My idea is that comfort zones would be more contracted in the south, midwest, northern, and mountain regions. I believe this because of two possibilities: either the history of racial prejudice in those areas or the lack of a substantial minority population. On the other hand I would expect more expansive zones of comfort for minority students in other areas due to sizeable minority populations or the tendency of those regions to be more racially tolerant and the perceived "liberal" nature of the universities in the states that are included in those classifications. While these would probably produce wide-sweeping generalities, it might provide us with somewhere to start. This would be an interesting study because of how universities across the board have been pushing diversity as a selling point (see SLU's propaganda). I am wondering what you all think about a study built on this premise and/or your assumptions about the possible data outcomes?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Comfort Zones at Universities in Different Geographic Regions
In examining the paper composed by Handler about comfort zones on the campus of the University of Virginia, I became intrigued at the role of regionalism because UVA is located in the south. I began to ponder what might happen if there were studies conducted randomly at other campuses in different geographic regions (of course some controls would have to be put in place for this to be at all reliable, and even then this would be an arduous undertaking) to see if there are regional differences in how student minorities define their comfort zones and the reason for them. I was thinking of dividing up the United States into the regions of: northeast, mid-atlantic, south, midwest, southwest, northern, mountain, and pacific.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
What if comfort zone means being with people of some other race?
My understanding of the definition of comfort zone is that it is a space shared by a group of people who are at ease with one another. They may not have to know each other but all of them share something in common, most commonly race, which allow them to blend in. This is often a way of self-segregation and psychologizing “other,” race, and ethnicity.
It is thus common to assume that comfort zones, those that are based on race at least, are between people of the same race. But is that really the case? If you take an African American middle-class girl, who has gone to an all white school and lived in an all white neighborhood all her life, for example, she probably would feel really uncomfortable if you stuck her in a group of all black students. While she may appears to be blending in physically to an outsider because of her skin color, through her own eyes that have always seen only white people, she would feel like the only goose in a group of ducks. And yet, if she is in a group of white students, those white students who don’t know her would think she is sticking out like a sore thumb. So where is this girl comfort zone? Does she not have a racially based comfort zone then?
I speak of this through my own experience. Growing up in America, I never really see a large group of Vietnamese congregating at one place. So when I was little, whenever I go with my parents to some Vietnamese event, I never felt really comfortable b/c the scene was not familiar to me. I was more comfortable with a crowd of white and black people b/c those are people who I see at school, never mind the fact that would probably be the only Asian in the crowd. Even cultural and social clubs that I join, my comfort zones, are filled with people of diverse background so I never really have a racialized comfort zone.
If I really have to choose, I would say that being in a racially diverse group/place makes me feel most comfortable, like I am blending in. So what do you guys think? Does racialized comfort zone have to be one w/ people of the same race? If it is not, then does that make it a racialized comfort zone? If the answer is yes for the first question, then where does that leave people like that girl in my hypothetical scenario and myself?
It is thus common to assume that comfort zones, those that are based on race at least, are between people of the same race. But is that really the case? If you take an African American middle-class girl, who has gone to an all white school and lived in an all white neighborhood all her life, for example, she probably would feel really uncomfortable if you stuck her in a group of all black students. While she may appears to be blending in physically to an outsider because of her skin color, through her own eyes that have always seen only white people, she would feel like the only goose in a group of ducks. And yet, if she is in a group of white students, those white students who don’t know her would think she is sticking out like a sore thumb. So where is this girl comfort zone? Does she not have a racially based comfort zone then?
I speak of this through my own experience. Growing up in America, I never really see a large group of Vietnamese congregating at one place. So when I was little, whenever I go with my parents to some Vietnamese event, I never felt really comfortable b/c the scene was not familiar to me. I was more comfortable with a crowd of white and black people b/c those are people who I see at school, never mind the fact that would probably be the only Asian in the crowd. Even cultural and social clubs that I join, my comfort zones, are filled with people of diverse background so I never really have a racialized comfort zone.
If I really have to choose, I would say that being in a racially diverse group/place makes me feel most comfortable, like I am blending in. So what do you guys think? Does racialized comfort zone have to be one w/ people of the same race? If it is not, then does that make it a racialized comfort zone? If the answer is yes for the first question, then where does that leave people like that girl in my hypothetical scenario and myself?
An interesting experience
I just got back from a run. My usual loop is down lindell and back on west pine. This involves dodging moving vehicles and the many pedestrians walking around on the sidewalk. As any polite individual would do one usually indicated that they are passing or going around another individual by saying to your left (or right) or excuse me. On my way back down west pine I had to dodge my way around a group of African-American individuals hanging out, outside a residence. As I made my way around them I said excuse me as I would any other group of people I cut around. As I passed this group however one woman in the group started yelling after me what did you say girl, what did you say. And continued to ask the others in the group loud enough that I could still hear her down the street what I had said. This interaction bothered me. I was under the impression that I was treating the group of people with respect because I was being polite and the woman automatically assumed I had said something racist by her response to my actions. I didn't understand how this woman could assume that because I even though to say something to the group and that I was white made me a racist. We talked in class about how minorities can not be racist because they are the othered group. However, this is a clear example of how individuals who are minorities can be racist against what is considered a majority. The woman was racist in assuming because I was white I would have made a racist comment. Is this me assuming that is what she through or was I interpreting her anger and yelling at me correct?
What about the category of "Brown"?
While reading Hartigan and other assigned texts that focus on whiteness and blackness as relational identities, especially in relation to one another, I have thought about what might be in between. Especially after I made a sarcastic generalization about "white people" the other day to one of my friends who asked me what the hell I considered myself to be? And well, if it is all relational, then I am left with only blackness and whiteness to choose from and it is a frustrating concept for someone who, like me, does not necessarily identify with either extreme (even if they are sliding scales). This led to him asking if I considered myself "brown." And, yes, like most mestizos I definitely consider myself part of the "brown" contingent. Yet this term is problematic in the United States because of the many immigrants and race mixing (although not on par with a place like Brazil), so maybe that is why the majority of Hartigan's focus falls on white and black. Also, while an extremely fast growing minority, Hispanics have only more recently become a sizeable player on the national level. So, on the scale of blackness and whiteness I believe that we need to talk about the gray (read: brown) area. There is an interest book that is written by Richard Rodriguez entitled Brown, which is about his experience as neither black nor white growing up in the United States. I hated the book when I read it as a freshman, but now as I look back it was quite a good commentary on the space that exists between black and white. I am one of the "gappers" in this sense. However, even Brown has a sliding scale... I came up with the degree of "brown" for myself as caramelized. There are plenty of other degrees on this scale. While it may also be relational, it has to contend with both of the other relational identities to even achieve legitimacy. Please let me know your thoughts about the concept of "brown" and/or "brownness."
Comfort Zones at SLU
On the SLU Campus, do you feel the presence of comfort zones, whether it is your own comfort zone or someone else’s?
I have been considering this question a lot lately due to our papers and class discussions. However, I am having a hard time really seeing our campus as divided according to race and/or culture. One that I am truly aware of is the Cross Cultural Center in the BSC. Whenever I walk by the CCC, I notice only black students. I also notice that most of the times that I come in contact with Chinese students, they are using the study spaces that are placed throughout campus (Business School atrium and Breakout Rooms; library). The quad is generally filled with white students who are playing ultimate frisbee, or other similar sports.
Many times, I walk through campus and notice that the majority of students are white. Am I looking in all the wrong places? Am I only frequenting the places in which the white students are comfortable?
