Kokopelli, Mohawks, Appropriation, and White Racism/Privilege

This is a sort of scattered post today.

I've been thinking about Kokopelli recently because of two events. The first event (though chronologically second) is that my partner and I visited the house of one of his good friends, who has a woven rug/runner thing tacked to the wall with like 20 Kokopellis woven along it basically in a conga line. The second event (chronologically first) is that a couple weeks ago, while over at my parents house, my sister mentioned that her friend had a tattoo (I believe, I can't think of the context, but I can't think of what else it would have been BUT a tattoo) of Kokopelli. Apparently I made a face, because my sister found it necessary to explain that Kokopelli is a "Native American god*" (again, I'm not certain that was exactly what she said, but I AM certain she didn't specify either: what tribes worship(ped) him or what his powers are believed to be). I stated that I knew exactly who Kokopelli is and that my face was for the fact that I think it's really screwed up for white people (her friend is a white person, just like my whole family) to appropriate meaningful symbols/gods from other cultures.

My sister countered that I didn't know how meaningful Kokopelli is to her friend. I don't care how meaningful Kokopelli is to white folks... pick a fertility god from a culture you have a background in... oh wait, what's that?, you didn't know that Kokopelli is a fertility god?, wow he must be SUPER meaningful to you I suppose! (Sorry, angry rant done). We dropped it soon after because regardless of whatever we'd say, it wouldn't change the fact that her friend had that tattoo** (they're permanent you know).

I thought back to that argument (which my partner was there for) when we entered his friend's house. I looked at the wall hanging, and was made intensely uncomfortable by it, but we were there to ask for a favor (or something), so I didn't say anything. Which makes me feel cruddy. I think the difference was that my sister brought it up in conversation the first time, whereas just seeing a wall-hanging isn't exactly an invitation to talk about it. But I still wish I'd said something (perhaps next time we're over I'll ask what her interest in fertility gods is?).

So obviously appropriation of Native cultures has been on my mind a lot recently.

Which brings me to Native Appropriations, and Adrienne's most recent post about white people wearing "Indian"/"Indian-style" headdresses. Now there are some things I don't love about her posts on the topic, well, really just one thing. It's that she calls them "Hipster Headdresses." Yes, most hipsters are white/come from upper-middle class backgrounds, but not all. Appropriation that those (privileged) individuals do they do as privileged white/rich people, not as "hipsters." Hipsters are not defacto privileged, there isn't "hipster privilege," so it seems stupid to say it's a "hipster" thing instead of (say) a "white thing" or a "rich thing." This is a common naming that happens in liberal/radical groups where I'll hear people talk about "hipster racism" as though it isn't the same damn racism that other white people do. It's white racism, and rich classism, it isn't special to hipsters, and they aren't a specially protected/privileged group (in my analogies on this subject I've pointed out that tea drinkers are probably predominantly white/privileged just like hipsters, but we don't call racism perpetrated by them "tea drinker racism"). Anyway.

One of the things that happened the other day while I was reading her post (wherein she describes having a clothing designer come to an old post to harrass her about being opposed to white people using headdresses as a cool new "accessory") was that I was struck with revulsion at the privileged asshole-ishness of E. Starbuck. Fuck that noise.

Which brings me to mohawks (the hairstyle, not the tribe).

I'm a white person, so I have white privilege. In high school I had dreads (not something I'm proud of these days, but at the time it didn't seem like a big deal). In college I had a mohawk. For a long time I've mourned that I "can't" have a mohawk anymore. For a while I felt I couldn't because I was out in the world where people would judge me negatively for having hair that didn't conform to "appropriate" standards (but I was going to find a job and then settle in and then shave it again). More recently (the past year and a bit) I've been feeling like I "can't" wear one because of the appropriation aspect of it. But I've been fighting that. I didn't feel like it was a choice I was making for myself, but one that was made for me, and it made me upset and sad (boo hoo, I know). I'd see a person (usually white, sometimes black) walking down the street with a mohawk and sigh longingly, and then Bluejay (my partner) had to remind me that it's appropriative and such. And I keep/kept saying "but hair! it's... anyone could think up shaving a stripe onto your head! plus! all the white hairstyles are boring" and then he'd (very smart, my partner is) point out that the reason that mohawks and dreads and such seem "cool" and "not boring" is because of uh, white privilege, appropriation, and racism. So then I spent weeks/months whining (not often) about how I guess I'd just have to come up with a "not boring" hairstyle that wasn't appropriative.

