Actually, Yes. That WAS Racist...

I was eating lunch last week with some of the counselors at the clinic. The Chinese food arrived and they were passing it around to everyone who had ordered. As they passed it to one woman, she exclaimed, "if I eat any more Chinese food this week my eyes are gonna slant!"

I turned to her, astonished, and said, "wow, I haven't heard a racial slur like that in a long time."

"That wasn't racist!" she demanded.

"Actually, Yes. it was. When you mock an already marginalized group of people based on their appearance, that's racist. You stereotyped a population based on physical attributes..." I retorted. She snarled at me and proceeded to eat her egg roll.

This happened last Friday. I came in to work early this week and found a Chinese food menu strategically placed on my office door. Is it a coincidence that someone wanted to share a Chinese food menu with me this week? Maybe. Am i being harassed? Possibly. Would they do this to me if I was noticeably Asian? Probably not.

I don't really understand why it's still acceptable in American culture to mock Asian Americans? Do people not realize the racism here because Asian Americans are the "model minority?" They supposedly have assimilated into American culture better than any other minority group and thus discrimination does not affect them? Or is it because the American stereotype of Asian Americans as "docile" is so prevalent that people think it is acceptable to discriminate a group of people that are "too well mannered" to speak up?

For reference, some truths about Chinese food, Americans, and discrimination all brought to you through a TED talk...

"substantial adverse consequences"

Ken Starr, the dean of Pepperdine University's School of Law, is arguing before the California Supreme Court in defense of Prop 8. His goal is to nullify 18,000 same-sex marriages and has argued that by allowing same-sex marriage we as a people have "diminished a public commitment to protecting the welfare of children."

Starr argues against gay families by claiming that there are "substantial adverse consequences for children that often flow from alternative household arrangements."

Yesterday, lawyer David Gibbs, "told rally participants gay marriage would 'open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina. Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?' Gibbs asked. 'Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots'."

What's with these lawyers?! I always thought lawyers needed hard facts and evidence to back up their claims and their agendas? Forgive me for valuing research but studies to date have shown that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and adults of both sexes and are fully engaged in social life. Their happiness is not affected by their parents' sexual orientation and they develop strong relationship with hetero and homosexual family members, peers, and friends. The only "substantial adverse consequences" that i can think of includes the hatred, intolerance, and discrimination that kids of gay and lesbian parents encounter from people like Ken Starr. The way i see it, Ken Starr is the "substantial adverse consequence" that he is trying to "protect" children from.

Sign the petition and tell Starr that his, "attempt to nullify the marriages of 18,000 loving couples in California is misguided and malicious. The rights of a minority should never be stripped by a simple majority vote, and the idea that divorcing parents could help the welfare of children is disgusting."

How Dare I be Jewish During Christmas Time!?

I stopped by the Christmas Tree Shop yesterday on my way home from work. I thought, "maybe they have a Chanukah corner? Even grocery stores give us a quarter of an aisle..." And they did! They had a whole section of Chanukah stuff and because it was already the second day of the holiday, it was all 50% off! Score. I picked out a few things and went to the cash register. I got in line behind two shoppers, one who asked for a price check that took forever, and one who paid by check. While we waited to pay, the four of us (the cashier and the two other women) were joking around, talking about the craziness of the holidays, the lines, small talk. Then came my turn. As soon as i put my basket down on the counter, the cashier's face and tone completely changed. During the whole wait my basket was on the floor, by my legs, so no one saw what i had. But as soon as i started pulling out Chanukah plates the cashier went from jovial to flat affect and then to rude. It started with an "Oh!"

"Oh what?" I thought. I realize i'm a bit more hyper-sensitive to discrimination than the average person so i thought i might be reading into it. I kept up a friendly demeanor. As she starting ringing up my purchases i realized the items weren't going through as 50% off. I told her so. To which she responded, "Ugh! Of course!" Here i couldn't help but wonder what she meant by "of course." Did she mean, "Of course, you're Jewish, buying Jew products, Jews are cheap, and you want a discount!" Or did she mean "Of course, way to hold up the line, lady!" I would have absolutely defaulted to the latter had i not been in line after the other two shoppers that held the line up for WAY longer than me. One waited on a price check that took 10 minutes and the other paid with a personal check... The cashier's "of course" could have been in reference to customers always having an issue in her line... or it could have been anti-semitic. There's no real way to know.