What do you all think? Are there distinguished comfort zones on SLU's campus?
I have been considering this question a lot lately due to our papers and class discussions. However, I am having a hard time really seeing our campus as divided according to race and/or culture. One that I am truly aware of is the Cross Cultural Center in the BSC. Whenever I walk by the CCC, I notice only black students. I also notice that most of the times that I come in contact with Chinese students, they are using the study spaces that are placed throughout campus (Business School atrium and Breakout Rooms; library). The quad is generally filled with white students who are playing ultimate frisbee, or other similar sports.
Many times, I walk through campus and notice that the majority of students are white. Am I looking in all the wrong places? Am I only frequenting the places in which the white students are comfortable?
What do you all think? Are there distinguished comfort zones on SLU's campus?
Who picks our identity again?
I think we may have hit on this in class, but let's talk about President Obama. I guess we could talk about all mixed race people for that matter, but Obama is one that will go down in history because though he has a white mother and a black father, he is the first BLACK president of the United States. Is this his choice or ours? Our country is so set on trying to be post racism (at least many people are set on this) and we have to show our progression and let everyone know that we are all past that because hey, we have a black man for a president. I think we have already discussed how not post racism this country still is, so I won't go into all of that, but what about identity?
I feel like people that I know who are biracial (in this case black/white) they tend to lean more into their black identity. Perhaps this is because their skin is darker, or their hair is curlier, or because other people just assume they are black, but if they are equally black and white, could they not just as easily say they are white? If we are in charge of our own identities, then we get to choose who we are. I have a friend in Hawaii who is Chinese, Japanese, and German. She always talks about her Chinese grandfathers broken English and learning from him she still cannot pronounce certain words like most other Americans (animal is animo :) ). She also can remember her grandmother yelling at her in German when she would misbehave. However if you asked her to pick one, she would say Japanese. It is her choice.
What if President Obama, instead of leaning toward his black identity, decided to identify white?
I think this would be pretty profound, but I think that the "fellow Americans" as is the presidential phrase, would still mark him the way they see fit. So who really gets to decide?
I feel like people that I know who are biracial (in this case black/white) they tend to lean more into their black identity. Perhaps this is because their skin is darker, or their hair is curlier, or because other people just assume they are black, but if they are equally black and white, could they not just as easily say they are white? If we are in charge of our own identities, then we get to choose who we are. I have a friend in Hawaii who is Chinese, Japanese, and German. She always talks about her Chinese grandfathers broken English and learning from him she still cannot pronounce certain words like most other Americans (animal is animo :) ). She also can remember her grandmother yelling at her in German when she would misbehave. However if you asked her to pick one, she would say Japanese. It is her choice.
What if President Obama, instead of leaning toward his black identity, decided to identify white?
I think this would be pretty profound, but I think that the "fellow Americans" as is the presidential phrase, would still mark him the way they see fit. So who really gets to decide?
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Daily Show
This evening while I was watching a repeat of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, there was a segment that caught my eye. recently I have noticed an increase in the number of shows that have a theme or segment relating to the topic of race. On this particular segment, a 'reporter' named Jason Jones was interviewing this man called 'Moose', who claimed that basketball had lost its connection to what he called the 'fundamentals'. To me this meant dribbling drills and doing lay ups and other assorted basketball moves, so I was confused because all of those occur in the NBA. To solve this dilemma, Moose is trying to set up an alternative NBA basketball league which will focus on these fundamentals that he kept referring to. Like always, this word had to be unpacked because it was a serious case of loaded language.
When he referred to the fundamental he actually meant traditional, so he was only willing to work with white players and coaches, because that was the way basketball used to be. He claimed that Black people were simply too good at basketball to compete with other white people, who according to Moose, play by the more appropriate set of rules. It became crystal clear after this statement that he was a racist, essentially a textbook example. He blamed black people for ruining the game of basketball, and even went so far as to talk down to a black athlete who took part in the segment. He was shocked that this 'boy' talked down to a white guy, and that this was ok in today's society. I was infuriated at this man who was blaming blacks left and right for ruining his all white basketball team in high school, and eventually the sport in general. What do you guys think...?
Single Race
- Is white a single race in the eyes or other races?
It is interesting to think that in the eyes of the white race the black race is marked as black and therefore appears to be a single race when white as a race is a large spectrum or individuals, ethnicities, and subcategories. Is this because the white race is unmarked and has marked the black race? If it is not the reason do individuals of the black race see the white race as a single race, are the roles reversed? In my opinion the roles are not reversed. Some individuals from the black race may see and understand white race and a single race however the black race sees themselves as a spectrum and understands that to be true for other races. I believe this is because they are marked. They see what is true, not ideas created because a group is marked in society. Because the white race does the marking all they see are the ideas associated with being marker rather than ideas about the entire race of people. Therefore, I believe that markedness and unmarkedness effect how individuals or an entire race sees society and understands other people and races around them.
SLU's "comfort zones"
- Does SLU experience racial segregations in groups or areas on campus?
In my opinion SLU experiences “comfort zones” or segregations of races in areas and groups on campus. This is seen in the dorms, especially as incoming freshman. Many exchange students choose to live in community floors, which are located in Reinert. Therefore, that dorm is more racially diverse. Similarly, places to hangout on campus are segregated because of the locations of the dorms and the students that live in either of the dorms. The quad is used by freshman that live in Gries where students in Reiners do not walk to the quad and used the ball/meeting room as a place to hang out or have activities. Therefore, the minority students are rarely seen in the quad. Another place that is segregated is the library, by floors. It is known that the fourth floor of the library is set-aside for Greek students that use the library as a space to socialize. Similarly, other floors draw other people as well as certain sections on certain floors. Lastly, clubs are often segregated. This is mostly seen in the culturally diversity area in the BSC where many minority students hang out. It is rare to see a group of white students hanging out in there. This is not necessarily the goal of the cultural diversity program however, as discussed in the UVA article many people feel uncomfortable in areas where the roles or marked and unmarked are reversed. This may cause separation in areas bases on race on SLU’s campus.
Discussion Questions #4
1. Is the healthcare reform discourse revealing a racist undertone present in the United States?
I believe that this bill is now truly showcasing the unfortunate situation of racism and discrimination in the United States. As the only western country without comprehensive healthcare, it boggles my mind that all of these TEA party activists are incited to violence over a bill designed to make their lives better. However, like many have seen, poor white citizens have been tricked into believing that they have the same interests as the rich whites. In reality, blacks and other minority groups have more in common with the poor whites than they believe, but the inherent racist nature of the institutions in this country have fooled these white people into becoming the adversaries of poor blacks. Like in Detroit, when those hillbillies said that 'race is done over there', showcases that these similar groups with common goals are actually adversaries, if only in a constructed manner.
2. What is a 'black agenda'?
This question for me appeared very obvious, but upon further thought and contemplation, this is another talking point used to prevent progressive activity. An agenda focused on improving the lives of black people would naturally improve the lives of the rest of the nation as well. By uplifting the black population, naturally other groups would benefit too because this idea could re-generate the middle class in America, which is disappearing every day. By calling the agenda 'black' it becomes marked as something negative and exclusionary to other people, but in reality the only people who would not enjoy the affects of this agenda are the very powerful elites that run the country and benefit from the institutions that perpetuate the inequality.
Race and Impression Management
The discussion about being “too black” vs. being “not black enough” made me consider the idea of impression management. As members of specific races, do we work to maintain a specific impression that aligns with our race?
