Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
The Hall of Mirrors part I
"That's lame"
Lame. Meaning uncool. Meaning out of the loop. Meaning socially remedial. And most of the time, meaning not in accordance with what everyone else is doing. Now of course take this with a grain of salt, this is my opinion, and we all know what opinions are like. Feel free to disagree. But I think this concept of "cool" is one of the defining factors in black culture. I want to examine this and how it effects the cycle of black culture and alternatively how it affects the majority culture of America.
Lame. used to be a constant retort during my high school years. Black kids talk shit about each other, it's just the way of the world. It's fun. It's funny. "Heating","Flaming","Roasting","Throwing bars" whatever you want to call it.But it's also the way that we enforce social pecking order and what trends or social norm and mores are acceptable. You come to school wearing something wack, you might get heated. You say something stupid, you might get heated. So on and so forth, until you learn how to stay under that radar or adapt to the trend.
This is pretty much how it is in both white and black culture. However, the deviation is that often time black culture has a very rigid idea of what "black cultural identity". Now of course there are outliers and deviations, but just like in all social culture there is a mainstream and then there are subcultures. In America's case, mainstream culture is defined by what we see/hear/read/ in the media for the most part. In black culture this is even more so the case.
Often times in black culture-once again this is my opinion- white culture is considered, for want of a better word, lame. The general understanding is that white people are at best slightly out of touch with cool, and at worst Screech from saved by the bell. Black culture,stemming from African slave culture and then evolving from there began by setting itself against the then, and perhaps still now, oppressive white mainstream.
By setting itself at odds against them they could then reevaluate and define their own self worth outside of the norms white racial social constructions and norms. Because of this ideal, I think that the opposition to whiteness became ingrained into black society. You see this kind of opposition in most cultural revolutions; the Beat Generation, Hippies, Yuppies,Emo,Gangsta,Scene,Goth, etc. Every subculture is created in opposition to some contrary ideal. In the case of black subculture, which of course evolved into Black Mainstream culture, the contrary ideal was whiteness.
Now were are coming to present day black culture. Which like almost all of mainstream American culture, is fueled by fossils and materialism. Early on, business found that advertising is the best way to sell their products. That's the way business works. People buy things because they think they are good, or necessary.
But as with fashion and trends, this concept has evolved, and morphed and taken root in the American subconscious. To go back to the concept of being "lame", it is centered not around buying things but around the idea of social inclusion. Human beings are social creatures, we want to feel like we belong. Companies exploit our insecurities and needs to shill us things.Black culture, built on the remnants of slave culture has an especially large slice of the insecurity pie. Our identity was stolen and thrown away, we had no homeland to unite us and at first no common language or ideals. So we created one, as I said earlier, based on our opposition to white oppression. But the irony is that we had no raw materials to work with in America to create a "new" culture,so we had to adapt things and ideas from white culture. And therein lies the birth of what I like to call "the Hall of Mirrors".
Let me add preamble by saying that I don't believe black culture to be unoriginal or completely borrowed. What I am saying is that many concepts found in black cultural identity are either taken from white culture and morphed or placed in a parallel opposition with some ideal from white culture.
In white mainstream culture today. Black culture is often "misappropriated" to sell things because black culture is seen as adversarial to the white mainstream. And as I have demonstrated, counter culture is usually seen as revolutionary and new or cool. Because black culture often times finds itself in an adversarial relationship with the white mainstream, this has in effect created something of a perpetual coolness device. Throughout history, black culture has strives to revolt against white culture and not assimilate. In contrast white culture, in certain sectors, has attempted to emulate black culture which then causes the trend/idea/style to become ubiquitous in mainstream American culture, and then "lame" in the eyes of black culture, causing a social upheaval and change resulting in a new trend/idea/style.
Of course one could argue that this happens within any culture. This is how the cogs of society turn, by revolution of convention. But I think that the American public, and black society have a special relationship with one another. I want to further examine these ideas in my next post.
Herein lies the problem.
Lame. Meaning uncool. Meaning out of the loop. Meaning socially remedial. And most of the time, meaning not in accordance with what everyone else is doing. Now of course take this with a grain of salt, this is my opinion, and we all know what opinions are like. Feel free to disagree. But I think this concept of "cool" is one of the defining factors in black culture. I want to examine this and how it effects the cycle of black culture and alternatively how it affects the majority culture of America.
Lame. used to be a constant retort during my high school years. Black kids talk shit about each other, it's just the way of the world. It's fun. It's funny. "Heating","Flaming","Roasting","Throwing bars" whatever you want to call it.But it's also the way that we enforce social pecking order and what trends or social norm and mores are acceptable. You come to school wearing something wack, you might get heated. You say something stupid, you might get heated. So on and so forth, until you learn how to stay under that radar or adapt to the trend.
