THE ‘R’ WORD DILEMMA:
IN POLITICS
TEAM MEMBERS
EDITOR IN CHIEF Yamna Asim
CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER
Athena Liao
STAFF WRITERS
ASSISTANT EDITORS
Zahara Groenewald
Chancelle Kabasu
Catherine Perdikis
Sarah Shah
Pauline Usuanlele
Caitlin Elrick
Kennedy Jensen
Katherine Valentine
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Wednesday, April 30th, 2025
Dear Readers,
Welcome to issue XXI.III of The Observer, titled “The ‘R’ Word Dilemma: Race in Politics.” With the recent attacks on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies and the negative discussion surrounding race, it has never been more crucial to examine the intersection between race and politics.
From Zahara Groenewald, we have an article examining how the removal of race from politics has contributed to and amplified the issue of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. In her article, Chancelle Kabasu discusses racial barriers and discrimination in America’s healthcare policies. Looking at South Africa’s land reform laws, Catherine Perdikis examines the intersection between land, race and power and its implications for racial equality. From Pauline Usuanlele, we have an article questioning President Trump’s rollback on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies and his insistence on meritocracy. Lastly, my article analyzes the problem within the mainstream conceptualization of intersectionality.
The Print branch has worked so hard to bring this issue to life, and I can’t wait for you to read all these amazing articles! I want to give a huge thank you to my team without whose incredible hard work and passion, I wouldn’t have been able to publish three amazing issues. I would also like to extend a heartfelt gratitude to all our readers who have supported and encouraged our work! Your readership means the world to The Observer and QIAA.
If you have any comments or questions, please contact The Observer at theobserver@qiaa.org. If you would like to join our team in the future, please follow us on X (formerly Twitter) (@observerqiaa), LinkedIn (The Observer), or our Instagram (@the.observerqiaa) for hiring and other updates.
Now, for the last time, onto the reading!
Yamna Asim Print Editor in Chief, The Observer
Colour-Blind Politics: An Amplification of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women
Zahara Groenewald, Staff Writer
Medical Racism: A Growing Threat or Relic of the Past?
Chancelle Kabasu, Staff Writer
Land, Race, and Power: The High Stakes of South Africa’s Land Reform
Catherine Perdikis, Staff Writer
Trump’s DEI Rollbacks: What Even is Meritocracy?
Pauline Usuanlele, Staff Writer
The Problem With The Mainstream Conceptualization of Intersectionality
Yamna Asim, Editor in Chief
Colour-Blind Politics: An Amplification of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women
by: Zahara Groenewald
Throughout the last few years in the West, we have seen an uproar of movements that have retracted back all the hard work our communities and societies have put into providing education on how race intersects with how we perceive the word, experience and are treated by others. A lot of this setback has been due to the courtesy of rising populist movements that are fueled by scapegoating, pilgrimage to its leaders, and a combination of alt-right white supremacist nationalism.
White supremacy is defined, according to Giroux & McLaren, as “the institutionalization of whiteness and white privilege and the historical, social, political and economic systems and structures that contribute to its continued dominance and subordination.” White nationalism is a subgroup that has been nurtured rather than branched off to evolve into “ a type of pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.” Many would question where this sense of white nationalism came from, whether it has always blah
been here or newfound. The answer is that these movements and sentiments have a long history dating back to colonialism.
I will demonstrate in this article how the removal of race in politics disproportionately affects these equity-deserving groups, such as Indigenous peoples, or specifically missing and murdered Indigenous women. In Canada, this phenomenon has long been connotated with the implications that have arisen as a result of Canada’s government and Canadians’ neglect in addressing the key role race has played While Canada takes pride in being a cultural mosaic that embraces all background differences, it would be misconstrued to believe that the government or we as a society truly address the relevance of race and its interaction within our society. If we truly understood and addressed this, cases like the Highway of Tears would not exist.
Before we delve into the analysis, I would also like to address my positionality in this–I recognize as a non-indigenous woman, I hold the
the power to perpetuate stereotypes and ultimately harm Indigenous people's way of life. Internalized White supremacy lives on within us, and it is something that all of us have to continuously work to combat in order to achieve a world where we are not viewed nor treated differently, both consciously or unconsciously, based on our skin colour. All the information I have depicted and laid out below are accounts from Indigenous peoples themselves.
