Johnson expands on the points of saying what things are and don’t avoid saying it. He shows ways in “What Can We Do?” on how to address the issues of discrimination and inequalities. He makes mentions of identifying what your class and privilege might be but not to take things personally. The most important thing is to try to make a difference and let go of those thoughts of how there’s nothing we can do to fix anything. There are a number of issues coming up here… here’s a few.
- Speak out about things that make you feel uncomfortable or angry. Keeping them inside only hurts you and thoughts you might have or want to world to hear will go unnoticed.
- Don’t be afraid of anger, use it as a tool to get your point across, make a subject personal and cause it to be heard. Be angry because at times it will cause people to see how passionate you are a bothers you.
- Stand up and fight against discriminations, if someone calls someone else a racist, sexist, or gender slandering slur call them out on it, make a difference for equality among orientations, genders, and races.
- Most importantly white privileged need to recognize their roles, even if it’s difficult for them or if they don’t even want to recognize them. Johnson makes the case that no higher social class or power stays in power forever, things are always changing.
These ideas apply to people who never want to make a change, people who complain constantly about the problems that plague them, whether it’s social, economic, or political. Like for example Americans who complain about the taxes yet do nothing to change the problems that are causing them to feel the way they do. Americans tend to take things lying down and it would appear to me anyways that people no longer have back bones or integrity. If something makes you upset change it and if you’re going to complain and whine yet make no attempt to change the issue that be quiet and just waste away. It might sound harsh, but it tends to be true in my eyes.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Diversity Event – Soul Control at AS220
This is related to an event that was off campus. I went to go see a band from Rhode Island called Soul Control, along with a couple of other touring bands who were playing. The show catered to Rhode Island’s diverse punk, hardcore metal scene. It’s a music style I identify with because the people who are a part of it find themselves different. Some of us are having lots of piercings, others have different colored and unique hair styles, and others are covered with tattoos. I had an experience however that was a little disheartening to me. I always identified with the music and “scene” because I always felt different, I grew up in Central Falls, I was a minority in a town that was, at the time, predominately Columbia, Dominican, Mexican, and Puerto Rican. I have always been a bit defiant; I am one to always question the “norm” thinking, so to speak.
While at the show I was sitting at the bar area and the conversation of homosexuality came up, I was talking to some friends and some acquaintances. One kid in the group who I was talking to brought up a situation where he was getting mad because someone in one of his classes would always be staring at him and it made him feel uncomfortable. He said that it had nothing to do with the fact that the kid was “gay” but it’s because its common decency, it’s not right to stare at anyone for an allotted period of time, and that was his defense.
I found it interesting that this person in particular automatically identified his fellow student as “gay”. I asked him how he knows his classmate is gay and he said “you can just see it.” This was completely mind boggling to me. The idea that this kid with two half sleeved tattoos and long hair would automatically make an assumption about someone he knows nothing about. I made it a point to say “well maybe he just wants to be friends with you and he’s just socially awkward and doesn’t know how to approach you. Maybe he just thinks you’re cool or something.” I was frustrated and annoyed that assumptions are made about guys looking at other guys, especially when they’re made by someone who is not a part of the “social norm”. It pretty much made me sad; honestly, here is where I feel lonely in my endeavors to find people like me, and even in the group of kids I identify with on a musical and image level are just as ignorant as the people I try to fight against.
The other problematic thing for me too is that these bands that I see who are a part of this whole scene write songs about defiance, self-reflection, and speaking out, yet here is a kid who is actually not a part of that at all. I have witnessed issues like this a number of occasions while attending shows. I decided to put this up on my blog as my diversity event because I feel these shows are a big part of diversity, but I also wanted to address the fact that sometimes even the people you identify with will show a side that will undeniably bum you out because of an ignorant thoughtless mind state.
While at the show I was sitting at the bar area and the conversation of homosexuality came up, I was talking to some friends and some acquaintances. One kid in the group who I was talking to brought up a situation where he was getting mad because someone in one of his classes would always be staring at him and it made him feel uncomfortable. He said that it had nothing to do with the fact that the kid was “gay” but it’s because its common decency, it’s not right to stare at anyone for an allotted period of time, and that was his defense.
I found it interesting that this person in particular automatically identified his fellow student as “gay”. I asked him how he knows his classmate is gay and he said “you can just see it.” This was completely mind boggling to me. The idea that this kid with two half sleeved tattoos and long hair would automatically make an assumption about someone he knows nothing about. I made it a point to say “well maybe he just wants to be friends with you and he’s just socially awkward and doesn’t know how to approach you. Maybe he just thinks you’re cool or something.” I was frustrated and annoyed that assumptions are made about guys looking at other guys, especially when they’re made by someone who is not a part of the “social norm”. It pretty much made me sad; honestly, here is where I feel lonely in my endeavors to find people like me, and even in the group of kids I identify with on a musical and image level are just as ignorant as the people I try to fight against.
The other problematic thing for me too is that these bands that I see who are a part of this whole scene write songs about defiance, self-reflection, and speaking out, yet here is a kid who is actually not a part of that at all. I have witnessed issues like this a number of occasions while attending shows. I decided to put this up on my blog as my diversity event because I feel these shows are a big part of diversity, but I also wanted to address the fact that sometimes even the people you identify with will show a side that will undeniably bum you out because of an ignorant thoughtless mind state.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
From Tuesday 4/14/09
Group members (including me...) - Eva, Dom, Yenifer, and Mike L.
Examples of inclusion...
From Text...
- Mia Peterson's perspective (which goes hand in hand with Ana from the film) felt separate and hurt by the differences between special education and "regular" classes.
- Another issue is teachers who attempt to help these students are criticized in a way; the social norms don't really see how or why these teachers tend to focus on individual needs of students with disabilities.
From the movie...
- Ana Uribe - her situation shows the difference of physical disability vs. mental disability. She was confined to a wheel chair due to civil war in El Salvador, yet she is in a Special Ed. segregated from "normal classes".
- It is also apparent English as a second language lower class families suffer more than any other group, but these families who have children with disabilities find it more difficult to assimilate their children into "normal" classroom settings due to the language barriers.
- Lack of resources for students with disabilities (i.e. lack of ramps, technology that is constantly breaking down, aid, etc.) excuses made by the school departments of why these problems occur is also a reason for the lack and ignorance towards these issues.
- Another issue of inclusion has to do with the lack of a push for students to interact and associate with their fellow students with disabilities. The sooner this is attempted; the sooner students will feel comfortable with students of disabilities.
Examples of inclusion...
From Text...
- Mia Peterson's perspective (which goes hand in hand with Ana from the film) felt separate and hurt by the differences between special education and "regular" classes.
- Another issue is teachers who attempt to help these students are criticized in a way; the social norms don't really see how or why these teachers tend to focus on individual needs of students with disabilities.
From the movie...
- Ana Uribe - her situation shows the difference of physical disability vs. mental disability. She was confined to a wheel chair due to civil war in El Salvador, yet she is in a Special Ed. segregated from "normal classes".
- It is also apparent English as a second language lower class families suffer more than any other group, but these families who have children with disabilities find it more difficult to assimilate their children into "normal" classroom settings due to the language barriers.
- Lack of resources for students with disabilities (i.e. lack of ramps, technology that is constantly breaking down, aid, etc.) excuses made by the school departments of why these problems occur is also a reason for the lack and ignorance towards these issues.
- Another issue of inclusion has to do with the lack of a push for students to interact and associate with their fellow students with disabilities. The sooner this is attempted; the sooner students will feel comfortable with students of disabilities.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Talking Points IX – Kliewer
This article discusses the dilemma in schools when teaching students with Down syndrome or any other disability that “hinders” intelligence. Schools have stuck to their traditional ways of teaching students, through formulas and linguistics. These types of educational methods do not apply to a set group of people who have a cognitive based problem of developing skills that the educational department might deem as adequately educated so they stick these students into a segregated classroom known as “special Ed”. This placement causes stigmas and separations of students who cannot perform at the level a school department sets which outcasts them from the rest of society and their educational peers. This article deals with trying to find a different way to approach this dilemma, by a focus on individual needs of each specific student and their learning capabilities to best integrate them into a society and educational placing of equality.