This is pretty much how it is in both white and black culture. However, the deviation is that often time black culture has a very rigid idea of what "black cultural identity". Now of course there are outliers and deviations, but just like in all social culture there is a mainstream and then there are subcultures. In America's case, mainstream culture is defined by what we see/hear/read/ in the media for the most part. In black culture this is even more so the case.
Often times in black culture-once again this is my opinion- white culture is considered, for want of a better word, lame. The general understanding is that white people are at best slightly out of touch with cool, and at worst Screech from saved by the bell. Black culture,stemming from African slave culture and then evolving from there began by setting itself against the then, and perhaps still now, oppressive white mainstream.
By setting itself at odds against them they could then reevaluate and define their own self worth outside of the norms white racial social constructions and norms. Because of this ideal, I think that the opposition to whiteness became ingrained into black society. You see this kind of opposition in most cultural revolutions; the Beat Generation, Hippies, Yuppies,Emo,Gangsta,Scene,Goth, etc. Every subculture is created in opposition to some contrary ideal. In the case of black subculture, which of course evolved into Black Mainstream culture, the contrary ideal was whiteness.
Now were are coming to present day black culture. Which like almost all of mainstream American culture, is fueled by fossils and materialism. Early on, business found that advertising is the best way to sell their products. That's the way business works. People buy things because they think they are good, or necessary.
But as with fashion and trends, this concept has evolved, and morphed and taken root in the American subconscious. To go back to the concept of being "lame", it is centered not around buying things but around the idea of social inclusion. Human beings are social creatures, we want to feel like we belong. Companies exploit our insecurities and needs to shill us things.Black culture, built on the remnants of slave culture has an especially large slice of the insecurity pie. Our identity was stolen and thrown away, we had no homeland to unite us and at first no common language or ideals. So we created one, as I said earlier, based on our opposition to white oppression. But the irony is that we had no raw materials to work with in America to create a "new" culture,so we had to adapt things and ideas from white culture. And therein lies the birth of what I like to call "the Hall of Mirrors".
Let me add preamble by saying that I don't believe black culture to be unoriginal or completely borrowed. What I am saying is that many concepts found in black cultural identity are either taken from white culture and morphed or placed in a parallel opposition with some ideal from white culture.
In white mainstream culture today. Black culture is often "misappropriated" to sell things because black culture is seen as adversarial to the white mainstream. And as I have demonstrated, counter culture is usually seen as revolutionary and new or cool. Because black culture often times finds itself in an adversarial relationship with the white mainstream, this has in effect created something of a perpetual coolness device. Throughout history, black culture has strives to revolt against white culture and not assimilate. In contrast white culture, in certain sectors, has attempted to emulate black culture which then causes the trend/idea/style to become ubiquitous in mainstream American culture, and then "lame" in the eyes of black culture, causing a social upheaval and change resulting in a new trend/idea/style.
Of course one could argue that this happens within any culture. This is how the cogs of society turn, by revolution of convention. But I think that the American public, and black society have a special relationship with one another. I want to further examine these ideas in my next post.
Herein lies the problem.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Everett D's Facebook Post
Good Friend O Mine: I watched 'Goodbye Uncle Tom' last night on YouTube and it was a real eye opener for me. It helped me to see how horribly blacks were being treated by slaveowners as well as their own people during those times. So, here's a message to black Americans today: Before you try to complain about how hard life is, check this ...movie out so you can see how good life is for us compared to how life was for our African ancestors.
Another Good Friend O Mine: That's right, cuzzo! Educate 'em...
Good Friend O Mine: Hell!! Someone has to!!! A lot of us are so quick to complain about how things are hard without realizing that those before us had it much harder.
Everett D: Yeah, Black people had it much harder back then obviously. However, that does not mean that we are to be satisfied because we aren't slaves. Look at the public schools and look at where we live. Look at the regentrification. Their isn't room for complaining but their is room to voice injustice
Good Friend O Mine: Good point. However, you can't deny the fact that at least we have the opportunity to go to school, get an education, and makes our lives better. The reasons why we in general don't is beyond me. If slaves were even caught attempting to go to school, let alone reading, there would be hell to pay. It's a shame that sacrifices made before the current era are looked at in vain.
