Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Thursday voted to cut a government subsidy programme known as “food stamps” that allows many low income Americans to eat. They also approved cuts to federal worker benefits and help for the elderly. Why? To avoid cuts to defence spending scheduled to take effect in 2013.
Unemployment levels are hovering around 8 per cent, forcing many to rely on government assistance.
The legislation was passed after hours of passionate debate by Democrats and Republicans, and the fight is far from over. Democrats have vowed to halt the cuts in the Senate.
I listened to the arguments, made by politicians whose salaries start at roughly $175,000. Then my photographer Rob Michaud and I drove about six blocks to the other side of Capitol Hill, where incomes are significantly lower.
In fact, a large number of Capitol Hill residents rely on government assistance and live below the poverty line. It’s a stark contrast.
We met up with Chat Allen, who has been trying to support her three kids on a part-time job. It’s the only job she’s been able to find with unemployment still hovering at about 8 per cent.
Allen says she relies on food stamps to pay for her children’s groceries. She can’t understand why Congress would even consider taking them from her family. She believes Republicans voted to cut food stamps so wealthier Americans can keep paying low taxes.
“They have so much money that maybe they can tighten their belts and not live as luxuriously as they live,” she said. “They’ve earned it, but there are people who are hungry and who dig in the trash every day just to get something to eat.”
Republican representatives claim cutting food stamps and other social programmes will save $261bn. Representative Rob Woodall says government spending has forced Congress to make the cuts.
“When you’ve increased the public debt in this country by 50 per cent in the last four years, you’re all out of giveaway decisions, all we have now are tough decisions,” he said.
Republicans argue those tough decisions will prevent roughly $50bn in military spending cuts due to take effect in January.
How so? Well, this latest political showdown is a result of last summer’s debt ceiling crisis. Congress agreed to raise the US debt limit, a usually standard procedure supported by President Barack Obama, only if spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over ten years came with it.
But no one could agree on what to cut.
That indecision triggered an automatic clause mandating more than $1 trillion cuts to military and domestic programmes which the US defence secretary says would reduce US troops to levels not seen since the 1940s.
No one in Congress, Democrat or Republican, wants that to happen, so they’re trying to stop it by coming up with a plan to reduce spending.
Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for America’s costly entitlement programmes and slash tax breaks for the wealthy. Republicans refuse to even consider new taxes.
That frustrates Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, who on Thursday scolded Republicans.
“You won’t ask one penny more for people making more than a million dollars a year to help reduce our deficit? Not one penny more?” he asked.
Allen told me she still finds it shocking. Now she says she’s hoping her Senate Democrats will block the Republicans from making their legislation law. She admits she’s nervous and wonders just how far Congress will continue cutting the subsidies she and so many Americans rely on to survive and get through another day.
The Republicans are repeating what they did in the 1990s in the name of a “balanced budget”: cut social programs. In this Second Great Depression where 150 million people are at or near poverty (according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure), cutting food programs will hurt the public, not help it. People are suffering and the government must step in and help. Otherwise, the government takes the role it has had since its founding in 1787: to help the rich, the 1%, consolidate their power.
“Peace To My Mother”
First I wanna say “Peace to my Mother” she not here but I have to give a peace out to her, cause I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for my mother,
and I look on the front of this thing and it says, “Start from with in, to rebuild are original greatness”, right. Ok, well that’s what my mother did, know-what-Im-sayin? And I’m listenin’ about freedom fighters and strugglers, will you gotta understand that when it was in, to have a gun and to be in the street, my mother gave that up, to be in a house and to wash the dishes know-what-Im-sayin? And feed us and put the thoughts in our brains, know-what-Im-sayin? Because we didn’t get any of that history from all of those soldiers that we lost. We got none of that! They all went to jail, if you can remember. They all went to penitentiaries. We didn’t see any of that knowledge, if it was not for my mother who stayed home and didn’t go out and do that, then I wouldn’t have shit! Excuse my language…but I wouldn’t have been nowhere.- excerpt from Tupac’s 1992 Malcolm X Grassroots movement Speech
What men mean when they talk about their “crazy” ex-girlfriend is often that she was someone who cried a lot, or texted too often, or had an eating disorder, or wanted too much/too little sex, or generally felt anything beyond the realm of emotionally undemanding agreement. That does not make these women crazy. That makes those women human beings, who have flaws, and emotional weak spots. However, deciding that any behavior that he does not like must be insane– well, that does make a man a jerk.