The stories and psychological analysis from different people was riveting. Students with disabilities like Down syndrome are able to perform on an educational level that just isn’t what is set as a “norm”. These students’ cognitive processes make them unique and different, not inadequate or “half full”. Schools have to find a better way to approach to teaching these students and set them up for success, not giving them a sense of being different in a bad way in the case where they are separated from peers. It also has to do with an understanding of the disability and patience to attempt new learning techniques to better suite these students.
Vygotsky’s psychological model has always been one of my personal favorites. He understood the importance of mental growth with social interactions and attitudes. More schools need to focus on that aspect and help these students grow at their highest potential. Schools also need to not set a specific level for these students, but to help them achieve a level that they are told by stereotypes that they cannot succeed any higher. This article just shows along with many others that there’s a need for some serious changes in the educational department.
The stories and psychological analysis from different people was riveting. Students with disabilities like Down syndrome are able to perform on an educational level that just isn’t what is set as a “norm”. These students’ cognitive processes make them unique and different, not inadequate or “half full”. Schools have to find a better way to approach to teaching these students and set them up for success, not giving them a sense of being different in a bad way in the case where they are separated from peers. It also has to do with an understanding of the disability and patience to attempt new learning techniques to better suite these students.
Vygotsky’s psychological model has always been one of my personal favorites. He understood the importance of mental growth with social interactions and attitudes. More schools need to focus on that aspect and help these students grow at their highest potential. Schools also need to not set a specific level for these students, but to help them achieve a level that they are told by stereotypes that they cannot succeed any higher. This article just shows along with many others that there’s a need for some serious changes in the educational department.
Talking Points VIII – Oakes
This article dealt with a number of issues that I found interestingly comparable to Delpit and her ideas of “codes of Power”. Class is an issue of educational competence, lower classes a usually taught to use recall methods of education while “rich” educational based schools give students a chance to voice opinions and to deduct ideas and formulas. What I found sickening by this is that because schools in lower class areas are setting their students up to fail. With an enforcement of True and False or simple matching of names with definitions there’s no need for a student to remember these questions and answers after the exam or test is over. However, students who get a chance to show that they have a grasp on the concept that they are learning about, whether it’s through essay format or presentation gives them a chance to teach what they have learned but also show that they have a common grasp on the issue. Students who learn in schools where these opportunities aren’t readily available to them get their answers either right or wrong, there’s no room for gray areas.
Students also have to deal with being tricked by their teachers with questions that are reworded or rearranged. Students then tend to spend more time looking for a formula to answering these questions, then actually focusing on the importance of understanding of the question being asked of them. When a student looks for a True or False when answering a question that either begins or ends with “Almost never…” or “Almost Always…” the student is trying to figure out if the answer is either one or if it’s just “Never” or “Always” or “Sometimes”. These questions do no justice to the full in-depth grasp of a question. Something like this is a time consuming issue, especially for students who might be diagnosed with learning disabilities, as a words are switched around in a “clever” way a student might lose touch with what they are actually trying to do, which is SUPPOSE to be, answer the question and show they UNDERSTAND IT.
These “tricks” made by teachers who are less than interested at times about the well being of their already socially and economically “doomed” students of a lower class cause these students to put themselves down before they could even get a chance to prove themselves. This has a lot to do with Delpit, without a chance for these students given the opportunity to succeed them will find themselves remaining at the class level they were born into, as quoted in this piece no wonder why “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”.
Praise of a student is also a problem, I agree more with the aspect of avoiding this at all costs. When giving a “reward” to students who do well in class and then comparing them to the students who are doing poorly only fuels issues of a lack of self worth and motivation. Putting students on a pedestal is rewarding for good students, but negative for students who have a hard time achieving the level of their studious peers.
Recently I have dropped my math course because my professor decided to make an “example” of me. Showing medians of good grades to bad grades she mentioned one student in particular who should just drop the class now because they got a 37, she looked directly at me. Feeling embarrassed, angry, frustrated, and hurt I took my paper from her and left the class.
I see that college holds absolutely NO exception to the rule of educational mishaps and errors. At the age of 24 I was embarrassed in front of a classroom of my peers, I felt like I was in elementary school again, I now see why I have such a hard time succeeding at Rhode Island College.
Students also have to deal with being tricked by their teachers with questions that are reworded or rearranged. Students then tend to spend more time looking for a formula to answering these questions, then actually focusing on the importance of understanding of the question being asked of them. When a student looks for a True or False when answering a question that either begins or ends with “Almost never…” or “Almost Always…” the student is trying to figure out if the answer is either one or if it’s just “Never” or “Always” or “Sometimes”. These questions do no justice to the full in-depth grasp of a question. Something like this is a time consuming issue, especially for students who might be diagnosed with learning disabilities, as a words are switched around in a “clever” way a student might lose touch with what they are actually trying to do, which is SUPPOSE to be, answer the question and show they UNDERSTAND IT.
These “tricks” made by teachers who are less than interested at times about the well being of their already socially and economically “doomed” students of a lower class cause these students to put themselves down before they could even get a chance to prove themselves. This has a lot to do with Delpit, without a chance for these students given the opportunity to succeed them will find themselves remaining at the class level they were born into, as quoted in this piece no wonder why “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”.
Praise of a student is also a problem, I agree more with the aspect of avoiding this at all costs. When giving a “reward” to students who do well in class and then comparing them to the students who are doing poorly only fuels issues of a lack of self worth and motivation. Putting students on a pedestal is rewarding for good students, but negative for students who have a hard time achieving the level of their studious peers.
Recently I have dropped my math course because my professor decided to make an “example” of me. Showing medians of good grades to bad grades she mentioned one student in particular who should just drop the class now because they got a 37, she looked directly at me. Feeling embarrassed, angry, frustrated, and hurt I took my paper from her and left the class.
I see that college holds absolutely NO exception to the rule of educational mishaps and errors. At the age of 24 I was embarrassed in front of a classroom of my peers, I felt like I was in elementary school again, I now see why I have such a hard time succeeding at Rhode Island College.
Talking Points VII – Orenstein
This piece was about gender equality. The Argument which is made is that more teachers need to induct the role of women in history and their importance, along with their contributions, there’s a feeling of marginalization in the view of women. Boys as well as men tend to feel a resentment towards teachers who try to make women look important and prominent in history, but it’s an idea that men and boys will feel like their dominate roles are being over looked. Throughout history and the teaching of history women are given a role of somewhat importance, but it is the male figure who is always the head and hero, their contributions to history are always worshipped and praised where as women’s roles are undermined. This idea then turns women and girls of the present into nothing more than that image that is presented to them. If a young girl’s hero is a figure in history that is a woman but isn’t shown much importance than they too will find themselves following the same road. Being a house wife and an enforcement of ideas from home, cultural backgrounds, history, pop culture, music, etc. tends to place women in a role that has been followed for generations. If a woman speaks out about these injustices she labeled and degraded with words and slurs. Whenever there is an uprising or speaking out of injustices and inequalities of women they are quickly insulted and put down, keeping them marginalized.
My favorite piece about this article was the presentations and the student who was playing Etta James. Firstly the costume aspect was ignored completely by James, the student playing Etta, which isn’t surprising, women will dawn the dress of boys and are insulted, called “tom boys” but men dressing as women no matter what their sexual orientation is laughed at, ridiculed, and called a series of degrading names. This is a one example of an attack of sexual identification, which goes back to Carlson and the idea of protection of the gay community, how highly valued being straight, as a male, is. Students would laugh at James who was performing an Etta James song, as he lip synced to the music male students giggled and laughed. The teacher addressed this issue and the boys apologized, but the idea that it was a laughing matter and a mockery to a woman, who personally I feel is one of the best singers of her time, makes the case for the lack of interest, care, or importance to the great Etta James, which I find insulting…but as a male it wouldn’t affect me as a much, as she is not a part of my dominating gender.