Everett: I agree with that but, the fact that we were slaves in the first place contributes to the mentalities that many Black people have today. Read the Willie Lynch letter on how to make a slave and you will see what I am talking about. In order to turn Blackc people into slave mentally you had to take away their names, separte their families, turn them against one another, and treat them like animals i.e. as if they do not have value. Now look at today: Nobody knows their history; not African American History or their own families history some don't even know who their father is. This is institutionalized by the drug laws, prison system (lack of resources results in dealing drugs which results in jail time. They get out have to put their record on a job application, dont get hired, only thing to do is to do what got me to jail in the first place because I need to take care of my family....back in jail again). We are all against each other: Light skin seen as more beautiful than dark-skin (I like a long hair-thick red bone- Lil Wayne) Poor against not so poor, South-Side vs. West-Side, GD vs BD vs. Stone vs Blood vs. Crip vs etc. (kill whoever is not apart of us). The lack of value: Blakc people do not value themselves simple because they are Black. They have to have somthing that puts value on their life. Thats why so many people feel like they have to have the latest this and that or rappers always rapping about their cars, clothes, and women; thats what makes them valuable. Nikki Minaj always rapping about being a bad bitch and how she dont look at price tags and refering to women without money as a broke bitch or a pig. We don't see the inherit value that comes with being in existence. Which explains why so many people are being killed. If I dont value my life and my blackness then you just another me that Im looking at, so why do it matter if I kill you or not? You JUST A NIGGA. But, if we all knew our history, we would understand who we are and where we come from and we would learn to value ourselves and our people. But because we don't, we allow ourselves to be disrespected on the daily, calling to and even referring to ourselves as niggas and bitches and answering to it (which is what we we're referred to as when we were slaves). Allowing the killing to take place in our communities and doing nothing about it. Nobody wants to be a snitch, with good reason because if you are found out, somebody might kill you. But, if we look into our history, the 1960's, our civil rights leaders knew that they had a very high chance of dying before they went on a protest, a march, a freedom ride, etc. But they were not afraid because they would rather die before they sat back and let themselves be disrespected and before they let the ways of that era carry over to the next generation. They died for us, Jesus style, ultimate love and sacrifice for their people and here we are killing each other and and nobody loves us enough to stand up for something to snitch to die. Which is understandable but we need to know what we are capable of. Oh, and by the way, if we go back to slave times, a "snitch" was the house slave who told the master when slaves would be running away to freedom. A snitch was someone who stopped our ancesters from being free, not someone who wanted them to feel free within their own neighborhoods, who wanted to stop the killing of their friends, famiies,a nd children; just saying because the way that the label snitch is used is misinformed and perverted. Also about all the racism that Black people have received and still are receiving today on a hidden and insitutionalised agenda is ridiculous. Do we live in a post-racial society? If you say yes, you are also answering to the question: Are you stupid? Look at the laws of our country: It is now legal to discriminate in Arizona against Mexicans. Why? Oh, because they are country and taking all of our jobs. Really? So, what about the other borders? You know, those borders that Canadiens cross, the borders that other people who are not Mexican, El Salvadorean, Cuban, etc. cross. Nothing to say about those people? Are they not coming and taking jobs? Maybe you should blame the companies who are hiring illegal immigrants and paying them less than minimum wage not those people looking to better themselves. Maybe you should blame the American companies that ship their jobs overseas for cheaper labor. OH! and since when this was YOUR country. How many of your ancestors help build it? Who are you to tell somebody they cant cross a line on thats on some land that belongs to you just as much as the next human being? Its racism, it has nothing to do with jobs or immigration. Also, the new gun laws which make it legal to have a concealed weapon. Nobody considered the amount of children that have been killed due to gun violence? If they were White children dying, that law would not have been passed and those who even wanted guns would change their tune. But, if we are killing ourselves and we don't care or seem not to then why should they? I mean, they should but why? Last thing, Black people have been oppressed since slavery. Slavery, Indentured Slavery, JIm Crow Civil rights movement, Desegregation but their is still racism. Just look around and compare where you live, what school you went to, where you shop, etc. There are not any White people in any of those places for most of us. This isn't intentional? And just to go back to the gunlaw thing. The argument is that we need guns (these are White people saying this) to protect our homes from thugs, gang-bangers, and burgulars. We need to protect our families. Now we all know that we they say thugs, gang-bangers, and burgulars what they are really saying is Black people, because over 70% of White Americans associate these negative terms with Black people. Now, if they don't live around and rarely interact with Black people who THEY not ME deem as thugs etc. What are they protecting themselves from? Their are protecting themselves from stereotypes. Because statistics show that White people have 4 times a greater chance of being victimized by another White person that a Black person. And then you have those White people who say, well a Black person robbed me or assaulted me, as if that justifies their racism. Just because a Black person victimizes a White person does not justify their racism or stereotpes. Because If I we're victimized by a White person, I would not say, "Oh okay. All White people are like this. They should make guns legal so I can shoot one whenever they are near me. What proves my point further is this: If this same White person were attacked by another White person they would not attached that stigma to White people, which shows that its racism and White people get into altercations with each other often Im sure and they don't steretype each other so why stereotype Black people? I'm done. It's long. I know. Holla.