I told her, "there's a sign, right there, it says '50% off,' i can see it from here"
"I can't see it! I don't have my glasses" She snapped back
"Oh ok, sorry about that... do you think you can ask someone to check, please?" I was half upset at being treated so rudely, half still wondering if i was reading into it more than i should.
She asked the manager to check and wouldn't make eye contact with me while we waited. The manager told her it was, indeed, 50% off and she rung me up. I paid for my purchases and said "Happy holidays" as i walked away. She grunted back, "Merry Christmas!"

Ok, i get it, there are people who think it's all my fault they can't have Christmas trees up in public places and have to wish each other "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." But honestly, living in a predominantly Christian country i am WAY beyond carrying if someone wishes me a "merry Christmas." I don't correct them, i don't wish them a "happy Chanukah" back, and i certainly am not bothered by it. I swear, I don't interfere with your Christmas spirit. I sing along to carols on star 99.9, i wear lots of red, and i really love eggnog. Though i avoid the malls this time of year like the plague, i am very not bothered by Christmas spirit, in fact, i enjoy it when (IF) people are slightly nicer to one another. I wonder if that's what the cashier was annoyed by? That i had the audacity to shop in the Christmas Tree Shop and purchase only Chanukah items! Maybe it wasn't Jews she had a problem with but me, for representing the politically correctidness that she now has to trouble herself with? Who knows. I don't. Because maybe she was just anti-semitic.

Either way, treating me differently, and rudely, for being Jewish was wrong and discriminatory - i don't care what her rationale for it was. I wish i had the chutzpah* to have said something, or to have asked to speak with a manager. But again, i couldn't tell if i was being overly sensitive or if it was prejudice at its best. But i guess that's a lot of what discrimination is. Trying to figure out why what happened is wrong and how to rationalize it.

The only other time i was taken aback by blatant antisemitism was the first week of college, freshman year. We went to the dining hall with some new friends from the floor and one of them told a Holocaust joke. I just sat there, baffled that people still did this. I grew up in a very Jewish community, these types of things didn't happen. Everyone laughed until one of my gentile** friends from high school said, "that's not funny." The person who told the joke said, "yes it is! It's just a joke." And my friend said, "No, it's not. Not when you have a Jewish person sitting at the table, and not ever in general." They never said anything anti-semitic around me again for the four years i knew them.

I walked away from the Christmas Tree Shop experience thinking, "yes that sucked, but it's pretty easy for me to hide being Jewish if i really needed to, like if my life was in danger." Many other minorities don't have this option.

*chutzpah: gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, guts.
**gentile: non-Jewish

That's So Gay PSA

"When you say 'that's so gay' do you realize what you say? Knock it off."

I was watching Degrassi reruns this morning (don't judge me) and this public service announcement came on. I was really glad to see it.

Dave wrote a guest post here last winter about gender roles and "that's so gay" being used as a negative, i'm glad people are starting to finally listen.

Just please don't read the comments. I realize that youtube comments shouldn't be taken seriously but most of the ones for this video are about the PSA being "so gay." And those are the comments that have +'s next to them. The one comment that resonated with me was:

"This gave me so much hope. People never think about the ways that we (queer youth) get hurt when we hear peers say "that's so gay" like it's something bad or wrong or gross."

However, that comment has a few -'s by it...

Seriously, ya'll better knock it off.

Olbermann: Gay Marriage is a Question of Love

If you watch nothing else today, please watch this:



My favorite part:

With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it.

via season of the bitch

Obama IS NOT Muslim

Ok i get it, when people are afraid they don't hear logic. It's difficult to be rational, however intelligent you may be, when you are at your core scared over something you are passionate about. I am sure i've been there. I am sure i've been my fair share of stubborn and irrational when faced with something that i felt threatened my core beliefs. I may think i'm progressive and open-minded but when i feel my beliefs, and my rights, are endangered, i find it just as hard as anyone else to stay calm, think through information reasonably, and move forward with logic. This is why i don't take the matter of Obama and Israel lightly. I realize it's caused a few rifts within my family, i realize a lot of my Jewish friends think i am crazy for avidly supporting Obama, and i realize there are people out there that have and will continue to accuse me of being anti-Israel by being pro-Obama... but this is exactly why i won't let it go. I need to say more about the issue, because 2 days before the election it's of utmost importance that everyone realizes Obama is not, and never has been, "a threat to Israel."