This is such a broad question. I guess in many ways, people maintain a specific impression (clothing, hair style, speech, etc.) that may or may not align with their race. Do individuals feel that it is important to portray themselves as belonging to a particular race? Is it more important to maintain the impression if you are part of a marked group versus an unmarked group?
In relation to appearance, I thought about the obvious clothing styles and hair styles. It seems that there are specific brands that are created with the intention of catering to specific races. Like Johanna mentioned earlier, FUBU caters to the black community, while Lacoste caters to the white community. I feel that many individuals wear brands as a way of establishing their identity. To wear a brand that is associated with a specific race is a way of making a statement about their racial identity and attitude about their racial identity.
However, I have often noticed individuals from races that present themselves in a manner that is antithetical to the stereotypes. This correlates to the idea of being “not black enough.” To a more extreme, it even correlates to the idea of passing. Individuals may view negative stereotypes associated with some races (including their own); therefore, they try to present themselves in a more positive light, even if it means they must present themselves as someone else.
Additionally, I feel that members of marked groups tend to make a bigger deal of maintaining a specific impression, whether it aligns with their race or not. I feel that as members of marked groups, individuals have a greater desire to create a racial identity versus members of unmarked groups.
This is such a broad question. I guess in many ways, people maintain a specific impression (clothing, hair style, speech, etc.) that may or may not align with their race. Do individuals feel that it is important to portray themselves as belonging to a particular race? Is it more important to maintain the impression if you are part of a marked group versus an unmarked group?
In relation to appearance, I thought about the obvious clothing styles and hair styles. It seems that there are specific brands that are created with the intention of catering to specific races. Like Johanna mentioned earlier, FUBU caters to the black community, while Lacoste caters to the white community. I feel that many individuals wear brands as a way of establishing their identity. To wear a brand that is associated with a specific race is a way of making a statement about their racial identity and attitude about their racial identity.
However, I have often noticed individuals from races that present themselves in a manner that is antithetical to the stereotypes. This correlates to the idea of being “not black enough.” To a more extreme, it even correlates to the idea of passing. Individuals may view negative stereotypes associated with some races (including their own); therefore, they try to present themselves in a more positive light, even if it means they must present themselves as someone else.
Additionally, I feel that members of marked groups tend to make a bigger deal of maintaining a specific impression, whether it aligns with their race or not. I feel that as members of marked groups, individuals have a greater desire to create a racial identity versus members of unmarked groups.
So I was at this party...
Over the weekend I went to a party out by my house. Where do I live?? I'm glad you asked: Jefferson County. (Don'ty worry, I've probably heard all the remarks you can make about it...) Anyway, it is my experience at some parties I have attended where the more drunk the guys get, the more racist their jokes become. They all say "C'mon, I'm not racist, I have black friends....but these jokes are just funny" and so on. At the first sign of a racist joke I usually gather my things and leave after giving them a little piece of my mind. (Not everyone out there tells these jokes and usually those that are, are not my friends--I don't want you to get the idea that they are all bad....)
Well, at this most recent party a friend of mine was stirring up trouble, just to get a rise out of people. He was saying that Rush Limbaugh is his idol and that he was crazy about some other well-known guy (whose name escapes me right now....) who is pretty annoying. I was laughing because I could see that a new face in the group did not understand that he was joking and was getting really heated up about all that. People started telling jokes and they were getting close to the edge of "I'm not ok with that" so I said very loudly that if anyone throws out a racist joke I'm outta there. Well this guy looked at me and asked if I was really that up tight....and I simply said "No, I just don't put up with it". No racist jokes were told.
But I was wondering about this guy's comment "are you that up tight?" -- it just stuck with me since then. Maybe it just bothers me that it would be the first thought that came to him...that just because I don't support racist jokes I must be up tight. If I'm up tight, I'm not cool? I need to loosen up? I don't belong? I don't care what he thinks about me, but I am just wondering what that is supposed to mean. Have any of you ever been given a hard time for NOT being racist?
Well, at this most recent party a friend of mine was stirring up trouble, just to get a rise out of people. He was saying that Rush Limbaugh is his idol and that he was crazy about some other well-known guy (whose name escapes me right now....) who is pretty annoying. I was laughing because I could see that a new face in the group did not understand that he was joking and was getting really heated up about all that. People started telling jokes and they were getting close to the edge of "I'm not ok with that" so I said very loudly that if anyone throws out a racist joke I'm outta there. Well this guy looked at me and asked if I was really that up tight....and I simply said "No, I just don't put up with it". No racist jokes were told.
But I was wondering about this guy's comment "are you that up tight?" -- it just stuck with me since then. Maybe it just bothers me that it would be the first thought that came to him...that just because I don't support racist jokes I must be up tight. If I'm up tight, I'm not cool? I need to loosen up? I don't belong? I don't care what he thinks about me, but I am just wondering what that is supposed to mean. Have any of you ever been given a hard time for NOT being racist?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Discussion Question #2 (Discussion set #4)
In what circumstances/contexts do certain phrases and words take up a derogatory meaning?
In the Brown article, the term "half-caste" is used to describe someone who is the son or daughter of a biracial couple. It seems to carry with it, however, a negative connotation as it implies that the individual is neither fully one or the other. This implies, in a way, that the individual is something less.
This term, when used in African countries such as Nigeria, is used more as a description about someone--a description to their race, not anything insulting. It is more of a characeristic--like being tall or short.
My question is, what makes a term or phrase derogatory in one context and not in another? Does it matter who says what and to whom it is directed? Is it widely understood what the term means and the different contexts in which it can be used?
In the Brown article, the term "half-caste" is used to describe someone who is the son or daughter of a biracial couple. It seems to carry with it, however, a negative connotation as it implies that the individual is neither fully one or the other. This implies, in a way, that the individual is something less.
This term, when used in African countries such as Nigeria, is used more as a description about someone--a description to their race, not anything insulting. It is more of a characeristic--like being tall or short.
My question is, what makes a term or phrase derogatory in one context and not in another? Does it matter who says what and to whom it is directed? Is it widely understood what the term means and the different contexts in which it can be used?
Question #1 (Discussion Questions set #4)
Throughout our discussion we have come to realize that whiteness and blackness lie on, sort of a, continuum--meaning there are many factors contributing to race such as symbols and people's embodiment of those symbols. When people of other races refer to each other as acting "white", does that give the notion that being white is defined in only one way?
I feel that labeling someone as acting "white" gives the notion that there is a single, white culture that is practiced by everyone who is classified as being white. But throughout our readings, we have seen that that's not true and that geography, social class, and education contribute to a person's identity.
By saying that someone who is not white is acting "white", does that imply that that person is doing something that only white people are perceived as doing? I know that we have talked about President Obama and how some perceive him to not be "black enough" because he attended Ivy League School Harvard (composed of majority white students) and has a very eloquent and articulate speech habit. But is these are things that "acting white" is based upon, there are millions of white people who have not attended Ivy League schools, or any schooling at all for that matter, and who cannot communicate their ideas properly or eloquently.
Are there certain practices that mark white people? I remember someone bringing an example in class earlier on the semester about how white girls who run cross country usually have their hair tied in a pony tail with ribbons in it in addition to wearing certain kinds of sportswear. I certainly know the picture, I used to run cross country and noticed this all the time! But it doesn't mean that everyone does this. This example just highlights what happens to be, in my opinion, one kind of white racial identity. But then again, I cannot say that only white girls do tie thier hair in a pony tail with ribbons.