Bluejay pointed out to me that maybe I could use this as a learning experience to acknowledge how difficult it can be for other white folk to give up something that they think of as dear to their hearts (Kokopelli, sweat lodges, "moccasins," whatever) "just" because of white privilege. He pointed out that the things that I've "given up" because they were racist (not going to see Avatar, being opposed to conflict diamonds, etc.) are things that I either don't care about (like clothes/jewelry) or was anti-racist before I heard about them, and thus didn't find appealing (like Avatar), so it wasn't a very big sacrifice. I'm not sure Bluejay's idea worked in making me more sympathetic to people who cling to privilege, but it is helping me acknowledge that I am not Super Anti-Racist, but instead flawed (gasp! shock! horror!).

But hey! luckily for me (and my fragile white psyche), E. Starbuck has made it oh-so-easy for me to give up my fantasy for oppression-free mohawks. How? Because the second I read zir screed, I said to myself "oh fuck, I NEVER want to act like that privileged a wanker, that's probably what I sound like about mohawks." And I was (very close to) cured of my desire for one. I mean damn but that's a jerkish thing to do: seek out a Native person to harrass because they are opposed to you stealing their culture. Ugh.

So, I don't have a really good wrap up to this, other than I guess to acknowledge to myself and the world that I am not Super Anti-Racist, but with a little help from friends (and racist assholes) I can work to be less oppressive to others. Who knows, if I talk with Bluejay's friend about Kokopelli perhaps we can move together towards a less oppressive future.

------------------------
*Using a non-capitalized "god" is not meant as a disrespect to Native cultures, but is instead due to my desire to not give a false reverence which I do not feel for any religions' god(dess)(es).

**For full disclosure I should mention that for 3 or so years in undergrad I seriously believed I'd get a full back tattoo of Quan Yin and Kali, two archetypes/goddesses/symbols that I really appreciated. At some point during that time I was talking with a Hindu friend of mine who apparently told me he thought it was fucked up that I was going to get a tattoo of a Hindu goddess even though I wasn't Hindu. I don't remember that conversation, but I do remember the one following it when he brought it up later as I mentioned some hugely disrespectful toilet paper with Hindu gods on it (I believe). He implied that what I was planning (still at the time interested in the tattoo) was only slightly less disrespectful than the toilet paper. I'm pretty sure I behaved in a privileged white way as a response (blabbing on about how she was meaningful to me, etc.). I don't know if I ever apologized to him for that (we no longer chat much). So, just to say that I'm not immune from having felt like appropriation is a-ok, but luckily I did take long enough figuring out who to design it and tattoo it and everything that I stopped wanting it.

Advertising that Makes Deviant E Get All Cranky

Sorry for the long absence.

So let's jump right in with two examples of advertising that creeped me out and pissed me off (for very similar reasons) without them showing or saying a single negative thing.

We'll start off with a Brawny Towel ad with an animated lumberjack singing "Lean On Me"