I read yesterday that though the Jewish vote has been predictably democratic in past elections, this year it was looking grim. I am confident that the Obama's supposed religious affiliation and his race are at the root of those statistics. But here is the ironic thing: OBAMA IS NOT MUSLIM.

Before i go on, i do have to say that i REALIZE even if Obama WAS Muslim, his religion shouldn't matter... but because i know it DOES matter to some Jews who aren't voting for him because of it, i am stuck here, having to ridiculously justify his Christianity when i know by doing so i am being just as discriminatory as they are. ("They" are those who are not voting for him on the basis of religion.)

Frankly, it is just as wrong to not elect Obama on the basis of his religion as it is to not elect him on the basis of his skin color. Voting for or against a candidate because of their religion is ludicrous. What ever happened to the separation of church and state? What ever happened to electing candidates based on their platform, not based on who they pray to? Obama's platform is very much PRO-ISRAEL. But because i realize Obama's presumed Muslim affiliation is an incredibly important point for Jews, i won't debate the fact that it SHOULDN'T matter anymore. Because it shouldn't, but it does. I won't appeal to people's sense of logic any more by explaining that to not elect a qualified presidential candidate on the basis of his religion is just as discriminatory as to hate Jews for being Jewish... I won't be rational anymore, because it doesn't seem to work. Instead i'll go on the defensive for a second and explain that Obama is not Muslim.

Here's the other thing... does it ever make you feel like like people want to hate Obama because he's black but can't because it's not socially acceptable? So instead they accuse him of being Muslim, because right now, being Islamaphobic is not only tolerated, but perpetuated.

So, let me for a second, pretend Obama's religion DOES matter, i'll reiterate: OBAMA IS NOT MUSLIM and to not vote for him because of an erroneous belief that he is, well, is stupid and naive.

Also, check out these two great articles.

(can you tell i'm a bit frustrated with all this?)

Beauty Privilege

Why do we hate tall, thin, curvy (but not too curvy!) women with perky tits? I think it has a lot less to do with the fact they "support patriarchy" and a lot more with privilege.

I knew i wasn't done the other day. Especially in regards to my first question: Is feminist and conventionally pretty compatible? I was quick with a YES! But there is a lot more to it than that. People are pissed off about this right now and i don't blame them. I think the reason there is such a divide in this topic is because some think fitting a status quo set by patriarchy, is "antifeminist." Others think it's antifeminist to call people out for their looks, conventional or otherwise. I certainly stand by my previous agreement with the latter argument, except for one other thing: privilege.

Much like white-privilege, male-privilege, hetero-privilege, and cis-privilege, there is an absolute amount of privilege that goes along with being conventionally attractive. This may be why there is such a divide within this conversation. Without putting words to it, are we all talking about the "what is beautiful is good" phenomenon?

The physical-attractiveness stereotype (AKA "what is beautiful is good") is the presumption that physically attractive people possess other socially desirable traits as well. This is based solely on their appearance.

How does physical appearance and attractiveness tie into privilege? Research shows that, "in our society people who are good-looking are assumed and expected to be better than the rest of the population. According to Kenealy, Frude, and Shaw (2001), research indicates that an individual’s physical attractiveness is an important social cue used by others as a basis for social evaluation. This leads one to believe that physical attractiveness affects how society views people and also how people can be misinterpreted based on their looks. Since many people stereotype physically attractive people as being more socially acceptable, it becomes harder for average or unattractive people to be perceived as having positive traits."

In numerous studies photos of people that were stereotypically attractive were rated more favorably by participants than photos of people not conventionally attractive. Physical appearance had many implications for those rating the photos on impressions of personality. The "beauty is good" stereotype existed in many studies where participants made biased decisions based on physical attractiveness in everyday situations. "Understanding the types of inaccurate perceptions we hold can help us to explore social stereotypes by limiting biased judgments. More specifically, this area is important to the field of social psychology such that stereotypes involving physical attractiveness and social perceptions have always been a major occurrence."
(I realize the photo is laughable but i just wanted to give ya'll an idea of the types of images they use. Even the one that is supposed to be "not attractive" has gorgeous blond hair, perfect cheek bones, big eyes, etc.)

As early as 1972 researchers found support for the "what is beautiful is good" phenomenon in a study that concluded, "stereotyping based on physical (specifically, facial) attractiveness does occur. Physically attractive individuals were rated as having more socially desirable personalities and were expected to have greater personal success on most of the life outcome dimensions." LIFE OUT DIMENSIONS! In most everything in life, just being attractive gives one an upper hand, or at least research shows that Americans believe it does?! This is how much weight we place on physical appearance!