Is "acting white" then used to describe someone who does not partake in their ethnic or racial identity? But even here there are exceptions. There are many white people with different ethnic identities. These people may be racially white, but practice different ways of life, traditions, and culture.
What do you guys think?
I feel that labeling someone as acting "white" gives the notion that there is a single, white culture that is practiced by everyone who is classified as being white. But throughout our readings, we have seen that that's not true and that geography, social class, and education contribute to a person's identity.
By saying that someone who is not white is acting "white", does that imply that that person is doing something that only white people are perceived as doing? I know that we have talked about President Obama and how some perceive him to not be "black enough" because he attended Ivy League School Harvard (composed of majority white students) and has a very eloquent and articulate speech habit. But is these are things that "acting white" is based upon, there are millions of white people who have not attended Ivy League schools, or any schooling at all for that matter, and who cannot communicate their ideas properly or eloquently.
Are there certain practices that mark white people? I remember someone bringing an example in class earlier on the semester about how white girls who run cross country usually have their hair tied in a pony tail with ribbons in it in addition to wearing certain kinds of sportswear. I certainly know the picture, I used to run cross country and noticed this all the time! But it doesn't mean that everyone does this. This example just highlights what happens to be, in my opinion, one kind of white racial identity. But then again, I cannot say that only white girls do tie thier hair in a pony tail with ribbons.
Is "acting white" then used to describe someone who does not partake in their ethnic or racial identity? But even here there are exceptions. There are many white people with different ethnic identities. These people may be racially white, but practice different ways of life, traditions, and culture.
What do you guys think?
Race and the NCAA Tournament
I am an avid sports fan, and March is one of the best times of year. The NCAA tournament is one of the best displays of athleticism, basketball fundamentals, and strategy that one can enjoy. St. Louis has been lucky enough to be part of the rotation that hosts the tournament. This year, the tournament has seen a rash of upsets. Some of the most publicized have been when smaller schools upset larger athletic programs (see Kansas losing to Northern Iowa or Kansas State losing to Butler). Commentators and sports writers have produced many different opinions on why such upsets, and so many of them, are occurring.
What has caught my attention is the focus that has been put on the athleticism that the larger programs that are comprised of predominantly African American players versus the more fundamentally sound and "whiter" teams that can be found at smaller programs. It has basically become a debate about race for many bloggers that work for CBS Sports online division and I have even heard mention of it on ESPN. I was curious as to what your reactions to the racialization of this issue, because I do not often hear about a debate in baseball or soccer teams have an advantage by having more Hispanic players. Personally, I have not found such a debate. Many of the racial debates regarding sports in this country have fallen by the wayside. For example, the NFL has moved on from the days in which the black quarterbacks were deemed not intelligent enough to run a complex offensive scheme. If anyone else has any insight on race and sports, I would like to hear it, or the idea of placing whites against blacks on and off the court.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
George Bush in Haiti
http://necolebitchie.com/2010/03/25/bush-still-doesnt-like-black-people
What do you guys think of this? People are assuming that him touching Clinton was him wiping off the handshake of one of the Haitian guys in this video, leading many to claim that he "doesn't like black people" or is racist. This is just one article; there are hundreds more on this little buzz.
I think that the action was unnecessary, but don't really see it as something that should be reduced to a racial issue. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit...!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
My President is Black
Here are the lyrics to a (quite catchy) Young Jeezy song called "My President is Black":
Despite its occasional shortcomings, I think this song has some good lines. The third verse is most interesting to me, rapped by Nas: in the first few lines, I think what he's saying is that blacks have always been neglected and ignored by the white-run government. In response to not being included in mainstream decisions, or at least feeling that way, he claims that blacks have had to pursue alternative means to achieve their goals without any thought of a government that didn't represent them. He continues to say that anyone who breaks through from these weights that tie down most blacks--Obama, in this case--deserves to have a hype created around them and can set some sort of an example to others. In addition, Nas and Young Jeezy both mention the "realness" of the words in the song; it makes me wonder if they can really say something deeper than what they've alluded to, but have to hide it behind a mask of overused rap words and cliche lines to make it appealing to the audience who buys the music. Would it be "not black enough" if they just wrote a piece stating plainly what they think about the issue of race as it concerns the government? Let me know what you guys think!
Story + Question
When I was in middle school, I bought a pair of shoes that I thought were cool. They were FUBU brand. I went to school the next day, and while I was waiting in the lunch line a group of black girls at a nearby table were looking my way and were whispering (loudly), "Who does she think she is, wearing those?"
Now, as a 14-year-old girl, I wasn't one to start confrontations or who had any intentions of being something I wasn't. However, it seemed that I wasn't aware of something that others were: the clothing I worse meant something, and did more than cover my skin. I guess I knew that Fubu was a "black brand" (folks had said it meant "For Us By Us"), but I didn't see why I couldn't wear them. They were cool, for God's sake.
As we have talked about in class, certain clothing (and brand names) and other products have become, and have always been, racialized. Why do you think that is? For a company like FUBU, it must have something to do with what the owners envisioned (giving back to the African-American community). But what about more generalized things? Like grape drank in Dave Chappelle's video? Is it mostly stereotype, or does it have some other roots? My simple answer is to narrow it down factors like cost and availability in certain stores, but I'd like to hear you guys's ideas and thoughts about it.
Intertwining Identities
Here's something I was thinking about in class on Tuesday as we were discussing being "too black" or "not black enough". We said that these differences usually, to our knowledge, appear in a black discourse, perhaps because there's an idea that as an outsider to that labelled group they cannot participate in it and have knowledge about it. I was remembering my high school and a large presence of white students who "acted black": from fashion to speech patterns, they related more with an African-American identity than with a "white" one.
Where do these people fit in? They seem to surpass the distinction of being "too black" or "not black enough", like these things don't apply to them. However, they were still accepted by the black community and often excluded by whites. Is this an example of how race and identity become intertwined with the socioeconomic aspects of a small Midwestern city?
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Black Agenda
I was watching CNN this morning, particularly because I was following up with the commentary concerning the new Health Care Reform Bill that just passed. In between the commentary, there were of course a few other headline stories. One of which really caught my attention and I wish I didn't have to rush off to class because I would have like to stay longer and listen to it.
There was a discussion about whether or not President Obama needs to develop a Black Agenda and how successful has he been in carrying one out. According to the Washington Post, "The Rev. Al Sharpton broke with other prominent black leaders to criticize Tavis Smiley's "We Count! The Black Agenda is the American Agenda" conference taking place in Chicago this weekend, saying the PBS commentator would use it to criticize President Obama even though he didn't subject the last Democratic president to the same scrutiny" (Harris, Washington Post).
The gentlemen speaking this morning on CNN repeatedly advocated the need for the President to take his duty in making sure that there is a Black Agenda. Also according to the Washington Post, "while Jesse Jackson praised Obama for being "committed to representing all of America," he said that the Congressional Black Caucus also has the right to voice criticism if members think the president is not doing enough" (Harris, Washington Post). But what is the Black Agenda? And does the fact that it is so termed mark and categorize people further?
The anchorwoman this morning was asking the men why a Black agenda under President Obama is distinguishable from a hypothetical "female agenda" that could technically be raised if Hillary Clinton were to be elected president. Furthermore, what distinguishes a Black Agenda from a Gay/Lesbian, Latino, or Asian agenda? The men speaking this morning raised the issue that a Black Agenda is needed because there seems to be a "certain crisis in the African-American community that needs to be addressed". But isn't there a crisis in every community?