Opening shot in the most creepy supermarket ever, where they have only two brands of paper towels all in single packs: colorful Brawny (red, yellow, black and white) and a brand apparently called “Paper Towels” in monotone blue and lighter shades of blue. Not only do they have merely two brands of paper towels, but the White woman in business casual, with a full shopping cart of food loaded willy-nilly (vegetables and fruits on the bottom getting *crushed*) is apparently standing in an aisle whose sole purpose is to show off these two brands of paper towels on every single shelf for as far as the eye can see. The red and blue dichotomy of the paper towels cuts down the middle of the screen, where she is standing making a decision between brands.
White woman goes to get Paper Towel brand paper towels.
[Cue modified “Lean on Me” with lone male voice: “Lean on me, when you need something strong”]
She looks delightedly up and over towards the Brawny towels, apparently she has heard the cued music as well.
Cut to close up shot of Brawny cartoon/icon (White man in red plaid, looking somewhat “lumberjack-ish”) on the front of a paper towel package singing. Yes, creepy little icon man is the one singing “Lean on Me”
Cut to wider shot, showing 6 or so identical animations singing: “and I’ll be your friend” as they gesture in unison.
Cut to still wider shot, now showing 3 shelves full of identical gesturing/singing animations on the fronts of paper towel packages all singing and gesturing in unison. White woman watches them, somehow not in abject terror. As she scans all of the animations we see the back of her head. [Chorus continues with: “I’ll help you carry on”]
Cut to woman of indeterminate race/ethnicity (dark curly hair, skin that isn’t pasty white) in kitchen. She has just started walking away from blender full of pink liquid. Blender is on and liquid gushes up, forcing top of blender off and spilling pink everywhere. Woman looks back and belatedly attempts to get to blender before it spills.
[“so call on me brother when you need a hand”]
Cut to hand of woman with paper towel wiping up pink liquid.
Cut to Black woman (mom?) and Black boy (son?) in kitchen. They are at sink and son has paper towel in hand as he cleans caked-on egg off of nonstick pan. Mother is standing behind him holding onto pan as well, smiling down at pan/him as he cleans.
[“we all need somebody”]
Cut to hand holding paper towel going in circles continuing to get remaining egg off.
Cut to White man (father?) and White girl (daughter?) near some stairs. He has a paintbrush in hand and the wall is taped with painter’s tape. Daughter is wiping his face with a paper towel for no discernible reason.
[“to lean on”]
Cut back to front of single paper towel where lumberjack-ish White animation now speaks (music without words continues in background): “Brawny now comes with a money back guarantee.”
Cut to White woman (mother?) and White girl (daughter?) at kitchen sink. Voice over continues: “When you want a paper towel that can do it all,”
Girl is holding paper towel outstretched over sink. Mother has colander of grapes which tips onto paper towel, without towel tearing. Text at bottom says: “Approximately 10 oz seedless grapes, moistened.” Mother and daughter smile as grapes are caught.
Cut back to lumberjack-ish icon pointing at himself, he continues: “Lean on me”
Cut back to shelves full of animations as they finish singing/song: “something strong”.
Cut back to White woman in store picking out a roll of Brawny and placing it in grocery cart in a satisfied manner, she then walks off screen.
Cut to picture of single Brawny roll on tile with information about the money back guarantee in text on screen. Creepy animation says: “Brawny never lets you down”

as always, click on the cut link for as complete a transcript as I can make.

Next we have a Macy's ad for jewelry, with the song "Seasons of Love" being sung in the background.

Opening screen: Black with white star
Music starts, singing throughout:
“five hundred twenty-five thousand, six hundred minutes,”
Cut to picture of tiny baby hand holding adult thumb in that cute way babies hold thumbs.
Cut to (presumably) same baby and father (both Black or Latin@), as baby cuddles onto father’s chest and father holds zir close.
Cut to White older heterosexual couple (white hair) at presumably anniversary party (white balloons) while White child arms hand them a white box. White man has arm around White woman’s shoulder as she accepts box.
Cut to same couple in black and white footage from slightly different angle as they hug and kiss each other on the cheek. White woman has prominently displayed matching earrings and necklace and is holding gift box.
“How do you measure, measure a year?”
Cut to color footage of White rugby playing man in rain coming up to woman. They embrace in a romantic manner. They are smiling.
Cut to close up of her chest where a heart shaped pendant is hanging on a chain.
Cut to White girl in pink walking carrying tray filled with a fork and knife, plate full of food, orange juice, a card saying “Mom” (with a heart and two stick figures drawn in crayon) and a box in a gift bag. Girl looks up at camera smiling.
Cut to same girl and White mother lying in bed together. Mother is holding a star shaped pendant on a chain, and daughter is playing with it. They are looking at each other and the necklace.
“In daylight, in sunsets?”
Cut to first obviously interracial couple. We see two held hands, one Black, one White. Both arms have some type of bracelet on them.
Cut to same couple as they run on the beach towards the surf. It is a heterosexual couple. The sun is low in the sky. White woman is in two piece bikini, Black man is in swimming trunks.
Cut to same couple as he holds her and she leans back, seemingly joyfully. They are still on beach with setting sun.
“in midnights in cups of coffee?”
Cut to black and white footage of mixed race group of women in fancy clothes. White woman in middle has cup of champagne in hand. There is a chandelier in background. All of the women are dancing.
Cut to color footage of Black dancer (from previous shot) up close, as she dances/shakes her head. We see matching earrings and necklace.
Cut to White woman with prominent ring and necklace drinking a cup of coffee.
“In inches, in miles?”
Cut to black and white footage of Black male barber cutting White boys head. Barber has prominently displayed watch.
Cut to color footage of Black woman jogging while pushing Black child in stroller. She has something shiny on her wrist.
“in laughter, in strife?”
Cut to White couple in wedding regalia. Man is wearing tux and bow tie, woman is wearing white wedding gown. They are smiling, she has a bouquet of flowers. Prominently displayed jewelry (shocking, I know).
“How do you measure a year in the life?”
Cut to black screen with information about Macy’s jewelry. Female voice over says: “Fine jewelry for over a hundred and fifty years. For every celebration. ”
Cut back to White couple getting married. Man holds woman in arms while woman shows off wedding ring.
Cut to black screen as voice over continues: “That’s the magic of Macy’s.”