The physical attractiveness bias exists in our professional lives, such as in hiring practices, as well:

Attractiveness biases have been demonstrated in such different areas as teacher judgments of students (Clifford & Walster, 1973), voter preferences for political candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1974) and jury judgments in simulated trials (Efran, 1974). Recently, Smith, McIntosh and Bazzini (1999) investigated the “beauty is goodness” stereotype in U.S. films and found that attractive characters were portrayed more favorably than unattractive characters on multiple dimensions across a random sample drawn from five decades of topgrossing films. There is
considerable empirical evidence that physical attractiveness impacts employment decision making, with the result that the more attractive an individual, the greater the likelihood that that person will be hired (Watkins & Johnston, 2000).

Ok so the physical attractiveness stereotype exists. How does it tie into the currently ongoing feminist conflict of appearance? I think it has a lot to do with privilege. "Beauty privilege" to be exact. Race is socially constructed, yet white privilege exists. Gender is socially constructed, yet male privilege exists. Social status is socially constructed, yet class privilege exists. I think these same rules apply to beauty privilege. For something to be socially constructed it would not have a meaning (ie a biological meaning) without a social representation that is constructed specifically to give it value. Beauty, for example, would just be a state of appearance, no negative or positive connotation to it, except for there is a socially constructed meaning for beauty that creates bias and privilege.

To look at beauty privilege in already accepted and understood terms i will turn to white privilege. The definition i put together below was adapted from Kendall Clark's definition of white privilege.

Beauty Privilege can be defined by:
1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by conventionally attractive people beyond the common advantage of all others
b. A special advantage or benefit of conventionally attractive people
2. A privileged position; the possession of advantage a conventionally attractive person enjoys over those not conventionally attractive people.
3. a. The special right or immunity attaching to conventionally attractive people as a social relation
b. display of beauty privilege, a social expression of a conventionally attractive people demanding to be treated as members of the socially privileged class.
4. a. To grant conventionally attractive people a particular right or immunity; to benefit or favor specially conventionally attractive people
b. To avail oneself of a privilege owing to one as a conventionally attractive person.
5. To authorize or license of conventionally attractive people what is forbidden or wrong for those not conventionally attractive; to justify, excuse.
6. To give to conventionally attractive people special freedom or immunity from some liability or burden to which non conventionally attractive people are subject; to exempt.

I realize that definition is unnecessarily long but it covers privilege extraordinarily well. Advantages of beauty privilege goes beyond financial benefits such as making more money in tips as a server or not having to pay for drinks at the bar. Research shows that the physical attractiveness phenomenon (thus beauty privilege) affects being hired for employment, called on in the classroom, sentenced for a crime, selected for a position of power, etc. Being able to actively or passively fit into the contemporary standard of beauty offers a set of privileges that go well beyond getting out of a speeding ticket.

The Happy Feminist wrote about beauty as privilege a few years back:

When I was in my 20s, I constantly got pulled over for speeding without ever once getting a ticket. I have frequently been told that the cops probably didn’t ticket me because I was young and cute (and white, but that’s not the issue here). Was I glad to not get a ticket? Sure! But the power in these situations was always in the hands of the male cops who pulled me over. They got to decide whether they deemed me attractive enough to exercise their power and discretion to let me off the hook for speeding.

Although I agree with her to a point i don't think this can be used as an argument against beauty privilege for two reasons.
1. The same argument could be made for the other forms of privilege, but we'd know it's crap. For example a statement like "POC aren't racially profiled, the power to determine who to arrest is in the hands of those doing the arresting" is faulty because we operate within a system of institutionalized racism in which the power isn't solely in the hands of a person but a response to the culture that the person exists in.
2. Even if Happy Feminist's argument is taken into account there is still an element of privilege that goes along with beauty because those who fit into the conventionally attractive category are at least given some element of power which, those who do not fit into the status quo, are not. For example, if a conventionally attractive woman is pulled over, she may or may not get a ticket. If a non-conventionally attractive woman is pulled over, she doesn't have that chance. (I use "non-conventionally attractive" because i think all women are beautiful, we are just talking about beauty in societal terms here).