Another Good Friend O Mine: That's right, cuzzo! Educate 'em...
Good Friend O Mine: Hell!! Someone has to!!! A lot of us are so quick to complain about how things are hard without realizing that those before us had it much harder.
Everett D: Yeah, Black people had it much harder back then obviously. However, that does not mean that we are to be satisfied because we aren't slaves. Look at the public schools and look at where we live. Look at the regentrification. Their isn't room for complaining but their is room to voice injustice
Good Friend O Mine: Good point. However, you can't deny the fact that at least we have the opportunity to go to school, get an education, and makes our lives better. The reasons why we in general don't is beyond me. If slaves were even caught attempting to go to school, let alone reading, there would be hell to pay. It's a shame that sacrifices made before the current era are looked at in vain.
Everett: I agree with that but, the fact that we were slaves in the first place contributes to the mentalities that many Black people have today. Read the Willie Lynch letter on how to make a slave and you will see what I am talking about. In order to turn Blackc people into slave mentally you had to take away their names, separte their families, turn them against one another, and treat them like animals i.e. as if they do not have value. Now look at today: Nobody knows their history; not African American History or their own families history some don't even know who their father is. This is institutionalized by the drug laws, prison system (lack of resources results in dealing drugs which results in jail time. They get out have to put their record on a job application, dont get hired, only thing to do is to do what got me to jail in the first place because I need to take care of my family....back in jail again). We are all against each other: Light skin seen as more beautiful than dark-skin (I like a long hair-thick red bone- Lil Wayne) Poor against not so poor, South-Side vs. West-Side, GD vs BD vs. Stone vs Blood vs. Crip vs etc. (kill whoever is not apart of us). The lack of value: Blakc people do not value themselves simple because they are Black. They have to have somthing that puts value on their life. Thats why so many people feel like they have to have the latest this and that or rappers always rapping about their cars, clothes, and women; thats what makes them valuable. Nikki Minaj always rapping about being a bad bitch and how she dont look at price tags and refering to women without money as a broke bitch or a pig. We don't see the inherit value that comes with being in existence. Which explains why so many people are being killed. If I dont value my life and my blackness then you just another me that Im looking at, so why do it matter if I kill you or not? You JUST A NIGGA. But, if we all knew our history, we would understand who we are and where we come from and we would learn to value ourselves and our people. But because we don't, we allow ourselves to be disrespected on the daily, calling to and even referring to ourselves as niggas and bitches and answering to it (which is what we we're referred to as when we were slaves). Allowing the killing to take place in our communities and doing nothing about it. Nobody wants to be a snitch, with good reason because if you are found out, somebody might kill you. But, if we look into our history, the 1960's, our civil rights leaders knew that they had a very high chance of dying before they went on a protest, a march, a freedom ride, etc. But they were not afraid because they would rather die before they sat back and let themselves be disrespected and before they let the ways of that era carry over to the next generation. They died for us, Jesus style, ultimate love and sacrifice for their people and here we are killing each other and and nobody loves us enough to stand up for something to snitch to die. Which is understandable but we need to know what we are capable of. Oh, and by the way, if we go back to slave times, a "snitch" was the house slave who told the master when slaves would be running away to freedom. A snitch was someone who stopped our ancesters from being free, not someone who wanted them to feel free within their own neighborhoods, who wanted to stop the killing of their friends, famiies,a nd children; just saying because the way that the label snitch is used is misinformed and perverted. Also about all the racism that Black people have received and still are receiving today on a hidden and insitutionalised agenda is ridiculous. Do we live in a post-racial society? If you say yes, you are also answering to the question: Are you stupid? Look at the laws of our country: It is now legal to discriminate in Arizona against Mexicans. Why? Oh, because they are country and taking all of our jobs. Really? So, what about the other borders? You know, those borders that Canadiens cross, the borders that other people who are not Mexican, El Salvadorean, Cuban, etc. cross. Nothing to say about those people? Are they not coming and taking jobs? Maybe you should blame the companies who are hiring illegal immigrants and paying them less than minimum wage not those people looking to better themselves. Maybe you should blame the American companies that ship their jobs overseas for cheaper labor. OH! and since when this was YOUR country. How many of your ancestors help build it? Who are you to tell somebody they cant cross a line on thats on some land that belongs to you just as much as the next human being? Its racism, it has nothing to do with jobs or immigration. Also, the new gun laws which make it legal to have a concealed weapon. Nobody considered the amount of children that have been killed due to gun violence? If they were White children dying, that law would not have been passed and those who even wanted guns would change their tune. But, if we are killing ourselves and we don't care or seem not to then why should they? I mean, they should but why? Last thing, Black people have been oppressed since slavery. Slavery, Indentured Slavery, JIm Crow Civil rights movement, Desegregation but their is still racism. Just look around and compare where you live, what school you went to, where you shop, etc. There are not any White