Our discussion in class talked about this idea of undermining women as well. We talked about the roles in the classroom and when conversations are occurring. It was said that men tend to be the more vocally outrageous, voicing their opinions without a full in depth approach of critical thinking while women will wait patiently to make their case, but will at some point, be interrupted or ignored by the bullish vocalization of men. I totally agree with this, as I am sure I have interrupted people plenty of times, but unfortunately this is how I was trained to be as a male. I was taught to be loud, assertive, and voice an opinion because if you do not you will never be heard and you will never be taken into consideration…
Interestingly enough, growing up in a home without a father this was taught to me by my mother, a woman who worked two jobs to support me and older brother when we were younger. I suppose I would have been taught this without her influence if I grow up in a nuclear family, but through what I had been shown through media, history, pop culture, etc. but because I was taught it from my mother, a woman who is a part of that ignored gender, I tend to understand the importance of female roles in history and in the establishment of a society, but yet, even in college I see that males are still considered the upmost importance of history and women are talked about in their shadows.
My favorite piece about this article was the presentations and the student who was playing Etta James. Firstly the costume aspect was ignored completely by James, the student playing Etta, which isn’t surprising, women will dawn the dress of boys and are insulted, called “tom boys” but men dressing as women no matter what their sexual orientation is laughed at, ridiculed, and called a series of degrading names. This is a one example of an attack of sexual identification, which goes back to Carlson and the idea of protection of the gay community, how highly valued being straight, as a male, is. Students would laugh at James who was performing an Etta James song, as he lip synced to the music male students giggled and laughed. The teacher addressed this issue and the boys apologized, but the idea that it was a laughing matter and a mockery to a woman, who personally I feel is one of the best singers of her time, makes the case for the lack of interest, care, or importance to the great Etta James, which I find insulting…but as a male it wouldn’t affect me as a much, as she is not a part of my dominating gender.
Our discussion in class talked about this idea of undermining women as well. We talked about the roles in the classroom and when conversations are occurring. It was said that men tend to be the more vocally outrageous, voicing their opinions without a full in depth approach of critical thinking while women will wait patiently to make their case, but will at some point, be interrupted or ignored by the bullish vocalization of men. I totally agree with this, as I am sure I have interrupted people plenty of times, but unfortunately this is how I was trained to be as a male. I was taught to be loud, assertive, and voice an opinion because if you do not you will never be heard and you will never be taken into consideration…
Interestingly enough, growing up in a home without a father this was taught to me by my mother, a woman who worked two jobs to support me and older brother when we were younger. I suppose I would have been taught this without her influence if I grow up in a nuclear family, but through what I had been shown through media, history, pop culture, etc. but because I was taught it from my mother, a woman who is a part of that ignored gender, I tend to understand the importance of female roles in history and in the establishment of a society, but yet, even in college I see that males are still considered the upmost importance of history and women are talked about in their shadows.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Talking Points VI: Lawrence
This article dealt with the strides of Brown vs. Board along with a number of cases that are related to segregation and discrimination. The article focused on a number of very different aspects of different cases as well as the formation of segregation and the ideas of it correlates with the idea that minority groups cannot get to a higher class level because of segregation being imposed on them. One specific quote from the piece that I am extremely fond of is this…
"The refusal of white Americans to accept responsibility for the relative educational, economic, social, and political disadvantage of blacks is legally and intellectually justified by ignoring the continuing vitality of the Institution of Segregation and their own role in its maintenance. White Americans deny responsibility for the position of blacks by denying that they have created a system of oppression that will continue to exist and operate to their benefit until they have destroyed it."
The power of segregation cannot be eradicated until everyone works towards destroying it. No matter the amount of money that spent in diverse schools of diversity programs will not cause the institution of segregation to collapse, it still is prevalent in modern times. It’s important to remember that the ruling that schools were “separate but not equal” was found only 50 or so years ago, it’s still a relatively new idea. These programs designed to integrate society on an equal level (class, race, and even gender) there needs to be a teaching of codes of power and ideas of how to succeed in today’s white majority upper class world. The amounts are good paying political jobs are held by high class whites, because they dominate the field and there isn’t an exact integration other groups of people and genders cannot plant a foot into these work environments. Many GED programs are directed towards minorities, but this country seems to point out that “we need ditch diggers” and it just happens the country directs it towards lower class minorities. There isn’t anything wrong with people working lower wage manual labor jobs, the country does depend on it and there’s no way to dispute it, however it isn’t right to direct it to a specific group of people.
I have also included some links that might be of interest to some people. The first two are bits from a video documentary entitled “a Class Divided” which deals with the powers of segregation, inequality, and racism. For those who are interested in racial role reversals and the unbelievable power of segregation these two videos are very interesting and I hope some of you will watch them.
Click Here to View: A Class Divided - Part I
Click Here to View: A Class Divided – Part II
A second piece I have included is a brief description of the findings from the doctors who preformed an experiment for Brown vs. Board involving groups of young children of different races and dolls of different races. The finds were unbelievable and helped fuel a verdict that was found “separate but not equal” in the courts.
Click Here to View: Doll Experiment
As a follow up to that article here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.com that shows that those findings in the Doll experiment are still prevalent in today’s society, showing that there still are issues of inequalities that need to be addressed…
Excerpt from Wikipedia.com...
“In 2006 filmmaker Kiri Davis recreated the doll study and documented it in a film entitled A Girl like Me. Despite the many changes in some parts of society, she found the same results as did the Drs. Clark in their study of the late 1930s and early 1940s.”
"The refusal of white Americans to accept responsibility for the relative educational, economic, social, and political disadvantage of blacks is legally and intellectually justified by ignoring the continuing vitality of the Institution of Segregation and their own role in its maintenance. White Americans deny responsibility for the position of blacks by denying that they have created a system of oppression that will continue to exist and operate to their benefit until they have destroyed it."
The power of segregation cannot be eradicated until everyone works towards destroying it. No matter the amount of money that spent in diverse schools of diversity programs will not cause the institution of segregation to collapse, it still is prevalent in modern times. It’s important to remember that the ruling that schools were “separate but not equal” was found only 50 or so years ago, it’s still a relatively new idea. These programs designed to integrate society on an equal level (class, race, and even gender) there needs to be a teaching of codes of power and ideas of how to succeed in today’s white majority upper class world. The amounts are good paying political jobs are held by high class whites, because they dominate the field and there isn’t an exact integration other groups of people and genders cannot plant a foot into these work environments. Many GED programs are directed towards minorities, but this country seems to point out that “we need ditch diggers” and it just happens the country directs it towards lower class minorities. There isn’t anything wrong with people working lower wage manual labor jobs, the country does depend on it and there’s no way to dispute it, however it isn’t right to direct it to a specific group of people.
I have also included some links that might be of interest to some people. The first two are bits from a video documentary entitled “a Class Divided” which deals with the powers of segregation, inequality, and racism. For those who are interested in racial role reversals and the unbelievable power of segregation these two videos are very interesting and I hope some of you will watch them.
Click Here to View: A Class Divided - Part I
Click Here to View: A Class Divided – Part II
A second piece I have included is a brief description of the findings from the doctors who preformed an experiment for Brown vs. Board involving groups of young children of different races and dolls of different races. The finds were unbelievable and helped fuel a verdict that was found “separate but not equal” in the courts.
Click Here to View: Doll Experiment
As a follow up to that article here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.com that shows that those findings in the Doll experiment are still prevalent in today’s society, showing that there still are issues of inequalities that need to be addressed…
Excerpt from Wikipedia.com...
“In 2006 filmmaker Kiri Davis recreated the doll study and documented it in a film entitled A Girl like Me. Despite the many changes in some parts of society, she found the same results as did the Drs. Clark in their study of the late 1930s and early 1940s.”