The Highway of Tears is a section on Highway 16 in British Columbia where there have been an exorbitant amount of Indigenous women and girls either going missing or murdered, never to be seen or heard from again. A lot of these women, either prior, during or after, have experienced some form of mental and/or physical violence, especially sexual violence. In 2015, the Highway of Tears prompted the Canadian Federal Government to launch an inquiry into these cases, although the inquiry has not been adequate enough to address these systematic issues. By not giving a crisis like this its due diligence, then we do not recognize it as “part of [our] larger, national crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls” and allow it to amplify.
To understand the reasoning as to why incidents like this occur so disproportionately, we also have to understand the significant role race or ethnicity plays. Without having race as a compounding factor, we will not be able to ask these big questions: Why are Indigenous women being targeted? Why are they going missing? Why are they being murdered? These questions can only be asked and answered if we take a racial approach and lens, as race is the defining factor to why these incidents occur.
Indigenous communities have been suffering for centuries ever since European colonizers arrived in the Americas and created the states of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The European colonizers viewed Indigenous peoples as inferior to them, and through this, they then placed whattt
themselves on a pedestal to save the latter through enlightenment. This is known as ‘White saviorism,’ and “it's achieved when someone white chooses to help someone who is not white in a self-serving manner such as [a] recognition of their good deed.” This complex allowed European colonizers to justify stealing land and all the cruelties they inflicted on Indigenous peoples, especially Indigenous women.
In early colonial writing, Indigenous women were depicted as “Indian princesses fetching, proud and virtuous,” and their resistance to colonization led the White colonizers to view them as “ spaws, ” meaning “dirty, lewd, uncivilized and sexually deviant” women. White women were still considered inferior to White men, and therefore, it was the White men ’ s responsibility to protect their chastity and virginity, as they were considered too meek and innocent to understand the complexities of the world. This oxymoron between these two racialized women allowed White men to justify their deviated sexual appetites and cruel sexual acts upon Indigenous women, as they were simply viewed as animalistic and primal, who only lived to sate their sexual desires.
While many of us think that we have moved past colonial times and that we are morally superior, this is simply not true. The continued acts of cultural appropriation and stereotyping in the media, especially on porn sites, where this sexualization and fetishized binary of Indigenous women lives breathes and continues to thrive. These women in real life are unable to escape this binding binary and are viewed as simply a means to an end for sexual fantasies–that Indigenous women have no autonomy and exist to please the sexual needs and fantasies of White men or that they need to be saved or ravaged Some of these harmful stereotypes range from “Native inspired” costumes, which are designed to show off the person ' s body in a ‘ sexy ’ or ‘seductive’ manner, to the ‘Cherokee princess’ or ‘Indian Princess’ narrative “where an Indigenous woman is portrayed as the beautiful daughter of blah
a strong and ‘ruthless’ Indian chief.” She can’t be in love with the White men, but she ends up eventually falling in love with one anyway, an act of defiance as she chooses the White man instead of an Indigenous man her father or tribe picked for her.
These disturbing stereotypes allow for the continuous overrepresentation of Indigenous women being targeted for kidnapping, trafficking, and murder as they are viewed simply as something that exists for the pleasure of White men. This allows for the government to not put meaningful effort into investigating these cases or to provide enough resources for these communities to find justice for their women and girls. Society viewing Indigenous women and girls as individuals who are solely sexually driven means that when incidents of them missing, trafficked, or being sexually violated come up, the police view them as perpetrators rather than victims. Common phrases like ‘she deserved that’ or ‘she wanted that’ are apparent in police reports and their interactions with Indigenous communities where Indigenous women and girls have suffered.
Since they are considered perpetrators due to their sexual appetite, they are then not spared the proper resources and time for investigation and justice. Not only is this unjust, but this also demonstrates the challenges Indigenous women face due to the intersection of their race and gender--they face not only racism but also misogyny. Comparatively, there always seems to be enough resources when White women go missing or are murdered, as White women are always viewed as victims and not perpetrators Without adequately addressing race as a component and our internal White saviour complex, we allow people in our country, in our communities, to be disproportionately harmed without any justice.