And when men do this on a regular basis, remember that, if you are a woman, you are not the exception. You are not so cool and fabulous and levelheaded that they will totally get where you are coming from when you show emotions other than “pleasant agreement.”
When men say “most women are crazy, but not you, you’re so cool” the subtext is not, “I love you, be the mother to my children.” The subtext is “do not step out of line, here.” If you get close enough to the men who say things like this, eventually, you will do something that they do not find pleasant. They will decide you are crazy, because this is something they have already decided about women in general.
(Source: zapotec-bitch)
some gross white dude asked if he could “ask me something” as i was walking to the BART with a friend and i said no.
later:
i was at a taco truck a couple blocks from my house w/ some friends earlier, we were waiting for our order, some white guy smiles at me and i don’t smile…
“A revolutionary woman can’t have a reactionary man.”
-Assata Shakur
So why can’t I wear it?
- Headdresses promote stereotyping of Native cultures.
The image of a warbonnet and warpaint wearing Indian is one that has been created and perpetuated by Hollywood and only bears minimal resemblance to traditional regalia of Plains tribes. It furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don’t walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native.
- Headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets have deep spiritual significance.
The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance. Warbonnets especially are reserved for respected figures of power. The other issue is that warbonnets are reserved for men in Native communities, and nearly all of these pictures show women sporting the headdresses. I can’t read it as an act of feminism or subverting the patriarchal society, it’s an act of utter disrespect for the origins of the practice. (see my post on sweatlodges for more on the misinterpretation of the role of women). This is just as bad as running around in a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban cause it’s “cute”.
- It’s just like wearing blackface.
“Playing Indian” has a long history in the United States, all the way back to those original tea partiers in Boston, and in no way is it better than minstral shows or dressing up in blackface. You are pretending to be a race that you are not, and are drawing upon stereotypes to do so. Like my first point said, you’re collapsing distinct cultures, and in doing so, you’re asserting your power over them. Which leads me to the next issue.
- There is a history of genocide and colonialism involved that continues today.
By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you’re standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.But I don’t mean it in that way, I just think it’s cute!
- Well hopefully I’ve illuminated that there’s more at play here than just a “cute” fashion choice. Sorry for taking away your ignorance defense.
But I consider it honoring to Native Americans!
- I think that this cartoon is a proper answer, but I’ll add that having a drunken girl wearing a headdress and a bikini dancing at an outdoor concert does not honor me. I remember reading somewhere that it was also “honoring the fine craftsmanship of Native Americans”. Those costume shop chicken feather headdresses aren’t honoring Native craftsmanship. And you will be very hard pressed to find a Native artist who is closely tied to their community making headdresses for sale. See the point about their sacredness and significance.
I’m just wearing it because it’s “ironic”!
- I’m all for irony. Finger mustaches, PBR, kanye glasses, old timey facial hair, 80’s spandex—fine, funny, a bit over-played, but ironic, I guess. Appropriating someone’s culture and cavorting around town in your skinny jeans with a feathered headdress, moccasins, and turquoise jewelry in an attempt to be ‘counterculture’? Not ironic. If you’re okay with being a walking representative of 500+ years of colonialism and racism, or don’t mind perpetuating the stereotypes that we as Native people have been fighting against for just as long, by all means, go for it. But by embracing the current tribal trends you aren’t asserting yourself as an individual, you are situating yourself in a culture of power that continues to oppress Native peoples in the US. And really, if everyone is doing it, doesn’t that take away from the irony? am I missing the point on the irony? maybe. how is this even ironic? I’m starting to confuse myself. but it’s still not a defense.
