black folks' anger. In fact, I raise the issue often.

But acknowledging it and having it directed at you for two solid hours live while being broadcast coast to coast and archived permanently are two entirely different things. And it's something like bootcamp, an experience not for the faint of heart. So why would any White person who is at all educated on the subject want to participate in such a thing?

Tim Wise -- who some people see as the godfather of White anti-racism just now -- has committed himself to appear on the show every month for a year, for example. Why in the world, after even one whopping helping of fixated whup-ass, would he agree to such an exercise? I can't speak for Wise, of course, but I can speak for me. And the reason for me was that I can't say I want to fight oppression if I refuse to look it in the face -- wherever it raises its ugly head -- even in my own life. And who better to point out what I need to examine than a focused group of intelligent and angry Black folks?

Anyway, the bottom line was that instead of talking about oppression in a more general sense or exploring the three hundred eighty posts I've published on this blog over the past four and one-half years, Gus T. Renegade et al decided to focus almost entirely on the fact that I have a bi-racial daughter and wouldn't I say that was a mistake and wouldn't I counsel Black people around the world not to do that or even get in "romantic" relationships at all with White people?

As a mother, this put me in a tricky position at best. I remember when my own mother suggested giving my as yet unborn child to a Black couple (like a litter of kittens?). I was dumbstruck. I was carrying a human being, after all, a manifestation of the expression of a bond, however ephemeral or ill-advised, between a man and a woman in love or in lust or in a historical moment, that I would no more disavow than I would cut out my own heart and eat it for breakfast. Having had an offspring murdered at the age of twenty-two has given me an extremely clear grasp on the value I give to a life I have carried, birthed and nursed. And believe me, it's non-negotiable.

So despite the complicated nature of "race relations" in the world today or at any other time, there's no way I could ever tell people not to reproduce any more children like my daughter. Which does NOT mean that I don't see Mr. Renegade's point: that under an international context of White Supremacy where the most powerful nation in the world is the poster child for that White Supremacist system, "romantic" relationships between a person designated as "Black" and a person designated as "White" are difficult at best. So are ALL "romantic" relationships, of course. In fact, the last statistic I saw on average length of marriage world-wide was four years. Hardly an advertisement for strength of commitment.

But Gus T. Renegade believes that no Black person can thrive in a "romantic" relationship with any White person under an umbrella of White Supremacy and that, therefore, Black people should be warned not to get into relationships with, marry or make children with White people under any circumstances. And I was asked repeatedly to co-sign this perspective.

My response? In a perfect world, all "romantic" relationships would be based on mutual respect and affection and a commitment to personal growth in all areas of one's personhood. But in this far from perfect world, most of us are hard put to get through Thursday. So I wouldn't begin to tell people who they "should" or "should not" get with. One of the reasons it was easy for me to stay alone for ten years until recently was that the vast majority of "romantic" relationships I see (regardless of the race or gender of the partners involved) look at least somewhat neurotic from where I sit and I didn't want to sign up for another tour of that kind of duty.

It's true without question that oppression in any form screws up relationships all day long and twice on Sunday (when oppression with a capital O is pushed from pulpits in the name of God). And for a relationship to last more than four years, all kinds of difficulties must be resolved between the participating parties even if oppression of one kind or another is not involved. Adding the element of "race" or "gender" to the mix is guaranteed to create a much deeper level of angst on both sides.

This is the reason that, increasingly, women around the world have come to the conclusion that forming relationships with men is a bad idea for women. While the socially-constructed, political notion of "race" has been around for no more than five hundred years or so, men established themselves in a position of dominance over women as much as seven thousand years ago, leaving many convinced that men are supposed to be in that position, that it's "natural." Consequently, women are stuck with trying to survive under a patriarchal system in romantic relationships with their oppressors. Who, by and large, are frankly, beyond clueless about the situation. As a matter of fact, this arrangement has been in place for so long, the vast majority of women don't get it either. They bow and shuffle and go along to get along and make excuses for striving for new levels of "submission" to their "mates" according to "God's" law and so forth ad nauseum. I see them come into my gender courses semester after semester, only to leave with their personal lives in disarray because of their new level of consciousness.