Since they are considered perpetrators due to their sexual appetite, they are then not spared the proper resources and time for investigation blah
and justice. Not only is this unjust, but this also demonstrates the challenges Indigenous women face due to the intersection of their race and gender. Indigenous women are victims of both racism and misogyny Comparatively, there always seems to be enough resources when White women go missing or are murdered, as White women are always viewed as victims and not perpetrators. Without adequately addressing race as a component and our internal White saviour complex, we allow people in our country, in our communities, to be disproportionately harmed without any justice.
The colonial framing of Indigenous women has not died and continues to affect them to this day. If we do not address race as relevant to politics, we would then never be able to address our positionalities, nor our internal White supremacy, and understand why we have been programmed to think this way. Taking a colourblind approach to politics is extremely harmful, as it ultimately continues to allow the oppression of Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC) to continue. One needs to ask if, supposedly, “colour does not matter, why do BIPOC continue to experience oppression?”
We can never have a colour-blind approach, as it allows for the continued systematic oppression of non-white people. The system and the way society is structured was founded on White supremacy; it is not colour-blind and continues to persist in our institutions and within us. This is especially true within the international community, as everything is ‘White centered,’ thereby contributing to the continued disenfranchisement of not only Global South countries but also the voicelessness of Indigenous stakeholders at the important tables The only means to remedy issues such as the missing and murdered Indigenous crisis not only in Canada but also in other states that have similar problems, like Australia’s oversexualization of their Indigenous women and the over-sexualization of Romani peoples, is to address that race does have relevance in politics.
Adopting a racial approach will allow us to eventually achieve a world where race does not affect one ’ s status of respect. Simply stating that race should not have a place in politics is a copout and ultimately shows that those who have the privilege of being white do not want to put in the work to recognize their internal bias because they have the privilege of their race, not affecting how the world interacts with them. White people do not have to exist around anyone, as other races are simply viewed as existing in relation to White people. By not recognizing race in politics, we allow ourselves to continue to uphold and perpetuate White supremacy and allow for these White nationalist populist movements to grow. We need to be no longer ignorant and unwilling and actually listen and learn how these stereotypes and misrepresentations can be extremely harmful. Only then can we begin to rectify justice for these Indigenous women and girls and prevent these heartbreaking stories from occurring any longer.
Medical Racism: A Growing Threat or Relic of the Past?
by: Chancelle Kabasu
In a highly controversial decision, the United States Senate confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr (RFK Jr) as the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on February 13, 2025. The Senate vote to determine RFK Jr’s fate was unanimous in democratic opposition, absent only a sole republican vote from Senator Mitch McConnell. The once democratic and independent presidential candidate brings to the table no medical experience, years of medically racist beliefs, misinformation, and disinformation as he prepares to take on the role of the nation’s top health official Some of RFK Jr’s contentious medical claims have included stating that Black people have better immune systems than White people and, therefore, should be on different vaccine schedules and suggesting that COVID-19 was engineered to target Caucasian and Black communities while giving immunity to others. Dr. Ijeoma Kola writes that RFK Jr’s rhetoric of immunity in African Americans is not new. Rather, it stems from a long history of structural racism in the medical system that touts the belief of biological anomalies in Black people.
Medical racism in the United States dates back to slavery, when unethical experimentation on African Americans was normalized and encouraged. In more recent history, racism has remained embedded in the medical system, ensuring African Americans continue to receive worse care and worse health outcomes than other ethnic groups. In 1946, the Hospital Survey and Construction Act (Hill-Burton Act) was enacted by the federal government, intended to enable the construction and improvement of healthcare facilities. It instead provided states with the ability to construct racially segregated facilities, which garnered unequal treatment for patients. In 1964, the Title VI Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination in institutions that received federal funding, but nursing homes slipped through the cracks and remained largely unregulated. Today, there is evidence to suggest disparities in care in nursing homes across the United States remain an issue, with Black seniors more likely to occupy nursing homes with financial vulnerability, lower staff ratios, and inspection deficiencies.
When Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, it was said that the legislation would change the healthcare landscape for Americans of colour. At the time, in combination with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, a federal program providing health insurance to those 65 and older, and Medicaid, a federal and state program providing health insurance for low-income individuals, played a crucial role in providing Black Americans with health insurance and access to health care Today, Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour are more likely than their white counterparts to be covered by Medicaid. Additionally, Black and Hispanic beneficiaries of Medicare are 2.5 and 2 times more likely than White beneficiaries to rely on Medicaid to supplement their coverage.
As of February 2025, President Trump and the GOP have set Medicaid in their sites for budget cuts, referring to the program as broken and wasteful rather than as an avenue for accessible healthcare for Americans. The program helped cover 93 million Americans during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a time in which Black and Hispanic Americans were four times more likely to be hospitalized and the ever-present racial disparities in the United States healthcare system became magnified Upon re-entering office, President Trump prioritized a ban on federal officers from pursuing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and practices. This act is likely to reverse years of anti-racist medical practices that institutions have attempted to implement in recent years.
RFK Jr’s confirmation as secretary of HSS raises concerns regarding not only his credibility but of the direction in which healthcare will go for Americans of colour if racial and ethnic disparities in health are not considered. Remedying health inequities caused by racism is pivotal in shaping health outcomes. Inequities in healthcare are at risk of being amplified by political decisions that impact the allocation of healthcare resources, such as those surrounding bb
Medicare and Medicaid.
The racial disparities that exist in the United States cannot be resolved by a colour-blind approach, especially after years of inhibiting Black Americans from receiving adequate healthcare. Political decisions such as cutting funds to Medicare and Medicaid and nominating leaders with unconscious biases to oversee healthcare in the United States undermines issues surrounding medical discrimination. This perpetuates the cycle of inequity, allowing race to continue being a determinant of an individual’s health in America.
Race should not matter in policy and regulation creation so that Black Americans can be put on separate vaccine schedules from White Americans. Race should matter in these settings so that missed and delayed diagnoses in people of colour are reduced in comparison to their White counterparts, so that state coverage of Medicaid can be extended and reinstated for those that desperately need it, and so that Black Americans are not still feeling the residual effects of decades-old policies and centuries-old biases.
Land, Race, and Power: The High Stakes of South Africa’s Land Reform
by: Catherine Perdikis
President Cyril Ramaphosa's signing of the Expropriation Act of 2025 marks a significant change in South Africa's land reform laws. This law replaces the antiquated 1975 Expropriation Act to align expropriation procedures with the constitutional values of justice, equity, and reparation. In order to remedy historical land injustices that resulted from colonialism and apartheid, the Act offers a framework for the expropriation of land and property when doing so serves the public interest or purpose. The Act aims to address racial disparities in land distribution, promote economic development, and reshape South Africa's land ownership structure by broadening expropriation criteria, revising compensation requirements, and allowing expropriation without compensation (EWC) in certain cases. However, the Act has sparked intense domestic and international debates, with supporters viewing it as a tool for justice and economic transformation. Critics warn of its potential impact on property rights, investor confidence, and racial tensions.
The Act's broader definition of expropriation is som
among its most important features. The new law broadens the scope of expropriation to include issues of public interest, such as equitable resource distribution and land reform, in contrast to earlier legislation that restricted it to projects like public infrastructure and road building. This change demonstrates the government's resolve to address historical injustices in which racist practices resulted in Black South Africans losing their land Another significant change under the new Act is the pay structure. The 2025 Act includes other variables, such as the land's present usage, acquisition history, and any governmental investment or subsidy that contributed to its worth, in addition to the market value that was the main foundation for compensation under the previous law. This shift underscores the government’s commitment to correcting past injustices where Black South Africans were dispossessed of land through discriminatory policies. The Act's inclusion of EWC is one of its most contentious provisions. The government may seize land without payment in specific cases, particularly if it is underutilized, abandoned, held for speculation, or
or significantly enhanced by public investment. Although EWC is portrayed as an exception rather than a rule, several stakeholders are concerned about its possible effects on investor confidence and property rights.