Monday, March 16, 2009
Talking Points V - Kahne and Westheimer
In The Service of What? The Politics of Service Learning By Joseph Kahne and Joel Westheimer discusses the issues that differ between helping those in need and having a face to face interaction with those people. It also touches on whether or not these projects and services are used for political agendas. Finally it also discusses the types of people who are engaging in these types of services. I found the article to be pretty interesting. When the article discussed the part about students who were putting together care packages for the homeless without any interaction with them versus those who worked in a soup kitchen or in an actually homeless shelter. Those who did not make an actual interaction lost touch, in a sense of what they were actually doing. It’s not to say that they weren’t doing any good, but it makes it somewhat clear that they didn’t get a perspective from the people they were helping. Having that personal interaction in service learning causes the student to understand perspectives of those who are not from their social, economic, or political background. There is so much that can be learned from people through interactions and service learning projects.
Another interesting aspect was the concern higher class parents had for their children who would be doing service learning projects in lower class communities. From the exploitations of the media and word of mouth, parents began to fear for their children, feeding the assumptions they had heard about the neighborhood to their children. Their children who learned that it wasn’t true had an important interaction not only with the younger children they would work with, but understood what’s real from what’s fabricated, an assumption versus a truth. This helps younger students to grasp how the country works but also teaches them not to make the same assumptions that their parents make about a certain area that is not known to them.
Service learning, regardless of having a political agenda or not, is essential for young minds and the community. There is an interaction and a mutual respect for where we all live, it’s giving back to a school that you had graduated from, it’s cleaning a park you had played in when you were a child, it’s taking care of the homeless who might have, at one time, lived next door to you but soon lost their house due to foreclosures. America, to me, has been and should always be about community. It is our civic duty to be a part of that, maybe it was because I grew up in a neighborhood where everyone knew each other and we all looked out for each other; but that’s a part of being not only American but also being creatures of social interaction. It is rewarding for everyone to be a part of service learning, there’s personal growth and understanding on both sides of the spectrum.
Another interesting aspect was the concern higher class parents had for their children who would be doing service learning projects in lower class communities. From the exploitations of the media and word of mouth, parents began to fear for their children, feeding the assumptions they had heard about the neighborhood to their children. Their children who learned that it wasn’t true had an important interaction not only with the younger children they would work with, but understood what’s real from what’s fabricated, an assumption versus a truth. This helps younger students to grasp how the country works but also teaches them not to make the same assumptions that their parents make about a certain area that is not known to them.
Service learning, regardless of having a political agenda or not, is essential for young minds and the community. There is an interaction and a mutual respect for where we all live, it’s giving back to a school that you had graduated from, it’s cleaning a park you had played in when you were a child, it’s taking care of the homeless who might have, at one time, lived next door to you but soon lost their house due to foreclosures. America, to me, has been and should always be about community. It is our civic duty to be a part of that, maybe it was because I grew up in a neighborhood where everyone knew each other and we all looked out for each other; but that’s a part of being not only American but also being creatures of social interaction. It is rewarding for everyone to be a part of service learning, there’s personal growth and understanding on both sides of the spectrum.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Talking Points IV - Christensen
Linda Christensen’s “Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us” talks about the importance of questioning the cartoons, movies, books, etc. that we have read and watched while we were children which puts us as a culture into specific categories through sexist, racist, and classist stereotypes. This article also touches on how depictions of specific things we see have caused us all to submit and not rebel.
Throughout our childhoods we have all watched Disney movies, Looney Tunes, etc. and if some hadn’t been as “fortunate” to have a television there were always books like Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, etc. All of these books had, what has become to all of us in an older age, stereotypes. For example African Americans were servants, Native Americans were savage, Hispanics were usually in mariachi bands with sombreros, white men were intelligent, brave, and flawless etc. Women played two roles, those who were the heroines were curvy, busty, buck some, and beautiful. Then the women who were larger were usually portrayed as ugly or “homely” acting as a servant to the heroine or either played the villain, the hideous, which character. People of higher classes had all the riches and were the heroes, middle class people played servants or bumbling dopes, and lower class people were portrayed as the drunken idiot who would stumble around the neighborhood with a big red nose. These are all examples of how since we were all children we learned to act and dress according to our class, gender, and race.
Because of these factors companies have made a cash crop out of this. From specific marketing targets from advertisements, billboards, to actual sales these early roles that were taught to us tend be more money in the wallets of corporations. For example, women learn at an early age that being beautiful is the most important factor in attracting a mate (which is also taught to women that this is the most important thing in the world for women to do…) they must be the most gorgeous creature in the world, so they go to Macy’s, Nordstrom’s, Seporhia, etc. and buy expensive clothes and make up to make them “stand out” more than everyone else so they become the most attractive women to any man whose looking. This mentality is preying on the insecurities for an entire gender of the world. But these cartoons are essential to this entire marketing culture.
These cartoons and movies are degrading and inappropriate for students who are not of white, upper class, male status. These stereotypes are put onto people of different classes, races, and sex which are then in turn accepted by not only the outside world but also as a self-realization and acceptance. I completely loved this article and I am very excited about the fact that a number of students have such a high power of observation about these stereotypes and secret codes that they would speak out about this and even inform the communities they live in about them. These stereotypes dictate how these students will see themselves when they become adults, which in a way, is very brain washing. These students have even lashed out towards different movie and cartoon companies about how they are disgusted and hurt by these depictions of races, classes, and genders. The only problem is that these students still have a realization that it is important to have not only and good relationship with a significant other (this applies mostly to women) and that it’s important to have the most money. These types of ideas become very unrealistic, since it is impossible for everyone to become that successful, which can become draining on an emotional level for people who are either struggling with income throughout their lives or if some people have a good amount of income and can survive but want more and more. There needs to be an understanding that you have to be happy with what you have because some things in life are, in fact, unrealistic.
Finally here’s a video I found on Youtube.com that has a bunch of clips of early cartoons which are all of unbelievable insulting racist depictions, I would say “enjoy” but there really is no way to enjoy these clips, remember, these cartoons were once okay and acceptable to show, which, to me is extremely depressing…
Throughout our childhoods we have all watched Disney movies, Looney Tunes, etc. and if some hadn’t been as “fortunate” to have a television there were always books like Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, etc. All of these books had, what has become to all of us in an older age, stereotypes. For example African Americans were servants, Native Americans were savage, Hispanics were usually in mariachi bands with sombreros, white men were intelligent, brave, and flawless etc. Women played two roles, those who were the heroines were curvy, busty, buck some, and beautiful. Then the women who were larger were usually portrayed as ugly or “homely” acting as a servant to the heroine or either played the villain, the hideous, which character. People of higher classes had all the riches and were the heroes, middle class people played servants or bumbling dopes, and lower class people were portrayed as the drunken idiot who would stumble around the neighborhood with a big red nose. These are all examples of how since we were all children we learned to act and dress according to our class, gender, and race.
Because of these factors companies have made a cash crop out of this. From specific marketing targets from advertisements, billboards, to actual sales these early roles that were taught to us tend be more money in the wallets of corporations. For example, women learn at an early age that being beautiful is the most important factor in attracting a mate (which is also taught to women that this is the most important thing in the world for women to do…) they must be the most gorgeous creature in the world, so they go to Macy’s, Nordstrom’s, Seporhia, etc. and buy expensive clothes and make up to make them “stand out” more than everyone else so they become the most attractive women to any man whose looking. This mentality is preying on the insecurities for an entire gender of the world. But these cartoons are essential to this entire marketing culture.