Do people expect there to be a black agenda simply because they see our President as a black man? I really think this entire discussion is interesting, especially in the light of our lecture last Thursday. We talked about how many fail to see Obama as multi-racial or mixed. The majority of people often perceive Obama as only one--that he is a black man. So does the fact that Obama's father is African give Obama more credibility in the eyes of others to address issues and carry out a Black Agenda? Shouldn't every president and leader strive to address the issues of their constituency regardless?
What do you guys think? Also, here is the article from the Washington Post and also a commentary I found interesting.
http://voice.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/its-shaprton-vs-jackson-on-smi.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.tavistalks.com/we-count-black-agenda-american-agenda
There was a discussion about whether or not President Obama needs to develop a Black Agenda and how successful has he been in carrying one out. According to the Washington Post, "The Rev. Al Sharpton broke with other prominent black leaders to criticize Tavis Smiley's "We Count! The Black Agenda is the American Agenda" conference taking place in Chicago this weekend, saying the PBS commentator would use it to criticize President Obama even though he didn't subject the last Democratic president to the same scrutiny" (Harris, Washington Post).
The gentlemen speaking this morning on CNN repeatedly advocated the need for the President to take his duty in making sure that there is a Black Agenda. Also according to the Washington Post, "while Jesse Jackson praised Obama for being "committed to representing all of America," he said that the Congressional Black Caucus also has the right to voice criticism if members think the president is not doing enough" (Harris, Washington Post). But what is the Black Agenda? And does the fact that it is so termed mark and categorize people further?
The anchorwoman this morning was asking the men why a Black agenda under President Obama is distinguishable from a hypothetical "female agenda" that could technically be raised if Hillary Clinton were to be elected president. Furthermore, what distinguishes a Black Agenda from a Gay/Lesbian, Latino, or Asian agenda? The men speaking this morning raised the issue that a Black Agenda is needed because there seems to be a "certain crisis in the African-American community that needs to be addressed". But isn't there a crisis in every community?
Do people expect there to be a black agenda simply because they see our President as a black man? I really think this entire discussion is interesting, especially in the light of our lecture last Thursday. We talked about how many fail to see Obama as multi-racial or mixed. The majority of people often perceive Obama as only one--that he is a black man. So does the fact that Obama's father is African give Obama more credibility in the eyes of others to address issues and carry out a Black Agenda? Shouldn't every president and leader strive to address the issues of their constituency regardless?
What do you guys think? Also, here is the article from the Washington Post and also a commentary I found interesting.
http://voice.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/its-shaprton-vs-jackson-on-smi.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.tavistalks.com/we-count-black-agenda-american-agenda
Sunday, March 21, 2010
An Observation of Not Being Friendly
On Saturday, I went with a few friends to Purina Farms (about 40 minutes outside of the city) with a group of 11 inner city children (between ages 5 and 15) as a part of a volunteer program. It was a great opportunity to observe and analyze some things we have learned about in this class because all 11 kids we were with were African American and from government housing while probably 98% of the other people at Purina Farms (which had dog shows and baby animal Easter exhibits) were white. The families seemed pretty familiar to me- white, a mom, a dad, an occasional grandparent, equipped with strollers, bags, and cameras while chasing after their kids. My immediate thoughts when we walked into the dog show was "do they feel uncomfortable? Do they even notice the "race" here?" Im sure they hardly noticed it, but it made me wonder how it would have been different had I been with older kids or people my age.
Throughout the day at Purina Farms, I was amazed by how polite and kind they were to each other because none of their parents were there (it is very rare in my experience to go four hours with a group of children and have no one cry or fight, or to witness them hug and be so kind to each other so often.) Which is exactly why when a parent made a rude comment to them while everyone had an opportunity to milk a cow, I felt anger in a situation that I normally would have never attributed to race before this class. To paint a visual picture, imagine a large group of about 30 children (mostly white) with parents hovering and almost pushing to take pictures (ignoring the other children trying to see around them, of course) with very little organization while one farmer was letting every child attempt to milk one cow. Chaos. None of the kids were in a line...and when the social worker we were with noticed this she told our kids to go try to get a turn (they were waiting patiently on the side.) As we approached, one mom said "I'm sorry there is a line" in a rude tone. Why had she not informed the other white children surrounding her preschooler of this fact as well? Were the children I was with not being "friendly" enough? Was she brave enough to say something because she realized they did not have parents there to say anything back to her?? They actually apologized and let her child cut them, and let many other white children cut them as well as if it was normal, and it honestly made me sick to my stomach. Consciously, I do not believe this woman would believe herself to be "racist" but I honestly cannot see another reason for her actions. This class has pointed some very crucial social cues out to me. I hope we can all be advocates for social change and help moments like this end. While this may have been subtle racism... it seemed entirely too blatant for me. We just need more people to see it that way.
Throughout the day at Purina Farms, I was amazed by how polite and kind they were to each other because none of their parents were there (it is very rare in my experience to go four hours with a group of children and have no one cry or fight, or to witness them hug and be so kind to each other so often.) Which is exactly why when a parent made a rude comment to them while everyone had an opportunity to milk a cow, I felt anger in a situation that I normally would have never attributed to race before this class. To paint a visual picture, imagine a large group of about 30 children (mostly white) with parents hovering and almost pushing to take pictures (ignoring the other children trying to see around them, of course) with very little organization while one farmer was letting every child attempt to milk one cow. Chaos. None of the kids were in a line...and when the social worker we were with noticed this she told our kids to go try to get a turn (they were waiting patiently on the side.) As we approached, one mom said "I'm sorry there is a line" in a rude tone. Why had she not informed the other white children surrounding her preschooler of this fact as well? Were the children I was with not being "friendly" enough? Was she brave enough to say something because she realized they did not have parents there to say anything back to her?? They actually apologized and let her child cut them, and let many other white children cut them as well as if it was normal, and it honestly made me sick to my stomach. Consciously, I do not believe this woman would believe herself to be "racist" but I honestly cannot see another reason for her actions. This class has pointed some very crucial social cues out to me. I hope we can all be advocates for social change and help moments like this end. While this may have been subtle racism... it seemed entirely too blatant for me. We just need more people to see it that way.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Racial Stereotypes, Prejudices
Today, I found out that some of my family friends were involved in a car accident that resulted in four deaths. My parents sent me some links to various articles regarding the accident. As I was reading the articles, I noticed several comments on the articles that were filled with racial stereotypes and prejudices. As I continued reading, I became filled with anger at their incorrect stereotypes and prejudices. The accident was caused by a man who entered the turnpike in the wrong direction. He collided head-on with a traveling family. The articles contained the names of the victims; it listed the Korean names of the family. Some of the comments in the article stated that it was their own fault--if they could not read English and follow the signs, then they should not be driving. The comments assumed that because some of the involved parties were not American, it was automatically their fault--because they "obviously" did not speak and/or read English. It was infuriating to me that they would make such a presumption. First of all, the man who was traveling in the wrong direction and ultimately caused the accident was an English-speaking American. Additionally, the family who was hit immigrated to the US several years ago and have embraced the culture and passionately learned the language.
Why is it that people automatically assume that their Korean ethnicity and culture were the root cause of the accident?
Why is it that people automatically assume that their Korean ethnicity and culture were the root cause of the accident?