The Expropriation Act of 2025, according to its supporters, is essential to correct historical wrongs and lessen socioeconomic disparities. Apartheid-era land confiscation resulted in a highly distorted pattern of land ownership, with the Black majority confined to peripheral areas and a small, predominately white minority controlling the majority of agricultural land. The Act aims to enable wider participation in agriculture and commercial operations and restore dignity to individuals who were historically dispossessed by facilitating land transfer. Additionally, fair land distribution may act as a spur for economic expansion, especially in rural regions where land access is essential for job creation, business development, and agriculture. The Act has the ability to improve food security, encourage entrepreneurship, and lessen poverty by releasing land for formerly underprivileged populations. Redistribution of urban land may also result in projects for cheap housing, which would aid in resolving South Africa's housing shortage.
On the global scene, the Expropriation Act has elicited conflicting responses. Concerns over property rights and investment security have been voiced by a few foreign governments and investors, who worry that expropriation laws may cause economic instability in South Africa and discourage foreign direct investment (FDI). Donald Trump, the current president of the United States, has repeatedly attacked South Africa's land reform initiatives, citing possible economic repercussions should property rights be compromised. Nevertheless, the Act has been supported by the South African government as a sovereign decision that complies with both international and constitutional law. Rather than attempting to single out particular racial groups, it contends that land reform is required to establish
establish a more inclusive and equitable economy.
The Expropriation Act seeks to eliminate structural disparities that have remained since apartheid by directly addressing South Africa's racially charged land ownership heritage. Proponents contend that by fostering a sense of inclusion and economic empowerment, allocating land to historically underserved groups could aid in mending racial divisions and fostering social cohesion. Racial tensions have increased as a result of the Act, especially among organizations that worry that white landowners may be unfairly singled out. The Act has been opposed by groups like AfriForum, who speak for some Afrikaner communities, on the grounds that it could cause economic instability and jeopardize the rights of white farmers. Public opinion has become even more divided due to lobbying activities, which included a trip to the White House.
The success of the Expropriation Act of 2025 will largely depend on how it is implemented If handled transparently and efficiently, the Act has the potential to correct historical injustices, promote economic inclusion, and create a more balanced society. However, if the process is politically manipulated, rushed, or poorly managed, it could harm investor confidence, exacerbate social tensions, and lead to unintended economic consequences.
One of the key challenges will be ensuring that expropriated land is effectively utilized. There have been past instances where land reform projects failed due to lack of resources, training, and infrastructure support. Without adequate planning and investment, the redistribution of land may not translate into tangible economic benefits, thereby weakening public trust in the policy Moreover, the government must find a way to balance land reform with economic stability. While redistribution is necessary for justice, protecting property rights and maintaining investor confidence is also crucial
for economic growth Policies that offer incentives for voluntary land transfers, support for new landowners, and mechanisms to prevent corruption could help achieve this balance.
The Expropriation Act of 2025 marks a pivotal moment in South Africa's post-apartheid history, aiming to correct historical wrongs, advance economic change, and create a more inclusive society. However, competent execution, open governance, and a well-rounded strategy that takes into account both historical justice and economic stability are necessary for its success.
Trump’s DEI Rollbacks: What Even is MERITOCRACY?
by: Pauline Usuanlele
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” This order mandates placing all federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) staff on leave and rescinding policies that promote affirmative action and diversity programs. It has also created a chain reaction in the rollback of longstanding equal opportunity initiatives within notable companies such as Google and Meta, which have discarded their diversity hiring targets and DEI programs.
There have been mixed reactions in the media regarding this mandate that have sparked discussions of whether or not DEI has any societal benefits. Despite this uptake in DEI discussions, people seem to misunderstand what DEI initiatives were created for and who they help the most. So, before we bury DEI at the command of the Trump administration, we must first ask: who benefits and who loses from its demise?