people in any of those places for most of us. This isn't intentional? And just to go back to the gunlaw thing. The argument is that we need guns (these are White people saying this) to protect our homes from thugs, gang-bangers, and burgulars. We need to protect our families. Now we all know that we they say thugs, gang-bangers, and burgulars what they are really saying is Black people, because over 70% of White Americans associate these negative terms with Black people. Now, if they don't live around and rarely interact with Black people who THEY not ME deem as thugs etc. What are they protecting themselves from? Their are protecting themselves from stereotypes. Because statistics show that White people have 4 times a greater chance of being victimized by another White person that a Black person. And then you have those White people who say, well a Black person robbed me or assaulted me, as if that justifies their racism. Just because a Black person victimizes a White person does not justify their racism or stereotpes. Because If I we're victimized by a White person, I would not say, "Oh okay. All White people are like this. They should make guns legal so I can shoot one whenever they are near me. What proves my point further is this: If this same White person were attacked by another White person they would not attached that stigma to White people, which shows that its racism and White people get into altercations with each other often Im sure and they don't steretype each other so why stereotype Black people? I'm done. It's long. I know. Holla.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Allow me to answer for the Black Folks
At the risk of overstepping my bounds of "speaking for my race",I am going to attempt to answer some of the question raised in "Teaching Black Boys". I think that you're confusion stems from two points. One being that people who are visibly of the same culture, react and interact with each other differently. And this question stems from a debacle within the heart of black culture. To write about this, I have a two front war, and this is often the position I find myself in. As an intellectual, I can see the clear paths, the logical connection from point A to B. As a black man, I can also see the subtle nuances of black culture and how they can flavor an agreement but still have just as much credence as the former.
Let's start here;What is black culture and what is it defined by? I think this is the essential question to the African American mindset when it comes to dealing with matters of races. And the issue arises from the fact that for so long, black culture has been defined in terms of it's contention with white culture. This is less obvious now to some, but the contention still exist. Especially within black culture itself. We have a dialogue that needs to be completed within our own culture before we can actually have a dialogue with any other race. And I think that this is where the lines of communication begin to break down.
I think that black people have come to look at white people as the Other. And that we do not allow ourselves to be stratified within our own culture. As far as I know, the social distinctions that exist within white culture are far less pronounces and much more murky in black culture. To speak from experience, the concept of subcultures is in my mind not a black method of expression. When I say subculture, I mean things like goth culture, or Jock Culture, and things of that nature. Not to suggest this is ever present in white culture, but it just seems much more pronounced. I get the feeling as a black man, that white culture is built upon exclusivity, and that black culture is built upon the tenets of exclusivity. To make this clearer, in black culture I think people are defined by their adherence to certain social and cultural norms. Those who are not in line with these are then label as "white" which as I stated earlier, is the Other. Does this make sense?
I think that's why you are having such a clash. You are stepping on toes not because you are wrong, but because it seems presumptuous. I think the key here is this, nobody wants to seem helpless. And for black people, much more than white, culture is an extension of self. Therefore, if my culture is ailing, then I myself am ailing. And in the case of education, when a white, Jewish woman wants to help it make stick in my craw. No necessarily due to her own motivations, but how my own predilections color her motivations in my own eyes. I think that black people have learned to be suspicious of Greeks bearing gifts.
This brings me into another realm of things I need to explain but I think this is the basis of the issue.
Let's start here;What is black culture and what is it defined by? I think this is the essential question to the African American mindset when it comes to dealing with matters of races. And the issue arises from the fact that for so long, black culture has been defined in terms of it's contention with white culture. This is less obvious now to some, but the contention still exist. Especially within black culture itself. We have a dialogue that needs to be completed within our own culture before we can actually have a dialogue with any other race. And I think that this is where the lines of communication begin to break down.
I think that black people have come to look at white people as the Other. And that we do not allow ourselves to be stratified within our own culture. As far as I know, the social distinctions that exist within white culture are far less pronounces and much more murky in black culture. To speak from experience, the concept of subcultures is in my mind not a black method of expression. When I say subculture, I mean things like goth culture, or Jock Culture, and things of that nature. Not to suggest this is ever present in white culture, but it just seems much more pronounced. I get the feeling as a black man, that white culture is built upon exclusivity, and that black culture is built upon the tenets of exclusivity. To make this clearer, in black culture I think people are defined by their adherence to certain social and cultural norms. Those who are not in line with these are then label as "white" which as I stated earlier, is the Other. Does this make sense?