These cartoons and movies are degrading and inappropriate for students who are not of white, upper class, male status. These stereotypes are put onto people of different classes, races, and sex which are then in turn accepted by not only the outside world but also as a self-realization and acceptance. I completely loved this article and I am very excited about the fact that a number of students have such a high power of observation about these stereotypes and secret codes that they would speak out about this and even inform the communities they live in about them. These stereotypes dictate how these students will see themselves when they become adults, which in a way, is very brain washing. These students have even lashed out towards different movie and cartoon companies about how they are disgusted and hurt by these depictions of races, classes, and genders. The only problem is that these students still have a realization that it is important to have not only and good relationship with a significant other (this applies mostly to women) and that it’s important to have the most money. These types of ideas become very unrealistic, since it is impossible for everyone to become that successful, which can become draining on an emotional level for people who are either struggling with income throughout their lives or if some people have a good amount of income and can survive but want more and more. There needs to be an understanding that you have to be happy with what you have because some things in life are, in fact, unrealistic.
Finally here’s a video I found on Youtube.com that has a bunch of clips of early cartoons which are all of unbelievable insulting racist depictions, I would say “enjoy” but there really is no way to enjoy these clips, remember, these cartoons were once okay and acceptable to show, which, to me is extremely depressing…
Monday, February 23, 2009
Talking Point III - Carlson
Dennis Carlson’s Gayness, Multicultural Education, and Community looks at a number of issues. First his piece talks about the slandering and lashing out of straight America. For a long time in American culture homosexuality was viewed as bad, immoral, disgusting, and as a disease. Students and teachers deal with this issue every single day. From what the article talked about both these groups tend to keep silent whenever discussing queer issues, a major reason for this is to be avoidant of any harmful words or acts that might be imposed on them by their straight peers. Some of the stories of personal experience were pretty gruesome and hurtful. These stories dealt with students and teachers who had become victims of slandering and degrading. What I find outrageous is the amount of “political correctness” we as a nation constantly claim to have. Yet wherever you go I can say, personally, I am sure you’ll hear one straight person refer to either a straight friend of a gay person as a “faggot”. The looseness of this term has become shocking; a word that is completely degrading to straight people, especially men. As a child growing up if you were called a “faggot” it meant you were less of a man. Reading this article I was saddened to see how students have no problem being vocal about homosexuality in negative ways, were as some students said outright during class that homosexuality is gross. We as a nation talk about overcoming hurdles of racism and we have become more accepting as a nation (this is something I personally don’t agree with) but yet we have a tough time accepting people who are gay.
Another terrifying piece of statistics is the over whelming number of suicide victims who are gay. There are also a large number of homosexuals who are homeless and drug users. This becomes a scary insight into what a world of casting stones and judging of a group of people can do in a society. The inability to show compassion and acceptance by straights and the issues of an internal struggle with self acceptance causes youthful homosexuals to make decisions that can have drastic effects on their future, and can even lead to death. This of course doesn’t mean that everyone who is gay will have to deal with this internal torment and social degradation, but for some this is an unfortunate and inevitable outcome. It is nice to see a number of gay alliance groups and gatherings that help give adolescent homosexuals a place to find role models and gain confidence to take on problems of straight, judgmental groups that dominate the culture. One thing I always liked personally was the idea of Silence = Death, I have forever had the upmost respect for people of the gay culture who were willing to teach about gay culture, literature, icons, etc. and were willing to be themselves and be open with their sexuality; no matter what the consequences from close-minded America inflict on them.
One aspect I agree but also disagreed with was the idea of the queer culture through movies. Where as I understand the conflict between ideas of whether the movies are degrading and unrealistic or whether they are movies of triumphs and overcoming social turmoil. One thing I disagreed with was the slandering of the movie Bird Cage. Whereas I understand the idea that the movie makes it seem like there’s a coexistence and acceptance of homosexuals and straight people because both groups attend showings at a drag club, that it is, in fact not really underlining that there’s complete friendship and compassion between the two groups. The thing I didn’t agree with is that the movie puts into place that all gay men are flamboyant, feminine, and gaudy. I believe that the movie deals with a group of gay men who are a part of a sub-culture. I would like to believe that there are intelligent people in the world who understand that every gay person isn’t like that, but then again due to the ignorance of common people to this topic I wouldn’t be surprised otherwise.
One thing about this topic I always thought was interesting was in a documentary that I saw a couple years back which discussed the Matthew Shepherd incident. One person on the documentary made an interesting point about straight people and their feelings about homosexuals. That person said that many straight people claim that they accept gay people and don’t have a problem with them, but then follow with “but I don’t want them coming near me”. Doesn’t this seem to be a little bit hypocritical and also acts as an oxymoron? There’s a constant stigma about the queer culture that people have nothing on their minds but child molestation, multiple sexual partners, flamboyancy, etc. and that these ideas are ruining the fabric of the “American way of life”. So in the long run this idea of “partial-tolerance” is a complete joke and still inflicts a causation of out casting people of the queer community. Oddly enough while I write this piece I think about the article and how every way to label homosexuals is wrong and honestly I feel pretty stupid right now as well. It seems every word used to define the said group of people has been a derogatory term at one point or another, and I feel like I am being derogatory by using each one of the words. But maybe the reason those words and descriptions feel off setting is because when you get older and you see what those words really are used for it becomes a bit shocking and saddening to see loose words like “faggot”, “queer”, “homo”, etc. being used as if people who are gay aren’t even people at all. They’re animals who are disgusting, how can people be so cruel and not even think twice about it?
Finally what bothers me the most about this issue is sometimes I wonder if there’ll ever be co-existence and complete peace with the queer community. Other issues of discrimination such as race coincides and conflicts with the queer culture. Whereas both groups have to deal with issues of discrimination and slandering people who are of different races share some of the same interests with each other, one of those same interests in religion and religion preaches the idea of tolerance and acceptance between people. Yet a large number of churches slander and immortalize the queer culture, and because religion has a large influence on society they basically dictate how to react to specific things. I am not saying that all churches do this, but it is prevalent, I mean, look at the inequalities of law and justice for the queer community. I can only hope someday all of that will change.
Another terrifying piece of statistics is the over whelming number of suicide victims who are gay. There are also a large number of homosexuals who are homeless and drug users. This becomes a scary insight into what a world of casting stones and judging of a group of people can do in a society. The inability to show compassion and acceptance by straights and the issues of an internal struggle with self acceptance causes youthful homosexuals to make decisions that can have drastic effects on their future, and can even lead to death. This of course doesn’t mean that everyone who is gay will have to deal with this internal torment and social degradation, but for some this is an unfortunate and inevitable outcome. It is nice to see a number of gay alliance groups and gatherings that help give adolescent homosexuals a place to find role models and gain confidence to take on problems of straight, judgmental groups that dominate the culture. One thing I always liked personally was the idea of Silence = Death, I have forever had the upmost respect for people of the gay culture who were willing to teach about gay culture, literature, icons, etc. and were willing to be themselves and be open with their sexuality; no matter what the consequences from close-minded America inflict on them.
One aspect I agree but also disagreed with was the idea of the queer culture through movies. Where as I understand the conflict between ideas of whether the movies are degrading and unrealistic or whether they are movies of triumphs and overcoming social turmoil. One thing I disagreed with was the slandering of the movie Bird Cage. Whereas I understand the idea that the movie makes it seem like there’s a coexistence and acceptance of homosexuals and straight people because both groups attend showings at a drag club, that it is, in fact not really underlining that there’s complete friendship and compassion between the two groups. The thing I didn’t agree with is that the movie puts into place that all gay men are flamboyant, feminine, and gaudy. I believe that the movie deals with a group of gay men who are a part of a sub-culture. I would like to believe that there are intelligent people in the world who understand that every gay person isn’t like that, but then again due to the ignorance of common people to this topic I wouldn’t be surprised otherwise.