But do I tell them they shouldn't make relationships with men (as some other women do)? No. I tell them that THEY are responsible for the quality of their lives, whether in or outside of relationships. I tell them that no enterprise worth bothering with -- "romantic" or otherwise -- is going to be easy. And that crossing the "gender" line to mate with a man will require constant vigilance related not only to his socialization as "king" over her and his perception of the meaning of "manhood," but related to HER socialization as "queen" under him and her perception of the meaning of her role as a "woman." When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

And I apply the same principles to bi-racial relationships.

I laughed when Gus asked me if my daughter has sex with White men. Apparently, the point he was going for was that being raised by a White woman would leave her without Black reference points (reminding me of a middle class Black woman who once told me flatly that her children were never going to have a "boom box," that if they wanted to listen to music, they could listen to it in the living room on the "stereo"). But if the reference points my daughter was raised with at home included exposure to African and African-American culture of all types and all manner of people from all over the world, including a number of African nations, then the White reference points with which we are ALL embedded were delivered to her particularly in school in bite-sized chunks from the time she was in kindergarten until she graduated from college. In my role as a college teacher, I see Black young people everyday who've been raised by loving Black caregivers and who are as deeply embedded with White Supremacy as my daughter will ever be on her worst day.

After all -- and Gus seemed fascinated by this -- she had barely learned to write when she handed me a paragraph that read:

“I think Whites do the things they do to Black because Whites want to be better than Blacks and most Whites want to be better than all colored people. Whites think they are the king and queen of the world. I think Whites and Black should have the same rights and should be abel to do the same things. Whites treat other colored people like they are animals. I think it should be stop right now. Blacks should be respected just as Whites are and the same for all the other colored people.”

Where does he think she got that understanding? From an NWA song?

She is who she is. Just as I am. And while I may still be working on my Self on a daily basis in a lot of areas, I think I'm doing a helluva job overall being a Person I feel good about being. And if my daughter is any indication of who I am, then I am proud of myself indeed. Because she's the bomb.

Renegade asked me to see if my daughter would come on a subsequent radio show with me and I said I would ask her. Actually, I thought she would say no hands down because she's one of the most private people I've ever met. But I knew that, regardless of what she said, I would never subject her to the grilling of his troops. She may be twenty-eight, but I'm still her mother. Allowing myself to be attacked is one thing. Inviting her to be attacked -- because I'm her mother -- is something I couldn't live with.

Besides, I've only posted nine segments of my book, Reduced to Equality: My Odyssey to Renounce Racial Privilege -- and Find Myself. That consitutes less than half of it. And I finished it several years ago, so there's been some new developments in my life since then. Because those few segments seemed to be the only information he had taken in, Gus may not have had all the information he probably needed to do the job he seemed to want to do.

For example, neither he (nor any of the rest of the team) ever asked me whether or not I am right now in a bi-racial relationship. And the answer is yes. I stayed alone for ten years, working on my self as an individual. And then, when I finally agreed to date someone, he happened to be African-American. I'm thinking Gus et al would have had a field day with that. Especially since we'd only been dating four months at the time of the broadcast and so were still in a very formative stage.

Regardless, and I kid you not, Gus T. Renegade and Justice and the others really took me places in my consciousness I've never been before. I was so rocked by the experience that it took me a week to process it all enough to do anything else. I went deep and stayed long. And I entered a whole series of dialogues with Boxer that forced us both to look at everything we were doing in an even more rigorous way. So I'm grateful. I can't have it both ways. I can't grow beyond where I already am without breaking new ground. And I can't do that alone.

From the looks of his archives, Gus has stayed busy interviewing others on The Context of White Supremacy. I highly recommend that you check out what he and his compatriots are up to. I guarantee you'll learn much. But keep in mind, it can be dangerous way out there on the ends of the branches where the fruit is.

Tomorrow, I'm going to write another post on the topic of bi-racial relationships. I do think they have to do with more than just "love" or even "lust." I believe, in fact, that under White Supremacy, they are necessarily a political statement. So give all this some thought and join me tomorrow, if you will, for the second part of "What's Love Got To Do With It?"