I think that's why you are having such a clash. You are stepping on toes not because you are wrong, but because it seems presumptuous. I think the key here is this, nobody wants to seem helpless. And for black people, much more than white, culture is an extension of self. Therefore, if my culture is ailing, then I myself am ailing. And in the case of education, when a white, Jewish woman wants to help it make stick in my craw. No necessarily due to her own motivations, but how my own predilections color her motivations in my own eyes. I think that black people have learned to be suspicious of Greeks bearing gifts.
This brings me into another realm of things I need to explain but I think this is the basis of the issue.
Teaching Black Boys
So I want to talk about whether I can teach black boys. Because it is actually my favorite thing to do. So, for the last two years I've had a personal crisis of faith, so to speak.
So, I am a white, upper middle class, liberal, Jewish mommy. Does that automatically eliminate me as able to teach black children - especially boys? After my conversation with MC and his comments on white women generally, I got the sense that it did. Was I not listening? Did I hear him wrong? My sense was his issue with white women (and maybe me in particular??) was multi-faceted.
One is misplaced liberalism as paternalism (which I agree with). There is a lot of misplaced liberalism that is really paternalism. I am thinking of the board member who wants to go out and educate black parents on parenting. She means well - but is insulting that she thinks she knows better. So, the question for me is. . . is my liberalism misplaced or am I being paternalistic? I think education, to some extent, is inherently paternalistic as it is "pedantic." I am "delivering instruction." The notion of education is to empower kids to become good decision makers -- so its ultimate goal of education is to destroy paternalism... Ha, the great irony of education. (Which is why life is probably the best educator). So, as any teacher - I think I am caught in that irony. But I don't want to "save" or "teach" my black students anything different than I want for my white students. I think the pathway to enlightenment is an individual -- not even communal (I am not a utilitarian.)(despite the fact that education is set up entirely as a utilitarian endeavor). I am also interested in educating the whole child - I don't care if they like the book if they don't like themselves or life. (One can make a serious argument that I cannot education black boys for this reason - how can I teach them to like themselves . . . but I don't buy that either. People are people. Love, loss, sadness, grief, pain... we all experience this -- we all experience it in different ways -- but happiness and pain is universal and relative.
I do not see it as different for Jews, for blacks, for girls or for boys. I think that content and methodology must be flexible and appropriate for each and every audience -- when HPHS teaches all books with no female characters, when any school teaches eurocentric history, whatever. . . all instruction must be tailored to inspire the particular audience sitting in front of me. I cannot use only football analogies in an all-girl classroom and I cannot use dead white men as the only representations of literature. So, I don't think I am paternalistic. Other than the institutional irony of "teaching."
Am I paternalistic because I think I'm good at teaching black boys? I don't think I'm better than black teachers PER SE. I think I am a great teacher. There are teachers who are better than me (white, black, male and female). There are teachers who are worse than me (black, white, male and female). Can I teach black boys better than black men? Some. There are some black male teachers who can kick my butt teaching writing and there are some black male teachers who can kick my butt teaching the whole black child. But there are some really crappy teachers out there -- black men included. So, statistically speaking -- couldn't make an argument. I don't think we can measure or predict successful teachers in this kind of way.
What am I missing -- what else does it mean to be paternalistic??? Is my culture or way of life better?? It is relative and it depends and how can I say blue is better than white? Okay. . . I'm entering the slippery slope of relativism. But I believe in cafeteria living -- I'll take some of this, leave some of this... education's job to help us learn to make good choice for what is best for us. WHAT AM I MISSING????
Now.. my misplaced liberalism.... Yes. It is at times misplaced. For sure. I want to save the world from unhappiness. I want easy fixes - even though I know they don't exist. I can only see my misplacement after-the-fact though. Right, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. More later. Please respond Big D
So, I am a white, upper middle class, liberal, Jewish mommy. Does that automatically eliminate me as able to teach black children - especially boys? After my conversation with MC and his comments on white women generally, I got the sense that it did. Was I not listening? Did I hear him wrong? My sense was his issue with white women (and maybe me in particular??) was multi-faceted.
One is misplaced liberalism as paternalism (which I agree with). There is a lot of misplaced liberalism that is really paternalism. I am thinking of the board member who wants to go out and educate black parents on parenting. She means well - but is insulting that she thinks she knows better. So, the question for me is. . . is my liberalism misplaced or am I being paternalistic? I think education, to some extent, is inherently paternalistic as it is "pedantic." I am "delivering instruction." The notion of education is to empower kids to become good decision makers -- so its ultimate goal of education is to destroy paternalism... Ha, the great irony of education. (Which is why life is probably the best educator). So, as any teacher - I think I am caught in that irony. But I don't want to "save" or "teach" my black students anything different than I want for my white students. I think the pathway to enlightenment is an individual -- not even communal (I am not a utilitarian.)(despite the fact that education is set up entirely as a utilitarian endeavor). I am also interested in educating the whole child - I don't care if they like the book if they don't like themselves or life. (One can make a serious argument that I cannot education black boys for this reason - how can I teach them to like themselves . . . but I don't buy that either. People are people. Love, loss, sadness, grief, pain... we all experience this -- we all experience it in different ways -- but happiness and pain is universal and relative.