Stop getting so defensive, it’s seriously just fashion!
- Did you read anything I just wrote? It’s not “just” fashion. There is a lot more at play here. This is a matter of power and who has the right to represent my culture. (I also enjoy asking myself questions that elicit snarky answers.)
What about the bigger issues in Indian Country? Poverty, suicide rates, lack of resources, disease, etc? Aren’t those more important that hipster headdresses?
- Yes, absolutely. But, I’ll paraphrase Jess Yee in this post, and say these are very real issues and challenges in our communities, but when the only images of Natives that Americans see are incorrect, and place Natives in the historic past, it erases our current presence, and makes it impossible for the current issues to exist in the collective American consciousness. Our cultures and lives are something that only exist in movies or in the past, not today. So it’s a cycle, and in order to break that cycle, we need to question and interrogate the stereotypes and images that erase our current presence—while we simultaneously tackle the pressing issues in Indian Country. They’re closely linked, and at least this is a place to start.
Well then, Miss Cultural Appropriation Police, what CAN I wear?
- If you choose to wear something Native, buy it from a Native. There are federal laws that protect Native artists and craftspeople who make genuine jewelry, art, etc. (see info here about The Indian Arts and Crafts Act). Anything you buy should have a label that says “Indian made” or “Native made”. Talk to the artist. find out where they’re from. Be diligent. Don’t go out in a full “costume”. It’s ok to have on some beaded earrings or a turquoise ring, but don’t march down the street wearing a feather, with loaded on jewelry, and a ribbon shirt. Ask yourself: if you ran into a Native person, would you feel embarrassed or feel the need to justify yourself? As commenter Bree pointed out, it’s ok to own a shirt with kimono sleeves, but you wouldn’t go out wearing full kabuki makeup to a bar. Just take a minute to question your sartorial choices before you go out.
…and an editorial comment: I should also note that I have absolutely nothing against hipsters. In fact, some would argue I have hipster-leaning tendencies. In my former San Francisco life, had been known to have a drink or two in the clouds of smoke outside at Zeitgeist, and enjoyed shopping on Haight street. I enjoy drinking PBR out of the can when I go to the dive bars near my apartment where I throw darts and talk about sticking it to ‘The Man’. I own several fringed hipster scarves, more than one pair of ironic fake ray-ban wayfarers, and two plaid button downs. I’m also not trying to stereotype and say that all hipsters do/wear the above, just like not every hipster thinks it’s cool to wear a headdress. So, I don’t hate hipsters, I hate ignorance and cultural appropriation. There is a difference. Just thought I should clear that up.
An excellent and thought out explanation of why your hipster headdresses are neither cute nor funny. Do you REALLY REALLY want to get your Native vibe on? There are thousands of Native purveyors of traditional clothing and accessories, some even found on etsy. Knowing that your feathered bolero supports a reservation school, or even a woman selling wares on a roadside, does loads more for the world at large than ganking that $4.99 “Injun hat” from Party Express.
(Source: veganparty)
The more I read about college grad unemployment, the more anxious I get - especially since prospects are more bleak for people of colour like me.
About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. In 2000, the share was at a low of 41 percent, before the dot-com bust erased job gains for college graduates in the telecommunications and IT fields.
Out of the 1.5 million who languished in the job market, about half were underemployed, an increase from the previous year.
Broken down by occupation, young college graduates were heavily represented in jobs that require a high school diploma or less.
In the last year, they were more likely to be employed as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers than as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians combined (100,000 versus 90,000). There were more working in office-related jobs such as receptionist or payroll clerk than in all computer professional jobs (163,000 versus 100,000). More also were employed as cashiers, retail clerks and customer representatives than engineers (125,000 versus 80,000).
“jail for zimmerman, justice for Trayvon”
from my trip to mexico city, we stayed at the Mexico City Hostel less than a block behind the cathedral.