Census 2010, Friend or Foe?
Today I finally checked the mail, and there was my copy of the Census 2010 that came in an envelope that emphasized that completing and filling out the questionnaire was a legal obligation. I immediately felt individually pressured, even though this is a simple little exercise that is far easier than any standardized test any of us has ever seen. However, on the standardized tests we were allowed to skip a question. It is actually illegal to skip any question on the form, and they will send someone to your house to get any answers one may have omitted.
First I must note, that of the ten questions on the US Census are very general and involve contact information and age and sex classification. Now onto the issue of what questions are included, which ones are excluded, and why certain categories are worded in the manner which they are. One of the first things that caught my eye was that "ethnicity" is not a category and that the US federal government is solely concerned with race; the census website claims that this is because the US Census is not supposed to determine ancestry (that is done by another agency and random sampling) but to determine the composition of the current population. In some of the racial categories I noticed some interesting details... there are more specific options for certain racial categories, normally Hispanic/Latino or Asian, and the appearance of the word "negro", which the US Census claims is used because some of the population still identifies using that word.
The United States of America is trying to better monitor and understand its population, but this document seems to raise more questions than it answers. Which begs the question, is it really helping? I have a hard time feeling like I am represented by these ten limited questions. I know it is for the whole nation, but I can't help but feeling like all the US Census 2010 will do is to reinforce the acceptance of race as a legitimate biological category and its uses in social situations.
After you take a look at the well advertised Census 2010 and fill it out, please let me know what you all think about it.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Homogeneity and Racism: Is there a correlation?
Does the degree of homogeneity in a population affect how people do race? More specifically, does the fact that there are more racial differences in America than in many other countries produces more racist people in America?
Racism seems to be more of a problem here than say… in Japan. But does that mean that Americans are generally more racist than the Japanese? I use Japan as an example in my question because I have notice that in many Japanese anime, manga, and movies that I have watched and read, the streets of New York are often portrayed as a place where black hooligans inevitable roam and they often want to cause some trouble to the protagonists. When I see these portrayals, I couldn’t help but think that Japanese media are even more stereotypical and racist than American media.
You would think that in a place like Japan, where the population is very homogeneous as compared to America, where clashes between people of different races happen less often and where there are fewer cases of people feeling threaten by people of a different race that the racist mentality of the general population wouldn’t run as deep as that in America. However, I think it is otherwise.
The thing is many Japanese and people who live in relatively homogeneous societies are not exposed to people of a difference race as often. Racism is not a big problem because they never feel like their culture or job or school is being invaded by the “others.” However, it is precisely because most of them never have to deal with people of a difference race that they can be rather deep racists without realizing it. First, there is no one to pressure them to feel a sense of wrongness for thinking in racist terms. Second, some of them will never have the chance to personally meet and know a person of a different race; thus, the racial stereotypes they see in their media or western media and believe to be true will never have to chance to be proven otherwise.
So, to answer my own question, I would say no, Americans are no more racist than people of other countries. More racist problems in society do not suggest that people are more racist. In fact, less discussion about racism in other countries does not mean that there is less racism. It may just mean that people do not recognize that racism is a problem in their society. What do you think?
Racism seems to be more of a problem here than say… in Japan. But does that mean that Americans are generally more racist than the Japanese? I use Japan as an example in my question because I have notice that in many Japanese anime, manga, and movies that I have watched and read, the streets of New York are often portrayed as a place where black hooligans inevitable roam and they often want to cause some trouble to the protagonists. When I see these portrayals, I couldn’t help but think that Japanese media are even more stereotypical and racist than American media.
You would think that in a place like Japan, where the population is very homogeneous as compared to America, where clashes between people of different races happen less often and where there are fewer cases of people feeling threaten by people of a different race that the racist mentality of the general population wouldn’t run as deep as that in America. However, I think it is otherwise.
The thing is many Japanese and people who live in relatively homogeneous societies are not exposed to people of a difference race as often. Racism is not a big problem because they never feel like their culture or job or school is being invaded by the “others.” However, it is precisely because most of them never have to deal with people of a difference race that they can be rather deep racists without realizing it. First, there is no one to pressure them to feel a sense of wrongness for thinking in racist terms. Second, some of them will never have the chance to personally meet and know a person of a different race; thus, the racial stereotypes they see in their media or western media and believe to be true will never have to chance to be proven otherwise.
So, to answer my own question, I would say no, Americans are no more racist than people of other countries. More racist problems in society do not suggest that people are more racist. In fact, less discussion about racism in other countries does not mean that there is less racism. It may just mean that people do not recognize that racism is a problem in their society. What do you think?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
White Culture
Hartigan points out that white people have a culture that they are often not aware of despite the fact that "Americanness" equates to whiteness. However, what makes up white culture? All other cultures seem to have common themes that relate them all. Some are stereotypes, while others are unique characteristics that people in that culture tend to cling to. When I personally think of white culture, I am aware that it exists, but I am not sure how it effects me as an individual. I know that white people are born with an advantage, yet trying to figure out how I am tied to a most of the rest of America perplexes me. I am white and middle class, and I understand that there is a culture but I would definitely respond as many of Hartigan's subjects did- by denying a culture or being confused as to what that culture would be. White Americans claim descent from a whole spectrum of European countries or a variety of other countries and most of the time, there is a mix of ethnicities.
I hope not, but am slightly concerned, that the major thing connecting all white Americans is the advantage they are automatically born with. Very few white Americans know how it feels to be in the minority. Does that create an ignorance to the lives of the rest of Americans who are not in the majority? I suppose this could create some kind of cultural bond from the similar experiences and background. Is our culture one that stereotypes say- minivans, soccer moms, business dad, two dogs and a white picket fence? When I look at what makes Americans American, I cannot separate the classic desires (for success, to follow our dreams, to achieve happiness, etc) by skin color, but is this simply because I am white and cannot distinguish "American" from simply "white"??
I hope not, but am slightly concerned, that the major thing connecting all white Americans is the advantage they are automatically born with. Very few white Americans know how it feels to be in the minority. Does that create an ignorance to the lives of the rest of Americans who are not in the majority? I suppose this could create some kind of cultural bond from the similar experiences and background. Is our culture one that stereotypes say- minivans, soccer moms, business dad, two dogs and a white picket fence? When I look at what makes Americans American, I cannot separate the classic desires (for success, to follow our dreams, to achieve happiness, etc) by skin color, but is this simply because I am white and cannot distinguish "American" from simply "white"??
Monday, March 8, 2010
Do we see race as fluid in today's society?
I have been thinking about something for quite some time. When we talk about race in class, we generally are able to discuss race as being more than just a biological and social construction. Of course, we do not say that it is solely one or the other, but we do recognize that there are shades of gray.
An interesting idea regarding race is the concept that we "do" race. There are certain ways of acting, interacting, speaking, etc. that are associated with a particular race in society. But after talking about the idea of "doing" race, we manage to discredit many of the stereotypes.
What I am wondering, and also having trouble with, is being able to think about race as fluid. It seems that we can all do that in class and our discussions provide an outlet that points out the invalid conclusions of mainstream stereotypes. But in one of my sociology classes, race is seen as something more solid. It is used as a category and a marker when observing people and making conclusions regarding their behavior, actions, way of life, etc. For instance, when conducting research, I have been taught that the four independent variables sociologists look out for are gender, class, age, and race. If we are labeling "race" as a variable, are we attributing certain observations solely on race? Doesn't this make the concept of race less fluid? I am having trouble trying to reconcile what we discuss in class with the content of my other classes.