as always, click on the cut link for as complete a transcript as I can make.


So, what creeps me out and pisses me off about these two ads? It has something to do with the idea of taking songs from oppressed groups and putting them into your advertising, and in the process making invisible their origins.
"Lean on Me" was written in 1972. It is a song written by a Black man, in the Soul genre, at a time just following the organized Civil Rights movement. It's a song about community and the strength and power that can be found when people rally together.
The voice in the advertisement sounds stereotypically "Black" and is singing in the genre that the song comes from. Yet they have a White lumberjack as the animated icon portrayed as singing it. They took a song that could reasonably be seen as a song about the strength of social movements, and erased the Black origin of it, and put it into a fucking Paper Towel ad. I suppose I'm meant to be grateful that they included a Black family in the footage? That pisses me off and creeps me out. And of course, they screwed around with the lyrics in the process so that they could do this.
"Seasons of Love" was written for the musical Rent. It's a musical about AIDS. It has numerous gay characters. Seriously, out of a main cast of 7-8 people, 4 of them are in same-gender relationships.
In the advertisement, is there a single gay couple depicted? Nope. There are numerous romantic couples depicted, and not a single gay one amongst them. The ad writers took a song that is couched in the AIDS epidemic (at the time it was written, primarily associated with gay men), and somehow manage to take away all reference to gayness in the advertisement.

Neither of the ads was explicitly racist or homophobic. But by their decision to make things more "universally appealing," they took songs from particular oppressed groups and put them in the mouths of their oppressors. They took something away from the Black community and the Gay community and gave it to Whites and Straights. If we(gays)/they(Black people) aren't good enough to be the icons of your feel good advertising, then you get no fucking right to our creative endeavors.

"How Many Different Fathers?": On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism

At my agency, families are supposed to be our clients. However, since children are not expected to change their behavior (so long as they are under 16, I believe), the onus of responsibility in ensuring that a case closes generally falls on the mother. Almost always the mother. Regardless of whether the case opened because the father's neglect of the children, and even sometimes regardless of whether it opened because of his abuse of them. Which is a whole other enraging post.

I have yet to have a case where a single father is raising children with the mother out of the picture, whereas the majority of my cases are ones where a woman is raising her children on her own, sometimes due to death of the father, more often due to the relationship ending and the woman "naturally" being given responsibility to raise the children. I often have cases where the father, who is still with the mother, doesn't live with the children, and as such his participation is seemingly only "encouraged" rather than "required" by the Department.

But, I wasn't intending to talk about my feelings about the Department's sexism. Or at least not about that particular iteration of its sexism. Instead I wanted to talk about the judgement that my clients receive about how many different fathers of how many different children they have.

It is, frankly, infuriating that social workers give a rat's ass about some other social worker's client's number of current or former partners. It's bad enough when I have to hear about some other worker's client who *OH NOES!* has 3 children from three different relationships, but to have people begging to know the details of my clients' sexual relationships? IN. FUR. IATE. ING. As it is when I'm complaining about a case to someone other than a coworker, and totally unrelated to what I'm saying, they need to know how many kids/fathers there are in the picture.

The thing is, I seriously don't give a shit how many partners someone has had, other than to get important information about familial relations between siblings and their parents. It is very relevant to me when I find out that one child's father is in jail, but the other child's father lives nearby and comes over once a month. It is relevant to me when I hear that a father of one of the children says that he "wouldn't mind" taking the other children if custody is taken away from the mother. These things matter to me because they say something potentially about how each child feels cared for in their family. They don't matter to me so that I can judge the mother better.