I do not see it as different for Jews, for blacks, for girls or for boys. I think that content and methodology must be flexible and appropriate for each and every audience -- when HPHS teaches all books with no female characters, when any school teaches eurocentric history, whatever. . . all instruction must be tailored to inspire the particular audience sitting in front of me. I cannot use only football analogies in an all-girl classroom and I cannot use dead white men as the only representations of literature. So, I don't think I am paternalistic. Other than the institutional irony of "teaching."
Am I paternalistic because I think I'm good at teaching black boys? I don't think I'm better than black teachers PER SE. I think I am a great teacher. There are teachers who are better than me (white, black, male and female). There are teachers who are worse than me (black, white, male and female). Can I teach black boys better than black men? Some. There are some black male teachers who can kick my butt teaching writing and there are some black male teachers who can kick my butt teaching the whole black child. But there are some really crappy teachers out there -- black men included. So, statistically speaking -- couldn't make an argument. I don't think we can measure or predict successful teachers in this kind of way.
What am I missing -- what else does it mean to be paternalistic??? Is my culture or way of life better?? It is relative and it depends and how can I say blue is better than white? Okay. . . I'm entering the slippery slope of relativism. But I believe in cafeteria living -- I'll take some of this, leave some of this... education's job to help us learn to make good choice for what is best for us. WHAT AM I MISSING????
Now.. my misplaced liberalism.... Yes. It is at times misplaced. For sure. I want to save the world from unhappiness. I want easy fixes - even though I know they don't exist. I can only see my misplacement after-the-fact though. Right, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. More later. Please respond Big D
Friday, December 9, 2011
a smash cut to violence
In response to Solly's last post: "Let the 76th annual Hunger Games begin!" No really, aren't we all living in the reality of the Hunger Games? For those blogger watchers who haven't read the book I'll summarize.
The Hunger Games is a young adult fiction trilogy. It's set in a post apocalyptic world where America has been devastated by war and famine and then reborn under the guise of Panem, a pseudo-dictatorship that is separated into "Districts" which each specialize in a certain kind of industry. Because a bloody rebellion,seventy-four years previous to the first book in the series, the government of Panem, called "the Capitol", forces the districts to hold an annual lottery and select 2 children, one male and one female, between the ages of twelve and eighteen. The two "tributes" are forced to compete in a televised battle to the death with the other children chosen from the other districts.
Are you getting the picture? Needless to say, the book is extremely pessimistic and violent. In my mind it's a reflection of the depravity of the powerful. Now Solly's question is, should she allow her 10 year old to read this book. My response is of course yes. Demeter, they will bleet, " the material is to harsh for someone that age", "It promotes the glorification of violence!", "He won't be able to understand the allegory/metaphor". To all this I say, yeah well there are some people that live the reality of this. It's a story, but it reflects on the nature of humanity as a whole. Creating some fake insular world of fluffy bunnies and caramel kisses around a child doesn't make them any less likely to become a messed up person. It makes them more likely because that person comes to believe that this is how all normal humans interact. And sadly it isn't. Enjoying watching fictional violence doesn't preclude someone not being a violent person.
The point I want to make here is this: correlation does not imply causation. That is to say that, just because two things happen seemly together, does not imply a link between the two in the manner of one leading to the other.There are more important considerations than just coincidence.This is important in two ways for this conversation, the first is that people have conflated maturity with age. The second is that we have conflated watching or even reading violent material, specifically material that glorifies or normalizes violence, and being a violent person. And I think "normalizes" is the key here. This is the question that I think is most important; does the work attempt to make violence normal in our world or is it simply an illustration of how things could be or are? I think that in the case of the Hunger Games it is the later.
Let's take for example, a family in which violence is commonplace. Abuse and violence then become status quo, and non-violence or passivity become the aberrations. These are the moraes of the Hunger Games; loss, neglect and oppression have become so thoroughly ingrained into society, so integral to it's survival that no one questions why children are being sent to their death. No one, except the reader thus creating a bleak world in which violence and oppression have become the common denominators by juxtaposing it against our own world view. I see the book as almost a lithmus test of someones outlook on the world. Some might react with stark horror, while people like me who have first hand knowledge of how harsh the world can be don't bat an eye. However, this has nothing to do with the writing itself, this is the filter of the reader.