I think we all strive to see race as fluid, but it's hard to realize that there is still so much that goes into race and how it is perceived.
An interesting idea regarding race is the concept that we "do" race. There are certain ways of acting, interacting, speaking, etc. that are associated with a particular race in society. But after talking about the idea of "doing" race, we manage to discredit many of the stereotypes.
What I am wondering, and also having trouble with, is being able to think about race as fluid. It seems that we can all do that in class and our discussions provide an outlet that points out the invalid conclusions of mainstream stereotypes. But in one of my sociology classes, race is seen as something more solid. It is used as a category and a marker when observing people and making conclusions regarding their behavior, actions, way of life, etc. For instance, when conducting research, I have been taught that the four independent variables sociologists look out for are gender, class, age, and race. If we are labeling "race" as a variable, are we attributing certain observations solely on race? Doesn't this make the concept of race less fluid? I am having trouble trying to reconcile what we discuss in class with the content of my other classes.
I think we all strive to see race as fluid, but it's hard to realize that there is still so much that goes into race and how it is perceived.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Rights in Racism
I have a question that has been on mind for quite awhile. I am attending an African American Religious History class where the subject of race seems to give an advantage to generations after the slavery days. Basically asking if it is ok to hold a grudge against white people for enslaving Africans, later converted to Blacks or African Americans, how long is that grudge socially acceptable for both parties. It has been over a hundred years since the Emancipation Proclamation in 1865 and there are still hate crimes, lynching comments, and injustice being done and on the other hand racist comments fly through the air like a fishing rod, any white person in the "hood" goes down, and blacks can never become educated enough to try to compare to the white person they "hate" because they have so much hatred against a generation who was not involved in their ancestrial issues. Who says when it is enough hate going on around the world? Who says when the last word has been drawn? Who is in control of blacks killing off blacks, whites imprisoning blacks, and blacks killing off whites for so called " discrimination or disruption of peace?" How much longer does it take to realize this world will stop spinning and everything in it will go down when we allow everything through the constitution to be acceptable?
I wonder if I am the only one who thinks like this? Am I wrong for thinking that more communication and cooperation needs to be exchanged between the blacks, whites, and mexicans and anyone else who does not fit the American standard of looks, smarts, and citizenship?
I wonder if I am the only one who thinks like this? Am I wrong for thinking that more communication and cooperation needs to be exchanged between the blacks, whites, and mexicans and anyone else who does not fit the American standard of looks, smarts, and citizenship?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Discussion Questions # 3
Can a white person be racialized, if they are considered the unmarked category?
As being seen as the unmarked category may lead some to believe that white people cannot be racialized like other minority groups, but this belief is mostly false, in my opinion. White people, in order to be racialized like other minority groups, need to be placed into a situation where they become the other, much like what might happen in the Cross Cultural Center on campus or at other minority group events where whites are not always perceived as welcome. The conflict arises in that in order for white people to become aware of the issues surrounding white privilege and the how the system is still really unbalanced and unfair to minority groups, the status quo will remain unchanged.
Why do the stereotypes about white people persist in the Orokaiva culture, even when met with contradicting examples, like Bashkow himself?
The Orokaiva have numerous stereotypes surrounding white people, relating to often how they do things and what they eat. These stereotypes have existed since colonial times, when white people first came to Melanesia from Australia and Britain, often in the form of missionaries. The Orokaiva began identifying these new 'other' people by the strange foods they ate, and their ability to lead and acquire wealth, without any hard work. However, obviously the definitions of hard work vary between the cultures, but even after several counter examples of white behavior, shown by people like Bashkow, the Orokaiva still believe their stereotypes and call people like Bashkow exceptions to the rule. I believe that the Orokaiva see white people as fundamentally different from them so they see their activities as opposing ours and vice versa. They maintain the separation of the cultures in their minds and perspectives in order to show that this is their practice, and the 'others', meaning white people, do that stuff. They are interested in maintaining the dichotomy between the white and black people, even though they don't identify differences in race, they do in behavior, especially in relation to work and rootedness to the land and your family.
Discussion Questions #3
1) How does the definition of "Hard work" vary from one culture to the other?
It seems that the definition of "hard work" is contested from one culture to the next. In PNG, Orokaiva regard hard work as what they see as physical labor. You can tell when someone has worked hard as a result of their callused hands and feet, but also by how much produce and taro one has managed to amass. Would we, as Westerners, consider this hard work? I would think so. we tend to think of hard work as something that constitutes time and effort. But would you guys agree that we tend to think of hard work as other efforts? For example, effecting change in society? Working on campaigns, raising awareness? Drafting and changing legislation? Or is hard work solely physical labor? We can all remember teaches in school telling us that even if we did not manage to get that gold star or that A+, as long as we worked hard, our efforts were justified. Does hard work always have to attain something?
2) How does the school you went to afect others' perceptions of your merit?
Hartigan talked about merit in our society and how when considering merit and school, our merits are often based on test scores. we can all agree that there are school systems with better education curriculums than others. But how does the school you went to affect others' perception of your merit? I look back on my high school experience. I completed ninth and tenth grade in a public school in Nashville, TN, where whites were a minority of my school. Most of the people there scored between 19 and 26 on their ACT test. After moving to Iowa I was enrolled in another public school. This secluded, small town consisted of mostly whites and the high school I attended had only a handful of minority students. The ACT score range, in general, was between 25 and 36. There were actually people in the school that managed to score a 36 on the ACT. What was the difference? The difference was not in the racial composition of the high schools. Actually, from my personal experience, my high school in Nashville failed to provide students with adequate teachers who in turn failed to stimulate thinking. There was no structured curriculum and often times, teachers didn't follow up with assignments and tests. Most of the teachers were young college graduates that failed to stay longer than 2 or 3 years at the school. In contrast, most of the teachers in my Iowa high school had been faculty for at least 6 years and some had even taught for more than 30. Having this consistency, in my opinion, fostered a more structured curriculum that challanged students.
But when people ask me about where I went to high school, I always tell them I went to two. I have received some similar responses when mentioning I went to high school in Nashville. Many assume that public schools in the South are not adequate in preparing students for the future. Are people judging?
It seems that the definition of "hard work" is contested from one culture to the next. In PNG, Orokaiva regard hard work as what they see as physical labor. You can tell when someone has worked hard as a result of their callused hands and feet, but also by how much produce and taro one has managed to amass. Would we, as Westerners, consider this hard work? I would think so. we tend to think of hard work as something that constitutes time and effort. But would you guys agree that we tend to think of hard work as other efforts? For example, effecting change in society? Working on campaigns, raising awareness? Drafting and changing legislation? Or is hard work solely physical labor? We can all remember teaches in school telling us that even if we did not manage to get that gold star or that A+, as long as we worked hard, our efforts were justified. Does hard work always have to attain something?
2) How does the school you went to afect others' perceptions of your merit?