One thing about this topic I always thought was interesting was in a documentary that I saw a couple years back which discussed the Matthew Shepherd incident. One person on the documentary made an interesting point about straight people and their feelings about homosexuals. That person said that many straight people claim that they accept gay people and don’t have a problem with them, but then follow with “but I don’t want them coming near me”. Doesn’t this seem to be a little bit hypocritical and also acts as an oxymoron? There’s a constant stigma about the queer culture that people have nothing on their minds but child molestation, multiple sexual partners, flamboyancy, etc. and that these ideas are ruining the fabric of the “American way of life”. So in the long run this idea of “partial-tolerance” is a complete joke and still inflicts a causation of out casting people of the queer community. Oddly enough while I write this piece I think about the article and how every way to label homosexuals is wrong and honestly I feel pretty stupid right now as well. It seems every word used to define the said group of people has been a derogatory term at one point or another, and I feel like I am being derogatory by using each one of the words. But maybe the reason those words and descriptions feel off setting is because when you get older and you see what those words really are used for it becomes a bit shocking and saddening to see loose words like “faggot”, “queer”, “homo”, etc. being used as if people who are gay aren’t even people at all. They’re animals who are disgusting, how can people be so cruel and not even think twice about it?
Finally what bothers me the most about this issue is sometimes I wonder if there’ll ever be co-existence and complete peace with the queer community. Other issues of discrimination such as race coincides and conflicts with the queer culture. Whereas both groups have to deal with issues of discrimination and slandering people who are of different races share some of the same interests with each other, one of those same interests in religion and religion preaches the idea of tolerance and acceptance between people. Yet a large number of churches slander and immortalize the queer culture, and because religion has a large influence on society they basically dictate how to react to specific things. I am not saying that all churches do this, but it is prevalent, I mean, look at the inequalities of law and justice for the queer community. I can only hope someday all of that will change.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Talking Points Pt. II
The Collier article was interesting in giving directions to help establish a bilingual classroom. One thing I liked about this article was setting up times when to speak different languages, and also the importance of not punishing a children or student if they “slip” into their own language while learning English. There is much importance to not allowing a student lose a connection with their own native languages while they are learning English, there has to be patience involved, especially for students who are older, since it’s a lot harder to learn a new language the older you get. I believe Delpit would also of course along with this instructional article call for the importance to teach these students the codes of power, where as we are not talking about “slang” but we are talking about a whole other language and an adjustment to learning not only English but the learning the laws and language of those who hold power in order to succeed to a fuller potential. Rodriguez helps to put a lot of this into perspective from his own personal experiences, when discussing the ideas of learning in a bilingual setting he says “So they do not realize that while one suffers a diminished sense of private individuality by becoming assimilated into public society, such assimilation makes possible the achievement of public individuality.”
I don’t really know how I feel about a lot of these issues. Where I feel that it is important to learn the language of the country you belong to so it is easier to fit into society, especially in this country, I don’t know if it’s a good idea to lose your “private individuality” as Rodriguez would put it at least from my personal experience. Both my mother and father are from overseas, my mother came from Regensburg Bavaria to New York during the 50s. My father came from Ireland to Rhode Island during the 80s. My mother and the rest of my family from her side forced themselves to speak English because they wanted to assimilate into the culture quickly. The reason they forced themselves to do this was because the fact they spoke German caused them to stick out quickly and since the end of World War II wasn’t too long ago they were singled out and slandered by a large number of Americans. This caused my mother and aunt, who stayed in America while the rest of my family returned to Germany years later, to forget a majority of the German that they were raised with.
My father interestingly was fluent in Gaelic for a long time, which is a form of language in Ireland that hasn’t been practiced for a long time until recently where the Irish government has been reinstituting it into the curriculum there. He now has forgotten a good amount of it, when I ask him why he never taught me the language he simply stated “Why would I? You’d have no one to speak it to.” I would become increasingly frustrated when my mother would give me the same excuse when I asked her why she wouldn’t raise me bilingual in German. But the situation was a little different for my mother, since she was pretty much forced to stop speaking German at a young age.
The fact that I wasn’t raised in a bilingual family is very frustrating to me. I tend to take pride in being the first generation to be born in America on both sides of my family and I wish I had something to show for that. When I hear people walking next to me speaking German I always do what Rodriguez talked about, I always turn around and smile at them. I can catch some words and understand a bit of it, I have my Aunt Ellen to thank for that, she returned to America from Bavaria when my mother was a little older, my mother and her two sisters did their best to keep a bit of the German existent in the family. I learned a few words here and there because whenever my family was together my mother and aunts would switch from English to German when they didn’t want us to hear some conversations, this is also something that Rodriguez talked about, German, for my family, was the private language.
Whereas I understand the importance of my mother’s side learning English to assimilate into the culture, I can’t help but feel a bit cheated by the idea of loosing that aspect of your culture. Collier talks about not losing touch with being able to speak two languages, I think that should be stressed more, it’s very important to me personally. For example, I’ve heard so many white people talk about how mad they get when people don’t speak English, I share the same sentiment with that group of whites, but I am not mad for the same reasons they are, I am mad BECAUSE other people can speak the language of their culture and heritage but I cannot. But I can’t blame my parents for this, I understand now as I am older about the importance of assimilation and how much this country stresses it from my own family’s background. But I personally think that a stress of learning English and the codes of power through language is essential, but people should not be forced to forget their own language, it’s a part of their own personal identity, and that’s just as important as their public identity.
I don’t really know how I feel about a lot of these issues. Where I feel that it is important to learn the language of the country you belong to so it is easier to fit into society, especially in this country, I don’t know if it’s a good idea to lose your “private individuality” as Rodriguez would put it at least from my personal experience. Both my mother and father are from overseas, my mother came from Regensburg Bavaria to New York during the 50s. My father came from Ireland to Rhode Island during the 80s. My mother and the rest of my family from her side forced themselves to speak English because they wanted to assimilate into the culture quickly. The reason they forced themselves to do this was because the fact they spoke German caused them to stick out quickly and since the end of World War II wasn’t too long ago they were singled out and slandered by a large number of Americans. This caused my mother and aunt, who stayed in America while the rest of my family returned to Germany years later, to forget a majority of the German that they were raised with.
My father interestingly was fluent in Gaelic for a long time, which is a form of language in Ireland that hasn’t been practiced for a long time until recently where the Irish government has been reinstituting it into the curriculum there. He now has forgotten a good amount of it, when I ask him why he never taught me the language he simply stated “Why would I? You’d have no one to speak it to.” I would become increasingly frustrated when my mother would give me the same excuse when I asked her why she wouldn’t raise me bilingual in German. But the situation was a little different for my mother, since she was pretty much forced to stop speaking German at a young age.
The fact that I wasn’t raised in a bilingual family is very frustrating to me. I tend to take pride in being the first generation to be born in America on both sides of my family and I wish I had something to show for that. When I hear people walking next to me speaking German I always do what Rodriguez talked about, I always turn around and smile at them. I can catch some words and understand a bit of it, I have my Aunt Ellen to thank for that, she returned to America from Bavaria when my mother was a little older, my mother and her two sisters did their best to keep a bit of the German existent in the family. I learned a few words here and there because whenever my family was together my mother and aunts would switch from English to German when they didn’t want us to hear some conversations, this is also something that Rodriguez talked about, German, for my family, was the private language.
Whereas I understand the importance of my mother’s side learning English to assimilate into the culture, I can’t help but feel a bit cheated by the idea of loosing that aspect of your culture. Collier talks about not losing touch with being able to speak two languages, I think that should be stressed more, it’s very important to me personally. For example, I’ve heard so many white people talk about how mad they get when people don’t speak English, I share the same sentiment with that group of whites, but I am not mad for the same reasons they are, I am mad BECAUSE other people can speak the language of their culture and heritage but I cannot. But I can’t blame my parents for this, I understand now as I am older about the importance of assimilation and how much this country stresses it from my own family’s background. But I personally think that a stress of learning English and the codes of power through language is essential, but people should not be forced to forget their own language, it’s a part of their own personal identity, and that’s just as important as their public identity.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Awkward Moments
So i have a friend who i have met at the gym i go to, he's a pretty nice guy and we work out together on nights we are both there. i've gotten to know him, we talk about providence, our lives, direction, music, working out, etc. The other night President Obama's conference about the deficit was on the televisions at the gym. My friend made a comment about how Obama was going to drag the country into shit. I, a curious guy who likes to know people's reasoning, asked him why he felt that way. his response was "because he's Muslim, dude"...