You know what literally never crosses my mind when talking to a mother who has had multiple sexual partners, and children with more than one?

That she doesn't respect herself.
That she is promiscuous and therefore less moral.
That she is out of control.
That she is stupid.

I had trouble writing that list because a) since I don't think those things automatically, it's hard to dredge them up when I try to, b) I fucking hate that these are considered appropriate things to think about someone else's choices to have children or not (or more likely, sex or not, because lots of people would just as harshly judge a woman who has had 3 abortions due to multiple sexual relationships as they would a woman with three children from multiple partners).

But I can see these thoughts scurrying across the faces and hear them embedded in the tones of those who ask me salaciously for my clients' relational details. And you know what? My clients all know that people judge them for these things. I know they know because on the few occasions where I've been able to convince (through my tone, body language, and probably some verbal cues) a client that I am not judging them for their sexual choices (or their father's or mother's sexual choices), they have invariably opened up to me emotionally and physically (less guarded posture, giving me details of their family lives, etc.) more than they had before, and more than they have with other workers.

So, this happens. Where does it come from? Perhaps you've noticed that I titled this post "On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism".

Most of my clients are poor (ok, all of my clients are poor).
Most of my clients are people of color (I was going to get my first white family this week, but another case came back so I still have a history of only families of color).

In our culture, poverty and non-whiteness are treated as though they are synonymous. This isn't the case, but you'll notice that my clients are all poor and they have all been people of color, so they *are* linked.
In some ways, I think the judgement is mostly a facet of classism, because there is an assumption that more wealthy people's relationships have been deliberated on (regardless of how long they lasted prior to marriage or children), whereas there is an assumption (and I can't say whether it's based in fact at all) that poor people are less likely to be married when they have children (I could see this being based in fact because it costs money to marry, and costs even more to divorce), which codes as "less likely to have thought about the relationship, prior to having children" (regardless of whether they've been together for 10 years) according to our society.
However, at the same time, since whiteness = money in our culture, a white family is not assumed to be poor as readily as family of color is. So, when we talk about "poor people" having lots of children "recklessly," as a society we are to be more honest as to our underlying thought processes, talking about "people of color" having lots of children "recklessly." As such, a random family of color* will be more likely to be assumed to have been the product of multiple relationships, as compared to a random white family. Related to this is the fact that since the majority of clients at my office are families of color, a "default" family that is being talked about, unless specified as white, will be assumed to be black (or maybe latino, depending on the social worker's experiences), and as such questions about sexual histories will be mapped onto a "default" family of color.

So that takes care of the classism and racism aspects of what I see going on when people ask "how many fathers?" (incredulously or certain of the answer, take your pick).

What about the sexism and polyphobia?

Well, as mentioned above, the vast majority of childraising parents are women. So, while fathers do get judged for having multiple children, just as often, I hear the mothers being judged for being in a relationship with a man with other children. Additionally, fathers often visit their children at their children's mothers' houses. As such, they have an ability to deny certain children if they wish, and social workers have an ability to neglect to wonder about other children, since there aren't any children in front of them requiring explanations. It's like a magic trick: "No children to see here!" And of course, in those instances where a woman has had multiple children with multiple partners, I NEVER hear judgement of the father for getting involved with a woman with other children. Usually, so long as he doesn't treat the other children like crap, he's just about lauded as a hero for having the courage and kindness to be able to love a woman with other children. Or something.

I trust I don't need to say that women's sexuality is highly stigmatized and denigrated in our society, and that children are the ultimate proof of sexuality. Do I? Because it is. So of course, that's another layer on the judgment cake.

And lastly, the thing that all ties it together with a big fucking bow is the fact that as a society, monogamy is viewed as moral whereas anything else is not. There is a book called The Ethical Slut, which for some in the poly community was their first introduction into polyamory. There is no book that I have heard of (and certainly none which are known in the monogamous community with the same type of recognition) called The Ethical Prude. Because, *obviously* prudishness is ethical. It's like when I heard the criticism of the phrase "white trash" where someone pointed out that specifying someone is "WHITE trash" implicitly assumes that people of color are trash, so you don't even need to put an identifying marker when talking about them. Same goes for The Ethical Slut, but in reverse: in our culture there is no need to write a book about how to ethically be monogamous, because it is assumed to be the case by default(even though lots of mongamous people treat their partner's terribly, or hurt their partner in petty little ways without noticing).