This is closely linked to feminism because feminists work to educate others about privilege as well as give up our own (be it hetero, white, able-bodied, thin, cis, wealthy, etc) to live in a more just world. Could this be why some radical feminists are up in arms about others reclaiming conventional beauty?

If it is, i wish they would be more intelligent about it and lay off the personal, and unjustified, attacks.

I hate to do it but here's a gem that you'd think was written by a troll, but no, it's someone who claims to be a feminist:
"Jill Fillipovic is the original Fake Pretty Feminist. [Fame within the feminist blogosphere] is all based on looks it's all vapid it has nothing to do with women's liberation. UNTIL WOMEN ARE NO LONGER SEXED UP THEY WON'T BE SEEN AS HUMAN BEINGS BY MEN. Actually these are the women who will never see THEMSELVES as human beings. They'll be too busy buffing their nails and deodorizing their vaginas, ha!." (emphasis hers)

Wow. Way to discredit all the amazing work someone has done just because of the way she looks. How is this any better than telling a woman who is not conventionally attractive her work is meaningless because she is "ugly"? It's not.

I think all this women hate is just as much crap as beauty privilege merely because neither will get us anywhere. As far as beauty privilege goes, "beauty" itself is a socially constructed term that determines which physical appearance is better than another. Years back a heavier, pale woman was considered beautiful. It represented her wealth and abundance. Now, women starve and pay for cancer boxes (tanning beds) to achieve just the opposite look because it's what is now socially desirable. Why are we hatin on each other when we should be hatin on the system that tells women they should starve and get cancer to fit a socially desirable appearance? Beauty privilege needs to be recognized in the same way as the other privileges are. We don't tell white people they are useless or hetero women that they can't be feminists. No, we just expect them to understand their privilege and use it for good and not for evil... you know what i mean...

We can't start excluding women from the feminist movement for (intentionally or otherwise) fitting into a standard of beauty that we should be fighting against. If a woman is naturally thin we can't go around saying she must be anorexic and that being thin is unfeminist. No, she is just naturally thin and that's perfectly fine. Saying the opposite is just as much bullshit as if we were to call fat women unfeminist. In the same regard being conventionally beautiful isn't unfeminist, but it does provide an element of privilege that needs to be recognize. As feminists, we can't attack the women who fit this (almost unattainable) standard of beauty but rather we must question the standard and expand it to fit all women, hell, not just women, everyone. Ren says it best, "why are we blaming the woman with the perky tits rather than the society, which says perky tits are the best?"

White Privilege?

I wasn't going to write anymore before CPDD but something happened last night that i wanted to touch on here before i left.

D and I went to see John Stewart last night, who by the way was absolutely hilarious and really really smart. I won the tickets from a radio station (crazy, right?! I didn't think people actually win that stuff either...)

Anyway, after the show we stopped by a local diner for pie (yum...pie). The place was fairly empty with only 4 other booths occupied. In the booth next to us was an African American man, sitting alone drinking coffee. The rest of the patrons were white. This is important because of what happened next. The server came over to us and asked what we'd like to drink (water) and eat (we didn't know yet). Next she brought over the waters and was ready to take our order. At this point the black man became outraged that she was taking our order first and he'd been siting there for 10 minutes. He got up, yelled at her, and walked out. We sat there dumbfounded because we weren't sure what had actually happened. Quickly we tried to assess the scene. He was there first. He was already drinking coffee which means someone must have asked him what he wanted at least once. Was he asked to order before we came in? We don't know. Probably not according to his reaction but he did have a coffee and a water... Now he, absolutely, without a doubt, thought that we were being served "first" because we were persons of white privilege and became rightfully outraged. D and I had no idea what to make of this. If we were certain this was an example of racism and white privilege we would have without a doubt got up and left ourselves. We don't want to eat in a racist establishment and we would have absolutely made a scene also to help illustrate the point that this behavior is unacceptable. However, we weren't sure if this was an example of racism and white privilege, we don't know if he was asked to order before us, if he had the opportunity to order his food along with his coffee like we had, we had no idea. We spent the rest of the night trying to figure out what really happened and whether we should have left. Thinking back to the moment, we probably should have left. Because whether or not the situation could have been justified as not an example of white privilege, it still probably was.