The people supporting the dismantlement of blah
DEI initiatives seem to believe that these initiatives are just there to fulfill diversity quotas that end up forcing companies to hire uneducated minorities Critics of this new mandate argue that DEI initiatives were designed to address historical and systemic practices of inequality in hiring, job promotions, and the general workplace environment. The biggest aspect of these initiatives was to hold corporations accountable. It forced them to provide equal opportunities for career advancement, such as mentorship and leadership training, to women and minorities who have been locked out of the ‘old boys club’ that provided special access to opportunities and advancement within fields and corporations. Historically, admissions and promotions have been arranged in private rooms that not everyone had access to, so the outrage when people say, ‘Let’s open these rooms to everyone ’ is interesting. It is also interesting how they cry about affirmative action and believe that they somehow deserve to have private access to opportunities and certain levels of education because they worked harder to earn it, but then bb
don’t find it odd that when they sit in their medical school classes and find that the majority of their peers have doctors or politicians for parents. Where’s the outcry of meritocracy here or does it only come up when the person in question is coloured?
This leads me to my thoughts on meritocracy, something vehemently supported by the Trump administration and its supporters. I believe that many of these people truly have no clue what meritocracy is I firsthand have sat and listened as the children of lawyers, businessmen, and CEOs look me in the eye as I sit in the same classes as them and average the same grades as them and insinuate that I only received admissions and scholarships to university because of DEI. As I sit there, it becomes increasingly clear that the problem is that they have never been taught what meritocracy or DEI is If they had, then they would know that DEI is not about handouts but levelling the playing field so those who don’t have access to special privileges and advantages can have a chance to advance in their respective fields as well. So, wanting to take what little education is taught about DEI out of classrooms and workplaces is scary and dangerous. Uneducated children grow up to be uneducated leaders and decisionmakers who contribute to or cause the problems the U.S. is currently facing.
An important issue that critics have also raised about Trump’s rollbacks is the economic risks that may arise from them. The Boston Consulting Group has found that companies with more diversity in leadership teams have a higher average of innovation, improved financial performance, and a higher operating margin They attribute these results to the diverse thinking and decision-making that a diverse leadership team provides. Additionally, Gen-Z and Millennial workers are shown to favour workplaces that prioritize diversity and inclusion, as they see it as a safer work environment. As such, they may avoid companies that have chosen to dismantle their blah
DEI programs, resulting in these companies potentially losing out on top talent from these generations.
But besides these economic issues, the biggest concern right now for the U.S. is that these rollbacks in the workplace will result in increased opposition to civil rights efforts and affect policies in healthcare and education, as well as create new barriers to progress for those who have been historically hindered by systemic policies. Efforts to provide equal opportunities in all parts of society will be undone by Trump’s initiatives, bringing the U.S. on the path back to the days of segregation that civil rights activists fought so hard to free the country from. Global companies that prioritize DEI may see the U.S. as moving backward, potentially causing them to step back from their partnerships and investments, which further harms not only the U.S. economy but could affect their image and the respect they command on an international stage. If DEI rollbacks continue unchecked, the nation risks not only economic stagnation but also a dangerous cultural regression. The dismantling of these programs signals to marginalized communities that their struggles for equality were merely temporary concessions rather than permanent progress, threatening to unravel decades of hard-fought gains.
In light of these developments, it is clear that dismantling DEI initiatives is not merely a shift in hiring practices but a fundamental retreat from decades of progress in civil rights and economic innovation. Without robust DEI programs, marginalized communities risk being excluded from opportunities that drive both individual success and broader societal advancement. If we fail to recognize that diversity is not about giving preferential treatment but about levelling the playing field for all, we set the stage for renewed segregation and stagnation in a rapidly evolving global economy. Ultimately, preserving DEI is not just a moral imperative—it is a strategic necessity for a thriving, inclusive future.
The Problem With The Mainstream Conceptualization of Intersectionality
by: Yamna Asim
Intersectionality is increasingly becoming a mainstream concept as evident by its invocation in discussions involving politics, employment, healthcare, and more. Yet this increasing awareness doesn’t negate the problem inherent within the mainstream conceptualization of intersectionality, which is that it downplays or ignores the discrimination and oppression experienced by Black men.
Intersectionality is understood as a theoretical framework that explains how various aspects of individual identity, like race, gender, social class, sexuality and more, intersect to create unique experiences of privilege or oppression. Kimberlé Crenshaw, an American civil rights advocate and critical race theory scholar, developed the concept of intersectionality in a 1989 article, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.” She conceptualized intersectionality as a theoretical framework that explained how Black women experienced unique forms of discrimination due to the combination blah
of their race and gender In making this claim, Crenshaw described a hierarchy of privilege.