A couple months ago, in a paper to talk about one of my cases, I chose one where I had fucked up. I had assumed that someone had been raised by hir mother, because I have had the privilege of having been raised by an intact family, and my parents never were in a situation where they were too poor to feed themselves and their children, my parents never *needed* to give me to someone else to raise in order for me to eat. My privilege got in the way of my discussion with that client.
With hir partner, however, I was immensely prepared, because as zie was telling me (somewhat shamefully) about hir father and his multiple children, and how zie had 12 half-siblings (or whatever the number was), I was able to to bypass the step my supervisor would have needed, of judging and then working around that judgment. Because that's the topping on the cake for me, while my colleagues might (and many don't) acknowledge that classism or racism play a role in how they treat their clients, NONE of them seem to acknowledge how monogamism** plays a role in how they treat their clients.

I have classism that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have racist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have ableist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients.

What I don't have? Polyphobia. And unlike my coworkers and peers, I know that it exists and that it hurts people.


*in this case I believe Asian families would be partially immune
** like it? I just made it up. Do people know of a better word?

Unintended Musings on Bad Cinema

So, 2 summers ago I went to see Hancock in the theater. I think I was on a summer movie kick or something. For those who don't know, Hancock is an action movie starring Will Smith, Jason Bateman (he was on Arrested Development), and Charlize Theron. RottenTomatoes (the film critic site) gives the movie a 40%.

A brief (spoilery) overview of the plot is that there's this guy who has super powers (Will Smith, heretofore referred to as Will Smith) who the whole town thinks is a giant asshole, cause he sort of is. He's been around for as long as anyone can remember and he never ages and he just sort of uses his super powers (flight, super strength, speed, imperviousness to weapons) to engage in chaotic amoral things, and to drink until he passes out. One day, he saves the life of a down on his luck PR guy (Jason Bateman), who decides to remake Will Smith's image. Jason Bateman's wife (Charlize Theron) hates this idea, and basically implies that she thinks that Will Smith is an evil idiot, even though she's never met him. But, Jason Bateman decides to start this campaign anyway, and gets Will Smith to stop drinking, teaches him about not pissing off local police, gets him a superhero costume, etc.

::SPOILER BIT::
Then we find out that actually Charlize Theron knows Will Smith because they're both of a race of ancient angel people who all (but them two) died out. They are all super strong, fast, invulnerable, etc... except that all of them are one half of a pair (Charlize is Will's other half), who are all opposites (as far as I could tell all this refers to is race and gender), and inextricably drawn to each other. When the pairs spend much time together they start to become human, which is neat, other than then other people generally don't like interracial couples and they've all been murdered. Will Smith doesn't remember any of this because the last time that he and Charlize spent time together, a mob attacked them and gave him a concussion and by the time he magic healed, his memory was gone.

Then there's lots of drama with an escaped criminal and Will Smith almost dying blah blah.

Anyway, so I was driving home the other day and thinking about this movie, and thinking about that "opposites" bit (there are a few other weird/interesting things, like how at the end the three of them are sort of in an V relationship where Will and Charlize never actually see each other), and well... obviously Black people aren't actually opposites of White people. What about Asians? And Latino/as? And Native/Indigenous Peoples? Whose opposites are they?

I just see a lot of erasure, especially in the US, when talking about "racial differences" or "race relations" of all the groups that aren't White/Black. And I think even the naming of the groups as "white" and "black" feeds into that a lot. Because with colors, white and black *ARE* opposite, but in some movie where "opposites attract" what the fuck does that mean for people?

And really, even if in the world of this movie somehow the ethnic/racial groupings of white people and black people were opposite, obviously the characters aren't "opposite" in a whole ton of other ways (I reject the idea that men and women are opposite, but for the sake of argument): they both have superpowers, they are both tall for their respective sexes, they are both skinny, they are both temporarily able-bodied, they are both cisgender/cissexual, and they are both straight.

But really, how do we work past this conception of duality, or binary as it were, when it comes to race?