We come loaded with preconceived notions. Solly I wonder where I got that concept from? We are never blank slates, we always have our life experiences to color what we read and hear. So then the work is understood by what is already present in the mind of the reader, a posteriori. A person used to violence will see nothing wrong, a person not used to violence will be repulsed.
So then we have to look at the individual and what we think about their mindset. Why set an arbitrary age at which by some magically process someone is now mature enough to handle "sensitive material". Can we at least agree it's not a matter of age, but maturity and ability to cope with serious subject matter? There are some adults who probably shouldn't be reading the Hunger Games, because they mentally are not capable of seeing the meaning behind the violence.
In all my waffle, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't judge the work when asking should my kid read this. You should judge your progeny. Ask yourself, is my kid up to this with constrictions for age thrown to the wayside. I would say yes, but that there should also be a dialogue on the side between you and him about the themes of the book.
The point I want to make here is this: correlation does not imply causation. That is to say that, just because two things happen seemly together, does not imply a link between the two in the manner of one leading to the other.There are more important considerations than just coincidence.This is important in two ways for this conversation, the first is that people have conflated maturity with age. The second is that we have conflated watching or even reading violent material, specifically material that glorifies or normalizes violence, and being a violent person. And I think "normalizes" is the key here. This is the question that I think is most important; does the work attempt to make violence normal in our world or is it simply an illustration of how things could be or are? I think that in the case of the Hunger Games it is the later.
Let's take for example, a family in which violence is commonplace. Abuse and violence then become status quo, and non-violence or passivity become the aberrations. These are the moraes of the Hunger Games; loss, neglect and oppression have become so thoroughly ingrained into society, so integral to it's survival that no one questions why children are being sent to their death. No one, except the reader thus creating a bleak world in which violence and oppression have become the common denominators by juxtaposing it against our own world view. I see the book as almost a lithmus test of someones outlook on the world. Some might react with stark horror, while people like me who have first hand knowledge of how harsh the world can be don't bat an eye. However, this has nothing to do with the writing itself, this is the filter of the reader.
We come loaded with preconceived notions. Solly I wonder where I got that concept from? We are never blank slates, we always have our life experiences to color what we read and hear. So then the work is understood by what is already present in the mind of the reader, a posteriori. A person used to violence will see nothing wrong, a person not used to violence will be repulsed.
So then we have to look at the individual and what we think about their mindset. Why set an arbitrary age at which by some magically process someone is now mature enough to handle "sensitive material". Can we at least agree it's not a matter of age, but maturity and ability to cope with serious subject matter? There are some adults who probably shouldn't be reading the Hunger Games, because they mentally are not capable of seeing the meaning behind the violence.
In all my waffle, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't judge the work when asking should my kid read this. You should judge your progeny. Ask yourself, is my kid up to this with constrictions for age thrown to the wayside. I would say yes, but that there should also be a dialogue on the side between you and him about the themes of the book.
Maybe it's my glib pessimism about the world, or maybe it's testosterone induced madness caused by being a violence loving man. Either way, I think that aggression has a place in society, it's a part of the human condition and we will never be above it unless we discuss it. It harken to the discussion of abstinence only Sex Education in schools. It mutes the subtle nuances of humanity by trying to make them black and white. Nothing is good or bad. It's all about what we cull from the experiences we are given.Chemically speaking evolution itself is functionally promoted by the will to survive, and by proxy aggression. Only when we don't talk about things are they allowed to get out of hand and become something ugly.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Old Dog to the Young Pup
It is not that I have seen the light or left the cave. To the contrary, this "old dog" is as blind and in the dark as you, my friend. It is just that I am not afraid to dance in the dark. Well, most the time. And just like I danced in class, my dancing in the dark too is a freak show -- littered with misgivings, mistakes, and moments of "what the f**k was I thinking?" Maybe its stupidity - not fearlessness (or spunk). Or its my utter lack of impulse control. So be it. Or "so it goes."
This old dog needs far more sleep than you young pups. And my brain is consumed with carpool schedules and soccer practices and grocery lists and a really annoying real pup who is scratching my leg for attention. Oh yeah, and I have to go rescue my doppelganger from his book or he'll be up all night. So, tonight my young friend I am going to go ponder the eternal ethical and existential dilemma of whether a 10 year old should be allowed to read Hunger Games just because all his friends have. I really don't want to read it. But if I don't, I'll be standing in the dark.
This old dog needs far more sleep than you young pups. And my brain is consumed with carpool schedules and soccer practices and grocery lists and a really annoying real pup who is scratching my leg for attention. Oh yeah, and I have to go rescue my doppelganger from his book or he'll be up all night. So, tonight my young friend I am going to go ponder the eternal ethical and existential dilemma of whether a 10 year old should be allowed to read Hunger Games just because all his friends have. I really don't want to read it. But if I don't, I'll be standing in the dark.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)