D had another question: was it racist for us to assume that he was angry about not being served first because of his race? Maybe there was no racial motivation to his anger? Maybe he was just hungry, or angry about being there first and having to wait? He could have been white and had the same reaction, then it wouldn't have been racially charged. But he wasn't white. So was it racist for us to assume that he correlated the situation to racism and white privilege and was outraged by this specifically? Maybe his anger had nothing to do with that, maybe he didn't think the server was racist, maybe he just wanted to order his food like everyone else and didn't associate having to wait with his race? But we did. Because to us, if in fact he was made to wait and we were asked to order first, it was a clear example of white privilege. SO... is it racist that we associated his outrage instantly to thinking he was outraged specifically about racism and not something else?

A New Sense of Patriotism

Quote of the day goes to Melissa from Shakesville:

[Obama's race] matters.

In a big fucking way.

Not just to people of color who are vulnerable, who were targeted or abandoned by the Bush administration, but to all people of color, the daughters and sons of wealth who are told they can be anything they want but have known it's not quite true. It matters to them. And it matters to white racists (though they don't know it yet, or care), and it matters to white allies of people of color, all of whom need and want to see a person of color leading this diverse nation at long last.

(emphasis mine)

I finally feel patriotic. And that is a really big deal to me.

I wasn't born in America. My family immigrated here from Russia as soon as the transitioning Russian government opened it's doors to Jews. We needed to get the hell out of there, asap. So we came here, to the land of opportunity. And until i knew better, that is exactly how I, a 7 year old foreign kid standing in Walmart surrounded by aisles of Barbies and Tonka Trucks, saw America. My parents are Republicans. My father listens to, and quotes daily, Right-Wing Radio. I was indoctrinated with "what America means" and the "opportunity i have been given" ever since i came to this country. I am not ungrateful. I realized then and realize now how lucky my brother and i were to grow up in America. But i also quickly realized what that actually meant as soon as i went to college. I stopped kidding myself about being a Republican, took up Women's Studies, and snapped out of the idealistic notion of a country i quickly realized was a sham.

Don't call me ungrateful. Just listen.

I finally saw America for what is was: racist, homophobic, classist, materialistic, wasteful, hateful, ageist, ableist, and unjust. Lead by "elected" official after elected official who looked exactly the same (and quite frankly, made the exact same decisions that were as progressive as my pinky toe.) They didn't represent me and didn't represent the America i grew to know, study, and slowly understand.

Fine, call me jaded. Call me an Anarchist, a radical, a communist, whatever. I am only being realistic in what i saw once i opened my eyes and finally started critically thinking about this land of opportunity that my parents brought me up to appreciate. If my dad reads this he'll probably disown me, or roll his eyes like he does on a regular basis when these topics come up.

Here's the truth: America was and is an incredible opportunity for my brother and me. We're white. We're Jewish. We had a strong support network as soon as we stepped foot in JFK Airport. Not all immigrants are that privileged. My dad will say, "if they just worked as hard as we did," "if they just stopped being lazy," "if they just get off well fare and find jobs," "if they, if they, if they." No. Stop. There is no fucking they. There is us and we are all one nation. My family was incredibly privileged. Many people are not as lucky as we were/are. Yes, what my parents did was amazing and i'm not downplaying their achievements (they just bought their first house last year!) all i'm saying is they did it with a lot of support, privilege, and opportunity that not everyone is granted.

So this long introduction brings me to my post:

Thanks to Obama, I finally feel patriotic. I finally feel hopeful. I finally identify with the America i always thought it could be. The America i saw before i learned to see it with a critical eye. The America i am hopeful it will slowly but surely become.

I'm finally patriotic because there will be a president soon that is representative of our nation. One whose platform is based on issues that I care about. One who works towards peace, justice, and equality. One who values collaboration. One who is progressive and a forward thinker. One who realizes the importance of comprehensive sex education. One who values diversity. One who understands class issues and America's impact on the global economy. One who supports Roe v. Wade. One who won't leave a child behind and is committed -truly committed- to education. One who believes love makes a family. One who understands the need for energy independence. One who's ethical. One who's unafraid to tackle serious issues like health care and immigration. One who stands strong with Israel. One who has a plan to bring our troops home from Iraq. One who's been a "lifelong advocate for the poor." And especially, i'll repeat, one who represents our nation. Not just because he is a person of color or mixed race (though I can't deny that his skin has a lot to do with it) but also because of all the hope, change, and opportunity that he represents.

When Obama is elected president i will finally no longer be embarrassed to let people know i am an American when i travel.

So thanks, Obama, for instilling a new sense of patriotism and hope in me.