I was confused and a little bit annoyed by the statement. If i thought there could be one thing learned from the JFK presidency it's that those who are the commander and chief are acting on a notion of whats good for the people and the country and the TYPE of religion doesn't negate the views of whats good for the people...
i am not saying religion and government are NOT connected in our culture, what i am saying is that there's a stigma about what TYPE of religion. JFK got slack because he was catholic, where as most presidents before were christian, last time i checked both forms were a part of christianity (i.e. worship towards God and Jesus, Ten Commandments, etc. etc.) and, last time i checked, and i could be wrong, Obama doesn't practice Muslim faith, although he was raised that way (I will admit i am a bit ignorant to his religious background).
Basically what i am saying is that i am annoyed that some people become so focused on things like what a persons background of faith is as opposed to having faith in a nation and the hopes that there can be some political good to come out of their fellow American leader.
I don't get it...Christianity, Islam, Judaism...it's all apart of the holy trinity...so why so much separation...
Sometimes i think this country might fall apart at the seams if we ever elected a buddhist or a hindu...
*DISCLAIMER* apologizes if this is incoherent...i am practicing ranting and not focusing on collective thought.
I was confused and a little bit annoyed by the statement. If i thought there could be one thing learned from the JFK presidency it's that those who are the commander and chief are acting on a notion of whats good for the people and the country and the TYPE of religion doesn't negate the views of whats good for the people...
i am not saying religion and government are NOT connected in our culture, what i am saying is that there's a stigma about what TYPE of religion. JFK got slack because he was catholic, where as most presidents before were christian, last time i checked both forms were a part of christianity (i.e. worship towards God and Jesus, Ten Commandments, etc. etc.) and, last time i checked, and i could be wrong, Obama doesn't practice Muslim faith, although he was raised that way (I will admit i am a bit ignorant to his religious background).
Basically what i am saying is that i am annoyed that some people become so focused on things like what a persons background of faith is as opposed to having faith in a nation and the hopes that there can be some political good to come out of their fellow American leader.
I don't get it...Christianity, Islam, Judaism...it's all apart of the holy trinity...so why so much separation...
Sometimes i think this country might fall apart at the seams if we ever elected a buddhist or a hindu...
*DISCLAIMER* apologizes if this is incoherent...i am practicing ranting and not focusing on collective thought.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Talking Points #1
1.Kozol/Goldberg
Kozol’s publications to me have always been both enlightening and absolutely and terrifyingly depressing. His power to show people a world that does exist in our own neighborhoods and puts it in our faces, whether we were unaware or aware of it. This piece from Amazing Grace is so depressing, but it’s topics Kozol is more than happy to educate the masses who are blind and or ignorant to the horrible living conditions of groups of people, mainly lower classes of minorities. The way some people are forced to live in this country is appalling and what’s absolutely disgusting is the facts that the U.S. Government’s “help” isn’t anywhere close to a saving grace. It’s bad enough that welfare is just a joke in this country. The only things that the government surpluses people with are clean needles and condoms to stop the spread of AIDS in the area. In these living conditions how are lower class minorities expected to rise up and overcome the problems that have been inflicted on them for so long?
Then you have Bernard Goldberg who puts Jonathan Kozol on his list of “110 People who are screwing up America”. Claiming that “Kozol is the patron saint of today's powerful liberal educational establishment.” (Goldberg, 294). What really makes me mad is the fact that Goldberg classifies Kozol as a “Liberal” because he likes to talk about things that are not addressed. From what Goldberg is saying people who follow this “rhetoric” are dooming America’s way of life. Who said that these people hate America? If anything many “Liberals”, better than that how about just PEOPLE in general are getting disgusted by American Government policies and politics. Have guys like Goldberg ever realized that maybe the ignorant slandering and a paranoid accusation is what “liberals” hate? Maybe people in general love where they live but just hate the people who are running things? How are Kozol’s descriptions of inner city youth going through hell everyday or talking about Chicago’s dilapidated school’s with no resources “ruining America”? Guys like Goldberg are those people who get defensive because writers like Kozol are, in a way, scaring them by letting general public know that there are less fortunate people out there and Goldberg is afraid people are going to blame America for that. The only thing people are blaming are the guys who hold the power who are turning a cheek to the pain and suffering that poor, minority, inner city kids are face every single day.
2.McIntosh/Muwakkil
In McIntosh’s article she talks about the innate, yet “unknown” privledge that white people are born with. She discusses the idea that there are things that people of the white persuasion don’t necessarily have to fear like people of different ethnic groups have to face. She also talks about the inequalities that women face compared to men, but she makes a point to talk about how even though she is a white woman who has to deal with inequalities between her gender and men that she has a higher advantage that people who are of either sex in a different racial, and class group. One of the statements on the list she wrote that I found interesting is when she states “I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.” (McIntosh, pg. 50) One thing I have noticed a lot, is when someone of a different race when speaking their mind, especially in a public political debate, that they are representing everyone in their race. I remember in one of my Psychology classes we watched “Eye of the Storm” in which after Martin Luther King Jr’s death the media kept saying things like “who’s going to represent them” or “who is going to speak for them”. The “them” in this class were African Americans. A plethora of news media personnel were acting that Martin Luther King Jr. represented and entire race in America, almost as if he was “the Black Representative of the U.S.”. Whites seem as if they don’t understand that it’s just a human speaking his or her mind, but that a person of a different race is talking about their race as a whole, regardless of sex and class.
Salim Muwakkil’s article is about how stastically whites think that African Americans have just as many job opportunities as whites. It was also mentioned that whites believe that racism and bigotry has declined greatly in America. In some aspects to me it has, but when I say that I mean that it’s not so much open racism and bigotry anymore. What I see people do, which is in my experience only done by white people. Whenever someone is going to make a racist joke they look around the room to make sure no one is in earshot, the joke is told, and then everyone laughs about it. This makes me think about how racism hasn’t really gone away in more than one sense. First off, the joke being told it is racist so therefore people are laughing at specific traits of other races. Secondly, this whole thing brings me back to Johnson’s article and how we don’t use specific racial terms and names, but yet we have no problem being blatantly racist in what is suppose to be a “harmless joke”. This newspaper article has some amazing statistics about how Whites are more likely to be called back for a job interview than African Americans, Whites who spent time in jail get jobs over African Americans who have never been to jail, etc. Both McIntosh and Muwakkil’s articles show that inherited White privilege is very prevalent in the lives of whites, yet they don’t think that they actually have an advantage, either that they ignorant to it, or that they just choose to ignore it.
All Together
Both of these articles tie me back to Goldberg’s book. With McIntosh and Muwakkil’s articles clearly stating that whites have a more of an advantage in American culture does that mean that they’re ruining America as well? Issues like this become less Liberal and less “Conservatism” and more of an issue of Whites don’t want to be called “racist” or “inherently powerful” so they get defensive and write articles about this. Now if someone like Kozol writes about people in terrible areas and tells their stories because those people would never be able to publish something that means Kozol is being too “Liberal”. Now if a person of a different race, let’s say African American talks about the inequalities he’s being “racist against whites” and he’s speaking for his entire race. This is why I get aggravated by high power white Americans who feel under attack and have to write ignorant, overly defensive things. To me, it’s very frustrating, or is that because I tend to identify with middle/lower working class people, and by statistics include whites and many people of color…
Kozol’s publications to me have always been both enlightening and absolutely and terrifyingly depressing. His power to show people a world that does exist in our own neighborhoods and puts it in our faces, whether we were unaware or aware of it. This piece from Amazing Grace is so depressing, but it’s topics Kozol is more than happy to educate the masses who are blind and or ignorant to the horrible living conditions of groups of people, mainly lower classes of minorities. The way some people are forced to live in this country is appalling and what’s absolutely disgusting is the facts that the U.S. Government’s “help” isn’t anywhere close to a saving grace. It’s bad enough that welfare is just a joke in this country. The only things that the government surpluses people with are clean needles and condoms to stop the spread of AIDS in the area. In these living conditions how are lower class minorities expected to rise up and overcome the problems that have been inflicted on them for so long?