Hartigan talked about merit in our society and how when considering merit and school, our merits are often based on test scores. we can all agree that there are school systems with better education curriculums than others. But how does the school you went to affect others' perception of your merit? I look back on my high school experience. I completed ninth and tenth grade in a public school in Nashville, TN, where whites were a minority of my school. Most of the people there scored between 19 and 26 on their ACT test. After moving to Iowa I was enrolled in another public school. This secluded, small town consisted of mostly whites and the high school I attended had only a handful of minority students. The ACT score range, in general, was between 25 and 36. There were actually people in the school that managed to score a 36 on the ACT. What was the difference? The difference was not in the racial composition of the high schools. Actually, from my personal experience, my high school in Nashville failed to provide students with adequate teachers who in turn failed to stimulate thinking. There was no structured curriculum and often times, teachers didn't follow up with assignments and tests. Most of the teachers were young college graduates that failed to stay longer than 2 or 3 years at the school. In contrast, most of the teachers in my Iowa high school had been faculty for at least 6 years and some had even taught for more than 30. Having this consistency, in my opinion, fostered a more structured curriculum that challanged students.
But when people ask me about where I went to high school, I always tell them I went to two. I have received some similar responses when mentioning I went to high school in Nashville. Many assume that public schools in the South are not adequate in preparing students for the future. Are people judging?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Racism: a Bold issue
I feel like we pick out certain topics to discuss in our society. These topics are the bold topics that have had media attention or have been on-going issues throughout our history. Race is one. Others are gender, religion, and sexuality. These are all hot topics that can be discussed for days and usually everyone has an opinion about each one. We mostly try to portray ourselves as not being racist. We look down on people who are, or who are sexist, etc.
In the course of this class I have tried to evaluate my feelings on these issues and I have questioned (due to some confusion in the reading) as to whether Hartigan is telling me that I am a racist or not. As I began to understand and take a sigh of relief that I am not in fact a racist, other things began to dawn on me. There are stereotypes that we all have on groups of people that do not necessarily have anything to do with race or any of the bold topics. People are generally afraid of what they do not understand and then form stereotypes or rumors and develop hatred for these things. This is so much easier to do than actually educate yourself on it and try to understand. I thought that I was a pretty open-minded person because I am accepting of people no matter their race, creed or sex. However there are groups out there that I have made fun of...I admit this and I am ashamed.
For instance, I used to make fun of people who are in sororities or frats. I did not know them, they seemed a certain way to me and I took it as that. I did not try to understand it--I had more fun making fun. But this is how hatred starts, this is how it spreads. I strive to be understanding and open minded, and I am glad that I had to come to this reality so I can change it. So maybe I wasn't being racist, but what difference does that make if I would still pick a group to be prejudiced against?? I do not have to agree with someone else's beliefs, or ways of life, but I can try to understand them and know that just because we are different does not make one better than the other.
I think that when we make fun of others we should really look at what we are saying. It doesn't matter how small or insignificant we think it is, because to whomever you are making fun of, it still hurts.
In the course of this class I have tried to evaluate my feelings on these issues and I have questioned (due to some confusion in the reading) as to whether Hartigan is telling me that I am a racist or not. As I began to understand and take a sigh of relief that I am not in fact a racist, other things began to dawn on me. There are stereotypes that we all have on groups of people that do not necessarily have anything to do with race or any of the bold topics. People are generally afraid of what they do not understand and then form stereotypes or rumors and develop hatred for these things. This is so much easier to do than actually educate yourself on it and try to understand. I thought that I was a pretty open-minded person because I am accepting of people no matter their race, creed or sex. However there are groups out there that I have made fun of...I admit this and I am ashamed.
For instance, I used to make fun of people who are in sororities or frats. I did not know them, they seemed a certain way to me and I took it as that. I did not try to understand it--I had more fun making fun. But this is how hatred starts, this is how it spreads. I strive to be understanding and open minded, and I am glad that I had to come to this reality so I can change it. So maybe I wasn't being racist, but what difference does that make if I would still pick a group to be prejudiced against?? I do not have to agree with someone else's beliefs, or ways of life, but I can try to understand them and know that just because we are different does not make one better than the other.
I think that when we make fun of others we should really look at what we are saying. It doesn't matter how small or insignificant we think it is, because to whomever you are making fun of, it still hurts.
Equality vs. Competition
Something that has been in my mind since last Thursday (2/25) has also been this idea of equality vs. competition. It was only briefly mentioned in class but I think it's a good thing to point out. Equality and competition are two things that we try to stress in our society, or in our culture, however they do conflict with one another.
Equality--we want everyone to be equal no matter their race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. But what does that mean? Equal in what way? For one, we all want the same rights. ok. We all want equal opportunities in the work place, job market, schools, and when buying a home. We know that we still have a ways to go before our wants become reality because there still isn't pure equality in these.
Competition--we value good ol' competition. It drives us to succeed, it separates the strong from the weak. Our culture encourages competition in sports and academics. Be the best you can be and all that. However as we read, money has a lot to do with that. A lot of times money can open the door to more opportunities that can enable a student to prep better for a test (resulting in a better grade), or go to a more challenging school. I know of at least a couple cases where girls were not originally accepted into my high school but admissions changed their mind after their parents made a hefty donation.
We say "where there is a will, there is a way" but sometimes it needs a little help. Sometimes hard work doesn't pay off.
How can we live in a society that values both equality and competition when they contradict each other? Are we actually striving for equality in all cases, or just to make us look like we care? Just because we say we are post racism does not make it so. Just because we say we are equal does not make it happen in our society. Our competition is not exactly fair. We don't have an even playing field here.
So, which do we value more? any votes?
Equality--we want everyone to be equal no matter their race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. But what does that mean? Equal in what way? For one, we all want the same rights. ok. We all want equal opportunities in the work place, job market, schools, and when buying a home. We know that we still have a ways to go before our wants become reality because there still isn't pure equality in these.
Competition--we value good ol' competition. It drives us to succeed, it separates the strong from the weak. Our culture encourages competition in sports and academics. Be the best you can be and all that. However as we read, money has a lot to do with that. A lot of times money can open the door to more opportunities that can enable a student to prep better for a test (resulting in a better grade), or go to a more challenging school. I know of at least a couple cases where girls were not originally accepted into my high school but admissions changed their mind after their parents made a hefty donation.
We say "where there is a will, there is a way" but sometimes it needs a little help. Sometimes hard work doesn't pay off.
How can we live in a society that values both equality and competition when they contradict each other? Are we actually striving for equality in all cases, or just to make us look like we care? Just because we say we are post racism does not make it so. Just because we say we are equal does not make it happen in our society. Our competition is not exactly fair. We don't have an even playing field here.
So, which do we value more? any votes?
American Beauty?
I am not sure if anyone has seen the movie "Precious" but I just watched it this weekend. While the movie has a lot of huge psychological issues in it (including incest... this is not a feel good movie) there were a lot of racial issues that I found pertained to this class. In the movie, Precious (who is 16 and has been abused in almost every way possible in her lifetime) looks in the mirror at one point and imagines herself as a skinny, blonde, white girl which contrasts almost completely from her real image- overweight and African American. The scene made me wonder if Precious's life would have been different if she was white. And sadly, I could not help but to think it would have been. Her white teachers in her urban school might have been able to relate to her better and been able to help her. She might have had a bigger voice if she hadn't been a minority. Her teachers could not relate to her situation and therefore dismissed her as uninterested and defiant. They were not capable of seeing the big picture. Beyond this, I found it so incredibly sad that she would imagine herself as white and blonde. And it made me realize that in this country, I think the media too often portrays American beauty in this way. Is this normal for most minorities to wish to be another skin color? We focus so much on models making girls anorexic or self conscious... but what about making them despise their skin color? I hope this movie makes people realize that in order to help others, they need to understand them because Precious, for so many reasons, felt misunderstood and unappreciated to the point that she thought at times that being white could fix it all..
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)