In this hierarchy, White men are at the top, meaning that due to the combination of their race and gender, they are seen as being the most privileged group in society. Black men are second as though their race can be disadvantageous for them; their gender means that they are able to extract privileges from the patriarchal tendencies of our society. White women are third as their gender puts them at a disadvantage, but their race means that they are able to extract privileges from the racist tendencies of our society. This puts Black women at the bottom of the hierarchy as they are unable to extract privileges from either their gender or race This hierarchy of privilege sounds compelling, but the field of Black Male Studies disapproves of its structuring.
Deriving from Black Studies, Black Male Studies is a new and growing interdisciplinary field that is specifically focused on analyzing Black men and boys, particularly Black masculinity and Black
manhood Prominent scholars within this field, like Tommy J. Curry and Adebayo Oluwayomi, have argued that intersectionality is a heuristic and, as such, fails as a theoretical framework because in placing Black men second on this privilege hierarchy, their experiences with discrimination and oppression aren’t properly accounted for, and as such, are either ignored or erased The argument here is that similar to Black women, Black men also aren’t able to extract privileges from their either gender or race. This statement in no way ignores or invalidates the discrimination and oppression Black women go through; rather, it argues that Black men aren’t the privileged group that most people seem to think they are, and in this privilege hierarchy, they are at a similar or in some cases, even lower level than Black women
The Social Dominance Theory (SDT) is particularly important within the Black Male Studies field. This theory argues that there is an intergroup of social hierarchy and oppression, meaning that societies are structured in a way that includes some people and excludes others. This ingroup/outgroup aspect can cause conflict within groups and SDT argues that this intergroup conflict is primarily driven by men. This latter statement gave rise to another theory called the Subordinate Male Target Hypothesis (SMTH), which argues that there is evidence showing that intergroup aggression is primarily a male enterprise, meaning that aggression is thus directed at outgroup males rather than outgroup females. In this case, Black men rather than Black women
Employing a historical empirical analysis, Black Male Studies scholars have shown that Black men were victims of more violent forms of social oppression like lynching during slavery and the Jim Crow era. Black men were also victims of sexual discrimination and violence, as through the Black male rapist myth, they were constructed as violent sexual predators and subjected to horrific violence like bodily mutilations and lynchings. But, at the same time, d
they were also sexually desired by both White men and women and were victims of sexual violence, including rape. This shows that patriarchy and the privilege it bestows on the male gender didn’t extend to Black men–something that continues to be an unfortunate reality for Black men today.
In his article, “The Man-Not and the Inapplicability of Intersectionality to the Dilemmas of Black Manhood,” Adebayo Oluwayomi poignantly wrote, “The killing of Black males is something that is almost becoming a regular feature of everyday life in the United States.” Research done by Brady: United Against Gun Violence found that young Black men aged 18-24 are 23 times more likely to die by firearm homicide than their white male peers They also found that young Black women in the same age group are over 8.5 times less likely to die by firearm homicide than their fellow young Black men. These statistics support both the SDT and SMTH theory that intergroup aggression is more violent towards outgroup males than outgroup females.
Regarding sexual violence, it has already been noted that racialized and queer people are at a higher risk of being victims of sexual violence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reported that nearly one in five Black men in the U.S. experienced some form of sexual violence. There has been a growing acknowledgement of Black men as victims of sexual violence Still, due to the negative stereotypes associated with the race and gender of Black men, like the Black male rapist myth, these Black men aren’t socially perceived to be victims of sexual violence. This denial and subsequent erasure of their experiences means that they aren’t afforded the same safe places and resources to express their experiences and get help
Intersectionality is an important theory as it sheds light on how intersecting factors like race of
and gender can have an impact on the treatment of specific groups within a society. But, intersectionality can’t be an effective theory if it miscategorizes an entire racial and gendered segment of the population as having certain privileges when empirical analyses have shown otherwise. Sex-based discrimination and oppression is an unfortunate reality for Black men that can’t be downplayed or outright ignored, and until this fact is properly understood, intersectionality fails to be a theoretical framework that can be used in political and other important discussions to accurately assess sites of privilege and oppression.