Then you have Bernard Goldberg who puts Jonathan Kozol on his list of “110 People who are screwing up America”. Claiming that “Kozol is the patron saint of today's powerful liberal educational establishment.” (Goldberg, 294). What really makes me mad is the fact that Goldberg classifies Kozol as a “Liberal” because he likes to talk about things that are not addressed. From what Goldberg is saying people who follow this “rhetoric” are dooming America’s way of life. Who said that these people hate America? If anything many “Liberals”, better than that how about just PEOPLE in general are getting disgusted by American Government policies and politics. Have guys like Goldberg ever realized that maybe the ignorant slandering and a paranoid accusation is what “liberals” hate? Maybe people in general love where they live but just hate the people who are running things? How are Kozol’s descriptions of inner city youth going through hell everyday or talking about Chicago’s dilapidated school’s with no resources “ruining America”? Guys like Goldberg are those people who get defensive because writers like Kozol are, in a way, scaring them by letting general public know that there are less fortunate people out there and Goldberg is afraid people are going to blame America for that. The only thing people are blaming are the guys who hold the power who are turning a cheek to the pain and suffering that poor, minority, inner city kids are face every single day.
2.McIntosh/Muwakkil
In McIntosh’s article she talks about the innate, yet “unknown” privledge that white people are born with. She discusses the idea that there are things that people of the white persuasion don’t necessarily have to fear like people of different ethnic groups have to face. She also talks about the inequalities that women face compared to men, but she makes a point to talk about how even though she is a white woman who has to deal with inequalities between her gender and men that she has a higher advantage that people who are of either sex in a different racial, and class group. One of the statements on the list she wrote that I found interesting is when she states “I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.” (McIntosh, pg. 50) One thing I have noticed a lot, is when someone of a different race when speaking their mind, especially in a public political debate, that they are representing everyone in their race. I remember in one of my Psychology classes we watched “Eye of the Storm” in which after Martin Luther King Jr’s death the media kept saying things like “who’s going to represent them” or “who is going to speak for them”. The “them” in this class were African Americans. A plethora of news media personnel were acting that Martin Luther King Jr. represented and entire race in America, almost as if he was “the Black Representative of the U.S.”. Whites seem as if they don’t understand that it’s just a human speaking his or her mind, but that a person of a different race is talking about their race as a whole, regardless of sex and class.
Salim Muwakkil’s article is about how stastically whites think that African Americans have just as many job opportunities as whites. It was also mentioned that whites believe that racism and bigotry has declined greatly in America. In some aspects to me it has, but when I say that I mean that it’s not so much open racism and bigotry anymore. What I see people do, which is in my experience only done by white people. Whenever someone is going to make a racist joke they look around the room to make sure no one is in earshot, the joke is told, and then everyone laughs about it. This makes me think about how racism hasn’t really gone away in more than one sense. First off, the joke being told it is racist so therefore people are laughing at specific traits of other races. Secondly, this whole thing brings me back to Johnson’s article and how we don’t use specific racial terms and names, but yet we have no problem being blatantly racist in what is suppose to be a “harmless joke”. This newspaper article has some amazing statistics about how Whites are more likely to be called back for a job interview than African Americans, Whites who spent time in jail get jobs over African Americans who have never been to jail, etc. Both McIntosh and Muwakkil’s articles show that inherited White privilege is very prevalent in the lives of whites, yet they don’t think that they actually have an advantage, either that they ignorant to it, or that they just choose to ignore it.
All Together
Both of these articles tie me back to Goldberg’s book. With McIntosh and Muwakkil’s articles clearly stating that whites have a more of an advantage in American culture does that mean that they’re ruining America as well? Issues like this become less Liberal and less “Conservatism” and more of an issue of Whites don’t want to be called “racist” or “inherently powerful” so they get defensive and write articles about this. Now if someone like Kozol writes about people in terrible areas and tells their stories because those people would never be able to publish something that means Kozol is being too “Liberal”. Now if a person of a different race, let’s say African American talks about the inequalities he’s being “racist against whites” and he’s speaking for his entire race. This is why I get aggravated by high power white Americans who feel under attack and have to write ignorant, overly defensive things. To me, it’s very frustrating, or is that because I tend to identify with middle/lower working class people, and by statistics include whites and many people of color…
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Issue: Homeless Members of Crossroads
while I was waiting to catch a trolley downtown to get home after a long day of work and class I was approached by a man who claimed to be homeless and living at Crossroads of America. He called out "excuse me sir" at least 4 times from a distance before he reached me. I asked him what he wanted but very dryly and cold, he claimed to have wanted money to catch a bus back to crossroads. This was because the last bus he tried to catch wouldn't let him on because he didn't have enough. I told him I had only enough to get home, which of course wasn't true. The reason I am writing about this because it makes me think about what we discussed in class today...
so let’s look at the situation. Here's a man, who obviously is down on his luck, I know nothing about him. From his appearance, he's scruffy looking and to the untrained eye looks a little rough around the edges. Automatically a man downtown asking for money is a "bad" person. But then I think about it after our little conversation. Is he really a guy who happened to miss his bus and is homeless, looking for some sort of means to an end to get home? Did he once have a job that paid well but lost it because Rhode Island is "downsizing" jobs? Or did he just come from the Sportsman Inn (a strip club located near where I was standing waiting for a trolley) and spends/spent all his money on lap dances and cheap drinks?
This specific dilemma plagues me, as well as frustrates me. All I can think is what would have happened if I gave him a couple of bucks to get home, would he have really used it for that? Or would he have ducked into Maldowne's Pub for a pint? Do I give a man, obviously less fortunate than me money for him to get by for the day in a positive way or do I support a habit that has gotten him into that position to begin with? Yet, here I am enforcing stereotypes about this person, making it seem like he WILL use it for substance about because he asked me for money, this comes hand in hand with the Johnson article which was read for class. Coming from a middle class white background, I am no better than the privileged higher class whites I read about in the article, maybe he really needed to get home, but how would I know? How does anyone know anything about anyone you just meet? Maybe I really am part of the problem...and that really bums me out to know that I am.
so let’s look at the situation. Here's a man, who obviously is down on his luck, I know nothing about him. From his appearance, he's scruffy looking and to the untrained eye looks a little rough around the edges. Automatically a man downtown asking for money is a "bad" person. But then I think about it after our little conversation. Is he really a guy who happened to miss his bus and is homeless, looking for some sort of means to an end to get home? Did he once have a job that paid well but lost it because Rhode Island is "downsizing" jobs? Or did he just come from the Sportsman Inn (a strip club located near where I was standing waiting for a trolley) and spends/spent all his money on lap dances and cheap drinks?
This specific dilemma plagues me, as well as frustrates me. All I can think is what would have happened if I gave him a couple of bucks to get home, would he have really used it for that? Or would he have ducked into Maldowne's Pub for a pint? Do I give a man, obviously less fortunate than me money for him to get by for the day in a positive way or do I support a habit that has gotten him into that position to begin with? Yet, here I am enforcing stereotypes about this person, making it seem like he WILL use it for substance about because he asked me for money, this comes hand in hand with the Johnson article which was read for class. Coming from a middle class white background, I am no better than the privileged higher class whites I read about in the article, maybe he really needed to get home, but how would I know? How does anyone know anything about anyone you just meet? Maybe I really am part of the problem...and that really bums me out to know that I am.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Woo YEAH!
First blog entry, pretty sweet! first day of class turned out pretty good. i gave my choice for my 15 hours, i am waiting for the okay from Dr. Bogad, but just to give a heads up to the school of my choice i swung by there, told them about the class and pretty much got the okay from them! should rule. YEAH! WOOOOOOO!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
